DEBBY IS BEING CENSORED! BY WHOM? YOUTUBE, HOMELAND SECURITY, THE DEEP STATE?
Moyers and Company July 2012. Bill Moyers and Chris Hedges discuss Hedges book ‘Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt’. The interview then segues into Hedges motivation to report as he does on the capitalist destructive connection to greed and why he takes personal front line action against corporations.
Here you have two brilliant people engaged in a discussion that is filled with pearls of wisdom, such as, what is the difference between truth and news.
Greetings to family, friends, ladies, gentlemen, boys, girls, and all citizens. Some of you may remember The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that was negotiated by President H.W. Bush in 1992 and enacted by President Clinton in 1994. If you’ve lived through the NAFTA implementation you’ve witnessed the blooming corporatocracy, income disparity, the bubble economy, plutocracy, wall street bailouts, unemployment, currency manipulation, unmanaged immigration, ignoring climate change, for profit healthcare, water scarcity, and the list goes on. One question: where are the benefits of NAFTA?
There is now a new international trade deal that president Obama has been very quietly negotiating for the past three years called the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership (TPP). It appears to me to be a big step toward a global corporatocracy run by Trans-National Corporations which will have legal ruling over Nation-States. Think about that. Is that the world you want?
I intend to learn about this. You?
The U.S. Justice Department has made a strong statement supporting the First Amendment right of individuals to record police officers during the public discharge of their duties.
The Justice Department’s interference in the local civil case was surprising yet significant in that it put not only Baltimore but also every other city police department around the country on notice that interference in such recordings was unconstitutional. It was sent to Baltimore days after several media and civil rights organizations sent U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder a letter insisting that the Justice Department take action against agencies that arrest people who record officers.
The police will eventually regret their roll after they discover that their pensions are un-funded. They are the 99% too.
In one of the greatest signs yet that the 99 Percenters are having an impact, Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, today introduced an amendment that would ban corporate money in politics and end corporate personhood once and for all.
Deutch’s amendment, called the Outlawing Corporate Cash Undermining the Public Interest in our Elections and Democracy (OCCUPIED) Amendment, would overturn the Citizens United decision, re-establishing the right of Congress and the states to regulate campaign finance laws, and to effectively outlaw the ability of for-profit corporations to contribute to campaign spending.
“No matter how long protesters camp out across America, big banks will continue to pour money into shadow groups promoting candidates more likely to slash Medicaid for poor children than help families facing foreclosure,” said Deutch in a statement provided to ThinkProgress. “No matter how strongly Ohio families fight for basic fairness for workers, the Koch Brothers will continue to pour millions into campaigns aimed at protecting the wealthiest 1%. No matter how fed up seniors in South Florida are with an agenda that puts oil subsidies ahead of Social Security and Medicare, corporations will continue to fund massive publicity campaigns and malicious attack ads against the public interest. Americans of all stripes agree that for far too long, corporations have occupied Washington and drowned out the voices of the people. I introduced the OCCUPIED Amendment because the days of corporate control of our democracy. It is time to return the nation’s capital and our democracy to the people.”
Sorry for the commercial but this is important news.
According to the memo, if Democrats embrace OWS, “This would mean more than just short-term political discomfort for Wall Street. … It has the potential to have very long-lasting political, policy and financial impacts on the companies in the center of the bullseye.”
The memo also suggests that Democratic victories in 2012 should not be the ABA’s biggest concern. “… (T)he bigger concern,” the memo says, “should be that Republicans will no longer defend Wall Street companies.”
Some people ask about the #occupy movement “What do they really want?” and others think there is a “messaging” problem. I don’t think that the #occupy movement has a messaging problem. The #occupy movement is just what it is. It is intentionally amorphous. It means to be non-violent. It is a series of teaching moments recorded on cell phones and distributed on the internet. It is people gathering together and expressing their discontentment. Instead of asking the #occupy movement what they want perhaps you might want to look to yourself and ask how you feel about the #occupy movement? What does the #occupy movement mean to you?
In our hurry up, fast food, 24 hour news, what’s your point, modern world, it’s realistic to ask “What do they really want?” But, unfortunately, that’s the wrong question. The #occupy movement is not them or they or those, it is us. We are the 99%. Therefor it’s up to each of us to ask the question correctly, “What do I want?”
For example when I do that some of my questions are:
What do I want for the planet Earth?
What do I want for my county’s government?
What do I want for the economic markets?
What do I want for my food?
What do I want for my shelter?
What do I want of myself?
My answers show me that I have a significant agreement with the #occupy movement. I support them and will stand with them.
One of the better recent attempts to frame the #occupy movement is by Alexis Madrigal writing in the November 2011 issue of The Atlantic. The story is available online
It’s a little geeky with the API metaphor but when you get past that it’s good.
Enough of this BULL!
Diligent vigilance is a critical activity to maintain this movement.
On November 3, Occupy Boston passed a resolution banning two members – Paul Carnes and Sydney Sherrell – from representing Occupy Boston. The resolution was passed by consensus by the General Assembly of and was distributed along with a list of grievances against Paul Carnes and copies of receipts from various transactions he paid for with Occupy Boston funds. Carnes and Sherrell had previously been banned from the Financial Accountability Working Group (FAWG) for inappropriate handling of funds and unsavory behavior. The grievances claim Carnes went to Occupy Cleveland, claiming to have been sent from Occupy Boston, and to be a representative of the National Lawyers’ Guild, and attempted to claim vertical leadership there. The group also says both Carnes and Sherrell set up a series of fundraising sites purporting to be for Occupy Boston among other occupations but are not part of FAWG.