Bogus Twitter account by cop in Denver:
“ . . . a police officer admitting to the creation of a fake Twitter account for the sole purpose of harassing the occupiers, referred to as 'idiots.'”
The People's Camp in DC goes up, photos below, as occupiers from around the country arrive in Washington for several days of meetings, protests and hopefully some basis for interaction in the future:
Creative resistance: “might be the new face of the Occupy protest“ according to one news account that refers to the peaceful takeover of some space adjacent to the Broadway district in New York.
Occupy foreclosed homes action today. Details at http://occupylosangeles.org/?q=node/2574
“Occupy L.A. demonstrators and housing activists say they plan to visit each location, arguing that Americans bailed out major financial institutions that failed to help borrowers in their time of need.”
“Last week thousands made a pledge to defend our homes and communities from the big Wall Street banks that have been on a three-year-long foreclosure binge, kicking struggling families out of homes all across the country.
“The 99% is saying 'No' and fighting back against the big banks in a big way. Community members nationwide are rallying to stop foreclosures, keep families in their homes, and fill vacant homes with displaced residents.
“Tomorrow marks the launch of a national campaign to defend families threatened by foreclosure and to support filling empty bank-owned homes with people in need. It all starts tomorrow, December 6, with a nationwide 'Occupy Our Homes' day of action.”
(Note that Make Banks Pay is not affiliated with Occupy Los Angeles, but has organized actions that have attracted many occupiers that refer to themselves as the 99%).
The NDAA Travesty:
“We’re talking about the stripping away of our most basic freedoms. We’re talking about a potential state that can call me a terrorist for writing this blog post and then lock me up and throw away the key.”
“Ambiguous but alarming new wording, which is tucked into the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and was just passed by the Senate, is reminiscent of the 'extraordinary measures' introduced by the Nazis after they took power in 1933.”
Rand Paul video:
What is truly amazing about this legislation, beyond the blatant attack on constitutional values that have withstood 220 years of challenges at the Supreme Court level, is the fact that so many are against it; even those who might be expected to endorse it:
7. Many important people oppose the provisions, including FBI Director Robert Mueller, the CIA, the military, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, the head of the Justice Department's National Security Division, the Director of National Intelligence, and your mom (unless she's a U.S. senator).
8. A group of 26 retired generals and admirals wrote a letter to the Senate saying the provisions "reduce the options available to our Commander-in-Chief to incapacitate terrorists," and will "do more harm than good." The Senate obviously ignored them.
Americans are not clamoring for increasing the powers of the government or the law enforcement. In fact, there is little evidence that fears of “domestic terrorists” are an imminent danger to government officials or anyone else. What we have seen is a steady erosion of civil rights since the passage of H.R. 3162, (the Patriot Act), in 2001. The notion of terrorism or terrorists began with a fuzzy description of those involved with 9/11 attack, foreign agents who plotted to commit violence against Americans. Now, it applies to anyone the government wants to silence, contain or otherwise preclude from expressing political dissent. In other words, American citizens exercising their constitutional rights.
The most fundamental of all rights, that of habeas corpus, has been arbitrarily jettisoned without a whimper by those sworn to uphold the Constitution. Is this not a breech of that oath? Does the Constitution have any bearing on the conduct of the executive branch, or has it been become a relic without meaning or practical application?
Unfortunately, we have watched this erosion knowing that the freedoms that were built in to the framework of the nation were the reason for the growth and prosperity this country enjoyed for more than two centuries. Not some pompous, lard-ass senators who obviously don't respect, comprehend, or uphold constitutional values. Nor was it the financial institutions who have gotten a free ride on the backs of the 99% and continue to enjoy a parasitic relationship with them.
Those that have attacked the freedom to assemble, to speak and to petition have shown that they have no interest in participating in any debate. Instead they have proven that because they are losing the battle of ideas, the debate over socio-economic fairness and justice, they are perfectly willing to use their authority to incarcerate dissenters. Without charges, a trial, representation or even cause.
This is commonly referred to as a police state or a military junta. If those senators that voted for this abomination would like to present another argument, they are welcome to do so, but it is very unlikely they will be convincing. There is no reason to attack the U.S. Constitution unless there is something to fear, something they need to conceal from the public. Obviating the Posse Comitatus Act, using the military to detain American citizens is so far off the beaten path, so opposed to the Constitution, that is serves as an indicator of the true intentions of those who apparently think they are vulnerable in the arena of ideas and the ongoing debate that has served this country well since its inception.
Why now? What is it that 93 Senators fear? Does it have something to do with the civil disobedience and protests that are occurring around the country? Does this exclusive club that includes many of the 1% think that their positions of power will be in jeopardy as more people realize how they have been scammed by banks, legislators and power brokers who control their destiny? What's the problem with a little constructive criticism anyway? Isn't that the foundation of the republic?
Not any more.
What we have seen is a mountain of evidence that the banks have a mutually beneficial, some would say symbiotic, relationship with the legislature who they continue to finance with your money. That wouldn't be such a bad thing except that the legislation, the NDAA serving as a prime example, is contrary to the interests of the electorate. The common sense legislation that has been proposed here and elsewhere remain bottled up in committees or swept under the rug in other ways, and like the latest budget debacle, hidden from public view until the next “debate” repeats the process. Bottom line, nothing changes, and Americans are left to wonder what it will take to get the attention of those who seem to be preoccupied with attacks on their freedom and civil rights as opposed to representing the interests of those who put them in office.
This legislation is clearly designed to defeat the process of political dialog and stifle constitutionally-protected speech, which in no way serves the public, only those who fear the exercise of those rights. This legislation doesn't make Americans safer. It does make those that have been subject to criticism safer.
Update: Comments by Lisa Clapier regarding raid:
"'They didn’t need to send in 1,400 police with riot gear and close down seven city blocks,' she says. 'The biohazard gear was because the police were swabbing every arrested protester – about 292 at last count – for DNA and wanted to protect themselves,' Ms. Clapier adds."