I voted for McCarthy in '68 while my anti-war cohorts trashed the convention in Chicago. Abbie Hoffman almost singlehandedly swung the election to Nixon, who nipped Humphrey by a crummy few hundred thousand votes. We were all pissed and wanted to tear the system apart. Many scholars and a lot of the rest of us believe that if Humphrey had won he would have found a way to end the war earlier, not early enough, but earlier and thousands of names wouldn't be on that black wall in Washington. Tweedledum and Tweedledee---Nader was right, Hedges is right, their analysis of our irredeemably corrupt system is spot on. But I still believe these elections have serious consequences, that it matters which guy we go with. I'm with Riconui---I think you can vote and raise hell at the same time, vote and be subversive, get Obama re-elected, disappointed as we are with him, and then push him hard. My son and I have this argument over and over. He's with Hedges all the way. He's been in the thick of the occupy movement since the first week at Zuccotti and right now he's with the caravan heading into New Orleans, Occupy flags flying. On that I agree with Hedges (and just about everything else he writes), yes, it ain't over. But I also believe we have to work every available angle, including the electoral one. Clarence Swinney, you're right on, man.

The United States of America's Second Revolution.

The First Amendment prohibits Government from abridging "the right of the people to peaceably assemble." People are entitled to assemble and to speak and be heard, as long as they remain nonviolent. This basic freedom ensures that the spirit of the First Amendment survives and thrives even when the majority of citizens would rather suppress expression it finds offensive. This right is guaranteed against unreasonable Federal and State restrictions and interference. However, local authorities may properly require that large rallies and parades be held only after the police department has been notified. They may also require permits, as long as the requirement is a general one that all organizations must meet.

While the right to peaceful assembly is primarily intended to protect freedom of people to express themselves in public places, the courts have interpreted that, in some instances, this Constitutional protection may be extended to private property as well. The first attempt to provide a Constitutional basis for the protection of free expression on private property occurred in the mid-1940s. In Marsh v. Alabama (1946), the Supreme Court held that the owners and operators of a company town could not prohibit the distribution of religious literature in the town's business district because such expression was protected by the First and 14th amendments. The majority reasoned that the town displayed many of the attributes of a municipality; therefore the state-action requirement was satisfied for Constitutional purposes of sustaining the rights of free expression. As stated in Marsh, "the more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it." In striking a balance, the Court concluded that the free-speech rights of the individual were paramount over the property rights asserted by the company.

The Court subsequently extended the rationale of Marsh to peaceful picketing in a large shopping center known as Logan Valley Mall. In Amalgamated Food Employees Union v. Logan Valley Plaza (1968), the Court considered whether non-employee union members could be enjoined from picketing a grocery store in a privately owned shopping center. The Court noted that the answer would be clear "if the shopping-center premises were not privately owned but instead constituted the business area of a municipality."

To date, the New Jersey Supreme Court has provided the most extensive and clearly articulated model for rejecting the traditional state-action requirements by holding mall owners accountable for violations of the state's free-speech protections. The New Jersey Supreme Court interpreted the free-speech provisions of the state constitution as extending to private owners of shopping malls as well as to state action in New Jersey Coalition Against War in the Middle East v. J.M.B. Realty Corp. (1994). Before deciding New Jersey Coalition Against the War, the New Jersey Supreme Court had decided State v. Schmid (1980), which required the court to balance individual expression rights with property rights in the context of free speech at a privately owned university. Schmid, articulated three factors:
(1) The nature, purpose and primary use of such private property;
(2) The extent and nature of the public's invitation to use that property; and
(3) The purpose of the expressive activity undertaken on such property in relation to both the private and public use of the property. After applying the Schmid test, the New Jersey Supreme Court reasoned in New Jersey Coalition that because the mall owners "have intentionally transformed their property into a public square or market, a public gathering place, a downtown business district, a community," they cannot later deny their own implied invitation to use the space as it was clearly intended.

At present, the majority of states that considered the issue continue to decline to extend any right of free expression to privately owned property.

Over the course of American history, freedom of assembly has protected individuals espousing variety of different viewpoints. Striking workers, civil rights advocates, anti-war demonstrators and Ku Klux Klan marchers have all taken to the streets and sidewalks in protest or in support of their causes. Sometimes these efforts have galvanized public support or changed public perceptions. Imagine a civil rights movement without the March on Washington or the women's suffrage movement without ranks of long-skirted, placard-carrying suffragists filling city streets.

The U.S. Supreme Court recognized the importance of this freedom in the 1937 case De Jonge v. State of Oregon, writing that "the right to peaceable assembly is a right cognate to those of free speech and free press and is equally fundamental." According to the Court the right to assemble is "one that cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles which lie at the base of all civil and political institutions."

The First Amendment protects peaceful, not violent, assembly. However, there must a "clear and present danger" or an "imminent incitement of lawlessness" before government officials may restrict free-assembly rights. Otherwise, the First Amendment's high purpose can too easily be sacrificed on the altar of political expediency.

According to the Supreme Court, it is imperative to protect the right to peaceful assembly, even for those with whose speech we disagree, "in order to maintain the opportunity for free political discussion, to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes, if desired, may be obtained by peaceful means."

Ask yourself what single thing is it that the 1% of the "Rich and Powerful" in the United states of America, fear the most out of the remaining 99% of the American Citizens????? Very simply it is that the 99% will organize and join together in a united movement to stop the "Rich and Powerful" from Robbing us all blind, and Demand that we get Fair and Equal Treatment from the Congress of the United States of America for the remaining 99% of the American Citizens!!!!! There is nothing else that makes them lay awake at night and worry about what "We the People" will do next.

The 99 Percent Occupy Wall Street Movement has been set off thanks to long-standing economic inequities and a recession caused primarily by Wall Street’s misdeeds, [Greed and Corruption.]

Wall Street did not engage in a vacuum, in the reckless financial behavior which has caused and Plunged 64 million people worldwide into extreme poverty. Our elected Greedy and Corrupt Congressional members assisted them by removing Laws and Regulations that were put in place originally to PROTECT the Average, Middle-Class and Poor American Citizens from the abuse that the Financial Industry would and has exposed us all to.

In order to engage in these practices that brought the world’s economy to its knees, Wall Street had to make sure that the Federal Government based in Washington, DC would both de-regulate the financial industry (and provide lax oversight) and that Congress and the Federal Reserve would bail out banks with few strings attached if they were in danger of failing. Getting the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department to support the Financial Institutions was a VERY EASY thing to do seeing as a large Majority of the people who work for the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department have all been employed by the very Financial Institutions they now are to "Oversee and Regulate." And the Majority of these present Federal Employees in the Federal Reserve and in the Treasury Department will return to the employment of the Financial Institutions when they leave their federal Government Positions.

The way the financial industry and big banks won this kid glove treatment from the federal government is by occupying Washington, flooding it with campaign contributions, lobbyists, and its own staffers and executives to occupy key positions of power. ThinkProgress has assembled a rundown of three ways Wall Street has occupied Washington:

1.] Wall Street Occupies Washington with Massive Campaign Contributions: On Nov. 12, 1999 President Bill Clinton signed into law the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, a Depression-era law that created a firewall between Commercial and Investment Banking. Repealing this law was one of the top legislative goals of the financial industry. In the 1998 election cycle, commercial banks spent $18 million on congressional campaign contributions, with 65 percent going to Republicans and 35 percent going to Democrats. Securities and investment firms donated over $40 million. The mega-bank Citibank spent $1,954,191 during that cycle, and it was soon able to merge with Travelers Group as a result of the repeal of banking regulations. Between 2008 and 2010, when new financial regulations were being written following the financial crisis, the finance, insurance, and real estate industries spent $317 million in federal campaign contributions, with $73 million of that coming from Political Action Committees (PACs). The hold of campaign contributions is starkly bipartisan. As Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) explained to Real Clear Politics in an interview last year, he couldn’t get a vote on a windfall profits tax on bonuses at bailed out banks due to campaign contributors. “I couldn’t even get a vote,” Webb explained. “And it wasn’t because of the Republicans. I mean they obviously weren’t going to vote for it. But I got so much froth from Democrats saying that any vote like that was going to screw up fundraising.”

2.] Wall Street Occupies Washington with Its Lobbyists: One way to control what Washington lawmakers do is to give them access to exclusive funding streams that allow them to finance their campaigns. But yet another is to control the stream of information. From the deregulatory period of 1998 to 2009, the financial sector spent $3.3 billion on lobbyists. In 2007, the financial industry employed 2,996 separate lobbyists, five for every member of Congress. During the debate over financial reform last year, the industry flooded the nation’s capital with its own lobbyists. On just one issue, regulating derivatives, financial industry lobbyists outnumbered consumer group lobbyists and other pro-reform advocates by 11 to 1. In fact, by 2010, the industry had hired a whopping 1,600 former federal employees as lobbyists. Included among these lobbyists were high-ranking former public leaders like former Democratic House Majority Leader Dick Gephardt (MO) and Kenneth Duberstein, Ronald Reagan’s chief of staff. Much of this lobbying is done through elite K Street firms that specialize in hiring government insiders. Yet there are also bank-funded front groups like the Chamber of Commerce that deploy lobbyists on behalf of the big banks.

3.] Wall Street Literally Occupies Washington By Placing Its Staff In Government Positions: Shortly after Clinton signed into law the repeal of the firewall between commercial and investment banking, his Treasury Secretary and Goldman Sachs alumni Robert Rubin left the government to work for newly-formed Citigroup, whose merger was only possible thanks to the policies Rubin championed and enacted. His compensation at Citigroup topped $15 million, not including stock options. Goldman’s alumni are found across the government, including bailout architect and former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, Paulson’s bailout chief Neil Kashkari, and Commodity Futures Trading Commission chairman Gary Gensler. The revolving door, of course, works both ways. Obama budget director Peter Orszag joined Citigroup shortly after leaving the government. This is just a small sampling of Wall Street’s staffers who found their way into government.

These three facets of lobbying do not include how these financial interests fan their funding out among nonprofits and think tanks, and how they fund media campaigns and public relations efforts within the parameters of the geographic territory of the District of Columbia. The amount of money spent on these tasks is likely formidable but is difficult to track.

There are reforms that can be enacted to combat this Wall Street infiltration of Washington. Ranging from public financing of federal campaigns to new disclosure laws to placing restrictions on lobbying from federal public officials, these reforms would blunt the impact of big money on federal policymaking. Yet only vigilance from the American public can get such reforms enacted.

It is easy to see that almost all official economic measures adopted since 1981 and contained in the following list have devastated the middle class while it has only helped the "Rich and Powerful 1.0%.
The list includes:
1. The Reagan income tax cut of 1981 that benefited the rich, but made it necessary to sharply raise all other federal taxes, paid mostly by the poor and the middle-class, to finance that tax cut.
2. Unenforced antitrust laws, leading to mergers among large and profitable firms while limiting New Companies entering the Business Field because of unfair playing field and killing high-paying jobs in numerous industries.
3. Permitting the oil industry mergers in the 1990s that are now preventing oil prices from falling in the middle of the worst slump since the 1930s. We also give subsidies to these very Oil Corporations.
4. Permitting relentless mergers among Pharmaceuticals and Health Insurance Companies, so that America, far more than any other nation, now spends almost 15 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health care that is mediocre by European and Japanese standards.
5. Unchecked use of outsourcing that kills high-paying jobs in manufacturing and services. The USA actually provides subsidies to encourage outsourcing.
6. Ignoring the growth of the trade deficit that has destroyed our manufacturing base. The failure of Congress and the President to enact Tariffs to protect our Manufacturing Corporations, Companies, Institutions and Organizations, is inexcusable.
7. The 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act under President Clinton that led to reckless lending by banks and an unprecedented housing bubble, which collapsed in 2007 to trigger the ongoing slump. Then President Bush orchestrated the $750 Billion Dollar TARP Bailout of the Wall Street Financial Institutions allowing the Executives of these Failed Financial and Insurance Institutions to get huge Bonuses.
8. The Bush tax cuts and bailouts that further benefited the rich while nearly doubling the government debt.
9. Finally, the decimation of the real minimum wage by President Reagan and other Republicans. (In 1981 the hourly minimum wage bought $8 worth of goods compared to $6 by the end of Reagan' presidency in 1988, and to mere $5.15 in 2006 under Bush.)

Looking at this nine-point list, is there any government program that a big business CEO would hate? Stated another way, is there any measure that has helped the middle class? I can't think of any. Thus, over the past three decades whatever the government did, ostensibly to help the people, actually ended up hurting them. Mergers, outsourcing and free trade raise productivity, but also lower wages, whereas the other provisions of the above list directly enrich the wealthy. The nine-point list is really a list of exploitation.

This nine-point list must be repealed or be done away with immediately.
Meanwhile, the Republicans divert public attention from their culpability in destroying a sound federal financial regulatory system and gifting Wall Street crooks with a platinum get-out-of-jail-free card. To listen to the GOP presidential candidates, the banking meltdown was caused by Democrats and everyone except the bankers and Republicans.

The next time you meet up with Republican apologists; ask them if they ever heard of Republican Phil Gramm, whose name is on the legislation that offered a blanket exemption from government regulation for the bank-concocted "securitization" of home mortgages into the collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps that are at the heart of the world's economic crisis. And if you meet ex- Republican Sen. Gramm himself, ask him if he still thinks we are "a nation of whiners" for thinking there is a crisis, as he asserted when he was heading the Republican John McCain presidential campaign.

Compromise is what produced the government's nine-point list of measures described above. The Republicans were able to impose these measures whenever some Democrats compromised with them. When Reagan raised the gasoline tax and excise taxes in 1982, it was through the cooperation of the Democrats, who cooperated again in 1983 when Social Security and self-employment taxes went up sharply to pay for the massive income tax cut of 1981. The repeal of the Glass-Stiegel Act, the Bush tax cuts and bailout were all the handiwork of Republican lawmakers and compromising right-wing Democrats.

OMG we have become a Nation and Society of Whiners and Complainers who are do-nothings. We the People are good about sitting back and complaining about things after the fact. The sad thing is that we could care less until we realize that we are being directly affected, and then we whine and complain.

We need to get up off of our Lazy Fat Asses and save this Country form the "Rich and Powerful Individuals, Corporations, Companies, Institutions and Organizations that work hard to remove the RIGHTS of the average American Citizen while they steal the Wealth of this Country and all of the Opportunities of this Country from the 99% of the United States of America's Citizens.

Why can't we the People get our act together and Start Petition Drives for the Changes that we want made. Why can't we the People get politically active and work to change the Laws, Regulations we don't like? Why can't we the People get active and start Recall Petitions to remove the Politicians we don't like from their Political Office?

Why don't we the People run for Political Office on one simple statement or OATH... “I want your vote and in return for your vote I promise that I will ALWAYS support what the MAJORITY of the United States of Americans Citizens want done.” “I will prove my commitment to that statement by giving to the People this Letter of Resignation from my elected Office If I ever fail to keep my promise to you.”

When a few brave souls decided to exercise their RIGHT under the Constitution of the United states of America to protest what they perceived to be inequities and injustices being perpetrated upon them and upon the other 99% of the American Citizens. When they marched on Wall Street, they may have just begun the Second Revolution from within the United States of America.

The people involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement are upset that our country has abandoned Democracy in favor of Plutocracy. They are upset that every decision made in Washington is based on the wishes of the top 1%. They are upset that we do not have a reasonable Health Care System, no reasonable Pension System, or child care system, or other benefits that people in democracies around the world receive. They are upset that most of the benefits of our economy instead go to a very few at the top. They are upset that a huge amount of our money goes to pay for a military that costs more than all other countries spend on military combined. They are upset that there is a "Super Committee" [what I call The Super Kangaroo Committee] made up of Millionaires meeting in secret to decide how much money to take out of the economy to pay for the bailouts and other costs of the fiasco caused by Wall Street and the big banks.

So with their government ignoring the majority of the Citizens demands, they have finally decided to voice their protests publicly. For doing this they have been met with smears, derision, and police attacks and brutality.

We have been afforded a great opportunity in America, a noble experiment that still hasn't been completed. Many transgressions have been committed along the way. Many more are to follow. Yet even a cursory view of history will tell you that those who came before us faced obstacles far greater, in almost all corners of the globe, and refused to concede defeat. It's the human spirit that's on trial here. Did mankind crawl out of the primordial swamp to inevitably be shackled, both intellectually and physically by a sub-species of our kind (the perfidious elite) or did it develop and take the next step in its ethical progression? If we as evolving humans don't reign in the virus that has ALWAYS been our undoing then we will have succumbed to a small minority of cretins and we will be reduced to shadows without substance, lemmings blindly following a virulent disease over the cliff of eternity. The Earth itself is growing tired of the wait. Civilization has had ten thousand plus years to come to grips with that which we KNOW ails us. We won't have the luxury of time much longer.

John Rawls wrote in his 1971 “A Theory of Justice,” The way to create the rules for a just society, is to first imagine everyone in an “original position” behind a pre-birth “veil of ignorance,” where no one knows what their own traits will be — whether they will be rich or poor, beautiful or plain, smart or less so, talented or not, healthy or unwell. Then you’d see what kind of social order people would agree in advance was fair, if they couldn’t know what place they were destined to occupy in it.

John Rawls also wrote that, in this original position, people would agree on two basic principles to structure society. The first would be equality in the way basic rights and duties are assigned. The second would be to arrange Social and Economic inequalities so that “they are both (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.”

Brendan Koerner wrote, Pursuing the relatively modest dream of doing better than the generation before requires serious capital. Up front in the form of tuition, loans and interest rates, and hidden in the form of lost opportunities. Call it the ambition tax, the money you've got to pony up if you want a college degree and a shot at middle-class bliss. But it's really more of a gamble, as there's no guarantee those tens of thousands of dollars will get you where you want to go.

"The next generation is starting their economic race 50 yards behind the starting line," says Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard Law School professor and author of The Two-Income Trap. "They've got to pay off the equivalent of one full mortgage before they make it to flat broke, in order to pay for their education. They can never get ahead of the game, because they're constantly trying to play catch-up.

"And once you've got accumulated debt, the debt takes on a life of its own. It demands to be fed, and it takes that first bite out of the paycheck. And it means the opportunity to accumulate a little, to get a little ahead, and to maybe put together a down payment, it's just never there. It's just staggering to me that this is not a part of our national debate right now."
Thomas Jefferson wrote: "In America, no other distinction between man and man had ever been known but that of persons in office exercising powers by authority of the laws, and private individuals. Among these last, the poorest laborer stood on equal ground with the wealthiest millionaire, and generally on a more favored one whenever their rights seem to jar."

Mahatma Ghandi once wrote that four steps take place during a Revolution or Protest and that they are: 1.] You are ignored. 2.] You are ridiculed. 3.] You are fought. 4.] You are Successful and Win.

When will "We the People" Demand Economic Justice for all? When will we demand that the Financial Institutions, Corporations, Companies and the Rich and Powerful who have reaped the biggest rewards for the past 50 years pay for creating 25,000,000 new Jobs for American Citizens in the United States of America? When will we get serious and stop supporting the stooges or start voting them out of Elected Office that the "Rich and Powerful" paid to get them elected into? When will we make our Demands known to our elected Congressional members and Demand that they be made into the Law of the United States of America by our Elected Officials?

When will we Demand a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit the "Rich and Powerful" from having the ability for buying elections for those they support financially? The Supreme Court of the United States of America, in a black-robed coup against our democracy, the Supremes ruled that a corporation's money is "speech" and that CEOs may dump unlimited sums of it into their own ad campaigns to elect or defeat any candidates they choose.

All the Amendment needs to do is clarify that an Individual is a Living Breathing Member of the Homo-Sapiens Species. We must also provide Congress with the ability and authority to place limits on who can make Contributions to a Political Party and to a Political Candidate. Only Congress should have the ability and authority to place limits on Who, What, Where, When and How a Contribution can be made to a Political Party or to a Political Candidate.

I recommend that all contributions should be made directly to the FEC with a stipulation as to which Political Party or to which Political Candidate it is to be given to. Then once a month the FEC should transfer the Contribution to the Political Party or the Individual Political Candidate anonymously, thereby eliminating the obligation a candidate might otherwise feel if they knew who it was that was support them Financially.

"WE THE PEOPLE" must grow this protest to include every member of the 99% to make ourselves heard Loud and Clear and as many of us that can possibly do so, need to Start listing the Wants and Needs that we want addressed by our Congressional Members and Posting them on the Web Sites and Blogs that are being formed and presently exist.

"WE THE PEOPLE" must grow this protest by joining it and taking to the Streets in support of it. Then we need to advance the March from Wall Street New York City, NY and March on Washington, DC and the Congress of the United States of America. We need to expand our demonstrations to more than just the Financial Institutions; we must also include the Health and Life Insurance Companies. We must also include the Pharmaceutical Companies. We must include any and all Corporations, Companies, Institutions or Organizations that send American Citizens jobs overseas.

The ten things that the Conservatives, Republicans and Tea-Party Members do not want you to know about Taxes.
1. President Obama Cut Taxes for Almost All Working Americans.
2. Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves.
3. Almost All Working Americans Pay Taxes.
4. The GOP's "Job Creators" Don't Create Jobs.
5. Low Capital Gains Taxes Fuel Income Inequality,
6. But Not Investment
7. The Estate Tax Has Virtually No Impact on Family Farms and Businesses.
8. Income Inequality is at an 80 Year High.
9. While the Federal Tax Burden is at 60 Year Low.
10. Which of the $1 Trillion in Tax Breaks Will GOP End?

Obama got himself a huge mess
Obama inherited a huge mess there is no denying the numbers
Only Roosevelt got a worse one
Obama got 92% increase in Spending
(1830 9-30-01)--(3500 9-30-09)
112% increase in Debt
(5700 9-30-02) (11,900--- 9-30-09)
237,000 jobs per month to 31.000
surplus (9-30-01) to 1400 deficit (9-30-09)
two 10 year wars---building roads schools with our money 7000 miles away
Contractors becoming millionaires
Huge Tax cuts to destroy a surplus of 10,000 projected for 2010
Smashed Housing Industry for many years
Smashed Financial industry but bailed out at hundreds of billions
Got a GREEEEET RECESSION still here 6-18-12

No one got such a darn mess. No one but Roosevelt
Muli-nationals are still sending industries to foreign lands for more profit even tho it is killing middle class America

I wish there were an easy fix. Oh! How I miss our many Mfg Plants that built our city a great city of 45,000. Plenty of jobs prior to 1980.
Obama is trying hard.
Health Care Reform in midst of a Great recession was wrong.
Stimulus was tooo low.

We have income to pay our way. Top 50% must be taxed more.
Defense Medicare must be cut cut cut
Cold War is over. We are loaded with weapons. WHY.? Who scares is?
Why keep on building bigger deadlier?
Profit for the Industry and jobs for Representative districts

Selfish Waste of our Resources

There are simple solutions--1. fed fund election-free equal tv time-6 moslog-3 primaru 3 general no personal momey--debate a week=12 = adequate to decide
Outside money limited to very little. Kil corp person
2.no funds need so BAN all government employees from taking anything with a financial value.
3. Progressive Flat Tax by group--automaticlly gets 1100B addiitional revenue or almost enough to scratch deficit

These 3 will redistrubute Wealth to middle class. Rivh will not suffer they own so much. Like 50% get 87% individual income. like 10% own 73% net wealth--83% financial wealth-get 50 % of income
Today the Banks own more equity in homes than mortgage holders
clarence swinney lifeaholic of america