Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
Retribution Against the Financial Elite

OccupySF: "BOA: People's Food"

Posted 2 years ago on Jan. 20, 2012, 6:12 p.m. EST by OccupyWallSt

Occupy Wall St. West

via Occupy SF:

"At Van Ness and Geary protesters squared off against a blockade of riot cops in the rain. "Cops go home!" was chanted with brazen voices as the police rampantly pepper sprayed protesters as they waited for reinforcements. The march continued onward when suddenly the familiar sound of revolution rang through the air as [the Black Bloc] smashed through a luxury car dealerships window which caused a rift amongst the march. At this point a meeting was called and the decision was made to head to the Cathedral Hill Hotel which had been expropriated by the protesters. A marching band played jubilant tunes and a banner was dropped: People's Food: Bank of America."

95 Comments

95 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 8 points by lduende (13) 2 years ago

The MSM will demonize BlackBloc. They will frame it such that it is hurting small business, etc. Unfortunately, I think this will hurt the movement overall, even I sympathize with those trying to use tactics they feel are harder to ignore, or that blunt some of the more repressive instruments used by the police. This is all about PR people: I think that if we are talking about practical tactics, dressing in business casual, suits and ties, etc, will get peoples attentions when you are given sound bites, photographs, and seconds of video. When people see that people who look similar to them are being repressed, that hits a lot deeper than some 'hippie anarchists', which is what OWS is continually potrayed as. BlackBloc feeds into this narrative. You are not genuflecting by dressing as working class/middle class folks, rather you are taking on a more vivid portrait, something to grab attention and keep it. Be pragmatic!

[-] 3 points by charnipar123 (122) 2 years ago

I totally agree! A coat and tie along with a skirt and blouse when the weather provides would help. Jessie Jackson had young black men and women dress like this when he addressed schools with his 'Rainbow Coalition.' The Good Will has new stores cropping up everywhere and OWS members could make purchases there.

[-] 1 points by mserfas (652) from Ashland, PA 2 years ago

The problem with "Black Bloc" tactics isn't how they dress, but what they do. Smashing property is not a form of free expression, nor is it even a plausible form of anarchistic civil disobedience. It's simply a punishment for those who have violated some law the protesters have enacted, which can range from poorly considered economic policy to onerous animal-rights rules. This differs from the ordinary processes of state only by taking a less representative vote, and omitting the independent judiciary. I am most disappointed to see OWS appearing to support such tactics.

There is a strong case to be made that a group aspiring to represent "the 99%" should not disobey the law at all, though nowadays legality can be more a matter of probability than certainty, especially for dissidents. In any case, Occupy protesters certainly can favor more understandable acts of civil disobedience, i.e. occupying city parks for the purpose of carrying out the political discussion and socialization for which they were intended, or occupying abandoned buildings for the purpose of preserving them and making them socially useful.

Focusing on appearance is definitely a mistake which perpetuates the errors of a poorly run society. How many times has a conditioned preference for suits and ties helped to transfer a house from an elderly homeowner to a predatory lender? Why do our soldiers endure long days of misery hunting the Taliban if we are only going to turn around and force women to endure a Western veil of cosmetics and impractical shoes? It is not bad to be pragmatic, but before defining that word, survey the landscape. In Kuwait or Japan or South Africa the people are expected to take men seriously who shear themselves in imitation of Oliver Cromwell's puritanical Roundheads and wear medieval Croatian cravats. If we want to honestly claim our society to be as tolerant as other cultures, then we will have to genuinely accept and respect businesspeople wearing keffiyehs and kimonos and even the lightweight garb of the Zulu people. Certainly fussing over which kind of shirt is not the right way forward.

[-] 1 points by lduende (13) 2 years ago

The suggestion of wearing more 'proper' attire wasn't solely directed at BlackBloc participants, but all OWS participants. This isn't advice as to how society ought to be, but a way strengthen the movement by lending it a more credible appearance. You point out the limits of an intolerant bourgeois culture. You're right. But all you do is play into the loony narrative frame. Because OWS doesn't own and control the platforms of discourse. Moreover, because it is subject to them and their generalized norms of dress and appearance, OWS ought to adapt rather than stay marginal. You want more people? You've got to reach them. Other than that I think you make good points. And let me reiterate, I just think it is a much, much, much more powerful image to see clean shaven, 'well' groomed, 'well' dressed, people getting pepper sprayed, beaten, arrest, and articulating powerful criticisms of our prevailing social order--because it speaks loud and clearly, that even those who assimilate, can be expected to be apart of the superfluous population.

[-] 1 points by mserfas (652) from Ashland, PA 2 years ago

Well, I can't tell you what to do, but obviously many of the protesters look the way you want already. If you have some plan to exclude a few problematic elements who generate bad publicity, I'd think it would be better to focus on some oddballs who are smashing windows, or using drugs, or shoving delegates, or crapping in alleyways and the occasional American flag, for example.

[-] 0 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

Can I just restate how utterly stupid we are to want anything to do with those elements of the black bloc that want to sign our name to their behavior and yet seem not to care about the tremendous black eye they give this movement when they pull stunts like this? Protesting and marching? Fine by me. Setting up a food bank right outside Bank of America? That's a legitimately great idea as far as I'm concerned. Letting idiots put rocks through windows and then lionizing them in the subsequent press release? You've gotta be kidding me.

You have a hell of a good point there; if we want the rest of the country to listen to us and answer with anything but pepper spray and batons we're going to have to go out of our way to look and act normal, and avoid big displays of vandalism and stupidity like thisI agree completely. I'm a freshman at MIT and I agree with the principles driving OWS, but I don't have the time to get involved physically and living in Dewey Square is hardly conducive to keeping up with coursework. Different strokes for different folks is all well and good, but at some point we need to agree on a general platform and get people all on the same page.

I already suggested creating a PR workgroup composed almost completely of moderates and responsible for giving interviews, going on talk shows, etc. to promote us. The idea would be for OWS to shell out a couple of hundred bucks per member for a suit, a shave, and a haircut, and to require the members of the group to abstain from drugs and heavy drinking while involved. If people felt it necessary to put checks on the PR workgroup it would always be possible to staff it on a rotating basis. While we're at it, though, the least we could do is put the black bloc in the box and make sure it stays there.

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

http://occupywallst.org/forum/is-occupy-still-non-violent-or-as-my-prediction-un/

Thrasymaque wrote that post and got banned 5 minutes later.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

That is funny, dog. I knew you were you before you divulged yourself. your pretentious pretensions were easily discerned by your comments. Are you surprised you got banned?

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

No. I'm not surprised.

I predicted long ago that Occupy's plan was to turn to violence step by step. This new approach towards the BlackBloc is one of these important steps. At the beginning, Occupy strongly and clearly distanced themselves from the BlackBloc, now they consider them the ring of revolution, the sound of war.

It was always clear to me that OWS was being controlled by anarchists and communists. On the surface they promote direct democracy and free speech for all, but, in truth, they use a lot of propaganda and control very closely what OWS can do by controlling the outcome of general assemblies. OWS is not a protest which supports plurality of thought. Unless you're in line with the anarcho-communists, your ideas won't go very far.

[-] 3 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

And your reading of that article is either you consperitizing or you choose to only see it your way. I read it and thought solidarity up until the glass broke. That does not mean both interested parties advocate violent revolution,.the writer of the article was just stating the action was reminiscent of past violent revolutions. Non violent is the rational response, while violent is the emotional one. Remember, this is a leaderless movement protesting, and it takes all kinds. Also, we never blamed the parties when a man in Tucson shot a politician. How can you blame a whole movement for one person's, or faction's, actions?

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

Sure, but that doesn't explain why I have been banned for criticizing that article. If my opinion and arguments are wrong, they can be met with counter-arguments and explanations instead of censorship. My problem is not that Iv'e been banned. This does not matter. It's that my criticism has been censored. I think this is wrong no matter how bad and unfounded some think my criticism may be.

The point is, you can't hide criticism. It will always find cracks to creep in from. You'll see. And, criticism is healthy. Following blindly, aka blind faith, is what followers of cults like to do. OWS shouldn't be a cult. It should be a protest for everyone, for the 99%.

I do not think OWS is leaderless by a long shot. I think the arnarcho-communists have a stronghold on the outcome of the general assemblies. They control the shots in a very tight and clear way.

My criticism is meant for those who control the OWS media reports and marketing publications. It's not meant for the protester in the street who is simply following what the leaders are telling them to do.

[-] 2 points by DieNachthexen (103) from New York, NY 2 years ago

"the protester in the street who is simply following what the leaders are telling them to do"

More like the "useful idiots" amirite?

[-] 0 points by sufinaga (513) 2 years ago

i agree! it's our positive ideas and exposure of their negative ideas that will win WITH REASONING. the blackblock is street theatre whose message and human feelings i totally endorse. we must all wake up to the increasing repression -MARTIAL LAW- which will come after some FAKE terrorist alert or overt violence on our part then we will be the terrorists! they are terrified of us because they know we fulfill the prophecies! let's make the prophecies happen! let's make it THE END OF THEIR WORLD IN 2012!!

[Removed]

[-] 6 points by PeaNuckle (4) 2 years ago

Greater numbers are needed, think 50,000, think one united crowd, so far the numbers have been fewer. I know it's difficult to get that many but it makes a big difference, with thousands of people. They don't have 50K cops in one city at one time.

[-] 4 points by proudofOKC (361) 2 years ago

50,000 Americans protesting together? That would be the most beautiful thing I have ever seen.

[-] 5 points by Driftless (5) 2 years ago

There was well over 50,000 people gathering in Wisconsin last year in the cold of winter. It was a beautiful sight, and surely can be done in balmy California.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

50,000 Americans is 0,015% of the population.

Let's Stop pretending we speak for the 99%.

It seemed like good marketing at first but I think it is pissing people off.

[-] 5 points by DJSethMichaels (5) from Livonia, MI 2 years ago

I have not walked with you as of yet, but I support everything you stand for. I may not be part of your 50,000 but I AM STILL THE 99%. It is not only good marketing... it is the truth. If it pisses people off then GOOD. Anger often leads to reflection as it subsides and upon analysis or reflection of this situation it becomes obvious that change is needed. I am not the only one who is watching and waiting for change to come. Most of your supporters are like me, talking to our neighbors, our classmates, our co-workers. Quietly assisting our movement behind the scenes. We may not have all "liked" your facebook page but we are still with you. PLEASE i beg... Keep giving us something to talk about. Words lead to action and action to change. And lord knows we need it.

[-] 1 points by proudofOKC (361) 2 years ago

Thanks for your input! Thanks for talking to others about the movement. I hope to see you walk with us someday. If you need to be anonymous, don a morphsuit or something. Solidarity :-)

[-] 3 points by hiddenwheel (83) from Newton, MA 2 years ago

If you count every Occupy city and its supporters you have WAY more than 50,000! One provocation could result in a protest that no single city could control. Wonder why Congress is all of a sudden racing to enact ridiculously oppressive legislation. NDAA, SOPA etc.

[-] 1 points by proudofOKC (361) 2 years ago

Good point! I'm not sure about you, but I found the provocation I needed when I saw the UC Davis video.

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Even if you counted WAY more, say 10 times more, 500,000 people, that is still only 0.15% of the population.

Even if you counted 2 million that is only 0.6%.

All I am saying is let's stop pretending it is 99%

[-] 2 points by JohnWa (507) 2 years ago

How can you count the million who don't know about OWS yet but will at some point.

There are many confused people who are believing lies fed to them by the media and govt who will be awakened at some point. Education about the criminal actions of the 1% and bought govt will get through and OWS must be persistent. Our emerging heros must not be left unsupported.

This movement is world wide. It should not be underestimated. The minds of growing millions are with OWS and the 1% know it.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Polls indicate that over 30% of the people in the USA support OWS or its message.

It could easily grow beyond that, and is primed to, but not if OWS doesn't forcefully disavow vandalism. Whether right or wrong, critical mass of support, and the changes that support will bring in its wake, will not happen in this culture without it.

[-] 1 points by JohnWa (507) 2 years ago

The months ahead will be revealing as to how the protest grows and also how reaction to the protest and protesters comes forth. The 1% will not disappear nor their followers, but their reign is challenged and the days of unimpeded rule will be limited. Not only by protest and growing awareness of their operations but also by the legacy of exploitation, corruption, destruction and waste they have been responsible for.

[-] 2 points by JohnWa (507) 2 years ago

Joe perhaps the effectiveness of revolt against injustice and systematic class war is important to bring about change for the better. The slogans may not be completely accurate at present but they are a stand that needs support and unity.

The 1% lie all the time and while their example is symptomatic of greed and propaganda against a better society, the 99% motto has no dishonest intent.

It was 1% against the rest and now been reversed by OWS and action must be effective.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

But if 63% of the 99% are OK with 1% controlling 38% of the wealth than it is not realistic to say that it is 1% against 99%. Many just want the government to stop spending us further into debt.

[-] 2 points by JohnWa (507) 2 years ago

Yes you have a point alright. The trend appears to be towards higher concentration of societal wealth in the 1% so it is not a static situation.

Future expansion of the economic growth has limits as exploitation of resources is becoming more energy intensive and yet energy supply for the future has not been resolved. Many forecasts do not see answers to a business as usual model continuing.

A part of what I hear from OWS and many other sources from scientific and economic bodies reflects this future concern.

It would appear that it takes time for information about out future prospects to become common knowledge.

Changing a name or motto connected with a movement will have little consequence to what is already happening perhaps. So be it.

The debt is created not only by expenditure but the money system we use.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

The debt is not created by the money system we use,.

Inflation is caused by the money system we use when we print more to reduce the effective debt by devaluing the dollar.

[-] 3 points by JohnWa (507) 2 years ago

The fractional banking system creates money though the expanding the supply created out of thin air that becomes profit to the bank as well as the interest charged.

The Federal Reserve Bank has a unique structure advantaging a small extremely wealthy and powerful group of bankers at crippling cost to the nation.

http://www.webofdebt.com/

http://home.iae.nl/users/lightnet/creator/nationaldebt.htm

A little more complex rundown of the legal arguments

http://theunjustmedia.com/Banking%20&%20Federal%20Reserve/The%20Federal%20Reserve%20and%20the%20National%20Debt.htm

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-federal-debt-criminal-scam-federal-reserve-criminal-syndicate

President Lincoln cut out the banks and printed greenbacks - no debt created.

Now the Govt goes into debt spawned by banks to create money supply.

Federal reserve creates "money" by paper entry.

The bankers are linked with media ownership if you like to explore the cartel.

They control the money, create much of the debt, buy the politicians and feed what ever meets their needs to the pulic mind through the media.

If you wish to research the formation of the Federal Reserve you will find it was formed by an act passed in Congress while only 4 members were present after 11pm 23 Dec 1913. The rest of congress had left for Xmas. The arguments in days prior were strongly against the formation of this inequity.

Quorum ?

Numbers for a quorum are not tested unless an objection is raised and none of the four present raised objection. A put up job??

Govt spending also created debt on top of this.

The military industrial machine is a massive overhead beyond control of the "elected" govt.

Dwight Eisenhower warned of this powerful sector and the damage they create, and the potential of unchecked expansion.

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/17/132942244/ikes-warning-of-military-expansion-50-years-later

A fuller account http://www.h-net.org/~hst306/documents/indust.html

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I think you are confused as to what I am talking about. I was talking about the National debt not consumer debt.

What you are talking about is quantitative easement and consumer debt.

By printing money and then purchasing government securities, the Fed increases the balances that member banks have in the Fed and thus the assets that banks have available for lending. With additional assets, it is assumed that banks will lend more to individuals and businesses, which will lead to a growing economy.

Printing money lowers the value of the dollar and, therefore, cheapens the price of U.S. goods. This can lead to increased exports and more jobs; hence, a rebounding economy.

The problem is that lowering the value of the dollar hurts those who have their assets in cash rather than stocks or commodities like gold.

[-] 1 points by JohnWa (507) 2 years ago

Yes I agree.

To put it simply when Lincoln printed greenbacks the value of those went to the govt and so the people. The present system gives the value of new money to the bankers.

[-] 2 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

Comparison..... percentage of Americans that vote. Similar statistics non participation does not prove people are for or against, just that they are apathetic

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

In non presidential elections 23% vote which is pretty sad I agree.

Still that is 83,200,000 people

[-] 2 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

Even as late as the out-brake of the American Revolution only 40% of the colonists supported the rebellion. Half of the 60% that did not support it were neutral and the other 30% were loyalists who fought alongside the British! So statistically speaking peoples loyalty to one side of an issue or another can change rapidly!

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

There is a big difference between 0.015% and 40%.
I just don't see revolution in the forecast.

I do see some change happening since more than 50% want to adjust the current system. Most want to shrink the size and role of government.

[-] 2 points by proudofOKC (361) 2 years ago

I agree. We don't need a revolution in the sense of "Let's tear everything down and built something on top of it." That just creates instability and makes a power vacuum into which a tyrant can appear. We need to do two things: continue to be visible and draw attention to the issues, and also begin to build a system ourselves that works far better. If we do that, there will come a day when the old system is replaced because it has been rendered obsolete.

[-] 2 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

You would have to poll all americans to get an accurate count, how many turn out to an event isn't a very accurate way of determining those that are for or against OWS!

[-] 1 points by proudofOKC (361) 2 years ago

Very true. It seems like there are a lot more people who follow the movement online than in person. There's got to be a better way to make use of that, don't you think? Online petitions or something, I don't really know.

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

If you go back an look, I said nothing about people being against OWS.

I said

"50,000 Americans is 0,015% of the population. Let's Stop pretending we speak for the 99%."

[-] 1 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

Never mind.... as I can see 50,000 was just a number someone on this post pulled out of thin air and is not a realistic turn out total.

[-] 1 points by proudofOKC (361) 2 years ago

Yes, we were just saying a 'wow, wouldn't it be great if we had fifty thousand marching together' kind of thing. Random number.

[-] 1 points by proudofOKC (361) 2 years ago

Whoa, that makes the Revolutionary War sound like a civil war! Strange to think about.

[-] -2 points by Uspatriot5000 (128) 2 years ago

I think the numbers should tell you that 99% of the population does not support your actions. We are not in the 1% and we don't support it, especially actions like trashing personal property. I used to have sympathy for people who had lost their homes, but the more detailed stories I have heard, the less compassion I have and feel a lot of it is due to individuals poor choices. One such story happened last week.

My wife has someone who has been her closest friend for over 30 years. Recently, they have come on hard times. Now, they own an enormous house, that even her in-laws tried to talk her and her husband out of buying in the first place. Now, about two months ago, she called my wife and ask if we could give them $500 for food. We were able to give them $400, which was fine.

About a month ago, she told my wife they were thinking about walking away from their house, just letting it go. She was cut off from her disability, due to some issues where she was double dipping between the Social Security Disability and some personal disability (her own fault for double dipping).

Two weeks ago, my wife was talking to her again. This time her friend told her that her and her husband were going on a cruise to the Bahamas. She said, "We really cannot afford it, but we need this time alone." OK, so we had to give them $400 for food, they were talking about walking away from their house, and now are going on a week long cruise to the Bahamas. My wife and I will not even do that right now. I'm done. I am done helping people,

Last week, local police arrested someone for pan handling on a busy intersection. He had been there for weeks. It was reported this guy had deposit slips for thousands of dollars. He was quoted as saying, "one guy just pulled up and handed him $100 bill" He pretty much admitted he saw no reason to get a job. He had been making a living doing this for years.

I am done helping people. All I do later is find out that people are either subject to their own bad decisions, or are ripping other people off.

[-] 2 points by mserfas (652) from Ashland, PA 2 years ago

Doubtless this story is true, but just because some people are skilled in manipulating and exploiting people doesn't mean that there aren't others who are truly suffering. What it illustrates is that as individuals walking down the sidewalk, we can't make good choices about where and when to give charitable funding. What we need is a society with a reliable safety net, a guaranteed spartan but safe standard of living for all those in trouble, and that way you won't have to worry about people playing on your sympathies.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Generalizing from the particular is a classic fallacy.

[-] 1 points by JohnWa (507) 2 years ago

Your personal stories may not represent many and there will be others like it or worse, BUT there are many millions strugling with families and trying as hards as they know yet are getting ripped off by the 1%. A wider perspective is what will count.

[-] 0 points by Nordic (390) 2 years ago

Crock o shit. These urban legends have always been around. When i was young it was the "Welfare Queens" buying cadillacs with their welfare checks. Please ....

[-] 1 points by Uspatriot5000 (128) 2 years ago

No. This is no Urban Legend. This is what made me so angry about the whole situation. We felt compelled to assist them. This friend and her family really assisted my wife when she left her abusive husband. Just last month, a woman on welfare was arrested living in a $1.2 million house: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/seattle-welfare-recipient-lives-million-dollar-home-161252749.html

My sister-in-law lives in a neighborhood where the homes run $250k and higher. One of her neighbors runs a photography business. The family is so frauding the system. The kids are on free lunch, they are on medicad, food stamps, etc. Which would be fine if they needed it. Yet, they live in a $300K house with indoor pool, drive 2 SUV's, and have no need for money. How do they do it? Most of the money they make from doing sports and school photography is cash. They only claim what they receive in checks. I have tried reporting them, but I don't know enough details on what the IRS wants. My sister-in-law won't do it because on a handful of people know and she is afraid of repercussions. There are huge amounts of fraud in all these social programs, yet if someone mentions any kind of reform, everyone get up in arm about it.

[-] 2 points by Nordic (390) 2 years ago

So ..... I know a lot of Republicans who are child rapists. Does that mean all Republicans are child rapists?

You're providing us with anecdotal stories which confirm your bias. I'm sorry, but that's rather meaningless.

[-] 0 points by Uspatriot5000 (128) 2 years ago

True. I don't believe in all of these social programs. I believe a person should stand on their own two feet. That is what makes me so angry about this whole "we are the 99%". NONE of you speak for me. I am not in the 1% and I don't support any of the crap social stuff all of you are pushing. I was laid off in 11/2008, and started another job exactly 4 weeks later, making more than the previous job I had held for 5 years. My wife has been a teacher for over 20 years, and has to do more due to cuts. We pay a lot out of our own pockets. So, I have been affected by this recession, but all what this stuff will do is push this country deeper in debt!! We are the next Greece at this rate.

[-] 2 points by Nordic (390) 2 years ago

Well let me ask you this. Because, honestly, YOU were extremely lucky. I know people who have been out of work for over 18 months. I know people who have lost everything. They would take a job if they had one offered.

What do we do with people like that? Let them starve? Let their kids starve? Let them be homeless and dig out of garbage cans?

We're better than that. As a nation we're wealthy enough to take care of our own when times are bad.

And the money's there. The banks just created 23 trillion dollars out of thin air to save themselves. It had almost no effect on inflation or anything else. When THEY need it, the money's there.

[-] 0 points by Uspatriot5000 (128) 2 years ago

Sorry, I don't believe in redistribution of wealth. People did fine taking care of themselves in this country for nearly 200 years without all of these social programs. I don't want to pay more taxes just so some people get "guaranteed living wages". There are people who will take advantage of it and figure they don't need to hunt or work at a job if the government will give them a good hand out.

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." Ben Franklin

[-] 1 points by Nordic (390) 2 years ago

So you vote for letting the kids and the old people starve.

And you call that a country? Call yourself "patriotic"?

You're a wretched piece of inhuman crap.

I hope you end up on the streets, old and crippled. Just so you can see what it feels like.

[-] 1 points by Uspatriot5000 (128) 2 years ago

Look at all of the European countries who have always touted all of these great social programs. They are going BANKRUPT. As it is, we are not fare behind them. There is not enough money in this country to pay off the debt and fund all of this social crap. Once the country is bankrupt and no one will loan us money, all of the rich will escape to where they have their money hid, and we are all stuck starving anyway.

[-] 1 points by Nordic (390) 2 years ago

There's not enough money to fund all the military/corporate welfare and the bank bailouts. That's where all the money's going.

Look it up. Try actually reading for once, instead of being spoon-fed propaganda from right-wing bullshit sites and your Faux News nonsense.

[-] 1 points by Uspatriot5000 (128) 2 years ago

Tell it to the job killing Obama. All of you leftist liberals love him so much. He just killed the Keystone pipeline, which would have been a huge number of jobs. Yet, the headlines this morning were that Canada may now do a deal with China. There is where all of our money and jobs are going, yet when given the opportunity to take us to some jobs and oil other than OPEC, he kills it. You claim there are no jobs to be had, yet just a few months ago, CNBC ( a very liberal new organization) did a report that there are over 3.2 MILLION unfilled jobs in the US.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/44838614/Need_Work_US_Has_3_2_Million_Unfilled_Job_Openings

[-] 1 points by Nordic (390) 2 years ago

"leftist liberals" love Obama?

Uh, no they don't. Leftist liberals actually HATE Obama.

You can't even get THAT fact right.

Obama's a tool of the corporate class and Wall Street.

You're as detached from reality as the homeless guy in my alley who screams at the sky.

[-] 0 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

You're right !!

[Removed]

[-] 4 points by nate (48) 2 years ago

I think it is worth noting that protests are happening in many countries as people are feeling increasingly tired of being under the heel of the 1%. Some government officials have ordered for their citizens to be gunned down with bullets, whereas here in the U.S. protesters have been gunned down primarily by litigation and also rules that are frequently invented on the spot. So far the only government that has successfully repressed the will of its people has been Iran. If it takes some black bloc superheroes to save us all from suffering a less bloody version of the same as fate as the Iranians...then I say power to the people!

[-] 2 points by ahorsenamedrex (9) 2 years ago

I agree with you wholeheartedly. These actions need to be taken now before taking these actions ends up with protesters as desaparecidos or worse. I don't think people realize how far we are down the line that if we don't act now we won't be returning for a long time.

[-] 1 points by JohnWa (507) 2 years ago

I think suppression of people may be much wider than just Iran.

With the legislative follow on for the Patriot ( not ) act. would you know what is happening. Secrecy, detention infinitum and death are now all legal measures.

[-] 1 points by huevosrancheros (21) 2 years ago

You are fanning the flames of hatred towards the Iranian people which is what the 1% want you to do. It seems like you can't wait for American and NATO planes to begin to rain down their "democratic" bombs on the Iranians like they did in Libya and Iraq. And are still doing in Afghanistan. Historically, the "bloody version" has always been American.

[-] 1 points by nate (48) 2 years ago

I agree with your point that America has been "bloody" by the way. It is truly unfortunate.

[-] 1 points by nate (48) 2 years ago

I can assure you I bare no ill will toward the Iranian people. I actually think it is unfortunate that the protests were violently suppressed there - and my point is that I don't want suppression to happen here in the U.S.either. Good wishes to you.

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

I assume you're a moderator?

[-] 1 points by nate (48) 2 years ago

Not at all.

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by socialmedic (178) 2 years ago

2 years ago I refused the exploitative terms on three credit cards with capital one. That was when they were raising interest rates on people with no cause, remember? To keep me on to pay the higher rate without damaging my credit rating all I had to do was say yes. I said no. I will not agree to the higher rate and for no damned good reason. They closed all of my accounts, damaging my credit rating while still demanding to be paid. Occupy WALL STREET is a protest against the banks. You forget that, and you have no movement.

[-] 1 points by JohnWa (507) 2 years ago

The bankers are the 1%

[-] 1 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 2 years ago

How did closing your accounts damage your credit rating? If you are still paying on the accounts it is not noted as uncollected debt.

[-] 0 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

if you pay your credit card bill in full, the interest rate makes no difference, you don't pay any.

[-] 2 points by Craigdotorg (2) 2 years ago

As one of three organizers on the building takeover, I find it depressing that the "autonomous actors" stole our thunder. We organized a march, a building takeover all in the name of calling out economic inequality for the 99% and instead of celebrating the largest housing occupation in SF, I am spending my time answering people who want to leave the movement because of this kind on non-strategic, destructive action. I don't dislike the black bloc, I just wish that those choosing to act autonomously had more respect for CONSENSUS. I wish they thought about their property destruction before doing it...make it part of a strategy and for fuck sake, don't tack your shit onto our marches/events.

We worked really hard to make this event happen. The action was done for the people within Occupy and those OUTSIDE of the movement. We wanted to excite people into participating. That effort was lost.

I'd also like to say that the "autonomous actors" slashed tires of Telemundo/Univision after we've spent months trying to empower the Latina/Latino communities in SF...great job! We're set back because of decisions that were made in a fascist manner, completely disregarding the consensus of OccupySF to have no non-consented property destruction. Our march was 1100 before the window incident, about 500 after. That action alienated more people than we'll know. If our movement fails it will be because of those acting outside consensus. They are not anarchists (anarchists act by consensus). They are destroyers for the sake of destruction.

If the people who did that property destruction want to own up to and have a conversation with OccupySF, we are open to that...we are not trying to alienate anyone based on tactics, but we have to address the community we're trying to enfranchise into this movement. San Francisco doesn't like senseless property destruction, they like property destruction when it's strategic (i.e. when it gets us into a building). Come on people...we need to start working together!

I believe in consensus.

[-] 2 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

BlackBloc should be more focused on the corporations that abuse the people; system and control the government, rather than small businesses that have the cards stacked against them already!

[-] 2 points by CatalysticFrost (3) 2 years ago

Is it possible for transportation to the protest site to be arranged? I want to come and be HEARD, but I don't have any resources. Walking from Newark, NJ is possible, but also fairly suicidal.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by sfno (4) from Los Angeles, CA 2 years ago

SECOND (Take Plaintiff’s property without due process of law [U.S. Constitution Amendment 5] [California Constitution Article 1 § 7]) 9. The U.S. Constitution Amendment 5 states that no one should be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. However, the foreclosure process which Defendant did was not compliant to it. Non-judicial foreclosures are unconstitutional and should be stopped immediately to make sure if there is any foreclosure fraud. There was no due process thus it is not compliant with the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the land. “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void” (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S., 137, 174, 176) 10. Plaintiff was denied due process in the entirety of this instant matter regarding the foreclosure in violation of their Rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States specific to, but not limited to the Bill of Rights Articles IV, V, VII and IX and per the California State Constitution Article 1, Sections 1, 7, and 13. THIRD (Without due process of law Violated Plaintiff’s Right [U.S. Constitution Amendment 7]) 11. Defendant violated Plaintiff’s Right for trial by jury and due process of law on controversy of foreclosure. Amendment 7 states that when “the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved.” 12. There was no such trial when the house was taken away or foreclosed on. Because of this huge mistake made by Defendant, Plaintiff suffered innumerable hardships that have been caused by Defendant’s unlawful action. FOURTH (Fraud on the loan Violated Title 12 U.S.C. 24) 13. It is unlawful for any bank to lend its credit or to act as guarantor for another. A bank may lend its funds or assets, but not its credit. Defendant violated the law, and show no evidence or proof of the alleged validity of the alleged debt, perpetrates fraud and commits numerous crimes. Defendant “sold” Plaintiff’s home even though it has not been proven that Meng loaned money from BofA. 14. It is common sense that no one likes to borrow money from robbers. Changing lenders without homeowner’s agreement or choices is superseding the mandates of their constitutional rights. FIFTH (Criminal intent Violates Foreclosure Process [California Codes Civil Code Section 2923.6]) 15. Civil Code § 2923.5 “A mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent may not file a notice of default pursuant to Section 2924 until 30 days after initial contact is made as required by paragraph (2) or 30 days after satisfying the due diligence requirements as described in subdivision (g).” Then § 2923.6 (b) says, “It is the intent of the Legislature that the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent offer the borrower a loan modification or workout plan if such a modification or plan is consistent with its contractual or other authority.” This states that before the mortgagee can foreclose, the mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent must contact the borrower with “due diligence”, that means that they must follow up the government loan modification. 16. Countrywide raised up the monthly payment from $2,524 to $3,050. It is the beginning when they start to attack and attempt theft on Plaintiff. 17. In Dec. 2009, Defendant qualified Plaintiff for HAMP and promised to mail paperwork to Plaintiff. Plaintiff waited and made calls to follow up every month. Every time, Defendant requested Plaintiff to supply his financial situation, and he always gave it to them. Defendant then checked it and said that Plaintiff was qualified, and promised to mail the paperwork every time. Defendant always failed mailing them to him. 18. During June 2010, BofA offered a “special forbearance program”. Plaintiff did not accept it to keep faith on HAMP and waited for the paperwork which Defendant promised to mail in because he was already told that he was qualified. Defendant was bitter for that matter and canceled HAMP for Plaintiff. Fortunately, through very hard effort the application of HAMP was reopened and qualified again at the same time on Sep 8, 2010. 19. Defendant had a bar meeting with Plaintiff on Dec 16, 2010 at 9:00 am. Through an examined trial the representative of Defendant promised to mail the paperwork at this time. The paperwork truly mailed on Dec 28, 2010. Plaintiff received it at Dec 29, 2010. More than a year after the expected date. However, Plaintiff’s house was sold at exactly the same day. It is apparent that BofA granted the loan modification, but refused the application to extend the sale date. (Voice recorded 1: the bar meeting) (Exhibit A: HAMP paperwork) (Exhibit B PIC’s letter) Defendant accepted the loan modification for Plaintiff in words, but then went forward and “sold” the home to PIC. Further, Plaintiff received his loan modification paperwork on the same day on Dec 29, 2010. It testified the Defendant committed fraud. 20. On Jan 24, 2011, after Defendant “sold” Plaintiff’s home, a representative of Defendant said the application was denied on Dec 20, 2010 but failed to provide the NPV test to Plaintiff and the third party who helped Plaintiff. Defendant explained that it is legal to sell, and transferred to other people for information about the NPV test. It was transferred to eight different people who all cannot find that record, and no one wants to deny what the first representative had said. Finally the last person said honestly that they did not deny the application yet. 21. Defendant breached the contract with government on HAMP program. On March 1, 2011 the judgment on the related eviction case MVC 1100254 said:

[-] 1 points by sfno (4) from Los Angeles, CA 2 years ago

Ken Jun Meng
Locked home at: 14383 Settlers Ridge Court, Eastvale, CA 92880 Mailing address: P.O. Box 90431, City of Industry, CA 91715 Telephone: (626) 905-7188 Email: homerry@hotmail.com Self-Represented/Pro Per SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, RIVERSIDE HISTORIC COURTHOUSE

KEN JUN MENG, Plaintiff,

Vs.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. Defendant.

I. INTRODUCTION 1. As the leader bank of the nation, Defendant, Bank of America N.A. (BofA), has practiced many unlawfully actions with Plaintiff Ken Meng’s loan. It had “sold” his home without proof that Meng loaned money from BofA and without abiding to the due process of law and other legal procedures pursuant to the U.S. Constitution. Defendant used Preeminent Investment Corporation (PIC) by conspiracy to against Plaintiff in unlawful detainer, eviction actions, and arrest Plaintiff. PIC further conspired with Mr. Qi and used disqualified judge to try rule in favor a restraining order against Plaintiff. Those unlawful actions forced Plaintiff and his family homeless for 248 days and counting. Defendant’s action has tremendously hurt Plaintiff’s family with 3 children physically and emotionally. 2. Because of setting a bad example, Defendant’s action has been spread to all field of the nation. It had caused the economy downfall and many empty houses but people homeless. As iniquity bound, the love of many wax cold. Defendant leads down social value and creates corruption in the society by encouraging people to idol money. As a citizen Plaintiff is not only fighting for his own benefits, but also for many other victims and for trying to release the pain of the nation. Plaintiff testifies in his effort that the justice and the Constitution are still alive. Plaintiff is grateful to rather sacrifice his life for the pain of victims and saving the nation from evil. 3. Ken Jun Meng, living, breathing, natural born, a free man on the soil, Sovereign American Citizen, sui juris, Plaintiff, with and claiming all of his unlimited, inherent, unalienable, Constitutionally secured Rights, and with his name properly spelled only in upper and lower case letters, and who hereby respectfully makes this Second Amended Complaint, based in truth, fact, evidences and law.

II. FACTS 4. Defendant BofA with its conspiracies had illegally qualified and practiced the loan, and practices fraud with discrimination at the loan modification, persecutes him jobless with children homeless. It had unconstitutionally taken away his right to life for its greed. III. CAUSE OF ACTIONS FIRST (Terrorist-like violence Violated Plaintiff’s Right to Be Secure in His House [U.S. Constitution Amendment 4][California Constitution Article 1 § 13]) 5. Because of the actions of the unlawful foreclosure from Defendant, Plaintiff, Ken Meng, and his family, has been forced to vacate the house by Preeminent Investment Corporation (PIC) who alleged that they had bought the house from BofA. The Riverside Court with sheriff violates the “Right to be secure in their houses” and arrested Plaintiff. Plaintiff was arrested at home on May 18 2011 because of the imposter “judge” Ziebarth had denied Plaintiff’s motion to stay. On September 10, 2011 Plaintiff was bringing his family back to home because of the court, “judge” with his judgments fraud and against law. Police threatened children and took Plaintiff in jail with “criminal charges” without due process of law and valid warrant. Bench warrant # RIM 1116577 is still active. Plaintiff was treated as a dupe and slave, and lost his working ability due to a false “criminal” record. 6. Plaintiff’s wife could not tell her mom about the lost home as her mom invested also in the house. She was in poor health that could not be burden with emotional stress. She will later depend on Plaintiff for the rest of her life. Plaintiff’s wife is also sick and depressed. Plaintiff could not tell relatives in China about he was arrested by unconstitutional actions and color of law for world peace consideration. 7. Due to the financial instability and constant moving, Plaintiff’s family experienced lacking food and without a shelter hardship. His youngest son, Tom, 6 years old, was sick and had seriously injured his head, needing to be stitched, due to Plaintiff’s homeless situation. 8. Therefore, Plaintiff’s family is under physically and emotionally hurt by terrorist-like violence. Plaintiff’s children cannot attend school normally. It brought depression and lack of concentration in school and changes their future.

[-] 1 points by rutgers797 (37) from Wall, NJ 2 years ago
[-] 1 points by fang (2) 2 years ago

who writes this drivel? sounds like communist proaganda from the USSR in the 50s.

[-] 0 points by huevosrancheros (21) 2 years ago

So you don't like Soviet propaganda from the 50s? Maybe you like anti-communist propaganda from the 50s, McCarthyism style from the good ole USA?

[-] 1 points by huevosrancheros (21) 2 years ago

The idea is not to have a group that is separate from the working people we're trying to influence. The Movement will be demonized by the 1% media when the non-violent tactics begin to have it's full effect. Ideological firmness against capitalism and direct action with discipline will help us withstand the media onslaught that is sure to come. There is no need for prankish BlackBloc action. We struggle for and with the 99%.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by ahorsenamedrex (9) 2 years ago

You do realize that breaking a window is not violent. What is wrong with this is that people are so engrained to protect the oppressors that you will blindly protect property. The people who take these steps are not doing this willy-nilly for fun, it's a calculated plan to hit these companies in a real way (monetarily). I would reevaluate what you consider violence and maybe read "How Non-Violence Protects the State" and stop hiding behind the facade that change comes through pacifism. I'd recommend you look up Bhagat Singh as well, the man who was responsible for really freeing India.
Try a little solidarity is all I can say.

[-] -1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

The point is OWS was once strongly distancing itself from the BlackBloc, but it's now embracing their actions as being the ring of revolution.

Something has clearly changed. I'm wondering what.

Why do you think OWS has changed its position in regards to the BlackBloc?

[-] 2 points by nate (48) 2 years ago

Perhaps for similar reasons that the protesters changed their minds in Egypt when the police kept cracking down on them. In fact, you can read the message that Egyptian protesters sent to occupiers back in October here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/25/occupy-movement-tahrir-square-cairo

[-] -3 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

t is not our desire to participate in violence, but it is even less our desire to lose. If we do not resist, actively, when they come to take what we have won back, then we will surely lose. Do not confuse the tactics that we used when we shouted "peaceful" with fetishising nonviolence; if the state had given up immediately we would have been overjoyed, but as they sought to abuse us, beat us, kill us, we knew that there was no other option than to fight back. Had we laid down and allowed ourselves to be arrested, tortured and martyred to "make a point", we would be no less bloodied, beaten and dead. Be prepared to defend these things you have occupied, that you are building, because, after everything else has been taken from us, these reclaimed spaces are so very precious.

I guess that answers my question. This is not non-violence like Gandhi suggests. Perhaps Occupy should stop saying they promote non-violence if they are getting ready to use whatever means they feel they must use. That's fine. I'm only asking that Occupy use the correct terms to define who they are, and what their goals are.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/is-occupy-still-non-violent-or-as-my-prediction-un/


BTW - I don't think Occupy should take its advice from Egyptians. The problems in Arab are totally different than the ones in America. I believe Occupy needs custom solutions for its unique economic, social, and political problems.

[-] 2 points by nate (48) 2 years ago

I'm glad that message from the Egyptians answered your question. Now we will see what happens, I suppose. Good wishes to you.

[-] -1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

Thanks for that link. I had no idea there had been a drastic shift in tactics on the part of Occupy. I'll have to reassess my position in regards to the protest. Personally, I think they shouldn't look to Egypt for answers, but should instead create custom solutions for the unique social, economical, and political problems in American.

When Occupy starts getting more violent, I'll probably try to find another protest or group to support.

Again, thanks for you link. I think it's important that OWS supporters know about these things.

[-] 1 points by ahorsenamedrex (9) 2 years ago

It would be ignorant to say what all these people felt individually about the bloc. The bloc also handles a wide array of positions, not just smashy smashy. They are involved with de-arrests, protecting other protesters and usually the first ones to hand out bandanas soaked with lemon when the gas comes. If a couple of people who are "in charge" want to try and silence dissent and diversity of tactics then they don't realize that it takes all forms to make change. So to be honest I can't say I have followed their stance on the bloc because to me it's just another tactic, the same as marching, squatting, property destruction or anything else.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

I'm still wondering if you know the answer to my previous question.

A few months ago, OWS was always clearly and strongly distancing itself from the BlackBloc in all its official news items that appeared on this site. They never bothered to talk about all the various tactics that the BlackBloc used, but always talked about the violence from this group and stipulated on many occasions that they did not support this violence. There was even discussion on how to remove the BlackBloc from the Oakland general assemblies.

Now, OWS has taken a completely reversed stance. Not only has it stopped distancing itself from the BlackBloc, it calls their actions the ring of revolution.

Why this change?

Is Occupy planning to make it clear that they have changed their tactics?

Was the smoke bomb thrown at the White House planned in a general assembly?

Is the new modus operandi to break the property of others?

I'm not saying this is bad or good. I only want to better understand Occupy's new tactics so that I can decide if I should support them or not.

[-] 0 points by ahorsenamedrex (9) 2 years ago

Did you think that perhaps the writer just wrote what they saw as this is a piece of journalism and not in anyway a call to arms? They might have added a little color in there but it does not seem as if they condoned anything. "The familiar sound of revolution" does not at all say "We at OWS support breaking windows", all it does is lend itself a bit of poetry. It also clearly states that it did cause a "rift amongst the march" so I would say this was center-line journalism with a touch of color.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

Do you like those tactics?

[-] 1 points by ahorsenamedrex (9) 2 years ago

Yes, I fully support the actions taken tonight as well as all other instances of bloc tactics. If you look at the climate of radicalization that is deeply saturating the whole planet it is only logical for North America to finally radicalize itself and push forward to change. I will continue to support diversity of tactics because the only way to not get torn apart in the media is to stick together even when you might not understand or agree with the action at the moment. We need to be a cohesive unit that doesn't falter over tiny things or how can we expect to amass change?

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 2 years ago

i agree with you for once, on this. Working with blackbloc is a very VERY bad idea.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

You really shouldn't drink and post.

[-] -3 points by justhefacts (1275) 2 years ago

"the familiar sound of VANDALISM and LOOTING" rang through the air as [insert reference to some idiot here] smashed through a luxury car dealerships window...."

Surely the good, law abiding, responsible, mature members of OWS quickly grabbed the ones responsible and held them until police could arrive and take them into custody....because OWS isn't "for" destruction of property or violence.....right?

[-] 7 points by FrankilnDeez (8) 2 years ago

I think OWS supports autonomy and through their actions can almost see the argument that sometimes the physical act of breaking the law has symbolic meaning when other moral, legal and ethical codes are routinely violated without justice and accountability by the 1%. Still, those protesters who violently break the law shouldnt be surprised by the police beatdown that is sure to follow, and should maybe think a little bit more long term about whether their actions are helping them achieve their aims, let alone that of the broader movement.

[Removed]