The Occupy Movement

[Zak444]

"The President has the power to seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, call reserve forces amounting to 2 1/2 million men to duty, institute martial law, seize and control all menas of transportation, regulate all private enterprise, restrict travel, and in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all Americans...

http://www.oilempire.us/redalert.html

[Zak444]

THE NEW DANGERS
A Presidential Executive Order, whether Constitutional or not, becomes law simply by its publication in the Federal Registry. Congress is by-passed. Here are just a few Executive Orders that would suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These Executive Orders have been on record for nearly 30 years and could be enacted by the stroke of a Presidential pen:

• EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001 allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.

http://dmc.members.sonic.net/sentinel/gvcon5.html

[Marrk]

The National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601-1651) is a United States federal law passed in 1976 to stop open-ended states of national emergency and formalize the power of Congress to provide certain checks and balances on the emergency powers of the President. The act sets a limit of two years on states of national emergency. It also imposes certain "procedural formalities" on the President when invoking such powers.
The perceived need for the law arose from the scope and number of laws granting special powers to the executive in times of national emergency (or public danger).
At least two constitutional rights are subject to revocation during a state of emergency:
The right of habeas corpus, under Article 1, Section 9;
The right to a grand jury for members of the National Guard when in actual service, under Fifth Amendment.
In addition, many provisions of statutory law are contingent on a state of national emergency, as many as 500 by one count.[1]
It was due in part to concern that a declaration of "emergency" for one purpose should not invoke every possible executive emergency power that Congress in 1976 passed the National Emergencies Act. Among other provisions, this act requires the President to declare formally a national emergency and to specify the statutory authorities to be used under such a declaration.
There were 32 declared national emergencies between 1976 and 2001. [2] Most of these were for the purpose of restricting trade with certain foreign entities under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) (50 U.S.C. 1701-1707).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Emergencies_Act

[Marrk]

Zak, I'm worried. There's only so much of that cool-aid that's good for you.


Seriously, you are citing inflammatory pseudo-statements, not law and statute. You are even citing stuff that hasn't even happened. These are scare tactics, not arguments.

[Zak444]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

This was 1878... long time ago.

The Posse Comitatus Act is an often misunderstood and misquoted United States federal law

The statute only directly addresses the US Army (and is understood to equally apply to the US Air Force as a derivative of the US Army); it does not reference, and thus does not implicitly apply to nor restrict units of the National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States. The Navy and Marine Corps are prohibited by a Department of Defense directive, not by the Act itself.[1][2] The Coast Guard, under the Department of Homeland Security, is exempt from the Act.

On September 26, 2006, President Bush urged Congress to consider revising federal laws so that U.S. armed forces could restore public order and enforce laws in the aftermath of a natural disaster, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

Section 1076 is titled "Use of the Armed Forces in major public emergencies." It provided that:
The President may employ the armed forces... to... restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition... the President determines that... domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order..

[Marrk]

You want to talk about Bush and Katrina? Really?

I give up, Zak. You win. As of today, I am digging a bunker in my back yard. I'm storing up canned beans and boy scout supplies. I have a metal suit made of Reynolds Heavy Duty Aluminum Foil, in case of nuclear attack. I'm in this with you, Zak! It's just you, me, **** Chaney, and Don Rumsfeld. Wait a minute. Rumsfeld is on his billion dollar estate in Taos and Chaney is seeing about a seventh heart transplant. Okay, it's just me and you. But we can do this!

Roger and Out.

[Zak444]

The point is that the cards are in place for martial law. They aren't going to sit by and let the civilians overthrow them. You may think otherwise.

Don't get me wrong an overthrow may be possible (who knows what kind of technology they have now that is secret though), but it will not be easy. And the aftermath would be a state of nature with everyone competing for resources.

[Dimman]

Are they focused enough on a SINGLE achievable goal? Do they have enough support from the masses they claim to represent? Is the long inaction and public impression that they are hippy communists creating a situation where a wedge is being driven between the Occupy movement(s) and moderates they might share some of its views?

In Vancouver it should be called Occuparody. They are a bunch of disorganized welfare fools that are just using it to complain about their pet protests.

And do drugs in tents.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Tra...471/story.html

[Marrk]

^^For the moment, they seem to be using the tactic of remaining "unfocused" as a way to dodge co-optation, attack and "spin" by conventional political forces. Occupy refuses to "play their game," as it were. Same with their leadership. If they named who their leader was (assuming they had one, which they don't), think how easy it would be for the media to smear and distract. For example, Herman Cain is accused of sexually harassing women, and that accusation might be enough to derail his presidential candidacy. With smear tactics, you discredit and destroy the movement without ever addressing a substantive issue.

With regard to "hippies" and people doing drugs, etc., as depicted in the media, one has to be careful about media presentations and representations of Occupy. It is easy for outlets like Fox and CNN to highlight certain specifics, in order to portray Occupy as a bunch of clowns. But let's not forget that the so-called liberal media in the U.S. is, in fact, a set of major corporations with vested interests. Many Occupy-ers are (apparently) young, educated, serious people, with college and graduate degrees. In sum, I think we need more/better intel.


P.S. Why is everyone so down on hippies? What's so funny about peace, love and understanding?

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by Marrk

^^For the moment, they seem to be using the tactic of remaining "unfocused" as a way to dodge co-optation, attack and "spin" by conventional political forces. Occupy refuses to "play their game," as it were. Same with their leadership. If they named who their leader was (assuming they had one, which they don't), think how easy it would be for the media to smear and distract. For example, Herman Cain is accused of sexually harassing women, and that accusation might be enough to derail his presidential candidacy. With smear tactics, you discredit and destroy the movement without ever addressing a substantive issue.

With regard to "hippies" and people doing drugs, etc., as depicted in the media, one has to be careful about media presentations and representations of Occupy. It is easy for outlets like Fox and CNN to highlight certain specifics, in order to portray Occupy as a bunch of clowns. But let's not forget that the so-called liberal media in the U.S. is, in fact, a set of major corporations with vested interests. Many Occupy-ers are (apparently) young, educated, serious people, with college and graduate degrees. In sum, I think we need more/better intel.


P.S. Why is everyone so down on hippies? What's so funny about peace, love and understanding?

In this case it is legitimate, I took a wander through the tent city here a few weeks ago. Pathetic. Everyone was just full of self-righteousness about how they were right and the government was wrong, but no one wanted to work to real solutions. In truth, the Vancouver Occuparody seems to have little to do with the rest of the movement. (Posters about Native rights, fish-farming, anti-police, 'healing' tent, legalizing pot, expansion of our 'legal' medically supervised heroin injection site to include medically supervised crack-smoking...)

The issue with organization is public support. If they appear disorganized, the public thinks they are just a bunch of whiners that isn't doing anything that will actually work towards a solution. This divides them from the majority of the public.

If they are disorganized, they themselves can be divided and conquered.

I don't think the government is worried at all.

[Marrk]

Originally Posted by Dimman

In this case it is legitimate, I took a wander through the tent city here a few weeks ago. Pathetic. Everyone was just full of self-righteousness about how they were right and the government was wrong, but no one wanted to work to real solutions. In truth, the Vancouver Occuparody seems to have little to do with the rest of the movement. (Posters about Native rights, fish-farming, anti-police, 'healing' tent, legalizing pot, expansion of our 'legal' medically supervised heroin injection site to include medically supervised crack-smoking...)

The issue with organization is public support. If they appear disorganized, the public thinks they are just a bunch of whiners that isn't doing anything that will actually work towards a solution. This divides them from the majority of the public.

If they are disorganized, they themselves can be divided and conquered.

I don't think the government is worried at all.

You may have a point. I'm certainly not an expert, and I have no first- or second-hand knowledge of the situation in Canada.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by Marrk

You may have a point. I'm certainly not an expert, and I have no first- or second-hand knowledge of the situation in Canada.

Why isn't Occupy protesting Walmart or some other store like that? It's a combination of what they are worried about. A corporate entity making billions off the middle class, reducing American economic strength by exporting jobs, and the government looks the other way.

The difficulty is, of course, that the public that desires the low prices is complicit and they themselves are somewhat responsible for their own situation (less decent manufacturing jobs) by shopping there.

[Marrk]

Originally Posted by Dimman

Why isn't Occupy protesting Walmart or some other store like that? It's a combination of what they are worried about. A corporate entity making billions off the middle class, reducing American economic strength by exporting jobs, and the government looks the other way.

The difficulty is, of course, that the public that desires the low prices is complicit and they themselves are somewhat responsible for their own situation (less decent manufacturing jobs) by shopping there.

Isn't Walmart part of "Wall Street"?


I don't think Occupy is against low prices. Or profit. Or millionaires, per se. They are against an unfair situation, wherein the very few are exploiting the rest into extinction. Capitalism isn't even capitalism anymore. It's not even monopoly-ism. It's gotten weirder than that. Walmart is destroying every retailer except Walmart. In fact, they've gotten so big, they can start to think about taking over other industries, like healthcare.

People want a chance to make a living and have a life. Nobody's going to be having a life in, say, Greece, for a few generations.

[serialk11r]

That's what they think, they think very few (aka "the 1%") are exploiting the rest. But I don't think this is the case. The root of the problem is the government sellout. When the opportunity to pay off legislators to turn laws in one's favor arises, it is inevitable that some will take that opportunity. To me it is not the fault of corporations and corrupt organizations that exploit this, they are simply taking care of themselves, in a morally questionable way. It is the corrupt regulators and legislators who create the opportunities for corruption.

So I say, if you're going to occupy something, go occupy DC, not Wall Street.