Occupy Everywhere - Sept 17th - Day of Rage Against Wall Street and what it stands for!

[Albert Doyle]

There's a basic thing that a government that sends neo-Homeland robo cops in military gear against citizens with a just democratic cause isn't a government that represents them.

[Peter Lemkin]

The West Coast Port Closing Action is now underway. Heavy, heavy police presence with the heavy equipment. In LA they threatened the demonstrators with being bitten by police dogs along with the usual shite. They have LRADs there too. Hard to tell, so early and in such bad rainy weather which ports are closed and which not. Oakland is for now. Portland is. Parts of LAs ports are. Others, not sure. Will report on days actions later. Peace.

[Peter Lemkin]

Occupy the Machine Stop the 1%, Literally

Our Bodies Will Be Our Demand

Open Letter to the Occupy Movement

Photo Credit: Not a DGR Action. Earth First and Rising Tide blockaded a gas-fired power plant construction site in Palm Beach County, Florida in 2008. http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2008/02/1...-arrested/

Click here to download this document as a pamphlet to distribute anywhere.

The Occupy Movement is beautiful. We support it and though we are small, we are participating all over the country. We invite all occupiers to read, give feedback, and if you feel moved to do so to present this at a General Assembly or committee meeting near you.

We invite you to imagine, as many of you already probably have, if thousands of people occupied local refineries, roads, ports, oil and mining extraction sites, etc. in other words, imagine if people occupied the locations where the 1% destroy the land and exploit humans, all for profit.

Imagine their stock prices falling, their cash flow being interrupted, their ability to get loans and/or expand "production" a euphemism for converting living beings into dead products finished.

Imagine if we were able to stop them, stop the 1%. Literally. Not symbolically.
We think it can be done if we all do it together. We think it can be done if we all figure out how to do it and if we are willing to make the necessary sacrifices, together.

Here's one way we could start:

Though we are all part of the 99%, not all of us are impacted the same way.

First and foremost we recognize that nonindigenous people in the US are occupying stolen land in an ongoing genocide that has lasted for centuries.

We affirm our responsibility to stand with indigenous communities who want support, to risk our lives, and give everything we can to protect the land without which none of us have anything.

We also recognize and stand in solidarity with communities of people of color who are also disproportionately impacted by environmental racism, capitalism, and a system of white supremacy.

We recognize that women combat a system of sexism and patriarchy, and we commit to supporting the struggle for gender equality, which is the basis of equality for all.

Our focus will be to stand in solidarity with local indigenous communities, people of color communities, and women in struggleask if they would like support and what that support would look like, and share some version of this overall strategy.

Then, based on this information and in collaboration with local communities if all agree, each Occupy General Assembly would decide what they want to target. Or they would call on people to form local affinity groups and those groups would decide the local targets on which they would focus.

Many local affinity groups could conceivably attempt to occupy multiple targets. Strategically, however, it will likely be more successful if occupiers focus on one or two major targets such as Tar Sands refineries, fracking, coal plants etc. The idea is that if we can successfully shut down a few major targets all over the country, one or two targets per region, people more broadly will see the power they all have and then more targets can be taken on.

To be clear, what we're envisioning here would mean a massive escalation. It would mean hundreds of thousands of people all over the country leaving behind school, jobs, family, and comfort, to really go for it. To not settle for less than victory. To leave behind symbolic action for good.

One obstacle to making this happen, however, is that as soon as we announce where we would occupy, they would come and would likely remove us immediately, especially if we don't have enough people there. They won't want the 1% to lose a damn penny. So, we don't tell them where we're going ahead of time. But if we don't say where we're going ahead of time, then we can't get people out by the thousands and we're gonna need thousands of people to make this work.

So, here's an idea: We announce, big time, that some of us are planning on occupying the sites of direct exploitation and destruction. And we say that we'll need as many of the people who love the Occupy Movement and who are sick and tired of being sick and tired, to come out decisively and to not plan on going home for as long as it takes.

We'd ask all those people to start preparing right away, have their stuff packed, tents, food, money, and a plan for how they can participate and be able to stay for as long as it takes (we'd encourage people to ask their community to support them so they could go for as long it takes) so that as soon as the local Occupy groups would announce targets, perhaps through text messages and other means, those people would be ready to go to the targets at a moment's notice. This kind of tactic has been used successfully in the past to get lots of people to a location for a blockade while keeping the cops on the run and always one step behind. If we can get enough people to the different locations before the state gets there, we have a chance at holding it until even more people can come.

If there are enough of us who are willing to make the necessary commitment and sacrifice, we believe we need nothing more than our bodies, community support, and the will to keep going to:

Occupy the Machine Stop the 1%, Literally

Here are some other points that could be helpful:

1) Start Together The key as we see it would be to start on the same day so that they're overwhelmed with people going to different locations. They may seem all-powerful sometimes, but they can't be everywhere at once.

2) Sustained Blockades this would mean doing what Occupy does so well, stay, day after day after day after day… as long as we can go. For every person they drag away to jail, we must bring ten more to replace them every day. We will cost them as much money as we can with our bodies and our determination. Blockaders will blockade both inside and outside of targets when possible. And they will blockade roads and ports to stop supply lines.

3) Demonstrators/Community Encampments for those who cannot blockade, the role of the community will be crucial. Demonstrators encamped on the target's land or nearby will provide support to the blockaders and will be crucial to success.

4) Building Communities of Nonviolent Resistance For those involved in this who lack a strong, unified community, we must very deliberately build the concrete infrastructure for a community of resistance to support these struggles. This is already happening in many ways. But a systematic approach to creating networks of people who are devoted to supporting occupiers could be the key to success. This will mean legal defense funds and a network of lawyers who will work pro bono or for a reduced fee. This will also mean arranging transition housing places for people to stay after they are released if they are jailed for long periods of time. It will mean relentless fundraising so that those who lose their jobs, take significant time off from work, or who go to prison for long periods will have funds to support themselves and provide for their families. It will mean creating free medical care networks so that people in the movement will have access to health care. It will mean creating food networks to provide food for those who are protesting day after day, and for families of those who are imprisoned or lose their jobs. It will mean creating networks of childcare. It will mean creating a transportation network, including carpools, donations of frequent flyer miles, movement cars and vans, caravans, and buses, to be available for the kind of sustained civil disobedience actions we will need. And last and most important it will mean simple companionship the incalculable gift of camaraderie and friendship, the healing nature of laughter and hugs, the deliberate creation of a network of communities of love spread far and wide healers, body workers, artists, musicians, actors, facilitators, counselors, those called by spirit, nonviolent communicators, restorative justice facilitators all of us will be needed to see us all through the hard times that will come if we do this kind of sustained direct action.

5) Jail Solidarity rather than trying to construct civil disobedience actions so people spend the least amount of time in jail and cooperate with the police and court system to the full extent, we will follow the lead of those who have come before us. Instead, those who can, will use jail solidarity as a tactic. Jail solidarity means that those who get arrested will not bring identification with them, won't give their name, and will not cooperate while in jail. As more and more people are arrested, the jailers and those they protect will not know what to do. At first they will threaten, try to divide, offer deals, or even beat people or put them in solitary confinement to break their wills. But those who will get arrested will know this going in and will commit to maintaining their solidarity. They can't jail us all and if we don't cooperate the system will not work, if there are thousands of us. Their actions will further highlight the illegitimacy and cruelty of this system that lets the CEO of BP walk free but will jail and do worse to those who are only trying to protect life. Jail solidarity combined with more arrests, demonstrations, encampments, community involvement, and a network of communities of nonviolent resistance offering material support are unstoppable.

6) Escalation: A Promise Too often when we don't succeed, we don't escalate. Too often when they escalate their attacks against the planet and all living beings, we don't escalate. (Have you noticed that all of our victories are temporary and defensive, and all our losses permanent and offensive?) No more. If our actions do not succeed, we promise to escalate. We will regroup, reorganize, and go for more than before, risking more and holding nothing back. We promise they will lose more money and we will get stronger and fight harder.

This is our chance. We can use our energy and love to stop the 1% who are literally killing us, stealing from us, and destroying the only home we have. Our bodies will be our demands. And with our bodies, we will stop the 1% together, permanently.

These are just thoughts. Not a plan. But we hope it's the start of a conversation about how we can do some version of this. The 1% don't really own or control anything. They do what they do because they have guns and we allow them to. But that can all change.

With love and resistance,

Deep Green Resistance Movementhttp://deepgreenresistance.org/occupythemachine/http://deepgreenresistance.org/occupythemachine/http://deepgreenresistance.org/occupythemachine/

[Peter Lemkin]

About the weirdest thing I've seen so far during OWS protests just occurred in Houston. Six protesters lay down in the road to stop trucks entering the port. The Police surrounded them and did NOTHING for over an hour. Then they carried a large red inflatable tent over them, so that no one could see what was happening inside. People were freaking. One man came and let some gas into the tent [into the tent itself or the air in the tent, I can't say]. About an hour later they deflated the tent and the protesters were gone...vanished. I'm sure I'll find a video of it and post. Out of a horror movie - whatever happened....!

Here is the long and strange video.... http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/19108308

[Magda Hassan]

So strange. Obviously some thing to hide. Like criminals slinking around in the dark. What is the follow up on those under the tent?

[Ed Jewett]

I second the motion for follow-up.

[Albert Doyle]

Peter, you made that sound like they were gassed. That's a fireman's crash tent designed to shield the public from viewing victims with horrific injuries. That gas canister was used to inflate the structure. The protesters were seen out the other side at the end sitting down and handcuffed.

It's probably illegal because of lack of transparency.

[Peter Lemkin]

Peter, you made that sound like they were gassed. That's a fireman's crash tent designed to shield the public from viewing victims with horrific injuries. That gas canister was used to inflate the structure. The protesters were seen out the other side at the end sitting down and handcuffed.

It's probably illegal because of lack of transparency.

As it happened live, the crowd is chanting "what do you have to hide?"; then, the reaction of almost all there when the guy put the tank connector on was that this was some kind of tear gas or similar....only much later most realized it was likely to inflate the tent. It had a very sinister nature, as these protestors were simply lying there chanting, not chained together, no weapons, nothing. Before they brought it over they tried to get the livestreamer to stop. The most frightening thing about doing things like that is ANYTHING could happen under the tent - unseen by the public. Most of the police had their names and badges covered, I might note. They certainly were not into 'transparency'. I still find it very sinister, totally unnecessary and a frightening trend. As the livestreamer was distracted by the policewoman trying to get her to stop, and that was when they were removed, most who were there did NOT see them sitting across the street, and fewer watching. Comments on chat was about what had happened to them and did they just vanish. I hope we see NO MORE of those kinds of tents used to make arrests!

[Peter Lemkin]

Lately we've been hearing some strong words from President Obama about Wall Street crime. But when the cameras and lights aren't around, his administration's been working feverishly to protect bankers from state law enforcement officials.

There are conscientious state attorneys general who believe the law applies to everyone. While they're working to bring justice to Wall Street, White House officials are obstructing them by pushing a sweetheart deal with the banks that would end their investigations and prevent them from prosecuting crooked bankers.

If more people knew what was happening, the White House would be flooded with calls and emails demanding that it stop protecting Wall Street.

It's still not too late for that.

The Evidence

The evidence for Wall Street's criminality is overwhelming. The big banks have already signed consent decrees and other documents in response to well-documented charges of perjury and filing of false documents; illegal foreclosures; criminal solicitation through the repeated use of law firms and foreclosure servicers known to have violated the law; investor fraud; and other major crimes.

Wall Street's lawbreaking crashed the economy, left millions of people jobless, and cost the world's economy trillions of dollars in lost wealth. People have been illegally evicted, and millions were deceived into borrowing money for real estate whose value had been artificially inflated through illegal means, and who now owe that money to the same bankers who committed the crimes.

But none of the criminals have gone to jailand they're still collecting on those loans.

The Resistance

The responsibility for prosecuting crooked bankers belongs to both the Justice Department and the attorneys general who serve as their states' chief law enforcement officers. AGs for all fifty states were brought together to negotiate with the banks over Wall Street mortgage fraud, and quickly came under intense pressure from the administration and corporate interests. Under the leadership of self-serving Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, the group began to discuss a White House-backed deal that would protect criminal bankers from prosecution and let the banks settle for pennies on the dollar.

The first AG to reject the deal was New York's Eric Schneiderman, whose jurisdiction includes Wall Street. Schneiderman had been pursuing criminal investigations and asked the group not to accept any agreement that would shut them down before all the evidence was in. He immediately came in for some heavy arm-twisting from Obama officials like HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan and top people at the Justice Departmentthe same Justice Department that has refused to prosecute a single banker for criminal fraud, and can only offer weak and implausible excuses for its failure to do so.

Most news sources are funded by corporations and investors. Their goal is to drive people to advertisers while pushing the corporate agenda. NationofChange is a 501©3 organization funded almost 100% from its readersyou! Our only accountability is to the public.

Ohio's Miller immediately removed Schneiderman from the committee leading negotiations for the 50-member AG group, despite his state's key role in prosecuting bank fraud. That move was either designed to remove Schneiderman from the room while negotiating with (and for) the banks, or it was Miller's petty way of saying "you can't sit with us in the school cafeteria anymore." Maybe it was both.

Schneiderman nevertheless soldiered on, apparently undeterred by either the administration's arm-twisting or Miller's "you are so not hanging with us, dude" tactics.

Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway soon stepped up and backed Schneiderman, saying "There should be absolutely no criminal or civil immunity given to banks for activity that has not yet been investigated." Delaware's Beau Biden also joined with Schneiderman, and that's important. Many New York-based companies, including my ex-employer AIG, are legally incorporated in Delaware to take advantage of that state's favorable corporate tax policies. (Biden's also resisting the administration that his dad serves as vice president, which must make for interesting dinner table conversations at holiday time.)

Massachusetts AG Martha Coakley has sued five banks for allegedly seizing private property illegally. And the AGs of California and Nevada, Kamala Harris and Catherine Cortez Masto, have announced a joint investigation of the massive bank mortgage activity in their states.

These AGs are fighting corporate influence in order to uphold the law. They're on the right side of this fight. Look who's not.

The Deal

For reasons known only to themselves, officials in the Obama administration have spent more than a year trying to undercut these AGs. They're pushing a deal that would end their investigations before they're even completed and would immunize bankers from criminal prosecution.

Like the Security and Exchange Commission's notorious sweetheart deals, this Obama-backed settlement would let banks buy their way out of prosecution with a slap-on-the-wrist settlement of $20 billion-$25 billion. It would also create a phony refinancing program to make it look as if banks are doing something about the tragedies they've created by promising to refinance "as many as" 300,000 underwater mortgages (meaning the real number could be much smaller than that).

It's one more get-out-of-jail-free card for criminals on Wall Street.

The Damage

The social damage from this deal would be enormous. Consider:

It reinforces criminal behavior: Once again crooked bankers would go unpunished. That would guarantee they'll commit these kinds of crimes again and again, knowing they'll never pay for it with their time or their money. Thanks to other soft deals like this one, big bank executives have already promised to stop their crimes (while "neither admitting nor denying wrongdoing") -- and then repeated them again and again, 51 times!

The victims will pay for the crimes: Bankers defrauded their own investors by concealing their own true financial picture. The money paid in this settlement deal will be paid, not by the lawbreaking bankers who got rich off their own crimes, but by the very same shareholders they defrauded.

It places the perps in charge of their own restitution: The refinancing program (for "as many as" 300,000 homeowners) will be run by the banks themselves. The last administration program designed to 'help' homeowners became a tool for banks to rip them off even more. Mortgage servicers misstated their figures in that program as much as 80 percent of the time. Bankers used it to extract more money from homeowners, then foreclosed on them anyway (often with false documents or inaccurate figures) while the Administration looked the other way.
The settlement amount is a tiny fraction of the harm caused: There are 11.1 million underwater mortgages. Homeowners still owe the banks $750 billion for housing value that has evaporated. The banks artificially pumped out real estate values, these homeowners borrowed against the inflated prices, the housing market crashedand they're left holding the bag while bankers are holding their bonuses. And they still owe the banks all that money.

It undermines the fabric of social trust: This deal reinforces the message that there's one code of justice for the rich and powerful and another for everyone else. And that government works for the rich and powerful, while the rest of us are on our own.

The Letter

We should be grateful for the courage and determination of these AGs. They need and deserve the public's recognition and support. Voters need to tell the president that it's wrong and unacceptable to push for a bank-friendly deal and undermine these public servants.

What's your note to the White House going to say? Mine will go something like this:

Dear Mr. President:That was one terrific speech you gave in Kansas the other day. It was great when you promised to make sure that "penalties count" for bankers. And you were absolutely right when you said that "Wall Street firms (keep) violating major anti-fraud laws because the penalties are too weak and there's no price for being a repeat offender."

If you believe that, why is your administration working so hard to protect bankers from state law? I admire Eric Schneiderman, Beau Biden, Jack Conway, Martha Coakley, Kamala Harris, and Catherine Cortez Masto. Why is your staff pressuring them to stop investigating these crimes and let bankers off the hook?

If you meant what you said, Mr. President, please tell your staff to back off and let these good people do the jobs they were elected to do.

Mr. President, you said in Kansas that "a strong middle class can only exist in an economy where everyone plays by the same rules, from Wall Street to Main Street." So why is your administration trying to stop the states from enforcing those rules?

You were right when you said that "there is a deficit of trust between Main Street and Wall Street." Please restore and protect the trust between those streets - and with Pennsylvania Avenue - by directing your administration to stop pushing this corrupt deal and support attorneys general Schneiderman, Biden, Conway, Coakley, Harris, and Masto.

Respectfully yours,

A Voter

[Peter Lemkin]

Rocky Anderson, longtime Salt Lake City Mayor has announced his candidacy for President on a new Justice Party ticket. I must admit, his beliefs [if true] are quite progressive. He also gave a TOTAL endorsement to the Occupy Movement and said he saw no points of divergence in what they are calling for and what he is calling for. I'm not lining up and signing up for Anderson, but it is an interesting turn of events, in the first time in over 100 years I think a third party candidate could actually win [if the votes are counted fairly....which, I know, is asking much]. Stay tuned.
Personally, I'd like to see several 'third parties' join together this election to defeat the RepubiDems. How that would work out with assignments of Offices [Pres, V.P., others] I don't know, all I know is the old system is not worth a damn, and until we have a new one, we need some very out of the box thinking and action. Ideally, I'd like to see the next electoral period of four years be transitional ones, during which a People's new Constitutional Congress would re-write the Constitution and set up something more democratic, equal, sustainable, legal, peaceful and exclude money in politics, private banks/ultra-rich, etc. running the country via domestic and foreign policy [as well as buying politicians and media]; and corporations fully civilly and criminally accountable for their actions, not allowed to grow too large, and not granted any of the rights of persons, etc. A very tall order...but anything less might be too little, too late.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMY GOODMAN: A new political party has entered the fray as an alternative to Democrats and Republicans ahead of the 2012 elections. On Monday, the Justice Party formally kicked off its formation with an event in Washington, D.C. Former Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson will run for president on the Justice Party ticket.

Although hailing from a solidly red state, Rocky Anderson has been known as one of the most progressive mayors of any major U.S. city in recent years. During his two mayoral terms from 2000 to 2008, Anderson was an outspoken champion of LGBT rights, environmental sustainability and the antiwar movement in opposition to the war in Iraq.

Vowing to fight the influence of money over politics, Anderson kicked off his campaign Monday with a pledge to limit individual donations to $100 a person. He and the Justice Party say they hope to build a grassroots movement heading into the November 2012 elections.

To discuss his campaign, Rocky Anderson joins us from Washington, D.C.

Welcome to Democracy Now!, Rocky Anderson. Why have you launched this party and a presidential bid?

ROCKY ANDERSON: Good morning, Amy.

We launched the Justice Party because the entire system is so corrupt. It's so diseased. We know that the public interest is not being served by anyone in the system right now, particularly the two dominant parties who have sustained this corrupt system and who are sustained by it.

AMY GOODMAN: Third party, what does that mean now? How exactly will you run for president?

ROCKY ANDERSON: Well, actually, I consider this a second party. The Republican-Democratic parties havealthough they're at an impasse, much to the detriment of the American people, on some issues, they really, through their collusion, have brought this country to its knees economically. Without the Democrats colluding with the Republicans, we would not have engaged in an illegal, aggressive war against Iraq. We've seen Democrats and Republicans together granting retroactive immunity to the telecom companies. Then-Senator Obama promised this nation, before the primary, before he won the Democratic primary for the presidency, that he would join a filibuster against telecom company immunity. And then, as soon as he won the nomination, of course, he not only didn'the didn't back offonly back off on his promise to join a filibuster, he voted for the legislation. Who in this country gets Congress to grant them retroactive immunity for committing clearly felonious acts?

And then, now we see the same thing. He comes into office, and he says, "Let's look forward, not backwards," when it comes to war criminals, people who have engaged in torture, clearly in violation not only of international law, but domestic law. So, we have this two-tiered system of government. Not only a two-tiered system in terms of our economy, with very few privileged people cleaning up while the rest of us are suffering in so many dramatic ways because of the economic upheaval, but we have this special class of people who aren't even held accountable under the law. And all three branches of government are part of this. The courts allow the executive branch to come in, and they dismiss cases on the basis of the subversive state secrets doctrine, where the executive branch gets to determine whether these cases go forwardvictims of torture, people who are challenging illegal surveillance programs by the government. Amy, this is unprecedented in this nation and so completely contrary to the notion of an equal justice system.

AMY GOODMAN: President Obama delivered a widely discussed speech in Kansas last week that many saw as an overture to the Occupy movement and its opposition to corporate dominance of the U.S. economy. In what was widely described as a preview of his re-election campaign, Obama positioned himself as a defender of working-class Americans versus Republicans who favor the wealthy.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: There are some who seem to be suffering from a kind of collective amnesia. After all that's happened, after the worst economic crisis, the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, they want to return to the same practices that got us into this mess. In fact, they want to go back to the same policies that stacked the deck against middle-class Americans for way too many years. And their philosophy is simple: we are better off when everybody is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules. I am here to say they are wrong.

AMY GOODMAN: That was President Obama. Former Salt Lake City mayor, now presidential candidate, Rocky Anderson, your response?

ROCKY ANDERSON: Well, it's total hypocrisy. President Obama received more money from Wall Street than any other candidate has ever received in a presidential or any other election campaign. And he surrounded himself with all these alumni from Goldman Sachs. Not one person, Amy, has spent one day in prison as a result of the massive financial fraud that we know took place by these Wall Street firms, and the people that work for them, that did so much damage to the American people. All any of us have to do is look at our pension plans, our 401(k) accounts, and we can see the direct impacts of this economic disaster, brought to us through, by and large, these criminal acts committed by these Wall Street firms and their employees. And not one of them has been brought to justice under the Obama administration.

When they make these campaign contributions, they get a very good return on their investment. But it's no different, really, than the polluting industries making their campaign contributions, and then the EPA wanting to impose more strict ozone standards, and President Obama basically vetoing the EPA. We know that's not in the public interest. President Obama has to know that's not in the public interest. He's serving the interest of those polluting industries. That's why we don't have real healthcare reform in this country. We'd have a universal healthcare system like the restevery other nation in the industrialized world, were it not for the corrupting influence of the money flowing in from the medical insurance industry. So, that's whatthe failure, in terms of every major public policy issue, to serve the public interest can be attributed to that corrupting influence of money. Just follow the money, and you'll see why Congress and the White House are pursuing these policies that are so inimical to the interest of the American people.

AMY GOODMAN: We recently ran a headline that shows President Obama continues to pull in huge donations from the financial sector, with more money from Wall Street this year than all other Republican presidential candidates combined. According to the Washington Post, he raised a total of $15.6 million from banks and other financial firms, with nearly $12 million of that going to the Democratic National Committee. Republican front-runner Mitt Romney has raised less than half that much from Wall Street, around seven-and-a-half million. A top banking executive and Obama fundraiser told the Washington Post reports of Wall Street antagonism toward Obama "are exaggerated and overblown ... [but] it probably helps from a political perspective if he's not seen as a Wall Street guy." Rocky Anderson, that was from October.

ROCKY ANDERSON: Well, and it's been evident from the very beginning that as long as people are not being held accountable under the law, as long as there are not sanctions, as long as we continue having banks that are considered by these regulators, who, by the way, are these Wall Street alumni who end up going back to Wall Street and raking in millions of dollarsbut when they get to decide that these banks are too large to fail, we're just setting ourselves up for another major economic disaster. We need a party. We need candidates. We need people in public office who are pledged not to just represent the people's interest in the same system, but to change the system and get the corrupting influence of corporate and other concentrated wealth out of our electoral system and out of our system of governance.

AMY GOODMAN: So what does it mean to run for president exactly? I mean, specifically, technically, practically, what are you going to do around the country? How is your name registered? How is the Justice Party registered? How did you even come up with the name of the Justice Party?

ROCKY ANDERSON: Well, I registered with the Federal Election Commission, the Justice Party. And we did a lot of vetting over the name, probably took too long to do that, but we got a lot of input from all over the country. And it seemed that the notion of justiceeconomic justice, social justice, environmental justicethat's what the people in this country want. They want an equal playing field. They want the laws to apply to everyone equally. And they don't want our Congress and our president simply serving the interests of the economic aristocracy in this country any longer.

Amy, there is a greater economic disparity between the very wealthy and the rest of us in this country, greater than at any time since the 1920s. And we need to get things back to the point where we're building up a strong middle class. You know, when you hear about Newt Gingrich proposing that we give these massive tax favors, once again, to the very wealthiest, and not giving a break to the middle class and the poor in this country, thatit's an obscenity. The loss of revenues from the Bush tax cuts, which have been perpetuated now both between the Republican and Democratic parties, it's been devastating to our economy. It's been devastating to our budget. And the next generationit's like we've taken out this credit card in the name of our children and just ran it up recklessly, not bringing in the revenues to help pay it down. We're paying more in interest paymentstotal wastemore in interest payments every year on the accumulated debt than it takes to run 13 departments of the federal government. We can do much better than this as a country. And we, as a people, need to understand, we can do this from the bottom up.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to

ROCKY ANDERSON: So, what does it mean to run for president? We're going to do this very differently. It's going to be through a grassroots movement. We're going to use social media. If other nations can carry on their revolutions and bring in a complete change of government through that kind of grassroots organizing and use of social media, how democratizing, how amazing is that? Those are the kinds of things we're going to be doing. And we'll show that that's how we can win elections, by appealing to the people on the streets, people who are impacted every single day by this failure in terms of public policy at both the congressional level and in the White House.

AMY GOODMAN: I asked you about the Democrat, President Obama. What about the Republicans? For example, you'd be squaring off against a former political backer, in Republican hopeful Mitt Romney. You both worked together on the 2002 Winter Olympics. You recorded then a campaign ad backing Romney's gubernatorial run in Massachusetts. He returned the favor the following year when you sought re-election as Salt Lake City mayor.

ROCKY ANDERSON: Well, that was that Mitt Romney. It's a very different Mitt Romney, of course, who's running for the Republican nomination for president of the United States. He's changed his position on so many issues. You and I have talked about that in the past. I was very fond of Mitt and his wife, and we did great work together through the Olympics. I have a lot of regard for the man's abilities. But you really have to wonder when somebody is willing to change his views on so many things and then pretend as if that didn't happen, because the fact is, he ishe's gone far, far to the right on so many of these issues. I mean, Mitt Romney, last time he ran for president, talked about doubling the size of Guantánamo? That is not the Mitt Romney I knew. And then, of course, you get to the issues like choice, stem cell research, rights for gays and lesbians. It's a completely different Mitt Romney running for president now than ran for the governorship of Massachusetts

AMY GOODMAN: Explainexplain on the issue, for example, of

ROCKY ANDERSON: or he never would have won that office.

AMY GOODMAN: Rocky, explain on the issue of abortion.

ROCKY ANDERSON: Well, Mitt Romney, when he was running for governor, said that he thought that Roe v. Wade was basically the right result, and that ought to be the end of the discussion. He told me that privately. And that was howyou're not going to runyou're not going to win a race for governor of Massachusetts unless you take stands like that, and that's how he won that office. And now, of course, he's anti-choice, to please, I think, the Tea Party faction of the Republican Party.

AMY GOODMAN: Let's talk about the environment. Mitt Romney has taken a fair amount of criticism for an apparent flip-flop on global warming. This is Romney speaking in June, then four months later in October.

MITT ROMNEY: I believe, based on what I read, that the world is getting warmer. And number two, I believe that humans contribute to that. And so, I think it's important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and the global warming that you're seeing.

My view is that we don't know what's causing climate change on this planet, and the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try and reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Mitt Romney, and that was Mitt Romney. Rocky Anderson?

ROCKY ANDERSON: And actually, he did that before, when he was governor. He talked about the dangers of climate change, how he was going to join up with other states in this regional compact and to put in a cap-and-trade system. It was called RGGI. And then, when the rest of the states were ready to go with it, he backed away from it. And I think it was clearly for the basest political kinds of reasons. So he's doing it again. I mean, when he made his first statement, that was the real Mitt Romney coming out. He knows what the science is. He knows the dangers of climate change. But these people who are willing to ignore the catastrophic consequences of climate change in order to get elected, rather than providing the leadership that we as a nation need and that the international community needs, I think it's unconscionable. And once again, that's where we see our government completely failing the people, not only of this nation, but people around the world. And it's because of the corrupting influence of the fossil fuel industry, the coal, oil and gas companies that pour so much money into these campaigns, and impacting what Congress does and now what the White House is doing.

AMY GOODMAN: Let me ask you about Newt Gingrich, who's

ROCKY ANDERSON: We saw President Obama

AMY GOODMAN: Let me ask you about

ROCKY ANDERSON: back off temporarily

AMY GOODMAN: about Newt Gingrich

ROCKY ANDERSON: Go ahead.

AMY GOODMAN: who's also changed his stance on climate change, even appearing in a 2008 ad with then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection. Appearing last month on Fox News, he renounced his appearance in the ad, calling it "the dumbest single thing I've ever done," and saying, "I'm not sure global warming is happening."

STEVE HAYES: Mr. Speaker, I want to stick with energy policy and play a clip from an ad that you starred in just a couple years ago.

REP. NANCY PELOSI: We don't always see eye to eye, do we, Newt?

NEWT GINGRICH: No, but we do agree our country must take action to address climate change.

REP. NANCY PELOSI: We need cleaner forms of energy, and we need them fast.

STEVE HAYES: That was a striking ad for me.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Newt Gingrich. Your thoughts?

ROCKY ANDERSON: He's doing the same thing. These politicians are not leaders. They're being led around by the polls. They're being led around by the political considerations. I was mayor of Salt Lake City, the capital of probably the most conservative state in the country. And, Amy, when I was there, we reduced greenhouse gas emissions from city operations by 31 percent in three years. I went around the country and spoke in other nations about best practices, the dangers of climate change, how we all need to come together. I spoke at meetings at three of the United Nations COP meetings, Conference of the Parties meetings, about climate change and what the solutions are and how we can all contribute to them. I've been working at this for so many years, and I've stayed entirely consistent. You see these people bouncing back and forth. They're unrecognizable from one moment to another. And it's because of the basest political considerations. How are they to be trusted? And in the end, how is the public interest going to be served, when they're taking a look at nothing but the polls, rather than what needs to be done

AMY GOODMAN: Rocky Anderson, why not

ROCKY ANDERSON: to move our nation forward?

AMY GOODMAN: Why not work with, for example, the Green Party?

ROCKY ANDERSON: Well, I think the Green Party, they have a lot of great people. They have a good platform. But I think there are some organizational problems. I think they're also perceived as being sort of a sliver of just the left in this country. We are awe're attracting a multi-partisan group of people. We've been contacted by Republicans, Libertarians, Democrats, people across the political spectrum that have just had enough. They know that there's got to be another way.

We talk about fiscal responsibility. And, Amy, it's always the poor, the most vulnerable in our society, that end up paying the price when we so irresponsibly drive up the accumulated debt. So, fiscal responsibility really serves all of us, and we need to reprioritize. We do need to prime the pump during this time of recession. We need to provide better education, greater innovation

AMY GOODMAN: Rocky, we just have 30 seconds.

ROCKY ANDERSON: to keep up with the rest of the world.

AMY GOODMAN: Wanted to ask you about the Occupy movement.

ROCKY ANDERSON: What we're doing, I think, converges beautifully with the Occupy movement, and what they're doing converges beautifully with what we're doing. I think that the Occupy movement is one of the most promising things I've seen, especially from young people, in decades, because they get it, they're willing to take action, and I think that it's really been enlightening for the American people to see that we can do this from the grassroots and really take on a system that has been so corrupt and has so disserved the American people and the public interest.