on WHVW 950 AM tomorrow am-- discussion of Matt Taibbi re: deal with banks, Iran...

0 views

Skip to first unread message

Joel Tyner

unread,

Feb 10, 2012, 7:13:00 AM2/10/12

to Real Majority Project

Hi all...

Tune in to our show on WHVW 950 AM tomorrow (Sat.) morning from 8 to 10 am-- and call in with whatever might be on your mind at 845-471-9500!...(call 845-444-0599 to get on air if other line busy)...

[see http://www.WHVW.net for much more on this-- join my co-host Rich Carlson in the mix on the air]

Pass it on...[note, too-- scroll down below to see update from http://www.OccupyPoughkeepsie.org !]

Joel

845-444-0599/876-2488

http://www.JoelforCongress.org

http://www.DutchessDemocracy.blogspot.com

[220+ signed on-- join us @ http://www.PetitionOnline.com/Joel -- and pass it along to all you know!]

[momentum building; send $$ now to Joel for Congress, 324 Browns Pond Rd., Staatsburg, NY 12580!]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From http://www.CommonDreams.org yesterday...[note re: this below......not that GOP any better!]...

Published on Thursday, February 9, 2012 by Common Dreams

Bank Bailout 2: Obama Lets Mortgage Abusers Off the Hook

The Obama Administration has followed a predictable pattern: Leave No One Accountable

- Common Dreams staff

The Obama administration announced this morning that the five largest U.S. banks have agreed to a $26 billion 'settlement' to end lawsuits over abusive practices that forced millions of families from their homes and helped bring about the nation's financial meltdown.

After months of talks with state and federal officials, the banks have reportedly agreed to help some homeowners reduce their mortgage debt or refinance their homes at lower rates. Over 4 million familes lost their homes to foreclosure yet just 750,000 people who lost their homes to foreclosure will receive a one-time check for just $1,800 to $2,000, which for many will barely cover the cost of moving. The deal will only help a fraction of the struggling homeowners affected by the bank's practices.

New York and California have reportedly signed off on the deal after initially holding it up in protest of lenient treatment of the banks.

The deal gives banks immunity from civil lawsuits for "robosigning," a practice whereby homeowners were rapidly evicted without proper vetting.

In his January 24th State of the Union address, President Obama promised a fresh investigation into mortgage abuses that led to the financial meltdown. Now, before that investigation has even begun, Obama is granting these 5 "too big to fail" banks immunity from "robo-signing" abuses.

* * *
UPDATE: Matt Taibbi writing at Rolling Stone:

...this looks like America's public prosecutors just wilted before the prospect of a long, drawn-out conflict with an army of highly-paid, determined white-shoe banker lawyers. The message this sends is that if you commit crimes on a large enough scale, and have enough high-priced legal talent sitting at the negotiating table after you get caught, the government will ultimately back down, conceding the inferiority of its resources.

* * *
Yves Smith, writing at NakedCapitalism:

The Top Twelve Reasons Why You Should Hate the Mortgage Settlement

[...] As we've said before, this settlement is yet another raw demonstration of who wields power in America, and it isn't you and me. It's bad enough to see these negotiations come to their predictable, sorry outcome. It adds insult to injury to see some try to depict it as a win for long suffering, still abused homeowners.

1. We've now set a price for forgeries and fabricating documents. It's $2000 per loan. This is a rounding error compared to the chain of title problem these systematic practices were designed to circumvent. The cost is also trivial in comparison to the average loan, which is roughly $180k, so the settlement represents about 1% of loan balances. It is less than the price of the title insurance that banks failed to get when they transferred the loans to the trust. It is a fraction of the cost of the legal expenses when foreclosures are challenged. It's a great deal for the banks because no one is at any of the servicers going to jail for forgery and the banks have set the upper bound of the cost of riding roughshod over 300 years of real estate law.

2. "If the new Federal task force were intended to be serious, this deal would have not have been settled. You never settle before investigating."
That $26 billion is actually $5 billion of bank money and the rest is your money. [...]

3. That $5 billion divided among the big banks wouldn't even represent a significant quarterly hit. [...]

4. That $20 billion actually makes bank second liens sounder, so this deal is a stealth bailout that strengthens bank balance sheets at the expense of the broader public.

5. The enforcement is a joke. The first layer of supervision is the banks reporting on themselves. [...]

6. The past history of servicer consent decrees shows the servicers all fail to comply. Why? Servicer records and systems are terrible in the best of times, and their systems and fee structures aren't set up to handle much in the way of delinquencies. [...]

7. The cave-in Nevada and Arizona on the Countrywide settlement suit is a special gift for Bank of America, who is by far the worst offender in the chain of title disaster. This move proves that failing to comply with a consent degree has no consequences but will merely be rolled into a new consent degree which will also fail to be enforced. [...]

8. If the new Federal task force were intended to be serious, this deal would have not have been settled. You never settle before investigating. It's a bad idea to settle obvious, widespread wrongdoing on the cheap. [...]

9. There is plenty of evidence of widespread abuses that appear not to be on the attorney generals' or media's radar, such as servicer driven foreclosures and looting of investors' funds via impermissible and inflated charges. While no serious probe was undertaken, even the limited or peripheral investigations show massive failures (60% of documents had errors in AGs/Fed's pathetically small sample). [...]

10. A deal on robosigning serves to cover up the much deeper chain of title problem. [...]

11. Don't bet on a deus ex machina in terms of the new Federal foreclosure task force to improve this picture much. If you think Schneiderman, as a co-chairman who already has a full time day job in New York, is going to outfox a bunch of DC insiders who are part of the problem, I have a bridge I'd like to sell to you.

12. We'll now have to listen to banks and their sycophant defenders declaring victory despite being wrong on the law and the facts. They will proceed to marginalize and write off criticisms of the servicing practices that hurt homeowners and investors and are devastating communities. [...]

* * *
And at Firedoglake, Scarecrow writes of the 'settlement':

Obama's Guiding Principle: Leave No One Accountable

Obama's people have performed this function for America's looters over and over again. They did it for Wall Street, the banks, the rich tax evaders, the insurance companies, the oil companies, the gas companies, the coal companies, the CIA, the DoD, and numerous torturers and their legal/policy enablers and associated war criminals in the previous administration.

[...] The Obama Administration has followed a predictable pattern we now recognize. It has consistently functioned like criminal defense counsel, whose mission is to get their criminal clients, the major corporations and executives who fund their elections, off with no admission of guilt, no forced resignations, and as little harm to their reputation, or that of the counsel, as possible. To do this, they neutralize anyone with an ounce of public purpose in their veins.

Its role is then to convince the public that whatever you thought or feared was going on in America, and whoever you believed had caused the collapse of America's economy, caused millions to lose their jobs, their homes and their retirements and continued to loot the country, it's time to look forward. Because everyone who matters - and that's not you - now agrees, they say, to function in the public interest, even though it's a bald face lie, since nothing has changed and the looters and their complicit overseers are still in charge.

Consistent with this strategy, Obama's team must silence, neutralize or punish anyone who protests or blows the whistle on the massive criminality and corruption involved. It must also emasculate the left and what's left of the liberal wing of the Dem Party, using the argument that the Administration is not nearly as awful as the other Party's people, who openly glorify looting and killing and vilifying the victims.

But of course, when we were ruled by the latter, everyone with any humanity was repulsed by the open looting and killing and indifference and was willing to say so. When the Administration sanctions it, however, we are supposed to bite our tongues, because it could be worse.

Well, it's worse, and it's more insidious and corrupting of our souls than where we were four years ago. It is evil.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Recall-- from http://consortiumnews.com/2012/01/12/herding-americans-to-war-with-iran/ ...

Herding Americans to War with Iran

January 12, 2012

By Robert Parry

In spring 2010, a promising effort - led by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Brazil's then-President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva - got Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to agree to relinquish Iranian control of nearly half the country's supply of low-enriched uranium in exchange for isotopes for medical research. The Turkish-Brazilian initiative revived a plan first advanced by Obama in 2009 - and the effort had the President's private encouragement. But after Ahmadinejad accepted the deal, Secretary Clinton and other U.S. hardliners switched into overdrive to kill the swap and insist instead on imposing harsher sanctions against Iran.

At the time, Clinton's position was endorsed by editors at the Washington Post and the New York Times, who mocked Erdogan and Lula da Silva as inept understudies on the international stage. If anything, the Post and Times argued, the United States should take an even more belligerent approach toward Iran, i.e. seeking "regime change." [See Consortiumnews.com's "WPost, NYT Show Tough-Guy Swagger."] As Clinton undercut the uranium swap and pushed instead for a new round of United Nations' sanctions, Lula da Silva released a private letter from Obama who had urged the Brazilians to press forward with the swap arrangement. However, with Washington's political momentum favoring another confrontation with a Muslim adversary, Obama retreated and lined up behind the sanctions.

Over the next nearly two years, the sanctions have failed to stop Iran's work on enriched uranium which it claims is needed for medical research. Israel, the neocons and other American hardliners have responded by demanding still more draconian sanctions, while promoting anti-Iran propaganda inside the United States and winking at the murder of Iranian scientists inside Iran.

In this U.S. election year, Israel and the neocons may understand that their political leverage on Obama is at its apex.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[again-- re: below......truth must be told....also 'tis true that GOP no better than Obama on this.....worse!]

Published on Tuesday, February 7, 2012 by Common Dreams

Obama's Super-Bowl Fumble on Iran

by Ray McGovern

Before President Barack Obama's interview with NBC's Matt Lauer, aired before the Super Bowl on Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu probably hoped that, if Obama discussed Iran, he would give him the strong backing that Israeli leaders crave, freeing them to lash out at Iran - militarily, if they so choose.

Few could have been more keenly interested than he in what the President would say in an interview beamed to a hundred million American TV viewers. The problem was that Netanyahu could not have been completely sure of what to expect, given the confusing mixed signals coming out of Washington in the past several weeks.

Some of those signals had been disquieting to Netanyahu and other Israeli hard-liners - for example, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta saying flat-out on Jan. 8 that Iran is NOT "trying to develop a nuclear weapon" - undercutting the key casus belli for war - and Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey visiting Israel on Jan. 19, reportedly to repeat that in person and warn his hosts against provoking war with Iran.

In Netanyahu's world, though, functionaries like Panetta and Dempsey are to be listened to politely but not taken all that seriously. It is what the American President says, in public, that may require more attention - and that is enhanced when he has the eyes and ears of multiple millions of super-prime-time viewers.

For Obama's part, he was walking a political tightrope, having sent out two of his top national security aides to signal Israel that he doesn't want a new war in the Middle East, but not wanting to give his hawkish Republican rivals new reasons to question his support for Israel.

Obama is reportedly hopeful that a peaceful settlement can still be reached over Iran's nuclear program, but he understands that he has little margin for error in this high-wire act of political diplomacy - especially with so many crosswinds in an election year.

So, President Obama decided to forgo his best chance to inject a loud, unmistakable note of caution into recent warmongering over Iran, not only in Israel but also among influential neocons in the United States who have been jumping up and down, demanding another preemptive war over hypothetical WMDs, much as they did with Iraq.

When the interview was over, Netanyahu could breathe a sigh of relief. With Obama's words and body language, there was nothing that would constitute a red light and some things that Netanyahu might interpret hopefully as nearly a green light.

Heightened Danger

Bottom Line: The way the President chose to handle Lauer's leading questions on Israel-Iran tensions has brought the world closer to hostilities that would deeply destabilize not only that region but the world economy.

Lauer: [Regard] building tension between Israel and Iran: It seems now the Israelis are signaling they may act, and conduct a strike inside Iran at their nuclear sites sooner than later. Do they have your full support for that raid?

Obama: I don't think Israel has made a decision on what they need to do. I think they, like us, believe that Iran has to stand down on its nuclear weapons program, and we have mobilized the international community in a way that is unprecedented. And they [the Iranians] are feeling the pinch, they are feeling the pressure.

But they have not taken the steps they need to take diplomatically; which is [for the Iranians] to say, "We will pursue peaceful nuclear power; we will not pursue a nuclear weapon." Until they do so, I think Israel, rightly, is going to be very concerned, and we are as well.

Lauer: Has Israel promised you that they would give you advance warning to any such attack? Should they give you that warning?

Obama: I won't go into the details. I will say that we have closer military and intelligence consultation between our two countries than we've ever had. And we are going to make sure we work in lockstep, as we proceed to try to solve this - hopefully diplomatically. Š

Our preferred solution here is diplomatic; we're going to keep on pushing on that front. But we're not going to take any options off the table, and I've been very clear that we're going to do everything we can to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and creating an arms race, a nuclear arms race in a volatile region.

Delicate Positioning

Though the various elements of Obama's delicate positioning are there - such as his desire for a diplomatic solution to the crisis and his hope to avoid another war - there were also problematic references that reinforced the case for a preemptive Israeli strike, such as the President's bizarre assertion that Iran must declare that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only - when that is exactly what Iran has been saying for years.

So, did Obama fumble or intentionally drop the ball? I think the latter, but it hardly matters. The consequences are pretty much the same either way.

The Israelis could not have been sure that Obama would decide to regurgitate their prevarication about Tehran's notional nukes and contradict what his own Defense Secretary had said just four weeks ago, but that is what the President did.

What probably exceeded the Israeli leadership's fondest expectations, though, was Obama's pledge that in addressing Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions, the U.S. will "work in lockstep" with Israel.
("Lockstep?" What does Webster's say of "lockstep?"

noun:
1. a mode of marching in step by a body of men going one after another as closely as possible;
2. a standard method or procedure that is mindlessly adhered to Š
adjective:
- in perfect, rigid, often mindless conformity or unison.)

Obama poured icing on Israel's cake when he emphasized that Israeli-U.S. military and intelligence consultation has never been closer. The result? Up in smoke went any possibility of plausible denial of foreknowledge on Washington's part, if - despite Panetta's oft-repeated pleas that Israel and the U.S. must "work together" - Israel follows its customary practice of shunning any advance warning (much less requests for permission), in favor of seeking post-hoc forgiveness for launching armed attacks.

Carte Blanche for Israel?

For those of us who thought that the White House, recognizing the stakes involved and the benefit of keeping some space between Washington and Tel Aviv, had been trying to restrain the Israelis from attacking Iran, it is hard to fathom why Obama took the line he did.

His words were less surprising to those who have long since concluded that in the coming months he will choose to act out of a felt need to be at least in as much in "lockstep" with Israel as any Republican contender - never mind the risk of giving Netanyahu the impression that there are few if any restraints on what Israel might do to Iran.

It's also possible that Obama has concluded that there isn't much he can do to restrain Netanyahu who has strong reason to believe that whatever the President of the United States may want doesn't really matter when the Congress and much of the Fawning Corporate Media are already in lockstep behind whatever Israel does.

Think back on when Netanyahu gave Obama a public tongue-lashing in the Oval Office and then went to Capitol Hill to receive a hero's welcome from Republicans and Democrats who engaged in a bipartisan competition to see who could jump to their feet the fastest and applaud the loudest.

Whatever school of thought you may favor regarding Obama's Iran "strategy," let me suggest that you put yourself in Netanyahu's shoes as he watches the pre-game interview. Do you agree that he is likely to come away with the idea that Obama has just applied a fresh coat of high-gloss paint to the box into which the Israelis and their supporters believe they have painted him?

Four months ago, I wrote an article entitled "Israel's Window to Bomb Iran," as the war-drumming on Iran began its crescendo. What has happened since has reinforced my assessment that:
"The key factor in any Israeli decision to send its aircraft and missiles to Iran is the degree to which Netanyahu and other hard-line Likud leaders believe that President Obama is locked into giving blanket support to Israel - particularly as Election 2012 draws near.

"The Israelis might well conclude that the formidable effectiveness of the Likud Lobby and kneejerk support of the U.S. Congress as well as still powerful neoconservatives in the Executive Branch (and on the opinion pages of major American newspapers) amount to solid assurance of automatic support for pretty much anything Israel decides to do.

"If Israel translates this into a green light to attack Iran, the rest of the world - even Washington - may get little or no warning."

We need to add two important new factors since then:

1. Somehow the main focus has shifted from (a) how soon Iran could get a nuclear weapon to (b) how soon Israel is likely to attack Iran's nuclear facilities - whether they are shown to be related to nuclear weapons development, or not.

2. The evolving discourse in the Fawning Corporate Media (FCM) has accustomed many Americans to assume that the Israelis would be within their rights to start a war on a convenient "IF" - i.e., IF the Iranians are working on a nuclear weapon. Never mind that Defense Secretary Panetta stated publicly just four weeks ago that they are NOT.

Of course, Panetta was simply reiterating the consensus conclusion of the 16 U.S. intelligence agencies that declared in 2007 that Iran had halted work on a nuclear weapon in 2003 and that it did not appear that such work had resumed. And even if you don't want to believe the U.S. intelligence community and Panetta, there was the recent acknowledgement by Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak that the Mossad apparently has concluded the same thing.

Barak gave the interview on Jan. 18, the day before JCS Chairman Martin Dempsey arrived for talks in Israel:

Question: Is it Israel's judgment that Iran has not yet decided to turn its nuclear potential into weapons of mass destruction?

Barak: Š confusion stems from the fact that people ask whether Iran is determined to break out from the control [inspection] regime right now Š in an attempt to obtain nuclear weapons or an operable installation as quickly as possible. Apparently that is not the case. Š

Question: How long will it take from the moment Iran decides to turn it into effective weapons until it has nuclear warheads?

Barak: I don't know; one has to estimate. Š Some say a year, others say 18 months. It doesn't really matter. To do that, Iran would have to announce it is leaving the [UN International Atomic Energy Agency] inspection regime and stop responding to IAEA's criticism, etc.

Why haven't they [the Iranians] done that? Because they realize that Š when it became clear to everyone that Iran was trying to acquire nuclear weapons, this would constitute definite proof that time is actually running out. This could generate either harsher sanctions or other action against them. They do not want that.

Yet, in the United States, the FCM's constant repetition that Iran is working on a nuclear weapon - despite the intelligence consensus that Iran is NOT doing so - has created widespread acceptance for an Israeli preemptive war. In many circles, the idea is almost greeted with a yawn, with another yawn given to the notion that "of course" the U.S. would have to march "in lockstep" with Israel, if it got into a war.

A few days ago, I was given eight full TV minutes on RT to discuss whether it is a good idea to start wars in the subjunctive mood, and what I believe are Israel's true aims vis-à-vis Iran. In my view, the principal aim, pure and simple, is regime change in Tehran, not the destruction of Iran's notional nukes.

Remember, there have been U.N. inspectors crawling all over Iran, which has yet to be shown to be in violation of the basic Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Iran has signed and Israel has not. (Another relevant fact that is typically left out of FCM articles about the theoretical possibility of Iran building one nuke is that Israel has a sophisticated - and undeclared - arsenal of some 300 nukes.)
Is it conceivable that this kind of information has been kept from President Obama?

An earlier version of this article first ran on consortiumnews.com

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC. During his career as a CIA analyst, he prepared and briefed the President's Daily Brief and chaired National Intelligence Estimates. He is a member of the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: Northern Dutchess <northern...@occupyhudsonvalley.org

Subject: Fwd: Fw: The Occupy Poughkeepsie Journal Vol 1. #6
Date: Feb 9, 2012 10:48 PM
Hi from beautiful San Francisco! Here's the latest Occupy Poughkeepsie Journal issue.

Maybe we have our own newsletter once we get going...Megan

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Megan Hastie <mhasti...@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 6:46 PM

Subject: Fw: The Occupy Poughkeepsie Journal Vol 1. #6

To: OND <northern...@occupyhudsonvalley.org>

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: OPK Media Working Group <pr...@occupypoughkeepsie.org>
To: mhasti...@yahoo.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2012 4:22 PM

Subject: The Occupy Poughkeepsie Journal Vol 1. #6

The Occupy Poughkeepsie Journal

Seeking tangible solutions to social inequality, locally and nationally.

Brought to you by the Media Working Group of Occupy Poughkeepsie.

http://www.occupypoughkeepsie.org

Vol. 1 #6

February 8, 2012

The Occupy Poughkeepsie Journal has found itself on the website for Occupy New York State!

Occupy Orange County - Last Thursday, February 2, Occupy Poughkeepsie was invited to the inaugural meeting of Occupy Orange County (NY).
More than a dozen of us joined 150 others at the Mulberry House Senior Center in downtown Middletown for the event and it was very well organized. Buttons, music, a pot luck buffet covering several tables...

Photo by Raymond Contegiacomo, Jr.,

Involved in the meeting aside from OPK were: Orange County Peace and Justice, Democratic Alliance, Community Voices Head of Newburgh, Service Employees International Union 1199 and the Civil Service Employees Association of Orange County.

Our role at the meeting was to run a mock General Assembly so that the newly formed group had some idea of what was entailed. We went though the standard 'hand motions' as well as the process and how it all works together. Patrick Quinn then spoke to those assembled about how the movement was not a political movement but a social one, and also spoke about the importance of physical occupations. With that, he gathered the names of more than 40 people interested in physical occupations of both Middletown and Newburgh and will be organizing these folks as OPK continues to educate others around the Hudson Valley.

For more information about Occupy Orange contact Bennett Weiss benw...@aol.com 845-569-8662 or Verne M. Bell ver...@aol.com 845-569-8965

Occupy Wall Street Comes to Occupy Poughkeepsie - This past Monday Tammy Shap and several representatives from InterOccupy came to Poughkeepsie for an afternoon and evening of workshops and events. About 30 people gathered at Christ Episcopal Church on Carroll Street to engage in a workshop, a potluck dinner and an evening think-tank discussion. After a team building exercise reminiscent of a Meisner exercise, those attending broke into two groups, one for foreclosure and evictions and the other for direct action. After an hour or so of intense discussion we came together for some food and talk, exchanging ideas, then regrouped for the think-tank later that evening.

The InterOccupy group seeks to foster communication between individuals and OWS affinity groups and travels the nation performing this organizational work.

Direct Action Committee: The next official meeting of the Direct Action Working Group will take place at 5:30pm, Friday, February 10, in the basement room of Christ Episcopal Church at 22 Carrol Street. It's been a while since we have had a formal meeting, so anyone with ideas, input or specific skills should try to make it out.

On Saturday, February 11, OPK's Norm Rodriguez will be speaking at 10AM at the Millbrook Library (Franklin Avenue) on a panel discussion that will also include Gail Burger, Brother Eric, and Lydia Wright on the Occupation movement.

March 1st has been called as a National Day of Action for Education. Watch this space and our website for information regarding local OPK sponsored events.

---

OPKs Stone Soup program continues in Hulme Park on Friday evenings from 4:30PM until 6:30PM, just in time to get you to our Friday evening GA at 7PM. Come on out, have some soup, bring some food to share, bring a drum and Occupy Hulme Park with some good food and cheer and like-minded people.

OPK hosts an informal "think-tank" program each Monday night at 7PM at Christ Episcopal Church, 22 Carroll Street. Topics are as wide spread and varied as are those who attend. Feel free to drop in and add your views.

OPKs Musicians Working Group: A group of spirited musicians comes together each week to meet, play music and exchange ideas. They'll be meeting each Thursday at 7PM to continue on. See below for contact information.

Have you visited OPK's page on Facebook? Check us out.

---

If you have any comments about this newsletter, please write us at pr...@occupypoughkeepsie.org

If you would like this newsletter emailed to you automagically each week, visit our website, http://www.occupypoughkeepsie.org and sign up for our mailing list at the top of the right-hand column. We'd love to have you on board.

JmG
___________________________________________

Upcoming Events:

Sunday, February 19th 5:30 PM
Know Your Rights workshop
Hosted by the Occupy Poughkeepsie Legal Observer's Group.
Check our website for further information. http://www.occupypoughkeepsie.org

Contact information for Occupy Poughkeepsie:
pr...@occupypoughkeepsie.org
Occupy Poughkeepsie on Twitter
Occupy Poughkeepsie on Facebook
Occupy Poughkeepsie on Ustream

General Assembly Schedule - All are welcome and encouraged to attend.

Sunday, 7PM-Christ Church, 20 Carroll Street

Wednesday, 7PM-The Sadie Peterson Delaney African Roots Library at the Family Partnership Center, 29 N. Hamilton St.

Friday, 7PM-The Friends' Meeting House, 249 Hooker Avenue

Working Groups:
We get things accomplished by forming working groups. Individuals self-select into groups based on their skills and interests. Working groups are open to anyone who is willing and determined to help out.
Think Tank
Meetings: Mondays at 7PM, Christ Episcopal Church.
Email: pok-thi...@googlegroups.com
This group organizes through a Google Group. Please join the group to get involved.
Musicians Working Group
Meets Thursday at 6PM
Christ Episcopal Church, 22 Carroll Street in Poughkeepsie.
Contact Andy at vdnn...@optonline.net
Direct Action Working Group
Email the contact person: asoldierofth...@yahoo.com
Media Working Group
We meet in person as needed.
Email: occupyp...@googlegroups.com
This group organizes through a Google Group. Please join the group to get involved.
Community Outreach Working Group
We meet in person as needed.
Email: occupypo...@googlegroups.com
This group organizes through a Google Group. Please join the group to get involved.
Foreclosures & Defense Working Group
The economic meltdown has left many of our neighbors facing foreclosure and eviction. How can we help? Let us get to work.
Email the contact person: occupypkf...@riseup.net
This group organizes through a Google Group. Please join the group to get involved.
Moms & Dads Working Group
We provide food, comfort, & support. You do not have to be a parent to join.
We meet in person as needed.
Email: occupypokm...@googlegroups.com
This group organizes through a Google Group. Please join the group to get involved.

forward to a friend
Copyright © 2012 Occupy Poughkeepsie, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because of your interest in Occupy Poughkeepsie and we love you for it.
Our mailing address is:
Occupy Poughkeepsie
Hulme Park
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601

Reply all

Reply to author

Forward

0 new messages