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

[Ed Jewett]

Police Force Peaceful UC Davis Students to Open Their Mouths … and Then Shoot Pepper Spray DOWN THEIR THROATS

Posted on November 20, 2011 by WashingtonsBlog
By now, you've heard that peaceful UC Davis protesters were brutally sprayed right in the face with pepper spray:

Professor Nathan Brown of UC Davis notes in open letter to Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi:

When students covered their eyes with their clothing, police forced open their mouths and pepper-sprayed down their throats. Several of these students were hospitalized. Others are seriously injured. One of them, forty-five minutes after being pepper-sprayed down his throat, was still coughing up blood.

James Fallows writes in the Atlantic:

Let's stipulate that there are legitimate questions of how to balance the rights of peaceful protest against other people's rights to go about their normal lives, and the rights of institutions to have some control over their property and public spaces. Without knowing the whole background, I'll even assume for purposes of argument that the UC Davis authorities had legitimate reason to clear protestors from an area of campus and that if protestors wanted to stage a civil-disobedience resistance to that effort, they should have been prepared for the consequence of civil disobedience, which is arrest.
I can't see any legitimate basis for police action like what is shown here. Watch that first minute and think how we'd react if we saw it coming from some riot-control unit in China, or in Syria. The calm of the officer who walks up and in a leisurely way pepper-sprays unarmed and passive people right in the face? We'd think: this is what happens when authority is unaccountable and has lost any sense of human connection to a subject population. That's what I think here.
Less than two months ago, it seemed shocking when one NYPD officer cavalierly walked up to a group of female protestors and pepper-sprayed them in the eyes. The UC Davis pepper-sprayer doesn't slink away, as his NYPD counterpart did, but in every other way this is more coldly brutal. And by the way, when did we accept the idea that local police forces would always dress up in riot gear that used to be associated with storm troopers and dystopian sci-fi movies?

For additional details, see this, this, this, this and this.

Posted in Politics / World News | 2 Comments

US War Criminals murdered our soldiers: all US police have arrest authority

Posted on November 19, 2011 by Carl Herman
source: Carl Herman
Any police officer has arrest authority for the crime of murder. Because US political and corporate media "leadership" lied US soldiers into obvious criminal wars, they must stand trial for these murders of US citizens and state residents under state murder laws.
You may recall that Vincent Bugliosi wrote a bestselling book on this topic in 2008.
The wars are not even close to lawful; we all learned this history in high school. Please note that both political and media "leadership" shamelessly lie about the victory all our families sacrificed to achieve through two world wars.
The wars were criminally driven with lies known to be lies as they were told. This was only possible through political and media "leadership" complicity.
Occupy's victory means peace from criminal wars based on obvious lies, economic security and sufficiency for 100% of humanity, and unleashing suppressed technologies that transforms what it means to be human into unimaginable status.
Occupy's endgame, in retrospect, will be obvious: after a period of "emperor has no clothes" expository communication from independent Internet media to the 99%, those with arrest authority exercise it to remove criminal leadership from power.
I encourage law enforcement everywhere to creatively exercise the authority they have to expose, arrest, and end the massive CRIMES of the 1% that murder millions, crush billions, and loot trillions of our dollars every year.
As an academic in government, history and economics, here are my strongest resources to explain, document, and prove the "emperor has no clothes" obvious CRIMES:
Open proposal for US revolution: end unlawful wars, criminal economics (4-part series)
Occupy This: US History exposes the 1%'s crimes then and now (6-part series)

Posted in General | Leave a comment

The Founding Fathers Warned Against Standing Armies

Posted on November 19, 2011 by WashingtonsBlog
The Founding Fathers distrusted standing armies.
For example, James Madison said:

In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.

Madison also noted that never-ending war tends to destroy both liberty and prosperity:

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied: and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

He was right. And see this.
Freud also argued that when men gave up the primal drive to protect ourselves, our families and our communities and that power was transferred to standing armies it disempowered us and made us weak psychologically.
Look at America today: Freud might have been right.

Posted in Politics / World News | Leave a comment

"If Only They Enforced Bank Regulations Like They Do [Zuccotti] Park Rules, We Wouldn't Be In This Mess"

Posted on November 19, 2011 by WashingtonsBlog

The following tweet captures the fact that the laws are only being enforced in favor of the 1% … and against the 99%:

If only they enforced bank regulations like they do [Zuccotti] park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Likewise:

According to the Supreme Court, money is now speech and corporations are now people. But when real people without money assemble to express their dissatisfaction with the political consequences of this, they're treated as public nuisances and evicted.

As Salon notes:

If you're an ordinary citizen, and you get caught on video dousing people with noxious gas like Bologna did, you get summarily locked up. But when you're an NYPD commanding officer…like Bologna was at the time of his attack, you get essentially a free pass.

No wonder one of the central demands of Occupy Wall Street is to enforce the laws for the 99%.

Posted in Politics / World News | 1 Comment

[Ed Jewett]

Bloomberg Drum Circle

This resonates with http://www.rayraphael.com/First_American_Revolution.htm and the phrase from it: "with staves and musick".



****


WEEKEND EDITION, NOVEMBER 19-20, 2011
6.9K




CounterPunch Diary
Are Drum Circles Protected Under the Constitution?

by ALEXANDER COCKBURN
From Manhattan, to Nashville, to St Louis, to Portland, Oregon, to Oakland, California, the police this week moved in to clear out the Occupy Wall Street protesters from the various downtown plazas or squares where they'd established their peaceable focos. The mayor of Oakland, Jean Quan, had earlier acknowledged a conference call between 18 mayors, (at obvious federal instigation from the Justice Department) across the US discussing strategy, and the mode elected was clear enough. Get them out, by any means necessary.
These marching orders were taken most seriously in where else? the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement back in 1964, at Sproul Plaza, entry way into the University of California at Berkeley. FSM's birth was prompted by the arrest of Jack Weinberg for soliciting money for the civil rights movement. He was put into a police car, but a spontaneous sit-down trapped it. Eventually the roof was used as a FSM platform.
Last week hundreds of students massed in Sproul Plaza to protest proposed fee hikes of 81 per cent that would bring UC tuition from $13,000 to over $22,000. The students pointed out that the banks caused the financial crisis, which in turn caused the budget crisis. So the banks, not the students, should pay for it. The students set up their own small encampment on the lawn outside Sproul Hall.
An eyewitness, Michael Levien, described on this site what happened at around 9.30 pm this Monday night:

"A phalanx of police in riot gear turned the corner of Sproul Hall and rapidly charged, thrusting their batons with violent force into the crowd. Chanting non-violent protest' and stop beating students,' student after student took fierce baton thrusts to their chests and limbs.
"Then the police started swinging, brutally beating people's chests, arms, knees, and backs. They were swinging to hurt. With the crowd behind and the police in front there was no way for people to leave even if they wanted to. A few people tried to escape in the narrow gap between the students and police. They were savagely beaten. Throughout what can only be described as a terrifying physical attack that has left many with serious injuries, the students stayed entirely non-violent."

Enter Chancellor Robert Birgeneau, who often likes to reminisce about his Freedom Rider days. At the fortieth anniversary of the founding of FSM, they had a mock police car and platform and Chancellor Birgeneau spoke from it, reminiscing warmly about the birth of FSM and the importance of free speech. I spoke at the same anniversary, giving measured praise for subversive free speech in an event organized by Lenni Brenner, "FSM and the Sixties: Lessons for Today."
Chancellor Birgeneau seems to be a man changed from...
CONTINUE READING

[Ed Jewett]

OWS and the Press

by Rosemarie Jackowski / November 19th, 2011

Freedom of expression is the Matrix, the indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom.
Justice Benjamin Cardozo

The Press has the right to print or not print anything it wants. That right should be supported. There is, however, another issue that of journalistic ethics. Since OWS began, there has been a deluge of misinformation, innuendo, and inflammatory speech in print in the nation's newspapers. I defend the right of newspapers to misinform, but I also defend the rights of citizens to push back after being misrepresented in print. It should not be necessary to own a large printing press in order to respond to a news organization.
Sometimes economic issues are at play. Newspapers don't want to offend the money/business interests in the community. Sometimes inaccurate reporting is the result of a lack of knowledge of journalists. After all, how many schools teach a course in Anarchy'? Actually, there are some schools that do have such a course of study. Surprising as it might be, one school that has a history of offering a well-taught class in Anarchy' is Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. RPI is a highly respected right-leaning institution in Troy, New York. RPI receives military contracts.
The article below is a response to an editorial. The response was submitted to the paper days ago, but has not been published. It probably won't be. Across the country many do not have Internet connections. The only means of responding to an editorial is in the newspaper itself. A conundrum a Catch 22.
A Response
The Editorial in the November 15, 2011 issue of the Bennington Bannerdeserves a reply. Thank you for recognizing OWS. As a fan of newspapers, I place great importance on the Press. It is the fabric that ties a community together. In many locations, it is the only means of mass communication. This places a heavy moral burden on the Press. I had my first newspaper job in 1952. In those days, The Big Story was a favorite TV program about newspapers. Journalism was a highly respected calling.
There are a couple of issues with the editorial about OWS. First is the use of the word "Anarchy". It is used as a highly inflammatory, prejudicial term implying violence, often to misinform the reader. In my day, labeling without explanation even a small part of the movement as such would be called sloppy journalism'. It is a label that paints all with the same brush. Christians, Jews, Democrats, Republicans all have members who exhibit violence. No one should ever condemn the entire group for the actions of a few.

… Professor Howard Zinn, author of the People's History of the United States… describes anarchism in his book Declarations of Independence as following: “Anarchists, I discovered, did not believe in anarchy as it is usually defined — disorder, disorganization, chaos, confusion, and everyone doing as they like. On the contrary, they believed that society should be organized in a thousand different ways, that people had to cooperate in work and in play, to create a good society. But anarchists insisted, any organization must avoid hierarchy and command from the top; it must be democratic, consensual, reaching decisions through constant discussion and argument.”… What attracted me to anarchism was its rejection of any bullying authority — the authority of the state, of the church, or the employer. Anarchism believes that if we can create an egalitarian society without extremes of poverty and wealth, and join hands across all national boundaries, we will not need police forces, prisons, armies, or war, because the underlying causes of these will be gone.[SUP]1[/SUP]

”
Bennington OWS is organizationally much like Professor Zinn describes. Maybe the most important fact about OWS is that it is a horizontal movement. There is no hierarchy. No chain-of-command. No leaders. No followers. It is not only about money and banks. Yes, the misadventures of Wall Street are an issue but only one of many issues. OWS is anything that the people want it to be locally and globally. It is by far the most democratic organization that anyone could wish for.
It is about building sustainable communities. It is about organic farming. It is about justice for all. It is about transparency. It is about smart meters and dumb grids. It is about giving consumers choice. It is about advocating for victims of injustice. It is about hunger and homelessness. It is about home foreclosures. It is about the environment. It is about health care. It is about fracking. It is about war and peace. It is about drones. It is about the use of cluster bombs and land mines by the USA. And my personal favorite it is about the First Amendment. The First Amendment, as written, applies only to the Congress but the spirit of the First Amendment applies to all. Why is censorship of political speech so common in Vermont? Why is there censorship of political books in Vermont? Why are public buildings allowed to be used for political debate, when some on the ballot are excluded as in the Bennington Fire House? It might be legal, but it is not in keeping with the spirit of free political speech. It gets even worse. Dennis Steele, a Vermont Candidate for Governor being was arrested. His crime: he wanted to participate in a candidates' forum.
One thing I know about Bennington OWS is that is it dedicated, passionate, empathetic, and altruistic. It is the most community oriented movement in the area. Imagine dedicating many hours every week to the community, for no money and no personal gain. Everyone is encouraged to join with us to build a fair, just, sustainable Vermont for all.
And finally, I thank the writer of the Editorial for mentioning boycotts. Many of us have been pushing for boycotts and strikes for decades. Bennington OWS is action oriented. You'll be hearing from us. Stay tuned in.

• An excerpt from Food Not Bombs. [↩]
  

Rosemarie Jackowski is an advocacy journalist living in Vermont. Read other articles by Rosemarie.
This article was posted on Saturday, November 19th, 2011 at 7:59am and is filed under Activism, Anarchism, Anti-war, Boycott, Democracy,Drones, Media.
http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/11/ows-an...more-39408

[Keith Millea]

These marching orders were taken most seriously in where else? the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement back in 1964, at Sproul Plaza, entry way into the University of California at Berkeley. FSM's birth was prompted by the arrest of Jack Weinberg for soliciting money for the civil rights movement. He was put into a police car, but a spontaneous sit-down trapped it. Eventually the roof was used as a FSM platform.

The amazing arrest of Jack Weinberg,placed in a police car,and surrounded by protesters for 32 hours.This is what Democracy looked like, "back in the day"!

[Albert Doyle]

The pepper spray is squarely within the range of banned Geneva Conventions gas or chemical weapons being used on a civilian population.

[Ed Jewett]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0abQTQEU...r_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0abQTQEU...r_embedded

Uploaded by ibnlive on Nov 20, 2011
Protesters sitting on the ground supporting the Occupy Wall Street movement on the campus of the University of California, Davis took a face full of pepper spray at close range from an officer in riot gear in an incident that was captured on cellphone video and spread virally across the Internet on Saturday. [URL="http://ibnlive.com/livetv"]http://ibnlive.com/livetv

*[/URL]***

Wall St. Running Scared, Looking for Counter-Psywar Against OWS Movement

2011

2011

Lobbying Firm's Memo Spells Out Plan to Undermine Occupy Wall Street

by Jonathan Larsen and Ken Olshansky
(crossposted from MSNBC's "Open Channel" blog)
A well-known Washington lobbying firm with links to the financial industry has proposed an $850,000 plan to take on Occupy Wall Street and politicians who might express sympathy for the protests, according to a memo obtained by the MSNBC program "Up w/ Chris Hayes."
The proposal was written on the letterhead of the lobbying firm Clark Lytle Geduldig & Cranford and addressed to one of CLGC's clients, the American Bankers Association.
CLGC's memo proposes that the ABA pay CLGC $850,000 to conduct "opposition research" on Occupy Wall Street in order to construct "negative narratives" about the protests and allied politicians. The memo also asserts that Democratic victories in 2012 would be detrimental for Wall Street and targets specific races in which it says Wall Street would benefit by electing Republicans instead.
According to the memo, if Democrats embrace OWS, "This would mean more than just short-term political discomfort for Wall Street. … It has the potential to have very long-lasting political, policy and financial impacts on the companies in the center of the bullseye."
The memo also suggests that Democratic victories in 2012 should not be the ABA's biggest concern. "… (T)he bigger concern," the memo says, "should be that Republicans will no longer defend Wall Street companies."
Two of the memo's authors, partners Sam Geduldig and Jay Cranford, previously worked for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. Geduldig joined CLGC before Boehner became speaker; Cranford joined CLGC this year after serving as the speaker's assistant for policy. A third partner, Steve Clark, is reportedly "tight" with Boehner, according to a story by Roll Call that CLGC features on its website.
Jeff Sigmund, an ABA spokesperson, confirmed that the association got the memo. "Our Government Relations staff did receive the proposal it was unsolicited and we chose not to act on it in any way," he said in a statement to "Up."
CLGC did not return calls seeking comment.
Boehner spokesman Michael Steel declined to comment on the memo. But he responded to its characterization of Republicans as defenders of Wall Street by saying, "My understanding is that President Obama is the single largest recipient of donations from Wall Street."
On "Up" Saturday, Anita Dunn, Obama campaign adviser, responded by saying that the majority of the president's re-election campaign is fueled by small donors. She rejected the suggestion that the president himself is too close to Wall Street, saying "If that's the case, why were tough financial reforms passed over party line Republican opposition?"
The CLGC memo raises another issue that it says should be of concern to the financial industry that OWS might find common cause with the Tea Party. "Well-known Wall Street companies stand at the nexus of where OWS protestors and the Tea Party overlap on angered populism," the memo says. "…This combination has the potential to be explosive later in the year when media reports cover the next round of bonuses and contrast it with stories of millions of Americans making do with less this holiday season."
The memo outlines a 60-day plan to conduct surveys and research on OWS and its supporters so that Wall Street companies will be prepared to conduct a media campaign in response to OWS. Wall Street companies "likely will not be the best spokespeople for their own cause," according to the memo. "A big challenge is to demonstrate that these companies still have political strength and that making them a political target will carry a severe political cost."
Part of the plan CLGC proposes is to do "statewide surveys in at least eight states that are shaping up to be the most important of the 2012 cycle."
Specific races listed in the memo are U.S. Senate races in Florida, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin, Ohio, New Mexico and Nevada as well as the gubernatorial race in North Carolina.
The memo indicates that CLGC would research who has contributed financial backing to OWS, noting that, "Media reports have speculated about associations with George Soros and others."
"It will be vital," the memo says, "to understand who is funding it and what their backgrounds and motives are. If we can show that they have the same cynical motivation as a political opponent it will undermine their credibility in a profound way."
Jonathan Larsen (@jtlarsen) is executive producer of "Up w/ Chris Hayes"; Ken Olshansky (@kenolshansky) is a producer for the show.

****

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtfgKZGnr...r_embedded

[Ed Jewett]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjnR7xET7..._embedded#! (8:34)

Uploaded by OperationLeakS on Nov 18, 2011
Wow it never ends... Updates http://twitter.com/#!/OperationLeakS
UPDATE: UC Davis Faculty Assoc calls for Immed Resignation of Chancellor Katehi http://ucdfa.org/2011/11/19/dfa-board-ca...signation/
Second UPDATE: Chancellor Katehi leaving peacefully. Protestors are remaining quiet. http://pic.twitter.com/l7hPk0vJ

[Peter Lemkin]

Mayors on the wrong side of history ROBERT CREAMER FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Over the last few days there has been what appears to be a coordinated attempt by many of the nation's mayors to end the Occupy Wall Street protests that have swept the country - and much of the world.

Many justifications have been given: concerns about "sanitation," drug overdoses, the violation of noise ordinances, isolated assaults. But what do you expect? The Occupy encampments involve tens of thousands of people. Those are the kinds of problems that develop when you have groups of thousands of people.

In reality, the Occupy Movement has done a remarkable job coping with these everyday problems of governing large numbers of people in small spaces. In fact, I would bet that the instance of most of these problems in the Occupy encampments is far less prevalent per capita than most places in America.

Off course, there are sanitation issues that have to be addressed - ever see the National Mall after a forth of July fireworks festival? That's the nature of large crowds - so work with the Occupy groups to solve them. But don't use "sanitation" as a pretense to try to end this important movement.

The bottom line is that the Occupy protests are disruptive. That's the idea. That's the idea of any serious protest movement: to be disruptive - to stop business as usual - to force the media and the society at large to focus on a critical, fundamental problem.

When Rosa Parks refused to go to the back of the bus in Montgomery she was being "disruptive." So was the bus boycott that followed.

When the sit-down strikers that founded the United Auto Workers refused to leave the plants in Flint, Michigan in the 1930's, they were being "disruptive."

When Gandhi led tens of thousands of Indians in the civil disobedience that ultimately toppled British Imperialism, he was being "disruptive."

When thousands of Wisconsin workers refused to leave the State Capitol in Madison earlier this year, they were being "disruptive."

When the people of Egypt occupied Tahrir Square in Cairo they were being "disruptive".

The protesters who dumped tea into Boston harbor in 1773 were being "disruptive."

The idea of the Occupy Movement is to occupy Wall Street and other public spaces to demand that American government and business pay attention to the elephant in the room - the exploding inequality in wealth and power between the 99% and the 1%.

The pundits who charge that the Occupy Movement doesn't have demands must be on another planet. They may not like their demand - but the Occupy Movement has a very clear demand: end that inequality of wealth and power - and end it now.

Protest movements that change history are always "disruptive" of the status quo. The mayors who are so concerned that Occupy is "disruptive" should instead turn their attention to the level of disruption caused by Wall Street, when its greed and reckless speculation collapsed the world economy cost eight million Americans their jobs and caused a recession that has lasted over three years. Now that's "disruption." And that's exactly what the Occupy Wall Street Movement is demanding be changed.

Some of these mayors are good people. But they are focusing on small-bore problems without backing up at the chart to look at the bigger picture.

The Occupy Wall Street Movement is not just a group of random protesters. They have spawned a critically important historic, worldwide movement that is born of the most fundamental problem facing American society - the future of the American Dream - the future of the middle class. The future of democracy.

Years from now people will look back at video of police in riot gear rousting Occupy protesters, who they will be remember as heroes of American democracy.

The question for these mayors is what they want their grandkids to think of them as they watch that video.

Will school children in fifty years think of them the way they think of Bull Connor as he ordered civil rights protesters driven from parks with fire hoses? Will their actions be described in the same narrative as Herbert Hoover's orders to remove the Bonus Marchers from Washington in the Great Depression?

The one thing we know from history is that once a movement that is rooted in a demand for justice has taken root, attempts to destroy it with brut force almost always make it stronger. And those who attempt to destroy these movements almost always fail.

This is a moment when mayors across the country need to look into their mirror, and decide which side they're on.

Whatever their intentions, the mayors who have acted to end the Occupy protests around America over the last few days are on the wrong side of history.

[Peter Lemkin]

Transcript of the speech: "There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odiousmakes you so sick at heartthat you can't take part. You can't even passively take part. And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all."

[Magda Hassan]

These marching orders were taken most seriously in where else? the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement back in 1964, at Sproul Plaza, entry way into the University of California at Berkeley. FSM's birth was prompted by the arrest of Jack Weinberg for soliciting money for the civil rights movement. He was put into a police car, but a spontaneous sit-down trapped it. Eventually the roof was used as a FSM platform.

The amazing arrest of Jack Weinberg,placed in a police car,and surrounded by protesters for 32 hours.This is what Democracy looked like, "back in the day"!

Thanks for this Keith! I haven't seen this before. Good to see how it started.