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

[Albert Doyle]

I promise you Peter that the best way to destroy the meaningful message of a movement is to show it practicing petty complaints and posing. I'm not aiming this at you personally, but Martin Luther King would scold this type of stuff and pull them back into respectful ranks.

[Peter Lemkin]

As I post this very good summary of events Saturday in Oakland, the DC Occupy locations [2] are threatened with removal today! Things are getting tighter and tighter for Occupy!.....more on that soon. Here is a very good summary of Oakland.

AMY GOODMAN: We turn now to Oakland, California, where police have arrested more than 400 Occupy Oakland protesters as well as a number of journalists. One of the largest mass arrests since the Occupy protests began took place on Saturday and early Sunday when people attempted to convert a vacant building into a community center. On Saturday, after the crowd reportedly refused to follow police orders to disperse from the vacant Henry J. Kaiser Convention Center, witnesses say police used tear gas, bean bag projectiles and flash grenades. Several hours later, police said some of the protesters broke into City Hall. However, demonstrators claimed they found the door to City Hall already ajar.

The Associated Press quoted Oakland Mayor Jean Quan as saying people who broke into City Hall burned a flag they found inside, broke an electrical box, and damaged art displays. Mayor Quan, later directly addressing Occupy Oakland and its supporters.

MAYOR JEAN QUAN: Occupy Oakland has got to stop using Oakland as its playground, and that people in the community and people in the Occupy movement have to stop making excuses for this behavior.

AMY GOODMAN: Meanwhile, the Occupy Oakland Media Committee group issued its statement, saying police officers had violated their department's code of conduct for dealing with protesters, calling the mass arrests "illegal."

For more, we go now to a video report from Oakland filed by John Hamilton.

JOHN HAMILTON: Occupy Oakland billed Saturday as "Move-In Day," as their afternoon march set its sights on the sprawling Kaiser Convention Center near downtown.

POLICE OFFICER: I hereby declare this to be an unlawful assembly and, in the name of the people of the state of California, command all those assembled to immediately leave the area.

BOOTS RILEY: Occupy Oakland is marching to go occupy a building to have a home base. They're kicking folks out of Oscar Grant Plaza, so we're going to go take a building.

JOHN HAMILTON: A crowd of some 2,000 hoped to turn the vacant convention center into a community space, but Oakland's police department had other ideas.

POLICE OFFICER: You may be arrested or subject to removal by force, if necessary, which may result in serious injury.

PROTESTER 1: This is not an unlawful assembly. This is a lawful assembly. We are not doing any vandalism.

JOHN HAMILTON: Thwarted in their attempt to claim a new space for Occupy Oakland, protesters soon found themselves face to face with scores of riot police. Stephanie Demos is an Occupy Oakland activist.

STEPHANIE DEMOS: Police began firebombing the crowd. They were shooting rubber bullets, they were shooting explosive devices, and they were shooting tear gas. And we were all gassed. I was gassed.

PROTESTER 2: I started tasting a little tear gas in the back of my mouth, and then I saw a shot, and it landed right where some people had these like corrugated metal sort of barricady things. And everybody started running. And then you could really kind of taste the tear gas.

JOHN HAMILTON: The extraordinary violence came as protesters sought to reestablish a permanent occupation, following police raids last November which cleared their encampment outside City Hall.

STEPHANIE DEMOS: For Move-In Day, the objective was to get a large building where we might be able to have our meetings indoors, especially during winters, and have a good kitchen where we could provide not only for ourselves as a movement, but provide for the homeless population in this town who do not have kitchens and do not have food half the time, have spaces for people, you know, to gather and have a library and every other kind of regular social function that a community space would have.

JOHN HAMILTON: Members of Occupy Oakland say their campaign to challenge corporate power was dealt a serious setback after city officials denied them a permanent public space. Marla Schmalle is an Oakland community activist.

MARLA SCHMALLE: When we had the encampment, people could come down every night. But people lived here all day, and they kept talking, and the consciousness began to build. So when the camp was taken away, and it was cold anyhow out here, I mean, we really need a place in order to develop our consciousness about what's happening.

JOHN HAMILTON: In all, about 400 people were arrested throughout Saturday's day of action, many of them kettled by police in an area outside a YMCA during a nighttime march through Oakland's downtown. Again, Stephanie Demos.

STEPHANIE DEMOS: And as they were marching, they were waylaid by police again and kettled in to in front of the YMCA, where they were surrounded by police. And when they were given an order to disperse, they were not given a path to disperse.

PROTESTER 3: We want to go. We want to leave. Let us leave.

PROTESTER 4: We don't want to be here. We want to go.

STEPHANIE DEMOS: They were completely surrounded and pushed into the building. So, there were people working inside the building who voluntarily opened the doors to the building to let people get in and escape out the back way.

JOHN HAMILTON: But the day's actions and the arrests that would follow were not done. Pacifica Radio host Mitch Jeserich witnessed a further protest at Oakland City Hall.

MITCH JESERICH: I didn't see anyone break into City Hall. The door was open. Some people went inside. A lot of people didn't go inside. You could tell there wasa lot of people were hesitant to go inside. It seemed like a very major thing to do. The people who did go inside, they went into, I believe, the city council chamber, brought out the American flag that was in there, and then tried to burn it. They didn't burn the whole thing, but they tried to burn it out here. Then the police showed up, fired some flash grenades, smoke bombs, and it dispersed.

JOHN HAMILTON: Though they endured the largest day of arrests in their young movement's history, members of Occupy Oakland say they're preparing to escalate their campaign.

PROTESTER 5: Occupy Oakland will join in enthusiastically with the call for a national and global general strike on May 1st, May Day, 2012. And we encourage all other Occupies, all other social movements in the world, in this country, to join on to that call, as well, and make May 1st a massive general strike across the world.

PROTESTER 6: With 200 exactly votes yes, a strike has passed. No stand-asides, zero no's, to voted, 200.

JOHN HAMILTON: For Democracy Now!, I'm John Hamilton, with Brandon Jourdan, in Oakland, California.

AMY GOODMAN: And you are watching and listening to Democracy Now! I'm Amy Goodman, as we turn now to Berkeley, California, to Maria Lewis. She's a participant in the Occupy Oakland movement, an undergraduate at UC Berkeley, where she is broadcasting to us from.

Maria, explain what happened this weekend and what happened to you.

MARIA LEWIS: Hi. Yeah. So, this weekend, despite the brutal police repression that the people of Oakland faced, I think was a really beautiful weekend. What we saw was thousands of people taking to the streets to reclaim what this economic and political system in this country has systematically denied us, which is the right to basic food, basic shelter, basic medical care, the things that the Oakland Commune, Occupy Oakland, used to provide in its encampment and has been unable to since that encampment was brutally repressed by the Oakland police. There were thousands of people in the street who fought to reclaim a building, a vacant building, and one of the hundreds of vacant buildings in the city, and to open that space up for people as a social center, as a place where we can get basicour basic needs met and meet them ourselves. And while we weren't able to secure that building this weekend, I was really amazed at the spirit and the voracity of the Oakland residents who were fighting in the street this weekend.

I think one of the other things we saw this weekend was a brutal police repression that was really revealing about the priorities of the city. So, tear gas, flashbang grenades, rubber bullets, beanbag guns were all used against Oakland residents who were attempting to retake an abandoned building. All of this was used to protect abandoned private property, and I think that that's really revealing about the city's priorities, that it's really more interested in protecting abandoned private property than it is in human beings.

AMY GOODMAN: Maria Lewis, what about some of the reports that said that the protesters were violent?

MARIA LEWIS: Absolutely. There was a lot of anger this weekend, and I think that the anger that the protesters showed in the streets this weekend and the fighting back that did take place was reflective of a larger anger in Oakland that is boiling over at the betrayal of the system. I think that people, day by day, are realizing, as the economy gets worse and worse, as unemployment gets worse and worse, as homelessness gets worse and worse, that the economic system, that capitalism in Oakland, is failing us. And people are really angry about that, and they're beginning to fight back. And I think that that's a really inspiring thing.

AMY GOODMAN: Maria, you were not personally arrested, but you haveI mean, this weekend, we saw one of the largest mass arrests in the last year. Seven hundred people were arrested on the Brooklyn Bridge at the beginning of the Occupy Wall Street movement in New York. Talk about your own choices in not being arrested, also being a student and your involvement with this movement, and how the arrests were conducted.

MARIA LEWIS: Yeah. So, what happenedthere were several arrests that happened during the day, when we attempted to occupy the Kaiser center, but the majority of the arrests happened later that evening when we attempted to march to a backup location and to occupy a backup location. The police kettled the protesters twice. The first time we were kettled at 19th and Telegraph, we were surrounded on all sides and given no option to disperse and then tear-gassed while in the kettle. And it was only really through the scrappiness and resourcefulness of the protesters that we were able to escape that kettle by tearing down a fence and escaping. The protest was then kettled about 20 minutes later at another intersection. Some people were able to escape over a fence, and a few people were able to escape through the YMCA, which opened its doors to us once they realized what was going on. But many people did not escape, and I've heard estimates of up to 400 people arrested.

AMY GOODMAN: Oakland City Council Member Ignacio De La Fuente accused the Occupy movement of engaging in domestic terror.

CITY COUNCIL MEMBER IGNACIO DE LA FUENTE: It's an escalation with ourI think that basically what, in my opinion, amounts to kind of a domestic terrorism, when these people start taking buildings, and they start costing the city incredible amount of resources.

AMY GOODMAN: Maria Lewis, your response?

MARIA LEWIS: Yeah. I think that that wasthe idea that reclaiming vacant abandoned buildings is terrorism is very retelling of the city's priorities and of what the citywhat the Oakland Police Department serves and protects. They are more interested in protecting abandoned private property than they are the people. And the idea that opening up a social center is terrorism is very telling of the narrative of the police state.

Video of the events and discussion is here.

[Keith Millea]

I think my first ever real concert.The Rascals at the Henry Kaiser circa 1966(?).

[Peter Lemkin]

I think my first ever real concert.The Rascals at the Henry Kaiser circa 1966(?).

Nothing Lasts.....

[Keith Millea]

I think my first ever real concert.The Rascals at the Henry Kaiser circa 1966(?).

Nothing Lasts.....

COOL MAN!

[Peter Lemkin]

Occupy Wall Street Journalist Tim Pool Hit By Masked Man Last Night
By Nick Pinto Mon., Jan. 30 2012 at 12:00 PM

Luke Rudkowski
This guy hit a journalist last night.

​Hundreds of people marched through Manhattan last night to protest the mass arrests in Oakland the day before. In some ways, the action was a lot like many Occupy Wall Street marches that have come before -- chanting, weaving through neighborhoods, occasionally sprinting to outflank the police, finally petering out.


But there were some new elements too: More of the protesters wore black and masked their faces, a protest tactic called Black Bloc that makes it harder for police to pick individuals out of the crowd. Snapple-bottles and soda cans were thrown at police. And a well-known video journalist was assaulted by a masked marcher.

Tim Pool was covering the march last night, livestreaming his video and commentary, when a masked protester ahead of him whirled and struck him, knocking the phone he uses as a camera out of his hands. (You can see Pool's video below.)

Luke Rudkowski, another Occupy Wall Street journalist who livestreams as We Are Change, was nearby. He pulled the attacker's mask down, and captured him on camera. This morning, Rudkowski tweeted stills showing the attacker's face.

Pool, though clearly shaken, was unharmed. But the scuffle illustrated a larger ambivalence within Occupy Wall Street about Pool and his camera. An admitted sympathizer but not an occupier himself, Pool has become one of the breakout media stars of the movement, profiled in dozens of outlets from the New York Times and Fast Company to Boing Boing.

But Pool isn't universally loved by the people he's covering. His insistence on keeping the camera rolling, even when protesters ask him to stop, and even when he's capturing them in the middle of illegal activity, rubs some in the movement the wrong way.

The night Occupy Wall Street was evicted from Zuccotti Park, Pool stumbled on a group of occupiers in the midst of letting the air out of the tires of police cruisers. Despite the forceful requests of the sabateurs, Pool refused to stop filming. The resulting confrontation -- broadcast live to thousands -- cemented his reputation among some radical occupiers as untrustworthy, more interested in building his personal brand than supporting the movement.

"I and other people have been very uncomfortable with him filming us." said Patrick Bruner, who worked as a media liason and spokesman for the occupation in its early months. "He's aware of that."

On last night's march, Bruner shone a flashlight into Pool's camera whenever it was trained on him, and was nearby when Pool was struck. Bruner says he doesn't know who attacked Pool, but that Pool's behavior -- Bruner accuses him of helping the police make arrests -- makes him unwelcome.

Pool has released a statement on last night's attack, and suggested that his assailant may well have been an undercover police officer, taking advantage of the black bloc tactics to disrupt the livestreaming that has been central to the movement so far.

Last night's episode speaks to an ongoing tension within Occupy Wall Street, as many protesters and organizers embrace radical transparency, while others -- especially those involved in planning direct actions -- see a need for secrecy and strict security culture to protect the movement from the government infiltrators almost everyone agrees must be within the movement.

Bruner warned that the ongoing police crackdowns against occupations from Oakland to New York only serve to encourage protesters to protect themselves with increasing secrecy and Black Bloc tactics:

"As we continue to face increasing police repression, you'll see the tactics changing."

Here's video from Pool's stream showing the attack.

[videos are all here.]

And here's a larger version of Rudkowski's pictures of the man who struck Pool:


Luke Rudkowski

​


[npinto@villagevoice.com] [@macfathom]

Go to Runnin' Scared for all our latest news coverage.

[Peter Lemkin]

How Swedes and Norwegians Broke the Power of the "One Percent"
Monday 30 January 2012
by: George Lakey, Waging Nonviolence | Op-Ed

Swedish flag. (Photo: morberg)

While many of us are working to ensure that the Occupy movement will have a lasting impact, it's worthwhile to consider other countries where masses of people succeeded in nonviolently bringing about a high degree of democracy and economic justice. Sweden and Norway, for example, both experienced a major power shift in the 1930s after prolonged nonviolent struggle. They "fired" the top 1 percent of people who set the direction for society and created the basis for something different.

Both countries had a history of horrendous poverty. When the 1 percent was in charge, hundreds of thousands of people emigrated to avoid starvation. Under the leadership of the working class, however, both countries built robust and successful economies that nearly eliminated poverty, expanded free university education, abolished slums, provided excellent health care available to all as a matter of right and created a system of full employment. Unlike the Norwegians, the Swedes didn't find oil, but that didn't stop them from building what the latest CIA World Factbook calls "an enviable standard of living."

Neither country is a utopia, as readers of the crime novels by Stieg Larsson, Kurt Wallender and Jo Nesbro will know. Critical left-wing authors such as these try to push Sweden and Norway to continue on the path toward more fully just societies. However, as an American activist who first encountered Norway as a student in 1959 and learned some of its language and culture, the achievements I found amazed me. I remember, for example, bicycling for hours through a small industrial city, looking in vain for substandard housing. Sometimes resisting the evidence of my eyes, I made up stories that "accounted for" the differences I saw: "small country," "homogeneous," "a value consensus." I finally gave up imposing my frameworks on these countries and learned the real reason: their own histories.

Then I began to learn that the Swedes and Norwegians paid a price for their standards of living through nonviolent struggle. There was a time when Scandinavian workers didn't expect that the electoral arena could deliver the change they believed in. They realized that, with the 1 percent in charge, electoral "democracy" was stacked against them, so nonviolent direct action was needed to exert the power for change.

In both countries, the troops were called out to defend the 1 percent; people died. Award-winning Swedish filmmaker Bo Widerberg told the Swedish story vividly in Ã…dalen 31, which depicts the strikers killed in 1931 and the sparking of a nationwide general strike. (You can read more about this case in an entry by Max Rennebohm in the Global Nonviolent Action Database.)

The Norwegians had a harder time organizing a cohesive people's movement because Norway's small populationabout three millionwas spread out over a territory the size of Britain. People were divided by mountains and fjords, and they spoke regional dialects in isolated valleys. In the nineteenth century, Norway was ruled by Denmark and then by Sweden; in the context of Europe Norwegians were the "country rubes," of little consequence. Not until 1905 did Norway finally become independent.

When workers formed unions in the early 1900s, they generally turned to Marxism, organizing for revolution as well as immediate gains. They were overjoyed by the overthrow of the czar in Russia, and the Norwegian Labor Party joined the Communist International organized by Lenin. Labor didn't stay long, however. One way in which most Norwegians parted ways with Leninist strategy was on the role of violence: Norwegians wanted to win their revolution through collective nonviolent struggle, along with establishing co-ops and using the electoral arena.

In the 1920s strikes increased in intensity. The town of Hammerfest formed a commune in 1921, led by workers councils; the army intervened to crush it. The workers' response verged toward a national general strike. The employers, backed by the state, beat back that strike, but workers erupted again in the ironworkers' strike of 192324.

The Norwegian 1 percent decided not to rely simply on the army; in 1926 they formed a social movement called the Patriotic League, recruiting mainly from the middle class. By the 1930s, the League included as many as 100,000 people for armed protection of strike breakersthis in a country of only 3 million!

The Labor Party, in the meantime, opened its membership to anyone, whether or not in a unionized workplace. Middle-class Marxists and some reformers joined the party. Many rural farm workers joined the Labor Party, as well as some small landholders. Labor leadership understood that in a protracted struggle, constant outreach and organizing was needed to a nonviolent campaign. In the midst of the growing polarization, Norway's workers launched another wave of strikes and boycotts in 1928.

The Depression hit bottom in 1931. More people were jobless there than in any other Nordic country. Unlike in the U.S., the Norwegian union movement kept the people thrown out of work as members, even though they couldn't pay dues. This decision paid off in mass mobilizations. When the employers' federation locked employees out of the factories to try to force a reduction of wages, the workers fought back with massive demonstrations.

Many people then found that their mortgages were in jeopardy. (Sound familiar?) The Depression continued, and farmers were unable to keep up payment on their debts. As turbulence hit the rural sector, crowds gathered nonviolently to prevent the eviction of families from their farms. The Agrarian Party, which included larger farmers and had previously been allied with the Conservative Party, began to distance itself from the 1 percent; some could see that the ability of the few to rule the many was in doubt.

By 1935, Norway was on the brink. The Conservative-led government was losing legitimacy daily; the 1 percent became increasingly desperate as militancy grew among workers and farmers. A complete overthrow might be just a couple years away, radical workers thought. However, the misery of the poor became more urgent daily, and the Labor Party felt increasing pressure from its members to alleviate their suffering, which it could do only if it took charge of the government in a compromise agreement with the other side.

This it did. In a compromise that allowed owners to retain the right to own and manage their firms, Labor in 1935 took the reins of government in coalition with the Agrarian Party. They expanded the economy and started public works projects to head toward a policy of full employment that became the keystone of Norwegian economic policy. Labor's success and the continued militancy of workers enabled steady inroads against the privileges of the 1 percent, to the point that majority ownership of all large firms was taken by the public interest. (There is an entry on this case as well at the Global Nonviolent Action Database.)

The 1 percent thereby lost its historic power to dominate the economy and society. Not until three decades later could the Conservatives return to a governing coalition, having by then accepted the new rules of the game, including a high degree of public ownership of the means of production, extremely progressive taxation, strong business regulation for the public good and the virtual abolition of poverty. When Conservatives eventually tried a fling with neoliberal policies, the economy generated a bubble and headed for disaster. (Sound familiar?)

Labor stepped in, seized the three largest banks, fired the top management, left the stockholders without a dime and refused to bail out any of the smaller banks. The well-purged Norwegian financial sector was not one of those countries that lurched into crisis in 2008; carefully regulated and much of it publicly owned, the sector was solid.

Although Norwegians may not tell you about this the first time you meet them, the fact remains that their society's high level of freedom and broadly-shared prosperity began when workers and farmers, along with middle class allies, waged a nonviolent struggle that empowered the people to govern for the common good.

[Peter Lemkin]

As Freddie Mac comes under scrutiny for betting billions on investments that profit if homeowners they issued loans to are locked into high-interest mortgages, we speak with Arturo de los Santos, a U.S. Marine veteran who was evicted last year in Riverside, California, after Freddie Mac and JPMorgan Chase foreclosed on his house last June. "We were trying to get the bank's attention to review our case again. We couldn't believe that after they had evicted us, they modified our loan," de los Santos says. "I called, and I told them, 'I thought we were doing the loan modification.' And they go, 'Well, we have a loan modification department and a foreclosure department, and the foreclosure department decided to sell the house.' So they sold the house." De los Santos and his family reoccupied their home in December with help from the Occupy movement, but face eviction again this week.

AMY GOODMAN: We're also joined from Irvine, California, by a homeowner who could face eviction this week by Freddie Mac, which, with JPMorgan Chase, foreclosed on his house in June. Arturo de los Santos and his family began reoccupying their home in Riverside after the banks foreclosed on it. He's a former marine who has lived in his house for almost a decade with his wife and four kids.

Arturo de los Santos, welcome to Democracy Now! Explain your situation right now.

ARTURO DE LOS SANTOS: Good morning.

What I was doing, I was having aI was doing a loan modification. And during my loan modification, we received a call the day before our house went to sale, and they sold the house. And eventually, we were evicted. When we were evicted, two weeks after we were evicted, I received a letter withsaying we had been approved for the loan modification. So, in December, we reoccupied the house. We were trying to get the bank's attention to review our case again. We couldn't believe that after they had evicted us, they modified our loan. Whenthe day before they sold the house, I called them and told themthis is the third time I had applied for a loan modification. I asked themsomebodythey called the house saying they were going to sell it the next day. So I called, and I told them, "I thought we were doing the loan modification." And they go, "Well, we have a loan modification department and a foreclosure department, and the foreclosure department decided to sell the house." So they sold the house. So, when we received the loan modification two weeks after we had been evicted from the house, I decided to fight back, and we reoccupied the house in December. And just this week, actually on Sunday, I received a letter that I have a court date February 2nd forthey're trying to get a court order to evict us from the house.

AMY GOODMAN: And this is Freddie Mac and JPMorgan Chase?

ARTURO DE LOS SANTOS: Correct. The court orderthe court date is for Freddie Mac. So what we plan to dowe set up a website, http://www.makebankspaycalifornia.com. And ifwe're going to put up tents. And we have supporters from different groups. The main group is ACCE, Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment. So we're going towe have supporters that are going to stay at the house. So, if we do get evicted, we have people there supporting us.

AMY GOODMAN: Arturo de los Santos, what was your reaction to Jesse Eisinger's story, learning that Freddie Mac had bet against homeowners?

ARTURO DE LOS SANTOS: I think that has a lot to do with it. Like I said, we were working with the bank. And during our loan modification, I would call them, and they would reassure me everything was going fine. And then I find out, a day before they sell the house, that their foreclosure department had decided to sell the house. So it'sI felt like I was being tricked. The loan modification had told me not to make any more payments. I applied three times. The first time I was denied, they told me not to make any more payments. And I think what happened is, one of their departments, which was the loan modification department, told me not to make payments, while their foreclosure department didn't know they had told me that. And they were thinking I was delinquent. So, I toldthe first time I was denied, I told them my income was back to normal, my hours at my job were back to normal, so I could make my original payments. And they wouldn't accept any more payments. So I've been trying to work with the bank, trying to make my payments, and they won't accept any payments.

AMY GOODMAN: How has Occupy Riverside helped you, Arturo?

ARTURO DE LOS SANTOS: They have supported me. Actually, Occupy Riverside and Occupy L.A., when we reoccupied the house on December 6th, they supported me. They were at the house untilalmost 'til the end of the year. And they've been supporting me, having people there, make sure there's a presence at the house.

AMY GOODMAN: Jesse Eisinger, how typical is Arturo's story?

JESSE EISINGER: Well, my understanding is it's extremely typical, that this has been an enormously frustrating situation for millions of homeowners trying to get modifications. In fact, our story deals with refinancings, which is kind of distinct from modifications. There's a federal program that has been widely viewed as a calamity, trying to deal with modifications, helping homeowners who cannot afford their loans, and maybe in homes that are underwater, as you said, or their interest rates have skyrocketed. And then there is a separate category of people who, for our story, what's relevant is that these people are notthey're not delinquent on their loans. They are paying their loans, and they would benefit from a lower loan, but they otherwise don't have deeply tarnished credit. They may have some issues, but it's nothing spectacular. And what they would benefit from is a lower mortgage rate.

AMY GOODMAN: Jesse Eisinger, what do you make of Gingrich's claim that there's too much regulation of the housing industry?

JESSE EISINGER: Well, I mean, that's a fairly comical and bizarre assertion to make, because in the lead-up to the housing crisis, most of these loans were unfettered by regulation. The most troubled activities, like collateralized debt obligations and credit derivatives, were completely unregulated. So, there's no indication that onerous regulation led to either the housing bubble or the financial crash. But this is a line that the right has propagated since the housing crash and since the financial crisis, and it's all typical. But there's really little evidence to support it.

AMY GOODMAN: Jesse Eisinger, I want to thank you very much for being with us.

JESSE EISINGER: Thank you.

AMY GOODMAN: Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter. His piece is called "Freddie Mac Bets Against American Homeowners." He writes for ProPublica. This piece was done with ProPublica and NPR News. Arturo de los Santos, thank you for being with us. He and his family began reoccupying their home in Riverside, California, last December after JPMorgan Chase and Freddie Mac foreclosed on it in June. He is a Marine veteran.

[Keith Millea]

[Peter Lemkin]

I guess just like they tried to make spray paint almost illegal, they will soon make lights brighter than a certain number of watts illegal.....too! In fact, I predict that soon, anything that is not explicitly allowed will be deemed illegal...hmmm....it might be already on second thought.