Demonstraties VS #2: Waar de protesten zich uitbreiden

quote:

Op dinsdag 18 oktober 2011 11:41 schreef Homey het volgende:

[..]

Nee hoor, de grootte van de overheid is te meten aan diens uitgaven. En die zijn enorm gestegen, zie ook de exposieve groei van de staatsschuld. De overheid is dus juist enorm gegroeid.

quote:

Op dinsdag 18 oktober 2011 10:28 schreef Lyrebird het volgende:

[..]

Nee, waar Republikeinen voor zijn, scheelt niet veel met waar Democraten voor zijn. Het verschil is hoe ze dat denken aan te pakken. Republikeinen denken dat met meer overheid te doen, en Democraten denken het met nog veel meer overheid te doen. De oplossing is minder overheid, maar dat is waarschijnlijk - en helaas - een gepasseerd station.

quote:

Op dinsdag 18 oktober 2011 11:24 schreef DustPuppy het volgende:

[..]

Volgens mij lopen we ontzettend langs elkaar heen te lullen, maar goed.

quote:

Op dinsdag 18 oktober 2011 11:43 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Dat is vooral het gevolg van de twee oorlogen en de crisis. De overheid is niet enorm gegroeid. Reagan en later Bush (de eerste) en zelfs Clinton hebben de overheid verkleind. Bijvoorbeeld door het sociale vangnet fors in te perken en een groot aantal regels te schrappen.

quote:

Op dinsdag 18 oktober 2011 14:19 schreef Homey het volgende:

[..]

de 2 oorlogen zijn toch overheid? het is niet de bedrijvensector of de particulieren die dat zijn begonnen. Grosso moddo is de overheid dus zeker wel enorm gegroeid, andere statistiek die dat aantoont is de verhouding publieke sector/private sector t.o.v BNP. Sinds JFK flink toegenomen.

Wat de onderliggende mix is van de overheid, ja dat kan wijzigen. Nogmaals, in totaal is de overheid enorm gegroeid, en dat verklaart de enorme staatsschuld en oorlogswoede rondom de wereld. Oplossing: sterke verkleining van de overheid.

quote:

Op dinsdag 18 oktober 2011 16:01 schreef Perrin het volgende:
William Black op MSNBC..
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/44935992#44935992

(via zerohedge)

quote:

Op dinsdag 18 oktober 2011 16:21 schreef ComplexConjugate het volgende:

[..]

Hier in Europa moeten we de banksters en corrupte politici ook gaan vervolgen.

quote:

Op dinsdag 18 oktober 2011 16:22 schreef arucard het volgende:

[..]

Ook als ze niets illegaals hebben gedaan?

quote:

Op dinsdag 18 oktober 2011 16:21 schreef ComplexConjugate het volgende:

[..]

Hier in Europa moeten we de banksters en corrupte politici ook gaan vervolgen.

quote:

Polling the Occupy Wall Street Crowd

In interviews, protesters show that they are leftists out of step with most American voters. Yet Democrats are embracing them anyway.

President Obama and the Democratic leadership are making a critical error in embracing the Occupy Wall Street movement—and it may cost them the 2012 election.

Last week, senior White House adviser David Plouffe said that "the protests you're seeing are the same conversations people are having in living rooms and kitchens all across America. . . . People are frustrated by an economy that does not reward hard work and responsibility, where Wall Street and Main Street don't seem to play by the same set of rules." Nancy Pelosi and others have echoed the message.

Yet the Occupy Wall Street movement reflects values that are dangerously out of touch with the broad mass of the American people—and particularly with swing voters who are largely independent and have been trending away from the president since the debate over health-care reform.

The protesters have a distinct ideology and are bound by a deep commitment to radical left-wing policies. On Oct. 10 and 11, Arielle Alter Confino, a senior researcher at my polling firm, interviewed nearly 200 protesters in New York's Zuccotti Park. Our findings probably represent the first systematic random sample of Occupy Wall Street opinion.

Our research shows clearly that the movement doesn't represent unemployed America and is not ideologically diverse. Rather, it comprises an unrepresentative segment of the electorate that believes in radical redistribution of wealth, civil disobedience and, in some instances, violence. Half (52%) have participated in a political movement before, virtually all (98%) say they would support civil disobedience to achieve their goals, and nearly one-third (31%) would support violence to advance their agenda.

The vast majority of demonstrators are actually employed, and the proportion of protesters unemployed (15%) is within single digits of the national unemployment rate (9.1%).

An overwhelming majority of demonstrators supported Barack Obama in 2008. Now 51% disapprove of the president while 44% approve, and only 48% say they will vote to re-elect him in 2012, while at least a quarter won't vote.

Fewer than one in three (32%) call themselves Democrats, while roughly the same proportion (33%) say they aren't represented by any political party.

What binds a large majority of the protesters together—regardless of age, socioeconomic status or education—is a deep commitment to left-wing policies: opposition to free-market capitalism and support for radical redistribution of wealth, intense regulation of the private sector, and protectionist policies to keep American jobs from going overseas.

Sixty-five percent say that government has a moral responsibility to guarantee all citizens access to affordable health care, a college education, and a secure retirement—no matter the cost. By a large margin (77%-22%), they support raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, but 58% oppose raising taxes for everybody, with only 36% in favor. And by a close margin, protesters are divided on whether the bank bailouts were necessary (49%) or unnecessary (51%).

Thus Occupy Wall Street is a group of engaged progressives who are disillusioned with the capitalist system and have a distinct activist orientation. Among the general public, by contrast, 41% of Americans self-identify as conservative, 36% as moderate, and only 21% as liberal. That's why the Obama-Pelosi embrace of the movement could prove catastrophic for their party.

In 1970, aligning too closely with the antiwar movement hurt Democrats in the midterm election, when many middle-class and working-class Americans ended up supporting hawkish candidates who condemned student disruptions. While that 1970 election should have been a sweep against the first-term Nixon administration, it was instead one of only four midterm elections since 1938 when the president's party didn't lose seats.

With the Democratic Party on the defensive throughout the 1970 campaign, liberal Democrats were only able to win on Election Day by distancing themselves from the student protest movement. So Adlai Stevenson III pinned an American flag to his lapel, appointed Chicago Seven prosecutor Thomas Foran chairman of his Citizen's Committee, and emphasized "law and order"—a tactic then employed by Ted Kennedy, who denounced the student protesters as "campus commandos" who must be repudiated, "especially by those who may share their goals."

Today, having abandoned any effort to work with the congressional super committee to craft a bipartisan agreement on deficit reduction, President Obama has thrown in with those who support his desire to tax oil companies and the rich, rather than appeal to independent and self-described moderate swing voters who want smaller government and lower taxes, not additional stimulus or interference in the private sector.

Rather than embracing huge new spending programs and tax increases, plus increasingly radical and potentially violent activists, the Democrats should instead build a bridge to the much more numerous independents and moderates in the center by opposing bailouts and broad-based tax increases.

Put simply, Democrats need to say they are with voters in the middle who want cooperation, conciliation and lower taxes. And they should work particularly hard to contrast their rhetoric with the extremes advocated by the Occupy Wall Street crowd.

quote:

Occupy Denver (Uncensored) – SWAT Assault – October 15, 2011

The following events happened just prior to this footage being captured:

After a lively march around downtown, encircling the Federal Reserve Denver Branch, thousands of people from all walks of life, flooded back onto the park in the front of the Colorado State Capitol building. Someone had set up a tent providing food and water to the crowd. It was a sunny and unusually warm day for October in Denver, and water inparticular was in high demand. The crowd was passionate, but totally non-violent. Large teams of police and government agents had closed nearby roads and were surrounding the protesters from a distance.

The occupation was taking place peacefully, until a man with a badge threatened to cage the people working the food tent for not having a permit to vend. The “vendors” refused to close down, then a small but heavily armed, team of police started slowly moving towards kitchen tent. At this time, people got fed up. They swarmed across the street towards the team of police, in an attempt to record and block the cops from encroaching any farther towards the make-shift kitchen. A human shield was set up around the kitchen, and the state’s initial assault was prevented.

Occupy Denver - SWAT Assault - (Uncensored) October 15, 2011

quote:

Commander Who Pepper-Sprayed Protesters Faces Disciplinary Charge

Mr. Browne could not immediately say where the commander is now assigned. But Deputy Inspector Roy T. Richter, the head of the Captains Endowment Association, said he was still assigned to the same command.

“Deputy Inspector Bologna is disappointed at the results of the department investigation,” Inspector Richter said. “His actions prevented further injury and escalation of tumultuous conduct. To date, this conduct has not been portrayed in its true context.”

quote:

A Message From Occupied Wall Street (Day Five)
Published 2011-09-22 07:51:42 UTC by OccupyWallSt
at OccupyWallStreet.org

This is the fifth communiqué from the 99 percent. We are occupying Wall Street.

On September 21st, 2011, Troy Davis, an innocent man, was murdered by the state of Georgia. Troy Davis was one of the 99 percent.
Ending capital punishment is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, four of our members were arrested on baseless charges.
Ending police intimidation is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, the richest 400 Americans owned more than half of the country’s population.
Ending wealth inequality is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, we determined that Yahoo lied about occupywallst.org being in spam filters.
Ending corporate censorship is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, roughly eighty percent of Americans thought the country was on the wrong track.
Ending the modern gilded age is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, roughly 15% of Americans approved of the job Congress was doing.
Ending political corruption is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, roughly one sixth of Americans did not have work.
Ending joblessness is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, roughly one sixth of America lived in poverty.
Ending poverty is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, roughly fifty million Americans were without health insurance.
Ending health-profiteering is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, America had military bases in around one hundred and thirty out of one hundred and sixty-five countries.
Ending American imperialism is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, America was at war with the world.
Ending war is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, we stood in solidarity with Madrid, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Madison, Toronto, London, Athens, Sydney, Stuttgart, Tokyo, Milan, Amsterdam, Algiers, Tel Aviv, Portland and Chicago. Soon we will stand with Phoenix, Montreal, Cleveland and Atlanta. We’re still here. We are growing. We intend to stay until we see movements toward real change in our country and the world.

You have fought all the wars. You have worked for all the bosses. You have wandered over all the countries. Have you harvested the fruits of your labors, the price of your victories? Does the past comfort you? Does the present smile on you? Does the future promise you anything? Have you found a piece of land where you can live like a human being and die like a human being?

On these questions, on this argument, and on this theme, the struggle for existence, the people will speak. Join us.
We speak as one. All of our decisions, from our choice to march on Wall Street to our decision to continue occupying Liberty Square, were decided through a consensus based process by the group, for the group.
END OF 9/22/2011 DOCUMENT

quote:

Op woensdag 19 oktober 2011 10:20 schreef arucard het volgende:
Wat moeten we met al die arrestatie filmpjes/fotos?

quote:

CNN Uses GOP Debate Coverage To Spread Anti-Occupy Wall Street Propaganda

Two days ago, the Anti-Defamation League put out a statement that debunked Loeschs claim that Occupy Wall Street is an anti-Semitic movement. In part, the statement said, As the focus of the demonstrations continue to develop and evolve, ensuring that the movement does not get hijacked by extremists or anti-Semitic elements is critical. Public rallies like OWS often draw a wide range of people with various personal or organizational agendas, including those seeking to exploit public rallies for their own purposes. The American Nazi Party, for example, expressed their support for OWS rallies in several cities via Twitter. Thus far, however, anti-Semitism has not gained traction more broadly with the protestors, nor is it representative of the larger movement at this time.

Even worse Dana Loesch is a tea party organizer, and a contributor to CNN. In short CNN is not only providing a platform for someone to appear on their programming to spread false statements about Occupy Wall Street, but they are also paying her to do it. There was no correction by her fellow panelists, or host Anderson Cooper. Millions of people heard Loeschs propaganda go unchallenged.

Occupy Wall Street is up against a corporate media that is desperate to see them fail. CNN has completely sold out to the right, and they are completely selling out the American people by spreading right wing propaganda about Occupy Wall Street.

quote:

Naomi Wolf: how I was arrested at Occupy Wall Street

Arresting a middle-aged writer in an evening gown for peaceable conduct is a far cry from when America was a free republic

Last night I was arrested in my home town, outside an event to which I had been invited, for standing lawfully on the sidewalk in an evening gown.

Let me explain; my partner and I were attending an event for the Huffington Post, for which I often write: Game Changers 2011, in a venue space on Hudson Street. As we entered the space, we saw that about 200 Occupy Wall Street protesters were peacefully assembled and were chanting. They wanted to address Governor Andrew Cuomo, who was going to be arriving at the event. They were using a technique that has become known as "the human mic" – by which the crowd laboriously repeats every word the speaker says – since they had been told that using real megaphones was illegal.

In my book Give Me Liberty, a blueprint for how to open up a closing civil society, I have a chapter on permits – which is a crucial subject to understand for anyone involved in protest in the US. In 70s America, protest used to be very effective, but in subsequent decades municipalities have sneakily created a web of "overpermiticisation" – requirements that were designed to stifle freedom of assembly and the right to petition government for redress of grievances, both of which are part of our first amendment. One of these made-up permit requirements, which are not transparent or accountable, is the megaphone restriction.

So I informed the group on Hudson Street that they had a first amendment right to use a megaphone and that the National Lawyers' Guild should appeal the issue if they got arrested. And I repeated the words of the first amendment, which the crowd repeated.

Then my partner suggested that I ask the group for their list of demands. Since we would be inside, we thought it would be helpful to take their list into the event and if I had a chance to talk with the governor I could pass the list on. That is how a democracy works, right? The people have the right to address their representatives.

We went inside, chatted with our friends, but needed to leave before the governor had arrived. I decided I would present their list to his office in the morning and write about the response. On our exit, I saw that the protesters had been cordoned off by a now-massive phalanx of NYPD cops and pinned against the far side of the street – far away from the event they sought to address.

I went up and asked them why. They replied that they had been informed that the Huffington Post event had a permit that forbade them to use the sidewalk. I knew from my investigative reporting on NYC permits that this was impossible: a private entity cannot lease the public sidewalks; even film crews must allow pedestrian traffic. I asked the police for clarification – no response.

I went over to the sidewalk at issue and identified myself as a NYC citizen and a reporter, and asked to see the permit in question or to locate the source on the police or event side that claimed it forbade citizen access to a public sidewalk. Finally a tall man, who seemed to be with the event, confessed that while it did have a permit, the permit did allow for protest so long as we did not block pedestrian passage.

I thanked him, returned to the protesters, and said: "The permit allows us to walk on the other side of the street if we don't block access. I am now going to walk on the public sidewalk and not block it. It is legal to do so. Please join me if you wish." My partner and I then returned to the event-side sidewalk and began to walk peacefully arm in arm, while about 30 or 40 people walked with us in single file, not blocking access.

Then a phalanx of perhaps 40 white-shirted senior offices descended out of seemingly nowhere and, with a megaphone (which was supposedly illegal for citizens to use), one said: "You are unlawfully creating a disruption. You are ordered to disperse." I approached him peacefully, slowly, gently and respectfully and said: "I am confused. I was told that the permit in question allows us to walk if we don't block pedestrian access and as you see we are complying with the permit."

He gave me a look of pure hate. "Are you going to back down?" he shouted. I stood, immobilised, for a moment. "Are you getting out of my way?" I did not even make a conscious decision not to "fall back" – I simply couldn't even will myself to do so, because I knew that he was not giving a lawful order and that if I stepped aside it would be not because of the law, which I was following, but as a capitulation to sheer force. In that moment's hesitation, he said, "OK," gestured, and my partner and I were surrounded by about 20 officers who pulled our hands behind our backs and cuffed us with plastic handcuffs.

We were taken in a van to the seventh precinct – the scary part about that is that the protesters and lawyers marched to the first precinct, which handles Hudson Street, but in the van the police got the message to avoid them by rerouting me. I understood later that the protesters were lied to about our whereabouts, which seemed to me to be a trickle-down of the Bush-era detention practice of unaccountable detentions.

The officers who had us in custody were very courteous, and several expressed sympathy for the movements' aims. Nonetheless, my partner and I had our possessions taken from us, our ID copied, and we were placed in separate cells for about half an hour. It was clear that by then the police knew there was scrutiny of this arrest so they handled us with great courtesy, but my phone was taken and for half an hour I was in a faeces- or blood-smeared cell, thinking at that moment the only thing that separates civil societies from barbaric states is the rule of law – that finds the prisoner, and holds the arresting officers and courts accountable.

Another scary outcome I discovered is that, when the protesters marched to the first precinct, the whole of Erickson Street was cordoned off – "frozen" they were told, "by Homeland Security". Obviously if DHS now has powers to simply take over a New York City street because of an arrest for peaceable conduct by a middle-aged writer in an evening gown, we have entered a stage of the closing of America, which is a serious departure from our days as a free republic in which municipalities are governed by police forces.

The police are now telling my supporters that the permit in question gave the event managers "control of the sidewalks". I have asked to see the permit but still haven't been provided with it – if such a category now exists, I have never heard of it; that, too, is a serious blow to an open civil society. What did I take away? Just that, unfortunately, my partner and I became exhibit A in a process that I have been warning Americans about since 2007: first they come for the "other" – the "terrorist", the brown person, the Muslim, the outsider; then they come for you – while you are standing on a sidewalk in evening dress, obeying the law.

quote:

Op woensdag 19 oktober 2011 10:20 schreef arucard het volgende:
Wat moeten we met al die arrestatie filmpjes/fotos?

quote:

Op woensdag 19 oktober 2011 20:11 schreef ComplexConjugate het volgende:

[..]

Om de wereld te laten zien dat de VSA verandert is in een fascistische politiestaat

quote:

Op woensdag 19 oktober 2011 20:22 schreef arucard het volgende:

[..]

Je ziet wat je wilt zien.