NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label Occupy Movement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Occupy Movement. Show all posts

09 November 2012

These Guys Want to Buy Up Your Debt and Set You Free 9NOV12

THERE is scriptural basis for the concept of a Year of Jubilee, and there is still debate whether it is the 49th or 50th year, a Sabbatical year when debt is forgiven and property returned to the original owners (though slaves were to be freed after 7 years in a year of Jubilee). This is a great concept by the Occupy Wall Street movement, and it would be really great if the religious communities joined in to relieve the suffering of too many in this country. Check this out, watch the video, and if you want to try to sort out the ancient laws concerning the Jubilee Years check out Wikipedia here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jubilee_%28biblical%29
Rolling Jubilee
Going viral today almost as fast as a good pepper spray video is the latest idea from Occupy Wall Street: the Rolling Jubilee, a project to buy up and zero out people's debts. David "How To Sharpen Pencils" Rees explains:
Now OWS is launching the ROLLING JUBILEE, a program that has been in development for months. OWS is going to start buying distressed debt (medical bills, student loans, etc.) in order to forgive it. As a test run, we spent $500, which bought $14,000 of distressed debt. We then ERASED THAT DEBT. (If you're a debt broker, once you own someone's debt you can do whatever you want with it—traditionally, you hound debtors to their grave trying to collect. We're playing a different game. A MORE AWESOME GAME.)
Over at Slate, Matthew Yglesias offers limited praise:
That said, almost all charitable undertakings are organized around some gimmick or other that serves as a focal point and helps get people interested. If the pecularity of the distressed debt situation and the concept of a jubilee happens to inspire people and motivate them to be more generous with their time and money than would otherwise be the case, this is a perfectly good idea.
But ultimately, the Rolling Jubilee could do much more than inspire charity. Spending $500 to cancel $14,000 in debt is an amazing bang for the buck—or, seen differently, an amazing illustration of how the financial system that we all bailed out now enslaves many of us. Even if the Rolling Jubilee becomes wildly successful, it probably won't cancel out more than a tiny fraction of our trillions worth of personal debts. Its value is as a devastating political statement: Debt is cheap, except when it's owned by the banks.
Watch...

Do you appreciate fair and factual reporting on Occupy Wall Street? Please donate a few bucks to help us expand our coverage.

08 November 2012

Elizabeth Warren Takes Down Scott Brown & ELIZABETH WARREN'S MESSAGE TO THE PCCC 6&8NOV12

SENATOR ELIZABETH WARREN, D-MA.....sounds beautiful, doesn't it? She is a lady of, for and elected by the people. Well done Massachusetts!!!! 
| Tue Nov. 6, 2012 6:44 PM PST
Two years ago, Elizabeth Warren told David Corn that she'd rather stab herself in the eye than go back to Washington. On Tuesday, the Harvard Law professor and creator of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ate her words, knocking off Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass) in one of the most closely watched—and at times nastiest—races of the 2012 cycle. Warren's win isn't just a case of a Democrat winning in Massachusetts; perhaps no candidate, President Obama included, inspired as much enthusiasm from progressives across the country. (She raised more money than any other Senate challenger in the country, much of it from out of state.) NBC News called the race shortly after polls closed in Boston.
Warren did it largely by sticking with what made her a political star in the first place—a fierce defense of the social contract, which led Republican to dub her "Matriarch of Mayhem" for her support of Occupy Wall Street:

For Republicans, a what-might-have-been remains the campaign finance truce Warren and Brown agreed to, which barred outside groups from buying TV ad time in the Bay State (per the agreement, any independent expenditure would have to be offset with a chartiable donation from the campaign). Given the extent to which Republican outside groups outspent Democratic groups in 2012, that bargain almost certainly ended up working in Warren's favor. It also meant that the fiercest attacks on Warren's character—hitting her, for example, for identifying as Cherokee at Harvard—came from Brown himself, eroding his largely positive image in Massachusetts.
For the 53-year-old Brown, this is likely not the end of his political career. With Sen. John Kerry rumored to be a top choice to replace retiring Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, there's a possibility a new seat could open up as early as December. In that case, Brown would be a heavy favorite for the Republican nomination, and with a comparably weak Democratic bench in the state, stand a decent shot at getting his old job back. Alternatively, with Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick term-limited after 2014, he might just opt to try his luck closer to home.
This post was originally published based on inaccurate reports that the race had been called for Warren. The race has since been called by CBS and NBC.

25 October 2012

If You Succumb to Cynicism, the Regressives Win It All 25OKT12

HERE'S a great piece from Robert Reich kicking whining Progressives in the ass and making everyone who is thinking about not voting a dose of reality......
This is for those of you who consider yourself to be progressive but have given up on politics because it seems rotten to the core. You may prefer Obama to Romney but don't think there's a huge difference between the two, so you may not even vote.
Your cynicism is understandable. But cynicism is a self-fulfilling prophesy. If you succumb to it, the regressives who want to take this nation back to the 19th century win it all.
The Koch brothers, Karl Rove, the rabid Republican right, CEOs and Wall Street titans who want to entrench their privileges and tax advantages -- all of them would like nothing better than for every progressive in America to throw in the towel.
Then America is entirely theirs.
The alternative to cynicism is to become more involved in politics. Help create a progressive force in this nation that grows into a movement that can't be stopped.
We almost had it last year in the Occupy movement. We had the arguments and the energy. What we lacked was organization and discipline.
I've spent years in Washington and I know nothing good happens there unless good people outside Washington are organized and mobilized to put pressure on Washington to make it happen.
This isn't new. In the election of 1936, a constituent approached FDR with a list of things she wanted him to do if reelected. "Ma'am," he said, "I'd like to do all those things. But if I'm reelected, you must make me."
We must make them.
I suggest a two-step plan.
Step one: Vote for Barack Obama for President and vote for every Democratic senator and representative in Congress. Get off your ass and make sure your friends and relatives do the same.
Step two: Starting Election Day, regardless of who's elected, commit at least three hours every week to political organizing and mobilizing. Connect with other progressives in your city and state. Help find and recruit new progressive candidates to run against Republicans in swing states, and against conservative Democrats. Support the members of the progressive caucus in Congress. Raise money. Raise a ruckus.
Make it our goal to reverse Citizens United, even if it takes a constitutional amendment. And have public financing of elections (including requiring the media to provide free political advertising as part of their commitment to public service).
Also break up the biggest banks and resurrect the Glass-Steagall Act.
Put a 2 percent surtax on wealth in excess of $3 million. And a one-tenth of 1 percent transaction tax on every financial transaction. And restore top tax rates to what they were before Ronald Reagan became president.
Use half this revenue to pay down the national debt and half to make sure every American has a world-class education.
Put a tax on carbon, and use the revenues to reduce or replace payroll taxes.
Have a single-payer health-care system that delivers care at far less cost than our current balkanized and inefficient one.
And much else.
You say it can't happen -- the system is too rotten.
It won't happen if you wallow in the comfort of your cynicism. But it will happen if you and others like you get fired up.
We've done it before.
I remember when progressives joined with African-Americans to get enacted the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts. I remember when progressives stopped the Vietnam War. When women finally got freedom of choice over their own bodies. When the Environmental Protection Act became law.
Who would have imagined two decades ago that America would elect an African-American as President of the United States? Who would have supposed gays and lesbians would begin to achieve equal marriage rights?
Of course we can take America back.
Stop complaining and start organizing.
And by all means, vote.
ROBERT B. REICH, Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including the best sellers "Aftershock" and "The Work of Nations." His latest is an e-book, "Beyond Outrage," now available in paperback. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine and chairman of Common Cause.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/if-you-succumb-to-cynicis_b_2017866.html?utm_source=Alert-blogger&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Email%2BNotifications 

28 September 2012

GOVERNMENT IS NOT GOD PAC's newspaper and other ads / e mails filled with falsehoods 27SEP12

THESE are pathetic, not only because they are such  obvious lies targeting the voluntarily ignorant and right wing racist, but also because they are run by right wing christian extremist who make a mockery of Christianity by deliberately lying and promoting hatred, fear and racism through manipulation, deception, and misinformation. In reality these people are as warped and twisted as those islamic extremist who have perverted Islam to justify their violations of that faith, the only difference is government is not god pac wants to impose christian sharia on America. From the govt is not god website "Government Is Not God is a political action committee for social conservatives founded in 1992 by William J. Murray who is currently the chairman of the Religious Freedom Coalition. The mission of Government Is Not God - PAC is the election to Congress of men and women who hold conservative beliefs on both moral and economic issues." IF their beiefs are so moral, and they are moral christians why do they have to lie about their beliefs? From PolitiFact, a compilation of the lies, deceptions, and misinformation being spread by the government is not god pac......

PAC's newspaper ad filled with falsehoods

By Becky Bowers, Jon Greenberg, Angie Drobnic Holan, Louis Jacobson, Molly Moorhead, Katie Sanders
Published on Wednesday, September 26th, 2012 at 7:56 p.m.
Updated Sept. 27, 2012
A full-page newspaper ad running in swing states purports to reveal "the true agenda of Barack Hussein Obama." It says he will:

"Force Christian organizations to pay for abortions."

"Force employers to give illegal immigrants the jobs of U.S. citizens."

"Force police agencies to allow Muslim brotherhood to select staff."

" Force creation of a permanent government funded ‘underclass.’ "

It’s from a political action committee that operates under the name "Government is Not God," or GING-PAC for short. The group claims the ad has run in 19 newspapers in Florida, Ohio, Iowa and Pennsylvania.

Compared with other outside spending groups, GING-PAC is a relatively small player. It started in 1994 and has spent less than $100,000 in most elections, supporting Republicans such as House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and Missouri U.S. Rep. Todd Akin. (Akin is the Senate candidate who said women rarely get pregnant from "legitimate rape.")

The group’s latest ad found its largest audience when it ran in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune on Sunday. The Herald-Tribune, citing policy, would not disclose the ad’s cost. The ad has also reportedly run in Florida newspapers that serve Bonifay, Cross City, Gilchrist, Madison and Winter Haven.

The ad’s claims riled some voters in Sarasota, including Kindra Muntz, an activist who previously worked to get Florida’s electronic voting replaced with paper ballots. She’s organizing a protest in front of the newspaper’s offices Sept. 27, 2012.

"It’s an insult to people’s intelligence, really. ... It steps on just about everyone, and drags them into somebody’s hate agenda," Muntz said.

On Wednesday, the Herald-Tribune apologized in a note to readers, stating that the ad did not meet the newspaper’s "standards for fairness and accuracy."

Here at PolitiFact, we wondered if the ad’s claims had any merit. We looked into them, except one that was too vague to analyze, that Obama would "force creation of a permanent government funded 'underclass.'" All the ratings are here; some we've also expanded into separate fact-checks.

We contacted GING-PAC and asked for evidence for the group’s claims. William J. Murray said the group didn’t need evidence because it was making predictions.

"If a politician is willing to walk you halfway to hell, it is likely that he will walk you the rest of the way there," Murray said via email.

The ad's claims are not couched as predictions, however, but as representations of Obama's actual policies and proposals. We've fact-checked their points by comparing them with Obama's previous positions, his proposals for a second term, and his public comments.

"Force police agencies to allow Muslim brotherhood to select staff"

We found nothing in Obama’s stated policies or positions to support this claim. Still, we ran it by Phil Lynn, director of the National Law Enforcement Policy Center, a division of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. He said he’d never heard of the claim, and that most states and local agencies have boards that control hiring and firing decisions.

"Trying to force this on local jurisdictions would be irregular and out of place," Lynn said. "I would think many states would balk at it."

Such an idea is not only unconstitutional, it’s also ridiculous, said Howard Simon, executive director of the ACLU of Florida.

"It just doesn’t make any sense," said Howard Simon. "It’s incoherent that a police agency would give an outside group the power to pick its own staff."

We found no evidence that Obama’s ever mentioned anything like this. We rate this statement Pants on Fire.
"Force doctors to assist homosexuals in buying surrogate babies"

Experts who follow issues involving same-sex couples and parenthood were perplexed by this one. "We have no idea what this claim is based on," said Eleanor Nicoll, public affairs manager for the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

Plus, buying babies is illegal. We rate this one Pants on Fire.
"Force employers to give illegal immigrants the jobs of U.S. citizens"
This is a preposterous claim that, in one interpretation, suggests that Obama wants to deny jobs to U.S. citizens and give them to illegal immigrants. We’re not sure how that would even work. Would employers be forced to seek out illegal immigrants, verify their legal status, hire them and then confirm that they took the jobs of legal citizens?

If anything, the Obama administration’s record shows an increasingly tougher stance on the hiring of unauthorized workers. The number of employers hit with penalties rose more than 20-fold, from 18 in 2008 to 385 in 2011. In the same period, total fines increased from $675,000 to $9.2 million. Use of the electronic employee verification system, E-Verify, quadrupled, from 88,000 employers in 2008 to 354,000 in 2012.

GING-PAC points to the president’s executive order to defer deportation of illegal immigrants under 30 who have no criminal record, have graduated or are in school and have lived in the country for more than five years. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that 700,000 18 to 30-year-olds might be immediately eligible and could apply for the two-year work permits. Over time, the number would rise to 1.7 million. Bob Dane with the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a group that favors stronger immigration controls, said this could put these people in competition for jobs.

"The people will still be illegal," Dane said. "And they would be taking a job from a U.S. citizen."

Things could go that way. But there’s still nothing forcing employers to hire anyone except who they want. We rate this claim Pants on Fire.
"Force states to pay the college tuition of illegal immigrants' children"

This claim conflates several issues related to immigration. To begin with, children of illegal immigrants born in the United States are citizens. A federal court recently overturned a Florida law that denied in-state tuition to the citizen children of illegal immigrants who were Florida residents. Immigration experts said the federal government couldn’t force states to pay college tuition for immigrants -- or for any other students, for that matter. We rate this claim False.

"Force all states to permit same-sex 'marriages' "

The ad’s basis for this is the president’s opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal law that defines marriage as between a man and woman.

Is opposing the law the same thing as wanting to force all states to permit same-sex marriages? Not according to Obama. "I continue to believe that this is an issue that is gonna be worked out at the local level, because historically, this has not been a federal issue," he said in a May interview, adding, "I think it is a mistake to try to make what has traditionally been a state issue into a national issue."

Even if Obama changed his mind, he would have to introduce legislation in Congress to require states to recognize gay marriages. And even if that passed, it would likely be unconstitutional, according to Dale Carpenter, a civil rights professor at the University of Minnesota. "The court has explicitly said that family law is a matter for states to decide," he said. We rate the ad’s claim False.

"Force Christian organizations to pay for abortions"

Under the 2010 health care law, Christian organizations won’t be "forced" to hand over money for abortion procedures performed at clinics by doctors. But the law does expand coverage requirements for preventive care. And preventive care, as defined by the Obama administration, includes birth control, emergency contraceptives and sterilization -- and some people equate those services with abortion.

The administration created an exemption for religious organizations by requiring insurance companies to pay for those services. But anti-abortion groups say the exemption is just a shell game.
 
That controversy is real, but the ad’s claim creates a misleading impression. We rate the claim Mostly False.

"Force Christian schools to hire non-Christian teachers"

The only basis for this claim is a 2012 Supreme Court decision involving a teacher who said she  lost her job in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. She sued to get her job at a private Christian school back. The federal government supported her case, but the court unanimously ruled against her on First Amendment grounds.

The case, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School vs. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, did address the proper balance between the government and religious institutions in personnel decisions at schools. But even participants in the case say it had nothing to do with ordering schools to hire people. We rate this claim False.

"Force courts to accept Islamic Sharia Law in domestic disputes"

There have been isolated instances when U.S. courts have used sharia law. But we couldn’t find any instances of the Obama administration supporting that.

On top of that, the notion would violate the separation of powers, said Glenn Hendrix, an Atlanta-based attorney and past chair of the American Bar Association’s section on International Law. Hendrix said there’s no substance to the ad’s claim.

"Even if the administration were somehow pushing sharia law -- and of course it’s not -- the executive branch cannot force courts to accept any particular law," Hendrix said.

We rate the statement Pants on Fire.

"Force local authorities to allow Occupy protesters to live in parks"

Occupy Wall Street is a loosely organized movement that draws attention to income inequality. In 2011, it set up camp in New York City’s Zuccotti Park and then spread to other cities.

Protesters have a First Amendment right to peaceably assemble, but local governments are generally allowed to enforce time and place restrictions on those gatherings. A 1984 Supreme Court opinion said governments may outlaw sleeping in parks, even during protests.

We couldn’t find any evidence that Obama or his administration opposed existing law on this point. Also, a president can’t overturn a Supreme Court decision anyway. We rate this claim Pants on Fire.

Obama is "the only President in history who has deliberately removed the words 'endowed by their Creator' when referring to our Declaration of Independence, not once, but several times"

The ad ends with a tagline accusing Obama of taking some godless liberties with the language in the Declaration of Independence. And indeed, we did find video of him paraphrasing that famous line, leaving out the "creator." Several conservative websites appear to be tracking his omissions.

But there’s also video evidence of him saying those words -- the blog of the liberal group People for the American Way even put together a compilation video of Obama reciting the "endowed by their creator" language. And the site UrbandLegends.com dug up examples of other presidents paraphrasing the Declaration and omitting the "creator." Which presidents, you ask? Calvin Coolidge, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan.
We rate the statement False.
"Force military chaplains to perform same-sex 'marriages' "

To back up this one, Murray sent us links to articles from conservative news sites the Blaze and Breitbart.com.

The evidence? The White House’s Office of Management and Budget had opposed part of a defense bill that would, according to the Blaze, "protect military chaplains who refuse to perform gay marriage ceremonies against their religious beliefs." Seemed like pretty good evidence that the alternative might be true: in the White House’s preferred world, military chaplains wouldn’t be able to refuse!

The reality? The Defense Department already protects chaplains from performing ceremonies that contradict their religious beliefs. The defense bill provision (which didn’t pass) was much broader — which is why the White House opposed it. Meanwhile, a group that advocates for gay and lesbian service members hasn’t heard any inkling that the president would want to force chaplains to perform same-sex marriages.

"If that were true, it'd be absurd," said David McKean, legal director for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

We rate the claim Pants on Fire.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/sep/26/pacs-newspaper-ad-filled-falsehoods/

05 May 2012

This Week in Dark Money from MOTHER JONES 4MAI12

Swiftboating Obama over him making the decision to get bin laden (where were these guys when george w bush pulled his mission accomplished stunt on an aircraft carrier in a jumpsuit and codpiece?), their arguments are whiney and pathetic. Check out their video and then watch shrub in the carrier. Also pieces on super-pacs, Occupy, and TV political advertising.
A quick look at the week that was in the world of political dark money.
Can Obama be swift boated? That's the idea behind this attack ad from Veterans for a Strong America, which slams the president for taking too much credit for Osama bin Laden's death. The group's founder tells Mother Jones' Adam Weinstein that he's recruiting Navy SEALs to openly criticize Obama: "We're gonna be rolling some of those folks out soon." Want to know who's funding the group? Sorry, it's a 501(c)4, so it doesn't have to reveal its donors or how much money it has.

Wall Street donors are bearish on Obama: In the New York Times Magazine, Nicholas Confessore reports on President Obama's uneasy relationship with lords of finance who don't think he's been friendly enough to their industry. "This administration has a more contemptuous view of big money and of Wall Street than any administration in 40 years," one Obama donor explains. Also in the magazine, Adam Davidson profiles Edward Conard, one of Romney's former partners at Bain Capital and a major (and once semi-secret) donor to the pro-Romney super-PAC Restore Our Future. Conard is putting the finishing touches on his book, Unintended Consequences: Why Everything You've Been Told About the Economy Is Wrong, which argues that the wealth and influence of the superrich are signs of economic strength.
Occupiers want to get back on the airwaves: The group behind a series of Occupy Wall Street ads that aired last fall is trying to raise $150,000 to revitalize the movement and counteract the influence of super-PACs with a new ad campaign. "You have ten billionaires controlling all the political messaging in this country," Occupy Spots organizer Gina Levy explained to TechPresident. The relaunched campaign is encouraging supporters to submit their spots for consideration by May 21.
Romney winning fans in the owners' box: Romney may have "some great friends who are NASCAR team owners," but Businessweek reports that he also has the support of a number of sports bigwigs, from New York Knicks owner James Dolan to the Dallas Cowboys' Jerry Jones. But Obama remains popular with athletes, who tend to support Democrats.
TV stations must post political ad info: As Mother Jones' Andy Kroll reports, the Federal Communications Commission has ruled that TV stations must post online information about the political ads they air. The catch? The ruling only applies to the top 50 TV markets, exempting some battleground states entirely. To see if your local stations are covered by the decision, see this handy map by the Sunlight Foundation. (Green means yes, red means no.)


Lawmakers' super-PAC deal under scrutiny: Rep. Aaron Schock (R-Ill.) could be in hot water for setting up a deal in which $50,000 in PAC money was funneled to a super-PAC backing Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) in his tight primary in March. As iWatch News' Michael Beckel reports, Schock's move suggests that candidates could use super-PACs to get around limits on campaign donations. (Candidates may not take more than $5,000 from a regular PAC, but super-PACs can spend unlimited money to promote—or attack—a candidate.)

03 May 2012

Homeland Security Documents Show Massive Nationwide Monitoring of Occupy Movement 3MAI12

THE difference regarding human rights between the U.S. and the rest of the world is being eroded at an alarming rate. By continuing to violate our human rights and civil liberties the government seeks to wear down opposition to these tactics until the question will be "All we like sheep have gone astray" (Isaiah 53:6) and we will just accept government spying on us as the norm, for our own good and not offensive. WELL, I AM OFFENDED AND YOU SHOULD BE TOO! From The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund....
Partnership for Civil Justice
Homeland Security Documents Show Massive Nationwide Monitoring of Occupy Movement
Documents just obtained by the PCJF from its FOIA request show massive nationwide monitoring, surveillance and information sharing between the Department of Homeland Security and local authorities in response to Occupy. The PCJF, also on behalf of author/filmmaker Michael Moore and the National Lawyers Guild Mass Defense Committee, has made a series of FOIA demands regarding law enforcement involvement in the Occupy Crackdown.
"These documents show not only intense government monitoring and coordination in response to the Occupy Movement, but reveal a glimpse into the interior of a vast, tentacled, national intelligence and domestic spying network that the U.S. government operates against its own people," stated Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, Executive Director of the PCJF. "These heavily redacted documents don't tell the full story. They are likely only a subset of responsive materials and the PCJF continues to fight for a complete release. They scratch the surface of a mass intelligence network including Fusion Centers, saturated with 'anti-terrorism' funding, that mobilizes thousands of local and federal officers and agents to investigate and monitor the social justice movement," Verheyden-Hilliard stated.
This set of released materials reveals intense involvement by the DHS' National Operations Center (NOC) in these activities. The DHS describes the NOC as, "the primary national-level hub for domestic situational awareness, common operational picture, information fusion, information sharing, communications, and coordination pertaining to the prevention of terrorist attacks and domestic incident management. The NOC is the primary conduit for the White House Situation Room and DHS Leadership for domestic situational awareness and facilitates information sharing and operational coordination with other federal, state, local, tribal, non-governmental operation centers and the private sector."
A sampling of documents reveals:
  • A DHS "Significant Incident Report" reflected step-by-step reporting on a ceremonial meeting on the Rainbow Bridge in Niagara Falls, New York by a small group of OWS members from the U.S. and Canada. According to the monitoring report, the people at the meeting included Occupy Toronto, Occupy Niagara, Occupy Buffalo and Occupy Philadelphia. Multiple law enforcement agencies met in advance on December 29 and "stood ready to assist" during the January 1, 2012 meeting.
  • DHS coordinated with Portland, OR regarding the eviction of the Occupy encampment and discussed obtaining "'soundly based' evidence of public health and safety concerns" to evict from Schrunk Plaza.
  • On November 9, 2011 -- two days after a dramatic street protest by 1,500 seniors and Occupy Chicago against social service cuts -- the NOC Fusion desk sent out a request from the Chicago police department seeking information from "state Fusion Centers" and requesting coordination and information-sharing about Occupy encampments and arrest charges in New York, Oakland, Atlanta, Washington, D.C. Denver, Boston, Portland OR, and Seattle. This request was subsequently recalled by officials in DHS, who directed that it should instead proceed through "law enforcement channels." Boston Police Intelligence/Homeland Security reported that they were following up in direct communication with Chicago. In an apparent effort to facilitate the coordination but to take it off the books of the DHS, the Duty Director of the NOC wrote that he would reach out to "LEO LNOs (liason officer) on the floor" to assist. As we described in a previous report, LEO is FBI's nationally integrated law enforcement, intelligence and military network.
  • The NOC went into high gear requesting urgent communications for Obama's DHS Secretary in advance of the planned December 12th port protests nationwide by OWS. The communications from a senior officer of the NOC ask field offices from Houston, Portland, Oakland, Seattle, San Diego, and Los Angeles to provide information about "what actions they will be taking to prepare" for the protests by the "Occupy Movement."
  • DHS's Office for State and Local Law Enforcement, which collaborates with "non-federal law enforcement and private associations" issued its "Weekly Informant" for December 5th including an update from the Police Executive Research Forum about Occupy. The PERF is the group that organized a series of multi-city law enforcement calls to coordinate the response to Occupy.
To read more about PCJF's OWS FOIA initiative and to read additional documents click here.
To get breaking news updates click here.

04 February 2012

How Swedes and Norwegians broke the power of the ‘1 percent’ 25JAN12

STUDENTS of non-violent social, political and economic revolutions know the movements require designated, dedicated leadership, set goals and a commitment to non-violence for a chance to succeed. The Occupy movement across the U.S. started out well, but the inability and at times unwillingness to agree on a leader or even the need for one, and the inclusiveness of groups and organizations that distracted from the primary goals of the Occupy movement have diminished their chances of ever achieving their goals or of even influencing the 2012 elections. Maybe the Spring will bring a revival of Occupy, plans are already underway in cities across the country for camps to be re-established. Occupiers and their supporters need to seize the opportunities now to coordinate with the unemployed, unions, homeowners facing foreclosure and Progressive politicians to focus the American electorate on the main problem facing our nation; it is still the economy, stupid! Unemployment, home foreclosures and financial regulation, income inequality, tax inequality, corporate welfare, the social contract and decreased funding of the social safety net are all connected and how these issues are presented to American voters will determine if we continue our descent to Third World status or begin the restoration of the American Dream. This from Waging Nonviolence.......


A march in Ådalen, Sweden, in 1931.
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, Henning Mankell and Jo Nesbø 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 Ådalen 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 population—about three million—was 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 1923–24.
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 breakers—this 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.
Correction: In an earlier version, Henning Mankell was mistakenly referred to by the name of Kurt Wallender, the protagonist in several of his books.