#OWS Update: Obama Regime coordinating crack down on Occupy Movement
Homeland Security spies on the Occupy movement
Published on May 16, 2012 by RTAmerica
The Occupy Wall Street movement has been under attack by politicians and even the media. Although the attempts to discredit the movement have failed, new information has surfaced claiming the Department of Homeland Security is working with local law enforcement to conduct massive surveillance. Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, executive director for the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, joins us to analyze what DHS hopes to uncover.
Phil Ochs-the Ringing Of Revolution
Published on May 16, 2012 by gothgod
Phil Ochs songs from the 60s and 70s are now unfortunately stillrelevant as the 99% are being ignored or silenced by the 1% in various nations. In the USA President Obama has become a disapointment for many of those who supported him in 2008. But Obama cares more about his political career than about the needs of average Americans who have lost their jobs and or their homes or crushed by debts or student loans.Meanwhile Obama hands out trillions of dollars to the thieves and fraudsters on Wall Street in the banking industry and of course to the military Security Intelligence self-serving conglomerate. And rather than ending the Global War on terror Obama has widened it in his desire to expand the American Empire at whatever cost to the peoples of other nations who are treated with disdain their deaths not even counted as the War Machine rolls on. Politics and electioneering as usual now must end .
TODAY: Women Occupying Wall Street Reclaim Feminism In Citywide Gathering
Posted 14 hours ago on May 17, 2012, 2:08 a.m. EST by OccupyWallSt
also check out: Stop the Neo-Liberal Crisis Politics – Dispossess the Beneficiaries!
Posted 1 day ago on May 16, 2012, 9:38 a.m. EST by OccupyWallSt
Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! interview of Noam Chomsky and his reaction to the Occupy Wall Street Movement #OWS
The Palestinian Hunger Strike Occupy Wall Street By Noam Chomsky at Democracy Now! via Information Clearing House
Occupy Wall Street "Has Created Something That Didn’t Really Exist" in U.S. — Solidarity
AMY GOODMAN: We return to my conversation with the activist, scholar, author, Noam Chomsky, professor of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. I asked for his assessment of President Obama’s presidency.
NOAM CHOMSKY: In many ways, it’s a little worse than what I expected, but I didn’t expect anything. After I wrote about Obama before the primaries, just looking at his webpage—so, take the Middle East. Take a look at his webpage before the primaries. A lot of stuff about the Middle East. Most of it is how—you know, his undying love for Israel, which just, you know, overcomes everything else. There’s almost no mention of the Palestinians—I mean, a phrase. This was, remember, the time—this was right after the last—the last of the Israeli invasions of Lebanon—actually, the fifth—in 2006. And one of the things he’s proud of about the Middle East and he boasted about is that, he says—in fact, he did very little in the Senate. But one of the things that he did was co-sponsor a resolution in the midst of the war, insisting that the United States do nothing that might impede the Israeli attack on Lebanon until it reaches its objectives, and censuring Syria and Iran because they’re allegedly supporting the resistance to the Israeli attack. That’s his one great achievement with regard to the Middle East. So nothing that’s happened there is any surprise.
With regard to other issues, he was, as he himself put it sometimes, a kind of a blank slate, didn’t say anything. There was vague talk about all kind of nice things. I don’t usually admire Sarah Palin, but when she was making fun of this "hopey-changey" stuff, she was—she was right. There was nothing there. And it was understood by the people who run the political system. So it’s no great secret that the U.S. electoral system is mainly public relations extravaganzas. They keep away from issues. It’s sort of a marketing affair, and the people who run it are the advertisers. And they had their national convention right after the 2008 election, and it revealed that they understood perfectly what was going on. They gave Obama the award for the best marketing campaign of the year. And if you go to the business press, they were reporting how executives were really excited. I mean, we have this new model as to how to, you know, delude people, enacted in the—we used to use the Reagan model, now we can use the Obama model for our delusional systems that we construct, which is pretty much what the PR industry is about. So, that captured it properly.
...Obama’s programs, the part that really did surprise me—and I don’t, frankly, understand it—is his attack on civil liberties, which is extreme. He’s gone beyond Bush. Some of the worst cases aren’t even discussed, like one—I think one of the worst cases is the Supreme Court case, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, which was initiated by the Obama administration, brought to the court by the administration, argued for the government by Elena Kagan, you know, his latest Supreme Court appointee. And if you look at the decision, it was kind of welcomed by the—even the right-wing justices didn’t accept all of it, but they accepted part of it. The crucial—at issue was whether this group, Humanitarian Law Project, was criminally liable for giving material support to a terrorist group. The material support in question was legal advice to the PKK, a Turkish group, giving them legal advice. That was material support. You read the wording, you and I, many people we know, are liable under this. If we’ve met people who the government calls or claims are terrorists—they don’t have to give any reason for it, they just say, "You’re a terrorist," like Mandela, for example—if you meet with them and you talk to them and you advise them, in fact, if you advise them to carry out nonviolent tactics, you’re giving material support under the Obama interpretation of "material support." Material support used to mean giving them arms or something, but it was extended by this to your speech to them. That’s a very wide-ranging and ominous stand.
And it was—I should add, on the side, that the whole concept of on the terrorist list or being accused of a terrorist is something that should not be tolerated in a free society. I mean, you know, Mandela is a good example. If the government says you’re a terrorist, that ends it. No recourse, no argument needed, no justification. They can put anybody they like on the terrorist list. The idea that they decide who’s a terrorist is a granting to state power something we’ve never had in a free society. So, not only is that—should that be intolerable—and that’s, of course, not Obama, it goes way back—but extending the notion of material support to discussions with them or advice to them, I mean, that’s—it should be beyond discussion. It’s barely discussed.
There are others that are pretty bad, too, like the attack on whistleblowers. As I’m sure you know, more whistleblowers have been under attack by this administration than all of American history put together. This is an attempt to strengthen executive power and executive privilege, keeping secret from the population...