Saturday, February 15, 2014

Mellman: Tea Party vs. Occupy Wall Street

from thehill.org






Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party followed similar trajectories. Both grew, seemingly as grassroots movements, enjoyed brief popularity and are now widely disliked by the electorate. But the two movements bequeath different legacies. 
While Tea Party power may have ebbed somewhat, there is no doubt the movement achieved real power and exerted (for the worse, in my view) real influence on national policy. Occupy Wall Street left us with little more than a piece of an idea — the 1 percent — and many Democratic politicians would rightly argue they had been using that language long before Occupy made it famous.
Why the divergent legacies? Politics matters. 
Of course, the Tea Party had its own TV network, as well as national funding and some centralized institutional control. Fox News helped build the Tea Party, covering rallies of 20 and 30 people while almost ignoring gatherings of hundreds of thousands for progressive causes. Moreover, Fox provided its viewers with information on upcoming Tea Party events and urged viewers to participate. Financial support came from the Koch brothers, while FreedomWorks, Russo Marsh and Rogers and the Tea Party Express provided organizational muscle. 
Occupy Wall Street lacked some of those initial advantages — its media advocate was an obscure Canadian magazine called Adbusters. Yet it too generated a good deal of coverage, and ended up bringing tens of thousands of people to tents in some 600 communities.
Both movements were popular at their start, but both developed negative images. In January of 2010, 33 percent of Americans viewed the Tea Party favorably and 26 percent harbored unfavorable opinions in a CNN/ORC poll. By September, more people were unfavorable than favorable, and by the end of 2013, just 28 percent were favorable toward the Tea Party with 56 percent unfavorable, an increase of 30 points in unfavorable ratings. 
Occupy suffered a similar fate. In February 2010, 35 percent reported favorable and 22 percent unfavorable views. By October, more were unfavorable than favorable, and by March of 2012, unfavorables jumped 29 points to 51 percent, while favorables views declined to 30 percent.
Perhaps the most important difference was the choice each made about politics. The Tea Party was avowedly political. It participated in campaigns and ran its own candidates, some of whom were successful (though others were spectacular failures). But the end result was Tea Partyers in the halls of power and almost every Republican lawmaker looking worriedly over his or her right shoulders at every vote. The Tea Party had power in the sense defined by my teacher, Yale’s Robert Dahl, who died last week at 98. “A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do.” The Tea Party demonstrably got Republicans to do things that they would not otherwise have done. 
Occupy Wall Street moved in the opposite direction, actively eschewing politics. Its members saw no place for themselves in the electoral system and often shooed away elected officials who attempted to visit their encampments, displaying contempt for politics and politicians. As a result there were no Occupy members of Congress, nor did anyone look over their left shoulder worried about a primary threat from Occupy.
The only residue they left in the body of politics is a slogan — and it’s not a slogan they invented. Polemicists have talked about the 1 percent for centuries. Al Gore accused George Bush of supporting the “wealthiest 1 percent” several times during the 2000 presidential debates. And other Democrats regularly used the phrase, though Occupy brought it to new heights of media attention and fame. But without a base in politics, the flame fizzled. 
The more long-lasting influence of the Tea Party demonstrates that political involvement matters. Those who don’t want to get their hands dirty may remain pure, but their impact will remain limited.
Mellman is president of The Mellman Group and has worked for Democratic candidates and causes since 1982. Current clients include the majority leader of the Senate and the Democratic whip in the House.


Read more: http://thehill.com/opinion/mark-mellman/198157-mark-s-mellman-tea-party-vs-occupy-wall-street#ixzz2tS97yizN
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Tuesday, February 11, 2014

9-11 was an inside job – Christine Sands

from russiatoday



9-11 was an inside job – Christine Sands
Play
Current Time00:25
/
Duration Time15:05
Loaded: 0%
Progress: 0%
00:00
00:00
Mute
Download audio file

The Occupy Movement was poorly organized and had to many causes which fractured it and caused it fall apart. In the spring of 2014 there are plans for a revival of the Occupy Movement and according to one of the organizers of the Anonymous Million Mask March, Christine Ann Sands, the focus needs to be on the root of all of the evil and the heart of the corruption, namely the corporate bankers who control the media, the government and are promoting and getting rich off of the endless wars that the US has been waging. According to Ms. Sands the people are beginning to wake up and realize that, no matter how horrible the realization is, 9-11 was an inside job and those responsible must be brought to justice.

Hello, this is John Robles. I am speaking with Ms. Christine Ann Sands. She is the manager and domain owner of millionmasks.org and a supporter of the Anonymous hacktivist collective, the Occupy movement, WikiLeaks, and the Pirate Party.
Robles: Hello, Christine. How are you this afternoon or evening over there?
Sands: Hi, John. I’m very well, thank you. How are you?
Robles: I’m pretty good, nice to be speaking with you. Can you give our listeners an update about what is going on with Anonymous, with you, with the Anon Mobile, with WikiLeaks? I understand you are down there in Nashville.
Sands: Yes, that is right. I’m in Nashville. I’ve been here since about Thanksgiving. And I’ll be here until the end of March and my plan is to then go back up to Washington DC and become part of the Occupy DC movement.
Robles: When are they planning to occupy DC again?
Sands: There are a lot of pages popping up on Facebook now and on the Internet.
So, some say May, 1st, other say 4-4-14, so my plan is to get there in the beginning of April and to go with the 4-4-14.
Now this one in particular which was a Facebook page Occupy DC was forwarded to me by a member of Anonymous and they say that they are not associated with any groups or organizations because we don’t want it to be just one group, or one association that says they are doing it.
I mean, occupying DC will have to be a collective action by a lot of people like Oath Keepers and Anonymous and Occupy and all sorts of activists.
Robles: What differences do you think are going to be implemented in the Occupy movement if there is to be a revival? What mistakes were made the first time around?
Sands: In my view the first thing is to get the timing right. You have got to do this early enough in the spring, so I think that is going to be really good.
We have a lot of people coming out on November, 5 for the Million Mask March, one great day for Anonymous.
That is not really the time to look at an occupation because it is right before the winter. So coming out in spring is good.
And I believe that an occupation takes momentum. So there is definitely been a buildup of concern in mainstream America as 75% of Americans don’t trust the government, now with the Snowden revelations….
I mean, this is a growing movement, there is a buildup, the time is right, the season is ready.
So, in terms of some of the mistakes, now you can just look at it as growing pains more than mistakes in my view, you know, so...
Robles: Some people say that the occupiers were kind of lackadaisical, I mean in their attitude, “oh let’s sit up in library, let’s sit around and talk about peace and stuff”’.
Sands: Well, I can tell you that: I was part of the Occupy Los Angeles movement and there was a guy named Mario Britto. He was big with the Unions. Eventually he got ousted by the movement.
So when I was there some people would just accuse it of being a bunch of homeless and hippies. And it is true that you can’t have just a bunch of homeless hippies there saying something is going to happen, it is going to take something like what happened on the streets of Egypt with its over 30 million, or Brazil, or Turkey, or Spain. It is going to take millions of people out on the streets.
So, I think the last time we spoke I mentioned how I believed that the people on the streets of Washington DC were just numb. An example of the numbness was the young man in Tunisia who burned himself alive in protest and that is what some contribute the beginning of the Arab Spring to.
We just had that in DC when government shut down and it never made the news practically. So the people… the people are numb.
But I think that if we can get the word out and make it one place, you can’t be scattered . It is nice to have Anonymous day November, 5 where there are over 450 locations, and those are growing and building, that is nice. But if you are going to have a change I think in the states (the United States) that will have to be millions of people on the streets of Washington.
What will it take to get that to happen? Historically sometimes an activist will spark something and have no idea that something would take off as big or as great as it did. So we will see what happens.
Part of the Occupy Movement when I was in Los Angeles what I was seeing – there were so many causes and so many fronts that it seemed to dull the punch. You got to get in one place really hard, if you have a million causes and a million things and a million protest things, it just gets so unorganized because there is so much to do.
So if the people for example don’t like the private bankers, the Federal Reserve, the banksters: these guys that are running organized crime through the CIA controlling both political parties, then let’s do something about the Fed. Let’s start with that.
If we are going to occupy, let’s get together against one cause and say: okay, we are going to start with this, we are going to start with the same banksters who are quashing humanity through their wars for example.
Robles: You mentioned a lot of people who are very upset about NSA spying. Do you think that might be the straw that breaks the camel’s back and galvanizes people to stand up or?
Sands: I think that people are already upset but they don’t know what to do. They feel helpless.
So I think if everyone saw and they knew: “Ok, there is one thing we are going to do. We are going to go for the jugular vein of corruption in Washington DC. For the banksters.”
If we get together in one place which has got to be Washington DC and we get together at the poisonous head of snake, the banksters, making up these false wars on terror, then we are going to have a chance at this. But it is almost like there are all these charitable organizations, and they are standing around and just catching the blood of victims. That is all they are doing.
Why stand around and just catch the blood of victims, and all your charities will just end up being plutocracies anyway.
Why stand around, catching blood all day long on these different fronts when what is really needed doing is going after the murders, the banksters.
The quick analogy is anybody who has got a leaky tub doesn’t stand there all day long and catch the water. No, he goes and finds out where the leak is.
Well we have got to get to Washington DC, it does involve the federal reserve, it does involve the private bankers who control the corporations, who control the media, they have got the judges in their back pockets.
It is like George Carlin was saying when he talked about the American dream. So you have got to attack it at its source.
If people think they have the chance to attack corruption at its source and be motivated to come out, they will. But until we see a show of people, I think, on streets like they did in these other countries (Turkey and Spain, Egypt) I don’t know what is going to happen. Because there are a lot of people who are already know, there are 2,000 books that came out already about how they killed Kennedy.
In Nashville I spoke with the son of someone who was on original investigations committee for the assassination of Martin Luther King and someone who was appointed by the government on a committee and he was convinced it was an assassination: Martin Luther King.
So we have got to stop messing with all the symptoms and go after the banksters. In the same way that if we occupy and we go just with a hundred different causes instead of the root cause – the bansters, that is what I am saying: “We have to sharpen the point to penetrate.”
Robles: Can I ask you two questions? Are you doing anything about Keystone and what is your opinion of Obama on that issue?
Sands: First, yes, I just attended a rally here in Nashville on Monday. So I had my Anon Mobile, my 33 foot black RV with Anonymous and WikiLeaks on it and I pulled it right upon to the sidewalk of the federal building during that protest and of course I was surrounded and they were like “get this thing out of the sidewalk”.
Meanwhile I’m very calm, you know, they don’t bother me too much. And people in Nashville are talking about it.
I came in Nashville to inspire song writers to write more songs to rally the people, write more songs about saving the world and about fighting back and fighting corruption. Because the way that I look at it it is the same banksters that own the corporations and in the media, so we are not going to get the information from them.
Who do we have left? Who are we going to have to count on to get the information to the people or to rally that people, indeed the people who have following right? Movie stars, rock stars, sport stars, porn stars? Porn stars are not doing it, neither will the sport stars. Movie stars are not doing a great job. Rock stars, maybe the rock stars can rally the people like Bob Dylan to fight back.
Robles: Don’t you think a lot of the musicians and the rock stars like Bono, I mean they are pretty much just corporate spokespeople now?
Sands: I hear what you are saying. But as I’m in the music city, the capital of the world, and I’m here. I’m meeting a lot of activists, a lot of musicians and there are two parts to that story; one is that in order to get on the air, to get really promoted you are going to have to satisfy the sponsors and the sponsors are the same corporations that we know are owned by the banksters so they are not going to get anywhere with that. But I think that there are other bands that can have a following.
So I’m in here, in Nashville and part of my efforts in Nashville while I’m here; the Discovery Channel did contact me from the UK and said that they were interested in doing an episode on Anonymous, in preparation for November and the Million Mask March 2014.
And I have found some people in local Nashville that have also been contacted by the Discovery Channel saying Nashville is really hot right now, give us some story ideas.
So, we have a story idea about doing a reality show or a variety show that includes activists and we are putting an ad on Craig’s List saying we are rallying rock stars now to inspire people to take back our country. And why? Because they will have a following.
This is the information age, we are getting information out thanks to WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks has been at the forefront, you know, the pipe line. So people are aware of that. They are growing more aware of WikiLeaks, more aware of the Anonymous Movement.
They want to do something . They don’t like the government, they know it was a missile. They just feel like they are so scattered, they don’t know where to go, where to penetrate.
That is why I think that this Occupy DC is important. Because they can be in one place right there and Snowden was a great benefit to the US.
Sometimes it takes people a little while to for things to sink in. They have been of the mentality that it is ok to be spied on lock stock and barrel because it is protecting them. But then they realize no, that is not right.
Robles: Two things here, I don’t know if we could, I’d like you to comment on the fact that the NSA, I mean they are saying that they are protecting people from terrorism, but they have not stopped, prevented or dismantled any terrorist acts or operations, or organizations since they started the massive spying which was actually started sometime in about 1985. If you could comment on that. Then I’d like to ask you in more detail if you could tell us what is going on with Anonymous?
Sands: I remember the documentary where Aaron Russo was talking with Alex Jonesabout a meeting he had with Rockefeller, he mentioned how Rockefeller said they were going to create this event and that he was going to be something that they create and shortly after that 9-11 happened.
So this war on terror from the 9-11 event and now we are seeing and so many people know 9-11 was an inside job.
It sounds too unbelievable that people just couldn’t fathom it, couldn’t swallow it. But as years go by and they really see ‘wow, well, I guess there was a reason why we never saw the plane that hit the Pentagon. Because there never was a plane.
There was a reason we never saw plane wreckage. There never weas a plane.
It is taking time for people to wake up but they are seeing that. But in that documentary where Aaron Russo was talking to Alex Jones, he said it was all made up.
On the greatamericanrevolt.org website that I run there are some videos of Donald Rumsfeld Secretary of Defense saying there was no plane wreckage on the site. There is a CNN video saying there was no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon and there are a lot of other videos, former CIA agents saying and talking exactly how this false war on terror is just made up.
So we’ve been lied to and it seems just too intensely gross that is just not really believable.
You were listening to an interview with Christine Ann Sands. She is the manager and domain owner of millionmasks.org and a supporter of the Anonymous hacktivist collective, the Occupy movement, WikiLeaks, and the Pirate Party. Thank you very much for listening.

Saturday, February 8, 2014

Occupy Wall Street’s Final Implosion

from buzzfeed

Infighting and backbiting that has crippled the movement plays out on Twitter, 140 characters at a time. Updated with comment from Justine Tunneyposted on 



This Twitter handle is now back under the management of its founder:@JustineTunney. Let's start a revolution.
Updated 3:47 p.m., Feb. 8
Occupy Wall Street is dead — but its Twitter account is alive, and it’s become a fascinating hotbed of infighting between rival factions of the group that once slept out in New York’s Zuccotti Park.
Activist Justine Tunney, a Google engineer, has wrested control of the main@OccupyWallSt Twitter account away from other activists and is taking shots at important figures from the movement, including academic David Graeber, considered by some to be the intellectual father of Occupy. Though Tunney founded the account in 2011, other activists once had access to it. The big question: Who founded Occupy?
“I was the founding organizer of this movement,” Tunney tweeted from @OccupyWallSt on Thursday. “But prejudiced people have always tried to deny me a voice in this movement.”
Tunney noticed that Google names organizer Justin Wedes as the founder of Occupy, and asked followers to put a stop to it:
If you Google search "who founded occupy" it incorrectly says@JustinWedes. Please click report and say "Micah White"http://t.co/9QMsIFbfRa
(White is a former editor at the magazine Adbusters, which put out the original call for people to organize in lower Manhattan in 2011. His personal website describes him as “the American creator of the Occupy Wall Street meme.”)
Tunney then went after David Graeber:
Also I just want to say that David Grr is a chump. He took credit for everything everyone did. His contribution? Sabotage.
On Twitter, Wedes reacted with humor.
Ruh roh. I've been framed! MT @OccupyWallSt: If u Google search "who founded occupy" it incorrectly says @JustinWedes
For the record, Al Gore invented Occupy Wall Street in 1981.#ifoundedoccupywallst
But the Twitter feed has become a serious issue among Occupy Wall Street’s participants, most of whom have moved on to other causes. It has reopened old wounds dating back from before the occupation of the park, and raised awkward questions about how the movement failed and what it meant in the first place. Tunney has even become the target of a Change.org petition asking her to relinquish management of OccupyWallSt.org’s blog.
The Twitter feed “devolved into irrelevance, like so many others. I haven’t tweeted on it in months since I was summarily excommunicated by Justine,” said Shawn Carrié (whose real last name is Schrader), a New York-based activist who was once heavily involved in the movement.
“We always knew she was trouble, I should’ve taken it away when I had the password,” Carrié said.
“It needs to implode,” Carrié said of Occupy. “It needs to die so something new can be born.”
There is some disagreement over whether the @OccupyWallSt hijacking is indicative of a larger problem, or just an issue with one person.
“This moment indicates with the highest clarity how absolutely dead the Occupy Movement is,” Carrié tweeted earlier on Friday to a former fellow activist who goes by the name of Dicey Troop.
“Yes, but it’s justine’s actions that illustrate that. not the people being like ‘why are you taking our movement from us?’” Troop responded.
Tunney’s been active on her personal Twitter feed, as well, where she’s been directly interacting with some of her targets.
“How about a little solidarity,” she tweeted at Wedes, who called Tunney’s commandeering of the @OccupyWallSt account an “insurrection.”
“What’s your vision? If you want, send a statement & I’ll read it to #TweetBoat on conf call tonight. We’ll craft response,” Wedes said.
“Also what do you mean by ‘response’? Are we rival political factions now, or something?” Tunney said.
“It’s just radical activists doing what radical activists do: get indignant,” Tunney told BuzzFeed in an email when reached for comment. “Nothing has changed.”
Tunney continued:
Micah White founded the movement when he published a call to action in a Canadian magazine. I was the founding organizer and I ran all the behind the scenes logistics. These things are facts. There isn’t any fight going on. That’s just how it is. The truth is immutable.
I also never said anything about being a leader or wanting to be a leader. You assumed that. The whole reason why Occupy is leaderless is because I didn’t want to be the leader. And I didn’t want anyone else to be the leader either, because then they’d be asserting authority over me.
You might also want to consider talking to people who aren’t my political enemies when you write articles about me. Your reporting isn’t fair and balanced. You basically wrote a hit piece on me.
I recommend talking to someone like Nathan Schneider, who has written about me in the past in a nicer way than you did:http://www.thenation.com/article/176142/breaking-occupy?page=full
When I was organizing Occupy, I was a homeless trans woman with cancer. Many people like Dicey Troop and Shawn Carré have harassed me, stalked me on Twitter, and spread lies about me repeatedly. They do these things because they’re bigoted dudes.
Thanks for throwing me under the bus Rosie.