Executive Club: Occupy Wall Street still alive in Oregon

from oregoncatalyst.com


Tuesday, August 5. 2014

Keynote :Councilor Jim Welsh on Occupy Wall Street
Oregon Executive Club
Wed. Aug. 6th, 7:00pm
Portland Airport Shilo Inn – 11707 Northeast Airport Way
Bring a friend! ~~ $20 buffet option ~~ no host bar

Jim is a grocery store owner, a Nehalem city councilman, retired military communications analyst assigned to the NSA, family man with his wife,8 children and 16 grandchildren.

It was as a councilman that he first learned of the quiet Occupy Wall Street immigration to Nehalem. So he studied them. Then he talked to them.

And now he’s raising the alarm on Occupy Wall Street. That’s why he’s our speaker this month.

The Occupy Wall Street anarchist planners (isn’t that an oxymoron?) are in Nehalem.

And the word is out: “Don’t give interviews!”

It’s time these Occupy Wall Street folks get some sunlight, isn’t it?
You really shouldn’t miss this Executive Club.

Join us Wednesday night.

   

Related posts:

1. Occupy Portland & Wall Street — Best and funniest videos
2. Executive Club Tonight: Right to Work in Oregon
3. Executive Club: Kropf on what the Legislature is going to do to you
4. Executive Club Tonight: Clackamas Chair Elect John Ludlow

Subscribe to this blog

RSS

Subscribe Via Email

  We respect your privacy.

Posted by In the news at 02:00 | Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments yet, we're awaiting your thoughts. | Email This Post | Print This Post

New York Settles Suit Over Arrests of Occupy Wall Street Protesters

from nytimes


By COLIN MOYNIHANJUNE 10, 2014



Jennifer Peat, 36, and Garrett O'Connor, 34, both plaintiffs in the Occupy Wall Street lawsuit, at a news conference Tuesday. CreditJake Naughton/The New York Time

The City of New York has agreed to pay nearly $600,000 to resolve a lawsuit accusing police officers of falsely arresting Occupy Wall Street participants who were walking on a sidewalk in the East Village on New Year’s Day 2012.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs said the settlements were the biggest yet connected to claims stemming from Occupy Wall Street. Officials from the city Law Department and the Office of the Comptroller could not immediately verify that assertion, saying they do not track Occupy settlements as a category.

Last year, the city agreed to pay $230,000 to resolve a suit stemming from the loss or destruction of books from the Occupy Wall Street library. A group called Global Revolution was also paid $75,000 for lost computer equipment. Other lawsuits are pending, including a class-action claim stemming from the arrests of about 700 people while they marched on the Brooklyn Bridge roadway on Oct. 1, 2011.

Continue reading the main story

RELATED COVERAGE

• City Room: Surging Back Into Zuccotti Park, Protesters Are Cleared by PoliceDEC. 31, 2011

• City Room: Judge Allows Protesters’ Suit Against Police to ProceedJUNE 8, 2012

• Occupy Wall Street Wins Suit Over Seizure of LibraryAPRIL 9, 2013

The lawsuit stems from the morning of Jan. 1, 2012, after a turbulent evening at Zuccotti Park, where hundreds of protesters gathered, some dismantling metal barricades ringing the park and scuffling with police officers. After the police cleared the park, about 200 protesters marched to the East Village, accompanied by a large number of officers on foot and in vehicles.

At the corner of Second Avenue and 13th Street, officers halted the marchers as they walked along a sidewalk. The complaint filed by the plaintiffs stated that the officers surrounded the group and ordered them to disperse despite not allowing them to do so. They were then arrested and charged with disorderly conduct, the complaint said, adding that the Manhattan district attorney’s office had declined to prosecute those cases.

A video on Ustream showed senior police officials, including James P. Hall, then the chief of patrol, consulting as the marchers chanted, “Are we being detained, are we free to go?” A police captain told the marchers that they were blocking the sidewalk and pedestrian traffic. A few moments later, the video showed, officers moved in and began making arrests.

Twelve plaintiffs will receive $20,000 apiece; two participants who agreed to settlements earlier will receive $5,000 apiece. The city has also agreed to pay $333,000 in legal fees.

“In this case and many others we have seen that the police do not understand the rights afforded individuals under the Constitution, especially with respect to expressive speech activity,” said Wylie Stecklow, the lead plaintiffs’ lawyer on the case. “Our hope is that this is the starting point for police retraining.”

Andrew Lucas, a lawyer for the city, said that the lawsuit involved “a fast-evolving, complicated policing situation,” and added: “Settlement was in all parties’ best interest.”

Occupy Wall Street fades, but fight continues today

from lohead.com


Meghan Barr, Associated Press;10:26 p.m. EDT April 30, 2014


(Photo: Mary Altaffer AP)

NEW YORK – Glimmers of Occupy Wall Street will surface this week in a smattering of cities as activists join rallies for workers' rights, as they do every year on May Day.

Occupiers likely won't show up en masse, but they will hold signs and chant, railing against social and political issues, including one that recently captured the attention of world leaders: income inequality.

How much credit Occupy deserves for propelling the issue onto the political agenda is a matter of debate. Some economists maintain the same forces that sparked the protests would have eventually caught the attention of world leaders. Others credit President Barack Obama for making it part of his agenda after re-election.

But this much is clear: Occupiers ignited a global conversation, crystallizing for the public a concept long known among policy wonks and making their rallying cry of "We are the 99 percent" part of the global lexicon during the feverish autumn of 2011.

"There's nothing like a phrase for a bumper sticker to help," said William Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "Would President Obama have chosen to take up this theme if Occupy Wall Street hadn't occurred? Who knows? But it didn't hurt."

Occupiers took up residence in a small granite plaza near the New York Stock Exchange in September that year and helped spark a movement that spread worldwide. It fizzled out after police broke up encampments that had grown into small cities of their own, splintering into smaller activist groups that now champion various causes.

On Thursday — International Workers' Day — Occupy activists in New York City will join labor groups for demonstrations, as they have every year since the encampments disbanded. The planned protests include a march to Wall Street and a gathering in Zuccotti Park, the site of the original camp. Protests are also planned in Seattle, San Francisco, Boston and elsewhere.

Occupy popularized the concept of the financially elite 1 percent, which was based on revolutionary tax research conducted by French economist Thomas Piketty. Using tax records, Piketty and his team had quantified how much money it took to belong to the 1 percent and what share of personal income that group controlled.

Piketty's research inspired Occupy's fixation on the wealthiest echelon of society, but he didn't attract renown until the publication of his recent best-selling book, "Capital in the Twenty-First Century."

The gap between the richest Americans and everyone else is indeed widening, a trend that has emerged gradually over decades but accelerated with the Great Recession. The difference between the income earned by the wealthiest Americans and by a median-income household has risen 24 percent in 30 years, according to the Census Bureau.

For at least a year after Occupy's demise, there was little talk of the issue, a lag some experts believe was intentional.

Back then, many world leaders refrained from aligning too closely with Occupy, whose anarchist message and eccentric tendencies alienated some people. Many Americans as a whole were wary of the "scruffy-looking people" camping out in the street, said Robert Shiller, a professor at Yale University who won a Nobel Prize for Economics.

"Maybe their publicity was useful, but maybe it's better for the cause that they're not out there anymore," Shiller said.

Talking about inequality used to be taboo for major world leaders, relegated to "fringe-left" academics until that stigma faded a little over a year ago, said Laurence Chandy, a fellow at the Brookings Institution.

"It's a watershed. And I don't know why it suddenly became OK for everyone to talk about it," Chandy said. "But it now seems to be like those organizations, they feel if they're not talking about this, that they risk either irrelevance or being out of touch."

Experts say Obama's entry into the fray was a game-changer that steered the global narrative. At the same time, a drumbeat of reports about worsening income disparity sounded the alarm, with Pope Francis denouncing trickle-down economic theories for espousing an unethical "survival of the fittest" mentality.

The economy itself may have been the driving force behind the rhetoric. When ordinary, middle-class Americans are generally faring well, they tend not to notice how the wealthiest are doing, economists say. But when the economy goes south, so does sentiment toward the rich.

"The big change between 50 years ago and today is, back then we were looking down at the plight of the poor," Galston said. "Now we're looking up at the privileges of the wealthy."

The prevailing feeling among many original Occupiers is one of bittersweet vindication. They're happy people are talking about the wealth gap — and take credit for that ongoing conversation. But they're disillusioned by the lack of concrete economic reforms.

"You cannot be a person paying attention to the developments of the world any longer and not be familiar with the case that we have a massive income inequality and wealth inequality crisis," said Michael Levitin, 37, who lives in the San Francisco area and helps run Occupy.com. "In essence, it very much vindicates the work that Occupy Wall Street did. We were there to ring the bell."

THE SPOILED BRATS ARE BACK

from wnd.com

REAL AMERICA

Exclusive: Patrice Lewis hits Occupy activists for 'at the point of a gun' demands

So I understand the “Occupy Whatever” crowd is back. “An associated Facebook page announced a protest against the ‘regressive 1% agenda of Gov. Andrew Cuomo and for a truly progressive one that includes the basic needs and human and environmental rights of the people.’ Similar calls for Friday protests were issued by Occupy Philly and Occupy DC.”

Doubtless you remember the Occupy crowd’s collective temper tantrum a couple of years ago when thousands of young people assembled in various public places, camped for weeks, stank to high heaven and demanded equity of resources and paychecks regardless of whether or not they wanted to work for a living. Most of America had a good chuckle at their expense.

But now they’re baaaack. According to organizer David Swanson, “Awareness has grown, education has spread, and ideas have sunk in. People now know that we can’t lift up the poor without pulling down the plutocrats. It’s understood that we can have democracy or billionaires, not both. The notion of shifting priorities is even making headway; behind the screaming of ‘no cuts!’ and ‘less spending!’ there’s a steady, rising voice – ebbing and flowing like the ocean – insisting that we can move the money from the military and the oil corporations and the bankers to green energy and schools and trains and parks and actual aid to everyone on earth, with plenty of tax cuts to spare.”

Wow! That message is completely different from the last time these yahoos decided to have nationwide urban love-ins on other people’s dime.

Mr. Swanson’s rant embraces many things he finds objectionable – health-care inequity, weapons sales, international political interference – and somehow he feels camping in Zuccotti Park and other locations will correct these issues.

I’d like to make one thing very clear: I don’t necessarily object to many of the issues the Occupy crowd wishes to address. I believe America interferes too much in international affairs. I believe there is an incestuous and unholy alliance between big bankers, Wall Street and the government. I believe there is a horrific amount of domestic spying going on.

But if you look at the root cause of all these complaints, the one unifying factor is government.When Occupiers say they want health care for all, or wealth to be redistributed, or social justice, or fairness, or any other complaint they feel can best be expressed by breaking windows, what they don’t say is that the only way these goals can only be achieved – literally the only way – is at the point of a gun through government coercion and at the expense of freedom and liberty.

When it comes down to brass tacks, the Occupy solutions call for more unconstitutional government regulations … not less.

It’s gotten to the point where neither Democrats nor Republicans, neither Occupy brats nor Wall Street executives, will admit the depths to which our government has departed from the original, streamlined, minimal role it was supposed to play.

Occupiers blame government corruption on corporate and wealthy elites. In their psychedelic worldview, the poverty-stricken (but progressive) politicians are being seduced by the evil banksters. The reality is the reverse. Politicians have unconstitutionally created legislative loopholes, sweetheart deals, backroom agreements, defacto monopolies and other shady arrangements. If we returned to the limited government envisioned by the founders, within a short time these abuses would correct themselves. After all, there’s no point in bribing someone to do something they can’t do.

Remember, bankers and corporations cannot hold a gun to my head and force me to comply with their wishes. The government can, and does. (Health care, anyone?)

The government is doing its best to ensure future generations of useful idiots (such as the Occupy crowd) by instigating such farces as Common Core, which informs sixth graders that the Bill of Rights is “outdated and may not remain in its current form any longer,” and encourages children to “prioritize, revise, prune two and add two” amendments to the original document.

This is what happens with government schools (government again!). Frankly, any time Washington gets involved in private affairs such as education, health care, welfare, corporate assistance, etc., the result is corruption, monopolies and manipulations on an unimaginable scale.

In short, if the Occupy protesters want the wealth in this nation to be redistributed more “equitably” (or any other social justice claptrap) by increasing the power of government and placing morechains on the individual, then they’re just as evil and mistaken as the banks and politicians they claim to protest.

Now remember what the Occupy crowd was like two years ago. They had to be booted from public places because the garbage and human waste was so bad. Disease spread. Rapes were reported. They weren’t another Woodstock; they were a laughing stock.

And above all, the Occupiers didn’t understand the ideals they purported to endorse. They stuttered and hemmed and hawed and demanded the usual progressive cadre of unrealistic and unconstitutional twaddle (all of which are proven historic failures) and then applauded their own eloquence. After all, “Every liberal idea is so good that it has to be mandatory and enforced at gunpoint; just ask a left-winger and he’ll tell you so,” noted Phil Elmore.

The difference with the Occupy crowd versus the capitalists they profess to hate is the Occupiers want equal outcome, not equal opportunity (which already exists). They want money and health care and housing and a college education, but they don’t want to work for it. They want the government to “do” stuff for them or “give” stuff to them, whereas capitalists want the government to get out of the way so they can get stuff done themselves.

If the Occupy crowd really wants to work toward reform, they should work toward reducing the size of government and re-establishing free-market capitalism. We need government interference out of businesses, out of education, out of medicine, out of health insurance and out of everything not specified in the Constitution.

There is no other way America can survive. Occupy that.

Media wishing to interview Patrice Lewis, please contact media@wnd.com.

Mellman: Tea Party vs. Occupy Wall Street

from thehill.org

By Mark S. Mellman - 02/11/14 07:27 PM EST

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

9-11 was an inside job – Christine Sands

from russiatoday

Photo: savethedave/flickr.com

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.