All she had on was the radio, and all he wore was a smile

A picture does say more than a thousand words. People are expressing the thought, and because of that will get hurt. It happened in Oakland, Denver, countless places where just a simple eviction was carried out using tear gas (chemical agent with possible long term effects aka CS), flash-bang explosives, massive man power (5 to 1 ratios for police to protesters have been reported) and use of attack dogs. Not the kind of like for like response to a peaceful protest one would expect.

By the way, it should be noted that Use of CS in war is prohibited under the terms of the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention, signed by most nations in 1993 with all but five other nations signing between the years of 1994 through 1997. The reasoning behind the prohibition is pragmatic: use of CS by one combatant could easily trigger retaliation with much more toxic chemical weapons such as nerve agents. Only five nations have not signed the Chemical Weapons Convention and are therefore unhindered by restrictions on the use of CS gas: Angola, Egypt, North Korea, Somalia, andSyria.^[18]

I'm not making this up, Wiki is.

This violence the is usually perpetrated claiming 'health risks' (people will stink after camping out for a couple of days without a shower), 'local law' (I know you have a right under the 1st amendment but I have a park to run here) and more good stuff.

I believe it is illegal to hit your kids in the USA, at home or at school (where home can be disputed). This then would lead me to believe that parents and other authority figures like mayors tend to bide their time until the kids have left school, are starting to get an opinion and are nicely in debt.

It also raises the question why the response is so violent.

Earlier, I talked about what the Occupy movement stands for: a thought. And a thought is impossible to catch or to destroy, especially in this day and age where people have real time access to events.

This thought is exposing a world wide class warfare (mind warfare: USA agreed not to use tear gas in such situations and are now breaking also that promise), a world wide web of corruption, deceit and greed. The thought just exposes all this and asks the question: what are you gonna do guys?

So the thought is threatening a class of people and businesses. Business interests, based on manipulation of people's jobs, lives, health, are at risk. So the thought must be destroyed.

Then, the thought also exposes the threat the current web poses to our survival as a species, the survival of the full 100%. This is an even bigger threat as the '1%' like to think that they can still squeeze out a final profit before retreating to their safe places to watch 99% die while they have a fine wine, maybe even a whisky...

The thought threatens that heavenly sight, sick as it is, and therefore must be fully destroyed, annihilated.

So police turn out in droves, in riot gear, with dogs. Try to bully the protests, scare the protesters, make them shut up. However, the 99% movement has shut up too long, so keeps coming back, non-violent but insistent, reclaiming their rights, their vote, their voice.

And the 99% will win using their weapons:
For tear gas - Non-violence
For arrests- Patience in the knowledge that there are legal experts ready to help
For biased mainstream media - Social media like Twitter, and live feeds
For hatred - Love, the nastiest weapon of all to those who don't know it
For top down commands - Strike, the bottom up NO

But most of all, remain non-violent. It's easy and sounds a bit like this:

All she had on was the radio, and all he wore was a smile.

Anything else just ends up creepy.

Breaking up Occupy Protests and the Constitution

Gone to my good friend Wikipedia again (have a think on the bold parts):

“In the United States, inalienable rights are derived from the people themselves and are protected primarily by the enumerated articles to the US Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights. Persons may also have inalienable rights protected by the state. Since the United States Constitution is a design of limited and restricted government and has absolutely nothing to do with the private state citizen, then it stands to reason that all inalienable Rights are guaranteed either by nature or by the Creator.

The provisions providing for rights under the Bill of Rights were originally binding upon only the federal government. In time, most of these provisions became binding upon the states through selective incorporation into the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. When a provision is made binding on a state, a state can no longer restrict the rights guaranteed in that provision.

Examples of provisions made binding upon the states are the 6th Amendment's guarantee of a right to confrontation of witnesses, known as the Confrontation Clause, and the various provisions of the 1st Article, guaranteeing the freedoms of speech, the press, religion, and assembly.”

This may be a question that should be answered: reading the above, I would think that the 1^st amendment takes precedence over local law (e.g. park is closed between 11pm and 6am, in those times you’ll be trespassing). If so, then right now all arrests made in Chicago, Denver, etc etc would be illegal.

At the same time, New York’s plans to change the law to make protests illegal under local law would then also not give the result that is looked for.

By the way: I signed a petition asking Chicago’s mayor to stop arrests, and gave it the same reasoning: 1^st amendment in my view takes precedence over local law.

Again, I am looking in from the outside, and I understand that current protests do threaten the power positions of a group of people. Naturally, they will fight, as happened in Egypt (applauded by USA government), Tunesia (also applauded, they are now having free elections as we speak), as is happening in Yemen (USA govt with protesters), Syria (ditto), Libya (well…), etc etc

Only at home, the government (local, federal) seems to not appreciate protests even as the root causes are clear: USA is in many ways a 3^rd world country where the Bill of Rights is no longer guaranteed to its citizens. Though the right to bear arms (or arm bears) is vehemently defended, most citizens live in fear of their lives because of it. Rights to education, counsel, vote, privacy and assemble are no longer defended by the government, unless you have money.

And 99% of the people who are supposed to vote for a government that defends their rights don’t have the money.