Peace and Freedom Party: Occupy Wall Street!

The Peace and Freedom Party issued the following statement on September 24, 2011. To download this statement as a flyer to print and distribute click here.

Peace and Freedom Party of California, the only working class, feminist-socialist party on the ballot in California, expresses our solidarity with the activists participating in the Occupation of Wall Street, now entering its second week. Our Platform has long included demands for “Social ownership and democratic control of industry, financial institutions, and natural resources,” as well as “Withdraw U. S. troops and weapons from other countries, and reallocate the resulting ‘peace dividend’ for social benefit.” Our Platform further states that: “Our goals cannot be achieved by electoral means alone. We participate in mass organization and direct action in neighborhoods, workplaces, unions and the armed forces everywhere.”

Since coverage of Occupy Wall Street has been largely blacked out by the mainstream media, we urge our members and supporters to seek independent sources of information on this important action, such as: “Occupy Wall Street: Thousands March in NYC Financial District, Set Up Protest Encampment,” on Democracy Now, Monday, Sept 19, 2011, at www.democracynow.org.

An interview with Michael Moore: “Michael Moore calls for support of
Occupy Wall Street protest, decries execution of Troy Davis, at www.current.com as well as other important sources which include: www.indypendent.org, occupywallst.org, and readersupportednews.org.

50 thoughts on “Peace and Freedom Party: Occupy Wall Street!

  1. Kimberly Wilder

    An update on this community’s participation in Occupy Wall Street:

    IPR Contributor Ross Levin got arrested two Saturdays ago at Occupy Wall Street. That was announced on Green Party Watch.

    IPR Contributor D. Eris is present, on the ground, at the Occupy Wall Street site at “Liberty Square” aka Zucotti Park in Manhattan. D. Eris was quoted in an article about the Brooklyn Bride incident, in The Guardian UK. D. Eris is doing great coverage of the event at his blog Poli-Tea.

    At onthewilderside, we are covering events from our perspective on Long Island. You can find links to the Live Streaming, and to the lists of grievances, etc. Our article about Occupy Wall Street’s “one demand” has received over ten thousand hits at our site.

    There is a rule at the Global Revolution chat site not to mention political candidates. Though, there are constant references to candidates, especially Ron Paul. D. Eris and others have noticed a large presence of third party folks and Libertarians.

  2. NewFederalist

    I read on another site that some veteran’s group has asked for a number of vets to show up to stand between the police and the protesters. Is there any truth to this?

  3. Kimberly Wilder

    I heard a rumor from the Live Stream, and then separately from someone on a green list-serve…that some Marines were going to come to Occupy Wall Street. Not sure if that is connected. Not sure if it is just a rumor…

  4. history ----- on the current system .... Lake

    NEW YORK (AP) —

    The protesters who have been camping out in Manhattan’s Financial District for more than two weeks eat donated food and keep their laptops running with a portable gas-powered generator.

    They have a newspaper — the Occupied Wall Street Journal — and a makeshift hospital.

    They lack a clear objective, though they speak against corporate greed, social inequality, global climate change and other concerns.

    But they’re growing in numbers, getting more organized and showing no sign of quitting.

    City officials “thought we were going to leave and we haven’t left,”

  5. Deran

    I think the movement in SF has already become taken over by trotskyists; if you look at their website and forums it’s all minutes to meetings of committees. They have abrogated the general assembly model the other sections of the movement are using.

    I assume some Leninist cadre/hacks have wormed their way into leadership.

    The newest threat to the Occupy… movement is the attempt today by MoveOn and their front group Rebuild the American Dream to jump on the band wagon and are attempting to use the movement to recruit people that they can then siphon off into Obama’s reelection campaign. I assumed the Democrats and Obamaites would do what the can to coopt the Occupy… movement.

    After that initial flurry of reports abt Marines coming to help the Occupy Wall Street action I have heard nothing further abt this. It seems to have gone the way of many rumors.

  6. Michael Cavlan RN

    There are now over 70- yes SEVENTY occupations planned all over the country. Including Minneapolis Occupation starting October 7th. May I be frank? I have nothing about this from the Libertarian Party. In fact good old Wayne Root your spokesperson will probably support Wall Street.

    That is how I read him. A creepy used car salesmen for the rotten, corrupted system.

    So- question. What the hell is the Libertarian Party position on this American Spring? Do you guys have one?

    What about the anarchists among you? Because this thing is the heart and soul of anti-authoritarian libertarian ideals.

  7. Ted

    The newest threat to the Occupy… movement is the attempt today by MoveOn and their front group Rebuild the American Dream to jump on the band wagon and are attempting to use the movement to recruit people that they can then siphon off into Obama’s reelection campaign.

    Yep, that is what happened to the Tea Parties from the other end of the wall street bailout mess. They got taken over by the Republicans, war fetishists and the religious right and they don’t care that much about bailouts anymore.

  8. paulie Post author

    So- question. What the hell is the Libertarian Party position on this American Spring? Do you guys have one?

    What about the anarchists among you? Because this thing is the heart and soul of anti-authoritarian libertarian ideals.

    I don’t know about whether the party has a stance.

    I’ll give you mine, from a previous discussion on Ballot Access News……also posted at comment 72 on the most recent Root thread.

    An Alabama Independent Says:
    September 30th, 2011 at 3:33 pm

    I wonder why there are no protesters there representing the Constitution Party or even the Libertarian Party? Silly boy, you ought to know better than to ask such a silly question.

    Paulie Says:
    September 30th, 2011 at 5:28 pm

    Actually, I have read that some of the protesters are self-described libertarians and Ron Paul supporters.

    I’m a libertarian, and I believe there is much to protest in the bailout-ridden wall street world.

    An Alabama Independent Says:
    October 1st, 2011 at 5:40 am

    That some of the protesters are self-described libertarians and Ron Paul supporters may have been because of their objection to the bailout with taxpayers money,and such is okay. But you can be assured they were not there because they know that Wall Street is what is wrong with America today. If we had a true National Bank issuing only interest-free US Currency, we would not need Wall Street – America’s only national and legal gambling institution.

    But you can be assured they were not there because they know that Wall Street is what is wrong with America today.

    Paulie Says:
    October 1st, 2011 at 1:40 pm

    I think that Wall Street is in fact much of what is wrong with America today. The large, publicly traded companies survive because their owners are not liable for their actions due to limited liability granted by the government. If it was not for this, people would only invest in smaller businesses whose operations they could be intimately aware of and which could be insured against legitimate losses and claims.

    This would bring the money back from Wall Street to main street.

    The wall street corporate owner class controls our political system, and the political class rewards them with bailouts, corporate welfare, eminent domain abuse, wars on behalf of corporate imperialist interests, and a maze of taxes and regulations which stymy existing and would-be small businesses from being able to compete against big business. These taxes and regulations also prevent many people who are unemployed, or are employed by others, from starting businesses and becoming self-employed.

    If the political class did not have so much power, there would be nothing there for the corporate owner class to purchase so as to yield influence.

    The tax code, the education system, government red tape and much else conspires to keep people as employees of large corporations or government, or as long-term poor people dependent on government.

    Additionally, the poor are getting screwed big time as well: massive and persistent unemployment, debt, foreclosure, eviction, cannon fodder in endless foreign wars, record incarceration, growing harassment/abuse by militarized police treating poor neighborhoods like an occupying army. The government’s “help” only serves to further trap poor people in poverty.

    Middle class workers and small business owners are on the short end as well.

    The corporate ownership class (particularly those owning large shares) and the government unions are doing well in this economy. The rest of us, not so much.

    Black households now have 5% of the wealth of white households on average, the worst disparity in several decades. Official black unemployment is 16%; probably more like 50% when you add in underemployment and those who have been out of work for so long that they are no longer counted as unemployed.

    Many poor people see the military or illegal activities as their only way to make a living. This destroys their lives and future through injury, shell shock, and criminal records. At the same time war profiteering and prison profiteering are boom industries.

    The government’s immigration restrictions and prohibitions on drugs and on sex work keep large numbers of people in a state of fear and prone to exploitation.

    All of this serves to flow money to those at the top, and they are considered “too big to fail.”

  9. Robert Capozzi

    6 mc: In fact good old Wayne Root your spokesperson will probably support Wall Street.

    me: Root is not a “spokeperson,” he’s an LNC member and former VP candidate. There is no such thing as “Wall Street,” except there is a street in NYC by that name. There is a financial community which often has differing views on various things. There are almost no “investment banks” anymore, as they’ve all converted to commercial banks. There ARE i-bank boutiques, hedge funds, mutual funds, commercial banks, insurance companies, etc.

    Being “against” the financial community is to be against the private sector and the citizenry.

    Now, if you’re talking about excesses that some in the financial community in essence colluded with politicians to bail out the money-center banks, Ls are all over that issue. Whether addressing that issue with street-level protest is the optimal use of a L’s time is questionable.

    Unless:

    And I went down to the demonstration
    To get my fair share of abuse
    Singing, “We’re gonna vent our frustration
    If we don’t we’re gonna blow a 50-amp fuse” ;-)

  10. ctomp

    @ 6- “What about the anarchists among you?”

    Personally, I have had communication with a market anarchist who has been heavily involved in the organization of Occupy events in Oklahoma. I’m sure there are representatives of every anarchist school of thought at these events. Perhaps they are not so loudly self-righteous as many Leftists.

  11. Starchild

    I predict that much of the right wing will attempt to demonize the “Occupy Wall Street” protesters and brand them as an orchestrated bunch of leftists, just as much of the left has attempted to demonize the Tea Party movement and brand them as orchestrated right wingers.

    However, I think both the Tea Party movement and the Occupy Wall Street are genuine populist manifestations, which we as libertarians should generally support and seek to guide in positive directions.

    The banking industry as it exists today is not particularly free market oriented. It is in serious need of reform. We should seek to reform it in ways that empower *the people*, not government.

  12. history ----- on the current system .... Lake

    http://www.news.yahoo

    They are hundreds strong, but the protesters calling themselves Occupy Wall Street claim to speak for millions.

    “It’s about democracy; it’s about everyone here has a chance to speak and be heard,” said Justin Brown of Brooklyn, who joined the protest a week ago.

    Their causes include everything from global warming to gas prices to corporate greed, and the Occupy Wall Street website says organizers took their inspiration in part from the so-called Arab Spring demonstrations that have tried to bring democracy across the Arab world.

    But while their message might be a tad muddled, all are united by their anger over what they say is a broken system, a system that serves the wealthy and powerful at the expense of the rest.

  13. paulie Post author

    Being “against” the financial community is to be against the private sector and the citizenry.

    I would say the opposite is actually the case, given how the financial community presently operates, See long comment above for details.

  14. Robert Capozzi

    17 p: I would say the opposite is actually the case, given how the financial community presently operates….

    me: Your critique of limited liability seems to have nothing to do with the “financial community.” I agree that HOW it operates has many current dysfunctions, some of which you’ve itemized. My meaning, however, is that the role of the financial community is to facilitate the flow of capital to its highest and best use. That’s in the citizenry’s interest, IMO.

  15. paulie Post author

    Your critique of limited liability seems to have nothing to do with the “financial community.”

    Limited liability was just one of several issues I touched on, and the financial community plays a big role in all of them.

    My meaning, however, is that the role of the financial community is to facilitate the flow of capital to its highest and best use.

    In theory, yes. In practice I don’t think that is what is happening due to a variety of factors which I tried to explain.

  16. Robert Capozzi

    21 p: In theory, yes. In practice I don’t think that is what is happening due to a variety of factors which I tried to explain.

    me: If there were NO financial community, then capital would not flow at all, I reckon, unless perhaps if the State were the only investor/lender. I’m sure you don’t wish to see that be the case. We likely agree that flows sub-optimally in the current configuration.

  17. Michael H. Wilson

    Robert but is it necessary to have the financial community located all together in New York?

    One of the problems that I see is that the New York Federal Reserve Bank is the one bank uniquely responsible for the money supply. What if that responsibility was spread around the country to all 12 Fed banks? What would the benefits be?

    Or better yet what if we had Free Banking and a choice in bank notes?

  18. paulie Post author

    I’m not in favor of doing away with the financial community per se. I’m in favor of free market reforms which minimize or eliminate government-corporate collusion and the ways it distorts the flow of wealth away from main street, poor folks and those trying to make it at present. I think I laid out a fair number of those reforms above.

  19. paulie Post author

    Let me do that in list form for those who found my previous comment too long:

    End the federal reserve, institute free competitive banking
    End corporate personhood and noncontractual limited liability
    End military-industrial complex/imperialism/bring the troops home
    End corporate welfate
    End eminent domain abuse
    Rein in police departments
    End the drug war and the police-prison-industrial complex
    Cut the red tape imposed on people trying to start a new business, including but not limited to occupational licensing

    For greater detail go back to comment 9.

  20. Robert Capozzi

    23 mhw: Robert but is it necessary to have the financial community located all together in New York?

    me: The NY Fed has more power than the regional Feds, but the FINANCIAL COMMUNITY is a LOT more than the Fed, as I see it.

  21. paulie Post author

    MHW,

    I don’t think the issue is where the financial community is centered.

    I think the issue is distortions of the economy through large institutions and the way they abuse a symbiotic-parasitic relationship with government to accomplish that for their own benefit.

  22. Common-Tater

    http://politeaparty.blogspot.com/2011/10/theres-only-two-parties-and-were-not.html

    “….I have also participated in a number of rallies, marches and discussions. The protesters are a pretty diverse lot, with people coming and going from the site almost constantly. One thing almost everyone I’ve talked to there seems to agree upon is that the Democratic and Republican parties do not represent the people of the United States. To put it in the terms that have become common among the protesters, the Democrats and Republicans together form the party of Wall Street, representing the top 1% to the detriment of the remaining 99%. ….”

  23. paulie Post author

    People with commonalities tend to congregate, whether it be Hollywood, Detroit, Sillicon Valley, Milwaukee, or DC as the centers of some industries, ethnic enclaves anywhere in the country, or what have you.

  24. Gene Berkman

    Paulie lists a number of issues @ 25 –
    aside from having a total lack of understanding of corporate personhood, the other issues are probably not on the radar of the Occupy Wall Street protesters.

    When we tried to limit eminent domain in California, twice, the left-wing groups that now support “OWS” all opposed limiting state power.

    The left-wing elements that support Occupy Wall Street don’t want to cut red tape on business, they want to increase regulation. They don’t want free banking – they either want to abolish money in the case of more extreme elements, or they favor government owned banks.

    If we and they both oppose corporate welfare, they still mean something different – many on the left consider cutting the tax burden on productive business a form of corporate welfare.

    It would be pointless for pro-capitalist libertarians to join in the Occupy Wall Street movement, which is clearly motivated by an anti-capitalist agenda. Why pander to people who probably think Cuba is more moral than the United States?

  25. paulie Post author

    the other issues are probably not on the radar of the Occupy Wall Street protesters.

    Actually, while lists of demands vary, I have seen most of those issues on some lists of demands by OWS protesters.

    When we tried to limit eminent domain in California, twice, the left-wing groups that now support “OWS” all opposed limiting state power.

    The left is not monolithic, and the fact that some of the establishment left now “supports” Occupy Wall Street does not speak for the original spirit of OWS. They are being hijacked much as the Tea Part was by the establishment right, but unlike in the latter case there is still time to prevent the hijacking from being completed.

    It would be pointless for pro-capitalist libertarians to join in the Occupy Wall Street movement, which is clearly motivated by an anti-capitalist agenda.

    Whether we are pro-capitalist depends on what you mean by capitalist. The demonstrators are protesting against fascist, imperialist corporatism. We should be there to tell them that there is a real difference between that and a really free market, and to protest against fascist imperialist corporatism ourselves.

    Otherwise, of course the only people they will hear from are those who believe that the cure for corporate fascism is big government “socialism” … and that would be a huge mistake on our part.

  26. paulie Post author

    I’ll highlight the ones I agree with:

    http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2011/09/18/what-is-the-one-demand-of-wall-street-occupation-facebook-poll-points-to-possibilities/

    “On the other hand, if you head over to Occupy Wall Street’s online Facebook poll, you can get a more quantifiable idea of what participants would like the “One Demand” to be. As of right now, the current list of ideas for the “One Demand” gaining at least 100 votes is reasonably short:

    Revoke Corporate Personhood: 2556 votes

    Raise taxes on the top 2%!: 838 votes

    Abolish capitalsm: 772 votes

    Tax Wall Street: 522 votes

    Public Healthcare: 511 votes

    Presidential Commission to Separate Money from Politics: 490 votes

    End Corporate Welfare: 478 votes

    End the wars, withdraw from Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan, Yemen, etc.: 435 votes

    Close half of America’s 1000 military bases: 388 votes

    Four-hour work day: 267 votes

    Resource Based Economy: 214 votes

    Democracy not Corporatocracy: 206 votes

    Legalize Marijuana: 195 votes

    End the Federal Reserve Private Profit Empire: 183 votes

    Eliminate corporate tax loopholes: 138 votes

    De-militarize the Police: 129 votes

    Put those Responsible for Crisis in Jail: 128 people

    Demand separation of Church and State: 127 people

    A shrubbery: 125 people

    Dramatic Campaign Finance Reform. Stop the wealthy from buying our campaigns!: 108 people

    Free the Unicorns!: 108 people”

    Now as for the ones where I disagree:

    Raise taxes on the top 2%!: 838 votes

    I disagree with taking their money by force. On the other hand, many of the top 2% – and especially the top 2% of the top 2% – earn much of their money due to government manipulation of the marketplace on their behalf, so a truly free market would “tax” more than 2% of their wealth.

    It would also spread the wealth round through natural, organic means and create more funding for all of the good things most of these folks envision being done with these taxes, but in a much more efficient manner. And, with strict liability, industry would have to bear the full risks and costs of pollution (among other things) which are now socialized while profits are being privatized. So, too, would financial speculators have to take their own risks, rather than count on bailouts.

    Abolish capitalsm: 772 votes

    Depends on what you mean by capitalism. See disambiguation at http://mises.org/daily/2099#6

    Tax Wall Street: 522 votes

    See first point above.

    Public Healthcare: 511 votes

    See http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/09/open-thread-for-september-2011/#comment-605009 and a couple of comments after that and links therein .

    Presidential Commission to Separate Money from Politics: 490 votes

    I agree we should separate money from politics – but the only real, effective way to do that is to make political force too irrelevant to our daily lives to be worth buying.

    More when I have time…

  27. Gene Berkman

    “Whether we are pro-capitalist depends on what you mean by capitalist…”

    You can define yourself however you want. I support capitalism and I own my own business. I don’t see any point in trying to make-believe that people who want to abolish private ownership are somehow only opposed to government subsidies of big business.

    Yes, libertarians oppose government subsidies of big business and we oppose the military-industrial complex. But the demonstrators at Occupy Wall Street oppose capitalism, and we are never going to get a free society if people confuse us with left-wing advocates of socialism.

    Revoking corporate personhood would mean you have to abolish the Peace & Freedom Party – because it has corporate personhood. IPR has corporate personhood. As I have tried to explain, any association that can enter into contracts, pay bills, own assets, can do so only because of corporate personhood. It does not just apply to joint-stock companies.

    It was not just the establishment left that opposed limits on eminent domain. The Green Party and the Peace & Freedom Party both opposed limits on eminent domain. So did the Communist Party, Socialist Action, PSL, FSP etc.

    Why would you want to dirty the name “libertarian” by associating it with people who advocate a social system which has produced poverty and tyranny wherever it has been implemented?

  28. paulie Post author

    You can define yourself however you want. I support capitalism and I own my own business.

    Depends on what you mean by capitalism. See disambiguation at http://mises.org/daily/2099#6

    I don’t see any point in trying to make-believe that people who want to abolish private ownership are somehow only opposed to government subsidies of big business.

    There’s a diverse group of folks at Occupy. Some of them want to abolish private ownership. Some of them support true free markets. Many self-described libertarians and Ron Paul supporters there as well.

    But the demonstrators at Occupy Wall Street oppose capitalism

    Depends on what you mean by capitalism. See disambiguation at http://mises.org/daily/2099#6

    Some of them only oppose corporatism.

    Some oppose free markets only because they don’t understand the difference between free markets and corporatism.

    Others oppose all sorts of markets.

    we are never going to get a free society if people confuse us with left-wing advocates of socialism.

    Just as we will never get a free society if people confuse us with right wing advocates of theocracy and imperialism — yet there were still plenty of people to reach with a libertarian message at Tea Parties, especially before the Republican corporatist takeover had gone as far as it has.

    The Green Party and the Peace & Freedom Party both opposed limits on eminent domain. So did the Communist Party, Socialist Action, PSL, FSP etc.

    I include those with “establishment left” as I used it in the section you were responding to.

  29. Gene Berkman

    “The Green Party and the Peace & Freedom Party both opposed limits on eminent domain. So did the Communist Party, Socialist Action, PSL, FSP etc.”

    “I include those with “establishment left” as I used it in the section you were responding to.”

    The heading of this article is “Peace and Freedom Party: Occupy Wall Street!”

    So you are saying that we should let the American people confuse us with WWP, PFP, Socialist Action and every other little pro-Cuban pro-totalitarian socialist grouplet so that we can communicate with the 2 or 3 – or 2 or 3 dozen unaffiliated leftists who understand the difference between free markets and the mixed economy.

    It does not seem efficient.

  30. paulie Post author

    The heading of this article is “Peace and Freedom Party: Occupy Wall Street!”

    Correct. I posted it, so I am aware of that.

    There’s nothing new about small socialist parties joining movements that have much broader popular support than those parties, regardless whether they were started independently or not. Democrats and Republicans do the same sort of thing, whether it be the tea parties or antiwar rallies. The LP should be no different in this regard. Not everyone – not even most people – at tea parties, peace rallies, or OSW will agree with us down the line. However, some people at each will agree enough that if we bother to talk to them they will like us. A few of them will join us. Some will at least get a different perspective on us. Some will at least learn we even exist.

    So you are saying that we should let the American people confuse us with WWP, PFP, Socialist Action and every other little pro-Cuban pro-totalitarian socialist grouplet

    Nope, never said that.

    Should we avoid all contact with events where some people don’t agree with us on some things? Sounds like a perfect recipe for stagnation and irrelevancy to me.

    so that we can communicate with the 2 or 3 – or 2 or 3 dozen unaffiliated leftists who understand the difference between free markets and the mixed economy.

    I would say there are way, way more than that, and there could be more still if we bothered to talk to them.

  31. Gene Berkman

    “Should we avoid all contact with events where some people don’t agree with us on some things?”

    Your case that there is any agreement between libertarians and the socialists who have organized the Occupy Wall Street rallies is not convincing.

    It is not a matter of disagreeing on some minor matter. The goals of the protest are anti-capitalist and in favor of massive expansion of government power.

    If you want to attend the rallies to talk to people, OK. But it would be counter-productive for any Libertarian organization to support the OWS rallies.

  32. paulie Post author

    The goals of the protest are anti-capitalist and in favor of massive expansion of government power.

    There are different protesters with different goals. Some are anarchists. Some are Ron Paul supporters. Some call themselves libertarians.

    It is simply not true that they are all socialists, that they all want an expansion of government power or that they have no agreement on any substantive issues with Libertarians.

    I listed a list of demands being voted on online and found many things I agree with, as well as legitimate concerns being addressed by policy proposals that I disagree with by some – but not all- of the protesters. I went into some detail on that above.

  33. Pingback: Occupy Wall Street: New Livestream Channel, IPR posts to date | Independent Political Report

  34. paulie Post author

    James Ostrowski at Lew Rockwell blog:

    “Here are a few issues that can serve as the basis for a coalition between Paulian libertarians and tea people and the Occupy folks:

    1. End the Fed
    2. End corporate welfare especially outright subsidies
    3. Bring the troops home
    4. Cut offensive military spending
    5. End laws that create monopolies (e.g., preventing people from buying health insurance out of state)
    6. Going way out on a limb here but, elect Ron Paul.

    Let me sell point five to the Occupiers. Obama is clearly a tool of the corporate state we both oppose. Ron Paul would not be an imperial president and could not repeal the welfare state you favor without the consent of Congress. His main influence would be in those areas where the president has the greatest constitutional authority: war, the military and foreign policy. That’s where you are likely to agree with him.”

  35. paulie Post author

    Posted by Lew Rockwell on October 3, 2011 08:54 AM

    Writes Brandon Johnson:

    “Seems the protests are spreading to my city beginning tomorrow. I know there is a lot of criticism going around our circles about these protests being composed of a lot of socialists. I’ll be showing up with my End the Fed sign. A lot of these people are anti-bank and anti-war, and to at least some extent anti-state. Two out of three is enough for me at this point in time. Perhaps they will come to appreciate the free market once the crony con-men at the top have been removed, which is who they associate with the free market at the moment. Currently, I think it’s important to interject the End the Fed and Anti-War message, and to fan the flames of dissent.”

  36. Pingback: Who is Driving Occupy Wall Street : The OWS Threat | Tom Tancredo

  37. Pingback: Erleben Sie die Occupy-Bewegung einer Stadt in Ihrer Nähe « Criticomblog

Leave a Reply