Something very big is happening here, that you have heard. What you will not here from the Mainstream media are some crucial points of history. The path the OWS follows was traced by the Sons of Liberty from 1775 to 1777. Sons of Liberty took their message to join the American Revolution from village to village, town hall to town hall. In the process, Sons of Liberty won over almost all town halls of America and in the process made the illegitimate government of the rag-tag patriots into the legitimate government of America.  Essentially, the American Revolution was won. The war that followed was the futile attempt at re-establish military occupation of the American Colonies.

Today, the Occupation has changed from a colonial one to Occupation by the blood thirsty gods of Wall Street. Do not say, Wall Street folks are your neighbors. Such neighbors will cut out and devour your beating heart.

In both cases, the Movements were viral and the paths the movements followed are laid down by politics, culture and the way the Land is built and wired. This movement will not go away for the same reasons we predicted its birth in 2008 on these pages. It is all about history and the demise of the Doomed Regime. The one relevant piece of news since 2008 was the failure of any kind of reform both frustrated by the knuckle-dragging Retrograde Mutants, and hyped by agents of the Bush-Lite Administration.

Failed reform movements, in times of great crisis, are a very big deal historically.

Presidential candidate Buddy Roemer visited OWS last Tuesday (11 October 2011). Here's from Buddy Roemer for President 2012 'Weekly Campaign Update" (14 October 2011) --

He [Roemer] didn't agree with everybody on everything, but he felt it important to have gone to listen.

Another recent visitor to OWS (Zuccoti Park, NYC) was Chris Martenson (investment-economics researcher and writer). There's no particular connection between Roemer and Martenson -- at least not that I know of -- but I have considerable respect for both of them. Martenson visited on 7 October 2011, with a video crew of two others. Here's from his Newsletter (13 October 2011) --

What we found were people united by a sense that our national narrative is off course and that resentment over the patent unfairness of our current system is building. Perhaps the most common expression we found was that people, to varying degrees, thought that there was something systemically wrong.

Martenson has declared his intention to return to OWS after completing his current California tour.

Obviously, corporate media and 'wingnut blogdom' are doing all they can to discredit what's happening at OWS. While there are efforts to co-opt OWS as well as efforts to popularize distorted caricatures of what's happening there, it appears to me that some of the best people grappling with what is happening throughout America are visiting the event, coming away with a positive impression that what's happening is serious discussion.

Those who label OWS as "radical" or "hippies" and so forth reveal much more about themselves than about OWS. "It's the First Amendment, Stupid!" People exchanging ideas without the mediation of TV, people thinking for themselves ... that's probably pretty scary to some.

Martenson --

Because of this widespread view of ‘everything being wrong,’ there was, naturally, no single message or thing around which everyone had gathered. Instead, the view was simply that the system being discussed -- political, capitalist, economic, or monetary -- was broken.

Facts and statistics showing how "free trade" has destroyed American jobs:

Another Example Of Stupid: Trade

raw link: http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=196063

It's not very hard to figure out why these agreements always screw the American people either -- there's no need for some complex negotiation with a nation like Germany. It's only when we want to employ slave labor in places like Panama or South Korea, allowing our corporations to offshore yet more jobs to a place where people are paid $5/day while they pollute the air and water with impunity that we need these "agreements."

EP Admin: For some reason links aren't working. Message Preview is not showing links that I've added.

Are you saying that the Occupy Wall St group is for unlimited migration?

Based on the Wikepedia article, I would have thought you would have agreed that neoliberalism is bad for most Americans.

I saw some statement about their beliefs that mentioned they were against outsourcing of jobs but nothing mentioned about immigration.

From an entry at the occupywallst.org website on October 14, 2011:

"Over the last 30 years, the 1% have created a global economic system - neoliberalism [link to Wikipedia entry here in original] - that attacks our human rights and destroys our environment. Neoliberalism is worldwide - it is the reason you no longer have a job, it is the reason you cannot afford healthcare, education, food, your mortgage.
Neoliberalism is your future stolen.

Neoliberalism is everywhere, gutting labor standards, living wages, social contracts, and environmental protections. It is "a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money." It is a system that ravages the global south and creates global financial crisis - crisis in Spain, in Greece, in the United States. It is a system built on greed and thrives on destablizing shocks.
It allows the 1% to enrich themselves by impoverishing humanity.

This has to stop!
We must usher in an era of democratic and economic justice.
We must change, we must evolve."

This group -- full of young, discontent people worried sick about their economic futures in America -- is about the best audience for the NumbersUSA-type groups out there that favor immigration reduction they'll ever get. I saw Mark Krikorian, a spokesman for one of the immigration reduction groups, refer to the Occupy Wall Streets with disdain.

HUGE mistake. Look at hostile and deliberately humiliating and defiant message to liberal groups who are trying to ride on their wave and maybe take it over.

THanks for putting that up by the way, I hadn't seen that before and I really love it. The longer the group can stay as is, with a general message and sincere effort to be inclusive, the more they will grow, I think.

The desire to be fair and inclusive could lead them to support immigration positions that are self-defeating. I hope they don't do that.

"look at the Democrats on the list who claim to be "for the middle class". Their constituents are: WA: Microsoft, Boeing, AK: Wal-mart, OR: Intel, CA: Cisco, G.E.,IL: Caterpillar (Iowa as well)" -- Robert Oak

(Minor typo here: I think Wal-Mart is Arkansas -- not 'AK' (Alaska) but 'AR'.)

To make state-by-state as well as party comparisons for the House would really not be a brief post. Looking at the Senate, however, it's pretty easy to see what's happening. Yes, both senators from the state of Washington (both D) are pro-FTA as are both senators from the state of Arkansas (one D and one R). As for Iowa, Harkin (D) voted against all three FTAs whereas Grassley (R) voted for all three! In the case of Oregon, Wyden (D) never saw a FTA he didn't like, whereas Merkley (also D) voted against all three.

As for Illinois, Durbin (D) was disappointing in voting for two out of three of the FTAs, but Kirk (R) voted for all three. In the case of California, Feinstein (D) "never saw a FTA she didn't like," whereas Boxer (also D) voted only for the Korea agreement and against the other two.

I think that with Washington and California (and to a lesser extent, Oregon), we have to include the ILWU as an important pro-FTA influence along with the MNCs. (The ILWU was probably a key influence on Boxer's vote for the Korea agreement.) The ILWU is also of tremendous importance in Hawaii.

Both in the Senate and the House, Republicans were nearly unanimous in support of the FTAs. However, it's interesting that the most outspoken opposition to the corporate FTA agenda is from Coburn (R) as well as from  Sanders (I). As for the Independents, there again we see a split with Sanders anti-FTA while Lieberman is pro-FTA.

Overall, it's impossible to avoid the conclusion that, as a pretty good rule, Republicans are out to destroy American working people at least as much as is Obama -- whereas many, but not all, Democrats and Independents are opposing the WTO agenda. You cannot say, however, that a protectionist voter can look at party affiliation to decide how to vote: Kerry (D), for example, is all-out for the FTAs and Coburn (R) is outstanding against FTAs.

In summary, I don't think that we can see either specific corporate economic power within a state or party affiliation as determining in all cases. We see some bipartisan "rank and file" movement toward opposition to FTAs and for the currency bill. However, with the single exception of Harry Reid, leadership in the Congress remains as pro-FTA as ever -- on both sides of the aisle.

"I link to the roll call votes so we don't have to clutter up the site with that database tallies." -- Robert Oak

Showing those who voted against all three FTAs requires some work. I didn't just copy and paste!

Although my list is derived from the roll calls, there's no way to go online to Thomas (Library of Congress) or any .gov site for a list of those who voted against all three FTAs. (You can't get it without examining the record, one member at a time, on each of the three votes.)

I posted the three tables, which don't take up much space, because it's the best way to show what's happening by party -- the power of the RNC to exact pro-FTA votes as the price of corporate support.

Also, I wanted to make a point with the term 'Honor Roll', to say that taking the 100% anti-FTA position won't go unappreciated. I doubt that any of MSM noted the statistic for opposition to all three FTAs or rewarded the individual representatives by publicizing their anti-FTA  stands.

Even though there's been some mention that "rank-and-file" Democrats voted in opposition to Obama, the full meaning is better seen in the statistic 61% and, best yet, in the list of the representatives involved. As a rule, I would just post the link, as suggested. But I believe the recent votes are of tremendous significance.

Here's a look at just how successfully American corporations can avoid paying taxes at the same time as they are paying their corner office dwellers record amounts:

http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2011/09/ceo-excess-how-to-make-more...

The playing field definitely needs to be leveled so that everyone is paying a fair share.

Unfortunately, we have educated a lot of the people who create foreign companies and lead foreign subsidiaries where the outsourced jobs go. It probably should be much harder to get a student visa in the US than a work visa. At least people who work here are paying taxes here and interacting and enhancing the work of others in this country. It's worse when they go back with a coveted American degree and immediately have twice the legitimacy of any other foreign contractor or researcher.

I'll tell you though, the composition of STEM classes in the US has become very foreign. There has been a boom in education despite dropping interest from US citizens. The labor arbitrage has definitely cost us in three ways 1) American talent doesn't want to go into STEM, 2) American talent that goes into STEM is more stressed about employment and less focused on new ideas or technical excellence, 3) STEM workers who get employment are working longer hours and with no faith in their organization; a monumental disaster for scientific thought and out-of-the-box creativity. This is how I see it from the ground in chemistry.