So what exactly happened last night? Were the Occupiers violent, possess weapons or plan a coup de etat?
"For hours, the demonstrators had been chanting and holding impromptu meetings in the park to celebrate the anniversary of the movement that has brought attention to economic inequality, as police mainly kept their distance... the tipping point came when the protesters started breaking the park rules" (Daily Mail UK)
Police just hate it when you don't respect the "Keep Off the Grass" signs...
So what rules were broken?
"They set up tents. They had sleeping bags.. the park owner (Zuccotti is a private park), sent in security to advise the protesters to stop pitching tents and to leave the park... then asked the police to help them clear out the park...""
Oh what criminals!
But let's move beyond 'Occupy' for a moment. Question: When it comes to freedom of speech and expression, what is the difference between what we have in America today (including what was supposedly guaranteed in the US Constitution) and what rights the colonists had pre-American Revolution?
Answer: During colonial times, you could not speak out against the government and the Crown without being arrested. Didn't matter if you were an organized group or an individual. And if you used any form of social media to spread you messages (i.e newspapers, leaflets), they were shut down or confiscated.
People think the US is dramatically different in that it gives freedoms for its citizenry to dissent. It's not so. Certainly an individual has much more freedom to write letters, blog or just vent out loud. Government really doesn't care what an individual thinks or feels about much of anything.
Yet there's still restrictions. For instance, you can say the President's policies are wrong or he's a bad leader (that's your opinion and like the crude saying goes, 'Opinions are like rear-ends, everyone has one'), but if you express views that appear more extreme, emotional and/or personal in nature, then government cracks down hard. Some things one can not even express as empty, powerless wishing or hoping without that person being locked away.
So individuals are pretty much tolerated.. groups- a different matter.
If you have viewpoints about changing the system, and express them in your bedroom to your pet dog Fido, really no one cares. If you find like-minded people who agree and seek to band together to figure how to make a difference, then you're a concern.
And the larger your movement and the more influence you possess in actually altering the structure of the system, the more you're feared. This is when government begins opening files on you, tapping your phones, placing spies to infiltrate and/or disrupt your movement, etc.
Government also fears outward protest and demonstration.
It is why it demands you get prior approval to congregate and when applying for permit, to specify your intentions. And when you are approved, you're cordoned off like ostriches in a pen, safely out of eyesight or earshot of those who you are protesting against. This allows government to keep its 'free speech' while marginalizing you as fringe or meaningless group. And thanks to law passed a month ago, if you outwardly protest or try to disrupt when a member of government is present, it is now a federal offense.
"Over the past ten days, more than a dozen cities have moved to evict “Occupy” protesters from city parks and other public spaces. As was the case in last night’s move in New York City, each of the police actions shares a number of characteristics. And according to one Justice official, each of those actions was coordinated with help from Homeland Security, the FBI and other federal police agencies...
"In several recent conference calls and briefings, local police agencies were advised to seek a legal reason to evict residents of tent cities, focusing on zoning laws and existing curfew rules. Agencies were also advised to demonstrate a massive show of police force, including large numbers in riot gear. In particular, the FBI reportedly advised on press relations, with one presentation suggesting that any moves to evict protesters be coordinated for a time when the press was the least likely to be present."
In four years between two Presidents, each of different party affiliations, the bottom 99% have continually been fucked upon. Not a single piece of legislation was passed or even proposed to bailout the individual financially; no job creation bill or tax breaks to companies who hire First (that's important-- plenty of tax breaks to businesses in the Hope or Assumption they will hire).
Nothing to help small to medium size businesses or encourage individual entrepreneurship... No legislation or proposals to alleviate personal debt, lower mortgage payments without expanding the length of time to repay; or assist with rising tuition costs and sharecropper-like economic slave system of student loans...
Most in the movement are young, educated with worthless degrees and tens of thousands of $$ in debt before turning 21 with no jobs or prospects of good paying ones for a very long time. No one is bailing them out...
The Occupy movement is fully justified in their cause. Those who look down upon 'Occupy' tend to be those fully entrenched in the system who believe that it is Un-American to root against Wall Street, banks and profit.
And if you are not "smart" or "hard working" enough to be like them, you can still live vicariously like them by simply buying what they wear, drive, etc..
People may have thought 'Occupy' died off last year. It didn't.. it just laid dormant even within a most mild winter for most of the country. Hopefully 'Occupy Wall Street' will move from occupying parks and parking lots, and focus on finally trying to literally occupy Wall St itself.
And they're the global 'Occupy' movement.