I am literally in tears over Obama's silence on the violence against OWS

[nadine_mn]

I am not normally someone who cries easily (despite my prior journal entry to the contrary) but talking to my husband tonight about the recent OWS evictions and destruction of property, the countrywide violence by the police against our own citizens, I just started to cry that our President has not denounced the brute force that has been directed at those protesting.

I am not saying he should co-opt the movement, I understand that people will disagree about the right to camp out (I believe for the record as long as its peaceful, they should be allowed to camp out in public parks), and I understand that with every protest there will be a few asshats who get violent just for the hell of it. But for crying out loud - how much more can we tolerate?

But overall, the brute force that has been directed nationwide - not a few rogue bad cops - and the tactics of media blackouts, and so on... if this was any other nation (esp one that had oil), our leaders would be up in arms about supporting democracy and decrying the force used against a country's own citizens.


I feel numb in some respects - how can this be happening here, in 2011, with a Democratic president? How can he not say something at least along the lines about not turning on peaceful protestors?

I am just outraged, frustrated, and saddened that even in Obama continues to ignore this issue I still have to vote for him.

[HopeHoops]

1. That isn't an easy situation to make a proclamation about.

To be fair, while I support OWS, they are (at least in some cases) in violation of the local laws. If the president were to endorse it, he would open himself up to accusations of supporting anarchy. That's not really the case, but that's the way FOX would spin it. Like it or not, FOX crap does influence a large portion of the voting population.

[truedelphi]

6. I am sorry but the only refutation any one needs against your post is this one:

"The Constitution is our (encampment) permit, it knows no curfew !!"

[HopeHoops]

10. As I understand it, the property in New York is privately owned and there's a bit of a problem there

I didn't know that until reports from today. Even if it was a public park, the local authorities could still impose restrictions. I've got a really large park less than a mile from me but you are not permitted on the property between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. by township rules. That's just how it goes.

[cyglet]

41. It is, however....

...in exchange the city stipulated that the parks must be open 24/7.

[HopeHoops]

45. Really? Whoa. I haven't seen that but it would make a profound difference.

[cyglet]

70. Source: New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/20/opinion/zuccotti-park-and-the-private-plaza-problem.html

"Nevertheless, the events at Zuccotti Park highlight the continued inadequacy of the laws regarding privately owned public spaces. Other than the requirement that this space remain open 24 hours a day, the owners were left to promulgate their own rules; the only limit is that they be 'reasonable.'"

Another article says that about half of the privately owned parks in New York City are subject to this requirement.

[HopeHoops]

79. Weird. That reminds me of a scene from "The Out of Towners" with Steve Martin and Goldie Hawn.

They're having sex on the Green when the actual R. Gulianni oversees a dedication ceremony. The NYPD horsemen come after them, but of course they get away. Fun movie and a nice cameo.

[cyglet]

87. Did he mention 9/11? n/t

[HopeHoops]

91. Definitely not. The movie was made before that because there's a scene...

... where they're diverted from JFK to Logan because NY was fogged in and the twin towers were the only thing you could see.

Frankly I don't remember when I first saw the movie, but I do remember that scene.

[roguevalley]

154. Bloomberg's girlfriend is one of the owners of the park. That is

a HUGE part of this.

[HopeHoops]

171. For real? Does that ever complicate things or what?

[TheWraith]

12. The first amendment is not an unlimited right to protest anywhere, at any time.

Any more than it covers polygamy under freedom of religion, or the right to own howitzers under right to bear arms. It's simply a bad and flawed argument.

[HopeHoops]

54. When was the last time you read it front to back?

I do about every three months. The 2nd is problematic, no question. I own guns. I'm not an anti-gun evangelist. But yes, the 2nd didn't mean you could own fully automatic weapons, grenade launchers, or Howitzers. That's sort of my point. They did their best to accommodate the situations of the day, but they certainly could NOT have anticipated what we have now. I honestly believe they did an excellent job but the language has been perverted by the USSC, specifically this one, and there's no sign that it will change any time soon.

As for polygamy (and child rape for that matter), that was usually handled in a manner that would make the papers as a crime today. Not the act, but the way societies handled it.

Oh shit. That just made me thing of Monty Python's "SHE'S A WITCH!" scene from "The Holy Grail". Damn. That's worse than an ear worm.

[sabrina 1]

99. If it was a bad and flawed argument, the owners would have

ended this occupation months ago as they desperately want to do. I guess you haven't been following the legalities involved in this.

Btw, do you support OWS?

[HopeHoops]

172. Yes, I support it, but those "legalities" differ by state, county, town, whatever.

I mostly just want to see it succeed in the long run. Reports like those that showed up this morning of a pregnant teen and an "elderly woman" being tear gassed really aren't helping matters. And what good is it to allow the protesters back into the park if they can't take sleeping bags and tents? That's sort of a backdoor winter ban.

[fascisthunter]

196. Sabrina was asking the person who replied to your post.

[socialindependocrat]

198. We need to identify the GOP wackos in some way!!

[UnrepentantLiberal]

176. 'Occupy' crackdowns coordinated with federal law enforcement officials

http://www.examiner.com/top-news-in-minneapolis/were-occupy-crackdowns-aided-by-federal-law-enforcement-agencies

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.

The official, who spoke on background to me late Monday evening, said that while local police agencies had received tactical and planning advice from national agencies, the ultimate decision on how each jurisdiction handles the Occupy protests ultimately rests with local law enforcement.

According to this official, 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.

The FBI has so far failed to respond to requests for an official response, and of the 14 local police agencies contacted in the past 24 hours, all have declined to respond to questions on this issue.

[truedelphi]

203. I'll be spending this weekend filing Freedom of Information

Requests.

Any ideas you have, feel free to pass them on.

I'll file against the FBI, and whatever police departments are involved.

In California, Oakland Mayor Quan probably violated the Brown Act by having what amounts to creating policy in a non public meeting or forum.

The Brown Act is taken very seriously here.

[nadine_mn]

26. Its not even a support of OWS I am asking for (although it would be awesome)

Denounce the tactics againts the people - guns, pepper spray, etc should not be used as a first response

[HopeHoops]

Interesting perspective. I like it.

[truedelphi]

166. Boy do I hear you. n/t

[HopeHoops]

174. Well I definitely agree with you there. I mean WTF was up with raiding them at 1 a.m.?

The private property issue really complicates matters, but that's not the case in every city and some are rather low profile. Did you know there's a group of a few hundred protesters in Harrisburg, PA? It isn't even getting much coverage from the Harrisburg-based Patriot-News. Everything's about PSU right now. So far our local protest seems to have been without conflict and we're not strangers to such things. There's a group that has a giant pink pig (balloon-like thing) that has protested for years in front of the capital. That's always been without conflict. That's state government property, so it isn't exactly the same situation as the park in NY.

[golddigger]

29. Clinton didn't have any problems with Eygpt.

And she is part of the Obama administration. So that doesn't fly. Hypocrites!

[HopeHoops]

39. Clinton was a great president, but he had some issues.

WTF was up with Monica for example. NAFTA? You can support someone who doesn't quite fit your idealistic scenario (meaning me, but the way) without agreeing to everything they do. Yes, Clinton fucked up with Egypt, but if he ran for president again he would get elected (the Constitution forbids that now), but Diebold would make sure the vote count went against him.

[golddigger]

80. I'am talking about Hilary and Obama administration. Not Bill.

[HopeHoops]

83. Hillary?

It has two "l"s. Still, it fits.

[sabrina 1]

33. The Constitution is their permit. Please do not buy into

the MSM framing of this issue.

I completely agree with the OP. This movement has exposed and confirmed a lot about our political system and the silence of our Elected officials is shameful. They do not need to support the movement, but to not condemn the brutality of the police against peaceful people is simply shameful and tells way more than any words they might say, would do.

[quaker bill]

56. The Constitution is not a permit

I issue permits for part of my living, they are entirely legal, nothing like the Constitution, and have conditions which must be met. The right to free speech and assembly is not without limits. If occupying the park was legal and generally accepted behavior, then doing it would not be much of a protest.

[sabrina 1]

112. If it was not Constitutionally protected, the Mayor and his goons

in the NYPD would have ended it long ago. The fact is the protesters are protected and every attempt by the Mayor and the owners of the park to end it, has failed.

Two decisions recently also confirmed that the right of the people operating under the umbrella of the 1st Amendment trumps local and state ordinances.

[quaker bill]

206. Speech is protected, the specific manner is not.

See Orlando Food Not Bombs V City of Orlando. It went all the way to the FL supreme court. Bottom line, they ruled that giving food to the homeless is protected speech, but occupying a park to do it is not. The City is confirmed to have a right to impose reasonable regulations on such speech. OFNB may now give food to the homeless on the steps of City Hall, once a week, as a negotiated settlement.

The first ammendment protects the speech, but does not provide an unlimited choice of venue.

[truedelphi]

165. Only people whose lives have been shaped by the incessant bureaucracy of the modern age

Would make this argument.

In the 1830's, when people were upset about unfairness of tariffs and custom activities, they marched en masse to the local Custom's House and tore it apart brick by brick. (Source: Howard Zinn)

This is supposedly the free republic of a free people who live in a land of liberty.

The notion that every activity a human being undertakes must be guided by licenses, permits and unending payments and requests for permission buggers the notions of liberty.

In the end, one must ask oneself which is to be of value: the rights and privileges of this free society, or life in a land where the governing class is no longer fearful of We The People, but We the People must be afraid of them.

[quaker bill]

207. I am pretty sure

that tearing down the Customs House was an illegal activity as well. I don't think anyone argued or even cared to argue that it was protected by the First Ammendment.

You make a lovely libertarian argument, Ayn Rand would applaud. Well done.

[lib2DaBone]

37. So we all bend over and worship Fox News... Surrender....

Someone has to stand up for OWS.. it should be Obama.

Oh ya..I forgot.. Obama put 70-year-old cancer patients in jail for possession of Medical MJ, while his AG shipped guns to Mexican Drug Cartels.

If the darkest hour comes before the dawn... dawn must be just down the road.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ZombieHorde]

132. Totally, because FOX News is going to only say nice things about President Obama otherwise.

No way will FOX make shit up, or spin everything President Obama does anyway, so he should always try to seascape FOX News.

:sarcasm:

[roguevalley]

153. oh yes it is. he's the only one who hasn't. the churches have

stepped up, the unions big and small. People all over the world are sending support and people everywhere from the Bering Strait to Antarctica have weighed in. FUCK FOX. And when do you not stand with the people. THis president doesn't stand with anyone or anything that will cost him one tiny hair. FOX is shit. Let them speak to the deadenders. The 99% is so big, so determined that if anyone EVER had the balls to stand with them they would surf to the next election without ever touching ground. Obama is a coward. He didn't stand with Wisconsin, he didn't stand with us against the banks and the pharma companies, he won't stand with us now. He's a republican. That's exactly what he is.

[villager]

2. But sadly, there's no surprise -- he's not one to make tough/difficult/hard stands

n/t

[slay]

4. +1

so true - never have i EVER been more disappointed in someone i voted for. a mistake i will not make again in 2012.

[gateley]

3. Someone posted earlier that if this were occurring in another

country, help would be coming in from all over and Obama would be making a statement denouncing the oppression. :(

[Rosa Luxemburg]

11. as it was under Mubarak in Egypt?

[PoliticAverse]

5. We were all once naive. n/t

[aquart]

7. DHS is not so silent. Actions speak.

[Cali_Democrat]

15. What does DHS have to do with the crackdown?

Are they coordinating it?

[EFerrari]

104. There's an Examiner article around here that reports they are

helping to coordinate it, yes.

[kas125]

134. There were pictures somewhere the other day of them wearing

clothing that said DHS on the back, too. With all these posts today trying to deny that they're involved, I'm sorry that I didn't save them to my computer.

[modeforjoe]

8. It would be out of character for Obama to support OWS

For a long time now, it has been clear that President Obama is not a progressive, is not concerned about the MIC and corporate take over of our republic. For him to align himself in any way or sympathize w the OWS protesters would run against his character and his true allegiance.

[Divernan]

200. Not to mention his major campaign contributors

[pnwmom]

9. Think about how Cain would react. Or Gingrinch, or any of them.

[RKP5637]

14. They would have the troops there by now as a national security threat. I recall

what Nixon was saying during his reign about protesters.

[Tesha]

65. For most purposes, is there a big difference between "troops" and our modern militarized police?

The police are using some weapons that are forbidden
to our military.

Tesha

[RKP5637]

75. I think each day the difference is fading. These cops often look like they are going in with

full gear to combat a violent enemy. I'm very uncomfortable with how many communities are reacting.

[gkhouston]

16. Whether oppression is loudly affirmed or quietly ignored, it's still being validated. n/t

[pnwmom]

18. The Rethug reaction would be far less measured than Obama's has been.

[gkhouston]

23. Ah, the soft biogtry of low expectations. n/t

[DisgustipatedinCA]

49. so? why does that even matter?

I'm sure Stalin wouldn't have reacted very positively either. But neither Stalin nor any registered member of the GOP is the President of the United States.

[woo me with science]

188. ...

:eyes:

[Hissyspit]

20. They aren't President.

[hulka38]

21. At least they would be honest

about their lack of sympathy toward the protestors.

[sabrina 1]

102. Which is why we elected THIS president, isn't it?

So that we ended the reign of terror against the rights of the American people.

What relevance does your statement have to the topic? Obama is president, elected after eight years of abuses of Constitutional rights, in order to begin restoring them.

He doesn't seem interested in doing that either, and whether it is overt or 'soft' the end result for the people is the same.

[Courtesy Flush]

13. He's a very quiet man.

He was silent about Wisconsin, and the rash of voter suppression in several states. He's silent about a lot of things.

If the levees break again, we know where not to turn.

[evrstrong]

17. why would you expect this undemonstrative man to show

concern for young people who are becoming a thorn in his side?

OccupyWS has him between a rock and a hard place because they want him to do things he has been holding back on
for leverage with the Republicans and/or is not part of his gameplan...

[dennis4868]

19. Why should Obama get involved....

that would be crazy....he has no say in this....this is a NY permit issue...Obama is not a God!

[flamingdem]

24. Good luck w/that argument on DU, some people think he is to blame for everything

Kind of a Republican meme that is repeated here with variations

[dennis4868]

34. I know....

Many DUers have this weird idea that Obama is a king of the USA and can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants too...NY has their laws and they must be followed no matter how important the OWS movement is...freedom of speech has limits according to the courts.

[Bjorn Against]

60. Who the hell has the idea that Obama is king and can do whatever he wants?

I have yet to hear a single Obama critic claim that Obama is king and can do whatever he wants, in fact far more often the Obama critics I hear are upset that Obama has exercised too much power in areas such as wiretapping and the wars in places like Afghanistan and Libya.

No one is asking him to be king, people are asking him to protect the Constitution and put a stop to police violence against protesters. The Justice Department does have the power to step in when local units of government violate people's basic Constitutional Rights and there is nothing king like about standing up against police violence.

[treestar]

74. Um, what part of local issues is tough to understand?

It would violate the Constitution for the President to get involved in this.

If you're going to claim this is on par with the civil rights movement in the 60s, good luck.

[Bjorn Against]

85. So do you think Obama is violating the Constitution in this case?

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/12/136896719/policing-the-police-u-s-steps-up-enforcement

So do you think that Obama is violating the Constitution by his Justice Department's actions described in the link above? If you don't believe Obama is violating the Constitution then tell me why he can't get involved in stepping in to stop local police abuses against Occupy Wall Street?

[treestar]

111. FCOL - there is a federal law involved there

They are talking about federal discrimination laws that apply to those police departments!

People can sue if they feel their federal rights were violated, and in this country, people can do that.

Do you really expect the President to send in the National Guard here? And if he did - admit it - you'd complain.

[Bjorn Against]

115. Where did I say anything about the National Guard?

You are trying to pretend I said something I never said because you know that if Obama can step in when local police departments violate a person's civil rights in cases in the ones described in the link he could do the same thing to prevent police abuse against Occupy protesters. You can't dispute my argument without arguing that Obama is currently in violation of the Constituion so you try to change my argument, but it is not going to work.

I want Obama to do for the Occupy movement what he is doing for the victims of racial profiling, I never said anything about the National Guard.

[treestar]

179. NO, the president does not do those things

If people's federal civil rights are violated, they take it to court. They do not expect the President himself to come riding to their defense.

And the NG is at the end of that. When the Southern state refused to implement a federal law, the feds sent the NG.

This is nowhere near or like any such thing. There is no way the President could get involved in any way. He cannot send the NG just because.

This is a nation under a rule of law that is broken down into federal/state, not a nation under a President who takes care of everything.

[Bjorn Against]

187. Again I said NOTHING about the National Guard I was talking about the Justice Department

If the Justice Department can not investigate local police departments who violate people's Constitutional rights then explain to me why they can investigate those 24 local police departments for issues like racial profiling as my link showed.

Stop trying to distract the issue by bringing up the National Guard, we are talking about the Justice Department here and you are just trying to back yourself out of the corner you have put yourself in.

There are two options here, you either admit that the Justice Department has the power to investigate local police departments who violate civil rights or you take the position that Obama's Justice Department is violating the Constitution by investigating the 24 local police departments referenced in the link above. Which is it? The National Guard is not an answer.

[treestar]

211. Well if you are demanding enforcement of a federal law

what body do you think will do that? We don't have a federal police force. So what do you want exactly, presuming there is a violation of a federal law? Who do you expect will step in to enforce that law? The President should round up a posse?

I believe the only example to be desegregation. Guess how the feds attempted to enforce it on states that would not obey?

The police power is a state power. It is not a federal power. There would be great outrage where the federal government made such an attempt. The feds can only investigate violations of federal law and for that they need a complaint. And then what they'd do is make charges and take them to Court. They don't have a duty to patrol for violations - the feds have no policemen on the beat. That's how this country works. It had a division between state and federal power.

Many right wingers complain that the feds have taken too much power as it is. Even though the federal government has vastly expanded its powers, there are still state powers. Basic among them would be policing.

[roguevalley]

157. he didn't say guard. he could roust that reprobate douchebag

eric heider out of his bed and get him to actually do something with the laws that apply to beating and pepperspraying people who are doing nothing to earn it. Oh wait. That would involve taking a side, making a stand, caring ...

[treestar]

180. You take them to court in this country

You take the nYPD or whoever into court. You don't expect the federal government to just intervene. That would violate the separation of powers.

[Bjorn Against]

190. Who takes them to court?

If the Justice Department does not investigate criminal acts by a local police department then who does? The local police department who clearly has a major conflict of interest?

Please don't tell me the victims of police violence, because you know as well as I do that the victims do not have the authority to launch a criminal investigation into police behavior.

[treestar]

210. The federal justice department would have jurisdiction

if there was a potential violation of a federal statue.

In this country, investigations don't happen, someone has to complain.

If a local police officer does something wrong, there are several avenues to use: complain to the police department, which has internal investigation functions, the state AG, because there may be state statutes, and the feds, in case there might be a violation of federal law (which there may or may not be, it would depend on the facts).

[piratefish08]

197. he was as involved as could be in local politics with his garden beer party ..........

i guess his involvement in local issues is situational.

[Enthusiast]

175. 100% PLUS ONE!

Nice post!

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[flamingdem]

61. I agree, it's not going to help us long run to attack him.

As it is Bloomberg is not about doing Obama's bidding, not at all. Under a repuke president he'd be worse.

The Republicans will find any small rift between dems and rip it apart -- we are not guarenteed a win in 2012 .. so the old argument about keeping Obama more to the left is old now. Everyone knows the playing field and no one should hold Obama responsible for the economy /unemployment .. and that's the biggest issue

[roguevalley]

158. oh yeah. Don't hold obama to the same standards you hold

everyone else. BS. The day you don't criticize your guys you become them. enjoy.

[SidDithers]

82. +1...nt

Sid

[RetroLounge]

135. Showing the extent of your thought again, Sid?

:puke:

RL

[SidDithers]

139. Shouldn't you be off calling someone an Obama fellator again...

Stay classy, RL. :rofl:

Sid

[dionysus]

183. oh no you didn't...

you did..

:rofl:

[RetroLounge]

205. Glad you recognize yourself

Stay centrist, Sid...

:rofl:

RL

[Bjorn Against]

28. He may not be a God, but the Attorney General does operate under his watch

He could easily get in front of the podium and make it clear that federal investigations will be launched into police misconduct across the nation. If a local police department violates people's basic civil rights it is the duty of the federal government to step in and put a stop to unconstitutional acts by the police.

[Courtesy Flush]

32. Yeah, right after the Wall Street investigations. nt

[Courtesy Flush]

31. The fuck?

Was it a permit issue in Tunisia, and Egypt, and Libya? Was it a permit issue in Tienanmen Square?

[dennis4868]

36. Did not know....

that OWS were being murdered by the govt like in Egypt and Syria....you're right, Obama should get involved....

[Courtesy Flush]

72. Seriously? Is that when he should speak up? nt

[Bjorn Against]

110. Wow, I see your standards are high

So the police can violently attack peaceful protesters all they want just so long as no one dies?

[roguevalley]

159. yes he should. A soldier in San Diego will be disabled all his

life because of fucking Quan. Old people are getting beaten around in Portland. You really need to look around. Watch the films. Cops are using night sticks against people who aren't even touching them, the bastards.

I remember nixon and I remember bush and his fucking free speech zones. want that? You get that without vigilence and in this period of transition no one, not even and especially obama gets a pass. NO ONE.

[Le Taz Hot]

178. If you don't think there's going to be a significant loss of life

before this is all over, you're sadly mistaken. Some Goon Squad will get out of hand and that's all it's going to take. It WILL happen and that's when the REAL revolution will begin and there's not enough money or power in the world that can protect the 1% (which INCLUDES Obama).

[NYC Liberal]

73. Obama is commander-in-chief of the armed forces.

He has the authority to send the military to participate in international military operations.

Obama has no jurisdiction over state and local governments or police forces.

[Courtesy Flush]

105. But he has the authority to speak about it.

This thread is about his silence, not his inaction. His silence is tantamount to consent.

[NYC Liberal]

126. And I disagree that he should do that, as do many others.

[Courtesy Flush]

129. So who should be paying attention?

What's the point of the protests? Wall Street isn't afraid. The whole point is to get money out of government. If money isn't listening, and government isn't listening, why bother?

[eridani]

168. He has jurisdiction over Homeland Security n/t

[nadine_mn]

35. Please reread my OP - I didn't say it was just NY - before knee jerk responding

I am talking about the overall trend of law enforcement using violence on the protestors - there was that little incident in Oakland you may have heard about, as well as what happened in NYC last night

[cyglet]

121. ACLU is suing Oakland police

so I expect them to sue everywhere....

[JVS]

47. Why seek the presidency at all if you're so disinterested in the goings on within the country?

[Courtesy Flush]

59. +1

[sabrina 1]

155. His people are being brutalized by police trying to take away

their 1st Amendment rights. He most certainly should be saying something about that. Two veterans who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan were hospitalized and nearly killed by those criminal cops. He is the COC and would be expected to uphold the rights of those veterans who fought under him, they were told for all of our rights.

He has said stuff about other countries, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Syria and criticized the crackdowns on people exercising their rights to protest, why would he not do the same thing for his own people?

[roguevalley]

156. google bully pulpit. then google it with TR, FDR and Truman.

[eridani]

167. Department of Homeland Security, which is coordinating the raids, is federal

Therefore he does have a say in this.

[Xithras]

189. Funny, he didn't mind getting involved in the Beer Summit when a local issue benefited him.

Ultimately, that was a case of a single aggressive police officer overstepping his authority and abusing a single citizen. Not only did he become involved and make statements about Gates beating, but he invited the two sides to the White House and personally tried to mediate it. One officer, one victim. He decided that it was worthy of his time.

And yet, when an entire army of police officers abuse thousands of citizens in dozens of cities across America, he's silent.

[TBF]

22. "Ignore" the issue? Who do you think Homeland Security reports to?

He's not ignoring us - he's just not that into us.

[nadine_mn]

48. I am sticking my head in the sand on that - it makes me even sadder

if he is actively repressing it vs just ignoring

[TBF]

50. Doubt it would be "active" - my guess is that he's just ignoring it and letting Justice

and Homeland Security handle it. He could say something if he wanted to, but he won't.

[NYC Liberal]

25. Oh FFS. Perhaps Obama should just proclaim himself dictator and

send in the army.



The last thing Obama should do is get involved.

[golddigger]

38. Hence the name: No drama Obama.

[nadine_mn]

42. Where did I say that? A statement renouncing violence against it citizens = dictatorship?

Please help me follow your logic? I said in my OP (you may have been to busy attempting to be clever to read it all) that I am not asking for Obama to even support OWS, just to say violence is not an option

[NYC Liberal]

53. What good would it do?

I can only see negatives.

The media would pounce on it and start hammering the point 24/7 that Obama supports OWS. The new meme would be, even if it's bullshit, that OWS is a partisan political operation supported by Obama.

Of course it would be bullshit, but that's what would happen.

[kas125]

137. He was damned quick to denounce the violence against

protesters in other countries, as was his Secretary of State. Their silence here is the true definition of hypocrisy.

[glinda]

146. True and that shows how deep our disfunction is as a Country.

[NYC Liberal]

163. The media dismisses or ignores worldwide movements of

tens or hundreds of thousands - or millions - of people ( the anti-war protests starting in 2002, OWS).

Yet the tea bagger "rallies", most of which were small enough to be held in a Port-a-Potty, got endless hours of breathless (positive) coverage from the MSM. And the tea baggers went around carrying the most vile, disgusting, bigoted signs and made threats against public officials, including the president -- yet the police were NEVER violent towards them. Meanwhile, OWS protesters get assaulted, beaten, and arrested for nothing.

Dysfunction is right.

[Bjorn Against]

43. Well maybe you want him to be dictator, but that sure as hell is not what the OP was arguing

The Justice Department operates under Obama's watch, when they see local police departments violating people's basic Constitutional Rights it is their duty to step in and put a stop to it. Stupid animations do not change the fact that there is nothing dictatorial about stopping the police from violently attacking peaceful people who are doing nothing more than exercising their basic rights, in fact most dictators would never do anything to stop these kinds of abuses.

[NYC Liberal]

64. You need to read up on the Constitution. And the law.

No, the Justice Department does not have a "duty to step in and put a stop" to the operations of local police departments. They have no jurisdiction to do so.

The people responsible here are the mayors and local chiefs of police. Not Obama. Not the federal Department of Justice. It would be quite dictatorial for Obama or the DOJ to intervene where they have no legal jurisdiction or authority.

[Bjorn Against]

76. No you should read the Constitution

A local police department can not unilaterally decide that they are not going to obey the Constitution, and yes when they do violate the Constitution the Justice Department can absolutely step in.

If you don't believe that to be the case then I would assume that you believe Obama is violating the Constitution in this case in which his Justice Department was investigating local police forces...

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/12/136896719/policing-the-police-u-s-steps-up-enforcement

So tell me is Obama violating the Constitution? If not then how can you claim that he would be violating the Constitution if he were to crack down on police abuse against the Occupy movement?

[Hissyspit]

62. How do you know he isn't involved?

Frankly, the onus is on you to convince me that the Feds aren't coordinating this.

Lousy argument, no on is demanding he be a dictator and send in the army. And lousy insulting animation.

[NYC Liberal]

69. I made no claim other than they shouldn't be involved.

If you want to assert that the federal government is "coordinating this," then I will still stand by my statement that they should not be involved. Would you disagree?

[treestar]

77. Some people are so friggin' obsessed!

They'd be mad at Obama if their county council did the wrong thing and he didn't stop them!

But crying? OMG.

[NYC Liberal]

90. All of this "Blame Obama For Everything" is like satire. Like The Onion.

Except, sadly, it's not.

[nadine_mn]

95. Yeah - that's what I am saying - sorry you missed the point

Watching the news - not MSM, but livestream videos, some on MSNBC and Olbermann and reading tweets from OWS - of citizens being beaten with billy clubs, pepper sprayed, cops showing up with black tape over their badges, beating and arresting people for just being present - that breaks my heart

This violation of Free Speech and Peaceful Assembly - breaks my heart

That a fucking Constitutional scholar can not see that the right to peaceful assembly and freedom of the press and free speech is being trambled on across the country - NOT SOME DAMN CITY COUNCIL

That makes me sad - sad at what has happened.

[treestar]

109. Your sense of perspective is off

This is not the civil rights movement of the 60s.

And all of the terrible things you cite as happening - we don't really have proof.

Not everything is a POTUS problem.

[nadine_mn]

119. you are right - we have no proof from the videos of people being beaten

or pepper sprayed... its all a myth

you are right - why would I make the mistake of looking for leadership from the POTUS

forgive me for my ignorance

[laconicsax]

27. Did you seriously expect anything else?

:shrug:

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BlueIris]

30. With this president, I've found there is always a "moment."

A point past which joyful support is no longer possible. Mine was healthcare. Sorry you've reached yours.

[Amonester]

58. Mine will be the day he'll start bombing Iran (if any).

At that point (if any), there won't be any difference with the clown$ on the daRk $ide left.

[Laelth]

123. Mine was also the Health Insurance Company Enrichment Act. n/t

-Laelth

[Admiral Loinpresser]

160. Mine was Copenhagen 2009. n/t

[Peregrine Took]

44. Hey, once an adjunct prof - always an adjunct prof.

A tiger doesn't change his stripes.

[Texasgal]

46. I thought OWS

doesn't align with party lines?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

52. It doesn't. What does your point have to do with anything?

Should the president only speak out against violence committed against those who support him or his party?

[Texasgal]

63. No, but if the 99% isn't all D's or Lib's

then what difference does it make if he speaks out? The 99% makes up of plenty of people. many who do not support Obama.

I was responding mainly to this line " how can this be happening here, in 2011, with a Democratic president?"

[slipslidingaway]

55. Listening to Michael Moore on Olbermann talking about a coordinated effort against OWS with ...

Obama's justice dept. and homeland security.

:(

[WillyT]

57. Yep... Waiting For The Transcript...

:shrug:

:hi:

:kick:

[slipslidingaway]

68. Me too, missed the very beginning ...

good thing Obama has been away from DC while these attacks are taking place ... onto Australia and Bali.

Hope all is cleaned up by the time he returns to DC.

:hi:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

66. The reason he's silent about the violence is the same reason that BofA is silent about it.

[Hydra]

67. The problem is

That President Obama is part of The System.

The System protects itself. OWS is a threat to The System and its current goals.

The System has no sympathy, no humanity, no justice. There is only one thing the system is: Hungry.

To be part of the system is to embrace that soullessness and the hunger that loss creates.

Ergo, we will never have a President that does not represent The System.

[Courtesy Flush]

78. Proof that term limits don't work

If term limits don't make better presidents, how can they make better congressmen?

[treestar]

71. You're talking as if this is on par with

Katrina or 911.

Get out more and get more opinions.

Crying over the POTUS not saying anything about a particular news event? Good God.

Maybe that means it's not so bad?

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Poll_Blind]

89. For the last few years the President has been angling for a certain crowd.

And OWS folks ain't it.

You'll notice he recently gave a little mini-speech about the state of affairs regarding the Penn State scandal. AFAIK, that's about four times as many words, and a hell of a lot more feeling that he's put into everything he's put into talking about OWS, combined.

PB

[nadine_mn]

92. Tears more at what our country has become more than anything is where I am at

Its the sadness that violence can be directed at citizens nationwide and no condemnation from leaders.

[treestar]

113. You'd have been a mess in the 60s then!

Or in the Jim Crow era. Did you know civil rights workers were killed then?

And that the feds had to send in the National Guard to enforce school desegregation?

A little study of history may help with perspective. This country was far worse than it is now - has been in my lifetime.

[nadine_mn]

127. You are right - I was born in 72

I just thought, crazy I know, that we learned something from all that.

I see our country moving further to the right than ever before and that scares me

[JuniperLea]

193. Local leaders are who are in charge

And it would be heinously bad form for any president to run roughshod over the local authorities.

[JuniperLea]

192. It's not even his area of law...

A president should never step on the toes of local authorities... and in this case, the locals are the law.

He has talked about specifics, and that's all he can really do.

This is just more pearl clutching in hate, IMHO.

[JoePhilly]

84. Can you outline what it is you think he should be saying exactly?

Since the day Obama took office, there is no shortage of folks on DU who will claim that whatever he has done or has not done, he did or did not do it correctly.

And so ... in this case, can you clarify what EXACTLY you think he should have done? Or what he should be doing.

You claim he has ignored the situation ... please tell us what specific action he can and should be taking. And when you explain it, make sure to include the specific things he should be doing in the many locations where OWS is active ... or, should be be doing the same thing in every instance?

[ecstatic]

88. I don't agree. There are rapes, and may even be murders

at OWS going forward. If he steps in and someone is hurt, killed, or raped, then he will be blamed.

[Bjorn Against]

96. The Occupy movement is not about murdering or raping people

There are rapes and murders that happen every day across America, it would be insanely stupid to blame a rape in New York on everyone who lives in New York. It is equally as stupid to blame a rape at an Occupy on the entire Occupy movement. To suggest Obama should not speak out against police brutality because he may be associated with a rapist is absolutely ridiculous.

[ecstatic]

118. Well normal people are looking at the limited clips of what's going on

and it doesn't look very good. I don't blame anyone for not wanting to vouch for some people who may not all be on the same page.

[Bjorn Against]

122. What normal people associate the Occupy movement with murder and rape?

I am talking about normal people by the way, not right-wing nut jobs. I don't know of a single normal person who watches these "limited clips" of murder and rape and then thinks the movement is about rape. In fact every poll that has been taken shows strong support for the Occupy movement, the only people who think the movement is about rape are FOX News viewers who will believe anything they are told no matter how idiotic.

And by the way what "limited clips" are you talking about that relate to murder or rape? I know that there was one rapist busted at Occupy Wall Street, but there are rapists arrested lots of other places as well and we don't blame everyone that shared a belief with those people for the rape.

[ecstatic]

130. Let me clarify... OWS is getting very little coverage here

The little bit they've shown has been negative. So we're going to see less politicians endorsing the movement.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

93. Sign this petition

http://wh.gov/bmO

[pmorlan1]

94. You're Kidding...

He's not saying anything because he supports the crackdown. The attacks on OWS are coordinated by Homeland Security, the FBI and other Federal police agencies.

According to this official, 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.

Continue reading on Examiner.com Update: 'Occupy' crackdowns coordinated with federal law enforcement officials - Minneapolis Top News | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/top-news-in-minneapolis/were-occupy-crackdowns-aided-by-federal-law-enforcement-agencies?fb_comment_id=fbc_10150462016435435_20620722_10150462669910435#f2a515ad4c#ixzz1dpVDFLc3

[uppityperson]

97. October statements, "Obama said the most important thing he can do as president is express ..."

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/obama-occupy-wall-street-not-that-different-from-tea-party-protests/

Obama said the most important thing he can do as president is express solidarity with the protesters and redouble his commitment to achieving what he described as a more egalitarian society.

Not addressing the police reactions, but supporting OWS.

[Fumesucker]

107. That's fantastic, put it up as an OP.. n/t

[uppityperson]

117. Done. It doesn't address police violence, but thought it interesting

[Doughboy71]

98. It's time for everyone to get along

Hi, I'm the husband of Nadine_Mn. I think it's time for the OWS cities to stop treating these protests as violent and keep the pepper spray and tear gas canisters back at the Police Station. We should not be watching OWS participants being beaten by riot police on tv. Also, the protesters need to remain calm and evict any hoodlums who wish to disrupt the OWS movement.

It is our responsibility to protect our Constitutional Rights. President Obama needs to denounce the violence at OWS.

[glinda]

148. I do agree that the police and other Agencies must stop this.

If they do not, it will get nasty.

[femrap]

100. When it comes to

ACTIONS, NOT WORDS, is there really much difference between the 2 parties?

That Obama hasn't stood up for OWS is not surprising...after all, he gets all his campaign contributions from Wall Street. He's a simple minion.

Rock on, Occupiers. You can't kill an idea....EVER. Now we're just more pissed and 'galvanized' as one Occupier said.

The fascists pigs made a big mistake....and the mayor of Oakland told us a little bit about it.

[Motown_Johnny]

101. If he did they everyone who wants to hurt him would use them as a surrogate

and they would come under more focused attack.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Marrah_G]

106. It's alot easier to deal with when you realize he is not one of us

He is a wealthy man with enormous power who depends on big money to keep his power. That is who he and the rest of them are. They will do nothing for US, unless we find a way to make them.

[nadine_mn]

108. To clarify my OP - my tears are what happened to this damn country

Some have misread my OP to mean that I want Obama to be a dictator, that I am crying over nothing.

Let me explain my perspective a bit - I went to law school and fell in love with our Constitution. I wept when the Patriot Act shredded the 4th amendment (and I would often get frustrated with continued violations way before the Patriot Act - but the Patriot Act really shit all over it).

I love the nuances and ways that the Constitution has survived over 200 yrs of continued attacks.

I was never a fan of Obama (previous journal entries will state that) but voted for him because I made the mistake of assuming that a Constitutional Law scholar would have the same respect for it. With Bush, I knew he was an idiot and had no expectations he would respect it. I had hopes that an intellectual would honor it.


This isn't just about what happened in NYC last night - this is the nationwide violent crackdown on PEACEFUL protestors.

Fuck elections, party lines, etc... this is repression of the 1st amendment - by kicking out and arresting media, beating protestors, on and on and on.

I want a President to say we thrive on when we are challenged and that violence against those we disagree with or don't understand by our law enforcement is not ok.

[TBF]

114. There are a lot of myths we grow up with -

I've spent the last three years unlearning many of them. The conclusion I've come to is that we have to get rid of capitalism, one way or another. We're letting business run the show here, and they have no qualms about trampling the constitution.

[madfloridian]

116. You should not have to explain. It should be already understood.

It's the feeling I have as well, as do many others.

I feel the same about America's tradition of public free education for all. The public part is going fast now without a single party leader speaking up. The free part? That is for the future to tell.

I get the same thing when I post, the same feeling.

Your post was clear.

[nadine_mn]

120. thank you

I don't understand how so many can misread my OP - I started to think I was on another site

[geek tragedy]

124. Waaa waaa waaa. nt

[nadine_mn]

125. thank you for agreeing with me

[paulk]

128. I don't know why you would assume

that Obama even supports the goals of the OWS movement, much less is concerned about the violence directed at it.

[autorank]

131. Time to wake up

Sory for your distress but it's not productive. There will be no help period from this DoJ, none.

[Bozita]

133. Jim Hightower said it best ...

[RetroLounge]

136. Obama take a stand on something?

:rofl:

RL

[FirstLight]

138. Before I get my blood pressure up

by reading the rest of the comments here... let me just say that I have been saying this all day and been shut down on several fronts and came close to tears myself at the feeling i was being censored here on DU for just saying it.

While I understand that some would like to think that I am an Obama hater, it is not the case...but the recent developments and the letdowns of the past few years have really been gut-churning..the loss of some really great public momentum, war and guantanomo continuing regardless of campaign promises...etc But that stuff is really superficial when i think of the events that have unfolded in the past few weeks and the lack of leadership, yes, LEADERSHIP we have seen from our esteemed Nobel Peace Prize winning POTUS. it makes me cringe.

we have a 24 year old VETERAN with brain damage who has lost speech
we have reporters arrested and pepper sprayed, aerial camera crews who were forbidden to shoot, photographers roughed up, etc.
we have another man in the hospital with a broken back and loss of use of an arm
we have TEARGAS, LRAD and RUBBER BULLETS becoming the NORM in some of these cities when Occupy and Police (and anti-terrorism units) meet

the list goes on...

this i not about asking the CEO to get involved with mid management...this is ATTACKS on AMERICANS BY AMERICANS on AMERICAN SOIL
this is VIOLATION of CONSTITUTIONAL Rights
This is against the law, both the written and moral

And he SHOULD have something to say about it!!! Jesus, i thought he was a CONSTITUTIONAL Scholar for crissakes!
For all the shit he said in 2008, all that made me cry THEN...his silence is making me livid today

[woo me with science]

140. Excellent post.

My anger at this administration is beyond civil expression on this board. This country and all of its people have been horribly, horribly betrayed.

[FirstLight]

142. now I'M gonna cry!

honestly, you are one of the first to agree with me all day! lol

[Bozita]

143. Your post is worthy of its very own thread!

And I'd give it a well-deserved Rec.

[FirstLight]

145. I'm afraid I'd get TS'ed

after the way things went down when I said something similar earlier... got banished to the dungeon, and another locked...

we are not supposed to talk smack about our Dem POTUS i guess... i am not inciting violence, not being a bitch (much) just wondering why these things are happening the way they are, and HOW can a POTUS who was so vocal and quick to jump into Libya and Egypt's affairs is so quiet about things right fucking HERE

i think the movement and the events of the recent weeks are starting to make some people firmly put their heads deeper in the sand, and others to wake up to the fact that we may just be on our own...and all we really have is each other

[Bozita]

147. I'd be honored to post your message and take the TS risk.

Only problem is I wouldn't be able to Rec it.

If you approve, I'll post it in a flash.

[woo me with science]

144. I am certain that many, many people agree with you. nt

[laundry_queen]

161. Many do.

Many are also tired of dealing with the 'pile-on' gang so they've been staying away from these kind of threads (it attracts them). But there are many here who are with you.

[glinda]

149. I agree.

[FirstLight]

150. okay!okay!

I'll eloborate and repost in a bit ;) thanks for the support guys, :hug: it's been a day, you know?

[Bozita]

152. Yes, it's been one helluva 24 hours

[nadine_mn]

162. thank god - someone else feels the same

Quoting from you
"this i not about asking the CEO to get involved with mid management...this is ATTACKS on AMERICANS BY AMERICANS on AMERICAN SOIL
this is VIOLATION of CONSTITUTIONAL Rights
This is against the law, both the written and moral"

I can't stand to see what is going on, and what I have said in a later post - I wrongly believed that as Constitutional scholar (as someone who went to law school as well) he would be outraged at attacks on our freedoms.


Candidate Obama would smack the shit out of President Obama


Thank you

[deutsey]

170. The Occupy Livestream showed a video recently with Obama, H. Clinton, et al.

condemning what was and is happening in the Middle East while showing clips of the same kinds of things happening here in the US at Occupy demonstrations.

Very powerful. Wish I could find it.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

184. I hear you --

and I get it. :hug:

What has been happening is outrageous. And it is outrageous that there has been all but silence from the top on the crack-down, as well as possible collusion in the shut-down of OWS.

You have very right to be livid. We all should be.

[Desertrose]

194. I agree too!!!

This is just unbelievable. The fact that so many (here) seem to feel this is acceptable.....ATTACKS on AMERICANS BY AMERICANS on AMERICAN SOIL
this is VIOLATION of CONSTITUTIONAL Rights. This is against the law, both the written and moral.

Blows my mind!

[No Joe]

141. KR

[MichaelMcGuire]

151. 1+

[donheld]

164. Silence = consent

[Norrin Radd]

169. kr

[LWolf]

173. I'm not in tears.

I never expected anything better.

I'm angry. More intense than angry. Livid.

I've been that way since '08.

I don't HAVE to do a damned thing except die.

[bvar22]

177. The 99% turned out for Obama.

Obama's Army, Jan. 20th, 2009

You would think he would reciprocate,
and WANT to LEAD.
YES. WE. CAN!!!
CHANGE!




Instead, Obama's Army is marching without him.

How sad is that?
He coulda been a contender.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Doctor_J]

181. Oh, he's not being silent to everyone...

He's in on it

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2315960

I must now admit that I have no more hope left for "change". It's not that I want President Cain or whoever, it's just that I pretty much don't care. And the main reason that Obama won in 2008 was that he got 70 million Americans to care.

[RufusTFirefly]

182. Everyone chill the fuck out! He's got this!

It's just that the President is still putting on his "comfortable shoes."
They're lace shoes, not those Velcro things, so it may take a while.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

185. I am sorry that --

your OP is being misrepresented by so many here. Sadly, it is true that there are some who are too blind too see. :(

That this crackdown is coming on the heels of the Arab Spring and our leaders' response to their protests is quite galling.

And that a "constitutional lawyer" and a Democrat is strangly silent on the violence is a telling -- it should give us all pause.

:hug:

[Name removed]

186. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JuniperLea]

191. OFFS... WTF?

The worst possible thing a president can do is to run roughshod over the toes of local authorities. It's not his place to do shit, and if you knew anything about government, you'd get that.

He has talked about specifics, that's all he can do.

[nadine_mn]

201. oh now that's hilarious - you missed my OP

I never said he should "run roughshod over the toes of local authorities" - perhaps reading comprehension is not your strong point.

I am pretty confident in my knowledge of government as a PoliSci major and an attorney who focused on local and federal government and legislation in law school.

My OP stated he should say something condemning violence being used as a first response to the protests. A reminder that we do condone Americans turning on Americans.

But you go ahead in your fantasy world and read into this what you will.

[JuniperLea]

214. I stand by my statement...

And call bullshit on your bullshit.

Of course you never used those words... what nonsense.

Apparently you haven't been paying attention to the president at all...

[Bluenorthwest]

212. Two words: Skip Gates.

Now, you explain how that story, involving one rich man and no violence, required comments from and meetings with the President. Was that not his place? Did you say so then? Did you type 'shit' and snark at those who felt he was doing the right thing? Just wondering if you hold principles or situational ethics.

[JuniperLea]

213. I did in fact say it wasn't his place...

And that he should have left it all the hell alone. My guess is that he learned a lesson.

[LibraLiz1973]

195. The Silence is SHAMEFUL..... but telling.

On all levels. And not just from President Obama. From ALL elected officials who choose to sit back & watch as people are beaten, the eldery are pepper sprayed, and peoples belongings are destroyed.

They aren't saying anything because they can't... and they don't want to.

They can't because their big DONORS are against it. Appearing to support it or show tolerance for it would piss off all that beautiful :puke: Wall Street money.

They won't because most of the senior politicians in this country are in the 1%. And they intend to stay that way.

This country stopped being for the people by the people a LONG time ago. The richest one percent rule the roost, and they have no intention of allowing us 99 percenters to assemble and speak.


We need to remember that.

[southernyankeebelle]

199. Lets just wait what the supper committee is going to do. I have a terrible

feeling we will really be thrown under the bus. I honestly don't think I could go vote if the democrats throw us under the bus. If they do they are no different then the other side. I am afraid there will be many people home crying. Then we will need to find someone to take on the president.

[blkmusclmachine]

202. 99% versus 1%:

We can see who belongs where.

[emsimon33]

204. Obama is merely a puppet, a tool of the elite

If you just discovered this with his silence on the OWS violence, then you must have been asleep since he got into office.

[Vinca]

208. If OWS becomes America's favorite movement, he'll be there.

:sarcasm: And so will the Republican nominee.

[Ganja Ninja]

209. It's nothing new.

When has he ever stood with the people that voted for him?