Future Senator David Hildebrand! video by Peter Menchini

Future Senator David Hildebrand!

Δημοσιεύτηκε από Peter Menchini στις Κυριακή, 17 Σεπτεμβρίου 2017

Future Congressperson Stephen R Jaffe video by Peter Menchini

Future Congressperson Stephen R Jaffe

Δημοσιεύτηκε από Peter Menchini στις Κυριακή, 17 Σεπτεμβρίου 2017

September 17, 2011: Occupy Wall Street Begins in New York City [and San Francisco]

“The kids are alright! They may have lost faith in the key institutions of America—the elected officials, the media, the banks—that ought to be steering the country out of economic crisis, but they have not lost faith in the people.”

 Richard Kreitner is The Nation’s assistant editorHis writings are at www.richardkreitner.com.

Sen. Bernie Sanders to Highlight Medicare for All Bill in Public San Francisco Speech

National Nurses United Press Release, 9/15/17

Contact Information | Media Center

Sen. Bernie Sanders with, at left, CNA member Melissa Johnson-Camacho at press conference announcing introduction of S 1804, the Medicare for All Act of 2017

Fresh off the introduction of S. 1804, the Medicare for All Act of 2017, Sen. Bernie Sanders will address the theme in a public speech Friday, September 22 in San Francisco, hosted by the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee/National Nurses United.

What: Sen. Bernie Sanders, public address
When: Friday, September 22, 1 p.m. PT
Where: Yerba Buena Gardens, 750 Howard St., San Francisco

S 1804 has already made history with its co-sponsorship by one-third of the Senate Democratic Caucus, a direct reflection, say nurses, of the growing momentum for Medicare for all, sparked by the Sanders 2016 Presidential campaign, and a an activist mass movement, including the work of CNA/NNOC members.

“We are enormously proud of Sen. Sanders for his sponsorship of S. 1804 and want to welcome all the activists and supporters who have worked so long with Sen. Sanders and nurses’ fight in our common fight for healthcare for all and social justice,” said CNA and NNU Executive Director RoseAnn DeMoro.

“Time for a California State Bank” by Gayle McLaughlin

When the big banks were foreclosing on so many families across the country, I did what I could to protect Richmond. We passed a financing program that would take the mortgages of financially underwater properties by eminent domain, where we could then refinance these mortgages for the homeowners on fair financial terms.

We approved the program – but Wall Street and the big banks were so scared they went to Congress and passed a law to preclude our local effort. Richmond took on Wall Street and lost.

Our determination is to keep on fighting and organizing!

California can have a bank owned by the people just like the state of North Dakota has a bank owned by the people. We’ll all save money on financing for schools and roads, affordable housing, and hospitals, and the thousands of cannabis growers across the state will have a bank for their legal produce. A people’s bank for California will also allow innovative support mechanisms for new small businesses and other innovative enterprises. Let’s take our money back from Wall Street and the multinational banks!

In 2012, California tried to create a state bank with AB 2500, which had wide progressive support. However, corporate-controlled legislators killed the bill on behalf of the California Bankers Association.

As Lieutenant Governor, a public bank will be a top priority for me. Imagine how we will pass public banking legislation as more than 100 organizing California communities! Sacramento is going to hear us, loudly!

If you’re working on public banking in your own community, please reach out – we want to share resources and encourage your efforts! And if you’d like to support the campaign as we educate and organize on public banking, please give here today.


September 14, 2017 (Occupy.com)

Since the fire at Grenfell Tower in West London that claimed the lives of at least 80 people in June, attention has sharply focused on U.K. local authority spending and decision making. Many unanswered questions remain about Kensington and Chelsea council’s priorities and the way it manages council housing, but the problem is wider than that. Tests on public buildings since the Grenfell fire, including social housing and hospitals, revealed that a vast majority of cladded high-rises fail safety tests. The degree of mistrust in councils’ housing management is visible on the Chalcots Estate, in London’s Camden, where residents are crowdfunding money to carry out independent safety checks on recent refurbishments.

Attention on the inadequate quality of social housing adds weight to a growing movement of citizens auditing local government spending. As Occupy.com reported in 2015, debt activists in the U.K. are part of a continental surge aimed at opening up the books and forcing reviews of public money flowing into the financial sector instead of social spending – particularly funds deemed illegal or illegitimate.

The trend didn’t come from nowhere. This movement has learned from campaigns in the Global South challenging illegal or unjust debts since the 1980s.


In 2014, residents in England acquired the right to inspect their local councils’ accounts through the Local Audit and Accountability Act. It is in London, a global capital of finance and corruption, where people are most using these laws to undercut the corporate interests.

The People’s Audit has encouraged residents of the South London borough of Lambeth to question local spending and, in the process, reclaim democratic oversight. The group, consisting of a dozen local residents, analysed accounts, contracts, invoices and correspondence relating to expenditure. They used the 2014 legislation that obliges councils to open up their accounts for a 30-day period of inspection, and recovered hundreds of documents they then analysed and summarised in a report published in July.

The report found “evidence of extensive financial mismanagement and failings in financial governance potentially costing millions of pounds.”

Details of the alleged mismanagement include over-paying building contractors, price-fixing for building tenders and the council’s unawareness of what it is spending money on, and to whom. Councils have faced a reduction in government funding by 40 percent since 2010 and any overspending – whether through negligence or corruption – hits already stretched frontline services.

The decline in government grant funding comes as a result of austerity measures, justified by the bank bail-outs that in themselves were arguably illegitimate and should be audited.


Addressing suspect bank deals, the citizen network Debt Resistance U.K. continues to work on Lender Option Borrower Option, or LOBO, loans. These long-term loans with varying interest rates that councils took out from banks – especially in the early 2000s before the crisis – are often such complex financial products that councils could not understand what they signed.

Debt Resistance characterises these loans as a “lose-lose bet” for councils, which are now locked into contracts for up to 70 years, paying interest rates up to five, seven and even 10 percent. Local authorities can always borrow from the central government through the Public Works Loan Board, which is cheaper, especially now that interest rates are low.

But U.K. government policy has encouraged councils to tap into the financial markets, a strategy exploited by banks and brokers who lured councils into the LOBO scam through initially low teaser rates and financial advisers who had interests in the brokerage firms.

Making use of the powers under the Local Audit and Accountability Act, Debt Resistance U.K. has supported residents in dozens of councils across the country to file objections to their councils’ LOBO spending.

Public Finance Initiatives remain another systemic financial mismanagement problem for local authorities in Britain. These public-private partnerships have been promoted for the last 20 years as a means for public infrastructure projects to gain private investment, whereby the eventual ownership of schools, hospitals, housing and the like passes over to the public sector following repayment. But the reality is very different. Today Britain owes over £300 billion in PFI debts, which the group People vs. PFI asserts is “institutional theft”.

PFI is especially prominent in the National Health Service, where it accounted for nearly 90 percent of capital investment in new hospitals between 1997 and 2007.

The NHS is at a breaking point due to lack of funding, yet over £2 billion per year is flowing to private companies through PFI contracts. In addition to cost, other problems with PFI include tax avoidance, which it enables through offshore ownership of companies, and lack of transparency. Campaigners like People vs PFI have struggled to even see the contracts of the deals.


These three campaigns in the U.K. have strong parallels with the municipalist movement in Spain. In local elections in 2015, many councils – including Madrid and Barcelona, the country’s biggest cities – were taken over by progressive coalitions that are now learning to govern the cities in the interests of the people. One of the strategies they use is auditing debt: according to a 2012 change in the Spanish constitution, municipalities are forced to prioritize debt repayments over social spending.

Madrid concluded the first phase of its audit on public spending and policy in May when it released a report on the social, economic, gender and environmental impacts of its policies. The aim is to work toward correcting the negative impacts.

Although diverse in focus, each of the debt audits share common strategies and focus. These campaigns are broader than a technical exercise to understand which debt was illegitimate, which spending was illegal, or which public deals were corrupt. They are about protecting democracy by restoring fairness to finance. For citizen debt audits, the only way to challenge the power of banks is to reveal their crimes – and build a public movement that mobilizes around the injustice, demanding the public money be spent in the public interest.

citizen debt audit, Grenfell Tower fire, Local Audit and Accountability Act, Debt Resistance U.K., Public Finance Initiatives, LOBO loans, People vs PFI



September 15, 2017 (Occupy.com)

For better or worse, corporations have a major influence on climate change policy. Just look at Koch Industries, a multinational conglomerate owned by conservative billionaires Charles and David Koch that has contributedhundreds of millions to federal candidates and lobbying over the last 25 years.

The “Corporate Carbon Policy Footprint,” a new analysis from U.K. nonprofit InfluenceMap, now ranks Koch Industries as the company with the strongest opposition to the Paris climate agreement and most intensely lobbies against policies in line with the landmark global accord.

The InfluenceMap scoring system does not measure a company’s actual greenhouse gas emissions. Rather, it measures “the extent to which a corporation is supporting or obstructing the climate policy process.”

For the InfluenceMap report, researchers analyzed more than “30,000 pieces of evidence” on 250 global companies and 50 major trade associations on their lobbying records, advertising, public relations and sponsored research, according to Bloomberg.

The research group gave the Wichita-based company an “F” grade for its anti-climate actions:

“Koch Industries appears to be actively opposing almost all areas of climate legislation. In 2014 in the US, they were reportedly active in their opposition to a carbon tax, funding politicians and campaigns to oppose the tax. Similarly, in 2014 they appear to have opposed the U.S. EPA Clean Power Plan in consultation and through direct engagement with policy makers, and boasted about their success in blocking the US Cap and Trade Scheme in 2010. Additionally, they appear to be opposing measures to transition to a low carbon economy, advocating against renewable energy subsidies, and funding groups that have opposed energy efficiency standards, the repeal of fossil fuel subsidies and the need for action on climate change. They seem to be exceptionally active in opposing renewable energy standards across the U.S. Both the organization and its CEO, Charles Koch, appear to have questioned climate change science, and have reportedly funded climate denial. Senior executives are active in both the National Association of Manufacturers and ALEC, which also appear to be resisting climate change related regulations and policies.”

On the opposite end of the spectrum, Silicon Valley tech giant Apple was ranked highest on the list and has an A+ for its support of climate change action and its positive engagement with a number of climate change policy areas.

Here are the report’s key findings:

• 35 of the 50 most influential are actively lobbying against climate policy. They include companies in the fossil fuel value chain (ExxonMobil, Valero Energy, Chevron), energy intensive companies (BASF, ArcelorMittal, Bayer, Dow Chemical and Solvay) and electric utilities with large amounts of coal generating capacity (Southern Company, Duke Energy and American Electric Power).

• Also in this group of 35 influential companies holding back climate policy are four powerful automotive manufacturers (Fiat Chrysler, Ford, BMW and Daimler). The research found the companies lobbying to delay or dilute efficiency and CO2 emissions standards and procedures both in Europe and North America. Depending on region, passenger vehicle emissions account for 12% or more of all greenhouse gas emissions.

• On the other side, 15 of the 50 most influential are pushing for an ambitious climate policy agenda, favoring renewable power and electric vehicles. They include signatories to the RE100 initiative committing to buying 100% renewable power (Apple, Ikea, Unilever, Coca Cola and Nestle) as well as power sector companies (SSE, Enel, EDF, Iberdrola and National Grid) who are shifting their business models towards low carbon electricity generation.

“The data shows the climate policy agenda, in terms of corporate influencing, is being driven by a small number of massive global corporations,” Dylan Tanner, InfluenceMap executive director, said in a statement. “It also shows a group of powerful of companies in the tech, consumer goods and utilities sectors increasingly pushing for policy to implement the Paris Agreement.”

InfluenceMap also ranked “influencers” or powerful trade associations that actively lobby against climate policies. A number of trade associations received an “F” grade, but here are the bottom five: U.S. Chamber of Commerce; American Petroleum Institute; American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity; National Mining Association; and the American Legislative Exchange Council.

Check out the full list here.

carbon footprint

Originally published by EcoWatch


September 11, 2017 (Occupy.com)

Described as a “love mongerer” who is seemingly above hate, George Lincoln Rockwell is credited in the 1991 documentary “Blood in the Face” for fueling the modern American neo-Nazi and white power movements. Through archival footage, we see Rockwell interviewed and giving wannabe pseudo-intellectual speeches on race wars, revolution and how Hitler was the second coming of Christ. Mind you, this all took place in the 1950s and 60s, soon after WWII. While some accost Rockwell for being a monster, one woman claims he has the right to speech and that right mustn’t be impeded. Asked what she thinks of him otherwise, she responds that he has a neat appearance.

This is the disturbing gut punch of truth that “Blood in the Face” provides: that the fringe extremists determined to “take our country back,” people we may even call our neighbors, have found more than receptive ears and minds for their message. Even the filmmakers Anne Bohlen and Kevin Rafferty – who only express their anger and horror at the very end of the film – lead us into a twisted beast of logic when confronting what they feel deep down. The movie cuts to credits before the audience has time to draw a response, indicating the directors’ fear that the most hateful people around may not be so alone, and may only grow in numbers.

Currently streaming on Fandor, “Blood in the Face” is immensely grotesque and infinitely disturbing, but also brilliant in exposure and capture, in expression and suggestion. It’s unfortunately all too relevant now, given recent events in Charlottesville and the wave of hate crimes and white supremacist activism spurred by the election of their enabler-in-chief, Donald Trump. The context of this documentary isn’t one of a specific moment, but of future ones. It’s a movie about the snowball effect that hate and misinformation produce from generation to generation, poisoning potentially good people with ugly evil.

For example, we meet a marine who served during WWII, but now sits on camera wearing a hood on his head and spitting epithets out of his mouth. We see another man, a local White Power leader, informing his guests to please move their cars to a better location for fear that if it rains, the cross burning might be moved to that area. He does this in a kindly manner, even laughs a bit about it, before returning to his service.

The casual and leisurely way these interviews are conducted work not only as a way for the filmmakers to gain some level of trust, but to put the audience in step with those who may be easily converted. The amount of effort these white supremacists make to justify their beliefs and actions before the camera is staggering. They level of false factoids and conspiracy theories would make moon landing truthers blush. These are Alex Jones listeners and David Duke voters – and they listen wholeheartedly and vote in full force. Their paranoia and true believer delusions are barely hidden under supposed disenfranchisement, heritage and “economic anxiety,” which comes out through sweat and sincere speeches given with conviction. This is a horror film for our time unlike any other.

In “Blood in the Face,” White Power is in fact equated as a civil rights movement, like “save the whales or seals,” a young woman states. She may be a holdout for possible goodness, as she appears genuinely uncomfortable not with being interviewed, but with deciding what answers to provide. She stammers often, looks off camera and even comes close to tears, trying to stay focused on the message of racial purity. I suspect an internal conflict of conscience is happening as she actually considers her thoughts, possibly for the first time.

In another moment, Michael Moore (yes, that one) tells a lady that she doesn’t look like a typical Nazi. “You could be a Coppertone model,” he says. The woman blushes, hesitates, smiles and repeats the message of the movement in a quietly choked up and surprised manner. Caught off guard, she considers where she is at and why she is there. Only a scene before, she is seen walking arm in arm with a rather militant looking man who drags her back to a car. A clear picture of abuse and manipulation comes to mind.

And maybe that could be just it. Maybe some of these people aren’t bad, but only victims. Or maybe that’s just what they want us to think. There are many dark sides to humanity. And this film reminds us, those parts aren’t going away.

RATING: 5 / 5

Follow the author on twitter @billreviews.


September 11, 2017 (Occupy.com)

Imagine if a well-paying job, with benefits and a high enough salary to pay for rent, transportation, and food, were a human right.

Imagine the U.S. federal government established a policy whereby anyone who didn’t have a job and wanted one could go into a local office for a government agency — call it the Works Progress Administration — and walk out with a regular government position paying a livable wage ($15 an hour, perhaps) and offering health, dental, and vision insurance, and retirement benefits, and child care for their kids.

Different people would do different things: teaching or working for after-school programs or providing child care or building roads and mass transit or driving buses and so on. But everyone would be guaranteed a job, including during recessions. Involuntary unemployment would be a thing of the past. No one who works would be in poverty.

That’s a truly radical policy idea. But it has deep roots in the Democratic Party’s past, from the New Deal’s emergency employment programs to the Humphrey-Hawkins Act, a 1970s proposal that, as originally written, would have given unemployed Americans the right to sue the government.

Today, there are even some actual proposals on the table. In May, the Center for American Progress issued a report calling for a “large-scale, permanent program of public employment and infrastructure investment.”

But some labor economists, even left-leaning ones, are skeptical. None of the programs, they argue, have done enough work on the details. And those details are crucial to the eventual fate of such a policy.

An effective job guarantee that eliminated unemployment and boosted wages without negative side effects could be a very good thing. But an ineffective job guarantee that amounts to a welfare check plus onerous work requirements wouldn’t just be bad policy — it would also be politically toxic.

Many experts argue the employment situation is a bit worse than it looks — and that there’s plenty of room for improvement. Economic Policy Institute


It might seem strange to be debating how best to solve mass joblessness at a time when the U.S. unemployment rate is 4.3 percent, the lowest in over a decade.

And indeed, analysts critical of the plan raise exactly that objection: “Advocates who imagine we need a major restructuring of the entire economy are utopian and dystopian all at once,” says Adam Ozimek, an economist at Moody’s Analytics. “They are utopian in that they imagine we can nationalize a quarter of the labor force without significant negative effects on productivity and economic growth. They are dystopian in that they imagine things are so terrible that this kind of radical transformation is necessary.”

But there are both political and policy reasons for why the job guarantee is suddenly a hot topic.

In the wake of the 2016 election, liberal commentators have latched onto the job guarantee — an idea pushed by some left-wing economists for years — as a way to forge a cross-racial working-class coalition. They need a plan that appeals to both to the white Wisconsin and Michigan voters who switched from Obama to Trump and to black and Latino workers left behind by deindustrialization. The ideal plan would both improve conditions for lower-income Americans while supporting Americans’ strong intuition that people should work to earn their crust.

“A federal job guarantee is both universal—it benefits all Americans—and specifically ameliorative to entrenched racial inequality,” Slate’s Jamelle Bouie notes.

“The job guarantee asserts that, if individuals bear a moral duty to work, then society and employers bear a reciprocal moral duty to provide good, dignified work for all,” Jeff Spross adds in the influential center-left journal Democracy.

“If Democrats want to win elections, they should imbue Trump’s empty rhetoric with a real promise: a good job for every American who wants one,” Bryce Covert writes in the New Republic. “It’s time to make a federal jobs guarantee the central tenet of the party’s platform.”

But there’s also a policy rationale for the idea’s resurgence. Many experts think the unemployment rate makes the economy, or at least the labor market, look better than it really is. The unemployment rate only counts people looking for work, and the most recent recession and slow subsequent recovery forced some people out of the labor force. In January 2007, 80.3 percent of people ages 25 to 54 were employed; in July 2017, only 78.7 percent were.

If the rate had stayed at its prerecession peak, there’d be 2 million more people employed today. If the rate were at its all-time peak (81.9 percent, in April 2000), there’d be 4 million more people employed.

It’s possible those people will get jobs as the economy continues improving, but it’s not a sure thing. For one thing, the Federal Reserve keeps raising interest rates, a move that effectively kills jobs. There are also other factors at play. For decades, in both good economic times and bad, the share of men who are either working or looking for work has been declining. The labor force participation rate for 25- to 54-year old men fell from 98 percent in the 1950s to 88 percent today, per a 2016 report by White House Council of Economic Advisors members.

And it’s not just a matter of jobs. Wage growth has been somewhat anemic. During the last great boom in the late 1990s and early 2000s, wage and salary growth in the private sector, before adjusting for inflation, was about 3.5 to 4 percent per year, sometimes even topping 4, according to the Employment Cost Index. In recent quarters, however, wage growth has hovered around 2.5 percent. That’s slightly worse than things were in the mid-2000s, before the housing bubble burst.

Nor has the recovery been evenly shared. As of July 2017, 60.4 percent of white people in America were employed, but only 57.7 percent of black people were. Once black men’s disproportionate representation in prisons and jails is accounted for, the gap grows still larger. A mere 27.7 percent of disabled people age 16 to 64 are employed, compared to 72.8 percent of nondisabled people.

The bottom line is there are millions of people in the U.S. economy who could be working, but aren’t. A jobs guarantee diagnoses that as a problem of demand: Private employers aren’t doing enough to make use of the U.S. labor force. And it seeks to create such demand directly, by creating a new employer to provide it.

Have a disability, and unable to find an employer who will provide the support necessary for you to work? Well, under a jobs guarantee, the government would function as just such an employer. Lack a high school or college degree? A jobs guarantee could offer you a stipend to gain more training; if you don’t want to retrain, it could provide a skill-appropriate position that pays a living wage.

National Rural Employment Guarantee participants working on digging out a silted-up water tank. McKay Savage


Job guarantee advocates argue it wouldn’t just affect people who take jobs through the job guarantee program. It would affect everyone else too. Walmart pays its employees a minimum of $10 per hour; part-time employees aren’t guaranteed benefits like health insurance or a 401(k) match.

If you’re a part-time employee at Walmart, and all of a sudden you can get $15 an hour, work full time, and earn full benefits by working for the federal government — wouldn’t you? And, knowing that, wouldn’t Walmart try to increase wages to keep you?

Advocates say Walmart would. And they have some empirical evidence on their side from India, where a type of job guarantee known as the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme functions largely as an insurance system, offering a source of income for rural farmers during the dry season.

A group of economists — UC San Diego’s Karthik Muralidharan and Paul Niehaus and the University of Virginia’s Sandip Sukhtankar — collaborated with the former Indian state of Andhra Pradesh to randomize the roll-out of a new biometric card for participants in the rural employment program. The technology greatly improved access, but some subdistricts of Andhra Pradesh were randomly selected to benefit from it earlier than others. This randomization let the economists estimate the program’s effects by comparing subdistricts that got much-expanded access to the job guarantee to ones that didn’t.

Their findings are astounding: the job guarantee, they estimate, increases earnings for low-income households by 13.3 percent. Ninety percent of that increase is due to higher wages and increased work in the private sector, not the job guarantee program itself. Just as job guarantee advocates would predict, the program bid up wages everywhere.

Perhaps the most surprising result was that the program not only increased wages, but increased employment in the private sector.

Continue reading

OccupyForum presents . . . Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)

This is a great opportunity to hear from the Council on American-Islamic Relations: Let’s pack the house in solidarity and respect!!!

OccupyForum presents…

Monday, September 18th, 2017 from 6:45 – 9 pm at the Black and Brown Social Club

474 Valencia between 15th and 16th Street near 16th Street BART

Information, discussion & community! Monday Night Forum!!

OccupyForum is an opportunity for open and respectful dialogue

on all sides of these critically important issues!

Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR):

Immigration, discrimination, travel issues, challenging Islamophobia, ICE, and our role in putting a stop to the immigration bans.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is a nonprofit, grassroots civil rights and advocacy group. CAIR is America’s largest Islamic civil liberties group, with regional offices nationwide and in Canada. The national headquarters is located on Capitol Hill.

The San Francisco Bay Area chapter is the oldest CAIR chapter in the country. Back in 1994, a group of dedicated volunteers in the Bay Area saw a need for a unique kind of Muslim organization – an organization that would work to uphold civil rights of American Muslims, foster a better understanding of the Islamic faith and its followers, and help find avenues for Muslims to integrate more fully into the broader society.

Nearly 20 years later, the chapter has grown tremendously, deepening its base in the Bay Area Muslim community, serving the area’s nearly 250,000 Muslims residing in the nine Bay Area counties. CAIR-SFBA has, moreover, become a household name among local Muslims, and a reliable resource and partner for media, public officials and policymakers, advocacy groups, and the interfaith and progressive communities. Our Mission is to enhance understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.

Civil rights advocacy remains at the center of CAIR’s work. CAIR has served more than 25,000 victims of discrimination since its founding. Our California offices receive a total of approximately 800 inquiries a year and work to resolve them through mediation, negotiation, public pressure or, if necessary, through legal action. Our services are provided free of charge to the community.

Through various programs, CAIR facilitates opportunities to engage with government bodies, to influence public policy by meeting with elected officials, and to advocate for legislation that aims to preserve civil liberties and promote social justice. CAIR seeks to educate American Muslims about their rights so that they may fully engage in all aspects of civic life. CAIR also works with allied organizations representing other communities in order to build coalitions that foster justice and mutual understanding.

Come to OccupyForum to learn about CAIR’s work, and ways you can support the Muslim Community during this time of extreme duress.

Time will be allotted for discussion and announcements.

Donations to Occupy Forum to cover costs are encouraged; no one turned away!

(All proceeds tonight donated to CAIR)

–  http://ca.cair.com/sfba/     –  http://ca.cair.com/sfba/what-we-do/challenge-islamophobia/