MRCTV headed down to the plaza to talk with David Almasi from the National Center for Public Policy Research, who is organizing the events.

Follow MRCTV on Facebook and Twitter.

The federal-municipal confrontation has sparked speculation that President Barack Obama is protecting the Occupy protestors from city administrators.

The Occupy activists, however, seem to believe otherwise.

Big Government headed into the heart of the snow-bound encampment for an exclusive on-site interview with an Occupy DC demonstrator who does not believe the USPP is acting on orders from the Obama administration.

The Occupy DC Encampment under Washington, D.C.'s first snowfall

The activists are familiar with the details of the political fight that began when the D.C. Mayor and the District Council wanted the Occupy sites finally shut down for health reasons, but USPP refused to do so in the name of the First Amendment.

The theory that the White House was pressuring USPP not to enforce District of Columbia statutes emerged Tuesday, January 24, during a Congressional hearing, when National Park Service Director Jonathan Jarvis fielded questions from Republican lawmakers.

U.S. Representatives were mystified as to why the USPP has not responded to District requests to finally shut down the encampment, and why the overnight sleeping ban in federal parks had not been enforced.

“Each of our First Amendment demonstrations (is) a little bit unique. And this one is, let’s say, unprecedented. The core of their First Amendment activity is that they occupy the site,” Jarvis told lawmakers. “We felt that going in right away and enforcing the regulations against camping could potentially incite a reaction on their part that would result in possible injury or property damage.”

USPP has asserted that demonstrators are allowed to participate in 24-hour vigil activities, but they cannot sleep there, and also added that from now on civil tickets will be issued to individual violators, but those violations will not result in the Occupy encampments in McPherson Square or Freedom Park being shut down.

Republican lawmakers were unsatisfied by that answer.

Darrell Issa, R-CA said he was concerned about selective enforcement of the sleepover ban and suggested that the USPP were acquiescing to the Obama administration by letting protestors stay overnight.

Jarvis disputed that assertion, and Big Government has learned that some inside the encampment also disagree. I interviewed an activist, who only identified himself as “James,” and who said that he travelled to the Occupy DC camp from the Occupy Orlando movement to participate in the Occupy Congress action on January 17.

A former U.S. Army infantryman who served from 1984-1986 at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, James described his former job as a soldier as merely being a “bullet-catcher” for his country. Now an out of work software engineer, he says he’s devoted nearly all his time to “joining the 99 percent and fighting the good fight.”

James is a former Occupy Orlando activist who travelled to Washington to join the Occupy Congress and Occupy D.C. efforts

James said that he adamantly disagrees with the Republican assertion that Jarvis and the USPP are under orders from President Obama to let the Occupy DC movement remain in place, and instead believes the USPP are legitimately trying to uphold the First Amendment. Here’s what he told Big Government in an exclusive interview from within the Occupy encampment Thursday afternoon:

I first got to Washington on the 16th of January to be a part of the J17 action to Occupy Congress. I had a little bit of time and resources to make the trip and I felt it was my responsibility to be here. We had a couple thousand people, and so we shut down the streets, and we shut down the Rayburn Building. It was democracy in action.

DC government wants us out, but there was a recent House Congressional Oversight Committee hearing, and one of the witnesses was the Parks Director, (Jonathan) Jarvis and he was consistent in his defense of any groups expression of their First Amendment rights on U.S. Parks Service lands within Washington, D.C.

Despite being baited by the Majority by Tea Party (Congressional) Members Walsh and Moody–who insinuated the police were being duped or used as a tool for the Obama Administration, which I found disgusting–Jarvis consistently reiterated that the historical record shows that there’s a heightened sensitivity to First Amendment expression in the nation’s Capitol because where else does one go to petition the government a redress of grievances.

After all, if you have a problem with the government, the federal government that is, this is where you do it. And he was also consistently reminding the committee that he has this is part of broader plan of escalating enforcement–working with not just us, but any group who wanted to occupy space in DC–that they want to work with us, not fight against us and that part of this strategy of intelligent escalation was that they’re not going to send storm troopers in here, but they are moving toward a place where they are going to enforce the no sleeping rule.

I maintain there’s a difference in maintaining a 24-hour vigil for your First Amendment rights and going camping and singing songs over a campfire. Our speech is the act of occupying physical space. You sit here for an hour and you’ll see here how many people come through here that we can explain our position to and if we weren’t here we wouldn’t have the government’s attention.

It’s not what we’re saying it’s the act of occupying.

James says that he plans to participate in the Occupy movement as long as he can. “I couldn’t take it anymore,” he says about the state of America. “I couldn’t sit and watch this world disintegrate.”

He also added the following: “Just make sure to note that I’m not an official representative of Occupy DC. I’m just participating.”

When another Occupy DC activist was asked if there was a spokesperson or leader that could be reached for comment, he simply responded, “Come on man, seriously–it’s been three months. There’s no one in charge here anymore. People are just here to be here because they believe in something, but no man, there’s no one like that anymore.”

Calls were not returned from either the District of Columbia mayor’s office and the United States Park Police media relations department.

For far too long, insiders from both parties have played these games. Talk up fiscal responsibility, but spend big. Talk about a federal government that fulfills its basic responsibilities, but then vote to expand it beyond all recognition so that it cannot possibly do so. Talk about doing what’s right, but then do what the establishment wants instead.

Americans deserve better—and they deserve to get to choose something better this year. In 2012, Americans have the opportunity to decisively move away from big government, built up over years and years by both parties in Washington, D.C.

As I said in Sunday’s NBC/Facebook debate, President Obama has thrown gasoline on the fire, but let’s be honest: The bonfire was raging well before Obama ever left Chicago.

Policies and spending served up by Washington, D.C. insiders, in several notable instances designed and written by Wall Street insiders to suit their needs, not ours, caused and then exacerbated this situation. In too many cases, these advocates of big spending and bad policy have used their positions of power to enrich themselves, both while in office and once outside of it. Republicans have been complicit in this scheme, just as Democrats have.

It is time for it to end.

To accomplish that, Americans will need to seek out genuine outsiders prepared to make the powers-that-be uncomfortable by pursuing policies that will put a stop to insiders’ behavior-as-usual.

As the lone conservative outsider on the ballot, I have a clear plan to overhaul the Washington status quo.

Andy Roth, Vice President of the Club for Growth, said it well earlier this week: “Rick Perry, I think, has one of the best if not the best plans. He’s got a ‘Cut, Balance and Grow’ plan where he wants to institute a Balanced Budget Amendment and cap spending at 18 percent, and then he wants to cut taxes all over the place. That would just really be a pro-growth boon. It’d be eliminating capital gains, lowering corporate tax rates and personal tax rates down to 20 percent. Very, very strong plan.”

For many Republicans, a balanced budget amendment is little more than easy political posturing when they know Democrats will not allow one to be passed. In earlier years, when Republicans exercised 100 percent control over the purse strings, they were not for constraining spending. In fact, they were in favor of as much big government as possible, so long as the beltway establishment “blessed” that big government as serving “conservative” ends.

As Roth noted, Rick Santorum “was a prolific earmarker,” Newt Gingrich “supported Medicare Part D, which expanded entitlements in a huge way,” and Mitt Romney “actually deserves to be in last place on this because it’s very uninspired ideas that he has. He barely wants to tinker around with the tax code…”

Voters have a clear choice between big government “conservatives” and a true limited government conservative.

I am a conservative outsider committed to seriously overhauling Washington, ending the IRS as we know it by cutting taxes to a fair and flat rate, and stopping job killing regulations dead in their tracks.

But to accomplish these things, one thing has to happen first: Americans must reject those who are part and parcel of the problem at the polls – the Washington and establishment insiders. We have that opportunity to really overhaul Washington and elect an authentic conservative in 2012. Let’s take it.

In the past several years states have increasingly focused on measures to protect the vote. After years of the federal government loosening voting regulations, such as through the Motor Voter Act and HAVA (Help America Vote Act), the pendulum started swinging back at the state level.

The clearest example of this trend is through voter-ID laws. In 2008 the Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s landmark law requiring citizens to show that they are the person they claim to be by showing government-issued ID before casting a ballot. But to ensure that those without driver’s licenses or passports are not disenfranchised, Indiana provides free ID’s to everyone who applies for one. The Court upheld this law, with the primary opinion written by no one less than liberal lion Justice John Paul Stevens.

Such laws combat voter fraud that we see on Election Day, especially in certain parts of the nation. In Washington State, King County suddenly “discovered” enough previously “unnoticed” votes for Democrat Christine Gregoire to edge out Republican Dino Rossi for Washington’s governorship in 2004. There are also examples from Wisconsin, Missouri, and other states.

Yet Holder has blocked South Carolina’s voter-ID law. DOJ argues that this law is different from Indiana’s because South Carolina is subject to additional federal oversight under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. (This is especially important because there are several federal cases challenging the constitutionality of Section 5.)

But the reality is that DOJ’s actions are not focused on protecting voting rights. They are instead intended to make sure that Barack Obama wins reelection.

It’s not cynical to say this. The twelve or so battleground states that will decide the 2012 presidential election suggest Obama’s reelection strategy. These states include Virginia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Missouri. All these states have large African-American populations.

The African-American community has a staggeringly-high unemployment rate under President Obama. So Black Americans will not vote for this president because of any prosperity he’s brought to that community. Instead, he has to gin up their votes by painting a picture of racial conflict in which he—and the governmental agency dealing with such things, DOJ—is their champion.

This is also seen in Holder’s incessant playing of the race card. First he says we’re a nation of cowards about race. Now that he’s on the ropes for DOJ’s scandalous Operation Fast and Furious gun-running scandal into Mexico, he has the audacity to say that he and President Obama are being attacked in part because they’re both African-Americans.

Voting is a fundamental right. It is the means by which “We the People” consent to be governed for a fixed period of time by certain individuals, by electing them as stewards of governmental power. They wield this power to secure our rights as set forth in the U.S. Constitution and (for state officials) the constitutions of the fifty states.

But there is another voting right. It is the right not to have your legal vote diluted by fraudulent votes. As we explain in our Yale Law & Policy Review article “The Other Voting Right,” every invalid vote cancels out one valid vote. Each such cancellation undermines our democratic republic and reduces the legitimacy of election results.

Voting is also unique in that it might be the only right that is also a duty. It’s not too much to ask for citizens to exert a minimal amount of effort to fulfill reasonable regulations to protect the integrity of the electoral process.

Every eligible citizen has a duty to vote. But as we explain in our book Resurgent: How Constitutional Conservatism Can Save America, it is a duty to cast an informed vote. Although there are only so many hours in the day, we each need to make an effort to gather enough information to understand the major issues facing our nation, state, and community, and to carefully vote for candidates who offer the best solutions for our long-term safety and prosperity.

Because voting is a duty, and also because every voter has the right to ensure their valid vote is not diluted by fraudulent votes, citizens can be expected to fulfill certain requirements that would not be justified when exercising other rights, such as free speech or the free exercise of religion. Measures such as showing up at the correct place on the correct day to cast a ballot under the watchful eyes of trained precinct personnel are examples of fulfilling our duty, as is showing valid ID to prove that you are the person listed on that precinct’s voter rolls.

These measures are essential to our self-governing republic. As examples the world over show, losing the integrity of the electoral process is a mistake a free people often gets to make only once.

WASHINGTON (AP) – The National Labor Relations Board on Friday dropped its high-profile challenge of Boeing’s decision to open a nonunion aircraft manufacturing plant in South Carolina.

The board acted after the Machinists union approved a four-year contract extension with Boeing this week and agreed to withdraw its charge that the company violated federal labor laws.

Lafe Solomon, the board’s acting general counsel, said he had always preferred a settlement. The agency settles about 90 percent of its cases.

Under the deal, Boeing promised to build the new version of its 737 airplane inWashington state. The Machinists agreed to drop allegations that Boeingopened the South Carolina plant in retaliation for past union strikes.

Both Solomon and the agency had come under intense criticism from Republican lawmakers and South Carolina officials for bringing the case. Republicans and business groups claimed the board was setting a dangerous precedent by interfering with a legitimate business decision about where to locate workers.

Solomon said he was simply following the law and might do it again if faced with similar facts.

Read more here.

After a series of investigative reports, including several here at Big Government, the American people are beginning to realize that what is wrong with this country can be diagrammed on a map, with a straight line connecting Wall Street and Washington, D.C.

Now exposed to the light of day, the political establishment is determined to show the American people it is “doing something” to clean up its act.

This week, the House Financial Services Committee held a hearing on the matter, taking what many observers saw as great pains to minimize perceptions of a systemic and bipartisan problem. But I remain skeptical, as do many Americans, that Congress will actually pass a bill with teeth that requires them to live by the same rules as the rest of us.

The fact is, things will never change as long as the same Washington insiders remain in control. Washington is broken and needs a complete overhaul, but establishment politicians only want to tinker at the margins. This is why we can’t ask a Washington insider to fix Washington, because it takes an outsider to overhaul a corrupt culture.

My plan to overhaul Washington starts by creating a part-time Congress. We should cut their pay in half, cut their staffs in half, and cut the time they spend in Washington in half. A part-time, citizen Congress will not only get rid of the permanent political class – it will restore the vision of our founders and force members to live under the laws they pass with the people they represent.

Second, my plan makes passing the STOCK Act a priority. Any member of Congress who trades on insider information should go to jail, plain and simple.

And third, I will permanently ban all corporate bailouts. We shouldn’t be awarding taxpayer-funded bonuses to Wall Street executives who defrauded those very same taxpayers, we should be locking them up.

Americans who are frustrated by the excess spending, our stagnant economy and the corruption that permeates our nation’s capital have a clear choice in this election.

We don’t have to sit back and take it anymore. We don’t have to resign ourselves to replacing one Washington insider with another, or settle for modest reform that amounts to a reshuffling of the status quo. We don’t have to tolerate a government that brazenly tells us that all are equal, but some more equal than others.

It’s time to clean house in Washington, starting with a real ban on insider trading that forces politicians to live by the same rules as average Americans.

We are tired of regulations that stifle job creation.  We’re tired of the Obama administration blocking domestic oil production even while oil spikes to over $100 a barrel and we are continually reliant on foreign countries for our energy needs.  We’re tired of the failure of the career politicians to cut $1.2 trillion over the next year 10 years and balance our federal budget – that’s only 2% of the entire budget over that time.  We don’t have a revenue problem but a spending problem so getting our country’s finances and debt under control is our generation’s greatest priority, and we must either have the courage to cut our government’s spending and lower taxes — or have the courage to put the leaders in Washington who will break this culture of business as usual.

The problem is that Washington is simply out of touch.  The Beltway Bubble culture of elected officials, bureaucrats, special interests and lobbyists that look after one another while ignoring the real world’s concerns.  Once we send them to DC, they tend to change and are usually there for life; moving from staff, to Member of Congress to lobbyist.  Often serving for stretch of a time in an Administration.  It isn’t so much a revolving door as musical chairs. And when the music stops we lose.

This cozy relationship is laid out in detail in a newly published book by Hoover Institute Fellow Peter Schweizer, Throw Them All Out.  Schweizer details the sweetheart deals special interests get from the taxpayers and the ways Members of Congress and staff can use their position to enrich themselves.

Two egregious examples are:

1.      In the spring of 2008, when Nancy Pelosi was speaker of the House, her husband, Paul, made a big play on Visa and acquired their shares shortly after the introduction into the House of legislation that, if passed, would adversely affect Visa’s business. Visa makes money by licensing its name to banks (which in turn issue the cards and charge customers interest) and by charging “swipe fees” to merchants who accept the card as payment.  These fees paid by retailers range from 1 percent to 3 percent of the purchase amount every time a Visa card is used.  The proposed 2008 law would have allowed retailers to negotiate lower fees with the major credit-card companies, who, gaining billions from those fees, predictably opposed the measure.  By the time Congress did finally act on the issue, as part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the value of Pelosi’s IPO shares had more than doubled, while the market as a whole had shown a double-digit decline.

2.      Then there are the green energy loans. You’ve probably heard about Solyndra, the “green energy” company that got $500 million from taxpayers has it was hurtling towards bankruptcy.  One of the company’s chief backers was George Kaiser, and Oklahoma billionaire and, coincidentally, a major donor to Obama.  But, Solyndra is the tip of the iceberg.  As Schweizer details, of the $20 billion taxpayers put into ‘green energy’ companies, over $16 billion went to prominent Obama supporters and major donors.

The worst of it all?  This is perfectly legal.  If any of us regular citizens made the kind of investments and stock trades that Congressmen or their staff makes, we would be investigated by the SEC and sentenced to possible jail time.  But, these rules don’t apply to Congress!  The details in Schweizer’s book are so shocking that Congress has been forced to act.  Just this past week the Senate held hearings on new legislation that would make insider trading by members of congress and staff illegal.  And today the House will hold a hearing to consider similar legislation.  Even if Congress were to pass this bill, it would only be a small step towards fixing what’s broken in Washington.

Washington isn’t going to fix itself, we have to fix it. That’s why I’m running for Congress.  We have to stop the musical chairs.  Washington is good at working for itself, its time it worked for us the taxpayers.