The Meyer Blog

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

State of the Primaries: Either Mitt or Miracle

We’re so close and yet so far from the GOP nominee being officially being named. Here’s my take on the primary situation: it’s Mitt. This has nothing to do with issues as much as it does delegates and raw numbers. Rush Limbaugh made a great point when he said that Mitt doesn't win debates--he survives them. While Romney doesn’t have it sewed yet the harsh reality for everyone else is that he will have it in the bag soon—unless the unthinkable happens. Here’s what that "unthinkable miracle" probably looks like.

As I stated in a previous post, Ron Paul has an impossible math problem (which is more impossible now than it was when I wrote it—see the original post here: Ron Paul's Impossible Math Problem). Ron is statistically done by probably April 3rd or so as he can’t win one primary, much less the 100% he needs at this point.

Newt is in a bad spot too…his support rivals Ron Paul’s (that is, single-digits), so he’s short of support—and cash too, as Drudge reports that he’s charging $50 for a pic. He’s got a little pile of delegates, and while it dwarfs Ron’s collection, it’s far shy of Rick’s and Mitt’s gatherings.

Rick has the most delegates out of the Non-Mitts—but it’s still not enough. Again, Drudge reports that Rick needs a 75% winning streak to bag the nomination. Odds are, he can’t gather enough delegates before Mitt does. Or can he? A Santorum victory is theoretically possible, and even plausible given that three events happen.

First, Ron Paul drops out. Paul admitted that his odds for the White House were slim, and even hinted that he was largely drumming up support for the libertarian cause. Fair enough. Paul got himself in the limelight, and people heard him. Great. That’s fine. But Ron isn’t winning—but what he is doing is drawing votes away from Rick—which ultimately helps Romney alone. Libertarianism will go on, most certainly. But there is no good cause for Paul to stay in the race at this point: it’s expensive and Paul isn’t getting free camera time in front of millions of voters anymore. The debates are over, and the public eye is elsewhere. In short: message delivered, we all got your point, now are you going to help Romney or help Rick?

Second, Newt has to drop out. He’s got more delegates than Paul, sure, but he’s not won anything huge recently. Georgia wasn’t much of a win: it’s his home state. The first clue that it’s over for Newt should be that he’s trading places with Ron for finishing last. The road to the nomination is not won by playing leapfrog for last place.

Third, and finally, Ron and Newt both have to do the unthinkable: they have to endorse Rick, and beg their delegates and supporters to throw in behind Santorum. If all their delegates went to Rick (a big if), he’d be sitting at around 450. Santorum would still be 100 delegates behind Mitt Romney but two states worth of voting could easily even the playing field. At that point, Romney would be split for odds, and the whole “Inevitable Candidate” image is in the dumpster. Additionally, there are undoubtedly some Romney voters who would jump ship because Mitt is no longer “inevitable”. Rick might not win, but he’d have a fighting chance, and a darn good one at that. The odds for the upset would go up drastically. (Whether or not this is actually good for the party/process/election in November is another idea entirely).

Personally I severely doubt this will happen. Newt Gingrich is a stubborn, and proud man. He’s a hard fighter, and buckling to a nobody like Santorum is beneath him. Ron Paul will stay in because he honestly thinks there’s something to be gained by doing so. In short, Newt is too stubborn to quit, and Ron is too deluded. End result? Romney wins. There are few that will argue that Romney is the most conservative of the four. Rick and Newt draw the more conservative crowd, and Ron Paul’s followers should loathe Romney as a big government fat cat. It makes sense that these three are somewhat sharing a similar voter base—and sharing will not result in any of the three winning over Mitt. I’ve talked with a lot of people, read a lot of articles, watched a lot of primaries, debates, and punditry, and I can safely conclude that from the basic conservative voter all the way up to Rush Limbaugh does not love Mitt Romney. They just vastly prefer him compared to Obama.

Barring the "unthinkable miracle", the real question is for the hardcore Rick/Newt supporters and the Paulbots: when Mitt wins it, are you going to take your toys and go home? Or are you going to stick around and help the country do it’s best to fire one of the worst presidents in our history? Robert Heinlein once said, “If you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates and no measures you want to vote for ... but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. In case of doubt, vote against. By this rule you will rarely go wrong.” My plea for the GOP base is at the very least to stop grousing over the candidate you cannot have, and get with the one you can have. Mitt may or may not be many things, but one thing he is not: worse than what we have now. Come November this country needs you to pull up your pants and vote. If you can’t do this then the rest of us don’t want to hear your whining for the next four years.

Friday, March 16, 2012

Ron Paul's Impossible Math Problem

If you’ve ever gone out in public, paid any smattering of attention to the GOP Primary process, or even gotten online you know that there’s a war on. The GOP candidates are fighting hard for the nomination, and while each has waged a good war and a good fight, the end is nigh for one, maybe two of the candidates. Ron Paul is one such candidate who is at the end of even possibly becoming the nominee.

Stats website Intrade currently gives Ron Paul a 1.3% chance of winning the nomination. Such a percentage number means that Mitt Romney would have to get caught in a hot tub full of seventeen-year-old chicks, Rick Santorum would have to eat a live kitten on camera, and Newt Gingrich would have to go streaking through Washington D.C. for Paul to have a shot at the nomination. In short? It’s over. First, Ron Paul has an impossible math problem to beat. Second, he lacks the support to propel himself past the pull of reality and into the chair of the nomination.

The Republican primary is basically a fight for 1144 out of two thousand some-odd delegates. Who ever reaches 1144 first, wins. If no one wins 1144 delegates the convention is a brokered mess—candidates trying to sway delegates to their side.

Currently, 928 delegates have been “won” more or less according to the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. This leaves 1358 delegates in the pool, according to the New York Times site. This is Ron Paul’s Impossible Math Problem: currently Mr. Paul has 48 delegates, but for the sake of nice round numbers, we’ll say 44. This means Mr. Paul needs 1100 delegates out of the remaining 1358 to get himself to the 1144 majority. Expressed as a percentage, Ron Paul needs to win 81% of the remaining delegates, by winning 81% of the vote more or less.

This brings up the second issue: if Ron Paul is a rocket, he’s out of gas and gravity is knocking on his door. He simply does not have the support he needs to win the nomination.
First, the reality of the states left in the pool will deny him the wins he needs. California (where Romney is +20 ahead) and Utah (LDS) are almost guaranteed Romney states. Between these two states there are 212 delegates Ron is almost certainly not going to win or—even get a taste of as these are winner-take-all states.

Thus, out of 1358 remaining delegates 212 aren’t even really a possibility. Again, rounding leaves us at 1358-200=1158. This means he must take first in a long list of remaining states…except that doesn’t work either. Most of the remaining states are not winner-take-all, which means that even if Paul took first place in somewhere like Illinois, he would have to share delegates with the 2^nd place man. In short: Ron Paul really can’t afford to lose…anything. He has to take 1^st place almost always from here on out in order to secure the nomination...and we haven't talked about Louisiana or Missouri where Rick Santorum is expected to win.

Second, while Ron Paul needs an impossibly long list of 1^st place finishes to clinch the GOP title; his own record denies that this is even reasonable to talk about. Ron Paul has yet to finish better than second. His best finish was in Virginia, and arguably because it was only himself versus Mitt Romney on the ballot. The road to the nomination and ultimately the White House is not paved with second, third, and last place finishes—and that’s all Ron Paul has. He needs the one thing he doesn’t have: solid, repeatable first-place finishes.

Thirdly, the number of 81% is a haunting number for the Paul supporters. Compared to the other candidates Paul has a bad record. If the “other guys” are lumped together (as Paulistas are wont to do) they can be thrown into the category of “Not-Ron-Paul”. Given this idea, “Not-Ron-Paul” usually gets 80% or more of the popular vote while Ron Paul takes 20% or less. Yes, Virginia was a 60-40 "successful" loss for Paul, but the vast majority of the time the results are 80-20 against Paul. Suddenly he needs exactly the opposite: 80% supporting and 20% or less against him.

But even this is idea is little more than a pipe dream. The polls on Ron Paul’s own websites don’t paint a pretty picture: Paul rarely holds more than 10-20% support in many states. And these polls have been largely accurate this primary season…far more accurate than the ESPN analysts’ crystal balls on March Madness. (Authors Note: Mizzou? Duke? Srsly?)

There’s very little reason to doubt that the averaged results on sites like RealClearPolitics, Rasmussen, and Gallup are accurate. The Paul's supporters might reject them, but the reality is that these polls have given a pretty good guess about primary outcomes. It would be a gross mistake to assume that a poll giving Ron Paul less than 15% of the popular vote is wrong to the tune of being 65% off. If these pollsters were that bad at their jobs then RealClearPolitics, Gallup, and Scott Rasmussen would be ignored, and unknown. The reality is that they are neither ignored nor unknown…they’re very good at what they do.

While some dream and salivate over the idea of a brokered convention the truth is that if the convention is a game of Texas Hold ‘Em, the flop is Ace, Queen, Jack, and Ron Paul is holding a 7-2. Mitt has an Ace, Rick has a Queen, and God only knows what Newt is holding--but it could prove

handy in a brokered convention as his delegates could really help someone out if need be.

Ultimately the demagoguery, the bumper stickers, the faux victory speeches, and the Ron Paul Revolution aren’t going to stand up to the harsh reality: Ron Paul isn’t going to win anything. Sure, he might pick up one or two states, but anything less than nearly total domination of the upcoming primaries is nothing less than superficial. The only thing that Ron Paul has won are internet polls that are neither accurate or scientific. Sooner or later Paulistas are going to have to decide: do they want four more years of failure from Obama, or are they going to try to stop our slide towards socialism by voting for Rick Santorum or Mitt Romney?
At the end of the day it’s the only choice they have left. Thinking anything more than that is to live in a deluded world that will never match the reality the rest of the country has to live in.

--Yitzach Meyer

Afterthought:
If one carefully examines the recent debates it’s fairly clear that Mitt and Ron don’t really attack each other. In fact, the last debate had Mitt and Ron practically playing footsies. Why? The current theory is that Ron wants a spot in the new administration under the heir-apparent, Mitt Romney. The hardcore Paulistas should ask why Ron is currying favor with a big-government moderate who authored a bill that was the starting point for ObamaCare. Just food for thought!

Saturday, March 3, 2012

Reality Check for the Paulbots (Who won't read this)

If there’s one thing to be said about Ron Paul, it is that he probably has the most loyal supporters out of any GOP candidate. This does not apply to Barack Obama, as the only thing his supporters have left to stand on is their loyalty, and little else. Even so, Paul commands a very dedicated, albeit small, group of voters.

But the pipe dream of Ron Paul’s candidacy is coming to a close. Paul supporters are quick to point out that he’s “unique” and “one of a kind” and that “there’s no other candidate like him.” Many are also quick to point out that there’s no difference between the other GOP candidates…they’re all the same thing wearing different names. If this is indeed the case, Paul supporters would do well to realize that the candidates then fall into two categories: Ron Paul, and Not-Ron-Paul. If this then is the argument they make, then the harsh truth is that “Not-Ron-Paul” has consistently garnered the majority of votes. The best boast Paul has is a second place finish in New Hampshire, a state gutted of its delegates, and a second in Maine. Both times Mitt Romney beat him to the first place finish. While the race is about total delegates won, Mr. Paul has failed to win anything. Second place is a loss with a minority consolation prize at best—and only in states the divide their delegates proportionally. Furthermore, the road to the White House is not paved with 2^nd, 3^rd, and 4^th, place finishes. Paul is lagging in delegates behind the flagging Newt Gingrich, whose bull-in-a-china-closet methods won him South Carolina and lost him everything else. Truthfully, the odds aren’t good. In fact, they’re simply awful.

One of the official Ron Paul websites hosts the latest polling data from upcoming states. While the Paulistas are busy holding spray painted cardboard signs to change the world, the polling data from his on site suggests something very different is going on. In most states Paul is only holding single-digit percentages of voters. In the states where he holds double-digit percentages of support, he is still badly lagging behind the other candidates. The truth is, he’s not winning anything.
While many are quick to attack the mainstream polls with a hipster sneer, the facts that correspond to reality are thus: the only thing Ron Paul has actually won is non-scientific internet polls where his followers show up and stuff the ballot box.
If this weren’t true, he’d either lose those Internet polls, or win states…and unfortunately for Paul, he’s done neither.

Paul needs nothing short of a miracle. The other candidates are over 100 delegates ahead of Paul, and he is badly lagging in the polls, as over 500 delegates are up for grabs in the next 40 days. Aside from Newt being caught with Charlie Sheen and 7 gram rock, Rick Santorum being busted with kiddie-porn, and Mitt being ousted as a polygamist, (or something akin to this), Paul’s days as a even a mathematical possibility are dwindling fast.

Ron Paul may have garnered the most recorded military support. Ron Paul may have the most loyal followers. He may have the most organized ground forces, and the most technological methods. But in a world of Ron Paul versus Not-Ron-Paul, the one thing he doesn’t have is votes. There’s a host of reasons that might be offered as to why: his associations, dicey newsletters, inability to debate, foreign policy, personality, you name it. Any of these could be argued as possible causes for the lackluster support among the GOP voter base. Whatever the case may be, Gallup reports that he’s got a lot of negative feelings directed at him from voters…more so than he or his followers realize.

Ron Paul's supporters will have to face reality in 40 days. They will either help drive Barack Obama from the White House, or they will not. They can stay home, or vote for an impossible third party. Or, they can decide that the other candidates are preferable to another four years of socialism, failed policies, and the lame-duckery that has put our unemployment rate around 15%. Ron Paul supporters are hell-bent on their man in the face of reality. That is admirable and even fairly harmless at this stage. But come November, that mentality of “my way or the high way” will serve no other purpose than the reelection of Barack Hussein Obama. The Paulistas will have to put away their nasty words about the other candidate, and vote for him. Either that, or hold their peace for another four years while the country slides deeper into the hole our president so graciously dug for us.

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Tu Quo Que?

Ron Paul attacked Rick Santorum twice in the week before the South Carolina Primary over the anti-union “Right to Work” laws in Pennsylvania that Santorum stood against. Now let me be very clear on something. I hate unions. I think they’re the scum of the earth, and moreover, I think they’re deep in bed with the liberal democrats in Washington. I have no love for unions whatsoever, and I also live in a Right to Work state—and I love it. However, Santorum voted against the Right to Work legislature in Pennsylvania. This may be a shock, but I’m ok with that for one simple reason: Santorum did what his constituency wanted him to do. He voted the way his people wanted him to.
Many people complain about Washington DC being “out of touch” with the average voter. One good example of this is ObamaCare, which the majority of Americans want overturned. The liberal house and senate rammed it thru, and the will of the people be damned. Obama signed it, and declared it with Taxation and Healthcare for All. We fault Washington for doing whatever they want against the will of the people. Ron Paul faults Rick Santorum for following the will of the people—because what Rick did violates Paul’s ideology.

Yet Ron Paul’s stance is one of hypocrisy, and one that leaves him in a rather nasty place in front of conservative voters. Paul firmly believes that Israel should be cut off from our foreign aid. Yet a recent Rasmussen Poll stated that a majority of Americans (over half) stated they wanted our financial support for Israel to continue. My question would be: “Mr. Paul, if you are elected will you follow the will of the American people and continue to financially support Israel? Or will you cut them off and follow your own ideology wherever it leads you? Because we already have a President that does that, and we don’t need another one.”
Some of the more inane PaulBots may say, “Well, we should do what’s right and best for us no matter what!” Others may go so far as to say, “We should do what’s right for our country even if the people think it’s wrong!” Translation: Our ideology is more important than the will of the people. That’s dangerous. Any time a group or a politician says, “We know what’s best—what you want doesn’t matter” the country takes another step towards totalitarianism. If that’s the line that Ron Paul and his Kool-Aid swigging followers want to draw, then fine. At that point their doom is secure, because they have become just like the liberals they claim to hate.

Sunday, January 15, 2012

Ron Paul's Kool-Aid Brigade seems familiar...

Ron Paul and the PaulBots often like to say that people are afraid of them because they want constitutionalism and liberty. They say that scares people.
Well, Ron Paul and his followers do scare me. I’ll admit it. But I’m not afraid of liberty, or the constitution or cutting the fed back to a reasonable size. What I am afraid of is the lack of rationale, the lack of systematic logic, and the lack of reality I find in Ron Paul’s supporters.

Every time Paul speaks they flock to the TVs, the YouTube, the blogs and declare just how brilliant he is. “It’s gold, pure gold!” they gush, and they will not tolerate naysayers.
Worse, they never question him, his ideas, or his philosophies. Ever try arguing with a Paulbot? It's like arguing with a two year old. I hate to say this, but I’ve had more productive and rational arguments with Marxist Liberals—whom I vehemently disagree with.

A Paulbot never stops to think, “Maybe I don’t agree with that.” I respect a Ron Paul supporter who says, “Yes, I love him, but this particular issue/policy that he has bothers me. I don’t agree with him on _______.” Yet many people see him as doing no wrong. Many of my friends feel this way about him, spouting press-release catchphrases, and over-simplified BS about foreign policy. You know what you call someone who can do no wrong? Messianic.

That’s why the Paulbots scare me. They remind me of someone…a lot of someones.
They remind me of a thronging mass of people, a people who believed, a people that could not be argued or reasoned with, a people who proclaimed vision, a people who finally had hope, and were ready for change. We all know what those people did.
They elected one of the worst presidents in US History…Barack Hussein Obama.

I don’t like people making messiahs--and I don’t believe in political messiahs. I don’t believe any one human is that perfect (save for Christ). They’re human: by definition they can’t be 100% right.
If the Paulbots want any form of respect, they’ve got to take logic to the floor and acknowledge that the man has problems, some big, some small--just like anyone else. As long as he stays put as their unquestionable messiah, they’ll be treated exactly like the cult that they act like. And the internet polls where the Kool-Aid Brigade show up to stuff the ballot box aren't helping matters any. Tin foil hats anyone?

Sunday, January 8, 2012

2011 GOP Debate - PMSNBC Sunday Morning Pre Church Analysis--winners and losers

I ate a good amount of homemade pulled pork before bed…and a lot of powerade…and a Big Mac. Yes, my night went badly.

I was up early for the debate…alarm or no, I was not sleeping.

Here’s my pitiful little 2 cents.

The PMSNBC debate was far, FAR better than the ABC debate last night. The dynamic duo of Sawyer/Stephanopoulos was pathetic…I guess this explains why ABC isn’t even on the same level as a real news channel. George’s hypothetical questions earned him pushback from the candidates, and it was getting silly enough that I wondered if his next question might not be, “So if the alien gummy bears attack, how will you prepare the nation for an intergalactic candy war?”

While PMSNBC did host a better debate, I felt that the time allotments and the questions were skewed. The questions seemed to focus on other candidates strengths, and on Mitt’s weaknesses….or maybe everyone else just defended better. I felt like the real losers for TIME were Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman. I felt that the questions and exchanges didn’t really include them…and this is why Fox put on a far better debate: Everyone got a lot more time on camera with a live mic. I also felt Fox’s questions were better.

So here’s my thoughts candidate by candidate.

Romney – got the lion’s share of airtime, but also the lion’s share of attacks. He had good answers for the most part, but he trended to the moderate tightrope in a hurry on some issues. Santorum and Gingrich really landed some effective blows, and while this may be “too little—too late” for NH, it may hurt Mitt in South Carolina.
He did not come across as “The Conservative”. He also got more airtime though, and this probably won’t hurt him with crossover voters or with moderates—given his answers. Verdict? Partial win. His recent McCain endorsement will not, and does not endear him to conservatives what so ever.

Gingrich – Newt offered good answers to the moderators, but Romney called him out near the end of the debate for pandering to Nancy Pelosi (shudder), and for some of his more moderate ideas. Newt’s performance wasn’t bad, but at this point, given the polls, I’m not sure it matters. Newt may be more useful as a spoiler for beating up Romney than as a top tier candidate. His personal life doesn’t help him either. Verdict? Partial win…he didn’t hurt himself, and he did hurt Mitt.

Santorum – Santorum showed a few really good strengths: wit, clear answers, inability to be bullied, and most importantly, he used a lot of specifics. He looked bright eyed and bushy tailed in spite of the late debate last night. He spoke with passion and clarity. He was memorable and his answer on Iran was extremely good. In fact, it was nearly perfect…he showed understanding of Islam and took a tough question well and delivered a memorable, smart, and informed answer on why Iran is different than North Korea, Pakistan, or Russia: Iran is a theocracy.
Verdict? He didn’t get away scot-free, but he did very well and possibly legitimized himself in South Carolina. I’d expect a good showing on Tuesday in NH.

Ron Paul – I’ve got no deep-seated love for Paul’s foreign policy or stance on Islamic-jihad (in fact I really disagree with him on those issues), but I will say this: his economy answers were darn good. Fortunately for Paul, the questions asked of him were not about foreign policy—which means he didn’t take much damage from the other candidates. Unfortunately his answers were abbreviated…I wanted to hear more and I knew he had a more complete thought, but he honored the time limits and it seemed to me like few questions came his way. His energy and fed size answers were great, and even Newt gave him a nod on oil and jobs. Ultimately his verdict isn’t great because it’s split: Partial win because he didn’t damage himself with foreign policy, and he answered very well on everything else. But it’s also a partial loss because he didn’t get the time to give better answers, and because he didn’t get many questions or attention from the moderators. This may be a good thing in some ways…they could have dragged a lot of stuff about newsletters and Iran into the light and other candidates could have really hurt him over those.

Perry – not dissimilar to Newt: Good answers, but who cares? Perry has about two weeks left in this gig if he can’t turn the car around. He did show humor when dealing with his past “forgotten answer” from 3-4 debates ago…kudos! He also spoke clearly, but I think he sounds like G.W. Bush to a lot of people. Even though those two are mortal enemies, I don’t think it’s going to help him. He was specific and very collected, but again, the poll numbers are against him. I think at this point he has to nuke Mitt and Newt in a big debate and put the hurt on them so eloquently and so badly that they really do reel from it to regain his footing.
Verdict: Win…in a sense, He didn’t get hurt, but he really didn’t get helped. I wonder if he’s thinking of a VP offer? He threw grenades when he needed a nuke.

Huntsman – in my mind, Jonny-boy got a free pass from PMSNBC. He came across as “safe” and “nice”…and REALLY moderate. I don’t think that’s going to help him here.
I forget which candidate (might have been Santorum or Newt) that asked (and I paraphrase), “Hey, our socialist president picked this guy…do you really think Obama would pick a genuine conservative?” It’s a good point. As ambassador to China, he values the relationship, and that might hurt him—because other candidates do NOT value China and neither does the conservative base. He felt smarmy, clichéd, and very much like Mr. Rogers. He felt too smooth and “safe.”
For the red-blooded conservatives that want a nutcracker like Reagan, this ain’t the guy. Verdict? Partial win, but he took a few (precious few) shots from the other candidates. And the partial win was only because the mods gave him a pass more or less.

Other thoughts:
Think VP picks. See any weird sort of alliances going? Maybe a few…

All told, a good debate…not a terrible day for anyone, though I think Romney took the most hurt, but I doubt it will effect Tuesday that much. Who knows though…the talking heads say that 20% of voters haven’t made up their minds. That’s a big swing…we’ll see. Primary Party at my house on Tuesday? ☺

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Ugly Ugly Occupy

Two grass-roots movements have marked this year in politics. One is the Tea Party, which objects to taxes and the fiasco we refer to as the IRS. The other is the Occupy Movement, which is pretty much mad about taxes, and corporations, and …well it’s complicated. Mostly, they’re just mad. The Daily Iowan (among others) mentioned a “lack of continuity” in the movement, and it’s true. A few interviews reveal this fairly clearly. They’re mad. They agree on that. What they’re mad about depends on who you ask.

But it's no Tea Party. Like them or not, the Tea Party protests were quiet, non-violent, and well behaved. Like them or not, the Occupy Protests have a nasty, ugly side that doesn’t make it to the TV as often as maybe it should. How ugly is it? Here’s a list of the ugly. In the words of Bruce Willis,

“Just the facts ma’am, just the facts” (sic).

- Arrests as of 10/27: 2,750. ¹This does NOT include the crackdowns of Weeks 2 and 3 of November.

- The protestors eat, “organic chicken and vegetables, spaghetti bolognese, and roasted beet and sheep’s-milk-cheese salad” but won’t share with the homeless…who are poorer than they are. ²

- ACORN has been monetarily supporting OWS. ³ Is that grassroots??

- Several cases of anti-Semitism have been documented at OWS gatherings. ⁴

- OWS said in mid October that their biggest problem is…internal theft. ⁵

- The media coverage from “the Big Three” has been more positive on the OWS movement than negative. Media hate? Don’t think so! ⁶

- Crime is up in NYC due to OWS. 154% to be exact. ⁷

- Occupy Boston illegally occupied the Israeli Consulate, chanting anti-Israeli slogans. ⁸

- Occupy Minnesota has so far cost taxpayers half a million dollars. ⁹

- Occupy NY has cost taxpayers $6 million dollars.¹⁶

- Who supports the Occupy Movement? Iran, the American Communist Party, the American Nazi Party, North Korea, Hugo Chavez, Communist Party of China, Hezbollah and more.¹⁰ You know, all those humanitarian countries…

- As of early October, OWS in NYC had cost taxpayers $2 million. ¹¹

- You can’t be the 99% if 44% don’t like you, and 15% or more don’t know what you want. ¹³

- The OWS movement has raised over $500K to date. Interesting…at the end of the article, the author says they’ll need to keep making money to stay in business…¹⁴

- Hey OWS! Did you ever wonder where BHO got his money to get elected? ¹⁵

- Total OWS cost (minimum) is $13 million.¹⁷ That’s a cost to the tax payers. What are they getting for their money?

- Total death toll: 7. Some have died of drug overdoses or drug related issues¹⁸

- Rapes and sexual assaults are more common than you might think. ¹⁹

- As of Nov 16, arrests were over 4,000. (More facts in link). ²⁰

- Disease becoming a problem in Occupy SF. ²¹

- Total rap sheet so far. ²²

- American Politicians who support OWS. ²²

As much as Occupy supporters hate to admit it, the movement has very little good about it, very little congruity outside of pure socialism, and for all the hubbub, violence, disease, sexual misconduct, and cost to tax payers, nothing has changed. No laws, no collapsed corporations, no increase in socialism. Just more crime, racism, public indecency, and ugly clashes with law enforcement—many of whom have lost vacation time to deal with malcontents (who should be at work).

Many Americans tell pollsters that they don’t know enough about the movement to have an opinion. For a movement that claims to be the “99%”, the majority of Americans either don’t like them, or have no idea what they want.
When looked at through global eyes, the movement is a group of a few thousand angry people in a country of 300 million on a planet of 7 billion. Given that America’s poorest are still some of the most well-to-do in the world, it seems ironic that this group is actually among the richest 25% on the planet. In fact, depending on the person, they may actually be in the top 20%, and even the Occupiers living in tents have it better than most of the nation of India.²³

This raises the question: “Out of 7 billion people, you have it better than 5 billion of them. What on earth are you complaining for?” If someone is doing better than 70% of others and yet they still want more, doesn’t that make them…you know…
greedy?

CITATIONS

1. http://www.toberight.com/2011/10/occupy-wall-street-arrest-tally/

with many sub links to specific city websites.

2. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/zuccotti_hell_kitchen_i5biNyYYhpa8MSYIL9xSDL

3. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/acorn_taking_root_again_amid_protests_S7oqpPcxPTpqp3uH2cEjQI

4. http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/hate-crimes-at-queens-libraries-and-jewish-temple-20111104-lgf

5. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/criminal_occupation_oh3CnKANUqYHrGPCaZaLRK

6. http://www.owsexposed.com/2011/11/07/biased-reporting-in-the-mainstream-media/

7. http://patdollard.com/2011/10/nyc-shootings-up-28-as-police-are-diverted-to-occupy-wall-street/

8. http://www.futureofcapitalism.com/2011/11/occupy-boston-occupies-israeli-consulate

9. http://www.owsexposed.com/2011/11/01/occupy-minnesota-costing-minneapolis-taxpayers-100000-a-week/

10. http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2011/10/31/the-99-official-list-of-ows/