More On Alternative Facts

In a previous post regarding "alternative facts", I posed the question: "Ever wonder why before testifying in court, one is asked, 'Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth...?' "
I go on to further explain this can be interpreted as:
"The truth - don't lie!
The whole truth - don't withhold any part of the truth!
Nothing but the truth - no opinions; just facts!"

This week we were treated to yet another example of alternative facts. It occurred when Sen Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) was ordered to take her seat during the confirmation hearing for Sen Sessions for Attorney General. Sen Warren was making disparaging remarks against a fellow sitting senator which is a violation of Senate Rule 19. She was warned but persisted. She tried to justify her remarks by noting she was reading a letter by the widow of Dr Martin Luther King, Coretta Scott King. Here again a Leftist lies by violating the second attribute of truthfulness: tell the whole truth. Warren committed a lie by omission. The details Sen Warren conveniently left out (the alternative facts) are that Ms King's letter was written around the time (1986) Jeff Sessions was being considered for appointment as a federal judge. Based on the testimony of colleagues that he was a racist which have since been discredited, Sessions was denied his seat on the bench. Furthermore, his subsequent service as Alabama Attorney General and a US Senator have proven him to be anything but a racist and actually a strong supporter of minority rights.

Once again liberals omit relevant facts in an attempt to discredit a conservative. The inclusion of the alternative facts help paint the complete picture and ultimately remove any doubt that the Senate made the right decision in confirming Jeff Sessions as the 84th Attorney General of the United States.

Hillary Defies; Redefines the Peter Principle

Most are at least somewhat familiar with the Peter Principle which was described by Dr. Laurence J. Peter in his 1968 book "The Peter Principle" and is usually quoted as something like, an employee will rise or get promoted to his or her level of incompetence. 

From her first job as a staffer on the House Judiciary committee investigating Watergate to her tenure as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton has managed to defy the Peter Principle every step of the way. It's more than that however. She has actually managed to redefine the Peter Principle. Despite the fact that she is incompetent and is seen, even by her supporters, as dishonest, untrustworthy, and a liar, it seems that when it comes to their support for Hillary, the top principle is her lack of a Peter Principle. 

Follow-on to Previous post

Republicans get rich and run for public office - that bothers Democrats.
Democrats get elected to public office and get rich - that bothers conservatives like me.
Where do you stand?

Conjecture-based Fear or Fact-based Fear?

Americans who fear Trump do so based on what they think he may do. That's conjecture. Those who oppose Hillary do so because of what she has done.  Those are facts!  Which is more rational?

More Worry Over Trump than Hillary Nonsensical Unless....

The Establishment types who seem more worried about a President Trump than a President Hillary Clinton are very shortsighted when, if they play their cards right, they could easily accomplish both.

By opposing Trump now, they will almost certainly aid in the election of Hillary. Over the last seven and a half years, they have demonstrated that they are incapable or unwilling to oppose the liberal agenda and they stand no chance of opposing a President Hillary. On the other hand, if they step out of Trump's way (or even Cruz's for that matter) and actually support him, they will be able to control him. Unlike with a President Hillary who Republicans can expect no support from their Democrat colleagues if they oppose a policy, they can certainly count on liberal support to block any Trump policy they don't agree with since the Democrats will reflexively oppose all policies and initiative from a President Trump. This gives them a win-win.

The establishment Republican's fixation on stopping Trump, against the will on so many Republican primary voters, is self-destructive, foolish and shortsighted. Not only will it ultimately get Hillary elected but it will destroy the Republican Party. It will confirm what so many conservative Republicans already suspect: the establishment-wing of the Republican Party sees no place for them in the GOP and Conservatives will leave in droves. The establishments-types need to respect the will of the primary voters, respect the process and focus their attention on beating Hillary.

Opposing Trump at the expense of losing the 2016 election and the destroying the future of the GOP makes no sense unless the Establishment-types actually want to see the Leftist policies of Hillary implemented but want some level of plausible deniability.

Pundits Left and Right Continue to Misinterpret Anti-Establishment Movement

One should not take what I am about to suggest as an endorsement of Donald Trump. I think the pundits are failing to correctly interpret the anti-establishment movement we are witnessing and the continuing primary success of Trump, so I'd like to pose a different take on what is happening. Here goes.

When the presidential primary process failed in 2008 as the political "eHarmony" Conservatives had hoped it would be and gave them a candidate who was not a perfect ideological match, they stayed home on election day. The result was Obama. The scenario repeated itself again in 2012 and President Obama was re-elected for a second term.

In the off-year elections, Conservatives tried to remedy the situation by electing senators and representatives who promised them 100% of what they wanted. Unfortunately, those they sent to Washington delivered 0% of what Conservatives were hoping for. They didn't oppose the progressive agenda at all. [Incidentally, when President Obama succeeds in closing the prison at GITMO (notice I say when not if), he will have secured his legacy as one of the most successful presidents in US history for implementing his agenda. Ultimately, history will show that these policies were terribly damaging to America and the rest of the world but this is a topic for another time.]

Conservatives learned a tough lesson from the 2008-2012 election cycles. If you need a 100% ideological match in order to support a candidate or stay home, you get an "Obama". They elected people in the off-year elections who promised 100% and delivered 0%. The result was they got 100% of what they didn't like and nothing they did. They should keep this in mind this November or they may get another Obama term in the form of Hillary Clinton.

Trump is obnoxious. He is abrasive. Trump speaks in generalities but Trump loves to win. Even if Conservatives, and even many Independents, only agree with 50% of what he says, they will get 50% of what they like and maybe only 50% of what they don't. That puts them miles ahead of where they are now. One must also keep in mind that nearly 40% of Americans self-identify as conservative as opposed to 20% who call themselves liberal or progressive.

The pundits from all points on the political spectrum can continue to explain away Trump's primary performance based on their hopes, biases, and faulty polling data but if they do not start factoring in the root cause of the anti-establishment ire I have suggested, they will continue to be wrong.

The Constitution Has Lost a Champion

Admittedly I'm not a Constitutional scholar but I have undertaken considerable effort to study it to try to make myself as knowledgeable as possible of its content, meaning and history. In the past, I have argued that the US Constitution is not a "living, breathing" document as the progressives of today contend. After more careful consideration, I have come to rethink this position - somewhat. The Constitution is a "living, breathing" document just as a Leyland Cypress and a Giant Sequoia are both living, breathing trees. Progressives are like gardeners who prefer the quick growing Leylands while Conservatives view the Constitution as foresters view Sequoias that change slowly but steadily over many, many years.

Since there is a slow, laborious process that was put into place by the Framers to allow the Constitution to evolve, I think the strongest argument for how the document was meant to exhibit a "living, breathing" nature is like sequoias managed by responsible foresters. Unfortunately, the quick growing Leylands approach advocated by Progressives produces weak, shallow roots that will not sustain a long-lived, stable government. We need the deep, strong root structure of the mighty sequoia tended by judicial "foresters".

Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was one such judicial forester. As an originalist, Justice Scalia believed that laws had to conform to the Constitution as written. He opposed "legislating from the bench" and an open interpretation of the Constitution that allowed trendy laws of today to change the original intent of the Framers. In his view, the Constitution could be changed but that change should come from the deliberate, methodical process prescribe in the document itself - through the amendment process. With his death Saturday morning at the age of 79, the US Constitution has lost a true champion. Rest in Peace Justice Scalia.

Even UNCLAS Emails Can Be Harmful

 OK, so 81 of the recently released emails from Hillary Clinton's server have turned out to be classified. The media is saying "most were at the lowest level". The problem - and most don't understand this - is that even pieces of unclassified information, collected from an authoritative source such as the US Secretary of State can be combined to reveal highly sensitive information. Hillary's email server didn't even have the most basic common sense protections. Regardless of whether or not it was classified, everything a US Secretary of State discusses via email should be protected. Despite what her supporters would have you believe, this is a problem and demonstrates a clear lack of judgment.

Recommended Reading for Insight Into Today's Political Climate

I'm currently listening to another book on audio CD, The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich A. Hayek during my daily commute and I'm finding it fascinating and surprisingly relevant to today's political environment. Not an easy read or listen but well worth the effort. I think both conservatives and liberals (progressives) will find things of interest contained in the words of Hayek.

I have been aware of this book for years but just recently decided to find and read (listen) to it. I had to wait 6 weeks for it to be available for download from the library but it was well worth the wait.

Even though the book was published in 1944 and was a political analysis of socialism from a "final days of WWII" perspective, the author provided new prefaces in 1976 to help make it more contemporary and if a reader keeps these updates in mind, the book provides some amazing insight into the current political scene. If one allows oneself to not focus on the specifics but rather the broader analysis, this book has much to say to the modern political observer.

History doesn't really repeat itself as the old cliche suggests but the ebb and flow of ideological themes, trends and ideas do seem to have their cycles. I hesitate to call this book prophetic because I think this term is over used and tends to sound a bit too dramatic and ominous. However, if you are up for a challenging read (listen), The Road to Serfdom is worth the effort.

Two Very Different Concepts of Impossible

Which of these positions makes more sense?

When it comes to securing the border, liberals and Democrats claim building the wall is impossible. People have been building walls for 1000s of years.

When it comes to allowing 10,000+ Syrian refugees to come to the United States, conservatives and Republicans claim it is impossible to properly vet these people who have no passports or no documentation from a country with a heavy terrorist presence and a hostile government.

To my mind, masonry construction, regardless of the scope of the project, seems less daunting than modern intelligence and counterterrorism work.

The 3rd and 4th Republican Debate: What a Contrast!

I didn't get to watch the debate last night because I was working. I did catch part of it on the radio during my drive home. Now I am watching the recording on my DVR. All I can say is "What a contrast from the prior debate!"

Fox Business Network and the Wall Street Journal did a fantastic job. It was moderated by true professionals - Gerard Baker (WSJ), Maria Bartiromo (FBN), and Neil Cavuto. Unlike their CNBC counterparts from the previous debate, these moderators asked substantive questions, remained objective, maintained order, and allowed the candidates to be the focus instead of injecting themselves and their own views into the debate.

How refreshing! A debate where the candidates are asked fair, pertinent, and meaningful questions on important national issues by grown-ups and then allowed to give their answer. This is exactly what a presidential primary debate should be - a dignified, informative, and civil event.

Hopefully the next Democrat primary debate will follow suit instead of being another softball lobbing, journalistic slobber fest as we have seen from the "journalists" who have run those debates in the past or the Sunday morning talk shows. The American public deserves it!

CNBC's Moderation of the Debate - An Epic FAIL!

The Debate
If you missed the third Republican primary debate last night, don't worry you didn't. It was so poorly run that it didn't even resemble a debate at all. Being a business network, I had better hopes for a more professionally run debate by CNBC. However, as I watched the pre-debate show, it became clear that there was a strong bias against those who were about to participate in the debate. There was open hostility and disdain for the candidates. Furthermore, the pre-debate discussion was unorganized, rambling and it telegraphed what was to come. This attitude carried over into the debate itself and the moderators - John Harwood, Becky Quick and Carl Quintilla - became participants in the debate themselves representing the Left. To make matter worse, they were often not in command of the facts even when they had their facts straight. In one example, Quick challenged Trump on his stance on H-1B visas. Turns out, as Megan Kelly pointed out afterwards on her show The Kelly File, Quick had Trump's position right and Trump had it wrong - at least according to his own website. However, she was so incompetent that she didn't even know the source of her information and when Trump provided a quick (no pun intended), disarming retort, she folded and later even apologized to Trump! It was unbelievable.

The purpose of a primary debate is to help potential primary voters decide which of their candidates should get their vote to become their party's presidential candidate. It should be a forum for the candidates to compare and contrast their views to substantive issues and to the same questions. Instead, what viewers saw was the moderators inserting themselves and their views into the debate as defenders of left-wing policies which they framed as reasonable, normal, successful, etc. as a part of each of their questions and then challenged the candidate to defend their "extreme" views. It was so completely transparent and one personal "gotcha" question after another. Fortunately, I think any fair-minded person saw this charade for what it was - progressive members of the left-wing mainstream media against their Republican enemies. Hopefully what will come of this will be to no longer allow journalists act as moderators for future debates. They have clearly proven themselves to be incapable of doing the job.

The blame isn't solely that of the moderators and the media. They are what they are - full time lobbyists and spokespeople for progressivism and the Democrat Party. Much of the blame needs to fall squarely in the lap of the Republican National Committee for allowing this to happen.

Win/Lose/Draw
In spite of the fact that the debate itself was a complete fail on the part of CNBC and the moderators, it was possible for the candidates to advance their standing, fall behind or maintain their position.

First, those who were able to make gains. In my opinion, the clear "winners" were Rubio, Cruz, and Fiorina. Each of these candidates were able to demonstrate that they are principled, understand the issues and articulate them in a clear manner. Additionally, in the case of Cruz and Rubio in particular, they were able to counter-punch those who attacked them to great effect and highlight just how awful and hypocritical the media are. Fiorina helped advance her candidacy by insisting on getting her time to speak and clearly discussing the issues. Time will tell, however, if the performance of any of the candidates translates to higher numbers in the polls. I suspect we will see at least a moderate bump for Rubio and Cruz. I don't expect much impact on Fiorina's numbers because between debates she has had a tendency to remain largely out of sight which caused a slip in her numbers following a strong performance in the first two debates. To a lesser extent, I think Chris Christie had a pretty good night. He also effectively made his points and slapped around the moderators; delivering what I found to be one of the best lines of the night: "...even in New Jersey, that question would be considered rude."

Next, those who maintained their standing - Trump and Carson. Trump was somewhat less the center of attention during this debate but he continued to promote himself as only Trump can: using the same hubris, bravado and running as an insurgent that has led to his popularity so far. He was also able to  delivered some effective counters to the moderators who seemed to have it in for him in particular even though some of his facts weren't exactly straight. Perhaps most importantly, Trump delivered a stinging rebuke to criticism of him by John Kasick by pointing out Kasick's connection to Lehman Brothers where he was a board member when it collapsed; nearly crashing the entire US economy. Even though he gave supporters what they like to see, I don't think there was enough of it to change his numbers much. On the other hand, I don't think Carson had a particularly good night. He was measured and under control even while under attack by Quick but he didn't come off as confident of his budget plan numbers as he needed to be. Fortunately for Dr. Carson's, his best assets have been that he isn't an insider, he is likable, principled and a gentleman which continued to come through during the debate. I anticipate that will continue to serve him well following this debate and his poll numbers will remain steady.

Last, the losers (in addition to the aforementioned CNBC and the media) - Paul, Kasick, Bush, and Huckabee. Of these candidates, Paul and Huckabee just didn't garner enough attention although Huckabee did deliver a positive message and give a pretty humorous analogy comparing our bloated federal government to the runaway aerostat that broke away and rampaged across rural Pennsylvania earlier in the day.  Speaking of our current problems he said, "It is the perfect example. It's something the government made - basically a bag of gas. It cut loose; destroying everything in its path, left thousands of people powerless but they couldn't get rid of it because they had too much money invested in it so we had to keep it." Spot on!
Paul made a few good points but I just don't think it was enough to matter. Kasick went after his fellow candidates and tried to paint their views as crazy. Thanks John, that was helpful! After getting slammed by Trump for his role at Lehman, Kasick tucked his tail and slinked back to his corner to lick his wounds. In my opinion, he is done. Likewise, Bush really didn't impress. He just hasn't seemed to have gotten the memo that most Republicans, especially Conservative Republicans, are fed up with "establishment" types. Spouting off past political accomplishments isn't what Republican primary voters are looking for. It just reinforces the notion that Conservatives have been betrayed by the establishment types they sent to the House and Senate in the last election and Bush is a kindred spirit with them. They aren't going to make that mistake again. His attack on Rubio citing an editorial from the left-leaning Sun Sentinel was ridiculous and a serious unforced error - a proverbial hanging curve ball right down the middle that Rubio knocked right out of the park by pointing out that neither Bush nor the Sentinel had any problems in the past with Democrats when they ran for office and had even worse records for missed votes. Money or no money; ground game or no ground game; establishment support or not, I think this is it for Bush. He might last a bit longer but he has all the traction of a "donkey" (or maybe RINO) standing on the ice in the middle of a frozen lake.

That's how I saw it. I invite reader thoughts and observations. Comment by clicking where it says, "No Comments" or "Comments" and feel free to share this with friends. I enjoy hearing from those who agree or disagree.

Why the Appeal of Trump?

Don't interpret my attempt to explain Trump as me supporting Trump. I haven't made up my mind yet. There is still a long way to go until the Republican Convention and many debates in between so we will be a lot of opportunities to see what each of the candidates have to offer.
So here goes. I think the appeal of Trump is that he doesn't put up with the non-sense. I think he is the end of compassionate conservatism which is a bunch of crap. Nothing is more compassionate than the number of new jobs, economic growth and number of people, especially minorities, who entered the middle class under Ronald Reagan. What Trump refuses to do is allow the Leftists, especially in the media, to define the narrative about Republicans, Conservatives, or those in business. He doesn't stand for questions that start off with a false premise. The "I know all Republicans are racists but how will you be different?" or "Of course all Conservatives are anti-women, Hispanic, gay, science,..." or other more subtle implied lies. When a candidate allows those to stand or somehow tries to sound more middle of the road in response, it comes off as defensive or as a sign of lack of conviction.

I think Trump is the only candidate who has figured out what the Conservative voters have known for a while - Republicans have been doing political Tae Chi and the Progressives have been doing full on MMA. The other candidates better take off the gloves and discard the Marquis de Queensbury rules or we will lose and the rapid decline of the country will continue!

Hill May Trade Green Pantsuit for Orange Jumpsuit

It looks like the Hillary email scandal is continuing to reveal new damaging facts about the former Secretary of State's negligent handling of classified material. There are several potential felony violations of the law. She may end up trading in her signature pantsuits for orange jumpsuits if you know what I mean. Any one of us regular folks sure would be!

Democrat High Fives All Around for Meaningless ACA Enrollment Number

There is an old military saying, "When you are up to your ass in alligators, it's easy to forget that the original mission was to drain the swamp." For the Affordable Healthcare Act this seems very apropos. The liberals won't remind you but the original goal of healthcare reform was to insure the alleged 40 million Americans who didn't have health insurance. Now for a little math: 7.1 million divided by 40 million is 17.8%. Would most reasonable people consider this success? This is just one of the many ACA "alligators". Even if one believes the number provided by the Obama Administration, there is no way to draw any real conclusions from the enrollment number reported Monday following the end of the first open enrollment period for the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) but that didn't stop the President and his fellow Democrats from crowing and doing a victory dance at a press conference. Funny how Mr. Obama didn't take any questions from the media - as if they would have asked any tough ones. In order for the number to have any meaning, we need to know the details. How many of the 7.1 million didn't previously have health insurance and how many of that number had to replace the insurance that they had and were happy with but lost because the new law 'declared' it inferior? Well the Administration won't tell us. There are many reports that millions of Americas were in this situation. Rand, the highly respected think tank, has determined that 6.3 million Americans lost their insurance due to the ACA. That would mean that only about 900,000 of the 7.1 million are actually newly insured. And how many of those who had to replace their insurance now have higher premiums and higher deductibles? Uh, well we don't know. How many of the supposed newly insured have actually paid their first premium? Again, we don't know but can one really be consider enrolled if you haven't paid? What about the percentage of the 7.1 million enrollees are having their new insurance subsidized by the government or how many people have been added to the Medicaid rolls? Again, no answers are forthcoming. Why not? When you have a program that encompasses one sixth of the U.S. economy, it is essential to set up a mechanism to accurately assess its effectiveness. You need metrics and getting those metrics would have been easy to get, if they had only asked these questions on the website but they didn't? Why? The answer is because they didn't want to know. This is precisely why conservatives hate big government programs like this. One would have to be ignorant, profoundly stupid or an ideological zealot to believe that the enrollment figure is any indication of success at all. If you are among the believers, you now have the facts, so you are down to two choices. So which one are you?

The Shutdown's Silver Lining

One thing is for certain, Dems, liberals, RINOs and the media scored a major victory over the shutdown. However, all sides better observe caution. Repubs, Tea Party, and conservatives should avoid too much self-flagellation and the left would be well-advised to resist the urge to gloat or perform too many end-zone dances. Remember 1992? Geo H.W. Bush had a 89% approval rating in 1991 following the Gulf War and went on to lose less than a year later. People tend to over analyze the importance of political victory and confuse winning battles for winning the war. Timing will mean a lot here. Repubs and conservative might actually benefit from these short-term set-backs in the following way:

1. Had the Repubs been able to roll-back Obamacare, liberals could have said, “Well it would have worked but those mean-spirited, racist, bigoted, homophobe Republicans kept us from being able to give you your free healthcare.” It might actually be better to allow the train wreck and then be legitimately be able to say “See we told you so. We tried to prevent this but we weren’t successful. Don’t blame us.”

2. All politics is local especially with regard to Congressional Representatives. Those who think that the Tea Party candidates will be voted out by the very constituents who sent them to Washington to do exactly what they did are kidding themselves. Purple district candidates might be vulnerable but then again, they always are.

3. Unlike with the economy where liberals were able to make a convincing but in my opinion false argument that this bad economy is still all Bush’s fault, there is no way that if Obamacare turns out to be the disaster conservative predict (and so far is on track to be) it can be blamed on the Republicans. Dems and liberals own this one “Lock, stock and barrel” and they spent the last 2 weeks providing a 24/7 video record of it. When people become truly pissed because they lose their jobs, are forced to go part-time, have their health insurance premiums skyrocket, deductible shoot up to $5000+, employer coverage is dropped, etc, etc, etc. Democrats will be politically bludgeoned to death like baby fur seals by their own words captured on video by their media lackeys.

Time will tell but the future is anything but certain. Upcoming milestones: 01Jan 14 mandatory enrollment begins; 15 Apr 14 first impacts of tax penalties hit; 04 Nov 2014 mid-term elections; 08 Nov 2016 next Presidential election!

Reader comments are encouraged. Be the first to comment by clicking on "No Comments" and add your thoughts.

Hopefully Less Than 1% of the 99%

If you watch the mainstream media or listen to what the Occupy Wall St (OWS) protestors say about themselves, OWS is the 99% as opposed to the riches %1 of Americans. They would also have you believe that they are more representative of ordinary America than the Tea Party Movement. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Left’s main accusation against the Tea Party is that they are racist. Unfortunately, we either have to believe the opinions of such “notables” as Janeane Garofalo and Sean Penn or blindly accept the interpretation by liberals that any sign that opposes the policies of President Obama is due to the fact that he is an African American. A poster depicting Obama as Hitler or The Joker is unmistakably racially motivated, right? Likewise, liberals tell us that when Tea Partiers say they are for lower taxes and less government, what they really mean is, “We want this black man out of the White House.” Then there was the infamous gauntlet incident where African American representatives were reportedly spat upon while walking through the Tea Party crowd on their way to a meeting on Capitol Hill. Amazingly, despite ubiquitous cell phone cameras and a $100,000 reward offered by blogger Andrew Breitbart, not a single picture or video has ever been produced to prove the charge. Lucky for us, we have an easier time knowing the nature of the OWS crowd because we know who is behind the protest and the protestors themselves tell us in their own words.

On the surface, we might be tempted to simply write this group off as nouveau-hippie and anti-banking types. We might even feel the need to interpret their anti-Wall St banker rantings as code words for “Jew.” However, there is no need since the original organizer of the protest, Adbuster Media Foundation, has a well-documented history of anti-Semitism and several OWS protestors have made it clear in taped interviews that they believe Wall St, banking, and the Federal Reserve are controlled by the “Jews” who send their money back to Israel. Additionally, one of the self-identified leaders in Zuccotti Park said his goal is the violent overthrow of the US government. Nice huh? And what about the appearance that this group are the average folks against the rich? Well ironically several of the protestors have revealed on video that they are actually well-to-do. Some are Ivy League graduate students while others have “Come into quite a bit of money.” Just average “Joes”, right? One of the truly amusing aspects of their demands is that they want government paid tuition and they rail against Wall St for making unfair profits. What they don’t seem to have a problem with is the fact that their schools’ endowments made on average 20+% last year. Funny how it is a problem for Wall St to make big profits but they don’t have a problem with their Ivy League universities doing the same thing. Apparently, it has never occurred to them to demand free tuition from their schools.

Another endearing quality of the Occupy Wall St protestors is their hygiene practices which include not bathing and relieving themselves outdoors, occasionally on the hood of a police car. Just like the Tea Party rallies – not!

Last but certainly not least is the respect the OWS has for the law. Just like the Tea Party, none of the OWS protestors have been arrested. Well that’s half true. The Tea Party has had no arrests. On the other hand, the OWS has had hundreds. And both groups have been completely non-violent. Though this is true, OWS sympathizer groups overseas have rioted.

So who is actually the 99%? Is the OWS crowd really like the average American? Are they like you or are you more like the Tea Party rally attendees? My guess is the latter and the Occupy Wall St crowd is less than 1% of the 99%. For the future of America, I really hope so.