Two robberies show need for gun rights

Citizens of the small Georgia town of Villa Rica got a lesson in gun control last week. On two consecutive days last week, armed robbers attacked local businesses in the normally quiet suburb of Atlanta. In each incident, a man was killed by a gun. Ostensibly both were victims of “gun violence,” but for circumstances were very different. After a weeklong manhunt, the final suspect was arrested this morning in Atlanta.

According to the Villa Rican, the first incident occurred on Tuesday, June 25, when a 19-year-old man wearing a hoodie and ski mask entered Junior’s Food Store, a local convenience store and gas station, around 9:45 p.m. The man, Durante Octavious Ashley, 19, was a part-time employee of the store, but that night he pulled a gun on the clerk who was on duty and demanded money. The clerk opened the cash register and, when Ashley turned his attention to the money inside, pulled his own gun and shot the robber, killing him.

Store owner Rosh Patel confirmed to Examiner on July 2 that because the shooting was in self-defense, no charges are expected against the clerk, whose name was not released. Mr. Patel said that the clerk was very shaken by the incident and was taking some time off from work.

Less than 24 hours later, four men entered a jewelry store on the other side of town. Inside the store, they took out hammers and began smashing jewelry cases to steal the contents. Before the incident ended, one of the men shot and killed store owner Mitch Mobley. Although other people were in the store at the time of the robbery, no one else was injured according to the Villa Rican, although others, including one of Mobley’s sons, were also in the store.

WSB reported that Urarahy Rodrigues, the 34-year-old owner of Defkon One Fighting and Fitness, saw the four killers run past his gym in the same shopping center as the Mobley Company. Rodrigues took a cell phone video of the fleeing suspects and then chased after them. He caught up to 16-year-old Eric Billings, the alleged trigger man, and held him in a choke hold until police arrived.

The four robbers fled after the murder. As of this writing, three of the four men have been arrested. According to WTOC, the sixteen-year-old, Eric Billings, and Raphael Rucker, 23, were arrested on June 27, the day after the murder. On Saturday, June 29, WSB reported that 20-year-old Gregory Clifton was captured by police. The fourth suspect, 21-year-old Cranford Phelps, was arrested in Atlanta in the early hours of July 2. The three adults all had prior criminal records. Since Eric Billings is a juvenile, his record could not be verified.

The two incidents illustrate the difference between armed and unarmed victims. At Junior’s, because the clerk was armed with a legal gun, he was able to act to save his own life. Mitch Mobley, who was apparently unarmed, was at the mercy of the four robbers who burst into his store. In both cases, the police were unavailable to protect the victims during the robberies. All too often the role of the police is to arrest murderers in the days after the crime. This is a necessary and important role, but arresting his murderers won’t bring Mitch Mobley back to life. In fact, if it weren’t for Urarahy Rodrigues, who says “I am not a hero,” the perpetrators might have escaped.

Mobley was mourned by the community. Villa Rica had lost more than a business leader and a family man. He was also a philanthropist who organized charity golf tournaments to benefit causes such as cancer research. His store may have been targeted by the men from Atlanta simply because it was near Interstate 20.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics notes that the number of gun homicides has declined 39 percent from 1993 through 2011 (the most recent year for which statistics are available). There were 11,101 fatal firearm homicides that year. According to the Centers for Disease Control, there were 31,672 gun deaths in 2010 (compared to 33,687 motor vehicle deaths).

The decline in gun homicides comes at a time when the total number of guns in the U.S. has increased sharply. There was a surge in gun sales after the election of Barack Obama and in 2011 Gallup found gun ownership at a 20 year high. Gun violence also declined amidst the Great Recession even though crime is traditionally assumed to spike in times of economic distress. The data calls into question the effectiveness of traditional gun control methods and seems to confirm economist John Lott’s groundbreaking 1998 study, “More Guns, Less Crime.”

Another gun control issue brought into question by the report is the effort to impose background checks and waiting periods at gun shows. According to the BJS report, less than two percent of criminals bought weapons at a flea market or gun show. The vast majority obtained their gun from family or friends (37 percent) or an illegal source (40 percent).

The BJS report notes that in about one percent of nonfatal violent crimes (about 4,600 incidents), a victim reported using a gun to defend themselves. About 0.1 percent of victims of property crime also used guns in self-defense. Without guns for self-defense, the number of gun homicides might rise by almost 5,000.

No one can know for sure whether Mitch Mobley would be alive today if he had kept a gun in his jewelry store. What can be said for certain is that when the gang of criminals burst into his store, he, his staff and his customers were at their mercy. They gave him none.

Originally published as Atlanta Conservative Examiner

Verizon phone records are different from IRS scandal

This week’s revelations of widespread data gathering by the federal government have shocked many Americans.  Coming on the heels of the recent scandals about Justice Department spying on reporters and IRS agents harassing political opponents, the new information about America’s intelligence gathering activities have drawn widespread opposition and indignation.  There are important differences between the activities of the National Security Agency and the other scandals, however.

On Wednesday, leaked court documents demanding that Verizon turn over phone records to the federal government sparked an uproar over the NSA’s phone surveillance program.  On Friday, James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, released more details about the program.  Reported by the Associated Press, Clapper noted the program, which presumably includes other companies as well as Verizon, is reviewed every 90 days and the government is prohibited from indiscriminately examining the records of Americans.  The information obtained by the NSA does not contain the content of the calls, but only “metadata” such as the phone numbers involved, time, location, and duration of the call.

On Friday, the Washington Post also published leaked reports of PRISM, a secret program that analyzes internet traffic in a manner similar to the NSA’s examination of phone records.  According to the leaked documents, “e-mail, chat, videos, photos, stored data, VoIP, file transfers, video conferencing, notifications of target activity...log-ins, etc., online social networking details” were available from major internet companies.  A CNET analysis of the PRISM documents indicates that it is theoretically possible that the government has been reading private emails of American citizens.

Even though the amount of information collected by the NSA and PRISM is staggering, there is so far no evidence that it has been used to spy on Americans or intrude on their privacy.  Instead, it seems that the federal government has been engaged in a process called “data mining.”  Data mining is the use of computer programs to discover hidden patterns in data.  Private companies frequently use data mining to target advertisements to likely customers.  Cookies on websites and tracking software collect information about internet users, which is then sold to internet advertisers.  Computer programs can even “read” your emails to target ads to your screen.  Similar programs might be used to block suspicious credit card transactions based on the user’s past history. 

While the NSA is not interested in selling anything to Americans, it is presumably interested in suspicious contacts between the United States and known terrorists in other countries.  On Thursday, Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told Politico that “Within the last few years, this program was used to stop a terrorist attack in the United States.”  Rogers added, “It is a very valuable thing. It is legal.”

Rogers appears to be correct.  Both programs appear to be legal if they were implemented properly.  In 1979, the Supreme Court ruled in Smith v. Maryland that telephone users have no expectation of privacy with regard to telephone numbers dialed because telephone companies regularly track such information.  Likewise, CNET points out that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 2008 and the Protect America Act of 2007 permit intelligence gathering of internet data.  The Protect America Act is limited to people “reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States” (Section 105A) and the Section 702 of the FISA Act clarifies that U.S. citizens or people within the United States cannot be targeted. 

On Friday, President Obama defended the NSA programs, saying, “Nobody is listening to your telephone calls.” In a PBS transcript, Obama continued, “By sifting through this so-called metadata, they may identify potential leads with respect to folks who might engage in terrorism. Now, with respect to the Internet and e-mails, this doesn't apply to U.S. citizens, and it doesn't apply to people living in the United States.” 

In a separate speech on Friday, transcribed by NBC Bay Area, Obama noted that “ if people can't trust not only the executive branch but also don't trust Congress and don't trust federal judges to make sure that we’re abiding by the Constitution, due process and rule of law, then we’re going to have some problems here.”

The other scandals of the Obama Administration have worked to diminish public trust in government, however.  Even before the recent scandals, Pew showed public trust in government at all-time low levels.  The reports of systematic abuses of power against the president’s political opponents (summary on Examiner.com) and spying on reporters have only heightened the crisis of confidence in the federal government.   A June 5 Rasmussen poll showed that an unprecedented 56 percent of Americans view the federal government as a threat to individual rights.  Even normally trusted agencies such as the FBI have been implicated in the Obama Administration’s apparent suppression of conservative groups.   Even the New York Times said Thursday that “The administration has now lost all credibility on this issue. Mr. Obama is proving the truism that the executive branch will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it.”

Unlike the data mining by the NSA, the allegations against Obama Administration in the IRS and DOJ media spying scandals include the specific targeting of American citizens.  The IRS has admitted that it specifically targeted conservative groups and an investigation by McClatchy News confirmed that no liberal or nonpartisan groups received unfair treatment.  Several IRS employees have said that their scrutiny and harassment of conservative groups was directed by IRS officials in Washington according to the Associated Press.  Likewise, Attorney General Holder personally approved the warrant for surveillance of Fox News reporter James Rosen according to MSNBC.  Unlike the NSA surveillance, which was apparently a legitimate program directed at foreign terrorists, the IRS and Justice Department programs were specifically directed at Americans and apparently had political motives.

The NSA’s surveillance programs are not new.  They have been public knowledge since 2005 when the New York Times published an account of the program.  However, the programs are likely viewed with more concern by many Americans due to the recent reports of spying and abuses of power against American citizens.  If the IRS and DOJ could illegally target Americans for political purposes, many are concerned that NSA data might be used for the same reason.  

Originally published on Examiner.com

Nine myths about same-sex marriage

Same-sex marriage is once again in the news. Three weeks ago, North Carolina voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. The next day, President Obama reversed his support for traditional marriage and returned to a previously stated position that same-sex couples should be granted the right to marry. Now a decision by a federal appeals court in Boston has thrust the issue into the headlines once again.

The ruling by the First Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals found Section Three of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage in federal law as between a man and a woman, to be unconstitutional. The Court did not address Section Two, which stipulates that states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. The Court stayed its own ruling pending appeal which will almost certainly reach the Supreme Court.

There are many myths and much misinformation surrounding the same-sex marriage issue:

Myth #1: Defense of marriage laws are “gay marriage bans.”

While the media and homosexual activists often refer to these laws as “gay marriage bans,” in reality they do often do not ban anything. The laws simply create a definition of marriage according to the government. The heart of the federal DOMA simply states, “… the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.''

Similarly, the North Carolina amendment reads, “Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.”

In other words, most state laws do not prevent same-sex couples from entering into private contracts or holding private religious marriage ceremonies. Likewise, nothing prohibits private companies from offering benefits to same-sex partners of their employees. Definition of marriage laws only mean that the government will not recognize, sponsor or encourage the union of same-sex couples.

The marriage amendment to the Georgia Constitution is more ambiguous on the issue of private ceremonies. Article I Section IV Paragraph I (a) reads, “This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state.” In reality, however, Georgia does not persecute same-sex couples. Georgia would not be likely to object to a private religious ceremony and does not penalize companies who choose to offer benefits to same-sex partners.

Myth #2: Marriage laws violate the Equal Protection Clause.

In reality, rights are held by individuals, not by couples. This means that people of homosexual orientation have exactly the same marriage rights as heterosexuals. No one, not even a heterosexual, has the right to marry anyone they choose or whoever (or whatever) they happen to love.

According to USmarriagelaws.com, all 50 states have laws against bigamy, marrying more than one person at a time. All 50 states also have laws establishing a minimum age of consent to marry. In Georgia, the minimum age is 18, but 16-year-olds can marry with the consent of their parents or a judge according to Findlaw.com. Some states recognize common law marriages. Georgia is among the states that do not. Some states don’t allow cousins to marry. Georgia is among the 26 that do.

Definition of marriage laws are simply one more example of states legislating how their citizens want marriage to be treated. The laws apply equally to everyone regardless of sexual orientation.

Myth #3: The ruling will require states to recognize same-sex marriage under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Proponents of same-sex marriage argue that the Constitution requires traditional marriage states to recognize same-sex marriages performed in same-sex marriage states because the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution requires that states recognize “the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State….” In their view, this means that if a state like Massachusetts issues a marriage certificate to a same-sex couple, every other state is constitutionally required to recognize it. Section Two of the DOMA specifically states that federal law should not be interpreted this way.

In this case, the ruling by the First Circuit does not address Section Two. Subsequent lawsuits probably will. The Supreme Court could also choose to invalidate the entire DOMA when it hears this or other cases on the issue, but the question of the Full Faith and Credit Clause has not yet been addressed by the courts. In the future, Georgia might be forced by the courts to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states even though Georgia law prohibits such marriages.

Myth #4: The DOMA is inconsistent with state’s rights and federalism.

Proponents present the DOMA as a case of the federal government usurping the state power to define marriage. In reality, the DOMA defines marriage only for the federal government. Section Two of the DOMA protects state rights by stipulating that traditional marriage states cannot be forced to recognize a same-sex marriage from states that have chosen to recognize same-sex marriages. Lawsuits to mandate same-sex marriages and invalidate state definition of marriage laws usurp the will of the people and their elected representatives.

Myth #5: Only religious nuts oppose same-sex marriage.

Proponents of same-sex marriage portray supporters of traditional marriage as bigots and religious fanatics, while arguing that the U.S. is not a theocracy and that the separation of church and state prohibits the government from taking a religious view of marriage. In reality, much of the support for traditional marriage can be traced to secular arguments.

It is in the vital national interest of the state to ensure that children, the next generation of taxpayers, have a stable family unit. There is strong evidence that children need both a mother and a father. It seems that the absence of fathers is particularly damaging to children. In the book “Life Without Father,” David Popenoe noted that the absence of fathers was strongly linked to many societal ills. Sixty percent of rapists come from fatherless homes, as do 72 percent of young murderers and 70 percent of long-term prison inmates. When viewed in these terms, there is a compelling government interest to encourage marriage relationships between men and women as a stable unit for childrearing. The burden of proof should be on those who seek to overturn thousands of years of history, tradition, and law that point to both a mother and a father as the best unit for raising children.

Even though not all heterosexual couples bear children, the potential is always there. Even couples who cannot have or do not want to have children have the biological possibility of procreating, whether purposely or by accident. Additionally, the same need for a stable, nurturing family unit with parents of both genders applies to adopted children as well.

Further, there is the argument that recognizing same-sex marriages would be expensive for cash-strapped governments. The First Circuit ruling estimates that more than 100,000 couples are affected by the federal DOMA. Recognizing these marriages would generate untold billions of dollars of costs that were not planned for by government actuaries. Likewise, extending marriage tax credits to same-sex couples would mean millions or billions in lost tax revenues. With governments already paying out more in benefits than they take in, they simply cannot afford to pay out more in benefits.

Other rights that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution have limitations as well. The First Amendment does not permit a person to yell “fire” in a crowded theater or protect a slanderer. The Second Amendment does not mean that a person can manufacture pipe bombs in their home and permits states and cities to enact reasonable regulations on guns.

If marriage is merely a statement of love without a societal consequence, then why limit it to only two people? Why not allow polygamy as well? Why limit it to people at all? Recent news stories have detailed how different women have shown their love by marrying the Eiffel Tower, the Berlin Wall, a dog, and a dolphin, One woman even married herself.

Myth #6: Definition of marriage laws are similar to interracial marriage bans.

Same-sex marriage proponents point to older state laws against interracial marriage as a similarly unjust regulation. In reality, interracial marriage was very different from same-sex marriage. Where same-sex couples are biologically incompatible and infertile, interracial couples were of the male and female genders and created a fertile couple.

Bans on interracial marriage did violate the Equal Protection Clause because they treated people differently based on race. Under these laws, two men, one black and the other white, did not have an equal chance to marry a given woman. Definition of marriage laws are different in that they hold that the state will not recognize the marriage of any person to any other person of the same gender, treating everyone equally.

Myth #7: Same-sex couples need marriage so they can visit in the hospital.

The need to be able to visit partners in the hospital has long been a justification for same-sex marriage, but Nancy Polikoff, an American University law professor and gay rights activist, wrote as far back as 2008 that, “Hospital accreditation standards include those who play a significant role in a patient's life, even if not legally related, within the definition of family. Neither gay nor straight couples should have to marry to visit each other in the hospital.”

Myth #8: Same-sex marriage is growing in acceptance.

There is some polling support for this idea, but it is far from proven. For example, polls in North Carolina seemed to indicate that the marriage amendment there might be defeated or that the vote would be close. In reality, the amendment passed by a margin of more than 20 percent.

One theory is that people are not being honest with pollsters because of the heavy-handed rhetoric used by the media and the left on the issue. For whatever reason, a majority of voters has never endorsed same-sex marriage, even in blue states like California and Oregon. In most cases, when the issue went to the voters it wasn’t even close. Georgia’s marriage amendment passed with 76 percent in favor according to CNN. To date, 38 states do not recognize same-sex marriage. Only 12 do.

Myth #9: Conservatives are using same-sex marriage as a wedge issue and attempting to force their morality on others.

The reality is that no conservative wants to spend this election season talking about same-sex marriage. The central issue to the 2012 election is the economy and whether President Obama’s handling of it merits extending his contract for another four years.

When same-sex marriage is in the news, most often it is because the left has made it an issue. As the ruling itself notes, the federal DOMA was a response to a 1993 Hawaii Supreme Court decision in a lawsuit filed by homosexual activists. Hawaii’s legislature then defined marriage in 1994 and Congress passed the DOMA, introduced by Georgia congressman Bob Barr, with broad bipartisan support in 1996. President Bill Clinton signed the DOMA into law. When judges in Massachusetts ruled in 2003 that the state could not deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples, other states started enacting defense of marriage laws to prevent judicial activists from issuing edicts redefining their own marriage laws.

In reality, as Ryan Anderson wrote in National Review, the question is not whether same-sex couples will be allowed to express their love for each other; “the question is whether the rest of society will have the freedom to choose which type of relationship to honor as marriage” and whether a minority can force their view of morality on the nation at large.

 

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/nine-myths-about-the-same-sex-marriage-debate

Democratic politicians desert Obama

In what may be the first of many similar stories this election year, a Democratic governor and U.S. senator have announced that they will not endorse President Barack Obama for re-election. In an Associated Press report this week, West Virginia Governor Earl Ray Tomblin and Senator Joe Manchin both decline to support the president due to his energy policies. Manchin announced his decision not to endorse Obama last month.

Tomblin told the AP, “President Obama has apparently made it his mission to drive the backbone of West Virginia's economy, coal and the energy industry, out of business. That will not only hurt thousands of West Virginia families, it will destroy the economic fabric of our state."

Neither Tomblin nor Manchin said that they would support Republican Mitt Romney against Obama. Tomblin criticized Romney for “supporting policies that will end Medicare and Social Security as we know it,” a reference to the Republican budget plan crafted by Rep. Paul Ryan that would reform Medicare, which is rapidly approaching insolvency.

There are indications that other Democrats are deserting the president as well. In many campaign stops prior to the 2010 elections and since, Democratic politicians have been conspicuously absent from Obama’s visits. When President Obama visited Atlanta in August 2010, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Roy Barnes was a hundred miles away in Monroe County near Macon according to 11 Alive. Few Democratic politicians have opposed the president as overtly as Tomblin and Manchin, although Rep. Jim Marshall (Ga. – 8), who lost to Republican Austin Scott in 2010, was singled out as one of the “top ten Democrats opposing Obama” by Newsmax.com.

Many Democrats are opposed to the president’s policies. A report and video of interviews with protesters at Occupy Wall Street on May Day by the Washington Free Beacon revealed that many members of the left feel betrayed and angry by the president’s foreign policy, saying that little has changed since President Bush left office. Others are unhappy with what they see as the president’s assault on civil liberties. President Obama’s corporate bailouts have also earned him the ire of some in the Democratic base.

Anecdotal data indicates that some disaffected Democrats are crossing party lines to support Ron Paul. A number of groups such as Democrats for Ron Paul and the Blue Republicans are comprised of Democrats who have dumped the president for Ron Paul’s anti-war, anti-bailout philosophy. At Occupy Atlanta last year, more protesters told Examiner.com that they supported Ron Paul than President Obama.

Natural News listed ten reasons why “Democrats, liberals and progressives are choosing Ron Paul over Obama.” The list ranges from his support for legal marijuana and opposition to war to Paul’s desire to end the Federal Reserve and stop the bailouts of “wealthy banksters [sic].” The article also cites the belief that Obama will use the NDAA to put Americans “in secret military prisons, interrogate them and even kill them with no due process.” The ACLU agrees that Ron Paul is more progressive than Obama on a host of civil liberties and anti-war issues.

The Democratic opposition to Obama is reflected in an April 2012 CBS News poll. Thirteen percent of Democrats disapproved of the president’s job performance and more than a third of Democrats believed that the country was headed in the wrong direction. In comparison, in a February 2009 CBS poll, “nearly all” Democrats approved of the president. According to New Hampshire’s official Democratic primary results, Ron Paul finished second behind Barack Obama with almost five percent of the vote.

Although many of the Democrats who are dissatisfied with Obama will vote for him anyway, if even a small number write in Ron Paul or vote for Ron Paul on a third party ticket, it could be enough to cost Obama several important swing states. In the absence of a Ron Paul candidacy, many Democrats might simply stay home rather than go to the polls for Obama. With the election in a statistical dead heat, even a small number of disaffected voters could sway the outcome.

 

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/democratic-governor-and-senator-refuse-to-endorse-obama

Democrats may be behind Ron Paul’s success

Ron Paul’s surprisingly strong showing in the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary is likely due to several factors. One of those factors may be Democrats crossing party lines to vote for him in the primary.

There is some statistical support for this notion from the exit polls in New Hampshire. New Hampshire is an open primary state which allows voters unaffiliated with a party to vote in either primary. Voters could also change their affiliation several months before the primary date in order to vote in the other party’s primary.

One way to tell would be to compare the number of registered Democrats and Republicans in 2008 and 2012. However, a comparison of registered voters, either total or by party, between 2008 and 2012 would be skewed because New Hampshire purged its voter rolls of more than 97,000 voters between the two elections. This is a decline in total voters of about 11 percent.

The Boston Globe reports that the number of registered Republicans actually voting in the N.H. primary was down from 2008 and 2010, even though the number of total voters increased in 2012. According to the Globe, there were 249,655 votes cast with “around 152,000” votes cast by registered Republicans. However, the N.Y. Times elections results show a total of 248,485 votes cast for Republican candidates. This means that around 96,000 votes in the Republican primary were cast by independent or unaffiliated voters for Republican candidates. This is almost 40 percent of the total. Former Democrats might well choose to become independent rather than registering as Republican.

New York Times exit polls from New Hampshire seem back up the hypotheses that many of Ron Paul’s votes came from people that typically would not vote Republican. Jon Huntsman won the most votes from self-described Democrats (40 percent), but Ron Paul won the most independents (31 percent). Paul also won younger voters (46 percent) and lower income voters (31 percent). Paul also took 47 percent of the voters who claim no religious affiliation. These categories of voters typically lean Democrat.

CNN exit polls from Iowa show similar findings. Paul won handily among young and low income voters. He also won 40 percent of moderate and liberal voters. Iowa does not allow Democrats to caucus with Republicans, but Paul won the most independents (43 percent).

There are several possible reasons for Paul’s strong showing among Democratic cohorts. One possibility is that dissatisfaction with President Obama is driving Democrats out of their party. This theory is borne out by a Gallup poll from 2011 that shows identification with the Democratic Party is trending down.

If Democrats left their party to support a Republican, Ron Paul would be a logical choice. According to the ACLU, Ron Paul is more “progressive” than President Obama on a host of civil liberties and anti-war issues. There is even a website, BlueRepublican.org, dedicated to “joining the Republican party for one year to help Ron Paul.”

Similarly, Paul may be benefitting from an influx of Occupy Wall Street voters and campus radicals who are unhappy with Obama. Last summer, several of the Occupy Atlanta members reported that they were considering Ron Paul. Other reports throughout the OWS movement revealed anger at Obama for his support of corporate bailouts and his failure to swiftly end the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.

Another possibility is that Democrats are crossing party lines to sabotage the Republicans. With President Obama running unopposed in the Democratic primary, there is little incentive for Democrats to go to the polls on his behalf. Democrats might be tempted to vote for the Republican least likely to win the general election. Ron Paul would likely meet these criteria, with a number of fringe positions and extremist followers.

As the Republican race continues, more will be learned about Ron Paul’s surge. If Democratic voters are turning out to vote for him in large numbers, he will likely do well in the states with open Republican primaries. Many of these voters will ultimately vote for President Obama or a third party candidate in the general election when Paul fails to become the GOP candidate.

 

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/elections-2012-in-atlanta/democrats-may-be-behind-ron-paul-s-suprising-success