The place: Los Angeles, a city that has a population of 3.7 million and is located in a metro area that has nearly 13 million people.

The time: Middle of the afternoon on a cloudless Saturday.

The event: A protest march by Occupy LA to the downtown financial district.

Number of protestors: According to the LA Times, "several hundred."

What? A protest march held in a city of millions and the best they can do on a Saturday afternoon is get "several hundred" protestors? Where's the "99%?"

And what about that Washington, D.C. protest march last night to the convention center where "hundreds" of marchers tried to block entrance to a conservative conference? A bastion of liberalism and a hot bed of Occupy support can't get more than a couple of hundred protestors to march against evil Republicans?

The only time these marches have any numbers at all is when organized labor is involved. Even then, the Occupy Oakland march had less than 5,000 on Thursday with less than 3,000 actually making it to the port - most of them bused to the demonstration by unions. This after the mayor gave the "general strike" her blessing and unions announced their full support. There was massive coverage before the march in the local press with promises from organizers that "tens of thousands" would show up. Phooey!

The actual encampments - including the supposed epicenter in New York - of Occupy groups are small, pitiful places whose numbers are exaggerated by the homeless, the derlicts, and drug dealers.

Meanwhile, the press continues the fiction that this is a "growing" movement - an irrestistable tide that will sweep the tea party aside and impact the election in 2012.

Balderdash!