How Innocent Is the Innocence Project?

You know how sometimes things just really don't pass the smell test? You can't prove your hunches, but things just don't add up, too many coincidences, too many impossible-to-beleive things. Tonight the TV series "Dateline" miked for all it was worth the "sad" story of Ryan Ferguson who was convicted of murder when his accomplice testified against him at his trial. Well, of course, to the rescue, a lawyer shows up who specializes in helping convicted criminals get off. They made a big point of saying this lawyer took the case pro bono. There have been many of these cases lately..... too many. Here's the part that just doesn't pass the smell test. An irrational number of them have succeeded in getting really bad people exonerated. The Innocence Project's own web site puts the number at more than 300 since they started their business in 1992. An astounding number, given the biases that already are built into our systems to prevent truly innocent people from getting convicted in the first place. Yet in spite of those measures, these public-spirited lawyers would have us believe that the judges, juries, prosecutors, and all others involved in the original trials got it completely wrong. Sorry, doesn't pass the smell test.

Nobody is saying that law enforcement officials never make mistakes, but far too many have been overturned since the "Innocence Project" started snooping into old, settled cases and getting them reversed by casting doubt on DNA evidence. Many times, the witnesses who testified at the original trials are no longer available, or are now sympathetic to the convict since they "have served enough time." Maybe the biggest factor in these pro bono cases is money. How can money play a role if the cases are taken by the lawyers without requiring a fee? They simply sue the pants off the municipalities, courts, police departments (read tax payers) and anyone else they can think off. Of course the lawyers take a large cut from the proceeds of the lawsuits they win. They are hardly dispassionate, heroic onlookers who are just trying to right wrongs. They're in it for the money. Millions and millions of taxpayer dollars.

Fortunately, the judge in the Ryan Ferguson case wasn't buying the "recanted" testimony of the star witness and Ferguson's conviction was upheld. Of course, the lawyers trying to get him off and reap a huge windfall from so doing, are going to appeal. Here's hoping they fail, and fail again and wind up losing money for their efforts.

Will We Ever Know What Really Happened in Boston?

This whole episode is starting to remind us all of the murders in our consulate in Benghazi. We have yet to get a clear, blow-by-blow, narrative of what happened, both in Benghazi, and in Washington, that is devoid of all political cover-ups and bias. It is clear that, for political reasons, the complete and exact retelling will never be forthcoming. The Obama administration cannot allow the extent of their incompetence to be revealed. They cannot allow the obvious truth to be told that they were unprepared and unable to protect, defend and/or rescue their assets in Lybia

It's starting to look like the same thing will happen with the Boston bombing. We don't seem to be able to get a cogent, complete story. There are widely circulating speculations that the bombers were two innocent college students who just looked up on-line how to build "pressure cooker" bombs, and without any help, or even practice, managed to penetrate the extensive security which undoubtedly surrounded the Boston Marathon, plant and detonate both bombs within seconds of placing them. The story is: they acted alone, had no connection or help from any outside terrorist group, and did it all because they didn't like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that they managed to out-gun and elude several hundred policemen with one single 9mm pistol. This does not pass the smell test.

It is high time for some news organization to paint the unvarnished truth. We know Obama would like everybody to think that the Islamic Terrorists don't exist. He wants us to think that when Osama died, so died the threat of terrorism in the US. He wants us to forget about the many other Islam related terrorist attacks that have occurred on his watch. We just can't allow his political agenda to rule our information media any longer. It's high time to come clean with the American people. Our lives really do depend on it.

Playground Rules When Playing with Obama

Republicans are in an impossible position: Anything they propose to fix the so-called Fiscal Cliff will be excoriated by the press, lambasted by the Democrats and generally made fun of. It is the heights of folly to keep tilting against this windmill. They can't win. It's not in the cards.

The only logical solution would be for Republicans to keep putting forth principled solutions right up until the last moment, with tax and spending cuts which really are sorely needed. The press, Democrats, etc. will deride them all. OK, so be it. They should still stick to their principles even with no hope of passing anything. They should never cave in to any ideas Obama puts forward that don't contain real tax cuts and real spending cuts which go into effect now, and not in some nebulous future date.

The final act of this drama will no doubt be that the Democrats in the senate and in the house will put forth a bill, which will undoubtedly be bad for this country containing massive tax increases and spending increases which is exactly the wrong thing to do when the economy is weak. The Republicans in the house and senate should just let it pass without a single Republican vote. In the house they should just vote "present" and let the Democrats stew in their own mess. Then, when the economy completely collapses, maybe America will come to its senses and elect enough Republicans in 2014 to undo the mess the Democrats created. It appears to be the only rational course of action in this "through the looking glass" world. (The press would probably still blame G W Bush. Some things never change.)

The Shaming of the True

Much was made by the left wing media over Mitt Romney's supposed gaffe when he told a group of fund-raisers, in a private meeting, that 47% of Americans were likely to support Mr. Obama because they are beneficiaries of government largesse. While his statement was true, (in fact it probably understated the reality of how many Americans get government benefits) it was nevertheless panned by Obama supporters as proof Romney was "out of touch" with reality. In fact it was just the opposite. It was proof positive that Romney had a clear-eyed grasp of the truth, even in those early days of his campaign, and that, even then, he knew that he was facing the soul-searing, mind-numbing, next to impossible reality that he had to convince at least 51% of the voters that continuing runaway government spending could not continue even if some of them may be getting government money. In other words, Romney told the truth, and was punished, shamed and ridiculed for it. The election results make it appear that he failed to convince the 51% of voters, or do they? On closer examination, reality may be something entirely different. Voter fraud could have played the key roll in Obama's unlikely triumph.

How is it that those who are willing to point out obvious truths can be made to feel guilty for pointing them out? How can it be that society has been so corrupted that those who support self-reliance, frugality, prudence, clean-living and honest dealing can be held up to public ridicule? It is as though we have, as a society, entered that looking-glass world where "impossible to believe" things must simply be accepted, and to not accept them puts you at risk of symbolically having your head lopped off. When did we come to the point that you will be shamed and suppressed if you tell the truth?

Speaking of impossible to believe things, the improbable increase in turnout in the very voter-districts where Obama was most supported is a pip. What objective person can rationally think that only those super-patriotic voters who live in the most blue sections of Miami, Philadelphia, and Cleveland were somehow motivated to show up in record numbers, often approaching and reaching 100% or more of all eligible voters who live in those districts? Sorry, this doesn't wash, even in this Alice fairy tale world. There is no rational way to explain this. Voter turn-out was down pretty much all over the United States, except in the relatively few crucial Obama-supporting areas where, in spite of high unemployment, out of control deficits, and laughable foreign policy, those highly civic-minded citizens turned out like never before to vote to return Obama to the White House. Ridiculous!

The hardest reality we, as a nation, must face at this point includes the apparently utter futility of pursuing the truth about this election. At this point in our descent to societal oblivion, even if incontrovertible evidence from multiple unimpeachable sources were brought forward that proved, without a doubt,that Obama won reelection due to outright fraud, you wouldn't be able to correct this injustice. Obama would remain president is spite of it. The press would ignore and do everything in their power to suppress and ridicule your proof. You wouldn't be able to find a single judge or court who had the courage to risk the outrage this course of events would undoubtedly produce in the very 47% of Americans Mr. Romney was referencing in his remarks to his backers not so long ago. We all would be cowed into submission. This is the sad reality of America today. We have reached point where we are willing to call evil good, and good evil, up is down, down is up, green is purple, orange is green. We've arrived behind the looking glass (and it is an evil place) and it appears doubtful we'll ever find our way back.

Not Passing The Smell Test

The improbable election of Barak Obama to a 2nd term in spite of the terrible economy, obvious foreign policy blunders, and general incompetence of his administration smacks of outright fraud. No president has ever been reelected in our entire previous history with all the terrible economic numbers and general presidential malpractice Mr. Obama has demonstrated. So how did it happen? Fraud, pure and simple.

A few numbers to illustrate the point: 24 states currently do not require any form of ID to vote. Mr. Obama won 17 of these. The only reason a state would allow persons to vote without identifying themselves is to allow voter fraud. There is no other plausible reason. This practice invariably benefits the Democrat party. Therefore it is no surprise that the Democrats dominate the state legislatures in the states that do not require any form of voter ID.

How do they do it? One might think fraud on such a grand scale would be impossible to carry out, but if you break it down, it doesn't have to be on a broad scale at all. If you review the county by county map of the 2012 election, you'll note that Mr. Obama doesn't cary the vast majority of all the counties in the United States. In fact, he only needs to cary a few key counties is the "swing" states such as Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio to win the election. If he can win the counties in the major cities in those states, he wins.... every time. So the goal is to cary those counties by a large enough margin to offset the results in all the other counties. Since all of those cities are dominated by Mr. Obama's natural support demographic: unions, minorities and welfare recipients, it only takes a little extra effort to garner just enough votes. This is done by canvassing the neighborhoods to get lists of voters who are not likely to show up, and then have others vote for them, having dead persons left on the voter rolls for years after they die and just plain faking votes. Early voting also gives ample time for them to manufacture the results they want. Illegal aliens voting and felons casting ballots also makes up a portion of the needed fraudulent margin. This accounts for the voting districts in Philadelphia where over 100% of voters have voted and where more votes have been cast than the number of persons who are living in the district. This also happened in Florida among other states.

At this point, it seems like a long shot that our democratic republic will long endure. Voter fraud is most likely the quickest way to destroy the fabric of our society and nation. If we can't trust the vote to be honest and above-board, what can we trust? It is sad really that there are enough political hacks, union organizers and community activists out there who lack the character to refuse to participate in what is obvious fraud. Any gains they think they are getting by this nefarious activity will be short-lived, and when the country's economy collapses, as it surely must, they will be the ones who are screaming the loudest, and shamefully blaming others. Count on it.

Beware The Lawyers

Write this down:

If the election is at all close in any of the "battleground" states, and Romney comes out on top, the Democrat lawyers will file a lawsuit to block the results. They will then go to work to invent enough votes to cancel out the Romney victory and prop up their candidate. Since the Democrats "own" the judges, they could easily prevail in court. They have already demonstrated their proclivity to do exactly that in the senate race in Minnesota and the govenor's race in Washington. The also tried the same stategy in Florida in 2000.

The only way to prevent this is for Romney's margin to be so large that even to most corrupt among them won't dare to try such a stunt. Make it close, and they'll steal it. Count on it.

Obama's Shameful Libya Mess

Obama is a law school graduate. He knows, or should know that, as commander and chief, he knew, or should have known, about the terrorist attack that killed four Americans including our ambassador.

It is clearly obvious that he is lying about not knowing what was going on. His pathetic protestations of ignorance about what happened that night are no defense at all for his incompetence.

If he did know, and then did nothing to help those who were clearly in harm's way and at obvious risk for the loss of their lives, that alone is ample grounds for impeachment. Protecting our citizens from attacks is job one.

If he didn't know, that fact, by itself is a clear, compelling reason that he should be removed from his office on November 6th. We can't have a president so clueless as to border on imbecility. The choice for November 6th couldn't be clearer!

Obama's Debate Feint

Boxers know well the tactic of setting up their opponents with feints. If they can get them to try to counter a false move, it might open them up for a roundhouse punch that could knock them out and thus win the fight. Obama was already on the ropes when he came up with his attempt to take out his opponent with one big punch. The tactic failed.

Shortly after the topic of Libya came up Obama said: "The day after the attack, Governor, I stood in the Rose Garden, and I told the American people and the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened, that this was an act of terror".(He actually said "acts of terror," but the difference is slight.) Romney, then incredulous, questioned if he had in fact used those words. As it turned out, he had. And the left has been trying ever since to make this one blip into a great victory for Obama. Only one problem: Obama, after the Rose Garden speech, never used the words "terrorist attack" again. He doggedly avoided these terms to label the event, even when pressed to do so. Why? What would have been so bad if the president had admitted what every thinking person already knew? They were terrorists attacks. Why not just admit it? But he and his minions didn't. They went out of their way to tell a false story about video outrage.

While it is impossible to know for sure what the person who wrote this Rose Garden speech for the president really had in mind, the case can be made that he was referring to the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers that occurred in 2001 when he said acts of terror. He had been talking about those attacks just before. Obama's subsequent repeated statements give much credence to this opinion since after this Rose Garden speech, Obama and his surrogates universally referred to the Libya attacks as a spontaneous reaction of outrage engendered by a Youtube video. Obama himself referred to this video in the context of causing the embassy attack no fewer that 5 times at the United Nations. Ms Rice, his surrogate, went on several TV talk shows that Sunday and reiterated the administration's view that this murder was the result of a rag-tag group of demonstrators being upset by an obscure video and its portrayal of Mohamed. It wasn't until about two weeks later, when the evidence was insurmountable that the terrorist attack had nothing to do with a video, but rather was an organized, well-calculated and well-planned attack involving rocket-propelled grenades and mortars. At this point the Obama administration was finally forced to admit that it wasn't a spontaneous demonstration about a video but was in fact a terrorist attack.

But the question remains as to why the president first used the words "acts of terror" and then obstinately refused to characterize the attacks as terrorist attacks? What was to be gained by refusing to use the term "terrorist attack" to describe the murder of our ambassador and three other americans on American Soil? The Obama crowd were all-to-ready to label Mr. Romney's response to these same events as "politicizing" the death of Americans. Mr. Romney's well-reasoned, and presidential statement about these events was, in fact, a heart-felt effort to reach out to the families, followed by an understandable denunciation of the Embassy in Egypt apologizing to the terrorists for our national tradition of allowing our citizens to make videos, even when they might be offensive to some.... it's called free speech.

The fact is, Obama refused to admit this was a terrorist attack, and perpetuated the lie about the video for one reason and one reason only: politics. One can imagine the chagrin his handlers must have endured when they heard him utter the words "acts of terror" in the Rose Garden. They must have admonished him to never say those words again. The thinking must have gone along these lines: "We can't admit we have been attacked by terrorists. We have spent millions carefully cultivating the image that, due to your great leadership, you have throttled Al Qaeda, and killed Osama. We need the American people to think you are invincible and we are not susceptible to any terrorist attacks." Talk about politicizing the event! This is the king of politicizing! And the same people who encouraged the president to steadfastly hold on to his lie about the video accused Romney of playing politics with the terrorist attacks! Romney said what Obama should have said, and he said it first. It is sad really.

Of course Obama won't be able do duck Mr. Romney's recitation of his and his spokespersons's repeated parroting of their outrageous lie at every turn when they meet again next Monday. You almost have to feel sad for Obama. He can't hide from the path he has chosen.

One Down, Two to Go

Obama's performance last night was so poor even his surrogates in the media couldn't save him. They didn't dare even try for fear of sounding absolutely ridiculous. He was terrible. Rest assured that if Obama improves his performance, even if ever so slightly in the next two debates, the left-wing news media will declare Obama the new Phoenix come back from the ashes.

Romney, for his part, needs to do whatever it takes to cement his image as a principled conservative executive who has what it takes to undo the titanic mess the hopefully soon-to-be-replaced president has created.

One of the commentators made the point that Mr. Romney appeared to be a teacher in the debate and Mr. Obama a callow student. A more apt metaphor might be Romney as CEO, Obama as a Jr. Executive called on the carpet to be fired for committing too many blunders and breaking too many promises. Romney was explaining to the failed Jr. that he can no longer tolerate the faux pas since they threaten to bring down the whole enterprise. "Mr. Obama, you record as an executive is abominable. You have not kept any of the promises you made when you were promoted. You have recklessly spent scarce resources and amassed a unacceptable debt, with no positive results. You have created a negative atmosphere for all concerned. You have taken too many vacations when you should have stayed at your desk.... and YOU'RE FIRED!

A Debate Forecast

Republicans never seem to learn that they can't trust the leftist media. It boggles the mind how naive they are about it: The leftists at NBC, ABC, CBS, NPR and yes Fox will always cover for Obama no matter what and they will always attack Mr. Romney no matter what. For that reason, no matter what is said during the upcoming debate, Obama wins. The press will see to it.

Several questions need to be asked. 1. First why did the Republican National Committee agree to have the leftists control all three debates? Why did they allow them to pick the moderators, forums, topics? Didn't they know they would be biased in favor of Obama? 2. Why bother to have Mr. Romney show up at the debate at all when it is a foregone conclusion that Mr. Obama, after the press declares it so for about a 24 hour news cycle, will be the winner. This will be proclaimed by all the non-partisan commentators such former Clinton operative George Stephanopoulos who has proclaimed the democrat the winner of almost every debate in the history of debates. 3. Instead of forcing Mr. Romney to appear at an unfair, and impossible-to-win debate, why doesn't the RNC just buy several half-hour blocks of TV time to allow Romney to address the American people directly. This would allow him to make his points without the leftists being able to interrupt and attempt to get him flustered.

It's a no-win situation. Why not just skip it?