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?

Conservatives Need to Close Ranks with Romney

OK. I know a lot of hard-core conservatives don't really consider Mitt Romney to be their absolute first choice. I know they are upset by some of the positions he has taken in the past. I know they are not sure he is as "committed" a conservative as they are, but at this point, with less than forty days until the general election, the time has come to cease and desist with their carping and criticizing. Romney is the most conservative candidate they have, period. He is way more conservative than Obama and by continuing to criticize everything he does, they are helping to re-elect Obama. Is that what they want?

It's bad enough that there are plenty of "faux" conservatives such as Peggy Noonan and Bill Kristol screaming about "gaffes" Romney has supposedly made, such as the entirely truthful statement that 47+ percent of Americans are not paying taxes and are beholden to the federal government to some extent, and are thus likely to support Obama. Or the equally truthful, and very presidential response to the outrageous murder of our diplomats in Lybia. Why was this a "gaffe?" He merely said what Obama should have said at the time. The fact that Obama lied about the whole incident for over a week and failed even to condemn the event for a day or two speaks volumes about Obama's lack of foreign policy acumen. This was a positive moment for Romney, not a gaffe.

Yet we are bombarded by so-called conservative radio talk-show hosts saying: "Romney should say this, or he should take that position...." while ticking off some pet issues. My question is how do they know what Romney has said about these issues? The news media refuses to run any clips of Romney's stump speech unless they think there is some "gaffe" they can point out and exploit. I have heard Mr. Romney talk about and support some of the very things these talk show hosts are criticizing him about, but apparently the talk show hosts don't even know what his positions truly are. It's not Mitt Romney's fault that the liberal, Obama-supporting news media refuses to report what Mr. Romney has said. What good does speaking negatively do at this point? They are just giving ammunition to the left. Is that what they are trying to do? If so, get ready for another Obama administration and the ruination of our country. There will be legions of "reporters" who will miss no opportunity to criticize everything Mr. Romney says. They don't need any help. If you listen to a Romney stump speech, he takes many principled stances on many of the very conservative issues the talk show hosts are yakking about. Ronald Reagan had a simple 11th commandment that should apply at this point: Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican. So-called conservative talk show hosts should bear that in mind.

What About Bill Maher?

In spite of no evidence, our left-wing, Obama supporting media is reciting over and over that the reason the Muslims are attacking our embassies is due to their "outrage" over an obscure Youtube video which virtually nobody has seen. What proof do they have that any of these terrorists have seen this movie?

Bill Maher is a big Obama supporter having donated millions of dollars to him. Bill Maher openly mocks Muslims is his movie Religulous and we certainly haven't seen Mrs Clinton decrying that as a cause for terrorists attacks? I guess it only causes the terrorists to attack our embassies if the maker of the film is conservative?

Fed Doing Another Obama Stimulus

In another desperate effort to prop up the Obama administration, the Federal Reserve announced they plan to print a ton of money. They don't seem to understand that it is impossible to borrow yourself rich. Obama must be defeated or we will all perish in poverty. Support Romney.

Isaac Could Blow Away Convention Coverage

The left-wing media is looking for a way to minimize coverage. Tropical storm Isaac may just give them the vehicle they are seeking. If the storm hits anywhere within one hundred miles of New Orleans, they will completely ignore the Republican convention, which they would dearly love to do anyway, and we will be treated to hour after hour of footage of wind-blown reporters jawing on endlessly about the imminent threat to the poor people of New Orleans,who, after all, are just barely recovering from the Bush-caused disaster called Katrina. Unfortunately this is looking more and more like the perfect storm to give the leftists an excuse to avoid the Republican convention completely.

Fox Radio New: Fair and Balanced?

The much ballyhooed slogan that Fox Radio News is fair and balanced is bogus, and the assertion by the left that Fox Radio News is biased in favor of conservatives is even more bogus. Just today, another example of liberal bias was presented several times on the hourly news by Fox Radio News.

The report led with several positive clips featuring Barak Obama himself bashing Romney for wanting to deprive women of their health care. (Which is an absurd gratuitous assertion, not based in fact.) No evidence or support was provided but the reporter just let it go uncommented. This was followed by a reporter saying Romney was campaigning in New York, but apparently Fox was unable to get a sound clip from Romney for some reason because his voice was never heard. In fact, you will almost never hear Mr. Romney's actual voice, unless the reporter thinks his comments will cast him in a negative light. This is typical for all news media. If Romney is covered at all by the mainstream media, including Fox News, it is to try and demean him.

They then went on to assert that the Romney campaign was upset by the latest Obama ad suggesting that Romney was responsible for the death of a cancer victim. They didn't say why. They didn't report any facts to back up the questionable assertions the ad makes. The didn't quote from the numerous "fact checkers" who have already called this ad "despicable lies." They didn't do any actual reporting at all! Fox Radio News: Fair and Balanced? Hardly

George Zimmerman, Sacrificial Lamb

It has become increasingly clear lately that George Zimmerman is likely to become a sacrificial lamb. The Florida prosecutors who have charged him with 2nd degree murder, in spite of much evidence that he acted in self defense when he shot Trayvon Martin apparently fear any verdict short of guilty as charged. They fear the kind of racial threats and intimidation that became evident when the Reverend Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson weighed in before much of the evidence was published. They flatly said Zimmerman was guilty of murder and should be prosecuted. To date they have not modified that conclusion. They also fear the New Black Panther party who have put a bounty on Zimmerman and have called for him to be lynched if found. Left-wing news organizations even doctored the 911 call to make it appear as though Zimmerman had been profiling and stocking Martin. For weeks, Zimmerman's side of the story was not published by anybody.

Will the Florida prosecutors prevail with the court and get their Kangaroo Court conviction? If I were George Zimmerman, I wouldn't count on a fair outcome. Politicians have shown a complete lack of courage in situations like this since the infamous Rodney King riots. The threat of similar riots in the Zimmerman matter will put great pressure on courts and juries to come back with a "correct" verdict.

Zimmerman may be guilty of poor judgment when he ignored the 911 dispatcher's instructions to break off his watch and remain in his car, but he certainly doesn't appear to have been doing anything criminal when he walked along a public sidewalk as was apparently attacked by Martin, whom he had lost track of. After Martin allegedly cold cocked him and then sat on his chest and pounded his head on the concrete, he appears to have been well within the Florida law when he was finally able to get his "legally registered" gun out and shoot his attacker from less than 18 inches. In spite of this, he is very unlikely to get justice in this racial climate. Prepare the sacrifice.

The Death of American Heath Care

This Sunday American health care as we knew it died. Another chunk of America's freedom died with it. The finest health care system in the world was killed by greedy politicians, who in an astonishing fit of political pique, passed a socialized medicine bill in spite of the overwhelming evidence that the American people didn't want it. They passed it having never read the bill. They passed on the basis of bald-faced lies about how it can be done without raising taxes (Ha), by cutting out waste, fraud and abuse (Ha Ha), and by cutting what doctors and hospitals can earn. (Ha, Ha, Ha) Their principal lie was the whopper about 30 million Americans without any access to health care. That is a lie of stupendous proportions. Just check any emergency room in any hospital in America and you'll see these "uninsured" Americans, including illegal aliens, getting all the health care they want, for free. None can be turned away. It's the law. Nonetheless, Obama and his minions steamrollered this monstrosity on all of us in the name of helping these "uninsured" victims who were already covered.

This was never about providing health care. It won't, except very inefficiently. It was never about covering the uninsured. They were all already covered for all practical purposes. What was it about then? It was, and is, all about power. The more power the leftists can wield, the better they like it. And now they have complete control of one sixth of the American economy. And they would like to control 100% of the American economy. They will continue to jam the next batch of destructive bills such as "cap and trade" down our collective throats unless and until we put a stop to it. How? By making sure they lose control of congress this fall. It is that simple. And it is essential at this point.

Tonight many states held the party political caucuses. Here's hoping the next generation of no-nonsensence politicians were nominated and are on their way to replacing the embarrassing gang that killed health care in this country. Our nation's survival depends on it.

Deja Vu All Over Again?

As the special election in Massachusetts nears, one can't help getting the sick feeling that we've already seen the outcome which, if the Republican doesn't get at least 10 percent more than the Democrat, is foreordained: The Democrat will win. Oh, it might take a recount and several court interventions, but in a close election, they will "find" the votes to make the Democrat the winner. They always have.

There are many examples of this over the years, the most recent being in Minnesota where the comedian Democrat eked out a controversial "victory" after the votes we all in and "counted" and where he at first had lost, then additional votes were "found." A similar outcome happened in the Washington gubernatorial election just a few years ago. There it looked as though the Republican had won, but hold the phone, after a suspicious recount and court intervention, surprise, surprise, ---the Democrat won. A few cycles ago the same thing happened in South Dakota where the "Indian reservation" vote mysteriously was delayed until democrat election officials knew just how many more votes they needed to elect their man and, shock of all shocks, they found just enough. In state after state, election after election, all the close wins have gone to the Democrats. One would be very hard pressed to find a single senatorial or gubernatorial election where a republican has won by less than five percent. In those cases even the most "progressive" Democrat election officials didn't feel confident enough to "find" that many.

How can this be explained? There have been many articles and books published on this subject. They detail the dead voters, bussed-in voters, ballot box stuffing, ballot spoiling, and many other techniques these enlightened progressives use to impose their will on all of us. They also cite numerous statistical experts to point out the absurdly low probability that all close election would go the the Democrats. They also point out that the Democrats get a great advantage if they can get an election into the court system since they have "owned" most of the judges for years. But this doesn't explain why Republicans continue to accept these tainted results. There really is no good answer to that question other than Republicans tend to be too polite to engage in the barroom brawl tactics needed when you are grappling with election thieves. Somehow the republicans don't have the stomach for such fights and simply step aside, conceding even though they know the election was stolen. This only emboldens the vote stealers for the next cycle. Massachusetts will likely provide the next opportunity to see if the party has grown a spine or if we will simply bend over and take it yet again.

They Must Be Insane

One definition of insanity is repeating a behavior or practice that has always been unsuccessful in the past with the delusional idea that it will somehow succeed in the future, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. Such insanity is frequently manifested in government policies that somehow get imposed on us over and over even though they always fail to accomplish what they are intended to accomplish, and frequently result in adverse effect not foreseen at the time they were imposed. A good example of this is price controls. Yes, we all know that these have failed in the past when they were tried by dictators, despots, left-wingers and other assorted politicians down through the ages. If you put an artificial ceiling price on any commodity, the ceiling will immediately become the floor, and pressure will inexorably mount to raise it. And until it is raised, not only will there be a shortage of whatever commodity is thus regulated, there will be corruption, black markets, etc. created. It happened with gasoline in the 70s, with price controlled rental units in large cities for decades, and with countless other items over the centuries. It is really a singularly bad idea. Yet “progressive” politicians resort to it over and over again to placate the ignorant bleating of their benighted constituents who clamor for “fair prices.” Adam Smith, in The Wealth of Nations, clearly spelled out the inevitable failure of price controls and the virtue of free markets way back in 1776,(oh the irony), but he is mostly ignored and dismissed by today’s left-wing professors of economics, who, none-the-less, have failed to come up with a better system. Russia’s colossal failure in their seventy year experiment in “government control” over prices and production should serve as a warning beacon to all but the most thick-headed.

So, in spite of the abundant evidence that it won’t work, surprise, surprise, here comes the Obama administration with price controls. Yes price controls in the form of interest rates banks are allowed to charge on loans. As of October 1, 2009, banks are restricted in the rate they can charge on mortgage loan products. Of course the new rules are supposed to "protect consumers from problem mortgages,” (which, by the way, were caused in large part by the government requirements imposed on banks by Jimmy Carter’s Community Reinvestment Act.), but in reality they will decrease the amount of loans available to borrowers. The new policy limits the rate banks can charge. Therefore, banks will simply stop making loans to all but the most qualified of borrowers, since the government controlled rates will not allow them to recoup their costs on the riskier mortgages. Additionally most banks have already raised their rates to the highest rate the government will allow since that is the “government approved rate” so they no longer have to compete with one another. No more competition, decrease in products offered, higher prices. Inevitably the pressure will mount for the government to increase the “ceiling” rates. Higher rates for everybody will result due to the lack of competition. Without a doubt banks will make fewer loans to fewer borrowers and the very people who jammed these rate controls through will be crying “discrimination” when the banks elect not to make risky loans. Without being able to price these loans to be viable, they will simply stop making them. This has already happened. We’re not talking the “loan shark” rates that some financial institutions were charging. We’re not talking 36% mortgages here. The banks were making these riskier loans at 2% or 3% over the rate available to the best borrowers. But no more. These loans will no longer be available due to the price controls imposed. Classic consequences: Less supply, less of the market served, more demand equals inflation, corruption and higher prices for everybody. It is insanity.

The Law of Unintended Consequences

As Rush Limbaugh says frequently, "Words mean something." In Barack Obama's lame excuses for besmirching the entire police profession by saying they acted "stupidly", he only exacerbated the situation by claiming his words were mis-calibrated. The words were uttered in plain English. There was no nuance, no obscurity, no doubt about their meaning whatsoever. Obama has now dug a deeper hole by trying to bury the first one he dug. If we had an honest press they would be calling him on it. Don't hold your breath.

The facts are apparently clear in this case: The police officer responded to a call about a possible burglary, investigated and encountered an obviously out-of-control left-winger with a giant chip on his shoulder. The officer apparently did nothing wrong. The professor clearly refused to cooperate with the police officer in any way. The 911 tapes would probably make that abundantly clear if they were allowed to be released. If we had an honest civil administration in the Cambridge police department, they would have already released the tapes. Don't hold your breath.

The tapes will probably not be released precisely because they would exonerate the police officer. They will refuse to release the tapes because it would displease the left-wing power brokers who do not want the professor's outrageous behavior further illuminated. They probably don't dare release the tapes. Don't hold your breath.

One of the most pernicious ways left-wingers wreak damage on our society can be summed up neatly in the Law of Unintended Consequences. In actuality, and in fact, very frequently the opposite result than the left-wingers had intended in their policies and regulations, occurs. For example, John Locke warned over 300 years ago that artificially restricting interest rates lenders could charge resulted in more problems than benefits for most people because the lenders simply stopped lending money at the restricted rates. Therefore, average people could no longer get credit. Instead of helping benighted people to save money on interest, the nanny class prevented them from prospering at all. Many other such examples abound.

Affirmative Action is yet another example of supposed good intentions gone wrong. Professor Gates is a product of the affirmative action generation of the sixties and seventies. No one can ever know what his real merit was when he was accepted to Yale since at the time he was accepted many, many unqualified minorities were being accepted based not on merit, but on the quaint notion that society could correct long-standing injustice against them by just jamming them into Ivy League colleges. Some of them undoubtedly were well-qualified and would have been accepted and would have graduated on their own. However, since they were all lumped together with the unqualified, the smell left behind by affirmative action lingers on and on, permeating each minority college student who attended colleges such as Yale since the sixties. Nobody can know, or ever will know, if any particular student got in, and graduated from the Ivy League educational institutions on their own merit or if the whole thing was as a result of the misguided efforts of do-gooders to right all of the supposed wrongs of prior racial discrimination by reserving slots for less-qualified persons of color, then passing them along because, after all, they couldn't be allowed to fail. The result of this meddling is that many of these "scholars" have a permanent, giant chip on their shoulders, of the variety Professor Gates apparently amply demonstrated. They know the aura of invalidity will follow them the rest of their academic lives no matter what they do. It has to be a heavy burden to bear.

Maybe Professor Gates is the world's greatest scholar on "Black Studies." The news media is convinced he is. The sad reality is that because of the law of unintended consequences as applied to affirmative action, the world can really never know. An honest assessment by commentators would admit this. Don't hold your breath.