Well it’s no surprise that more exculpatory evidence has been uncovered in the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case. Sean Hannity broke the latest news on his radio program today. He had on legal experts Kimberly Guilfoyle and Megyn Kendall as guests.

Hannity spoke with the family of Collin Finnerty. They say they have kept silent because they felt it was best, but that they have proof Colin Finerty was never alone that night and they can account for every second. Multiple witnesses are ready to verify this in court. They also have receipts, phone records, Duke access card information and results of a lie detector test. (Personally I don’t put much stock in lie detector tests, but it appears he has more than enough other convincing evidence. And as the accused he really should not “need” any of it. Given the burden of proof is supposed to be on the accuser, not the accused. But of course it’s good for him that he has it.)

Hannity mentioned that a police report shows that the accuser named 3 attackers named Bret, Matt and Adam. She provided the police IDs of these individuals.

• Adam - A short White male with red cheeks, fluffy brown hair and a chubby face.
• Matt - Heavy with short haircut.
• Bret - Chubby.

The descriptions provided by the accuser do not match any of the indicted players and may not match anyone on the entire team.

And don’t forget the accuser’s claim that one of them had a mustache!

There is so much showing innocence, that the discussion shifted to whether Mike Nifong is acting appropriately as a District Attorney. Kendall mentioned, that the prosecutor’s job is to find justice and not ignore any of the facts. At this point it appears Nifong may have ignored a lot of the facts.

Hannity pointed out that defending this case may cost each family over $1 million.

Hear it all using the audio link below.
Sean Hannity, Kimberly Guilfoyle and Megyn Kendall on Duke Lacrosse Rape Case - ASF Audio
(For the sake of bandwidth there will be no other formats made.)

I mentioned the matter of some girls being expelled from a California Christian Private school for immoral sexual behavior (lesbian activity) in a prior post. Now California’s State Supreme Court has shown that the state is devoid of respect of the US Constitution and allowing a lawsuit by the girls’ parents to proceed.

As I mentioned in my prior post, this is the beginning of the end of what is currently known as “private schools”, Christian Private Schools in particular. Because various lobbies for sinful activity have set their sights on abolishing Christian private schools and they now have enough Liberals in government to help them possibly make it happen. (So long as Christians don’t take a firm stand against this.) If the CA case proceeds and the plaintiffs are successful, it will mean that Christian private schools in that state will no longer be able to protect their students from immoral influences. And it gets worse! Because once Christian private schools must keep immoral students in the population, those immoral students will be able to decline and do away with all teaching of morality in the school. They will be able to say that any claims made that the gay lifestyle is immoral are “hate speech” and claim it is “discrimination”, although what they call discrimination is true righteousness. Once the morality is gone, these Christian schools will fall apart from within. Next students that don’t wish to hear any Christian teaching at all will claim they too must be admitted or allowed to stay if already there. They will use twisted Godless claims that they have the right to not be discriminated against, because they have no desire to hear Christian teaching and not allowing them in denies them their desired level of quality education. (Quality in terms of state standards, not standards of faith.) Any attempts to segregate the heathens will raise the old “separate but equal” violations of the old Civil Rights movement. But this time it won’t be an issue of the color of skin, but fully an issue of the content of character.

So unless our Liberal leaning US Supreme Court is turned more Conservative, California will no longer have anything like what is currently known as a “Christian Private School”. Christians will need to stand for what they believe in or see the heathens take all establishments (even private ones) that dare mention the faith.

The US Supreme Court decision to suspend the President’s approved war tribunals for terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay is a terrible setback for American security. But it is a great event for our enemies in Al Qaeda. Mark Levin was able to best sum up things yesterday and appropriately named the justices involved The Al Qaeda 5!

He fully detailed how this was a terrible decision. As a lawyer who has successfully represented cases before the US Supreme Court on numerous occasions, he’s able to explain it all very well. He explained who is covered by the Geneva Convention. And it does not cover terrorists! He fully detailed how The Al Qaeda 5 not only changed US law, but the Geneva Convention as well. He also detailed the previous historical judicial precedent, that has now been broken.

Of course you have to excuse some of his language, but this is a cause for outrage! And only Mark Levin can offer the appropriate level of anger along with the legal facts all at the same time.

Hear Mark Levin using the audio link below.
Mark Levin on Hamdan v Rumsfeld ruling - WMA Audio
(For the sake of bandwidth there will be no other formats made.)

update 6/2/2006 12:o8AM: Conservative Culture has more on this terrible decision.

Dennis at Fire & Hammer has picked up on some insanity, where Liberal New York State officials are attacking an establishment and any involved in advertising for catering to Christians. You’ve got to read this insanity to believe it!

Here is the related news story. The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) is on the case, to help fight this madness.

New York State Division of Human Rights web site.

Of course there have been no reports of this government body trying to shut down any Black festivals in New York for discriminating against non-Blacks. And I would not want them to. But it all shows this government body is not really applying its twisted logic at all that would fall under it. They knew they had the power and decided to target an event catering primarily to people of the Christian faith, regardless of the fact nobody was restricted from attending.

It’s an example of how Godless Liberals attack the Christian faith.

In one of their worst rulings of all time, the United States Supreme Court ruled in a 5-3 decision, that enemy terrorists thugs being held at Gitmo cannot be subjected to war crimes trials ordered by the Commander-in-Chief President George W. Bush. To prevent the Commander in Chief from waging war against the enemy and treat it like something “all 3 branches” of government must be involved in is totally insane. Once the war begins it’s the job of the executive branch alone to determine how to deal with the enemy. I prefer taking no prisoners and giving the enemy what they deserve on the battle field, but taking prisoners is good for information about other enemies. Which is why I have no problem with troops doing what they feel necessary to obtain that information. But just the same, the terrorists in Gitmo get treated very well. More about conditions at Gitmo later. Here’s an MSM report about the ruling.

So we see 3 had their heads on straight (John Roberts would have made 4 if he could have participated), while 5 are total idiots. 5 want to treat the enemy like some “regular military” individuals. They are not “regular”, they are not citizens and the only right they have is to wait for us to kill them or decide otherwise. These are the terrorists that were caught in the mist of a war! These are members of the enemy that was behind 9/11. They should be treated as such and given war trials. And that’s nicer than they deserve.

Now you see why people like Justice Clarence Thomas are good and the Liberals are not. Because the Liberals will give your enemy everything he needs to kill you!

Here’s part of Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent.

Here’s part of Justice Clarence Thomas’ dissent. Which I must say really is a home run!

JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA joins, and with whom JUSTICE ALITO joins in all but Parts I, II–C–1, and III–B–2, dissenting.

For the reasons set forth in JUSTICE SCALIA’s dissent, it is clear that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain petitioner’s claims, see ante, at 1–11. The Court having concluded otherwise, it is appropriate to respond to the Court’s resolution of the merits of petitioner’s claims because its opinion openly flouts our well-established duty to respect the Executive’s judgment in matters of military operations and foreign affairs. The Court’s evident belief that it is qualified to pass on the “[m]ilitary necessity,” ante, at 48, of the Commander in Chief’s decision to employ a particular form of force against our enemies is so antithetical to our constitutional structure that it simply cannot go unanswered. I respectfully dissent.

I

Our review of petitioner’s claims arises in the context of the President’s wartime exercise of his commander-in-chief authority in conjunction with the complete support of Congress. Accordingly, it is important to take measure of the respective roles the Constitution assigns to the three branches of our Government in the conduct of war.
As I explained in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U. S. 507 (2004), the structural advantages attendant to the Executive Branch—namely, the decisiveness, “‘activity, secrecy,and dispatch’” that flow from the Executive’s “‘unity,’” id., at 581 (dissenting opinion) (quoting The Federalist No. 70,
p. 472 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton))—led the Founders to conclude that the “President ha[s] primary responsibility—along with the necessary power—to protect the national security and to conduct the Nation’s foreign relations.” 542 U. S., at 580. Consistent with this conclusion, the Constitution vests in the President “[t]he executive Power,” Art. II, §1, provides that he “shall be Commander in Chief” of the Armed Forces, §2, and places in him the power to recognize foreign governments, §3. This Court has observed that these provisions confer upon the President broad constitutional authority to protect the Nation’s security in the manner he deems fit. See, e.g., Prize Cases, 2 Black 635, 668 (1863) (“If a war be made by invasion of a foreign nation, the President is not only authorized but bound to resist force by force . . . without waiting for any special legislative authority”); Fleming v. Page, 9 How. 603, 615 (1850) (acknowledging that the President has the authority to “employ [the Nation's Armed Forces] in the manner he may deem most effectual to harass and conquer and subdue the enemy”).
…

Yesterday Kirby Wilbur was filling in for Sean Hannity and interviewed Charles “Cully” Stimson, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Office of Detainee Affairs. The interview covered a lot about Gitmo, the terrorists detained there and their treatment.

Here are some points from the interview, although there are more I don’t list here.

• There are 460 terrorists at Gitmo.
• Actionable information has been obtained from the terrorists at Gitmo.
• Terrorists in other countries INCLUDING FRANCE want to be treated like terrorists in Gitmo.
• 15 terrorists released from Gitmo have been found later taking up arms against US soldiers.
• Stimson is not aware of any that left Gitmo and actually did anything good with their lives.
• Suicides occur even in regular prison. I say so what to whether a terrorist kills himself! Liberals always talk about a “right to die”, except when it’s a terrorist or evil murdering convicted killer. For them, just the innocent babies and invalids are good enough to kill.
• Many attempts have been made by terrorists at Gitmo to attack and kill guards.

This is an interview worth hearing, especially after today’s ruling.

Hear the interview using the link below.
Kirby Wilbur and Charles “Cully” Stimson discuss Gitmo - ASF Audio
(For the sake of bandwidth there will be no other formats made.)

After seeing the AP story that mentioned some scientists support Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth” I knew something shady was up. Because Gore’s rants are already known to be a lot of hot air.

Below is an excerpt from the AP story.

The Republican led majority of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works immediately took exception to the report. Below is a portion their response, but read it all when you have time.

This lead me to wonder about the other 4 scientists named in the AP article. So I did some digging and came up with some interesting information about them all.

First William Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University. In a piece posted at blog North Carolina Conservative, Charles R. Hosler, Meteorologist, U.S. EPA (Retired) raises some issues with Schlesinger’s view that his view of this issue is the consensus of the scientific community.

Next was Michael MacCracken, who used to be in charge of the nation’s global warming effects program and is now chief scientist at the Climate Institute in Washington. He ran the program under the Clinton Administration and Left Wing Nuts Greenpeace note this.

I think MacCracken is staying loyal to the bunch that lined his pockets and hoping the same hype can keep him earning money. After all he’s now looked to an an “authority” in the endorsement of the Man Made Global Warming Will Kill Us All Scam, so he’s got to keep it going. He can’t let thousands of other scientists get in the way of his money making ventures.

Tom (Thomas) Wigley, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, really is not a Gore supporter at all. He feels that global warming would continue even if all made made emissions of greenhouse gases stopped today. Because of activity in the ocean. I’ve mentioned the ocean and other factors in this previous post.

CNE Environment is a European site that sticks to the facts and cuts out the bull. Well worth reading their site when you have time.

And finally there’s Scripps Institution geosciences professor Jeff Severinghaus. Although he said the entertainment value of Gore’s resulted in:

“My wife fell asleep. Of course, I was on the edge of my chair.”

He does not necessarily seem to endorse Gore’s view that man made climate change will destroy the earth. Although he feels man is causing global climate change. When he reviewed a previous Global Warming Scare Movie named “The Day after Tomorrow”, he mentioned an abrupt change was unlikely.

update 6/2/2006 11:03PM: Unfortunately because of some glitch the rest of this post was cut off. I could work on adding the rest again, but this particular post has some odd bug within my blogging software and I don’t want to add the rest and have it cut off again or something worse happen to this thread. What you see was pretty close to the end anyway. But in the cut off portion, I did include a commentary that has now been made public and I suggest you read by Richard S. Lindzen.

In a split decision, that mostly favored the state endorsed 2004 districting plan in Texas. The US Supreme Court said that one district needed to be redrawn or rather recreated to be what it once was. In the name of protecting Hispanic/Latino voting rights. Once again the government has mandated that people be grouped by race and expected to vote alike on the basis of race. It’s been done with Blacks and now Latinos. The Liberals played the race card again and got a partial change. Although for the most part things in Texas will remain the same and Democrats won’t see any real gains in Congress. And that’s the only reason Liberals challenged in the first place. It had nothing to do with race, which was just a cover for some complaints. It was really just a bunch of upset Liberals trying to obtain more power.

Government should stop trying to electorally segregate minorities. Just the same, Chief Justice John Roberts has found that keeping Texas districts as they were would have given Latinos voting power in more districts than before. So in the race baited challenge, those who wanted to increase Latino voting power have actually diluted it.

See what Chief Justice Roberts found.

Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito all joined Roberts in dissenting on that part of the opinion.

Allahpundit at Hot Air has some excellent commentary about this and why race based districting is a bad idea.

Although polls done by various sources show most Blacks are Pro-Life, it seems that does not matter to members of the Civil Rights Industry. Because those so-called Black Leaders do what is profitable for themselves, not what would save the lives of millions of Black people. Namely babies in the womb.

They ignore the trail of dead babies and run to issues like “voting rights”, when Blacks already have their voting rights guaranteed regardless of special provisions set to expire in the Voting Rights Act. (As I’ve explained before, I hope they do expire!) Also, most Blacks never are actually part of an Affirmative Action program and the majority of successful Blacks have done well without being part of one. But the Civil Rights Industry still acts like discriminating against the best qualified candidates in the name of race is somehow a good thing.

While they still ignore the trail of dead babies.

…
The abortion rate of black women is three times higher than that of white women and 60% of African-American women who become pregnant will have an abortion. More than 14 million abortions have been done on black women and abortion businesses are frequently located in minority communities.
…

Polls show most Blacks are Pro-Life.

…
Meanwhile, polls show black Americans are pro-life and supporting pro-life candidates in greater margins than before.

In an August 2004 survey sponsored by Pace University and Rock the Vote, 54 percent of all Americans declared themselves pro-life while just 44 percent said they supported legal abortion. However, African-American voters took a pro-life position by a larger 59 to 42 percent margin.
…

Even the NAACP has quietly backed off their pro-death stance and a poll done by Black Enterprise also found most Blacks are Pro-Life.

…
Those pro-life values prompted black Americans to protest a decision by the nation’s largest civil rights group to endorse abortion.

When the NAACP took an official position in favor of abortion in early 2004, which it has since quietly rescinded, a poll conducted by Black Enterprise Magazine found that 60% of African Americans disapproved of the decision.
…

While most Black people realize the trail of bodies is growing it looks like the Civil Rights Industry continues to look for a trail of dollars. They continue to run their “get out the Black vote” drives, which really are a means to keep their Liberal donors giving them more money. So long as Liberals lose elections they claim the election was not fair. If it really was about bringing more Blacks to the polls, they could start by helping to prevent the murder in the womb of millions of Black babies.

update 6/29/2006 10:15PM: Reverend DL Foster offers more perspective, about another angle used by these race hustlers.

Reade Seligmann’s lawyers Kirk Osborn and Ernest Conner are now taking their crack at the newly released 536 pages of documents from DA Mike Nifong. They say they’ve found a dozen conflicting statements from the accuser and they need Nifong to tell them exactly which line to defend against, because they have no clue what story Nifong actually feels is true. First I’ll list a new article below, then my findings from the actual court document. Details not mentioned in the media report.

Now I must say, that although the defense has been blowing this case out of the water, there is one thing they have failed to do.

…
If they chose to, the defense lawyers could make public all the information they have received from Nifong. But they have not done so.
…

The defense shows a supreme level of confidence in their clients’ innocence. So I think that given their level of confidence, they should make all the documents public. Although I believe they are innocent, I wonder why the defense is holding back. Of course it is to the defense’s advantage to control what is released, but their public displays while not releasing it all makes one wonder if there’s something in there they might just fear seeing in the public? A full release of all documents would help in calling DA Mike Nifong’s actions into question. Because until every detail is public, Nifong still has his “you don’t know it all yet” card to play with those who still feel there is a case.

I found the actual document used in the court filing on Kirk Osborn’s web site.

One of the stories in the document mentions that the stripper accuser said her “co-worker” robbed her of $2,000.00. But Nifong never charged her and the other stripper (Kim Roberts) has once said she felt the allegations were a “crock”.

Also I found this interesting statement in the document.

…
The discovery provides no account of which story is going to be presented as the “true story” or how any crime could have even occurred given the number of established facts which contradict every one of Ms. Mangum’s stories (except for the true story that she was not raped).
…

From what we know it does look like Nifong has a virtual “grab bag” of stories to choose from.

The document also includes 22 requests from the defense. Here’s one I found to be interesting.

…
19. A detailed statement of the factual information upon with the State will rely to prove each of the elements of each charge in each indictment.
…

I think that means the defense can’t even find a case to defend against. So they need to know what the prosecution sees worth making a trial out of this. The defense attorneys say they have fully reviewed all of the documents.

Well making up stories worked for the real villain in the movie that I’ve placed a graphic of at the top of this post. Which is why I’ll keep using it. It’s just so appropriate!

Related post: Duke Lacrosse Rape Case: 536 Pages. 5 Rapists. 4 Dancers. No Toxicology Report. No Payoff From Defense and No Plea Deal Requested.

Like with the old .com boom, the explosion of the blogosphere is bringing in a lot of investment capital.

I found this article in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal.

Patricof’s firm (Greycroft Partners LP) has invested under $1 million for a minority stake in PaidContent.org’s parent company ContentNext Media Incorporated. Mr. Patricof feels blogs are a good area to invest in, because blogs cost less to get off the ground and show a quicker return on investment. He mentioned that starting a magazine cost $15-$25 million and have a few years of losses, but with blogs the numbers look much more promising.

Plenty more people are doing the same as Rafat Ali. And Mr. Ali says that ContentNext Media will bring in over $1 million this year from ads and event sponsorships. He says the company made $60K just 3 years ago. So he is moving upward.

How long will the blogosphere boom last? Is this just the start? We won’t know all those answers till it’s over, but for now things are looking good and those with the skills are cashing in big. Many are former journalists. Will traditional journalists turned bloggers get the major share or will pajamas bloggers with no prior journalism experience? Again time will tell.

Wired News interviewed Mr. Ali a few years ago.

Back then Mr. Ali estimated he would earn $60-$80K that year. I guess he came in at his low end estimate. But he’s in the UK, so taxes are eating him up . Which means it is much better to be a blogger in America .

Any blogger that wants to grow in the field would do well to read his interview.