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.)