If a woman claims:

• To have been raped on 3/13/2006.
• Then says on 3/14/2006, that she has pain at a level of 10 out of 10. Although she claims she was not hit during the alleged rape. Nurses and doctors don’t observe any “obvious discomfort”, that you would normally see when someone is in acute pain.
• Then on 3/15/2006 at a different hospital she says she was hit and has 7 out of 10 neck pain.
• Then on 3/16/2006, she is interviewed by police who report that she appears to be in “excruciating pain”.
• Then on the night of 3/25/2006 into 3/26/2006, she is found pole dancing at a strip club, where the former head bouncer said:
  

  She was regular. She danced like she always danced…

  Her appearance was video taped and obviously the former head bouncer confirmed it was her.

• Then on 3/28/2006, she returns to the hospital she visited on 3/15, to complain about “pain in her neck, back and knees”. The doctor documented that she was not in any “obvious distress”.
• She went to the same hospital again on 4/3/2006, saying she had neck pain on a level of 10 out of 10. But the doctor wrote that she appeared to be well, with no signs of distress.
• On 4/11/2006, she met with the district attorney, who says she was still traumatized, hardly spoke and had trouble making eye contact.

Would you say that woman was being honest? I don’t. And that’s exactly the conflicted mess of a story that has come to light regarding the stripper/escort accuser in the Duke lacrosse rape case.

The article has the full details.

Didn’t anybody ever tell Nifong you can’t trust people who work in the adult entertainment business?

And remember, the night of the alleged rape she claims she was taking the pain drug Flexeril. Well one doctor realized that with her history of mental problems, she was at “very high risk” for abusing drugs. He noted that she should not be given any narcotics. But another doctor ended up giving her more Flexeril along with Percocet, a strong pain narcotic. I think it’s possible she was playing the hospitals in order to feed a drug addiction, in addition to whatever other reasons she in my opinion made up this lie about a rape.

Hat tip to reader Seahawk.

I don’t think there’s any better way to prove you have family values, than to show your own family expressing the values you claim to endorse. This is what Maryland Republican US Senate candidate Michael Steele is proving he is able to do. For example, it’s one thing for a Conservative to say people should work hard and not look for government handouts. It’s another thing to say your own mother proved it in action. And it goes one step further when you can have your mother actually appear in a campaign ad and agree with the statements.

Check out this Michael Steele campaign ad with his mother.

Anybody claiming he is some kind of fraud or against people doing well for themselves looks foolish when stood up against that ad. He knows how people do their best and is simply man enough to say it.

Then there is the whole Michael J. Fox mess. Fox tried to attack Steele and Bush in a campaign ad for Ben (I’ve worked a full 40 in Congress, please retire me) Cardin. Fox claimed that Steele and Bush are against promising stem cell research. Fox told what I feel are 2 outright lies! First, we all know Fox is trying to imply that embryonic stem cell research, where babies are used as guinea pigs is “promising”. In fact, embryonic stem cell research is the LEAST promising of all forms of stem cell research thus far. It has produced NO useful cures for anything, not even close. While other forms of stem cell research using adult and other forms have proven much more promising. They’ve shown more positive results. If using babies like scraps was so “promising”, why can’t Fox find scores of venture capitalists to supply funding? The fact is that they know a bad investment when they see it.

Second, both Steele and Bush support what has proven to be the most promising form of stem cell research. Everything except the use of babies as medical scraps. And the real irony is that Ben Cardin has voted against promising (non-baby killing) stem cell research.

The bottom line is that Fox like Christopher Reeve before him, is chasing a false and immoral hope in the name of saving himself.

Steele has decided to fall back on his family values in response to Fox. The best kind of support you can ever have short of God!

Steele’s ad is accurate, because he does support stem cell research. Neither Cardin or Steele’s ad ever actually say the word “embryonic”, but because camp Cardin wants to play on that, they claim Steele’s ad is somehow misleading because it does not mention the specific type of research Steele does or does not support. Cardin had no problem avoiding the use of the word “embryonic” (ie babies) in his ad, but wants to try and attack Steele. How moronic, because Cardin knows if he used the word much in his own ad it would turn off voters.

Steele is right, Ben Cardin makes it all up as he goes along. It’s time to take out the trash and show Cardin the door!

If killing babies is a “promising” form of medical research, than pillaging other countries is a “promising” economic strategy. Do research on a rabbit and Liberals cry, but do research on babies unable to develop and they beg for more of it. Again proving that Liberals put animals above humans.

Steele had me worried with people like smut music promoter and drug legalization ACTORvist Russel Simmons, plus radio smut promoter Cathy Hughes and total nut cases Don King and Mike Tyson all campaigning for him. But he’s still better than Cardin and not more of the same .

This is proof that voting for a Liberal simply because he aligns with some of your views will still burn you! When voters in NJ voted for Democrat James E. McGreevey, they had no idea they were also voting for so-called gay marriage, but in fact they were. Of course if given a vote, the people of NJ would outlaw morally depraved efforts to place anything but one man and one woman into an institution with the name “marriage”. Just as is happening all across this nation and Thank God will soon happen here in Tennessee. The voters in NJ voted for McGreevey because they thought the Liberal was someone they agreed with, but now they have been burned. And many in NJ still don’t even realize it was him that burned them.

Yesterday Dr. Michael Savage uncovered that McGreevey loaded up the NJ Supreme Court with pro-gay activist judges. Of the 4 judges in the majority of the 4-3 ruling, that voted for homosexuals to be treated as if they were heterosexual. 3 of those judges were appointed by none other than Liberal Democrat and formerly down-low gay sex at highway rest stops James E. McGreevey. (Yes heterosexual fornication is also a sin, but McGreevey was engaging in depraved unnatural activity with any man he could get his hands on. While he had a wife and kids at home!) McGreevey claimed he was against gay marriage, to stealthily win the Governorship and then stacked the court with judges that would favor it. Everyone knew he was a Liberal Democrat and simply hoped he was not “that Liberal”. The bottom line is that all candidates prove to be a bit more Liberal once in office than they told voters they were when running for office. So if a candidate seems to be fairly Liberal like McGreevey, you have to assume he’s actually a far Left Liberal, willing to allow all manner of sin to be not just allowed, but actually encouraged by the state with special recognition, licensing and benefits.

Of the judges on the NJ Supreme Court 3 were nominated by McGreevey and 4 by former Republican Governor Christine Todd Whitman. Only one of Withman’s appointed judges sided with McGreevey’s picks. At 75% she did pretty good! I’m not saying Whitman is very Conservative, because I never felt she was, but she is more of a Conservative than McGreevey. Savage details it all here on his web site.

The bottom line is that the people of NJ need to press for the ability to amend their state’s constitution to end this mess. And everyone across the nation should press for a Constitutional amendment that affirms state recognized marriage in America can only be between one man and one woman. As I continually mention, Utah was not allowed into the Union until that state and its largest religious body denounced polygamy. Certainly they would not have been permitted with gays calling themselves married. America has always been against so-called gay marriage, to the point of it being so obvious that nobody felt a need to waste paper on making laws to outlaw it before now. Keep in mind there were laws against fornication and sodomy. America had a level of sexual morality, that homosexual-activists are trying to tear away. Americans regardless of their race or status do not want gays calling themselves “married” and if Americans want to stop it they will need to eventually do so on the federal level. Because if not, the gay activists will press their own claim on the federal level. Just as immoral baby killers pressed the federal courts about the issue of abortion when some states outlawed it. Pro-gay Liberals will do the same with this issue of who can be called “married” in America. The attitude of Americans against gays’ efforts is far stronger than even the effort to prevent the intentionally targeted killing of babies in the womb. So there is no shortage of people who are against the pro-gay lobby. But those who are against that lobby must press the case to the highest level or the pro-gay lobby will.

Also, legislative bodies need the ability to be able to over-ride a court ruling with a 2/3 majority vote. This will ensure in cases where courts grossly overstep their bounds, the issue can be swiftly corrected. The NJ court did not uphold law, they made it. And the people need a means to press for removal of such insane rulings. Savage feels the judges themselves should be removed. Down here in the South, we vote for our judges to obtain and maintain their posts. So it’s very easy for us to remove the ones who don’t act right. Maybe that’s why you have not seen any Southern court ruling for gays to call themselves “married”.

The gay lifestyle is, unnatural, unhealthy and unproductive. Which is why Jesus said:

Hear Michael Savage speaking about NJ and issues of sexual morality using the audio link below.
Michael Savage on NJ and sexual morality – WMA Audio (Size: 682 KB)
(If linking, please link to this post, not the audio file. For the sake of bandwidth there will be no other formats made.)

Yesterday Tennessee Republican US Senate candidate Bob Corker spoke with Sean Hannity about the latest controversies with one of his opponents, Harold Ford Junior.

First they discussed the “Memphis Meltdown”, where Ford crashed a Corker presser. Corker said Ford is a “nice young man”, but maybe Ford does not have the demeanor, comportment or state men’s like ability people want to see in the US Senate.

I have to agree. Because when you’re a Congressman running for Senate and out in public hitting a Playboy party, you’re just not showing the level of maturity expected of a US Senator.

Imagine a US Senator looking like this!

Corker mentioned that Ford has received 70% of his campaign money from outside of the state!!!

Later in the interview, Hannity told Corker that Ford Sr. was using the word “cracker” when referring to a Corker supporter. Mr. Corker said he never heard the audio of Ford Sr. possibly using the word “cracker”. Hannity is saying that Ford Sr. said “cracker”. I’m sticking with my retraction of that one. Because after hearing it more times, I’m not sure if he said “cracker” or “tracker”. So I’ll have to default to the position of accepting that he said “tracker”.

After playing the clip for Corker twice and asking him to comment, after some laughs Corker said:

Obviously it’s inappropriate kind of language.

Again I’ll say, I don’t like Ford or Corker, although Corker is slightly better than Ford. I’m voting for Emory ?Bo? Heyward, who is also on the ballot.

Hear the clips of those portions of the interview using the audio link below:
Sean Hannity speaks with Bob Corker – WMA Audio (Size: 0.98 MB)
(If linking, please link to this post, not the audio file. For the sake of bandwidth there will be no other formats made.)

update 11/6/2006 5:06PM: Hannity agreed the word was “trackers” on 10/27/2006, had on Ford Jr. and apologized.

I’ve been thinking about this one and figured maybe I’d wait till closer to his soon to be failed Presidential campaign to comment, but I never would have done as well on the topic as La Shawn Barber has done in her post today about the Obama hype. Highly recommended reading. She knocks the cover off the ball! I really don’t care what he wrote about in his book. The main issue is that this guy is a typical Liberal, but he’s treated like a someone great, simply because he’s the latest Black Liberal who can formulate a sentence. He votes like Ted Kennedy and groups that intentionally target children in the womb for murder (you call it abortion) like Planned Parenthood and NARAL no chance for babies Pro-Choice America both give him their golden seal of approval, a 100% rating. He’s also one of the 62 Senators I’ve targeted for being voted out of office, because he was part of efforts against the original House bill to stop illegal immigration. Like any broken clock, sometimes he gets one right, like the funding transparency bill he supported. But he’s a Liberal and a real danger to not just children in the womb. The man is adored by Islamists!

So the man is awful and if he ever had a serious shot at being President I’d work against him till election day!

In La Shawn’s post, I noticed she pointed out a picture on Time magazine’s web site. It’s the big picture at the top of the story with a White woman fawning all over Obama. Using Liberal logic, isn’t that picture racist? Hey I only hold them to the standard of their own statements.

Speaking of which, I had to think about some Black Republicans that are running for office and possibly getting some added attention because they are Black. While they get some added time in the spot light, I don’t think their attention can be compared to Obama. Here’s my take on them:

• Ken Blackwell – Ohio – He’s getting some extra attention, but he’s been in Ohio politics for ages. Unlike Obama, he’s overly qualified for the office he’s seeking. So he’s got more than his skin tone getting him attention.
• Lynn Swann – Pennsylvania – I already mentioned that I think he’s under qualified for the position he’s seeking, but he’s better than the guy he’s running against. Unlike Obama, Swann was a household name before he got into politics. So he can’t be judged on the same scale as Obama for the attention he gets now. Swann is more like Arnold Schwarzenegger when it comes to the attention he gets. Because he’s running in part on name recognition and respect he obtained before politics. So he’s got more than his skin tone getting him attention.
• Michael Steele – Maryland – This guy lines up pretty well with many of my views and he’s better than the career politician he’s running against, but yes like Obama he gets much of his spotlight because of his skin tone. However, he gets no where near as much spot light as Obama. And much of the media that praises Obama often attempts to trash Michael Steele. If Steele’s attacks were weighed with his praise you’d get a net sum of zero, because the two cancel each other out. On the other hand, Obama gets far more praise than he gets attacked. Not to mention, Steele is not talking about running for President. So Steele’s aspirations are more respectable for a guy with a short resume, than a 2 year Liberal Senator that suddenly wants to be President.

  And truth be told, the Lt. Governor’s spot is higher than the position held by Obama prior to his run for the US Senate. (Obama was an IL state senator before being elected to the US Senate.)

So nobody really compares to the adoration sent Obama’s way, mostly because he’s Black and can speak so well. Personally, I do like that British Prime Minister Tony Blair can articulate the need for our current war against the enemy well and I think most people agree. So the speaking credits don’t always go to just Blacks. Just the same, Obama gets way more than he’s worked for and way more than anyone else he can be compared to. I was going to wait, but I’m glad somebody stepped up and spoke on it now. I don’t “hate” Obama, but I do HATE almost everything he stands for.