Published in DeVine Law at The HinzSight Report.

North Carolina Prosecutors in the Duke Lacrosse alleged rape case declare indicted defendants "Innocent!" Not merely the usual (and I mean VERY usual) "not guilty" in order to cover their prosecutorial discretion butts and leave a taint on the fish that got away, but "Innocent"!

And the MSM, not just bloggers are revealing the identity of the lying accuser!

During 14 years of private law practice mainly in the criminal defense field, I heard the words not guilty from juries in a large majority of the cases I tried.

Not once was a prosecutor punished and not once when the words not guilty were heard in an alleged rape case did the media "out" the false accuser afterwards.

The immunity of the government prosecutors from lawsuits being as strong as it is, and the bias/burden of proof elements against cases of malicious prosecution being as high as it is, most all defendants hearing those words have no recourse but to go on with their lives absent any public regret from those that were proven wrong in a public trial.

Finally, there is a deterrent all future false rape accusers can understand. Today in America, men are safer on dates.

One would hope that non-married couples would save it till marriage, but if they don't, and the female decides to use the evidence of consensual sex (which is often the same as that for non-consensual) to get even for supposed sleights or attempt blackmail, she will have to factor in the picture of the shamed Crystal Mangum on TV screens.

The double standard for evidentiary rules needs to be examined as well. Rape "shield" laws prevent defendants charged with rape from presenting generally relevant evidence ordinarily allowed in all other criminal cases. This must end.

Moreover, as I have previously written in DeVine Law at The HinzSight Report, the so-called stigma attaching to rape victims has already been shown to be a crock in modern day America. Consider the Kobe Bryant accuser's "self-outing":

The allegations were made by an anonymous accuser less than 17 months after rape charges made by another, then anonymous accuser, against NBA basketball star Kobe Bryant, were dismissed. That famous 2004 Colorado case prompted the Legal Column to ask the question, “Are Alleged Rape Victims Unique?” in analyzing the unique evidentiary rules and press reporting practices in cases of rape allegations.

The current charges against Lacrosse players at Duke University in Durham have already made them infamous due to the reporting of their names and depiction of their faces in the press.

One issue in the Bryant case as in the N.C. case, concerns the standard press practice of not revealing the names or depicting the faces of alleged rape victims, while routinely reporting the names, with photos, of those accused of rape.

The only alleged victims or defendants afforded similar anonymity by the press, except for alleged victims of rape, are minor children.

In both the Duke and Bryant cases, and all rape cases in memory, the arguments for press protection of the anonymity of the victim have been related to an alleged “stigma” that “society” attaches to the rape victim that could cause true victims not to come forward unless their identity is protected.

However, after criminal charges were dropped against the Los Angeles Laker, the alleged victim filed a civil lawsuit against the accused seeking money damages for a crime that she was unwilling to testify about in criminal court. The alleged victim voluntarily named herself as the plaintiff in the civil lawsuit which named the basketball star as the defendant. The civil case file was later dismissed amid rumors that a settlement had been reached.

Defendants charged with rape, as with any other crime, should be allowed to use all relevant evidence to defend themselves, even if it involves the past sexual history of the accuser.

PERIOD.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Legal Editor for The HinzSight Report and The Minority Report
Original Contributing writer for Race 4 2008

The Dutchmeister was one of the major inspirations that led to my own full-fledged conversion from liberal Democrat to Reaganite Republican.

Dutch's takes (see below) on the issues of Today make it unnecessary for GC to weigh in, except to say that the Duke case, upon which I have written extensively at the DeVine Law section of The HinzSight Report, is truly a man bites dog story, especially given the prosecutor's declaration of innocence of the three defendants. I saw numerous cases during my years in criminal trial practice that should never have been brought but have only very rarely seen a prosecutor admit a defendant's innocence even after quick jury verdicts. I never saw a prosecutor brought down. I will be writing on the legal aspects of this case later in the week.

The Dutchmeister's blog deals with the public policy and social implications flawlessly.

The Dutchmeister has been published at Townhall.com eloquently defending Clarence Thomas, reviewing books by and interviewing John McWhorter, eloquently commenting on the importance of fathers, and much more.

Read these brilliant excerpts on Imus and the Duke case as well as the links to the takes of others at Project 21, and then read the full blog via the links that follow:

Crystal Gail Mangum: Profile of the Duke Rape Accuser

Some of the details of the Duke University rape case may never be solved, but one thing is startlingly clear: Crystal Gail Mangum, the woman who accused three college lacrosse players of locking her in a bathroom and raping her, has had a very troubled life.

Click here to read the rest.

Not only is this woman a pathological liar, but she's also a nut case! A troubled life is no excuse for falsely accusing three innocent young men of rape, thereby all but ruining their lives, maybe irreparably.

and on Imus

The Don Imus Flap Once Again Shows Black "Leadership" Hypocrisy
Wednesday, April 11, 2007 8:11 AM

Were Don Imus’s comments about the Rutgers University women's basketball team insulting, degrading, and just plain stupid? Absolutely. Were they racist? I don't think so (as I'll explain shortly). In any event, he has apologized publicly, and plans to personally apologize to the Rutgers team. He's taking his two-week suspension from the airwaves like a man. Pretty soon, this whole thing (like the Michael Richards racist tirade flap) will blow over.

What the Imus episode shows is the utter hypocrisy of the modern-day civil rights establishment, embodied by the Shakedown Brothers Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who, of course, are demanding Imus's head.

read it all

Excerpts from Rush Limbaugh (subscription required):

On Rutgers vs. Duke

RUSH: I want to point this out. If you look at the differences in the behavior and the character of two American universities, what happened when these baseless charges were filed by Mike Nifong down at Duke and then the whole faculty picked up on the mantra and they fired the coach, Duke immediately condemned the entire lacrosse team, canceled the season, fired the coach on an accusation of wrongdoing. Rutgers? What did Rutgers do? Rutgers immediately held a press conference to support the basketball players who are not what they were called. If you are a parent and you're thinking of sending your kid away to school, where would you rather send your kid, to Duke University or to Rutgers, after what you have seen here today? All of these comparisons that are out there are stark.

On being the next target and Conservatives as the fearless defenders of free speech

RUSH: All right, this is now about racial politics, folks. The Reverend Sharpton is out there saying, "This is only the beginning. This must be a walk that CBS now does. It must be a walk that others will do, then we must have a broad discussion on what's permitted and what's not permitted," and the Reverend Jackson and the Reverend Sharpton have been empowered as the final arbiters on this in the United States of America. How absurd and ridiculous. But they exist for one reason: liberal, white, plantation owner racists have created these two figures and have granted them power and authority as Democrats, and now, guess who have become the targets of the wrath of Sharpton and Jackson? For now it's the white liberal executives at CBS and NBC. So it's about racial politics. It's about racial politics, and when it comes to the lack of minority reputation of the big three networks, MSNBC as well as CNN, I have to agree that Reverend Jackson, Reverend Sharpton are right. On to something now that's the practical reality of all this. If it's about racial politics then what shall be the ideal percentage? This argument we've been having since the first affirmative action argument came up, the whole quota argument.

I made the point back in the early eighties, mid-eighties when this all started, "Affirmative action is about making sure that the race wars never end." You won't get 'em to come. That's why they hate the quota business. Because when you start saying, "Yeah, there should be quotas," then they're willing to put a finite number on the number of minorities can by anywhere and in any job, and that's not what this is about. This is about shakedowns. This is about keeping the premise of discrimination alive and well to be profited from, but if we just look at the population of the country, we now have more Hispanics in this country than we do blacks. The black population is 11%, 12%, something like that. So 89, 88% of the population is not black. So should we say in the guise of the racial politics here introduced by the Reverends Sharpton and Jackson, that the proper representation for blacks anywhere would be 11% -- football teams, basketball teams -- I know this is absurd, but I'm making a point here. Now stick with me, because this is not about merit. You have to understand, there's nothing about merit in anything these people are doing or talking about. It's pure racial politics. So if we go by the population of the country, there can never be more than 11% of blacks in any field.

Never. Let's look beyond the broadcast networks. Let's look at urban radio stations. Are they 89% non-black? No. Let's look at the content of the songs that are played on public airwaves. Sharpton has now said, dozens of times, and we gotta clean up the public airwaves. We've gotta detoxify the public airwaves. Well, look at some of the music and look at some of the lyrics played on the public airwaves being sung -- not spoken, by hosts, sung -- by recording artists and stars, and I don't hear the Reverend Sharpton concerned about that. In fact, I hear the Reverend Sharpton and the Reverend Jackson defending those lyrics as "art," ladies and gentlemen. I heard Snoop Dogg. How many times has he been indicted? Well, he's under charges. Snoop Dogg said the other day (paraphrased), "Look, don't come after us and our music and our art. This reflects the way we were raised, reflects where we were growing up. When that H-word is used by us, it means women who are fat and dumb in the projects who are just waiting to steal our money. We're not talking about basketball players at college. So don't lay this off on us."

Somebody said, "Wait a minute. Don Imus didn't just learn this phrase. He didn't wake up and have it come out of his own mind. He had to hear it someplace."

"Don't blame us for that," said the famous Snoop Dogg.

Anyway, if you look at the lyrics that are on radio, the public airwaves that need to be detoxified, where are the Reverend Sharpton and Reverend Jackson dealing with those lyrics, not just the words uttered by deejays and hosts. I mean after all they are the public airwaves. These songs should be banned now! If this is about cleaning up all this garbage, these songs need to be banned, and when we're done fixing TV and radio, folks, next we're going to move on to Hollywood, because a lot of pollution in popular culture is coming from and produced by, a bunch of white liberals in Hollywood. Of course, they never come under attack, by the same liberals who are now attacking me and others, saying we're next. "We've only just begun here. You people are all next!" We gotta straighten out Hollywood. We gotta make sure the rotgut garbage that sacrifices for pictures and dialogue in these movies that's offensive, gets stopped. They're poisoning the culture. It's public film. Public projectors. Go into a theater; it's the public there. When we're done with Hollywood, we move on to the publishing industry. We look at what percentage of authors are of a given race. Now, has Reverend Sharpton picketed anybody in Hollywood? Has Reverend Sharpton or Jackson picketed any urban radio stations?

Have Reverend Sharpton or Reverend Jackson picketed anywhere where these horrendous lyrics are toxifying the public domain? Chris Tucker? Chris Rock? These guys all need to be banned, folks. They make their living off stereotypes of whites and sometimes of blacks. Why should Sharpton and Jackson be the only two people deciding who can say what, when and where, and why should they be deciding who can and cannot be offended? As I've explained, the beauty of this is the libs have given us Sharpton and Jackson as the final arbiters. We're going to sit here and we're going to allow these two race hustlers to dictate to us? They have it figured out? They're always offended! They're always angry. They target certain individuals or events, and they and the lib media manipulate the outcome, and notice they're always dividing the country. They don't talk about people, they talk about race, and they want chaos, and they want tumult and they want people unsettled. They want the country divided. We can use whatever figure we want to. We can say 11 or 12%. We can go down the road and we can say, "Hispanics deserve more jobs in these places than blacks. They're a larger minority." If we're going to be fair about this, if we're really going to make this about racial politics.

Of course, censorship, that's also here. I want to say something for the record here, folks, and I want it to be recorded. Today, April the 12th, the day of the cigar dinner, let it be recorded that we conservatives are the ones standing for free speech. We conservatives are the ones standing for diversity of thought and honest communication. You do not hear a conservative anywhere suggest that anybody be taken off any radio station, television station, movies or what have you. We do not urge censorship because we are not afraid of the free flow of ideas. Liberals are. Thomas Sowell said something that is so brilliant. It's a brilliant insight. Dr. Sowell said, "The liberals' favorite argument is that there is no argument. Nothing uttered in opposition to liberal beliefs exists, in their minds, at least nothing worthy of their intellectual engagement." That's why global warming, we can't argue about it! There are global warming "deniers." We gotta shut up! We cannot have alternative views of global warming. There is no alternative view. There is only the liberal view. Liberals fail on talk radio because they can't make their case!

They don't dare make their case in public. They can't anyway. They can't argue it. That's why liberals fail in talk radio. It's why they fail anywhere where they don't dominate. It's why they refuse to go on Fox! There is no alternative to liberalism. They refuse to acknowledge it. They are the ones trying to censor. They're the ones trying to indoctrinate -- and it's now funny because one of their chosen ones, Don Imus, is the victim of liberalism, and he did his best to be one of them, but he was never a liberal with a capital L. He never really got in the club like he thought he was. His buddies are abandoning him left and right now. The people that enabled him, the people that propped him up, the people that looked the other way when they heard him say far worse than what he said about the Rutgers basketball team. Now they're acting like they never heard this stuff before. "I didn't know this, why, this is (grumbling)," blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. We conservatives talk of equal opportunity based on merit, not quotas, not pigment, not anything else. Liberals want to shut down radio programs. They want to shut down Fox News. They want to shut down political speech.

They want to shut down anybody who doesn't embrace their ideology, and they want to criminalize those who don't embrace their ideology. Today it's the race baiters. Tomorrow it's going to be some other cause, but liberalism is what it is, and it exists to silence people who don't agree. They can't win the debate, which they admit by their own actions. They don't want debate. Now, Imus is not the issue anymore. He's the catalyst for advancing their agenda. Listen to Jesse Jackson. He's long gone, long past Imus. If they can shut down talk radio -- and they'll try -- they'll shut it down tomorrow. Make no mistake. They cannot compete, folks. Air America was an embarrassing, blithering, total bomb-out of a failure. Every liberal talk show that's been tried is insignificant, at best. They can't silence their opposition, so they take a run at it here and there through proposals to renew the Fairness Doctrine or use intimidation or the threat of sponsor boycotts or whatever to demand the things they don't want to hear, not be allowed to be said. They can't compete in the open marketplace of ideas because their ideas are flawed and airing those ideas makes it clear that they are flawed.

They succeed politically when they conceal their true intentions during elections, as we have discussed. But there's no hiding on talk radio. When you're on the air for three hours, I don't care if you waste your time interviewing guest after guest after guest after guest, if you can't hide what you think on talk radio, you are going to be exposed, and when you cannot back up what you say, and when your ideas sound stupid, it's out there to be exposed for one and all, and that's why Air America and liberal talk radio doesn't get an audience because it's not worth listening to! People can't make the case -- and they do not think they should have to argue, because there is no alternative in their minds. I'll tell you what, Sharpton and Jackson have their eyes on talk radio. You know what's going to save talk radio? You know what's going to save this program is going to be you people because you have the depth of loyalty and a bond here. You and I have a connection, successful hosts do, and you understand it. You know the gig here. You know what's up. You're aware of how they're trying to shut people down, and you will not allow it to happen.

Nor will I, don't misunderstand, but this is what the left doesn't understand. They do not understand the connection that exists between me, the host of this program, and you. They don't understand it. You're mind-numbed robots. You're idiots. You're just like everybody else that's not a liberal. You really don't even exist! You're just a hayseed hick, a southern Christian or what have you. Whatever bigoted stereotype they have created, you will fall into one of them, as do I. But talk radio? Talk radio today is one of the last open markets for ideas -- and that's why it is a threat to the left. Talk radio, look at everybody who wants to get into it! All these television failures, all these stand-up comedians that lose their way, guess where they all want to go? They all want to go to radio! I wonder why? What's happening on radio lately that they see the opportunity for wealth and success, hmm? I wonder. Radio, ladies and gentlemen, is one of the last open markets for ideas. Newspapers aren't anymore. Television isn't anymore. Have you seen what the left is trying to do now? They're trying to say Imus is a conservative.

The LA Times had a piece quoting Media Matters for America, that Imus is a conservative. Imus, who supported Kerry and who is against the war, is no conservative. He wouldn't have the crowd of media guests that he has if he was, but calling him a "conservative" fits into their broader agenda. So we are defending speech here. We stand up for speech. We engage in it. We allow it when liberals call. We never demand anybody be censored. We are content to let the marketplace deal with liberals as it does on talk radio: it rejects them. One final question here. Since race is the sole criteria now, I want to know why Al Sharpton has not endorsed Barack Obama. I know the Reverend Jackson has. But I'll tell you why. Al Sharpton, who's making everything about race today, will not endorse the black candidate in the Democrat presidential primaries -- and why? Because Obama's name is not Sharpton. There is jealousy. There is outrage. Sharpton doesn't like the fact that Obama -- and, by the way, Sharpton has maneuvered an end run around Obama, in terms of the struggle. Sharpton talks about role models? We need black role models out there? Say what you want about Obama's politics, but apparently Barack Obama is not a good enough role model for Al Sharpton.

It don't get no better than this guys.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks coffee cups are dangerous, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
Race 4 2008

I speak of course of the combat and terrorist acts by Iranian combatants, including the Iranian Mullahs' Quds forces, that have: directly killed American troops in combat or via terrorism; via the munitions they produce; and via all of the aid and support they provide to Iraqi and foreign enemies of the United States and the freely elected government, military and police forces of sovereign Iraq.

I also hear that Iran has also seized a British ship and are holding POW's of our UK allies.

But back to the main story.

The American troops that are dead at the hands of Iran.

Have the Democrats blamed America yet for these deaths? I know that they have acknowledged the deaths. But last I heard their main reaction was to express fear that President Bush would attack Iran!

It is true that the main and only achievement of the Blue dogs was to remove a provision from a democrat resolution on the war that would have attempted to prevent President Bush from attacking the Iranian forces in Iran, thus granting them safe haven. Sadly, all but 6 of these mis-named dogs joined in the defeat and surrender bill for pork.

Also sadly, neither our GOP '08 hopefuls nor President Bush have verbally acknowledged the elephant in the room:

Iran is at war with America. But Iranian combatants are still safe on their side of the border despite having produced American corpses on the Iraqi side of the border. President Bush I trust given his regime removal past; his surround Iran on 3 sides past; axis of evil speech; and troop and ship movement present.

But will one '08 GOP hopeful express half as much anger towards Iran over the dead Americans as they do over...

Hostages?

Quickly please, before the Democrats blame America for it all.

I know. The MSM is putting the hostage news on TV.

But isn't in interesting that Iran is acting based on the facts on the ground. That is, the fact that they are very nervous surrounded by American troops that Dems can't stop America, i.e. Bush, from directing them to complete their mission in Iraq and in the Persian Gulf. That mission makes the days of Mullahs numbered.

Iran is desperate because America is winning in Iraq.

And that is Bush's fault! Please Dems, blame Bush for that.

Amen.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks coffee cups are dangerous, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
Race 4 2008

Originally posted at The Minority Report.

The GOP path back to majority status is a hawkish stand against the War on Terror leader.

That would be Iran.

Our elected representatives in congress as well as our candidates for the 2008 presidential nomination should be calling for strong military action against Iran now.

They let moments like this pass at their peril.

Iran has the power to do great damage to our economy if left unchecked. Our forces have captured high ranking Iranian military officials and regular soldiers in Iraq.

Iran is desperate. They don't see the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the Gulf the way the Western left sees it. They see themselves surrounded on three sides. They have been and are suffering mightily from the economic sanctions. Russia recently cut off aid for nuclear power development. They see that their Democratic Party allies in Congress cannot stop President Bush from waging war in Iraq. They see a President that stripped them of their moral pretense by declaring them part of an Axis of Evil. They see the other two parts of the Axis either eliminated or neutralized.

Again they see American forces commanded by Bush on three sides.

They could try a desperate blackmail move to threaten oil fields of the ports in the Gulf.

We must pre-empt such a move.

Interestingly, the Blue Dog Democrats, despite their cave in to Speaker Pelosi on an Iraq War timetable this week, did prevent any provision in an earlier bill that would have attempted to prevent Bush from attacking Iran pre-emptively.

Of course, given that Iran has killed Americans in Iraq, any attack on Iran would not be pre-emptive, but let's humor the left and the DEM-MSM just for kicks.

The surge is working so well that a Holiday Carnival proceeds unabated in Baghdad as an amusement park has re-opened.

Iran can see even as the MSM averts its eyes.

We need to act directly against Iran now much as we have needed to so act against them for years and much as we needed to act against Saddam earlier than after 11 years of defiance and as we needed to act decisively against the Taliban and al Qaeda soon after he African embassy bombings in 1998.

Must we wait until soldiers' heads are cut off on Tehran TV? Or when 3000 or more are again killed in the Lower 48?

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks coffee cups are dangerous, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
Race 4 2008

The Sun claims responsibility for all significant warming of Planet Earth.

Gore claims that Homo Sapiens are threatening the survival of Man and Planet Earth herself through Man's own planetary warming devices.

Cow flatulence advocates are considering intervening as a third party to the action.

However, in a surprise move, The Sun has listed a fellow parishioner of Gore's in the Church of Man-Made Global Warming (CMMGW) as a witness against Gore.

The witness is former President Bill Clinton who made the rounds of the cable and network news shows in the Winter of 2005-6 and repeated what he and his Church considers a CMMGW "scare" line that actually supports The Sun's claim of slander.

Bill Clinton warned that Manhattan Island could lose 50 feet in the next 50 years due to the warming activities of Man. Madison Square Garden is more than 50 feet from the East and Hudson Rivers.

The Sun's discovery findings show that half the Eastern Seaboard was under the Atlantic Ocean for thousands of years before the first Chevrolet exhausted its first fume into the Earth's atomosphere. The main piece of evidence is a bank of sharks' teeth in Columbia, South Carolina.

Columbia is over 150 miles from The Atlantic.

The Sun proposes to depose the former President under Oath in hopes of using the testimony to move for summary judgment on liability and a trial only on the amount of damages to the planet's reputation.

Negotiations have stalled on the meaning of the word "is" and where the Knicks will play.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks coffee cups are dangerous, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
Race 4 2008

What is news is that a republican candidate for President accepted the word of Larry King, a member of all of the above mentioned Liars' clubs, concerning statements made by America's chief general leading our troops at war.

Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the following last week:

I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts," Pace said in a wide-ranging discussion with Tribune editors and reporters in Chicago. "I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way.

"As an individual, I would not want [acceptance of gay behavior] to be our policy, just like I would not want it to be our policy that if we were to find out that so-and-so was sleeping with somebody else's wife, that we would just look the other way, which we do not. We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior," Pace said.

"

Pace spoke of "behavior" ONLY. He did not speak on any "-ality" as being a sin. He did not say that being tempted was a "sin."

He spoke of sexual "behavior" outside marriage as being sin, whether hetero- or homo-.

Liar King and star struck naive Mitt Romney? said the following subsequent to Pace's comments:

KING: The chief of staff of the American military said, the joint chiefs, said that he believes that being gay is -- I'm going to quote him exactly -- "is a sin" and that he's opposed to gays in the service.

Where are you?

M. ROMNEY: Well, you know, I think America is a compassionate nation and that we respect the right of other people to live their lives as they'd like to live them. I hope we can come together and be less divisive and bitter amongst our people. And so I'd like to show more tolerance and respect for others that live different lifestyles than we do.

So I think the choice of -- of words of the chief of staff were -- were inappropriate for -- for the public discourse. He can believe what he wants to. That's the great thing about America -- believe what you want.

But in a -- in a governmental setting, the right way to go is to show more of an outpouring of tolerance.

In my own view, I originally didn't think the don't ask, don't tell policy made a lot of sense. It seemed kind of silly to me.

But you know what?

It's worked. It's been in place now for over a decade. The military seems to be getting along pretty well with that rule. We're in the middle of a conflict right now. I wouldn't change it right now. Let's -- let's leave it the way it is.

Read the whole interview.

Mitt Romney allowed himself to be a tool of the Left to slander and smear an American hero. Is this man so naive?

Mitt has some explaining to do and an apology to make to the leader of our forces around the world that make it possible for Mitt and Larry to speak freely.

Mitt, will you apologize to Gen. Pace?

Notice I don't ask the Leftist Liar to apologize. I don't remember any true apology by a leftist (they only "regret getting caught or "mis-speak") and knowing them so well during my 15+ years in the Democratic Party, I wouldn't believe them anyway absent 10 years of demonstrated repentance.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks coffee cups are dangerous, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
Race 4 2008

Ward Connerly's accomplishments in "blue" states proves my contention that a large majority of Americans are conservative; would elect and re-elect unapologetic conservative majorities in Congress and would make a non-hyphenated Reaganite to the White House.

(Click here for a comprehensive yet short history by Connerly documenting essential facts in the development of affirmative action and its recent history.)

The MCRI, which Michigan voters approved by a margin of 58 percent to 42 percent, amended the state’s constitution to prohibit “state entities from discriminating or granting preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.”

First in the states of Washington and California and now in Michigan (leaning toward the Democratic Party, blue states all), Ward Connerly's anti-race based laws initiatives win everywhere and every time they are presented to voters for consideration.

The same can be said of most all anti-abortion initiatives

Reaganite conservatism also never loses when its tried and the sooner GOP in DC elected officials realize they need not fear the MSM after they get elected, the better.

Most Americans see persons when they see an individual human being inside or outside the womb.

(Gamecock will be posting a separate blog on a South Carolina initiative requiring that an abortion-seeking pregnant woman view the ultrasound picture of the developing human in their womb before being allowed to kill them later today.)

But too many liberal politicians looking at fellow human beings see skin pigmentations before they ever see persons, if they ever get that far.

A case in point is a recent post-mortem by the Chair and Director of the Michigan Civil Rights Commission.

These two liberals, like most liberal Democrats in congress or in the MSM, still worship the neutral value of skin color "diversity" within an extremely narrow ideological leftism:

After an exhaustive, three-month review of state statutes, policies and programs, the Michigan Civil Rights Commission has reached the conclusion that passage last fall of Proposal 2 by state voters does not mean the end of affirmative action, or the barring of terms such as race and gender from the terminology of state agencies or public entities. But the impact of the proposal will be significant. It does mean the end of programs and initiatives that grant preferential treatment based solely on race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin.

Basing our conclusions on the actual language of the amendment, our review found that of 45 programs potentially impacted by Proposal 2, eight, or about 18%, may be in jeopardy. It is entirely possible that other organizations will draw different conclusions regarding the number of programs affected, but either way, make no mistake, the impact will be widespread and painful.

They bemoan that the "impact" of the end of race based preferential treatment will be "widespread" and whine that readers feel their "pain" at such an impact. It is gratifying to see them admit reality though.

Later in the article, the liberal authors continue the left's intentional obfuscation of the JFK initiated "affirmative action" reaching out to minorities in recruiting efforts with preferences, set asides and quotas, while also trying to claim their goals have always been the same as conservatives:

At the heart of both Proposal 2 and the idea of affirmative action is the concept that greater and more widespread opportunity is better for everyone. We approached this task of reviewing the impact of Proposal 2 from the perspective of increasing opportunities.

Those increased opportunities come in several varieties. For example, we saw affirmative action in the form of increased outreach, which is permissible under the proposal, as an excellent tool for promoting diversity in compliance with Proposal 2. In addition to advertisements in traditional media outlets, the commission's report suggests that state agencies could be encouraged to promote diversity by using outlets that specifically target women or people of color.

This will not be a violation of Proposal 2 as long as the outreach is not exclusive to communities of color or women. In fact, increased outreach can only result in increased competition and a greater range of potential options stemming from a larger pool of contractors or potential employees.

They still wear the blinders that preferences based on race were anti-thetical to the language of the 14th Amendment and the 1964 Civil Rights Act since the version of affirmative action "outreach" practiced in Michigan colleges prior to the passage of Prop 2 gave advantages to those with dark skin.

The Left values a transmogrified concept of "diversity" as a tool to wielding power over any allegiance to the American values of Liberty, Justice and Equality before the law for their own sakes.

That is sad.

The good news is that even in a state some (not Gamecock) republicans write off to the Democrats two years out from the 2008 election despite the Connerly victory and the failed state liberal economic policies, the Left LOST!

This should be instructive for those that want to change our minority status back to the majority.

See also at The Minority Report and Race 4 2008 below

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks coffee cups are dangerous, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
Race 4 2008

Originally reported for The HinzSight Report.

Eyewitness Gamecock, in awe of Elie Wiesel, was still amazed that only two of his liberal inquisitors resorted to anything approaching hysterics in the Q & A.

Wiesel scoffed at both liberal kook questions.

He refused to admit any moral equivalence between Palestinian terrorists who intentionally kill innocents as a military and political tactic and Israeli soldiers defending their nation. He refused all invitations to join in any blame America (read Bush) parties to excuse the actions of tyrants from Saddam Hussein and Iran's mullahs.

Rather, he challenged his Charlotte audiences to denounce tyrannical oppressors in Darfur and warned that we must not allow another Holocaust.

I regret I was unable to toss a softball to the author, but it was exciting to have a man of his age and gravitas on the right, give the back of his hand to any suggestion of moral equivalence between radical Muslims and our nation.

I also came away with a feeling of gratitude for Oprah's invitation and Book promotion of his memoir last year, as it was obvious that many of the students and adults at the event had read the book thanks to the TV superstar’s publicity of Wiesel.

Mostly, though, the visit was an occasion to appreciate a truly great human being. It was obvious that a lot of questions the left loves to ask were not asked, because of their fear that he would discredit them utterly in front of potential useful idiots.

God bless Elie Wiesel.

No better man has ever visited the Carolinas.

Elected republicans in DC could learn a lot from Wiesel about standing up to the Left, Democrats and the MSM.

Wiesel also denounced the Holocaust denying/Holocaust seeking regime in Iran, as gamecock has on numerous occasions, the latest of which on Redstate is here.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks coffee cups are dangerous, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
Race 4 2008