It's hard to believe anyone could write the following line, but John McCann does it anyway in today's Durham Herald-Sun:

"The lacrosse boys brought it on themselves, though -- even if the accuser's lying.

This is despicable. Would McCann, who is black, even think of writing the same thing if the case involved a white accuser and 44 black members of the football team? Of course not.

McCann brushes off the injustice suffered by the Duke lacrosse players with the trite phrase, "that's what can happen when you don't keep your nose clean." This is a cowardly cop-out, not to mention McCann is invoking a standard that is unrealistic as well as unjust. Does he mean anyone who attends a party where there is beer and strippers can be falsely accused of anything under the logic that attending the party in the first place isn't "keeping your nose clean?"

Setting aside the fact that three young men stand accused of a crime that could cost them the better part of their lives behind bars, the forty-four Duke players who have not been charged with committing any crime didn't deserve to have their reputations trashed and their season cancelled, or to be stigmatized and abandoned by the Duke faculty and university administration. To suggest the players brought all this on themselves by the mere act of attending a party is more than grotesquely unfair, it's also a clever way to absolve those in the media and the community whose behavior toward the Duke players has been so shameful throughout this entire episode.

I understand it's difficult for some to focus on the facts in this case because the facts, at least at the moment, aren't very favorable toward the accuser. As a result, this case is upsetting a whole host of traditional liberal stereotypes and tactics, not the least of which is a seemingly innate liberal reflex to attack white males as symbols of privilege and racial oppression whenever possible.

McCann's suggestion that the Duke players deserve the way they've been treated "even if the accuser's lying" shows just how warped that mentality can be and represents a new low point in the whole tragic saga.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 11:35 AM | Email Author | Permalink

Joel McNally proves Dennis Prager's point from last week about the "decline of liberal thought" with this line about Wisconsin Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner and immigration:

"If Sensenbrenner really wanted to be honest about what he's up to, he would simply add an amendment declaring white to be our national color."

Posted by Tom Bevan at 08:02 AM | Email Author | Permalink

Sean Hannity's exchange on FOX News' Hannity & Colmes last night sums up my emotions on the Haditha story:

HANNITY: Colonel Cowan, let me go back to you and let me get some facts on the table here.
Not one Marine has been charged with anything as of yet. We are now getting other information that, for example, that Brigadier General David Brahms, who was quoted as -- you know, as saying this is going to be worse than Abu Ghraib has said, "I'm sorry. Quotes attributed to me have been taken completely out of context, its meaning distorted. Many facts that are favorable to believe the Marines involved have not yet been disclosed in this particular case."
You know what's bothering me, Colonel? You know what? We're wrong on cases like Richard Jewell. We were dead wrong. Nobody thought we'd find Elizabeth Smart. We found her. We were wrong in that video that we had of the mosque where the Marine had to shoot and all these liberals politicized this war rushed to judgment.
COWAN: Right, right.
HANNITY: If anybody deserves a right to at least have their day in court, are we not going to give it to the Marines and not have people like John Murtha politicizing this war and accusing these guys of killing civilians in cold blood? Could we at least give this to the Marines that are risking their lives for us?
COWAN: We should, Sean. You know, John Murtha and John Warner, who's a U.S. senator, both of them former Marines, were both briefed on where these investigations are right now.
Senator Warner came out very carefully, very casually said this doesn't look good but we'll let the investigation continue, and we'll get the results when it's done.
In contrast, Senator -- John Murtha, Congressman Murtha, who I saw about an hour ago live on another news network, was extremely emotional about it to the point that he was really almost losing control. And, indeed, condemning and convicting these young Marines.
I expect, Sean, at the end of the day...
HANNITY: Yes.
COWAN: ... we may find that some incident happened over there, but we will certainly also find that every Marine who was there did not participate in this, that anyone who was there, most of them did not want this to happen, and many of them reported it to their superiors.
HANNITY: Well, here's the problem, Bob, that I have. He said, quote, "They killed innocent civilians in cold blood."
We had John Kerry saying that our soldiers are going into the homes of Iraqis in the dark of night and terrorizing women and children. And similar comments such as this.
Do you remember the name Ilario Pantano?
BAER: I do absolutely.
HANNITY: A year ago, Bob, Ilario Pantano was charged with two counts of premeditated murder and other war crimes related to his service in Iraq. And he and -- he wrote this piece in the Washington Post. They painted him as he said as a monster, until an autopsy blew away this case out of the water and the Marine Corps dropped all charges against him.
You know, I don't know what evidence they have now, but nobody's been charged, and we don't know the facts. Is it not unfair for an American congressman to go out and say that these guys are killing innocent civilians like this in cold blood?
BAER: Oh, no doubt about it. And we've taken these troops and put them in the most dangerous part of the world ever, in years and years, in Anbar Province. And we have to find out what happened. Especially these guys...
HANNITY: Well, we do know one thing that happened. We do know that a bomb went off just seconds before. We do know that. We know Marines were killed then and Marines were injured there, didn't we? We do know that they were trying to find the people responsible.
And it angers me to some level to think that people can sit in their comfortable offices in Washington or in a studio without the facts and adjudicate this case like this.
BAER: I agree with you. But what intelligence did they have? Maybe somebody pointed this house out, and they kicked the door down and it was dark? You just don't know. And I agree with you. You've just got to wait. These guys...
HANNITY: They deserve the benefit of the doubt, don't they?

You're damn right our Marines deserve the benefit of the doubt. I watched the beginning of NBC Nightly News' broadcast on the Haditha incident last night and I felt sick, angry and depressed. I know this story has to be covered, I know that we have an obligation to the 99.99% of all the other troops in the field and to the American people to find out what really happened, and if there was wrong doing to punish the individuals who grotesquely crossed the line. But can't the story just be mentioned in passing or relegated to page A19 where they put all of the good news about Iraq and the economy, until at least the military finishes its investigation?

Why the urge to cover this story on the front page and lead your broadcast with it when no one has all of the facts? Who does that help? Don't our men and women who are putting their lives on the line for our country every day deserve at least that respect?

Posted by John McIntyre at 06:33 AM | Email Author | Permalink

For today's immigration quiz, see if you can name the person who wrote the following:

Illegal immigration should be a simple slam-dunk for any serious citizen. The principles that leap out are obvious and historically irrefutable:

First, anything illegal is by definition wrong. We are opposed to illegal drugs, to illegal violence, to illegal immigration. It is against the law, and it should be stopped.

Second, any nation has an absolute obligation to protect its sovereign border. If you can't block people from coming across your border, you really can't protect your citizens.

Third, everyone knows where our border is. As dozens of nations have done before us, we must learn to guard it effectively. The sad reality is that an open border separating a wealthy welfare state from a poor developing country will attract millions of illegal immigrants. It is our duty to have an effectively protected national boundary. It is the federal government's job to see that we do.

Fourth, when people have succeeded in illegally entering the United States, there should be a quick and efficient method of deporting them. Hours or days - not months or years - is the correct length of time. Whatever laws need to be changed to make speed and efficiency possible must be changed. The current legal circus encourages illegal immigrants and makes it surprisingly easy for them to stay in the United States for a lengthy period of time.

Fifth, any costs incurred by state and local governments in taking care of illegal immigrants should be reimbursed by the federal government. This is a federal problem. If it costs the federal government money, that will simply provide an incentive for Washington to get its act together and solve the problem.

Sixth, stopping illegal immigration may ultimately require everyone to carry employee identification cards that have holograms or other hard-to-counterfeit devices. The current black market in identity cards makes a mockery of our laws. When the deliberately crooked illegal immigrant can get a green card faster than the deliberately law-abiding legal resident, there is something wrong.

Seventh, we should develop a guest-worker program to allow foreigners to work temporarily in the United States. This may be the safety valve that allows Mexico and its neighbors to accept a tough, decisive United States policy against illegal aliens. The right kind of guest-worker program, modeled on those in effect in Europe, will allow economically aggressive immigrants to come to the United States on a temporary basis, creating a win-win relationship: they contribute to the American economy while taking earnings back to their native country.

Eighth, this much clearer and more aggressively enforced system will also allow us to be more practical and helpful in issuing visitors' visas for people to come to the United States. The long lines at our consulates - the result of our suspicious attitudes - are hurting American tourism. Ironically, we are stopping people who would like to spend their money but not stopping their cousins who want to sneak in and work illegally. We have the worst of both worlds.

Ninth, within this framework we should be as open and enthusiastic as ever about people who want to come to enter America as legal immigrants. Preference should go to immigrants who possess knowledge, skills, and investment capital. We should also favor those who are reuniting immediate (but not extended) families. The open door should remain open.

Finally, we should not knowingly give welfare or government aid to illegal immigrants except for emergency health care. The whole notion of knowingly allowing illegal residents to collect welfare is a sign of just how out of touch the welfare bureaucracy has become.

There is no magic to solving the problem of illegal immigrants. It is not intellectually challenging. Throughout history, countries that have survived have learned to maintain their borders. There are plenty of practical examples of how to get the job done. If we work at it we can dry up 95 percent of illegal immigration within two or three years. Our challenge is getting to a clear decision, developing a workable plan, and implementing it relentlessly.

That was Newt Gingrich eleven years ago in his book To Renew America.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 05:26 PM | Email Author | Permalink

People tell me it's not easy being a pro-Bush Republican in the executive suite at Goldman Sachs.

So give Treasury nominee Hank Paulson some credit for holding the line. And give Josh Bolten credit for indefatigably recruiting Paulson, his former Goldman partner, even in the face of apparent turndowns.

Mr. Paulson is a well-regarded, top-rated Wall Street exec at the powerful Goldman Sachs who will bring considerable credibility to the top Treasury job. He is a confirmed free trader who strongly supports deepening economic relations with China.

Mr. Paulson also supported Bush's investor tax cuts, and has worried out loud about the impact of SarBox on American competitiveness.

Goldman insiders tell me that he is something of a "greenie," having been active in the Nature Conservancy, but they say he's no Al Gore, and prefers technology advances by private enterprise to solve energy and any global warming issues.

We don't know his specific view on the value of the U.S. dollar, but hopefully he'll work with Ben Bernanke to strengthen the greenback and hold down inflation expectations.

Whether there's a pro- growth tax reform agenda, or a new look at Social Security and other entitlements remains to be seen.

My guess is Mr. Paulson will command much more policy influence at the Treasury than his predecessors had. All in, Paulson looks like a good choice, strong, capitalist choice.

Posted by Lawrence Kudlow at 05:06 PM | Email Author | Permalink

More immigration emails on "The Republican Crossroads on Immigration":

Sir - I am part of the middle-class rage that you so sensibly address. I believe that the reason this immigration issue resonates so deeply with folks like me is because it is both a real and metaphorical example of the lack of respect to fundamental conservative principals that the Republican party and The President have displayed in the last few years. If these two entities haven't and won't protect our border, why should I grant them anything? Your solution is a good one, but I don't think they really care enough to implement it. Thank you.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I generally agree with everything posted on your blog, except for immigration.

1) Immigration was not on my radar screen, I don't even know where this issue came from all of a sudden.
2) I don't know anyone (not to sound like Pauline Kael here) who felt this issue was important. I have friends, family members, and co-workers all across the political spectrum, and this issue never came up.
3) I basically feel immigration strengthens our country - these are hard working people who come here to work and support their families.
4) The fact that these are illegal immigrants doesn't mean that much to me as part of the public policy question. After all marijuana is illegal (the 'nation' decided pot should be illegal presumably the same way in which it determined what constituted an illegal immigrant)
5) This could be a chance for the Republican's to capture the Hispanic vote in the same way the democrats have captured the black vote.
6) I am not worried about assimilation - I have several 2nd and 3rd generation Hispanics who work with and for me, and they seem as American as any other ethnic group.
7) As for the solution to the issue - I am sure we need some process to convert 'undocumented' workers into 'documented' workers, but I just can't see us expelling millions of hard working people.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The S.2611 is a joke & the House members know it. We all seem to be treading with a PC attitude. These people are here ILLEGALLY and the real people probably at one time came from immigrant families or with ties to immigrant families know the difficulties of obtaining citizenship(my wife for one).

There should be NO free passes. NO AMNESTY. Close the borders like a drum, go after the employees( their only concern is cheap labor = bigger profits) & after the jobs dry up & the people decide what they will do (3 to 7 years) then the Congress can visit this issue again with the "NO AMNESTY APPROACH"

This is I think what "We the people" WANT.

Posted by John McIntyre at 01:21 PM | Email Author | Permalink

Ask anyone what the Federal Reserve controls and you will most likely get an answer having to do with interest rates. And while most people should be forgiven for believing this, they would be dead wrong. The Fed has direct control over only one thing - money.

By using open market operations, the Fed can add or subtract reserves from the US banking system at will. When it adds reserves the federal funds rate falls. When it subtracts reserves, money becomes less plentiful, and the federal funds rate rises.

While 99% of the stories carried in the business press focus on these changes in interest rates when talking about the Fed, it is not the rates that matter, but the money. The growth rate of the money supply determines the growth rate of nominal GDP, or total spending.

The idea is simple really and is described by "The Quantity Theory of Money." This equation (MV=PQ) is attributed to Irving Fisher. The equation says Money x Velocity = Price x Quantity.

More succinctly, the change in the money supply and the change in how fast that money is spent will equal the change in total spending. If the Fed increases the money supply by 6% (and velocity does not change), then nominal GDP (real growth plus inflation) will grow by 6%. The faster the money supply grows, the faster total spending grows - assuming constant velocity.

In the 1930s, the Fed allowed the money supply to contract. This incredibly damaging mistake caused nominal GDP to decline. The US experienced deflation and falling real output at the same time. In the 1970s, the Fed created too much money. Between 1978 and 1981, nominal GDP grew at an annual average rate of 10.9% - real GDP averaged 1.8%, while inflation averaged 8.9%.

Understanding this is the key to understanding Fed policy. It shows exactly how accommodative Fed policy has been in the past few years. During the deflationary years of 2001 and 2002, nominal GDP grew just 3.3%. But in the past three years, nominal GDP has grown at an annual average of 6.8% - the fastest three-year growth rate since 1990.

Moreover, our models indicate that to be "neutral," the federal funds rate should be within 1% or less of the growth rate of nominal GDP. A "neutral federal fund rate" is when money supply and money demand are in balance - when nominal growth is stable.

In other words, if the Fed had hiked rates faster in 2004 and 2005, nominal GDP would have stabilized at a slower rate and the Fed would already be at neutral. Instead, the measured pace of Fed rate hikes left the Fed "behind the curve." Our models suggest that today's 5% rate is roughly 100 basis points below a true neutral rate. The longer it takes the Fed to hike rates to 6%, the faster nominal GDP will grow and the higher the neutral rate will become.

While conventional wisdom suggests that the Fed will pause soon, we suspect that this is just wishful thinking by many who felt the Fed would stop hiking months ago. While 16 consecutive rate hikes have created a great deal of consternation for those who view the Fed only in terms of interest rates, monetary policy is not yet tight. The more accurate description is that policy is just "less loose." If the Fed can lift rates to 6% by autumn, our models would judge this as monetary policy nirvana.

Posted by Brian Wesbury at 12:25 PM | Email Author | Permalink

A flood of emails this morning on my column examining the Crossroads the Republican party faces on Immigration reform and how to deal with illegal immigration.

I am puzzled too. This is ineptness beyond comprehension.

The debate has become one of immigration rather than one of illegal immigration. I am for legal immigration - I am a legal immigrant and a naturalized citizen. I am not for illegal immigration. But the Senate obviously can't recognize the difference.

The second issue is one of a secure border. It belies credulity that we are fighting a war thousands of miles away to enhance global security while having our own southern border leaking like a sieve.

I don't think much of Congress. I have been a strong Bush supporter mainly because I thought he would do the right thing even if he could not explain it very well. Now i'm starting to wonder whether it is fatigue that is overtaking him or just presidential hubris.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So absolutely True! But I fear Bush and the GOP are so totally corrupted that your outstanding, common sense advise will be completely ignored. I know it all started much earlier than Katrina, but using that tragedy as the historical marker, this President and his Administration, and the Republican controlled Congress, have been so disconnected from the "The People" that there is no doubt in my mind that they are going down to defeat and taking us all with them.

Bush and the GOP have gone crazy with power and greed, and they've lost all contact with reality. Middle of the road Republicans and Independents who put these guys into power have been "turning off" by the thousands since Katrina. Donations and campaign workers are slowing and will be tougher to come by. And, come Election Day, they'll stay away from the polls by the millions.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Enjoyed your RCP article on the building rage on illegal immigration. I certainly feel that way, but then again, I also felt that about Kelo, and I haven't seen a backlash there either.

So when you assert that there's a growing backlash building in the grassroots, I'm hopeful that you're right, but I didn't see any grounding for the assertion within the text.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Concerning your May 30, 2006 article "The Republican Crossroads on Immigration", I think you have the politics of this right in every detail. I hope the Republicans follow your "roadmap".

One practical issue that I think you should consider.

Among the 11 million illegals estimated to be here, half or more, I think I've read, have been here over 5 years. And theoretically a percentage (maybe 10?) has been here since the 1980's. Their kids are now, possibly, college graduates.

If "close the border" comes first, some years (we're talking "Washington time" here) will pass before "path to citizenship" happens, if it ever does.

Please picture the "established illegal," who has been here since 1990 and whose family is now engaged more in America than in the homeland. And now there is a dying parent back home. What to do?

1. Go home to hold the hand of the dying mother and face the now-closed border, and the possibility of never being reunited in America with wife and children and grand children.

2. Or all leave (Tancredo's dream!) and throw away the last 15 years of building a life here. (fat chance!)

3. Or continue to lay low in America, hoping that someday "selfless" Congressmen will see that they aren't the only ones deeply affected by their cynical quest for re-election.

Love your articles, but, as President Bush says, "this issue affects real people living real lives." Personally, I am delighted that some of my fellow Republicans (McCain and Graham of SC to name two) have retained the ability to be practical and compassionate without giving away the store.

Given the high emotion on this issue, do you think failure to deliver a comprehensive immigration overhaul will open the door to a centrist third party (McCain-Lieberman, for example), which will use the immigration stand-off to end "domination by extremists" in the established parties?

As I read the 5/30 USA Today "Four Factions" survey, 75% of approximately 75% (75x75=56%) favor doing the "right thing" with regard to those illegals already here. I, for one, am growing desperate for a non-extreme choice.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have been voting for the GOP in every election from 1992 (the first year I was eligible to vote) to this most recent presidential election. I can tell you with one hundred percent certainty however that if the GOP decides to keep alive its fantasy of "appealing to Hispanic voters" through granting an amnesty to these eleven million (or more) illegal, they can consider me a vote lost...permanently. Let's be clear on what "amnesty" means to a pissed off soon-to-be-former-GOP-voter like myself. Any governmental action that allows illegals to acquire citizenship in the United States without returning to their home of origin and applying for citizenship like everyone else on planet earth is an amnesty and I will refuse to support permanently the "right wing" party if it chooses to go down this path of lawlessness and blatant political pandering.

I can only be betrayed and abused so many times after all and if they decide to mock the value system of their conservative voters on this issue or compromise in any way with this horrid senate legislation, I will enjoy watching the GOP crash and burn as all conservatives of conscience desert this travesty of a political party during the next election and not vote at al

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ronald Reagan signed the last amnesty in 1986. When all those hundreds of thousands were marching through Chicago with their Mexican flags and "Che"

Posted by John McIntyre at 10:06 AM | Email Author | Permalink

Just over the wire: "Treasury Secretary John Snow has resigned and will be replaced by Goldman Sachs Chairman Henry M. Paulson Jr., a senior administration official said Tuesday." Bio on Paulson here. Wikipedia entry here.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 07:35 AM | Email Author | Permalink

This morning USA Today serves up a seemingly authoritative analysis concluding that the nation is divided into "four clusters that are roughly equal in size but vary dramatically in point of view" on the issue of illegal immigration. USA Today dubs the groups "hard-liners" (25%), "the unconcerned" (23%), "the ambivalent" (27%), and "the welcoming" (27%).

Buried in the description of this last group, however, is this nugget of information:

The most sympathetic of any group toward illegal immigrants and the most likely to believe their removal would hurt the economy. The only group that thinks dealing with illegal immigrants already here should take priority over border security. [emphasis added]

Uh, doesn't that mean roughly 73% of Americans believe border security is a priority? And doesn't that put the lie to the claim that there is some dramatic variance among the public's point of view on the issue? USA Today didn't just bury the lede on this story, it looks like they missed it altogether.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 06:55 AM | Email Author | Permalink

From a nifty little puff piece on the front page of the Philadelphia Inquirer:

Donna Santiago, an unemployed single mother from the Kensington section of Philadelphia, never thought much about Venezuela before January, when she received a load of discounted heating oil courtesy of the South American nation.

Santiago was so ecstatic - her family was among a lucky 181,000 low-income households in the Northeast that received 40 million gallons of discounted oil - she told the program organizers she wanted to thank Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez personally.

Much to her surprise, she got her wish.

Last month, Santiago and her two daughters - none of whom had ever traveled abroad before - were flown to Caracas with about 60 other heating-oil beneficiaries at Venezuela's expense. After a two-day whirlwind tour of Chavez's accomplishments, the American visitors got an audience with the charismatic president himself.

"All I had heard about Chavez was that he was a dictator," Santiago, 38, said after returning to Philadelphia. "The man is far from that. He's a really warm person. I wanted to bring him home and stick him in the White House."

I also liked the part about the government-funded vocational cooperatives that offer six months worth of "training." One guy who worked in a shoe-manufacturing cooperative told the paper, "It's not like we're going to start making shoes right away. First they teach you human values."

RELATED: Uribe's win in Colombia "halts Latin America's march to the Left."

Posted by Tom Bevan at 06:06 AM | Email Author | Permalink

John McCain's public relations team must be in heaven over press reports about Harry Reid's free ringside seats in Vegas, because you don't often find a more favorable contrast than this:

Sen. John McCain of Arizona insisted on paying $1,400 for the tickets he shared with Mr. Reid for a championship match between Oscar De La Hoya and Bernard Hopkins, one of 2004's most-hyped fights. [snip]

Andrew Herman, a Washington lawyer who frequently works with Congress, agreed. "I think it is pretty clear what Senator McCain did in the current atmosphere in Washington was certainly the more prudent thing."

Posted by Tom Bevan at 05:32 AM | Email Author | Permalink

First the execrable British MP George Galloway said it would be "morally justified" for a suicide bomber to kill Tony Blair, then Galloway tried to twist the words of Blair's wife Cherie in his defense:

In a statement last night Mr Galloway recalled the 2002 incident involving Mrs Blair. Like her, he said, "I understand why such desperate acts take place and why those involved might believe such actions are morally justifiable."

Mrs Blair did not actually go that far. In her remarks about suicide bombers she said: "As long as young people feel they have got no hope but to blow themselves up you are never going to make progress."

Posted by Tom Bevan at 10:39 AM | Email Author | Permalink

Those who've been following the Duke case know much of what the Raleigh News & Observer reports today about how the police botched the identification process:

The March 21 photo lineup was made public in a motion by lawyers for team captain David Evans. The motion asks for more evidence from the files of police and prosecutors about the lineup and other records.

It is unclear whether the accuser identified any players in the March 21 lineup. Defense attorneys said they did not get a report on the procedure. [snip]

In a second lineup April 4, the woman picked out four players as possible attackers with varying levels of certainty, a police report on the lineup says. She said then that she was "about 90 percent sure" Evans was one assailant but said he had a moustache that night. Evans' attorneys say Evans has never had a moustache.

For the March 21 lineup, Durham police used official photos of the lacrosse players identical to those posted on GoDuke.com, the official Web site of Duke athletics. The police arranged the photos in groups labeled A through F, according to the motion filed Friday.

Evans' photo was labeled F-5. A Post-It note referring to group F said, "Did not pick any."

"Eight days after the alleged assault, and two weeks before the April 4 identification procedures in which she selected [Evans] with 90 percent certainty if he had a moustache, the complainant viewed a picture of [Evans] in this case and did not identify him as one of her alleged assailants," wrote Evans' attorneys, Joseph B. Cheshire V and Brad Bannon of Raleigh. "Incredibly, though, there is no narrative report ... about these photo identification procedures."

The March 21 lineup, as described in the motion, might have violated the Durham Police Department's policy on photographic lineups in two ways:

* The policy calls for "filler" photographs of people who are not suspects in the case. The March 21 lineup apparently included only Duke lacrosse players.

* The officer running the lineup is supposed to document the procedures, results and number of photos viewed. Evans' attorneys said they received no such report.

The N&O article also has details from a report from the officer who first came in contact with the accuser on the morning of March 14:

The accuser said that when the two left and got in the other dancer's car, someone from the party came out and asked them to return, Shelton wrote. Nikki wanted to go back into the house, Shelton wrote, but the accuser didn't, and the two argued.

"She said at that point some of the guys from the party pulled her from the vehicle and groped her," Shelton wrote. "She told me no one forced her to have sex."

Shelton called his watch commander to report the woman had retracted her rape allegation. A few minutes later, Shelton wrote, he learned that she had told the examining doctor that she had been raped.

"I returned to the room where she was and asked her if she had or had not been raped," Shelton wrote. "She told me she did not want to talk to me anymore and then started crying and saying something about them dragging her into the bathroom."

Posted by Tom Bevan at 10:25 AM | Email Author | Permalink

I'll be on Larry Kudlow's radio show on New York's WABC starting at noon eastern today. You can listen to it live here.

Posted by John McIntyre at 05:46 AM | Email Author | Permalink

Buried deep in this long article in Wednesday's Seattle Post-Intelligencer examining the effect of the debate over immigration reform in Eastern Washington's heavily Hispanic agricultural counties, I came across this surprising factoid:

"Often, students enroll in schools within days of arriving in Washington after long, winding journeys through California. Sixteen-year-old Yaret Ortíz was one of them.

Ortíz is enrolled in an online Spanish curriculum created by the Mexican government and tailored to state requirements." [emphasis added]

I wasn't aware the Mexican government was in the business of writing online Spanish curricula for U.S. school districts, but it turns out it currently does this with six districts in 5 states through a web portal set up here.

It gets even more surprising. Upon further investigation I stumbled across a link to the "Oregon-Mexico Education Partnership," established in 2004 to help migrant workers living in Oregon for the purpose of:

*Having more education for their life and work

*Improving their home language

*Learning English "the easier way"

*Supporting their children with their own example

*Improving their self-esteem, and pride for the Mexican culture

*Obtaining official educational certificates from Mexico"

The program also declares that it can help "Mexican citizens in the US federal prison system who can get their education while incarcerated, and leave the prison system with a greater knowledge than before, ready to serve their country with positive contributions."

I'm hard pressed to understand why the state of Oregon needs to be funding and facilitating programs to improve literacy in Spanish or "pride for the Mexican culture" - especially among those who are living here illegally.

Clearly, the Mexican government has its own agenda, part of which is to help its citizens living in the United States. On one hand, that is a completely legitimate rationale and a function that many governments perform on behalf of constituents. But on the other hand, because the government of Mexico has done virtually nothing to halt the flow of its citizens entering and living in the United States illegally, and because the Mexican treasury relies so heavily on remittances from its citizens living here illegally, these programs are an outrage in that they seem designed to promote an infrastructure that supports illegal immigration.

The problem illegal immigration presents to the United States' public education system is substantial. Certain communities have struggled to find a way of dealing with the enormous strain placed on the public education system by the huge influx of Spanish-only speaking migrant families. Title IC of the No Child Left Behind Act mandates federal assistance for the education of migratory children and has resulted in the creation of specialized "Migrant Ed." programs like this one in Southern Oregon. The goal, which is admirable enough, is to help keep the children of migrant workers in school and learning, rather than on the streets getting into trouble.

The question is whether these programs are performing the essential function of helping kids and parents assimilate into communities or whether they're having the opposite effect, allowing certain communities to become more and more balkanized. It's a question worth asking, especially in the context of an immigration reform bill that may provide a path to citizenship for many currently living here illegally and may also dramatically increase the number of temporary workers allowed into the country.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 04:06 PM | Email Author | Permalink

An email from a longtime reader in the UK on Tony Blair's press conference last night:

The midday news shows made a lot of the "embarrassing" scene where the president wanted Blair to survive till the end of his term. The consensus seems to be that the trip, so far, has done the PM more harm than good and the slide will continue.

I thought they both had a good press conference and I don't agree with Glenn Kessler & Michael A Fletcher, in today's Washington Post, that Blair was dour and exhausted. He was a little tired, but you ain't seen nothing yet if you think Blair is dour. [Gordon] Brown is the very definition of Calvinist dour and can make the jolliest person miserable in a few nano seconds. He makes Cheney look like an outrageous extrovert.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 10:31 AM | Email Author | Permalink

General Michael Hayden as Director of Central Intelligence by a vote of 78-15. Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, 57-36. The four Democrats who voted in favor of Kavanaugh were Byrd, Carper, Landrieu, and Nelson.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 09:38 AM | Email Author | Permalink

Looking at yesterday's roll call on the Senate immigration bill, Michigan Democrat Debbie Stabenow's 'no' vote is interesting. Only four Democrats voted against the bill: Nebraska's Ben Nelson, West Virginia's Robert Byrd, North Dakota's Byron Dorgan, and Stabenow. Nelson, Byrd and Stabenow are all up for reelection, but both Nelson and Byrd aren't really vulnerable, and their votes don't seem out of character with their records and positions. Dorgan is probably reflecting the overwhelmingly wishes of his conservative North Dakota constituency. But Stabenow's vote is totally out of character for a Senator with 100% ratings among many liberal Democratic interest groups.

Stabenow, a first termer who won with only 49% of the vote in 2000 currently has a somewhat comfortable lead in all the major polls. But after watching Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm's once-comfortable lead evaporate into a dead-heat dog fight with Republican Dick DeVos, Stabenow was probably looking to preemptively take the immigration issue off the table as a weapon for her ultimate GOP opponent, either Mike Bouchard or Keith Butler.

Politically, it's a smart move by Stabenow in a state where the unemployment rate is 2.5 points higher than the national average, and it provides a small insight into where the politics of the immigration bill may be cutting in close races where there isn't a substantial Hispanic vote.

Posted by John McIntyre at 08:20 AM | Email Author | Permalink

For the third time in two weeks, a poll has come out showing Michigan Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm trailing Republican challenger Dick DeVos. The latest survey has Ms. Granholm behind Mr. DeVos by 3 points, 45-42, while two surveys conducted during the first week of May showed Ms. Granholm down one point to Mr. DeVos.

Ms. Granholm's problems are twofold. First, she faces a challenger with bottomless pockets. One reason for Mr. DeVos's rise in the polls is that he's spent an estimated $4 million since mid-February saturating the airwaves with ads. Ms.Granholm has yet to launch a paid media campaign for her reelection bid.

The bigger issue facing Ms. Granholm, however, is the Michigan economy. Data released this week from the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed the state's unemployment rate jumping four tenths of a percent in April to 7.2% - two and a half points higher than the national average. While some of the service sectors of Michigan's economy are showing very modest growth, the all-important manufacturing sector continues to contract, shedding 3.1% over the last twelve months.

Ms. Granholm has been scrambling to try and create the perception of positive economic momentum. A trip to Japan last week netted commitments from a dozen companies for more than $80 million worth of investment in Michigan and an estimated 400-plus jobs. This week Granholm signed legislation shifting millions of dollars worth of road projects scheduled for 2007 forward into election year, a move she says will eventually produce another 7,100 additional jobs.

It may not be enough. If the economy continues to sputter, DeVos's biggest asset in this race may turn out not to be his vast wealth but his experience as a successful businessman. "I understand how to turn around an enterprise that is in serious decline," DeVos told a group at the Detroit Economic Club on Tuesday, "When I look at Michigan, I see the same challenges, and I know the same approach will work." If voters agree, Governor Granholm could find herself among Michigan's unemployed come the end of this year.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 05:55 AM | Email Author | Permalink

The Canada Free Press (CFP) just sent out an email promoting a number of stories on their site, including this interview with Hamid Mir. I'm not familiar with Mir or the CFP, so I don't want to vouch for the credibility of either, but the material contained in the interview sure does make for interesting reading:

RM: It has been reported that you believe Al-Qaeda has nuclear weapons. How did you come up with this conclusion?

HM: I came up with this conclusion after eight years of investigation and research in the remote mountain areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan. I traveled to Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Syria, Uzbekistan, and Russia and met dozens of people. I interviewed not only Al-Qaeda operatives but met scientists and top U.S. officials also. I will have the details in my coming book.

At least two Al-Qaeda operatives claimed that the organization smuggled suitcase nukes inside America. But I have no details on who did it. But I do have details about who smuggled uranium inside America and how.

I am very careful when speaking about Al-Qaeda's nuclear capabilities. I've met many people in Al-Qaeda who have claimed that uranium and nuclear bombs were smuggled to America, and I'll quote them in my book. However, when I speak for myself, I don't rely on claims by Al-Qaeda. I rely upon my own investigations.

RM: How many nuclear weapons does Al-Qaeda possess?

HM: As far as I know, they smuggled three suitcase nukes from Russia to Europe. They smuggled many kilos of enriched uranium inside America for their dirty bomb projects. They said in 1999 that they must have material for more than six dirty bombs in America. They tested at least one dirty bomb in the Kunar province of Afghanistan in 2000.

They have planned an attack bigger than 9/11, even before 9/11 happened. Osama Bin Laden trained 42 fighters to destroy the American economy and military might. 19 were used on 9/11, 23 are still "sleeping" inside America waiting for a wake-up call from Bin Laden.

Read the whole thing.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 02:47 PM | Email Author | Permalink

Lynne Duke's article in the Washington Post on the Duke rape case is a noxious mix of racial innuendo and political correctness:

In the sordid but contested details of the case, African American women have heard echoes of a history of some white men sexually abusing black women -- and a stereotype of black women as hypersexual beings and thus fair game.

The mainstream media have largely tiptoed around the brutal truth that has been discussed among black women in private conversations, in the blogosphere and on college campuses. It is that the Duke case is in some ways reminiscent of a black woman's vulnerability to a white man during the days of slavery, reconstruction and Jim Crow, when sex was used as a tool of racial domination.

But of course. And if we switched the race of alleged offenders and victims in the case, Lynne Duke would no doubt churn out a 1,453-word front-page article examining the "brutal truth" and the echoes of "slavery, reconstruction, and Jim Crow" of a rush to judgment against black men who were suspected of sexually assaulting a white woman.

This case really shouldn't be about race, and Lynn Duke's effort to shoehorn it into a metaphor for the devaluation and exploitation of black women in modern America borders on the pathetic. The reason the alleged victim is getting "no benefit of any doubt" - as Julianne Malveaux is quoted as saying in the article - isn't because of the color of her skin but because nearly all the evidence publicly available in the case points to the very real possibility she's lying.

Duke pushes her agenda further by quoting Durham community activist Victoria Peterson:

"White men have always been fascinated with black women over the years. That's nothing new," says Peterson, who launched Durham Citizens Against Rape and Sexual Abuse in response to this case. With outlets such as BET and others portraying African American women as highly sexed, "young white boys, they want to touch, they want to see," Peterson says.

Where's the evidence for that claim? Even if Ms. Peterson's general, presumably non-expert opinion about the attitudes of young white males toward African-American women happens to be correct, fascination is still a long way from rape.

Facts can be inconvenient things, and based on the data available the facts are that the vast majority of rapes and/or sexual assaults are not interracial. According to statistics from the Department of Justice, the estimated number of rape and sexual assault cases in 2003 involving a white offender and a black victim was 0.0%. Over the course of the last eight years white-on-black rape/sexual assault cases averaged 6.9%, while black-on-white rape/sexual assault cases over the same period were slightly higher at 10.8%.

Clearly, this doesn't rule out the possibility that three white college students gang raped an African-American woman back in March, as alleged. But it does add some perspective to Lynne Duke's article in the Post. The particulars of this case are bad enough without dredging up and promoting ancient, racially divisive ghosts - especially if it turns out the rape charge is a lie.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 12:49 PM | Email Author | Permalink

As part of our continuing partnership with Forbes.com, today they have launched the first video cast of RealClearPolitics on Forbes.com. Check out my interview with Larry Kudlow on the disconnect between the President's sagging approval ratings and the booming economy. Larry and I also get into the impact of the illegal immigration debate, the growing threat of protectionism to the U.S. economy and much more.

Posted by John McIntyre at 09:28 AM | Email Author | Permalink

In the early stages of the 2004 election campaign I suggested that the Democrats would actually be better off if Iraq turned into a huge success. While this may seem counter-intuitive, the reason is that it would have served to dampen the impact of the strongest asset working in President Bush's favor, which was the post-9/11 world.

If there is a single factor that caused most analysts to misinterpret what would happen in the 2002 and 2004 elections, it was underestimating the effect of September 11th on American voters. To be clear, I am not suggesting that strategists and pundits weren't aware that 9/11 had changed the political playing field. Of course they were. But as much as you heard the line that "9/11 changed everything," few political analysts really understood just how much it changed the playing field.

The 2002 election came eight weeks after the 1-year anniversary of the 2001 attack, right in the middle of the build-up towards the spring 2003 offensive in Iraq. And 2004 was the first presidential election after 9/11; the more the Democrats and Kerry talked about Iraq and the war, the more they unwittingly played right into the President Bush's strength.

So here we are today nearing the summer of 2006, and each passing week and month causes the 9/11 effect to diminish. The pathetic hyperventilating over how we treat terrorists and the NSA efforts to prevent another attack are warning signs of the distance we continue to move from the nation's collective resolve the morning of September 11th.

Contributing to the slow backslide into a September 10th mentality is the incredible success of the Bush administration. Yes, you heard that right, the incredible success. At the end of the day, the two most important facts to the American people are security and economic growth. In the months following 9/11, with an economy already in the middle of a deflationary spiral brought on by the collapse of the NASDAQ 5000 bubble, if you would have told people