We like to know who is logging on, and we send out an email announcing each new posting with a link to the site. To let us know who you are and/or to be incuded on the email list please send an email to: firstname.lastname@example.org
A Note on Format
Links to other parts of the website can only be made to a page, rather than a specific article or part of article and there may be more than one article on a page. Therefore, when you click on a link to another part of the website there may be more on the page to which you are taken than just the material you are looking for.
There will be an occasional short article on the Home Page and the longer weekly post starts in the right hand column of this page. Navigation to another page on this website may be done in two ways. You can either click on the link contained in the article to take you to a continuation of the article, or you may go to the top of the home page where there are tabs to take you to the remaining pages.
The address to which comments or request to be put on the mailing list should be sent is email@example.com or you may use my personal email address which is firstname.lastname@example.org Later I will probably add an automatic email link that can be used to send emails to the website, but right now I am just trying to get the basics done.
Send any comments or criticism to one of the above email adddresses
LINKS TO OTHER ARTICLES STILL ONLINE
click on the link to the right of the article
#235 The Dignity Of Man page 3
#234 Yapping Chihuahua page 2
#233 The Vikings Did It page 4
#232 Republican Moderates page 4
#231 The Pope's Visit page 2
#230 Different Color page 3
#229 Populism v. Elitism page 6
228 Put 'Em in Slammer page 5
#227 Listen Up Trump page 5
#25 Selft Esteem... page 6
All articles on this website are copyrighted on the date first placed online. All rights reserved.
No part of any article may be reproduced for redistribution without express permission
September 25, 2013 Appellate Court Acquits Tom Delay in Texas
A Texas appeal court has reversed the guilty verdict against Tom DeLay for money laundering entered a couple of years ago by an Austin, Texas, trial court. However, instead of sending it back to the lower court for a new trial, the appellate court entered a judgment acquitting DeLay of the commission of a crime. There is a significant difference between an acquittal and the usual remedy in such a situation which is simply sending the case back for a new trial. The appellate court’s action was a complete repudiation of the trial court, thus confirming that the prosecution of DeLay was an example of the politicization of the criminal process.
It will be recalled that DeLay, a very powerful Republican who was the Speaker of the House of Representatives in the U.S. Congress, was targeted by a Democratic Houston prosecutor named Earle, for purely political reasons. Earle was well known for indicting his political enemies and that included some who were Democrats. When Earle was unable to get a Houston Grand Jury to indict DeLay, the case was taken to Austin, the hot bed of leftists in Texas, where a left wing Grand Jury entered the indictment against DeLay for money laundering. The alleged crime consisted of DeLay’s sending some of the money in his campaign war chest to Republican legislative candidates in Texas. Some of the money in Delay’s campaign account consisted of entirely legal contributions from corporations. The Texas statute relating to campaign contributions prohibits corporations from contributing to political campaigns but does not apply to federal candidates such as DeLay. The practice DeLay was following was widely recognized as being beyond the reach of the Texas statute relating to political contributions.
The Texas money laundering statute makes it illegal for persons such as drug dealers to run their ill-gotten gains though legal bank accounts to sanitize them. The theory of Earle and his fellow leftists in Austin was that DeLay’s corporate contributors had run their contributions through DeLay’s campaign account to put them beyond the reach of the Texas political contributions act. Their theory was total nonsense. There was no evidence that any part of the money in DeLay’s war chest was intended for Texas political candidates at the time it was contributed to DeLay. Once in DeLay’s war chest it was, of course, mixed with the rest of the money already there. The money sent to Texas by DeLay was not ill-gotten in any sense, and not, therefore, covered by the Texas campaign contributions statute. No illegally obtained money had been laundered
The Texas appellate court recognized the Earle tactic for what it was, a contrived effort to politicize the criminal process by using a law to cover a situation it was never intended to cover. Nothing could be more destructive of our bedrock principle of the rule of law than the prosecution of DeLay in those circumstances. In fact our bill of rights was included in the Constitution as a reaction to the same kind of tactics used in England in the notorious Star Chamber proceedings. There can be no justice, indeed there can be no democracy, when those in power can corruptly use the criminal process to send their political opponents to jail.
The DeLay conviction was covered in a previous posting on this website. The action of the Texas Democrats in this case is just one of many examples of the fact that leftists are guided by only one principle and that is power. When one attempts to make this argument it is usually met with the response known as ‘a pox on both of their houses,’ in which it is asserted that there is no difference between the political tactics of Republicans and Democrats. While extensive research may find an instance where Republicans have been guilty of conduct similar to that of the Democrats in this case, it has to be contrasted with the ‘business as usual’ approach of the Democrats in similar circumstances. Another case that differs but little from the DeLay case, and was going through the courts at about the same time, was that of Scooter Libby who was convicted by DC jury of a crime that was never even committed. Libby’s prison sentence was commuted by President Bush, but that does not erase the conviction in the same way that a pardon would.
Nov.28,2015 ...Told You So
January 13, 2016 #236 God Help Our Nation!
As Obama announced the signing of an executive order creating new background check requirements for the purchase of guns, and, in the process shed a few tears while appearing to be near a total emotional breakdown, it raised a lot of eyebrows for a lot of reasons. Some have pointed out that it doesn’t really do much, or have much significance, and they, therefore, seem puzzled why it would have such an emotional impact on the president. One Fox News pundit actually, questioned whether the tears were real by suggesting that there was a half peeled onion under the speakers stand. Perhaps inconsistently, others have noted that the U.S. Senate previously considered, and rejected, a bill to have the same effect as the executive order, and, thus, Obama has once again ignored the Constitutional separation of powers in the federal government. Most seem to agree that, but for the Constitutional issue, the Executive Order doesn’t have much significance, and, while the ‘unpeeled onion’ thing may have been a joke, the accusation does raise a question as to why he was on the verge of a total breakdown for such a minor thing. It did follow a mention by him of a school shooting and all the violence in Chicago but that still doesn’t sound quite right. This is the guy who after just witnessing, and commenting on, a video of the beheading of an innocent American by ISIS, dropped everything and headed out to the golf course, leaving the impression that the necessity of commenting on that event was infringing on his recreations pursuits.
There was some talk about the fact this is, probably, his last shot at changing the gun laws, and he is obviously disappointed his efforts on that issue should end on such a wimp-out, leaving a legacy of almost complete failure on that score. No one attributed the tears, and near breakdown, to that disappointment, but such an explanation would seem to be more realistic than his supposed compassion for school shootings and Chicago violence. He has had plenty of opportunities to comment on those things in the past and has merely used the opportunities to make political hay, or, in the case of the Chicago violence has simply chosen to avoid any comments, apparently believing that to do so might diminish his support for those protesting in Ferguson, MO and other places, or the Black Lives Matter movement. If he was willing to push the Chicago shootings to one side in order to give maximum impact to his endorsement of Black Lives Matter, and their cop killing advocacy, then, it is clear that he puts his political objectives above the lives of the children being murdered on a daily basis in Chicago. It does, therefore, appear that the tears were based on political failure. Obama’s breakdown probably won’t be remembered for a couple of millennia, as was true of a more famous one by Alexander The Great, but It does find a parallel in the fact Alexander broke down in tears when he had no more nations left to conquer. Thus, the self-involved, narcissistic, fantasy-motivated, king-of-the-world, types seem to reserve their tears for situations in which they are forced to face the fact that there are limitations to their power. His world may also differ slightly than that of Alexander The Great in that Obama’s fantasy involves the destruction of our economic system and the advancement of world domination by a collectivist movement, rather than the conquest of other nations.
That this is probably his motivation, and his persona, obviously, gives the nation much more to fear from this lame duck President (perhaps this wounded tiger President might be a better analogy) than anything imagined by the critics who have speculated on the reason for his tears. His emotional breakdown is consistent with a lot of other evidence of his mental instability, and when that is considered along with his frequent demonstrations of a willingness to disregard Constitutional limitations on his power, the danger to this nation is clearly evident. In the latter regard, consider, for example, the way he seems to relish the idea of hanging on to power beyond the two term limit provided by the Constitution. He has mentioned, on a couple of occasions, the idea that he thinks he could win a third term, and he never qualified his fantasy, on those occasions, by mentioning the Constitutional limitation. The fact that he would publicly indulge in such fantasies must be considered in a context in which he has actually acted beyond his Constitutional power by using executive orders to enact legislation in violation of the Constitutional provisions which give Congress the exclusive legislative power. In doing so he has publicly flaunted his contempt for Congress and the Constitution by noting he was acting because Congress failed to act. He has done so on several occasions in which Congress has expressly rejected legislation identical to the offensive Executive Orders. Examples include the Executive Order which extended rights to illegal aliens that had been included in The Dream Act which was rejected by Congress. There have been many more such occasions including the more recent one referenced at the beginning of this piece.
Bearing not only on his refusal to accept limitations on his power, as demonstrated by the flurry of legislative executive orders, but also on his mental ability to cope with the chores involved in being president, are the many instances in which he has demonstrated that he has no ability to engage with those with whom he shares Constitutional power. The most glaring example is probably the process involved in the enactment of Obamacare. The enactment of that law, entirely behind closed doors, by the Democrats led by him, with absolutely no consultation or even communication with the Republicans in Congress, has no precedent in American history. The mess they made of the roll out of that law demonstrates how poorly thought out the whole process was. His response to the resulting failure, all of which was due to his own lack of ability to engage with the opposition, was to issue more executive orders. We have ended up with a law that was not even read by the Democrats prior to its enactment, and which now bears little resemblance to the one which was rammed through Congress, and one which is failing little by little.
His erratic and irrational forays into the field of foreign affairs are even worse, and demonstrate even less perception of the issues with which he must deal. One of his aides who sat in meetings between Obama and his security advisers, when asked how Obama behaved in those meetings, replied ‘he just sits there saying nothing, looking bored, and chewing gum.’ That may explain why he doesn’t hesitate to plunge into negotiations with our sworn enemy, Iran, which result in giving them 150 billion dollars to use in funding terrorist actions against us and the right to build atomic weapons which they have announced they will use against us and our allies who are sitting to one side looking on in amazement and fear at what is going on. It may also explain why he would, with little or no advance planning, blunder into the Rose Garden of the White House with the parents of Army deserter, Bo Bergdahl, to make an announcement which he apparently thought would repair the damage done by a series of his public relations fiascos just previously engaged in. No sooner had he announced the trade of Bergdahl for five Taliban commanders, who were being detained in Gitmo, than the whole thing blew up in his face. When he and his staff started referring to Bergdahl as a hero, it was revealed that the Army had known for a year or more of his desertion from his unit. It was also revealed that Bergdahl’s dad had advised him to defect to the Taliban, and that Bergdahl would not now talk to, or see, his parents, apparently because he finally realized the trouble those same parents, who had just been so buoyantly escorted into the Rose Garden by our esteemed, and all knowing, President, had gotten him into.
The above does not purport to be a complete catalog of events and actions demonstrating the mental instability and incompetence of the tearful, pathetic, creature who was on the verge of breaking down at the news conference in which he announced a new, unconstitutional, Executive Order. In fact, it doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface. When added to what we knew about his life before he was guided into a career in politics by a cop-killing, 1960’s terrorist named Bill Ayers, it does indeed give us reason to fear for the future of our nation which is in his hands for one last year (or so we hope). He was a troubled youth with drug problems who sat around snuffing out cigarettes on hotel lobby carpets while raging about ‘the man.’ He spent 20 years in the congregation of an America hating preacher who would frequently pause to ‘god damn America.’ He had no experience of any kind that would prepare him for his present job. He was nothing more than a ‘community organizer’ whose job is to radicalize. His claim to being a law professor is false. He was an ‘adjunct’ teacher at the U. of Chicago which means he was not a member of the faculty but an outsider who would teach an occasional course. His actions as president clearly indicate that he had probably never read any part of the Constitution. It does partly explain why Dr. Ben Carson referred to him as a psychotic, and, when added to what we knew about his life before he entered politics, it provides a lot of fuel for the fears about what he might do now that he must face the prospect of being judged a complete failure as a President.