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: email@example.com
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 firstname.lastname@example.org or you may use my personal email address which is email@example.com 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
#207 Is Obama a Muslim? page 4
#206 Wily O'Reilly page 4
#205 Islamists & Marxists page2
#204 Impact of Islamic... page6
#203 Joe Blow - Breese IL page 3
#202 Apologize to Brian page 6
#201 Brian Williams... page 5
#200 ISIS And The Devil page 5
#199 Downward Slide page 2
#177 The "I" Word page 3
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.
March 25, 2015 #208 Ted Cruz For President
In case you haven't noticed there seems to be a decisive uptick in the intensity of political rhetoric recently, and it, apparently, signals that both sides sense some change in the air. The increased intensity of the rhetoric would appear to be an effort by both to get the upper hand in the battle for the minds of the undecided members of the public.
An example of the uptick is Charles Krauthammer's statement on the Bill O'Reilly Show a few nights ago in which he characterized some of Obama's recent statements as being indicative of an outright desire, by Obama, to see Iran become the dominant power in the Middle East. Underscoring that conclusion is the fact that Iran's Mullahs have signaled their pleasure with Obama's current overtures. Charles' statement was the strongest statement I have so far heard from anyone who is in the moderate wing of the Republican Party to the effect that Obama actually wants Iran to be the dominant power in the Middle East, and is willing to assist them in attaining that status. Not only is Obama allying us with Iran, he is also intentionally abandoning our current allies in that area of the world, those allies being the Arab states of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the oil emirates in addition to our strongest ally there, Israel. You may recall that in the last post on this website (#207) a position similar to that of Krauthammer was taken. Charles seemed to track that position fairly closely. Emphasizing the seriousness of Charles' position, O'Reilly nearly went out of his mind as he repeated several times how 'crazy' the situation has become if Charles is correct. The significance of that discussion should not be underestimated. That is particularly true in view of the fact that it follows fairly closely on the heels of a statement by Rudy Giuliani that Obama 'does not love' this country. It also gives new significance to other actions by Obama in the Middle East, such as the Obama administration's refusal to fully accept the Egyptian government's stated willingness to cooperate with us in the war against radical Islam. In fact, the Obama administration is clearly giving the cold shoulder to Egypt in every regard. The same thing is true of his feud with Israel's Prime Minister, which Obama portrays as a personal dislike of Netanyahu even though it is obviously the same anti-Semitism that prevails in Iran and the rest of the Muslim Middle East All of this is consistent with only one thing; Obama finds an alliance with radical-jihadist-supporting Iran to be more attractive than any arrangements we have we with our existing allies in the region. He is quite clearly throwing our current allies under the bus. Obama apparently likes the prospects of a Middle East dominated by an anti-American Iran as much as he dislikes the U.S. having an influence anywhere in the world. Recall my statement in my last posting on this website that the ISIS thing seems to have turned out in a way that fits Obama's agenda just about as perfectly as it would have if he had planned it. The U.S. is using its Air Force to support the Iranian invasion of Sunni Iraq to complete the total Iranian take-over of Iraq.
The reaction of the leftist press and the Democrats to this radical change in our Middle Eastern policies has been to give Obama a blank check in the pursuit of his anti-American goals. A typical reaction is contained in an AP article entitled Fiery rhetoric clouds legacy of 'America's Mayor.' That article is nothing short of a threat by the leftist press that if the conservatives continue to correctly characterize the actions of Obama, there will be damaging personal attacks on those participating in such activities.
Another dialogue that somewhat parallels the O'Reilly/Krauthammer exchange in both subject matter and importance to the current political heat-up occurred when the panel on the Brett Baier Special Editions show was discussing the 10 hour interview of Dick Cheney by Fox News reporter Rosen. Cheney came down just about as strong as Krauthammer's statement discussed above with respect to the damaging effect Obama's current actions are having. A.B. Stoddard, the leftist representative on the panel appeared on the verge of tears as she grudgingly acknowledged that Cheney might have the right to say such things, but that he shouldn't do so. Her reluctance to acknowledge his right is pretty close to the equivalent of California's Jerry Brown's statement that Senator Ted Cruz should not be allowed to be a candidate for President because his having made an offhand humorous comment concerning the relationship of the recent New Hampshire snowfall to the global warming debate. Stoddard, Jerry Brown and the writer of the AP article all take the usual leftist position that no one should be allowed to use objective facts to challenge the validity of fantasy-based leftist positions, and anyone who does have the audacity to do so should be viciously attacked at the personal level. That position is just a slight extension of political correctness which places certain subjects beyond the protections of the Constitutional provisions with respect to free speech.
The heightened sensitivity of leftists with respect to public discussion of matters they have placed off limits, such as man-made climate change and the radical and sometimes subversive politics of Barak Obama, may proceed from feelings of insecurity on their part. They may perceive some shift in public attitudes toward their contrived reality and the ability of their propaganda machine to continue to control the public mind. It is remarkable that they have been able to do so for so long even though they have almost complete control of the news media, university faculties and public education, and the vast bureaucracy of both the federal and local governments, in other words, virtually all of the non-productive segment of society; a segment that controls nearly all of the national conversation. It is a control that has been so ironclad that even the opposition, such as Fox News and the moderate wing of the Republican Party, seldom venture to openly give voice in any very direct or forceful way, to any disagreement with the leftist positions in regard to the taboo subjects. That is why the Krauthammer/Cheney/Giuliani statements have so much significance. No one has heretofore had the nerve to make such remarks. It is likely that this new-found boldness, and the ultra-sensitive reaction to it, have the same source (i.e. a seismic shift in public attitudes).
As to the significant shift in public attitude, that, too, has been a long time in coming. However, when one reflects on all of the explosive recent scandals that have rocked the leftist boat, it should be no surprise. While the public has seemed to absorb each of them and remain solidly anchored to the left of center, the depth of that anchorage may have been gradually eroding. Consider the blatant lies of Obama and the Democrats regarding Obamacare, Benghazi, and the IRS scandal, and the extent to which the same people have now grossly overreached regarding climate change, our national security and our abandonment of traditional allies such as Egypt and Israel, plus our failure to offer any resistance to Russian aggression, and our open embrace of Iran and it's terrorist-supporting regime. The list of falsehoods put forward by the Democrats and the leftist press also includes those involved in the Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown cases, and the continuing portrayal, by the press of Michael Brown as having had his hands up in an effort to surrender, when he was shot by a Ferguson, Mo. policeman, despite two thorough investigations, one by our black Attorney General, which indicates that position to be absolutely false. When one adds to those the fall of the supreme leftist spokesperson, Brian Williams, because of an apparent inability to stick to the truth, and the public's, perhaps unconscious, comparison of Brian Williams' tendencies in that regard to the other recent examples of dishonesty by Democrats generally, the reason for the erosion becomes even more clear. That may explain why nearly all of the recent polls have indicated that the public now agrees with the conservatives on issues that are key to leftist positions such as climate change, foreign policy, economic issues, and national security, and why the left has lost nearly all of its credibility.
If the new boldness of conservative spokesmen continues, and maybe even gains momentum, the chances for the impeachment of Obama may also increase. There have to be a lot of rational Democrats who are getting nervous about the current situation and thinking, deep in the subterranean recesses of their unconscious minds, of the impact of all of these things upon our culture and our nation. The chances may also increase for the nomination and election of a genuine conservative such as Ted Cruz as President. That is particularly true if that boldness continues to cause the ratcheting up of the hysterics of the leftist response. It does seem that the ridicule of, and attempts to vilify, Cruz which are coming from every part of the leftist base, have a somewhat hollower ring than such tactics have had in the past with respect to other candidates such as Dan Quayle and Sarah Palin. A statement was made on Fox News, in the last few days, which seems to agree, in general, with the foregoing. It was made by someone who was disagreeing with the current moderate Republican assessment of Ted Cruz's politics as being as far right as Elizabeth Warren's are to the far left. The person making the statement went on to say that the public has been exposed to the extreme leftist politics of Barak Obama for the last six years, and may now be ready to try someone from the opposite end of the spectrum. It was, basically, a statement that for every action there is an equal reaction (or something like that).