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
#226 Long Live Populism page 3
#225 Crocodile Tears page 2
#224 ...Your Hamburger page 4
#223 Leftisst Deceit... page 4
#222 We Now Have a king page 2
#221 Cuomo and the Const. page 3
#220 Is U.S. That Evil page 6
#219 Dylan Roof Must Die page 5
#218 Fallout From Dallas... page 5
#204 The Impact of Islam 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.
July 19, 2015 Trump
v. McCain Trump's
comments about McCain may have been slightly off the mark in relation to the
viability of his candidacy, but, as is usually true, his intentions and
instincts were not too far offline. His
statement, that being a POW disqualifies McCain from being a war hero, is not
quite correct. Heroism in time of war
is usually reserved for those who demonstrate courage and bravery under fire and success in forwarding the wartime objectives, but some of those elements
can be found in the experiences of POW's.
Apart from whether McCain is a war hero, however, that status does not,
necessarily qualify one for high office.
In fact any value it may have for a candidate for political office
should be trumped (pun intended) by lack of intelligence and/or political
aptitude. McCain has certainly shown a
significant lack of both. However
Trump's statement also negatively reflects on his own qualifications in that regard, and
that is true in some degree despite the fact that lack of political aptitude
can sometimes contribute to a candidates appeal. It can even demonstrate, as it has in this
case, the presence of good instincts.
All in all, I don't think Trump has damages his candidacy very much by
what he said about McCain. I would still
give him a B+ and the only A's among that crowded field are Cruz and
August 24, 2015 #227 Listen Up Trump!
We have seen the Obama Administration openly flout the Constitutional separation of powers and assume dictatorial power, and we have seen the Democratic Party support him in that action. It also seems clear that there will be no effort to impeach him, and it is clear that even if one was attempted it would fail, because, with Democratic solidarity, not enough votes could be mustered for a conviction in the Senate. His criminal action would thus be affirmed. I do not believe the U.S. Constitution was intended to be as frail as is being demonstrated, in this situation. I don't believe that the framers intended to leave us vulnerable to usurpation of absolute power by a Party that has control of the Presidency and sufficient votes in the U.S. Senate to block an impeachment conviction. Yet that is what we are being told, not only by the Democrats and their allies in the leftist controlled press, but by the Republican elitists as well. The situation is even worse because a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court seem to be joining in the dismemberment of our Republic. That was made clear when Roberts voted with the leftists in rubber-stamping the IRS decision to ignore the Obamacare provision which clearly prohibits subsidies for the poor in states which refused to establish a State Insurance Exchange.
Robert's motivation is not clear. He may just be a total wimp who is afraid to challenge a presidential power grab, or he may be a willing participant in a corrupt, but unspoken, understanding between the Supreme Court and Congress in which the Court will allow Congress to do anything it wants, so long as it leaves the Supreme Court alone in its absolute control of social issues at the state level. Such an understanding is, of course, totally inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution which leaves control of such issues in the hands of the states, but then, this is an era in which power prevails rather than rules. If that is Robert's position then he is saying that, if the Democratic members of Congress want to lie about the intent they had when they inserted the prohibition on subsidies in states which did not establish exchanges, he, Roberts, will not interfere. That does come pretty close to describing his actions in regard to Obamacare in both of the major Supreme Court decisions rendered in regard to that act thus far. In doing so he is ignoring the fact that a Republican majority in both houses of Congress was elected on an anti-Obamacare platform, but then, his fellow Republican elitists in the new Congress are not sending him any signals which indicate they disapprove of Obamacare and the corrupt actions of the Democratic Congressional elitists in regard to that Act. In this light, Robert's actions acquire an even stronger stench of corruption.
Regardless of Robert's motivation, it seems clear that the elitists in both Parties are determined to keep Obama in power until the end of his term, or maybe even beyond. They seem to be ignoring the frequent hints coming from him that he would like to run for a third term. He has mentioned that possibility three or four times recently, and it is time someone started taking him seriously. That is particularly true in light of the extent to which he has demonstrated his lack of concern for constitutional limitations on his power in other situations, and his lust for power generally. If he is willing to ignore constitutional limitations in other situations, why would anyone not believe that he would ignore the two-term limitation that is apparently irritating him now? If the Democrats and elitist Republicans see no reason to curb his lust for power in the numerous situations which have occurred already, why would anyone assume that either group would suddenly acquire the courage to stand up against him in the latter event.
Indeed some of the situations in which he has behaved as though he believes he has a right to absolute power would appear to be small steps toward the goal of achieving the lifetime dictatorship to which he, apparently, thinks he is entitled. The birth certificate controversy is first of many such situations. Despite the fact that his black grandmother stated that she was present at his birth in Kenya, and his white grandmother worked in the Hawaiian office which created and maintained birth records in that state, and the further fact that he spent $900,000 to keep those records from public view, the elitists in both parties prevented any serious investigation which would have revealed his disqualification to hole the office of Presidency of this country. Those facts alone should have triggered an FBI investigation into the matter, but there was a mountain of other evidence to indicate that such an investigation would have disqualified him from assuming that office before he was elected the first time. One important piece of such evidence included the statements of a female official in the Hawaiian Birth Records Office who said that she had seen his birth certificate on file in that office and she described it as a document that was mostly handwritten. That was the main piece of evidence the leftist press and the Republican elitists relied upon when they insisted that the controversy had been resolved. When, as a result of Donald Trump announcing his support of the birther movement, Obama was forced to produce his birth certificate, the document he produced was, except for the signatures, entirely printed, and there were many experts who said that the newly produced document, including the signatures, had been created digitally, a process that didn't exist when Obama was born. No one even recalled the fact that his white grandmother had access to the Hawaiian birth records at the time of his birth, and the opportunity to have forged the largely handwritten one that was seen by the official who gave the evidence that was used to resolve the controversy. Still no investigation and the elitists continued to ridicule anyone who had doubts on that issue. If Obama was able to pull that one off, why wouldn't he assume he could get away with anything?
At the time of the reelection campaign for his second term, he hung on to power by blatantly and corruptly telling outright lies regarding several major issues with respect to which the truth would have most likely caused his defeat. The most obvious and probably the one most responsible for his reelection was that everyone could keep their doctors and health insurance plans after Obamacare became effective. At that time the nation was in a very agitated state about the national health care plan the Democrats had adopted in secret closed door sessions, and the provisions of which had never been disclosed even to the Democrats who voted for it. Remember Nancy Pelosi's 'we'll have to pass it to know what is in it.' He told his biggest lie about something that went to the heart of the public uneasiness about the extent to which Obamacare would disrupt the current health care relationships of most Americans. There can be no doubt of the impact of that lie on the election. A second major lie, and one maybe as critical to his reelection, was with regard to the attack on the American Embassy in Benghazi in which four Americans, including our Ambassador, were killed. Much of the support Obama had garnered for this reelection was based upon the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Obama was loudly touting his role in the affair and proclaiming that it had destroyed the terrorist threat. 'International terrorism was on the run and would soon disappear because of his courageous act,' was the approach he was taking. The success of the search for Bin Laden was, of course, the result of many years of intelligence gathering that preceded Obama's Presidency and, was, in fact, impeded, if anything, by his actions. Nevertheless, the public fears about terrorism were relieved somewhat by his representations. The Benghazi attack, however, reignited those fears and demonstrated that international terrorism was just as strong, and maybe even stronger, after Bin Laden's death. That was what prompted him to tell the second biggest lie of his reelection campaign. He and his staff claimed that the attack in Benghazi was not by terrorists, but was an expression of outrage by Muslims in Libya over an American made video insulting Islam. Those statements were just as false as his promises about Obamacare.
The lies about Obamacare and Benghazi, and the fact that he was running against the limpest candidate the Republicans had ever put up, provided a one-two punch that was enough to secure him four more years of power. Despite the fact that his second term was even more damaging to this country than his first, the elitists in both Parties, nevertheless, continued in their refusal to remove him from office, and the Democrats and leftist press continue to assist him in his campaign to destroy this nation. It should be no wonder that he has convinced himself that he should, and can, remain in power for the rest of his life.
A recent issue might just be the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back, although it hasn't generated much comment yet. It was reported in the last week or so that the Defense Department is looking for some prison in the U.S. to house the remaining Gitmo prisoners. A law was passed by the last Democratic Congress which makes it illegal to move any of those prisoners into mainland jails. The reason for that law was that once they are held in jails on the mainland they will be entitled to the protection of the Bill of Rights, and there may not be sufficient admissible evidence to hold them. They would, thus, be released to do further damage to us. If Obama and his lapdog Secretary of Defense do move them into U.S. jails they will clearly be violating that law. While the law in question may not specifically contain criminal provisions, there are plenty of laws on the books regarding malfeasance in office, or dereliction of duties, under which both Obama and his Secretary of Defense could be prosecuted. I am waiting for the first Republican Presidential aspirant to announce, as a part of his or her campaign, that any Federal official who participates in such a violation of law, will be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent therefor. The first one who makes that announcement will have my vote and support.