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
#214 Veneer..Civilization page 4
#213 Jeb & Hillary page 2
#212 Should Dogs Vote page 3
#211 Sex, Drugs...Dole Page 6
#210 Abuse of Corp. Pwr. page 5
#209 Impeach Obama NOW page 5
#208 Ted Cruz For Pres. page 2
#207 Is Obama a Muslim? page 4
#25 Self-Esteem page6
#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.
May13, 2015 #215 Hillary and Elizabeth A story on the MSN Homepage a few days ago reported that a recent book has accused Obama of lying about facts surrounding the killing of Osama Bin Laden. The story was taken from a U.S. News And World Report article reviewing the book. According to the book, the military and intelligence departments had to scramble for weeks to adapt themselves to the facts as stated by Obama. Few details are given as to the actual misrepresentations, but the article also suggests that the entire situation was mishandled by the Administration several major ways. The source for the book's statements is an unnamed intelligence official.
Both MSN and U.S. News are far left news sources that have censored their reporting in the past to eliminate anything that might be remotely unfavorable to Obama, and they certainly would not have reported one of this significance until now. The mere fact that the story appeared in print may, therefore, be the most remarkable thing about it. It certainly is not remarkable because of the subject matter. Obama has told so many blatant lies in the past, on other subjects, which the public would never have become aware of but for Fox News and talk radio, that the reporting of another one might go almost unnoticed. One has to wonder why the leftist press is now beginning to report such things.
There have actually been some other signs from the left of similar tendencies. It has been a long time since far leftist movie stars have appeared in public frothing at the mouth about Fox News' coverage of Obama screw-ups and lies. It seems an eternity since George Clooney accused a questioner of implicit racism for referring to Obama simply by his last name rather than calling him 'President Obama' or 'Mister Obama.' Another sign of a new attitude by the left includes a drop-off in the number of white lefties appearing in the protests of the monthly killing of a black criminal by police. Such things may have signaled a realization by the left of just how ridiculous they were making themselves appear by their refusal to acknowledge the reality and depth of the corruption and dishonesty involved in the current racial turmoil and its instigator in chief, the great one. Whatever the reason for these signs of a change in attitude, however, the changes, heretofore, are nearly all based on inactivity, and are apt to go unnoticed. The actual reporting of the lie about the Bin Laden killing is a horse of a different color. It has a significance similar to the complaint by black activists, as pointed out in the previous posting on this website, that the press has, much to the astonishment and anger of said activists, begun to carry stories with negative implications in relation to the monthly cop-kills-black-criminal protests. The activists have, heretofore, been able to depend on the leftist press to characterize their looting and burning of businesses as an understandable, and justifiable, reaction to police brutality. Some, including even the great one, called them 'thugs' this time. As Jimmy Durante would say if he was still with us: "What a revoltin' development!!!" Next time, they fear, maybe the leftist press will even acknowledge that the police killings have been justified as a matter of self-defense and/or the protest du jour was in regard to a death that occurred in the course of applying legitimate law enforcement procedure.
As an eternal optimist, I have rejoiced at each sign of the new objectivity in the mainstream press, and have assumed that the trend would grow until we could, someday, rely on them to report all of the news and do so with complete honesty. However, my expectations may not be realistic. All of these developments may simply be explainable on basis of the many currents and cross-currents that are swirling within the leftist movement. For example, the left is in somewhat of a quandary over the fact that the Obama Presidency, including all the lies and corruption involved therein, is going to make it difficult to elect Hillary as the 'First Woman President' in 2016. That is made even more difficult by all of the lies and corruption that Hillary herself has been involved in. If they go into the 2016 election campaign with almost zero credibility among the hoi polloi, they will have more difficulty giving Hillary the same kind of protection they gave Obama in his two presidential campaigns. Thus, they may believe that by honestly covering some of the hot-button leftist issues in a little more objective manner, they may be able to retrieve some of their lost credibility. However, they must walk a kind of tight rope here because they don't want to damage Obama enough to prevent their campaign, as soon as he leaves office, to install him as the greatest of all American Presidents. To admit that he might have told just one lie may serve their purpose nicely without endangering their future beatification of him.
Another issue causing consternation among the leftists is the matter of Elizabeth Warren and the actions of the Democrats in Congress. Actually Elizabeth Warren is an issue unto herself, but she is also leading the Democrats in Congress in opposing Obama's efforts to get the Asian Trade Bills through Congress. Only a few days ago the Democrats succeeded in defeating the passage of those Bills in the Senate, and they threaten to do so in the House also. Ostensibly, Obama's efforts are being thwarted by the Democrats in order to keep the leftist Labor Unions in line as a part of the left wing coalition. Why Obama would want to join the commercial interests against the far left wing of his party on this issue is not clear, but he may see it as necessary to his enhance his legacy as an internationalist. He may also have some big donors in industry that expect him to toe the line if he wants the big money to keep rolling in. There may also be some cross currents operating here. The Democrats in Congress may see some need to separate themselves from Obama in preparation for the 2016 election in order to make it easier for Hillary to do the same as the election campaign gathers steam. Again, my rose colored glasses are trying to send me in the direction of reading the Asian Trade Bill actions as the beginning of a complete break between Obama and the left and, maybe, even leading ultimately to his impeachment, but I think that is a bit far-fetched.
Elizabeth Warren's role in the trade bills, and her existence as a threat to Hillary have produced some interesting exchanges between the various parties involved. Indeed, she and Obama have gone toe to toe to the extent of each of them suggesting that the other is not entirely honest. On the trade bill issue Obama has said about her "Elizabeth is, you know, a politician like everybody else, And, you know, she's got a voice that she wants to get out there, and I understand that. And on most issues, she and I deeply agree. On this one, though, her arguments don't stand the test of fact and scrutiny" (emphasis added).
One of the most interesting things about the Obama statement quoted above has nothing to do with the Asian Trade Bills. It is in the extent to which it constitutes an admission by Obama that he openly lies when he can gain political advantage by doing so. How else can you read the "Elizabeth is a politician like everybody else" (obviously including himself) part of his statement, and the last line in which he says "her arguments don’t stand the test of fact and scrutiny." He has called her a lying politician and compared her to himself in that regard. His feeble defense of himself from the charge of lying when he said everyone could keep their doctor and health insurance after the adoption of Obamacare, provides an interesting context for his admission above.
The fact that Elizabeth Warren is the 900 pound gorilla looming over Hillary's presidential aspirations can also color, and give different meaning to, the many machinations by various Democratic operatives outlined above, and others that occur regularly now that 2016 closes in on us. Democrats who like Warren because she is more of a leftist ideologue than Hillary, but realize that Hillary is inevitable because she has already locked up all of the Democratic money, may be expected to say and do inconsistent things because of being pulled in different directions. Actually, many of them are pulled in several directions other than the Hillary/Elizabeth split because many of them are honest enough to know, and care, that Obama has been consistently and regularly lying throughout his political life. It will be interesting to watch, and something good for the nation may even come out of it.