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
#219 Dylan Roof Must Die page 5
#218 Fallout From Dallas... page 5
#217 Feminist/Black Activists page 3
#216 The Power of Stigma page 2
#215 Hillary & Elizabeth page 4
#214 Veneer..Civilization page 4
#213 Jeb & Hillary page 2
#212 Should Dogs Vote page 3
#211 Sex, Drugs...Dole Page 6
#204 The Impace 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.
June 24, 2015 # 220 Is The U.S. Really That Evil?
Each day the ISIS aggression continues to gain ground in Iraq and Syria is a day that is being squandered in relation to our ability to bring some peace and stability to that area. In previous posts on this website, I have taken the position that ISIS is only succeeding because it is giving a voice to the Iraqi Sunni's cry for justice that is being denied them by the regime in Baghdad. The Shiite government established by us in Iraq has denied the Sunni's any representation in the government, and has persecuted them mercilessly. The only way to end the sectarian strife is to partition Iraq into 3 separate countries, with the Sunni's, the Shiites and the Kurds each being given sovereignty over their respective areas. They never should never have been included in a single country to begin with. They were put in that position by the British and the U.S. following World War I, and the only way that country could be held together was by brute force and that was what happened.
Saddam Hussein cruelly imposed his power on the three groups by suppressing the Kurds and the Shiites. Saddam Hussein was a Sunni, and, although the Sunni's represented only about 20 per cent of the population, they were the dominant group. We blundered into Iraq with the idea that we were going to impose an American style democracy on that impossible situation. That, of course, required us to turn over power to the Shiites who were the largest group. We naively assumed that we could require the Shiites to share power with the other two groups and that everyone would get along. That was not only naïve it was stupid. The Shiites, upon gaining power, immediately realized the same reality that had brought Saddam Hussein to power and enabled him to maintain it, and they sought to suppress the other two groups just as Saddam had done. The impossibility of sustaining the solution we tried to impose was not only because sectarian hostilities will always exist in that area, but also that we tried to give power to a group that doesn't appear to have the ability to govern even themselves effectively. At least, Saddam Hussein and the Sunni's did have, and the Sunni's still have, the ability of organizing an effective government. If Iraq was to be left to its own devices now, and there was no outside interference, it would revert to the way it was before the last Iraq War. The Sunni's would again obtain control, because they are the dominant and most resourceful group. This time, however, the Sunni's would be under the control of a radical jihadist group called ISIS unless we do something to eliminate the radical ISIS group.
The Sunni's won't be able to take control of the entirety of Iraq, however, because Iran is a Shiite country, and it will protect the Shiite's in Iraq, and may even be able to bring the Sunni's and Kurds under control. If Iran is able to control Shiite Iraq and ISIS is able to maintain control of the Sunni portion, the only friends we will have in the area will be the Kurds and that may change if we continue to refuse to help the Kurds. That will mean that the entire area, except for Kurdistan, will be promoting terrorist acts against the U.S. Iran is already doing that and so is ISIS, and we are helping Iran obtain atomic weapons to use against us. We will be in a far worse position than we were in before we went into Iraq and toppled Saddam Hussein. It is clear that Obama seems to be bent on putting us in that position. He has always been sympathetic to Islamic causes, and it is probably because his mother married two Muslims and he attended Muslim schools in Indonesia. That is why he is so determined on getting a treaty that will, basically, give them control of the entire Middle East. To the same extent that he uses his power to sponsor the expansion of Iranian power, he holds those Middle Eastern nations that have been friendly to the United States in complete disdain, and that includes not only Israel, but Jordan, the Arab states, Egypt and the North African states. He wants Iran to displace us as the dominant power in the Middle East. He wants to expand Muslim power, and he wants to shrink U.S. influence, not only in that area but in the entire world. His love of Islam is based not only on his close family contacts with people of that religion, but also upon the collectivist sympathies he acquired while attending Ivy League schools in the East. He is well aware of the fact that collectivism is officially a part of Islamic theology. It is incorporated in the Koran, and the extent to which that is true was discussed at length in Post #204 which is being put back on the website and it can be accessed either by clicking here or on the link to page 6 at the top of home page of the website, or the link in the list of archived articles, also on the home page. Obama may be somewhat conflicted in the battle between Iran and ISIS because ISIS is more clearly devoted to the collectivist bent of the Koran, but, other than that, all of his actions can be explained on the basis of this dual pull of the major influences in his life; the attachment to Islam and the collectivism of the elitist Ivy League schools he attended. All of this has been reinforced by the fact that he sat in the Reverend Jeremiah Wright's congregation for 20 years and listened to toxic Anti-American sermons. It is a mystery to me how the gullible American people can be given all of this information and still refuse to consider the impeachment of Barak Obama.
I wasn't the first person to suggest the partition of Iraq. It was discussed a lot during the Iraq War. In fact, it was advocated by Joe Biden when he was in the U.S. Senate. It was presumably rejected when it was proposed by Senator Joe Biden because of our idiotic belief that we need only tell the Sunnis and Shiites that they must get along, and the further idiotic belief that every nation in the world should have a U.S. style democracy. Nobody else but this website is even considering that solution today even though it is the only one that is consistent with U.S. interests in the area. It would create Sunni and Kurdish states that would be friendly to the U.S. That might depend upon our gaining back the friendship of the Sunni tribal leaders; something which we lost because Obama insisted on withdrawing without leaving anyone to protect them from the Shiite government we had created, and from ISIS which is just another name for Al Qaida of Iraq. We had, prior to Obama's withdrawal, driven the latter group from Iraq and gained the respect and cooperation of the Sunni areas. It should also be noted that the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein was a secular one, and that is an indication that the Iraqi Sunni's are not, by nature or belief, very strongly committed to fundamentalist Islam. Strong Sunni and Kurdish states would serve to counter the influence of Iran in the area and bring something of a balance of power to that are, and with it a better prospect of peace. Since Iran is the main supporter of anti-American terrorist activities, it would also lessen our risk of such attacks. It may be true that Iranian Shiites would be under the influence of Iran, or might even be annexed by Iran, but that would not be that big of a loss to us. Iranian Shiites are a third world people and they would probably be a burden, rather than a benefit, to Iran.
The alternative to the above plan is to allow the de facto partition of Iraq to occur. Everybody seems to understand that ISIS cannot be prevented from gaining control of Sunni Iraq, and the Kurds are already, for all practical purposes, now an independent nation, and that is probably irreversible. If we just allow that course of events to occur, we will, as indicated, have no friends in the area, and there will probably a chaotic situation in the whole nation of Iraq, until Iran succeeds in bringing some or all of that nation under its control. The end result, in any case, is that we will have increased our risk of terrorist attacks. It seems clear that Obama probably desires that result, but why is everyone else joining Obama in refusing to consider the alternative outlined above. It is true that a few people such as Charles Krauthammer are taking the position that we should be arming the Kurds and the Sunni Tribal leaders, but they do not carry their reasoning beyond that. No one else will touch the P" (partition) word with a ten foot pole, and they turn deathly pale if anyone else does. No one seems to be able to get beyond the need to destroy ISIS, nor do they ever ask what will follow the accomplishment of that objective. There appears to be an absolute taboo in considering where American interests in that area lie. Perhaps the leftist/feminists and black activists really have convinced us that we are an evil nation and should not be allowed survive.
Bill O'Reilly's position is a case study in itself. He seems to have intuitively sensed that if an ethnic entity such as the Sunni people, has the intelligence and self-reliance to survive in a competitive world they must be Nazis, and, therefore, must be destroyed before they can bring some degree of prosperity to an area.