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 shoulld 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
#186 Restorative Justice page6
#185 The Coup De 'Tat page 3
#184 Enemies Of The State page 6
#183 Nationhood Concept page 5
#182 Great Unwashed... page 5
#181 Whence Proceedeth... page 2
#180 Inciting A Riot... page 4
#179 The Delmar Divide page 4
#178 The Ferguson Msg. 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.
October 2, 2014 Tom Delay Has Finally Been Exonerated
October 22, 2014 #187 What Are The Odds?
You’ve heard the axiom: ‘If it is too good to be true, it probably isn’t.’ Another way of saying approximately the same thing is: ‘If it doesn’t sound right, it probably isn’t.’ That rule comes to mind when one listens to the Obama Administration’s response to demands that a travel ban be imposed on people coming from the area in which Ebola is rampant. The rule needs a little refinement before being applied to that situation, however. The word ‘probably’ would, in most cases where the rule is to be applied, indicate that the odds of the statement being right might be about 60/40. However, the circumstances in which the statement is made must be considered to determine what the real odds against it being true should be. For example if the statement to which the rule is to be applied is contained in an email from someone in Nigeria, and the statement is that the sender of the email wants to give you 50% of a multi-million dollar fund if you will first send him one thousand dollars to be used in transferring the money out of Nigeria, the odds against the statement being true jump exponentially into the millions to one. Similarly, if the sender of the statement is someone who has lied to you before, a similar change in the odds should occur, and the change in the odds might depend on how many times the person has lied to you. Now, let’s consider the credibility of the statements of the head doctor at the CDC that we should not place a travel ban on people coming to the United States from Western Africa, because imposing such a ban would leave us more vulnerable to the Ebola virus being brought to the U.S. than would be true if we didn’t impose it. First of all that statement doesn’t sound right and it is, therefore, appropriate that the rule first stated above be applied. It is only a matter of figuring the odds of it being true. If it is coming from a member of the Obama Administration, then, we know that person is obviously under the control of Obama.
Obama, himself, told us that when Obamacare was passed we could keep our doctors and existing insurance plans. That was clearly a lie when he said it. His Security Adviser, Susan Rice, told us that the Benghazi raid on our Embassy was caused by a spontaneous reaction to an American-made video and wasn’t a planned terrorist attack. Just the other day the same Susan Rice, who is now our UN representative, told us we had an agreement with Turkey to let us use bases in Turkey to attack ISIS, and Turkey immediately denied that such an agreement existed. Both of the statements by Susan Rice were flat out lies. Another Obama administration employee, the head of IRS told us, the day after Congress requested the emails of Lois Lerner, that every computer the IRS owns, which might contain such emails, crashed. The odds against that being true are about 10 million to one. We could go on for pages with similar examples, and with each one the CDC statement gets closer and closer to being analogous to the Nigerian email situation. We must be somewhere close to, maybe, five million to one against the credibility of the director of the CDC.
I was mulling this over last Friday when I read the weekly column of Ann Coulter in my daily newspaper. It was a very good column. I say that because she agrees with what was said above and because she said it in almost the same terms I used in my previous post on the subject. She not only says the same thing, she also used the same example to buttress her argument that I did, the one about how African nations are applying their own version of a quarantine to prevent the spread of the disease. You should read her column. She did use slightly different language in explaining Obama’s motivation for the obvious deception involved in the statement made by his CDC head. Her version was that Obama proceeds from a viewpoint that he is a citizen of the world and believes that we should tackle the Ebola problem in West Africa at our own expense and despite the risk of killing most of the people in the U.S. Many other people, including me, have come up with similar opinions and many have just expressed amazement that anyone would come up with the kind of absurd statements that are coming out of the Obama Administration. I have, therefore, attempted to expand upon my thinking on this point.
The reasons stated by administration spokespeople quite obviously do not ring true. They must be concealing something, and this would not be the first time something like that has occurred. Quite generally the leftist movement must conceal its motives because the public would not, otherwise, buy into their agenda. Concealment is not only dictated by their need for secrecy, but also by their passive, non-confrontational, subjective, approach to life, generally. Reality is what they want it to be rather than the struggle for survival by members of a species which is simply the most highly evolved of the animal kingdom. Their narcissistic vanity separates them from ordinary human animals. Such an approach comes naturally to narcissistic people who experience life through a fantasy-based filter. Objective reality, and the ordinary people who embrace it, is their enemy. In the Western world that enemy is primarily the stoic, disciplined, white male that built the economy of abundance we now enjoy. The white male, and everything he has built must be destroyed. His insistence on maintaining a system in which individuals must compete is seen as a barrier to their freedom to devote their lives to the enjoyment of ‘the finer things.’ In their twisted reality he is also seen as being the cause of the poverty to which the least competitive are consigned. In fact, without such a system, nearly everyone would be in poverty. To the elitists, it matters not that the world of abundance and luxury will disappear when it is dominated by those who don’t have the least understanding of how it operates. Theirs is world of now. It is no accident that the national organization of women selected a name that would produce the acronym NOW.
Another characteristic that seems to form a natural part of the narcissistic personality is the herding mentality. Those afflicted by it do not seem to have the ability to think to any depth, and they need to be led. That is probably a result of the lack of sufficient contact with reality, and their failure to frequently test reality, a process which requires one to weigh the likely outcomes of alternative courses of action. The dumbing down of America, and the world, is a natural result of such a thought system. The narcissistic world is a world in which outcomes flow from fantasies in which the only considerations are those which gratify the needs of their inward-turned mentality. This aspect of the narcissistic personality explains the phenomenon of political correctness in which no one is permitted to refer to objective facts which are inconsistent with their subjective version of reality. It also explains why their movement is an international one. As long as a successful reality-based capitalistic economic system exists, to which their inefficient socialist systems can be compared, they will be unable to prevent their inferior subjects from making that comparison and desiring the material benefits which they can readily observe across the border. National borders must, therefore, be eliminated in favor of an international order. Obama has made explicit reference to such an objective and his actions are all consistent with it. Thus the refusal to resist the flow of people across our Southern border, or the flights of Ebola afflicted individuals into this nation, are explained.
At this point it becomes necessary to point out that, while this system came to power along with the feminist movement, it is by no means composed entirely of women, nor does it include all women. There are plenty of white males in it, and there are plenty of objectively oriented women who oppose it. Nor is any individual entirely a subjectivist on the one hand or an objectivist on the other. It is a matter of balance both within individuals and within the culture generally. It is, nevertheless, useful to relegate the respective ends of the political balance scale to the sexual divide. It is probably true that there is a split of about 60/40, within each sex, of those associated primarily with the characteristic that dominate their sex. Furthermore, there may be about 30 % of all individuals, on both sides of the center, who are pretty close to the center of the scale. At this point, however, the culture has gone over the balance point and is now feminist dominated. The scale tilted that way somewhere around the 1960’s, and it has continued to tilt in that direction since then.
It should be no surprise, then, that the white male is being blamed for everything that goes wrong, even if the catastrophe results from a natural disaster, and it should also be no surprise that the white male is considered expendable in righting those wrongs. The competitive economic and social system of this country is regarded, by the narcissists, as being responsible for any poverty that exists in this country and everywhere else in the world. A previous example of this phenomenon occurred in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. State and local governments are, under our federal system, responsible for dealing with that kind of natural disaster. In fact, our Constitution prohibits the national government from entering a state to maintain order in such circumstances. That fact has always been recognized by local governments taking the primary role in dealing with hurricanes, with the national government simply offering assistance of the form the Bush administration offered in Louisiana. The problem was that a black mayor in New Orleans and a feminist governor in Baton Rouge were incompetent to deal with the situation. Instead of the narcissistic left blaming these incompetent individuals for the disastrous response to the hurricane, they blamed George W. Bush.
The same kind of thing is occurring with respect to the Ebola disaster except that national boundaries are involved instead of state boundaries. However, the narcissistic left does not regard national boundaries as having any real significance. Don’t be surprised if we start bringing Ebola patients to U.S. hospitals for treatment. It may be ok for Nigeria to impose a travel ban between that country and the countries in which Ebola is most rampant, because Nigeria is not to blame for the poverty in Liberia and the other stricken countries. On the other hand the U.S. is the Great Satan, and we are responsible.