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 shoulld 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
#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
#176 The Amok Catcher 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.
October 2, 2014 Tom Delay Has Finally Been Exonerated
October 15, 2014 #186 Restorative Justice?
Eight to ten years ago a black law professor at one of the DC law schools took the position that no black should ever be prosecuted for a crime no matter what he or she did. Just this morning I read an article in the local newspaper dealing with the idea of ‘restorative justice,’ which was that black law professor’s position properly euphemized, and taking its place alongside a gallery of euphemisms such as diversity, affirmative action, reparations, and unarmed. The left wing mainstream press has taken up his cause and will now impose that on the nation. Anyone who disagrees with their position will be labeled a racist and will lose his or her job with the job opening left by his/her departure to be filled by an affirmative action selection in order to further the cause of diversity. The idea of reparations will then be resuscitated and every black criminal will be given a lifetime pension in order that they will not have to dirty their hands by robbing liquor stores, killing policemen, or committing rape, robbery, burglary, looting, or murder, to satisfy their needs. White women will no longer be justified in resisting rape by black males, (that might save the lives of some young white females such as the University of a University of Virginia coed who was recently abducted, and presumably killed, by a black male) and whites will no longer need their guns to protect themselves. In fact, they will not have the money to buy guns, because they will either have no jobs or the taxes on those who get jobs will be so steep they will be left with no money for such purposes.
Actually, the restorative justice program is not as radical as it sounds. In fact, the early stages of it are already being put in place. The Justice Department, under Eric Holder, dismissed all charges against blacks who showed up at polling places during past elections with guns and baseball bats vowing that no one would be allowed to vote for anyone not getting their approval. At the same time, Holder announced that black on white crimes of that sort would no longer be prosecuted and has also announced how much he empathizes, and indeed, identifies, with black felons. To demonstrate his strong feelings on this subject he brought a large number of them into the Justice Department as employees, and the Department has implemented plans to release large numbers of such persons who are now in jail while suggesting to U.S. attorneys that they consider not prosecuting blacks in the future. Consistent with Holder’s actions, Obama has refused to enforce laws (in effect repealed them) that he disagrees with and refuses to deport illegal aliens who commit crimes.
All of this is also consistent with a much more far reaching approach to social organization that is a part of the agenda of the far left of the Democratic Party that now controls most of our federal government and many state and local governments. It is the end of the rule of law, and by that is meant a system of laws adopted by a legislature that are binding on everyone from the highest to the lowest until they are repealed. In its place is an authoritative power system in which the rules are whatever those having power say they are at any given time, and they are not necessarily binding on those who have who made them. One of the prime example of the effect of this change was commented on in the last post on this website relating to the gay marriage laws. Congress adopted the Defense of Marriage Act only a few years ago, and many states adopted state laws or state constitutional provisions prohibiting gay marriage at about the same time or since. Some activist lower court federal judges began declaring the state laws on this subject to be unconstitutional with little or no reasoning, while other lower federal courts held them to be valid, and the U.S. Supreme Court just a few days ago refused to rule on that question. The U.S. Attorney General announced a couple of years ago that he would no longer enforce the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Actually the federal government has no constitutional power with respect to social policy because that power is reserved to the states, but to the extent that it does, it is Congress that has that power. The right of the people to legislate concerning social policy was, thus, arbitrarily displaced by the executive branch and a few of the lower federal courts.
The same thing has been occurring with respect to immigration laws. The President and Justice Department have simply announced they will not enforce the laws that Congress has enacted on the subject, and they don’t. Again, duly adopted laws are simply ignored at the whim of the Executive branch of the government. The President’s, now infamous, statement that he has ‘a phone and a pen’ constitutes an official announcement that he considers our Constitutional system of laws to have ended. Other instances, which can only be explained on the basis that our rule of law system has been replaced by an authoritative system in which individuals arbitrarily make ad hoc pronouncements which define the rights of any one who pleases or displeases them, are so numerous that it leaves little doubt of the fact that we have regressed to a state that existed, not only in theory but in practice, in the pre-Magna Charta days of the English monarchy when the King or Queen could arbitrarily order someone beheaded on a mere whim. We may not have reached the beheading stage yet, but we have reached the stage where both civil and criminal rights are being pronounced and people are being deprived of their freedom or their property by arbitrary pronouncements that are not consistent with our constitutional rule of law system. The beheadings can’t be too far off in the future.
Tom Delay and Scooter Libby were convicted of criminal offenses solely because they displeased the leftist power structure. The owner of the Los Angeles Clippers NBA team was forced to sell his property solely because he made some politically incorrect statements. George Zimmerman was subjected to a nationally publicized show trial despite undisputed evidence that he was acting in self-defense as defined by laws that have been in existence for centuries, and that was done solely to appease those who are fomenting a black rebellion against our legal system. The President of the U.S. put his stamp of approval on that travesty when he publicly depicted Trayvon Martin as the son he never had, and made that depiction without regard to what the facts in the show trial might prove to be true. The same thing is occurring in Ferguson, Missouri, where mobs are demanding the arrest of the officer who shot Michael Brown before the facts surrounding the shooting are even investigated by the legal system and regardless of what those facts may show. Again the President of the United States has placed his stamp of approval on those demands, this time, in a speech before the United Nations. The unrest surrounding the Michael Brown incident has resulted in another police shooting in St. Louis and the same kind of arbitrary retaliation against a police officer is being demanded by the mobs who are attempting to control the justice system in that city. In the more recent case the evidence seems to fairly clearly indicate that the black teenager who was shot had fired on the police officer prior to being killed. We are still waiting for the President to pronounce that teenager to have been the second son he never had, or complain to the United Nation of the problems he is having with his ungrateful, and unworthy, subjects. The IRS brought its power down on those who opposed the reelection of Barak Obama in 2012 by refusing to approve tax exempt status for conservative groups and by arbitrarily auditing the tax returns of individuals who contributed to such groups. There is also evidence that the IRS communicated with other branches of the federal government urging them to join in the effort to block opposition to Obama’s reelection. When the Republican controlled House of Representatives sought to get evidence of this abuse of federal power to perpetuate leftist control of our government, the IRS brazenly announced that all of the computers that had such evidence had crashed just after the charges had been made. The President gave a clear indication of his approval of this corruption of the power of the federal government when he declared that there was ‘not a smidgen of evidence’ to support the charges being made. He made that statement at a time when his Attorney General was supposedly investigating such charges and before any results of that supposed investigation had been made public. The President’s statement seems to make it clear that no such investigation was actually being made, and that has been true with respect to many other supposed investigations before it. All of such supposed investigations were simply being announced as a means of stone-walling, and covering up, all the charges being made concerning the corruption of our federal government by the leftist/feminist establishment.
We can expect the upcoming mid-term elections to be manipulated in an effort to prevent control of slipping out of the hands of the left-wingers. Much of that manipulation will succeed because the left has been using the power of the Justice Department to prevent the enactment of, or enforcement of previously enacted, voter ID law which would limit some of the rampant voter fraud that has been shown to exist in the ghettos of the big cities.