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
#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
#206 Wily O'Reilly page 4
#205 Islamists & Marxists page2
#204 Impact of Islamic... page6
#203 Joe Blow - Breese IL page 3
#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.
April 22, 2015 #212 Should Dogs Have The Right To Vote?
Doug Hughes is hopping mad because he isn't being regarded as a hero for violating national security law when he landed his helicopter on the White House grounds. He laments that everyone wants to talk about his having violated the law. He thinks he is a patriot and that his message is more important than national security rules. And why wouldn't he think that? The message that the leftist press has been delivering on an almost daily basis for the last seventy five years or so would lead anyone to believe as he does. It is a message that anyone can do anything in support of a left wing cause, but that people who disagree with the left should be put in jail simply for that reason, and certainly should never be permitted to offend the sensitive eyes or ears of leftist elitists by making any kind of public demonstration of views inconsistent with left wing dogma. Indeed, the Associated Press is handling the complaint of Doug in a manner consistent with that position. An article sympathetic to Doug's plight was distributed to newspapers across the country by AP in which he was allowed to make his point, and quoting his wife to the effect that he is a patriot (she called him a 'countryman,' but she is a Russian and I assume that is a Russian equivalent of a patriot) . The article was totally neutral and nonjudgmental on those points. In addition, as soon as the leftist press realized that Doug was a fellow traveler they let up on any negative coverage concerning his act.
Once the press has taken its position with respect to the acts of leftists such as Doug, the public follows sheep-like, and gives the matter not another thought, as though the leftist press has flipped a switch which says 'shut up,' and that ends the matter. Strangely, this is true even though polls consistently show that the overwhelming majority of the public is aware of the press' left wing bias, and further regards Fox News as the most trusted news source. This control of the public mind has been going on since, at least, the Watergate scandal that drove President Nixon out of office. The public was solidly in support of the Vietnam War prior the leftist campaign to reverse public opinion. During the height of the war polls showed at least 80 per cent of the public fully supported the war. The leftist anti-war campaign was being staged by the likes of Jane Fonda and former Democratic Attorney General, Ramsey Clark. That duo made a trip to North Vietnam, against whom a full scale war was being waged by the U.S. While there, some American POW's were brought out of their cages and paraded before the traitors. Some of the POW's slipped notes to Jane Fonda, innocently believing she was interested in their plight, to be delivered back to the people of the U.S. Fonda coldly turned the notes over to the North Vietnamese and those prisoners were savagely beaten, some were beaten to death. In addition to the 'terrible two,' people like Bill Ayers, Obama's mentor, and the person who actually wrote Obama's book, were engaged in violent anti-American acts which included killing cops. This is the background of the Watergate break-in by some minor Republican campaign officials who were trying to find out if the Democratic Party was sanctioning the actions of such people. If there was ever an act performed for patriotic reasons that so-called burglary was it, but the 'burglars' were vilified daily and their constitutional rights repeatedly violated. If anyone would have had the temerity to refer to them as patriots such a person would, probably, himself, landed in jail. The 'burglary' was fully covered by the press before the election of 1972, and Nixon won by a landslide indicating that the public did not regard the matter as being of any significance. Nevertheless, the press spent a solid year of daily screaming headlines and brought the public, including 'moderate Republicans,' into line. Compare that situation to the AP article in the link cited above in which Doug Hughes' wife was reported as calling him a patriot, and her assertion went unchallenged. Not only did it go unchallenged, but negative press treatment of his act was immediately halted.
The press treated the Doug Hughes incident as insignificant, and as the act of an unstable person, but there is no doubt that if Doug Hughes had been a conservative trying to deliver a message regarding the obviously anti-American actions of our left wing President, the press coverage would have been very different. We would have been treated to memories of 911, and with graphic accounts of how there was an attempt on that notorious date to crash a plane into the White House, and the importance of the national security rules Doug Hughes violated. The hypothetically conservative Doug Hughes would have been roasted alive, mental instability notwithstanding.
This same mind control process is repeated on a daily basis and rarely is a single voiced raised against it, or its existence even acknowledged. In the case of cop killer Bill Ayers, the press never pursued him, the FBI never seriously sought to arrest him, and no one sought to prosecute him. He has boasted that he is 'guilty as sin and free as a bird.' Compare that to Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph. The FBI devoted non-stop resources to hunting them down, and the Justice Department to prosecuting them with the result that McVeigh was executed and Rudolph is in jail. That is as it should be. The problem is not that they were dealt justice. The problem is that there was not even an attempt to do the same with respect to Ayres whose crime was at least as serious as that of Rudolph. In fact, Ayres recently retired as a Professor at the University of Illinois, a position he was given after he came out of hiding. The difference between the Ayres case, on the one hand, and that of McVeigh and Rudolph, is that one is a left wing criminal and the other two were right wing criminals. Only Fox News raised objections to this inconsistent outcome.
As noted, this process is being repeated on a daily basis. I recently received an email with a link to a public statement by retired Admiral James Lyons, a man who dealt with the highest officials in our government regularly during his career, and is in a position to back up his assertions, in which he makes the statement that Obama is anti-American and pro-Islamic on issues essential to the security of this country. These are assertions often made on this website with respect to specific issues. I have had only the information reported in the press, and it is comforting to hear someone who has had the experience, and played the historic roles he has played, draw the same conclusions based upon the same facts. It is heart-wrenching to witness the leftist press, the same press that devoted a year of hysterically biased coverage of Watergate, in which the objective was to bring down a patriotic, very intelligent, and very competent President, Richard Nixon, as it refuses to even report the most glaringly anti-American, and anti-Western acts of an America-hating President such as Barak Obama. What is even more disheartening is the fact that American public allows this to happen.
The impact on our culture is devastating. These same leftist/feminists have now taken control of our public school, our universities, our bureaucracy, the judiciary, and almost all of our other institutions, and they concertedly wreaked havoc on our culture to the point where most people are afraid to raise a voice. We have watched helplessly as environmental leftists have fraudulently frightened the public with dire warnings of environmental catastrophes that were supposed to be caused by the use of our coal and petroleum energy resources, but which never happened. We have watched leftist judges take control of social issues such as abortion and homosexual marriage and invalidate laws which protect the unborn and those which limit marriage to one man and one woman. The most recent example of such lunacy is a judicial decision that a chimpanzee is entitled to bring a lawsuit in our courts to free himself from imprisonment in a university medical research lab. The decision extends human rights to the animal. That decision might be reversed on appeal, but even if it is, it will have had the effect of dulling the public's ability to react to one more instance of absurd judicial activism, and the next one, which gives dogs the right to vote, will pass unnoticed. The absurdity, of course, is that our laws are laws governing human societies, and once that nexus is broken there is no legal system left. At that point we are totally in make-believe land. The result of all of the above is to break down the legal, moral, traditional, and customary structure that binds our civilization together. Power is then the only restraint on human behavior. That occurred as the Roman Empire went through a phase similar to the one we are going through now. (Incidentally it was one in which a Roman Emperor appointed his horse as a government official and the similarity to the chimpanzee case should be noted.) As the Roman Empire fell apart it was replaced by the almost thousand year period known as the dark ages in which there was no order and local power centers sprung up as individuals established arbitrary power by force.