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
#204 Impact of Islamic... page6
#203 Joe Blow - Breese IL page 3
#202 Apologize to Brian page 6
#201 Brian Williams... page 5
#200 ISIS And The Devil page 5
#199 Downward Slide page 2
#198 Their Sensitive Eyes page 4
#197 A Tangled Web page 4
#196 Sophists, Sophistry, ... 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.
March 4, 2015 #205 Islamists and Marxists
An article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on 3-1-15 illustrates the extent to which climate change issues have ceased to be generated and explored in the scientific community, and have instead become entirely a matter of politics. A Georgia Tech scientists, Judith Curry, took the position before a Congressional Committee that, while there may be some small human factor in the warming of the planet, human activity is not “the primary cause.” A Democrat member of the committee immediately contacted Georgia Tech University demanding information as to the funding for Professor Curry’s research on the theory that it must have come from companies that are profiting from “the energy status quo.” Professor Curry immediately rejected such a suggestion and labeled the request an effort to intimidate her, and further stated that all of her funding comes from government sources. Professor Curry is absolutely correct. Many scientists who do not fully support the leftist view on climate change, and the theory that it is because of human activity, have been intimidated in many way from denial of pay raises and tenure to loss of jobs.
Indeed, those attacking Professor Curry are the ones who are profiting from their position with respect to climate change, and their attacks on the objective (i.e honest) academics are a perfect example of the psychological process of projecting their own bad motives on the opposition. The goal of the accusers is not only to impose their political system on our society, but also on pure economic corruption. Al Gore isn’t only one to get wealthy by exploiting the false claims of the climate change movement.
Nothing is more indicative than the above exchange of the fact that climate change issues are being driven by politics rather than the scientific method which must be based upon a totally objective approach. The kind of thing the Democrat member of the Committee did in this case would have created a scandal in academia, in years prior to the hijacking of the environmental movement by the hard left, because it is entirely inconsistent with the scientific method. Scientists have always debated their differences in refereed scientific journals or in meetings in which each respected the findings of the other, and with the understanding that objectivity will always determine the outcome of differing scientific conclusions. Such debates can go on for years, and, while one side of the other may become the generally accepted view, the research will be allowed to continue until one side or the other prevails.
In the 1960’s the hard left was anti-industry and was looking for way to bring down the industrial/commercial system that has provided the world with a quality of life that was never before available to human beings. It was obvious to the left that nothing strikes at the heart of that industrial/commercial system than an attack on the cheap energy sources that have fueled the abundance and prosperity of the post-WWII era. Someone among the leftist radicals, at that point discovered laboratory research from the prior century with respect to carbon dioxide which indicated that light and heat pass through that substance, but convected heat will not, and the greenhouse gas theory was born. It is based on the proposition that sunlight will pass through the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but the heat created by that sunlight on the surface of the earth will not be able to escape back into space. Since the burning of fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide that was imbedded in the plant and animal life of past eras, the left had found the perfect way to attack the energy industry. When this purely theoretical proposition was first presented, it was roundly rejected by everyone including legitimate scientists. As the environmental movement entered the Universities with the establishment of environmental studies courses, young left wingers flocked into those courses, and the newly created Environmental Departments became entirely controlled by them. At that point the environmental movement shifted away from the research which had successfully found ways to eliminate the real problems caused by burning of coal and oil and gas, such as acid rain, smog, and atmospheric particulate, and the move to totally destroy our energy industry took center stage.
As the lefties gained control of the environmental courses, which had gained the full support of the general public by eliminating those harmful effects which are readily apparent to the senses, they turned the environmental movement into a belief system in which, as the high priests of that belief systems, they created fears of supposedly unknown and invisible effects created by the newly minted greenhouse gas theory. They did so with confidence that they could sustain the public support without producing any actual measurable effects. They did so by tapping into another natural phenomenon, the fact that the earth has gone through cycles of warming and cooling ever since its creation. The fact that the current cycle is a warming trend that began a couple of hundred thousand years ago when the ice ages had created glaciers a couple of miles thick in the Northern Hemisphere. That warming trend had pretty much continued with a few exceptions such as the little ice age of about a thousand years ago. When dealing with a time line like that they knew they had little danger probability of their theory being disputed by actual events, and they confidently made predictions that the warming of the earth would proceed in an exact relationship to the total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. That was where they went wrong. When a period of stagnancy in the temperature range began in the late 1990’s they began to get a little bit uneasy. The English University that was primarily involved in their climate measurements started cooking the books. They survived that fraudulent episode when a panel of academic lefties found the cooked books had not been necessary because the period of stagnancy did not exist anyway. That stagnancy period has stubbornly persisted until the present, and they have now admitted it, and come up with an almost comical explanation involving the discovery of some new phenomenon regarding ocean temperatures. It doesn’t seem to bother them that their precise predictions prior to that stagnancy period have to have been based upon the presumption that they knew everything that might have an influence on the temperature of the earth in the future.
As this comic opera has gone through scene after scene and act after act, we must pause and marvel at the fact that such a movement still has any credibility at all. For an explanation of their continuing, though limited, credibility we must go back to the point where they turned the environmental movement, which had been a successful effort by real scientists to solve real problems, into a belief system. They cashed in on those early successes to build confidence in the scientists who had produced them. In a manner similar to the ancient Druid priests, the leftist environmentalists sought to use their access to knowledge to obtain power for themselves and the elitist class to which they belonged. The ancient priests would, when they foresaw a coming eclipse, tell the people that God was going to steal the sun, or moon, but that if the most desirable young females were brought to the temple, the priests would intercede with God to get him to return the stolen heavenly body. In exactly the same way, today’ environmental scientists sought to combine their knowledge of climate phenomenon, the qualities of carbon dioxide, and the long term warming trend, into power for the elitist class to which they belong.
A belief system is based on faith to the point where the believers will accept things which may seem contrary to objective reality. Religions are faith based systems in which the followers must accept the existence of supernatural phenomenon to some extent. The Judeo-Christian belief system requires a belief in God and requires its followers to comply with rules which make it possible for society to live in peace and harmony. The only punishment for not doing so is the threat of punishment in hell for non-compliance, and there is a correlative promise of heaven as a reward for compliance. There may have been periods in which those in control of the religious structure expanded the doctrinal system to include discrimination against non-believers, but the core belief system did not sanction such actions. That is particularly true of the Christian additions to the system in which the emphasis is simply upon spreading the word. Islam, on the other hand, incorporates into its core belief system, handed down by the prophet himself, the idea of power in an elitist majority, the Islamic Clergy, and the notion that the faithful should kill non-believers. The Islamic belief system includes, as a reward for compliance, in addition to the promise of heaven, the notion that those who do not want to engage in productive activities will be entitled to a share of what is produced by those who do work. The additional reward of relief from all productive responsibilities is also made possible by the institution of slavery which is also included in the Prophet’s teachings. All of this is revealed in the sources cited in the previous article posted on this website.
Thus, the Arabs, seem to have created an earlier version of Marxism which seems to be a mirror image of the core doctrinal beliefs of Islam. The need to sanction the killing of non-believers is based upon the fact that such a system of elitist control cannot compete with systems that are based upon a more objectively oriented, evolutionary, approach, in which every individual has a shot at reaching the top. The elitist system will ultimately collapse as it is compared to its more productive competitor. We have seen that happen in our own time with the collapse of the Soviet Union and other collectivist social systems.