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
#192 The Wisdom Of Youth page 6
#192 Equalizing Discipline page 5
#191 Australia, Climate Chg...page 5
#190 Mentally Challenged Al page 2
#189 Obama, The Dictator page 4
#188 Ebola Nurse Ratchet page 4
#187 What Are The Odds? page 2
#186 Restorative Justice page 6
#185 The Coup De 'Tat 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.
December 17, 2014 #194 Is This Restorative Justice?
It was contended in last week’s post that the profiling issue is being injected into situations such as the Ferguson MO controversy in an effort to conceal the obvious fact that black youth are more violent than the youth of other ethnic groups. If that fact is openly accepted, blacks fear that the basis for their objection to profiling will be undercut, and all blacks will, thereby, be subjected to being questioned more closely by authorities in some situations than will members of other racial groups. They insist they should not be forced to suffer that inconvenience simply because they are black. However, lots of people other than blacks are sometimes inconvenienced because they possess some characteristic, or characteristics, that fit the description of an offender, or the pattern involved in the commission of a particular kind of crime. If an assailant is described by witnesses as being white, blond headed, and wearing a red shirt, then a lot of innocent people with those characteristics will be questioned before the culprit is found. However, profiling never includes just one characteristic and those who possess only one factor of a given profile seldom suffer more than a minor inconvenience. There is no good reason to exempt race as a profiling factor. If a drive-by shooting occurs and the police know that 99% of drive-by shooters are young black males, it would be absurd to leave race out of the profile and question every young male in a large city while looking for the culprits. It, therefore, seems to me that the black anti-profiling argument cannot be justified. In fact, as noted in the last post, if innocent blacks are sufficiently irritated by occasionally being forced to suffer the inconvenience of being questioned by law enforcement personnel, it might motivate them to seek changes in black culture which would reduce the occurrence of violence by young black males.
In re-reading the last post, however, it occurred to me that there may be an aspect of the profiling controversy that had not occurred to me previously, and it may make the anti-profiling stand of blacks seem a little more reasonable than I had previously thought. Those who make the argument may sense that the more frequent occurrence of violence among young black males has a genetic basis, and they may be saying that it is just a part of being black that cannot be avoided. That puts a slightly different face on their contention. They may be saying that youthful violence is unavoidable, and society must be willing to accept it. In fact they can point to the kind of violence that young whites, particularly those from upper middle class families, demonstrated in the 1960’s and to the reaction of the white community to that violence. I also alluded to that violence in the last post when I referred to the fact that the elitist/leftist press, in the 1960’s, insisted that such violent white youths should not be punished. That insistence by the leftist/elitist press, and entertainment industry as exemplified by such motion pictures as The Poseidon Adventure, is not much different than that which is being made by today’s anti-profiling blacks with respect to the Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown incidents.
At this point I am reminded of another old movie. I think it was White Men Can’t Jump with Woody Harrelson. In one scene the Harrelson character was playing street basketball with a group of young black males in the ghetto. One of the players was missing, and when Harrelson asked where the missing player was, the reply was that he was robbing a liquor store. With a few snickers and some knowing glances it was accepted that the missing player was simply doing what many young black males do. That movie came along not too much later than The Poseidon Adventure, and not too much later than the period when young white upper middle class youths such as Bill Ayers were bombing buildings and killing police. There were also some young black males involved in the violence of the sixties. The leftists/elitist press and entertainment industry of that period not only protected the violent ones they more or less conferred sainthood on them in movies such as The Poseidon Adventure. It was made clear in the Fox News Special on Bill Ayers that the FBI never even looked for him. At one point Ayers crowed that he ‘was guilty as sin and free as a bird.’ Not only did they excuse Ayers and those like him they found them cushy jobs on a university faculty when they get out of jail. We have done exactly what radical blacks are saying we should do with violent young black males. We should, according to radical blacks, recognize that Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown simply did what young black males do and we should accept it.
Is it any wonder that today’s radical blacks would expect the same treatment for their violent young men as that which the elitist/leftist whites of the past obtained for their violent youths? Giving more credence to black expectations is the fact that the leftist/elitists who were responsible for the favorable treatment given to Bill Ayers and his ilk, are the political allies of the radical blacks. The solid black voting bloc delivers the power that the leftist/elitists use to shield their violent youth from the legal system. In fact, that favored treatment is still being bestowed on their violent young. Recall that the same elitist/leftist element of today finds nothing but admiration for the Occupy Wall Street crowd and excuses the violence of that group. It was not surprising that a prominent New York police official stated, on Fox News in the last couple of days, that they are seeing the same faces in the current demonstrations, which purport to be about Michael Brown and the more recent death of Eric Garner on Staten Island, as they saw in the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations.
In response to the argument that violent black youths should be excused to the same extent that the violent white youths of the 1960’s were, it might be objected that the leftist/elitists excuse their violent youth because such young people are motivated by ideology, and are, therefore, according to them, seeking a better, more compassionate world for everyone. Young people are just naturally inclined to be ideological and should not be punished for having that virtue. As for extending the same protection to young blacks, it is irrelevant that violent black youths are only interested in money or drugs when they rob liquor stores or engage in the strong-arm theft of cigarillos. The important thing here is that they are simply giving vent to youthful frustrations resulting from an unjust world. I’m sure Louis Farakhan had these high flown thoughts in mind when he shouted to his congregation “We gonna burn this goddamn country down,” and the same thing was true of Al Sharpton when he assured those looting and burning stores in Ferguson, MO that they ‘weren’t looters, they were liberators.’ The twisted, narcissistic minds of the leftist/feminists have no difficulty in maneuvering around such minor inconsistencies. Witness, for example, they would not extend their mercy to the likes of Eric Rudolph, who was engaged in evil activities. While Rudolph also purported to act on the basis of ideology, his was an evil ideology. Rudolph only wanted to save the lives of innocent babies. He was not interested in the greater cause of power to the leftist/elitists.
To that portion of our population that still has some vestige of sanity, the problem is, of course, not that Eric Rudolph was hunted down, convicted, and jailed for his activities. He got everything he deserved. The problem is that the leftist/elitist establishment does not believe the same thing should occur when leftist/feminist, and black, youths kill police, rob stores, and commit drive-by shootings. Perhaps some good may come out of the current upheaval. That might be true if it brings this nation face to face with the reality of just how stupid we were in the sixties when we let ourselves be hoodwinked by the leftist/elitist press and entertainment industry into redefining our representative democracy to include one governed by mobs, and to also accept the idea that our children should be raised permissively and without discipline.