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
#173 Bowe And "O" page 5
#172 Reformers... page 5
#171 Where Is Joe McCarthy page 2
#170 Hey! Its Raining... page 4
#169 Grant Was A Piker page 4
#168 Even More Muddled page 2
#167 Muddle-Headed... page 3
#166 How Many Lies... page 6
#165 The Disappearance Page 3
#164 MTV And White Privilege 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.
July 23, 2014 #174 Don’t Shoot The Messenger
A question repeatedly asked, but never answered, is why the Republicans in Congress have lower approval ratings than Obama. O’Reilly asked some of his guests that question the other night, and the closest any of them came to answering it was Senator Marco Rubio who said the Republican ratings were simply a matter of public dislike for the Washington political scene. The Rubio assessment makes some sense because the pollsters are never asking about specific individuals but about Congressional Republicans as a group, and it can be assumed that at least some of the answers they get are with respect to politicians generally.
The puzzling thing about the situation is that all of the scandals, lies, incompetent blunders, corruption, and general screw-ups, have involved Obama and the Democrats. Most of them have involved Obama himself. None of them have involved the Republican Congress. That has been true of Benghazi, the IRS, the VA, the Fast and Furious gunrunning scandal, the Obamacare rollout, the Solindra corruption affair, the high-handed Obama efforts to supplant the Constitutional Congressional legislative role, the Bowe Bergdahl matter, and a host of others. In every case the Republicans in Congress have simply tried to get answers that would reveal the depths of the depravity to which Obama and the Democrats have sunk. In no case has any Republican in Congress done anything that would suggest any improper conduct on his/her part. The Democratic response is to either lie or try to stone-wall the probes. To a certain extent the anomalous situation may be simply explained by the fact that a fairly large portion of the adult population is entirely controlled by a press that tries to protect the Democrats. Yet, the polls also indicate, by fairly large numbers, that the public regards the press as being unfairly biased toward the left. If there is any rationality to the public mind, there is no way so many people can blame the Republicans for the things the Democrats are doing. It is obvious there is something operating below the rational, or conscious, level of the public mind.
If one starts poking around in popular culture at a level just below the conscious, while pondering the foregoing, a light bulb should go on that will throw some light on the answer to the question. Have you ever heard often-used phrase “don’t shoot the messenger”? It refers, of course, to the situation in which an individual is delivered some bad news, but, instead of accepting the truth of the bad news, gets angry at the one who delivers it. The public understands where the blame lies for the mind-boggling implosion of our culture that has resulted from the mindless, virtually insane, assault on all of our institutions, our traditions, our very cultural structure, from the left, but is unable to process the full implication of what is happening. While staggering in disbelief at the magnitude of the damage and trying to cope with the implications, they are ‘shooting the messenger.’ They resent the incessant accusations, by the Congressional Republicans, and particularly the Tea Party faction thereof, against the Democratic perpetrators of the crime. They resent being constantly reminded of how deeply the nation is mired in this cultural debacle. The Republicans are the messengers, and the public is shooting at them when it gives negative responses to the pollsters.
This does not mean that the Republicans should stop their efforts to bring their message home. It may take some time, but the message will ultimately get through. The problem is particularly acute at this time because the populace has been conditioned to a passive/narcissistic social atmosphere. The passive person is usually deep in denial about the existence of the kind of problems that exist in the real world. If such an individual were to face up to the fact that there are bad people in the world, who might harbor hostile feelings toward others, then it would be necessary to take some action to protect themselves. Taking such action is prevented by their passivity. They, therefore, simply deny that the potential enemy exists. As a part of their denial they substitute a fantasy world for the real world.
The polls are not the only place the bearers of bad news are being shot at by the passive/ narcissistic people. Political correctness is another effort to accomplish the same thing but, in that instance, the process would be better described as sticking a sock in the mouths of the messengers to keep the message from being delivered. Not only is the bad news being stopped before its delivery, another objective of the deniers is being accomplished. No one is permitted to question the soundness of the political/social/economic agenda they seek to impose on the nation. As a result we are subjected to the disastrous effects of such things as affirmative action, the environmental assault on our energy/industrial system, a permissive, anti-rule of law, approach to social problems, and lack of a rational foreign policy. Those effects include a stagnant, failing economy, a loss of respect in the international community, bungling and incompetent handling of programs such as Obamacare, increasing violence and teen pregnancy in the black community, abortion as a birth control system, and children who are raised with no sense of social responsibility.
The passive/narcissistic assault on our culture that produced the lopsided negative poll results for the Republican Congressional delegation has also included a massive attempt to destroy the credibility of those who are objective enough to become the bad news messengers. The entertainment/media industry is almost entirely controlled by the thought police of the left, and they have been demonizing, the objectivists for a couple of generations. One of the most obvious examples of their efforts includes the film, A Few Good Men, that came out over 20 years ago, and that film is a study in how to make a successful propaganda piece. Select the villain who represents the viewpoint that is to be demonized and the victims/heroes who represent the view being promoted, and then write the script in such a way as to maximize the propaganda objective. Jack Nicholson played the villain, a career military man and portrayed him in the most unattractive way possible. I forget who played the whistle blower and the prosecutor who handled the case, but they were clearly passive/narcissistic types. The script involved a gung-ho soldier who fired a weapon across the boundary between Guantanamo Naval base and Castro-ruled Cuba. The gung-ho soldier’s buddies rallied around him when the whistle blower revealed his name and they, literally, stuck a sock in the whistle blower’s mouth suffocating and killing him. The villainous commander sought to quash the murder charges brought against the group. The object was to demonize the group of defendants and their commander, and the story-line put loyal patriotic soldiers and their commander in a situation that would never have existed in real life. The wimpish prosecutor was portrayed as one held in contempt by the outfit before the trial. The commander was on the witness stand when the prosecutor reminded him of his obligation to tell the truth. The commander replied with the line for which the film has always been remembered: “You can’t stand the truth.” After a guilty verdict, one of the band of brothers recognized the prosecutor as a hero and sharply saluted him. The hero status of the wimpish prosecutor was thereby revealed. The supposed “truth” that the prosecutor couldn’t stand was that this nation has enemies and that the patriotic soldiers who are needed to protect us from these enemies must be protected from someone such as the whistle blower, even when they go a little overboard in displaying that patriotism. The contrived fact situation would never have occurred in reality, but it was necessary for the purpose of demonizing the military and exalting the passive/narcissistic types who were made to appear as heroes. The whole purpose of the movie was to discredit the objectivist patriotic type and to give credibility to the passive/narcissistic type; a situation that is the exact opposite of what exists in reality. In terms of the ‘don’t shoot the messenger’ theme discussed above, it would appear to be a preemptive strike at any bad news messenger who might come forward in the future to point out the problems that might have been created by implementation of a passive/narcissistic agenda.
The success of the propaganda effort of the film is nowhere better illustrated than by the Bowe Bergdahl affair. In many regards, Bergdahl is almost the exact counterpart of the whistle-blower in the film, and he is being excused from liability for desertion and treason, while his ‘country and duty above all’ buddies who came forward with the evidence of his crimes are called liars by the passive/narcissistic crowd. It is also illustrated by the Fort Hood shooter incident in which the military was afraid to take action to stop a clearly dangerous terrorist in its midst for fear of offending the passive/narcissistic types.
As indicated above, the Republicans in Congress should not let up on their efforts to bring the bad news home to the American people. Most the 80%, or so, of those who gave unfavorable ratings to the Congressional Republicans are not hardened passive/narcissistic types, but are the victims of propaganda attempts such as political correctness and the output of the entertainment/media industry. It is the victims of that propaganda effort that will ultimately accept the reality of our dire situation and realize who has caused it.