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 should 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
#246 Big Rock Candy Mtn. page 3
#245 Left Out White Male page 2
#244 Cowardly Enablers page 5
243 Psychoanalyzing ,,, page 5
#242 Irony by Bucketful page 6
#241 Darwinism page 6
#240 Ohio Family Murders page 2
#239 Abhorrent ... page 4
#238 Reverberations page 4
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 27, 2016 Random Thoughts
October 22, 2016 #247 Games People Play
The defining moment of the 3rd Presidential Debate, and the one which should determine who will be the next President, is being virtually ignored by the entire press. It was when Hillary responded to the question about the Wiki Leaks email in which she stated to a group of Brazilian bankers that her dream, or her goal I forgot which, was the day when we had “free trade, open borders, and green energy.” That email would never have been made public, nor would Hillary, or any Democrat, have ever allowed that sentiment to be attributed to Hillary. They wouldn’t allow it because the massive invasion of this nation through its unprotected Southern Border is viewed by most Americans in a very negative way, and the issue to which the American public has repeatedly responded, en masse, in a very negative fashion, and also the issue took Donald Trump to his victory in the Republican Primaries. In fact, her present Campaign Manager, Podesta, said in another email released by Wiki Leaks that her statement could be a big problem for her (gross understatement!!!). Yet when asked about it in the 3rd Debate she justified it by telling the bald-faced lie that the portion referring to open borders was modified by the part which ended the sentence (green energy). In other words, she was only suggesting that green energy would move across national borders. Now everybody knows, the reference in the phrases free trade and open borders is the unrestricted movement across international boundaries of, in the one case goods, and in the other, people. She obviously thinks that American public is stupid enough to believe this enormous lie, and she may be right judging from the fact that it has been allowed to pass with such little comment. Furthermore, if the phrase ‘green energy’ is meant to modify ‘open borders,’ then it also must modify the ‘free trade’ part of the sentence. Was she simply telling the high-powered Brazilian bankers, who probably paid a million dollars or so to hear it, that ‘the principal commerce of the world is in the wind and the sun that crosses national borders.’ This is preposterous. We need to insist that she have a strip-down physical before the election. She’s got a huge pair of brass b - - - s hidden somewhere under that pants suit. Equally telling was the way she delivered that zinger. She looked like an eight-year-old delivering the biggest whopper of her young life. She has told some pretty big lies in the past, but if there was ever anything that telegraphed her propensity to lie by default when confronted with a difficult situation, it was this occasion. This lie should have ended her candidacy the minute it came out of her mouth.
There are other interesting implications about the way in which she connected ‘green energy,’ ‘open borders,’ and ‘free trade,’ while spinning one of the world’s most outlandish yarns. She supported all the free trade deals that have been passed by Congress. Then, when Trump made that an unpopular position, she decided that she didn’t support them. Finally, she went to Brazil and said they are still in her dreams (that may not be the exact chronology but who knows, in view of the ease with which she changes the state of her currently valid dreams, it probably has been the correct chronology at some time or other). Of course, she may have been lying to the Brazilians. All that aside, the most important connection between these three specific dreams of hers, or at least between ‘green energy’ and ‘open borders,’ is that the ‘green energy’ dream is also built on a leftist lie. It insists that the CO2 released into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels is the cause of global warming, and that lie provides the basis for the leftist/socialist position that we must shut down our energy system and rely only on the wind and the sun for energy. It matters not that a few years ago Obama, and presumably Hillary as his Secretary of State, approved of our bank-rolling the Brazilian oil industry’s drilling of more oil wells in the off-shore areas we virtually share with Brazil. Our industrial system could not, of course, survive on the energy provided by the wind and the sun. The whole thing gets very complicated, but it would appear that she sometimes lies about her other lies. Nevertheless, her Democratic co-conspirators continue to support whatever dream-state she is experiencing at any given time.
The ‘open borders’ lie, and the failure of Chris Wallace, the moderator, to call Hillary down with respect to it, may have been the major screw up in the debate, but there was also another jaw dropper unleashed by Wallace, and It was his question to Trump about whether Trump would ‘accept’ the result of the election. It is not clear what he meant by ‘accept,’ but he seemed to be searching for some sinister plan on Trump’s part such as the possibility that he might be planning a coup to prevent the election winner from taking office. More logically he meant to ask if Trump would file some kind of lawsuit to challenge the result. Trump gave a simple answer that he wasn’t sure what he would do and that was probably because he assumed that Wallace was asking the latter. His answer was entirely adequate and unsurprising. After all Al Gore and the Democrats filed a lawsuit after the Gore/Bush election to prevent the results of that election from being implemented. How could Trump know until the election was over and he had a chance to weigh his options based upon what had occurred? However, Wallace apparently took Trump’s answer to mean he was planning some physical disruption of the electoral process and he, and later the entire leftist press, went crazy as they contemplated Trump raising an army and storming DC. The Republican RINOs joined the lefties and Charles Krauthammer mumbled some vague phrases about how evil it would be if Trump didn’t immediately concede defeat no matter what had happened. Krauthammer went so far as to suggest it might mean the end of our democracy as we know it.
The leftist/RINO reaction clearly suggests that the Wallace question was a trap intentionally planted to give the press some pretense for attacking Trump if he gave the most obvious answer, and it reminds one of the Bret Baer/Megan Kelly question to Trump in the first GOP Primary debate as to whether he would support the GOP primary winner. None of the other primary candidates were asked the same question. Trump eventually made the pledge, and then most of the other candidates failed to support Trump after he won the primaries. The reaction to the both the ‘coup’ question of the third debate and the ‘support’ question of the first primary debate, gives some insight into the mindset of the leftist/RINO political animal. They regularly attribute their own unsavory motives and tactics to the opposition. You can often tell what they are up to, based the accusations they make against others. In the case of the Baer/Kelly question to Trump in the first primary debate, it is obvious that most of the candidates would probably not support Trump if he won the nomination and they, therefore, attacked him on the basis of an accusation that he would not support them if they won. RINO moderators Baer and Kelley laid the trap and Trump fell into it. The same thing occurred in the third debate. The scary thing about the playout of the scenario laid out in the third debate is that, while Trump obviously would not have any army or other means of physically disrupting the outcome of the election if he lost, the leftist/RINOs do have. Barak Obama is the Commander In Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces and he is also the chief leftist. Barak Obama has also subtly hinted that he might not turn over power to Trump if Trump won and has further shown that he is willing to arbitrarily use the power of the Presidency to advance his personal agenda. Again, the trap was laid, this time by Wallace, and again Trump fell into it by giving the most logical answer available to him.
A few years ago there was a best selling non-fictiion book by a psychologist called The Games People Play. It has probably been fifty years since I read it but the one game I remember that it described was called: now I’ve got you, you S.O.B. It is a game that subjective, narcissistic people use to cut down objective, straight forward, honest, people like Trump. It accurately describes this election campaign. In fact it pretty much describes much of what is going on in the culture, generally.
It also reminds one of Watergate to some extent. In that case they used lies, deceit, daily screaming headline and massive TV coverage making issues out on non-issues for over a year until they had Nixon so depressed that just couldn’t function anymore. The other day the Washington Post had a story gloating that they thought they just destroyed Trump. They bragged about how he was talking hoarsely and had very little energy left. If this isn’t an example of pure evil, I don’t know what one would be.