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
#250 Reactionaries page 6
#249 Russian Interference page 6
#248 Russian Involvement page 4
#247 Games People Play page 4
#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 bucket 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.
May 19, 2017 O’Reilly! Sue The Bast___ds!!!
May 19, 2017 #251 The Sky Is Falling Again
The the mainstream media, the New York Times and Washington Post would have us believe the sky is falling again. This has happened many times before from Watergate onward, and each time the nation has gone into a state of panic. Supposedly, the ability of the mainstream press to create this kind of fake panic ended when Fox News came along and created a counter force by delivering real news to the public. This time, however, Fox News seems to be joining in saying the sky is falling, even though one member of each panel will pause occasionally and recognize that nothing has happened to justify the panic. The pause doesn’t last long before one of their talking heads will pop-up out of another mole hole and say; “Yes, but the latest statement from The New York Times must be taken seriously because they have now issued another fake charge against Trump. At that point, the talking heads will all go through the same cycle again with the more sane ones whacking the new mole and repeating that nothing has really happened. The cycle goes on ad nauseam. Each time it occurs the level of panic increases a little and one more of the sane Fox News talking heads is a little less certain about the non-existence of the reason for panic, and the panic peg is moved a little further along. Before long, everyone on Fox News will have joined in the chant that the sky is falling.
To illustrate the point made in the last paragraph, consider the charge that Trump had revealed classified news to the Russians. He hadn’t revealed really anything. He can’t because he is the chief classifier of information, and if he had said something that previously constituted classified information it would have simply amounted to his de-classifying it. That is not just a technicality. It has been used in relation to Obama without qualification. Furthermore, he didn’t reveal anything to Russia except, perhaps, the city from which some classified information had come from an Israeli intelligence operative. The press twisted this latter fact to pretend that the situation was even more serious because the U.S didn’t own the ‘classified information.’ Presumably, the Israeli’s did. Then the Israeli’s whacked that mole by saying they had no problem with what Trump had said. Compare this non-crisis with a similar one had occurred during Obama’s term in which Obama had revealed genuine, U.S. ‘owned’ classified information which did, in fact, endanger U.S. intelligence operatives in Afghanistan. In that case, the press summarily dismissed the incident on the basis mentioned above (i.e. Obama was simply de-classifying the info). The Obama incident was much more serious than anything Trump did.
In the last case, Juan Williams, on Fox News, justified the false attack on Trump for supposedly leaking classified info to the Russians on the basis that such attack had to be considered in the context of the previous whack-a-mole incidents and was therefore a serious one. In other words when the left throws another piece of crap at the wall to see if it will stick, it makes each piece of crap that is subsequently thrown much more serious even though, it too slides off leaving no trace, and, thus, the panic peg moves a little further along, as said above.
A previous panic occurred when Trump fired FBI Director Comey. The Chicken Little Crew came running out of the hen house squawking at top of their lungs. That mole, more or less, whacked itself because the left had continued calling for Comey’s firing right up to the moment Trump did it. When that realization came over Chicken Little, he limped slowly back into the hen house showing considerable embarrassment. However, The New York Times and Washington Post have brought another mole out of the ground with the publication of a story about a memo Comey supposedly wrote in which he said that Trump tried to get him to dismiss the Russian investigation against General Flynn. This time Chicken Little was yelling “obstruction of Justice, Trump must be impeached.’ Trump had, of course, been saying that there was no substance to the Russian charges ever since those charges were first made, and he is correct in that position. While the Comey memo has not been produced there are indications that Trump said nothing more to Comey than to reiterate his previous, often stated, public position. If Trump did make a statement to Comey stronger than that, it is very strange that Comey waited until several months later to object, and until after he had been fired by Trump. Comey’s effort to charge Truimp with interfering in the investigation of the Russian investigation is also inconsistent with statements made by the career FBI agents who are handling that investigation. Those agents have said unequivocally that no attempt has been made by the Trump Administration to interfere with that investigation.
Again, this last charge against Trump becomes totally insignificant when it is compared to much more serious actions by President Obama, to interfere with FBI investigations into actions of members his administration. The most notorious of Obama’s statements in that regard was made during his Superbowl interview by Bill O’Reiley in which Obama said that there was not a ‘smidgen of evidence’ to support a charge that the IRS had tried to silence conservative groups during his re-elections campaign. That question was under investigation by the FBI at the time of Obama’s statement, and IRS employee, Lerner, had taken the Fifth Amendment when testifying before Congress on that subject. It would be very strange, indeed, if Comey did not hear, or hear of, Obama’s statement concerning the lack of evidence to support any charges against the IRS at the time Comey was in charge of the IRS investigation. Furthermore, when the FBI investigation did not produce any charges against people in the IRS, how can anyone say, with any conviction, that Obama’s statement was not meant as a threat to Comey, who was then serving at the pleasure of his boss, Obama. That no charges were brought as a result of the FBI investigation is pretty good evidence that Obama meant to, and did in fact, influence Comey’s actions.
Similarliy, and with even more serious implications, were statements made by Obama about the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server to handle her emails while she was Secretary of State. Obama publicly stated that she had done nothing to endanger national security and thereby clearly implied that she should be exonerated. In other words he was saying that she may have made a mistake but that she didn’t mean any harm. Again, Obama may not have been speaking directly to Comey, but you can bet Comey got the message his boss was delivering to him. In fact, when Comey later made a public report of the investigation of the Clinton emails, in which he delivered a laundry list of crimes she had committed involving national security, he ended that report with the conclusion that she nevertheless should not be prosecuted. In doing so, he was almost paraphrasing Obama previous statement that Clinton didn’t mean to do any harm, and that was totally irrelevant as to whether she should have been prosecuted.
Apparently, the message here is that the thoroughly corrupt know how to accomplish their illicit objectives without leaving any evidence behind, and that the blunt spoken, almost little-boy-like, irrepressible truth-teller, Donald Trump doesn’t stand a chance when dealing with them. Underscoring this message are the crocodile tears being shed by these gangster/politicians about the danger to our democracy of Russian interference in our electoral process, a danger that exists only in the minds of those who would destroy that same democracy. Those tears are being shed as the crocodile devours the last honest man who will try to try to rescue our democracy from those who would corruptly use the power of the national government to control the outcome of our elections. As the crocodile thrashes about consuming its victims, the squawking occupants of the hen house run amok creating disorder, confusion and disarray, encouraging the killing of our police, looting and burning down buildings, destroying our institutions, our constitution, and our traditions. It is a pity that such a large portion of our population seem to favor the predators rather than listen to the pleas for help from the victims. They don’t even seem to realize that they are being controlled by a huge, evil, propaganda machine, the mainstream press.
The insanity of all of this becomes even more apparent when one considers that In order to accept the validity of the leftist position concerning improper Russian interference in our last presidential election, one must first accept the proposition that the democratic electoral process functions at its best when the candidates are allowed to illegally conceal evidence of their corrupt misdeeds from the electorate. In other words, an ignorant, uninformed, electorate, is a good electorate. This proposition is so important to the leftists that its violation is a grave threat to our sacred democracy. The necessity of accepting the aforesaid proposition is first made apparent from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s illegally putting all her State Department emails on an insecure private server in order to conceal them from the public. When Congress subpoenaed the private server, she further, and with absolutely no regard for the law, deleted 30,000 of them and lied about what she had done. When our own governmental law enforcement agencies, including the FBI and the CIA, were making no apparent attempt to retrieve those emails, Wikileaks, with little effort and in a very short time, hacked into that private server and made them available to the American public. Her actions were entirely consistent with the actions of the Democratic candidate in the prior Presidential election when Barak Obama blatantly lied to the electorate about the two most important issues in his reelection bid, Obamacare and the war against terror. He said, knowing it to be false, that everyone would be able to keep their doctors and medical insurance plans, and, in an attempt to give credibility to his platform plank that he had ended terrorism by killing Osama Bin Laden, falsely blamed Benghazi on an American made video. At about that same Obama leaned over at a meeting with Putin and whispered to the Russian leader, not realizing that he was speaking into an open microphone, ‘I will be more free to deal with you after I am reelected.’ That statement can have only one meaning. He wanted to conceal from the American electorate the extent to which he would be willing to sacrifice American interests in a manner that would not be acceptable to the voting public. All of these doings by the Democratic candidates in the last two Presidential elections can only be explained if one accepts their belief in the proposition stated at the beginning of this paragraph. The Insanity is magnified to the nth degree when one further considers that these crocodile tears about the sanctity of electoral process come from leftists who were complicit in the use of Presidential power to influence the electoral process.