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
#253 Thank You Russia page 5
#252 Constit. alive and well page 5
#251 Sky is falling page 3
#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
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.
November 11, 2017 #254 Snowflake Psychology
A lot of insight, as to the mindset of those who are currently trying so hard to disrupt our traditional culture, can be gleaned if we only listen to what they say and observe what they do, and then give serious thought and analysis to finding some threads of consistency that run throughout their movement. One place to start is their effort to find similarities between the killing of four American military men in Niger and the earlier killing of several military men in Benghazi during the Obama administration. Their effort seems to have the purpose of ensnaring Trump in a scandal that will equal and cancel out the Benghazi affair. In the Benghazi situation, our Embassy in Libya was attacked and several Americans were killed after repeated calls had gone out from that Embassy through channels that reached all the way to the Secretary of State’s office and into the White House, but no help had been sent. The White House and State Department both tried to claim that the Embassy attack was not an organized terrorist attack but was, instead a result of a spontaneous riot sparked by a video made in America. That effort to was totally false, and it was aimed at shifting whatever blame there was in the Benghazi situation to right-wing conservatives and away from the Obama administration. The mere effort to shift blame seems to contain an implicit admission that someone in the U.S was to blame. Indeed, we still have not learned what Obama was doing, as the Embassy attack was occurring, other than preparing for a political fund raiser to be held in Las Vegas the next day. The idea seemed inescapable that he had gone to bed with orders not to be disturbed for anything, and his order had been obeyed by the White House staff to the point that he was not awakened as the drama unfolded. The whole world was following the television coverage of the attack before Obama ever found out about it.
The comparison between Benghazi and Niger is totally unwarranted except that both involved an ambush of several American military members. The Niger ambush was against Special forces individuals who had entered a dangerous area fully aware of the risk involved. Compare that fact to the further fact that the Benghazi attack was in a U.S. Embassy in which the obligation to provide protection clearly belonged with our government. There may have been calls for help in Niger, but they were purely local. The Trump administration found out about it about as soon as the public did, and there was no attempt to shift blame to leftist opponents because, for one thing, there was no blame to shift. Such ambushes occur regularly and they do not become political issues. The effort to blame Trump for the Niger tragedy does, however, reveal a lot about the way the left thinks. They are always fighting a war for power. If one of theirs (i.e. Obama) is responsible for a blunder for which he rightfully is blamed, then a counter blow of equal proportion must be dealt to the opposition (i.e. Trump). It does not matter that the leftist who went down was taken down for having violated some lawful duty or having committed a real crime. It does not matter that the retaliatory blow is against a totally innocent political opponent. Democratic officeholders are not bound by their duty to obey the law, they are fighting a war against the opposition and neither truth nor law is a factor. A blow must be struck, and it is uncanny how they seek a situation that bears some literal resemblance to the one in which the leftist went down. They are totally unimaginative. They do not really seem to have the power to think. They just lash out. Several years ago a Democratic Speaker of the Congressional House of Representatives from Texas named Wright was removed because he committed a crime. No question about it. He was totally corrupt and was caught in the act. Sometime after that the Democrats decided they must retaliate and they found a Democratic Texas prosecutor who was perfectly willing to politicize the criminal law for political purposes and he went after Tom Delay, the Republican Speaker of the Congressional House of Representatives, also from Texas. The charge was money laundering because of transfers of funds between different Republican campaigns. It was something clearly not covered by the ‘money laundering’ statute. When a Grand Jury in Houston, Texas, refused to indict Delay because the charge was so obviously hoked up just for the purpose of striking a retaliatory blow at the opposition, the Prosecutor moved the operation to Austin, Texas, which is a hotbed of leftist politics similar to DC, and there he not only obtained an indictment, he got a conviction of Delay. A Texas Appellate Court finally threw the case out and acquitted Delay. Note the eerie similarity between what the left is doing in the Benghazi/Niger case and what they did in the Delay case.
Another instance, in which the left is attempting to attribute their own misdeeds to their opponents, is illustrated by the current claims that Trump colluded with Russia in an effort to influence the 2016 Presidential election. The action of the left in regard to the Russian collusion claims differs only slightly from the events discussed above in that the Democrats in the Russian collusion case had already committed a series of illegal actions in an effort to influence the 2016 election, but the scandal had not yet broken and the public was not fully aware of the facts which constituted unlawful collusion with Russia, when they accused Trump of having done the very thing of which they were guilty. They did this, in spite of their claims against Trump being totally baseless, and they were, thus, once again, trying to cover their own rear ends by imputing their corrupt and evil deeds to their opposition. It is reminiscent of another of the seemingly endless chain of examples of the use of such tactics. Recall when Obama told the lie of the century when he said that Obama Care would permit participants to keep their own doctors etc. To justify Obama’s blatant corruption they chanted, in unison, “Bush lied too when he said Iraq had WMD.” Again, the trouble there was that Bush had not lied, but had relied on the accepted position of every major intelligence agency in the world. Not only had Bush relied on state of the art intelligence information, but nearly every Democrat in Congress had agreed with him on the position he had taken with respect to Iraq. A more recent example of the same reasoning process by the left is their claim that Trump and Bill O’Reilly are worse examples of predatory males assaulting women in the work place than Harvey Weinstein. The very idea that the weird, even barbaric, behavior, of Harvey Weinstein, which had become commonplace in the entertainment industry, is offset by a few isolated claims, of questionable validity, of alleged conduct which, even if proven would constitute minor infringements of our current, female oriented, sexual code, is ludicrous.
The recitation of the string of events in which the leftists have used this elementary school playground tactic, sometimes referred to as ‘so’s yer old man,’ is not just an idle effort to point out some minor misdeeds of the opposition. It is makes it very clear that the dangerously unsettled state of our culture is being caused by a movement peopled by shallow, herd-running, corrupt, individuals with a very low level of intelligence who are incapable of anything resembling rational thought. The above examples of the truth of the foregoing are not the only evidence to that end. There are so many more such examples that it would require volumes to catalog them. Suffice it to simply refer to just one pillar of their doctrinal base. The institution of political correctness is perhaps the most obvious. It reflects their realization that a public discussion of their fantasy-based thought system would knock the props from under it. Thus, their claims that there are no differences between the sexes or the races, and that people are whatever sex they pretend to be, are so ridiculous that they would melt away like butter on a sidewalk on a hot July day. The same is true of their claims that there are no differences between the races, and that blacks are no more violent than other ethnic groups. (Strangely, however, they won’t allow white people to think themselves into being black.) Perhaps an even more revealing example of the inability of leftist to give serious thought to public issues is the ‘snowflake’ phenomenon. We are told that these compassionate young idealists are so pure and innocent that they simply cannot bear to hear evil white speakers or professors make statements inconsistent with political correctness. Yet, these same delicate children find no problem with participating in riots with thugs who loot and burn public buildings and urge the killing of policemen. The reason the snowflakes melt is that they are incapable of thinking. To hear anyone saying things that are inconsistent with their doctrinal base would make them uncomfortable to the point of disorienting them. Unable to think, there is no telling what they might do. Some few of them might actually find that there is intelligent life out there.