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
#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
#107 Cracks in the .. wall 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.
July 27, 2016 Random Thoughts
September 12 2016 #246 The Big Rock Candy Mountain
The furor over bathrooms to be used by hermaphrodites is puzzling to most people, and well it should be. If the problem was limited to those whose sexual organs didn’t develop properly during gestation, and resulted in the affected individuals having some aspects of both sexes, leaving in question the sex of the individual, it would, indeed, be puzzling why a national issue would be raised concerning a question that probably doesn’t involve many more than a couple of hundred individuals nationwide. That problem has been with us always and it has been handled without ever raising a fuss. Even if the issue was expanded to include those who have had sex change operations, it still wouldn’t involve a large number of people and no one would question allowing the altered individuals to use the bathroom of the sex resulting from the operation. A problem does arise, however, when the issue is further expanded to include individuals who mentally identify with a sex opposite to that which is clearly indicated by the genitalia with which they are born, and which has not been altered by surgery.
If the issue is to be rationally resolved, in any of the above cases, it would seem necessary to examine into the public policies involved in separating the sexes for purposes of assigning them to separate bathroom facilities, and that takes us back to the time when the fig leaf was first used to cover the genital area. That time, of course, is described in the Adam and Eve fable in the Bible, and similar creation tales. The fig leaf became necessary when human beings developed a degree of reasoning ability to allow them to alter their instinctive behavior patterns. The word ‘knowledge,’ as in the phrase the ‘tree of knowledge’ described in the Adam and Eve fable, doesn’t refer to accumulated information, as is suggested by the word ‘knowledge, it refers to development of the power of reason to the point that the human animal can have sex on demand. The more primitive animals, and that includes humans of the pre-consensual sex era, are only aroused to attempt to initiate such an encounter when the female exudes odors which indicate she is ready to conceive. Once sex-on-demand became possible, the mere sight of the naked body of someone of the opposite sex could excite the viewer and suggest the possibility of a sexual encounter. Since the male is generally stronger than the female, an aroused male became more likely to attempt to force sex on the now always-capable female. In order to minimize that problem, human beings began to wear clothing to conceal their genitals.
Since the human animal must expose the genital area in the process of excreting liquid wastes, it is obvious the sexes should be separated by assigning them to separate bathrooms. The separation must be based on the actual genital configuration. If there are some people who are mentally confused about their sexuality, they must nevertheless be governed by rules based on objective reality. You would think anyone with an ounce of common sense would realize the truth of the foregoing. We simply can’t make a new and separate set of rules, in this or any other situation, to fit the altered reality of people who choose to live in imaginary worlds. If a present day Burl Ives was to actually decide he is living on the Big Rock Candy Mountain, must we make rules which give him the right to take whatever he wants from wherever he finds it? If we must, then what is to prevent any male from deciding that he is entitled to have sex with any female he finds attractive? The mere fact that some people are now trying to force us to tolerate use of bathrooms assigned to one sex by people who are sexually configured in the opposite way, would seem to indicate a lack of rationality on the part of those who advocate such a change, and such people must, themselves, be irrational, or they must be concealing some hidden agenda. Actually the latter would seem to be true, but, upon further reflection, it hasn’t really been very well concealed.
The feminists have been insisting from the beginning that there is no difference between the sexes. They just didn’t specifically say that they applied that reasoning literally and to the point of denying the obvious physical difference in the genital apparatus. The gullible public seems to lamely accept their insane assertions and assumes that it is all just rhetoric designed to advance the female agenda. It now becomes clear that they truly think that anyone is what he/she believes himself/herself to be. Leftist judges readily agree and base their decisions on such a belief system. The recent decision by a federal judge to the effect that the North Carolina bathroom-use statute was an unconstitutional discrimination on the basis of sex, is a good example. No one on either side of that dispute, including the judge and the opposing parties, contends that the State of North Carolina cannot assign people to bathrooms on the basis of sex. Thus, the decision seems to be based on some convoluted reasoning process which says that the Constitution requires that people be entitled to mentally determine the sex to which they belong. The entire leftist agenda is premised on the same approach. The equal pay for women movement insists on disregarding the fact that women have different career goals and approaches based upon their roles as mothers, and that such facts will affect their job contribution, despite undisputed evidence to that effect. The gay marriage thing is another example. It insists that if two men believe that one of them is a female, or two women believe that one of them is a male, then they must be so regarded by the law. There can be no dispute that marriage laws were universally enacted to protect a male and a female in the rearing of the children produced by them. If two people of the same sex had attempted to marry before the current feminization of our culture, their attempt would have been summarily rejected. The law didn’t change, and the recent decisions can only be read as adopting the totally subjective approach to reality.
As indicated, this approach pervades the entire leftist/feminist belief system. The recent black uprising which insists that our entire legal system, including the police and the laws themselves, are to blame for the police killings of black youths such as Trayvon Martin (Zimmerman was not a real policeman but a community watch volunteer and, as such, is generally considered, for want of a better description, a quasi-policeman), Michael Brown, and the guy in Baltimore. In every one of these cases, and others sometimes mentioned by blacks and leftists when reciting their grievances, the problem was caused by violent black youths who were shot while resisting arrest for the commission of crimes, and in the Martin and Brown cases were attempting to wrest away the policemen’s gun to be used to kill him. It is clear to any rational, objective, person that this social problem is entirely caused by the violence of young black males. It doesn’t occur in other ethnic groups, or at least not to anything like the frequency that it does in the black community. The people killed in most such cases are other blacks. Nevertheless, leftists and radical blacks simply alter reality of the situation and insist that the police and the system are to blame for attempting to curb the violence. They deny the very existence of the violent tendencies and pretend that legal system and the police who enforce the rules, are the blame. They are, in other words constructing their own reality and totally ignoring the objective facts. The same thing is occurring in regard to disruptive behavior in schools. They insist that black youths not be disciplined at a rate greater than white students, despite the fact that the disruptive behavior is coming almost entirely from black students. The federal education department has imposed rules on school districts which are demanded by the leftist/black coalition. It is clear that the effect of allowing black criminals and black students to engage in anti-social behavior while punishing white individuals who exhibit the same behavior, can only result in more anti-social behavior among blacks and resentment among whites. It also illustrates the truth of the proposition that problems are not solved by pretending they don’t exist.
To the same effect is the FBI’s report on the investigation of the Clinton email scandal. The FBI Director found that Clinton had exposed classified information on several occasions and had lied about doing so. Instead of recommending her prosecution, however, the Director did the opposite and recommended no prosecution. He did so against a background in which General Petraeus and at least two enlisted military men were prosecuted for far less egregious violations of the same crime Clinton had committed. The Director, when asked to compare the Clinton situation with that of Petraeus, responded that Clinton did not have the requisite intent and Petraeus did. His evidence with respect to Petraeus was a statement that the FBI had found some classified information hidden in Petraeus’ attic. No one asked him if he had looked in Clinton’s attic and he obviously hadn’t. It is obvious that the hiding of classified info in Petraeus attic provides no more evidence of bad intent than Clinton’s deleting of over 30,000 emails which she falsely claimed had contained no classified info. The false nature of her claim was provided by the FBI Director in his Report. In fact, the classified info may have been more safe in Petraeus’ attic than spread out in cyber space by Clinton as evidenced by the fact that some of those emails have been retrieved by Russian hackers. It is obvious that there was some other explanation for his failure to recommend prosecution of Clinton. She obviously believes that she lives on The Big Rock Candy Mountain and that she is not bound by the same rules that control the behavior of non-believers, and it also obvious that the FBI Director, other RINOs, and the leftist press have accepted the validity of the subjective belief system of the leftist/feminists.
Implicit in the foregoing discussion is the obvious assumption by the leftist/feminists and blacks that only those who accept this subjective system are protected by it. Those who take an objective approach are to be judged by objective standards. Thus, Democrats are entitled to lie and steal, but Republicans are not. Further implicit in it is that if this subjective system is imposed on everyone, there will be no laws. There will simply be power in people who obtain certain official positions. The gullible public does not seem to comprehend the significance of what is occurring, and their eyes glaze over when there is an attempt to warn them of the implications of the destruction of our rule of law system in which everyone is subject to the same rules and is judged on an objective basis. It is just as obvious that objectivity and honesty are one and the same concept. Once we have strayed from objectivity, we have begun to lie and the door to complete corruption has been thrown wide open. A completely subjective society is corrupt from top to bottom. If you want examples take a close look at the corruption of the Clintons over the last 20 years or so, and the plight of the nation of Venezuela now.