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
#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
#244 Cowardly Enablers page 5
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 17, 201 #253 Thank You Russia For Enhancing The Integrity of Our Election.
The leftist/feminist attempt to ensnare Trump Jr. in a trap which would provide them a pretext for driving Trump Sr out of an office to which he was unquestionably, and legally, elected, is one of the most blatant, and illegitimate efforts ever conceived to subvert the Constitutional electoral processes of this nation. It is nothing short of sedition, and an attempt to overthrow the U.S. government. As such it is also treason. Ironically, their attempt attributes to Trump Sr the very kind of evil motives that underlie their own misbegotten scheme. The process is known as projection, and it exists when one projects his/her own evil motives and actions onto those who oppose him/her. Their campaign depends upon several totally invalid premises. They seem to believe that stringing together enough such false premises they can make a truthful case for their illegitimate actions. In doing so they fly into the face of the old adage that ‘two wrongs don’t make a right.‘ Despite the wisdom in that saying, they would have us believe that four or five lies, when strung together, make a truth.
Their lies include the premise that Russia is the enemy of the United States. There is absolutely no basis for that proposition. We are not at war with Russia, nor have we ever been. There may have been a ‘cold war,’ for several decades, but the phrase ‘cold war’ itself belies the proposition. In fact, the ‘cold war’ followed World War II in which Russia was our ally and we provided them the means to defend themselves from Nazi Germany. The hostilities between Russia and the U.S. following WWII were based entirely upon the fact that Russia was a communist nation, and we were a capitalistic democracy. Even that basis for hostilities ended when the Communist system collapsed, Russia adopted a free market economy, and the old Soviet empire split apart. Indeed, the left in the U.S. had never enthusiastically embraced the U.S. position in those hostilities. They referred to the brutal, murderous dictator, Stalin, as Uncle Joe, and made heroes of Americans who defected to Russia to participate in the Russian side of the Cold War. These are the same leftists, or their congenital successors, who are now trying to convince us that Russia is our blood enemy. Furthermore, the last two presidents of the U.S., prior to Trump, a Republican and a Democrat, both made very much publicized efforts to embrace a total reconciliation between Russia and the U.S., one of which was referred to as a ‘reset’ of U.S./Russian relations, and the other was exemplified by the now infamous open microphone whisper by Obama to Putin that after his re-election he would be more free to deal with the former Cold War enemy. The latter of those two efforts at total reconciliation of Russia and the U.S. clearly indicated that Obama would be willing to deal with Putin in a manner that might not be acceptable to the American electorate. One assumes he may have had in mind the return of Alaska with an apology for the evil motives involved in our stealing it from them for a pittance in the first place, and he may have also intended to throw in Washington, Oregon and California for good measure. (Hey, that is not sounding bad at all.) It is almost laughable that the same leftists, who were so eager to deal with Russia on the friendliest terms, would pivot 180 degrees and insist that Russia has always been our worst enemy. Their infamous pivot occurred within days when they saw the opportunity to charge that Trump had colluded with our worst enemy in the election of 2016.
The second lie involves the use of the word collusion. There is not a single bit of evidence that either Trump or his son colluded with Russia in the election of 2016. Collusion involves cooperation between two parties in the effort to accomplish a shared illicit objective. While the Russians may have had the objective of defeating Hillary Clinton, and that objective may have been, in some degree, illicit for the Russians, it was not in, in any degree, illicit, unethical, or illegal for Trump Jr. He was soliciting information, and in doing so he was pursuing the truth. To say that such a situation is collusion is absurd. The effort of the left to contaminate Trump Jr.’ motives relies, first, on referring to it as ‘digging up dirt’ on Clinton, and then gasping at the mere thought of his doing it with our worst enemy, Russia. This illegitimate effort to contaminate Trump Jr.’s meeting with Russian representatives was the subject of a skit by the eminent Charles Krauthammer and another member of Fox News All-Star panel, Steve Hayes, the other night, with both holding their noses and cringing at the thought of anyone doing any such things. I wonder if either of the two of them have ever seen a negative pre-election commercial. Every one of them is based upon information sought out in the same method as was being employed by Trump Jr. It is perfectly legitimate if what is obtained is truthful and relevant. In fact, it is essential if the electorate is to be fully informed of the qualifications of the candidates for whom they are being urged to vote. To hold otherwise is to contend that our electoral process operates best when flawed candidates are allowed to conceal their disqualifications from the voting public. In the election in which Trump Jr. was seeking information, and the candidate was Hillary Clinton, she was certainly doing her best to illegally conceal relevant information from the voting public. Nor does the sanctity of the right to pursue the truth end when one reaches the national borders, and that is particularly true when those challenging the right to pursue such truths don’t even believe in national borders. Truth is truth wherever it is found, and any attempt to make its pursuit illegal would be so flagrantly inconsistent with the very idea of Constitutional government as to make one shudder at the very thought of making it illegal. To say Trump Jr. was in collusion with Russia for the meeting he attended is like saying that any reporter who interviews a terrorism suspect is in collusion with ISIS. Again, collusion requires two people who have shared illicit motives.
The fact that the left engages in the kind of tactics being employed in the press, in regard to Trump Jr.’s meeting with the Russians, is not surprising, but when a couple of RINO’s such as Krauthhammer and Hayes, do it, one has to wonder what is going on. The action of the left can be explained by the fact that they do not believe in the pursuit of truth, unless, of course, one accepts the subjective thought system they employ. Under that system truth is whatever they want it to be. The fact that RINO’s are now behaving in the same way must mean that a large percentage of our population has bought into that evil thought system, and now accepts the legitimacy of political correctness which holds that anything inconsistent with the leftist agenda is false. However, until political correctness becomes a part of our constitutional system, and every objective person prays that will never occur, the pursuit of truth, as exemplified by the actions of Trump Jr, can never be regarded as illegal or unethical. The left makes the further effort to taint Trump Jr.’s actions by characterizing it as a situation in which the Trump campaign accepted a campaign contribution from Russia, and, therefore violated a law which prohibits a candidate from accepting campaign contributions from any foreign government. Everything said, in the prior paragraph, about the invalidity of any law which stands in the way of the pursuit of truth, is applicable here also. Further, however, there is nothing in that law to indicate that it applies to contributions of information and to construe it include such contributions would run afoul of a principle of statutory constructions which holds that a statute should not be construed in a way that would render it invalid. Beyond that, however, the law referred to specifically refers to cash contribution and any effort to apply it to ‘contributions’ of information would clearly go beyond any intention of the legislators who enact it.
Hovering over this illicit press campaign is also the release by the Russians (or at least the Russians are claimed to have done it) of the hacked Hillary Clinton emails during the election campaign. That is, in fact, the beginning of the entire obsession with Russian interference in the 2016 election, and the existence of that fact is used by the press to further taint the actions of Trump Jr. There is, of course, no evidence of any complicity, or even prior knowledge by anyone in the Trump administration with anything done by the Russians, or anyone else, in regard to the hacking of those emails. In fact, even the wrongfulness of the hacking, by whoever did it, is mitigated by the illegal and negligent actions of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party which made that hacking possible. She illegally stored them on an insecure private server, and then illegally deleted them in an attempt to hide them from the voting public of this country. Her blatant contempt for the electoral process by these actions in which she almost challenged anyone to find them, while being assisted by the Obama administration in carrying out her nefarious scheme, is a million times more of a threat to the sanctity of our sacred electoral process than anything done by the Russians or whoever hacked and released those emails. The same is true of the IRS’s attempt to silence the conservative voice during the election. The use of the power of the government to suppress the opposition during an election is effectively used by authoritarian regimes such as Russia, Venzuela, etc., to hold on to power. Outside threats we can deal with. Inside threats are more likely to destroy our democracy.
One further thought. This whole campaign to cancel the last Presidential election on the basis that there was Russian interference in it, involves the flawed concept that for the Russians, or anyone else, to provide truthful, and relevant, information to our electorate, amounts to harmful ‘interference.’ It would seem more appropriate to describe that action as enhancing the integrity of that election because it resulted in a more informed electorate.