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
#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 Bucketful page 6
#241 Darwinism page 6
#240 Ohio Family Murders 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.
July 27, 2016 Random Thoughts
January 6, 2017 #249 Russian Interference In Our Election: Is It A ‘Red Herring’ Or Worse?
My apologies for the previous post (#248). When I re-read it just now, I realized that while It does make some rational arguments, it is not well organized and it is difficult to follow. I guess I should not post one of these essays the same day it is written, but should instead let it lie for a day or two before releasing it to the world. My plan, with respect to this Post, is to restate some of what is said therein and make some additional points on the same subject.
The main thrust of the defective Post was to point out the absurdity of the Democrat’s position with respect to the hacked Clinton emails being made public by Julian Assange during our presidential election campaign. They somehow reach the conclusion that the election was compromised by the appearance of those emails, and that the legitimacy of Donald Trump’s election victory was, thereby, brought into question. Some of them pursue that line of thought to the point of contending that Trump could be prevented by the Federal Courts from being inaugurated to the Office of The Presidency of the U.S. if he benefited from the disclosure of those emails. To determine if Trump actually benefited, they are urging that Congress investigate the matter. While my arguments in Post #248 may be somewhat clumsy and unorganized, they are a model of clarity compared to the manner in which the Democrats get from point A (the hacking and release of the emails by Assange with, perhaps some Russian assistance) to point B (enjoining Trump’s inauguration if any part of the electorate can be shown to have been influenced by those emails). Making one’s way through that logical morass requires establishing the proposition that to give the American electorate truthful information relevant to the qualifications of one of the candidates is a threat to our Constitutional democracy. In other words, they are denying the truth of the old axiom that an informed electorate is essential to a modern democracy. They are saying just the opposite, that an informed electorate is a dangerous thing. I don’t doubt for a minute that Obama and Democrats really believe the latter. They have proven it so many times by lying to us, and it is a basic premise of political correctness, but I have never heard them say it so directly. When you think about it however, it is right out of the feminist playbook. If a woman wants to convince her husband that reports of something she did are a lie, she need only tell him that it came from his worst enemy. He immediately believes her. This is why white women are always saying white men are dumb. The reason is, they can be made to believe anything. Black society is a matriarchal society, and most black men behave like women. The current power structure in this country is composed of blacks, feminists and feminized males. Obama, therefore, picked up quickly on this maneuver. There is an alternate theory and it is that he had an evil intent from the beginning to destroy America. In fact, the entire black/feminist coalition frequently say and do things which make the latter theory seem more believable.
My main argument was that the emails were, unquestionably, genuine. They are a truth, and a truth to which the American People were entitled in making their decision about how to vote in the election. End of discussion. It matters not how that truth was exposed, or who exposed it. However, when consideration is given to the fact that truth was being suppressed by the illegal, maybe criminal, actions of Hillary Clinton, with the aid of the Obama administration, the exposure of that truth, even if it was by the devil himself, became even more important, and, therefore, the relevance of supposed Russian action is made less important, rather than more. When it is further considered that the ability of Assange, and maybe the Russians, to obtain access to that truth, and to expose it to the light of day, was made much easier by Hillary Clinton’s illegal action in storing it on an unsecured private network, the effect, again, is to render the Russian role less offensive rather than more. Add to that, the fact that Hillary Clinton illegally deleted those emails and then gave the one finger salute to the American public and every hacker in to world by challenging anyone to find them after she ‘wiped the private server clean,’ and any relevance of any kind of role that Assange and the Russians had in this matter, totally disappears. If there is any relevance left at all, it is sure as hell not available to be asserted by Hillary Clinton or her Democratic co-conspirators who, first of all, illegally created these emails and then illegally tried to delete them, and are, therefore, responsible for the whole mess. The Democrats are, in effect, trying to take advantage of a series of events for which they are solely responsible, in their effort to de-legitimize Trump’s victory.
Further, when consideration is given to the fact that Obama and the Democrats didn’t find any reason to object, or react, to Russian and Chinese hackers getting access to important defense and security information of ours in the past, we have not only made the Russian exposure of the Democrat emails totally irrelevant to any misdeeds relating to the 2016 election, we have reached the point where, if the Russians are found to have had a role in the publication of the Clinton emails, we should be considering awarding the Medal of Freedom to Vladimir Putin or such other Russian as may have been responsible for that act. Not only does the Russian conduct fail to reach the level of a misdeed, it is the kind of conduct that regularly occurs in situations in which one nation reacts to changes in the leadership of other nations. Obama tried to interfere in the last Israeli election to prevent the re-election of Benjamin Netanyahu. The Democrats, in the Trump/Clinton election just past, were trying to use anti-Trump statements from leaders of several other countries to convince Americans they should vote against Trump. Were they inviting those foreign leaders to intervene in our own election? If you want a really enlightening insight into what the Democrats consider to be acceptable international behavior in these situations, then recall the position taken by many in our own State Department when, just a few years ago, the national legislature of Honduras, with the approval of the Honduras Supreme Court, removed from power a leftist president who was seeking to establish himself as a Hugo Chavez-type leftist dictator in that country. Our own State Department leftists were considering military intervention to force Honduras to reinstate their would-be dictator. The reasoning was that the Honduran Constitution had not been complied with in removing him. In other words, they were contending that we, rather than the Honduras Legislature and Supreme Court, were the final authority in construing that country’s Constitution.
What these precedents establish is that is that actions of nations in these situations is a matter of power, and, subject to that limitation, there is a de facto international freedom of speech and action. There is no international law or morality involved. Mere statements by foreign governments, or the release of information by them meant to influence the elections of other nations, have never been considered by any rational person to be grounds for responding to such statements, or the release of such information, with force, and that is particularly true here, when the statements or information contain the truth. We did that sort of thing for 50 or 60 years after WWII over a radio network called The Voice of America, and we did it to Russia and China both. In fact, it is quite absurd for Obama, and his lapdog CIA head who has lied for him before, to contend otherwise. After all it is essential to the integrity of our Constitutional democracy that the electorate have all the information they need to make wise decisions in the selection of those who will have power over them. They should be allowed to process that information and then vote on the basis of it. When Obama says it was “despicable” for the Russians to release Hillary’s emails, one wonders just what in the hell he is up to. Implicit in that statement the further statement that the Russians should have, at least, waited until after the election to do so, and to have, thereby, allowed Hillary to hide the damaging of that information from the American public
The position of Obama and the Democrats is particularly offensive when it is considered that they didn’t want to anger the Russians and Chinese in past years for hacking into our computers and stealing documents essential to our ability to defend our nation. Do we really want to whack the Russians now for revealing a truth to which our voters were entitled when making the decision as to which candidate to vote for. If they had tried to hack into our voting machine to change the election results, we might consider showing them the extent of our power. Absent that, the answer is an emphatic no, and that is certainly true when it is further shown that the people now complaining of the Russian action practically handed the documents containing that truth to them by putting them on illegal insecure private servers and then issuing an arrogant challenge to hackers everywhere to find them, if they could, after Hillary had ‘wiped those servers clean.’ The sanctity of our Constitutional democracy is not threatened, in the slightest way, by anyone else in the world providing information to our voters that might be relevant to the choices they were to make in an election.
There are two distinct issues involved in this Democratic maneuver. One is the failure of the Democrats to respond to Russian and Chinese hacking into our top secret security matters. The other is the supposed interference by Russia in our recent election. The first should be a top priority for the Trump administration. The second is a non-issue. There wasn’t even any hacking into government files in the second. It was all into files maintained by Democrats on insecure networks, and yet they want to gain traction for the second by referring to the first without even pretending that they would have handled the first any differently than they did. It is a true ‘red herring issue.’ Yet the RINOs blindly stumble into line with the Democrats, the elephants braying like jackasses, as they agree that if the Russians did it and it can be shown that it influenced the election something must be