Bluegrassrivals

EXCERPT---
"Texas Governor Rick Perry was indicted on Friday by a grand jury in Texas on two counts of abuse of power and coercion over a funding veto he made last year that was seen as being intended to force a local prosecutor to resign.

A probe was launched last year after Perry vetoed $7.5 million in funding for an integrity unit that is part of the Travis County District Attorney's office. The move was seen as hardball politics to force out county District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg, a Democrat, after she pleaded guilty to drunken driving.
Read http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Rick-Pe...z3AZUfYcYe

If you can't beat 'em, sue or prosecute 'em. Again we see the ever evolving practice of using the law to run over the law. Dems hate the idea that they cannot get away with whatever indiscretion they would want, after all, are they not special in their own minds? There is a real hate fest going on right now between the parties, and despite claims to the contrary, it is mostly a one way affair. No matter how lecherous or generally debase their actions at the personal level may be, that supposedly brings nothing to bear on how well they do their jobs. But, it really does matter. And as the thread title suggests, I believe America is in real trouble because of the calls from the left for compromise of personal integrity at the state level.

At any rate, Rick Perry has been a thorn in the side of the far left throughout the present administration. The vast majority of so-called newly created jobs they like to tout, all happened down in Texas. The shinning success story of this nation is that Texas, is keeping the nation's wolves at bay nearly by it's lonesome. Liberals hate that, and conservative Republican Governor Perry with a passion.

'Criminal' Politics: Democrats Using Indictment Weapon Against Opponents


Sunday, 17 Aug 2014 10:47 PM


EXCERPT---
"The news that Texas Gov. Rick Perry was indicted Friday for conducting a lawful act has Republican strategists and others steaming about a pattern of abuse by Democrats: When they can't beat Republicans at the polls, they try to indict them in criminal court."

Read http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/criminal...z3Al9ouERP



IDK, maybe folks are starting to wake up.

Harvard Law Professor and noted scholar on US Constitutional Law and Criminal Law Alan Dershowitz, commented on Texas Governor Perry indictment.

ARTICLE EXCERPT---
"The indictment of Texas Republican Gov. Rick Perry over abuse of power and coercion is reminiscent of the way that political dissent was handled in the Soviet Union, legal scholar and Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz told Newsmax TV's "America's Forum."

Dershowitz, who made clear he would never vote for Rick Perry, said Monday the governor's indictment was driven by politics and is representative of "what happens in totalitarian societies."


Read http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Alan-De...z3AmBJd9en

This is a transparent act of cowardice and close to being on the Benghazi level for propaganda and bullying.

Governor Perry should tell them that someone made a video that pissed him off, so he gets a pass no matter WHAT! At least he didn't sit there doing nothing, while watching American diplomats/soldiers die.

Granny Bear Wrote:This is a transparent act of cowardice and close to being on the Benghazi level for propaganda and bullying.

Governor Perry should tell them that someone made a video that pissed him off, so he gets a pass no matter WHAT! At least he didn't sit there doing nothing, while watching American diplomats/soldiers die.

Details not withstanding, Governors can veto anything they want, wrong, right, or out of left field. But, have you noticed how the fires of discontent regarding the governmental travesty of Benghazi have died down to a smoldering ember? It's a real worry.

The problem is the Orwellian implications for the prospects of Americans to continue being free men. Using the law to run over the law equals the inception of "double speak." When a sitting governor has to face the charges of a local Barney Fife of a DA, all men should be hearing footsteps coming up behind them.

Put differently, if State Governors can be persecuted and prosecuted, solely because of their political views, what would make the nobody's of this land think their heads won't wind up in the noose along with him? This rampaging rebellion against all things conservative from the big hitters in State and Federal Government could well be the harbinger of the end of America's run as the land of the free, much less the world's premier super power.

Wide cited a federal judge by the name of John Heyburn in his thread about gay marriage being struck down in KY. If these activist judges are going to continue to use the law to run over the law and the will of the vast majority, as was the case with his shameful override of the 75% who voted against gay marriage in the last referendum, what hope of survival do we really have?

The thought police will make life miserable for all concerned and we can blame nobody except ourselves. God help America to vote out the liberal kingpins this November.

TheRealThing Wrote:Details not withstanding, Governors can veto anything they want, wrong, right, or out of left field. But, have you noticed how the fires of discontent regarding the governmental travesty of Benghazi have died down to a smoldering ember? It's a real worry.

The problem is the Orwellian implications for the prospects of Americans to continue being free men. Using the law to run over the law equals the inception of "double speak." When a sitting governor has to face the charges of a local Barney Fife of a DA, all men should be hearing footsteps coming up behind them.

Put differently, if State Governors can be persecuted and prosecuted, solely because of their political views, what would make the nobody's of this land think their heads won't wind up in the noose along with him? This rampaging rebellion against all things conservative from the big hitters in State and Federal Government could well be the harbinger of the end of America's run as the land of the free, much less the world's premier super power.

Wide cited a federal judge by the name of John Heyburn in his thread about gay marriage being struck down in KY. If these activist judges are going to continue to use the law to run over the law and the will of the vast majority, as was the case with his shameful override of the 75% who voted against gay marriage in the last referendum, what hope of survival do we really have?

The thought police will make life miserable for all concerned and we can blame nobody except ourselves. God help America to vote out the liberal kingpins this November.

But, they can't use it for coercion, or blackmail. Everybody here knows you game, though. If it were the other way around, you'd cry foul.

^ FTR, I'm with him on this one, but he should have been discreet, and did it the right way. He could have just remained quiet, vetoed the money that funds her job, and it would have been over. Where he crossed the line, and was stupid, was announcing that he was gonna veto if she didn't step down. That's where it went to coercion. He brought this on himself. But, I hope they throw it out. That woman has no place in an ethics job.

TheRealVille Wrote:But, they can't use it for coercion, or blackmail. Everybody here knows you game, though. If it were the other way around, you'd cry foul.

I'm glad you can see the destructive element to the idea of suing legislators doing their jobs. But, you need to see somebody about this idea rolling around in your head which tells you that people on "here" agree with you.

TheRealThing Wrote:I'm glad you can see the destructive element to the idea of suing legislators doing their jobs. But, you need to see somebody about this idea rolling around in your head which tells you that people on "here" agree with you.

People don't have to agree with me to know your game. I've already said that I didn't see a reason to charge him, but coercion is illegal. Coercion and blackmail are illegal.He crossed the line by opening his mouth, when he should have just stayed quiet. He did an illegal act, and got caught, when all he had to do was veto the money and be quiet. So,......................... you are against suing Obama when he was just doing his job, when congress refused to do theirs?

TheRealVille Wrote:People don't have to agree with me to know your game. I've already said that I didn't see a reason to charge him, but coercion is illegal. Coercion and blackmail are illegal.He crossed the line by opening his mouth, when he should have just stayed quiet. He did an illegal act, and got caught, when all he had to do was veto the money and be quiet. So,......................... you are against suing Obama when he was just doing his job, when congress refused to do theirs?

The Congress is a shark infested sewer. You know Harry Reid will not allow the House to function properly because he will not take up inconvenient (to Dems) legislation. Why, because such legislation would either pass or Dems who wouldn't want to have their votes go on record sorely need the cover for the coming mid-terms.

But here's the real truth about the propagandist byline which states that he's just doing his job. The Congress, and the Congress only, legislates. Even if they did nothing new with regard to legislation, we still have more than enough laws on the books to hold us until the impasse is over. In any event, the President does not make law, and nowhere in the Constitution is he given the authority to go around Congress.

Now, let me ask you a question. If we get a Republican in there as President next time who gets it in his head he's going to run over the Dems in the same manner Republicans are being run over, are you going to maintain he's just doing his job? Or, would you expect the Dems to do their Constitutional duty and sue him in an attempt to restore due process to one of the three coequal branches of the federal government?

There is a very good reason for the level of importance the framers placed upon the House of Representatives. And I agree with them, I'd rather have 435 Congressmen looking out for America's best interests, over just one guy, even if some of them are kooks.

TheRealThing Wrote:The Congress is a shark infested sewer. You know Harry Reid will not allow the House to function properly because he will not take up inconvenient (to Dems) legislation. Why, because such legislation would either pass or Dems who wouldn't want to have their votes go on record sorely need the cover for the coming mid-terms.

But here's the real truth about the propagandist byline which states that he's just doing his job. The Congress, and the Congress [B]only, legislates. Even if they did nothing new with regard to legislation, we still have more than enough laws on the books to hold us until the impasse is over. In any event, the President does not make law, and nowhere in the Constitution is he given the authority to go around Congress.
[/B]
Now, let me ask you a question. If we get a Republican in there as President next time who gets it in his head he's going to run over the Dems in the same manner Republicans are being run over, are you going to maintain he's just doing his job? Or, would you expect the Dems to do their Constitutional duty and sue him in an attempt to restore due process to one of the three coequal branches of the federal government?

There is a very good reason for the level of importance the framers placed upon the House of Representatives. And I agree with them, I'd rather have 435 Congressmen looking out for America's best interests, over just one guy, even if some of them are kooks.

How many executive actions did Bush and Reagan do in their time in office? Hint: In the last 50 years, only 2 Presidents have had less EO's during their time in office, and Bush2 and Reagan(your guys gods) aren't them.

TheRealVille Wrote:How many executive actions did Bush and Reagan do in their time in office? Hint: In the last 50 years, only 2 Presidents have had less EO's during their time in office, and Bush2 and Reagan(your guys gods) aren't them.

When you can't respond with any degree of credibility, change the subject.

TheRealThing Wrote:When you can't respond with any degree of credibility, change the subject.

I wasn't changing the subject. You were the one that brought up suit people trying to do their job. Your people are suing Obama for doing a job, that your congress refuses to do. Since you won't answer it, Obama has issued a lot less EO's than all but 2 Presidents in the last 50 years.

TheRealVille Wrote:I wasn't changing the subject. You were the one that brought up suit people trying to do their job. Your people are suing Obama for doing a job, that your congress refuses to do. Since you won't answer it, Obama has issued a lot less EO's than all but 2 Presidents in the last 50 years.

LOL, if you think I am in anyway offended or that I have been heretofore unaware that your arguments are always with yourself, you're sadly mistaken. The sole contribution you make to any discussion is the interjection of talking points from the left which, I have already heard.

The fact that the President is willing to circumvent one of the 3 coequal branches of the federal government for the sake of the liberal slant is unfortunate. I agree. But, Rick Perry's situation is much different. All governors veto legislation from time to time though, many may not be quite so honest as Perry was about his move. At least Perry hasn't made the announcement that he will bypass the Texas state legislature because they may disagree.

At any rate, here's the real truth about all this. Liberals are no longer willing to work through the system to advance their agenda. It will be hardball from here on out as to them, the end has always justified the means. The only difference is the level of power they presently enjoy. History records that the wants of liberals have been thwarted from our inception, disagreeing for example with the efforts of the founding fathers to separate the US from the rule of England. And later, in the case of US foreign policy, liberals have long contested the direction America's leaders have taken us. They squalled like scalded cats when we went to war with Japan instead of giving the Japanese everything they were asking for as liberals so passionately argued. So, with DC now flush with glassy eyed adherents to the doctrines of John Lennon and Yoko Ono, we see the results of the new tack on foreign policy.

First we went around apologizing for leading the world to peace. Then we pulled back our military influence to that end. The result has been a world on fire as we have seen the destructive results of the Arab Spring and the newly encouraged Russian imperialism. All of which were clearly predicted by Mitt Romney, heck even Sarah Palin had that one right. But, the liberal has just been dying to lead, and having finally realized the dream, domestic and world affairs have been anything but good. The fact that in the face of the clear failure of their policies, that they merely choose to remain undaunted to the liberal cause is alarming to me. The gist of my argument has always been this; America is number one, and that by every possible measure. So, why the mad rush to change?

The answer lies within our system of courts. Clearly identifiable by the nature of litigation with which they are presently choked. Obama is pushing the liberal agenda and Texas Dems are pushing the liberal agenda. The left has risen to effect rule through the courts. Do I think it's okay to sue a President who clearly doesn't give a flip about anybody or anything other than special interests? Honestly, I hate the whole affair. But, when party line is put ahead of the interests of the country we get the mess at hand. Those who wanted all this change will have to live with the ramifications of the choices they have made. I just hate to see America the Beautiful fall by the wayside of history. And in case it has escaped you, the events of Ferguson, MO will likely expand across the country. The have nots want what belongs to the haves, and ugly days lay ahead. IMHO, the lawlessness of the end now permeates our society through the spirit of antichrist.

BTW, if you look at my first three posts in this thread you will notice a chronology which gives credibility to my initial assertions. If I had to choose between the company of Alan Dershowitz or RealVille, I'm going with Dershowitz.

Another case in point is the Tom Delay affair. After a decade worth of legal machinations aimed at destroying the life of a good man, the left must finally admit defeat. Like I said, when they can't win an election, there is many times some trumped up court action.

EXCERPT---
The highest criminal court in Texas refused Wednesday to reinstate two money-laundering convictions against former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, ending a nearly decade-long criminal case against the one-time GOP heavyweight.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals upheld a ruling last year from the 3rd Court of Appeals that tossed the Republican's 2010 convictions for money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering.

"We agree with the court of appeals' ultimate conclusion that, as a matter of law, what the state has proven in this case does not constitute either of the alleged criminal offenses," the high court said in its 8-1 ruling.

DeLay, 67, who had long contended the charges were politically motivated, said he was not angry about his prosecution, which ultimately cost him the No. 2 job in the U.S. House.

"I understand what it's about and it's about ... the criminalization of politics and the misuse of power ... and prosecutorial misconduct," DeLay said Wednesday from his attorney's office in Houston.
Read http://www.Newsmax.com/Politics/House-De...z3F2MIG2ES

^ Who would have thought that a conservative court would uphold a conviction of one of their own? Not me, for sure. He was convicted, but it was overturned. Do you agree with the same thing happening to Jerry Grimes, that HRV keeps wanting to call a criminal, btw. Do you agree with the higher court acquitting of his convictions?


I love how you keep posting things from that conservative, hack rag, "great right hope" of the Republican Party", though. lol

^That "court" is 100% republicans. :biglmao:

TheRealVille Wrote:^ Who would have thought that a conservative court would uphold a conviction of one of their own? Not me, for sure. He was convicted, but it was overturned. Do you agree with the same thing happening to Jerry Grimes, that HRV keeps wanting to call a criminal, btw. Do you agree with the higher court acquitting of his convictions?


I love how you keep posting things from that conservative, hack rag, "great right hope" of the Republican Party", though. lol

TheRealVille Wrote:^That "court" is 100% republicans. :biglmao:

Yeah and I love how that from day one, you could never get past bashing sources, insults and quoting from the Obama websites. You might do better if you broadened your horizons a bit.

TheRealThing Wrote:Yeah and I love how that from day one, you could never get past bashing sources, insults and quoting from the Obama websites. You might do better if you broadened your horizons a bit.

And, as usual, you don't really answer a couple of my posts that you quoted, that you know are right. You knew that court, that you think "did the right thing" by overturning "trumped up charges". Yet, you failed to call that action by what it was, "a trumped up court", so to speak, 100% republican higher court, throwing out legal charges on a fellow GOP. He was convicted, yet you are ok with that conviction being thrown out by his "buddies". I'd bet you weren't ok with Jerry's acquittal, though.

TheRealVille Wrote:And, as usual, you don't really answer a couple of my posts that you quoted, that you know are right. You knew that court, that you think "did the right thing" by overturning "trumped up charges". Yet, you failed to call that action by what it was, "a trumped up court", so to speak, 100% republican higher court, throwing out legal charges on a fellow GOP. He was convicted, yet you are ok with that conviction being thrown out by his "buddies". I'd bet you weren't ok with Jerry's acquittal, though.

Even you are right sometimes. I usually don't answer your posts because they are based on left wing talking points though, as many times as you've dodged or ignored pertinent posts made by others I'm a little surprised you'd have the courage to bring that issue up. You may want to jump up on Harry Rex with regard to Jerry Lundergan. As to your continual bashing of normalcy, and conservative/traditional American values, I'm not about to help you make a case for the legitimacy of liberalism. Those buddies you mention exist only in your mind, and FWIW, quotation marks are only used when quoting somebody. In the Tom Delay matter, I never said "did the right thing" or "trumped up charges" or "a trumped up court" nor did I use the term "buddies" but, you never get it right anyway.

Jerry is a nobody IMO, and I could care less about him. But, this I can tell you, his daughter is not qualified to lead this country from the US Senate. So, you can dance all around that inescapable fact all you want.