Friday, April 23, 2010


If  President Barrack Hussein Obama is not a socialist, ideologically, what is he?

Is Mr. Obama a Pinko?
A "pinko” is defined in Webster’s unabridged dictionary as: a person who holds leftist views. 
Well, how does Webster  define “leftist views”?
POLITICAL LEFT: “The part of a legislative assembly, situated on the left side of the presiding officer and that is customarily assigned to members of the legislature who hold more radical and socialistic views than the rest of the members.”

Wikipedia defines “Pinko" as: "a derogatory term for a person regarded as sympathetic to communism, though not necessarily a Communist Party member.”

Wikipedia goes on to relate: “The word pinko was coined by Time magazine in 1925 as a variant on the noun and adjective pink, which had been used along with parlor pink since the beginning of the 20th century to refer to those of leftish sympathies, usually with an implication of effeteness".
In the 1920s, for example, a Wall Street Journal editorial described supporters of the "progressive" politician Robert La Follette as “visionaries, ne’er do wells, parlor pinks, reds, hyphenates [Americans with divided allegiance], soft handed agriculturalists and working men who have never seen a shovel.”

This makes sense when you consider that early 20th century “progressives” were obsessed with Socialism, Fascism and every other radical left leaning ideology that came down the pike.
Heck, W.E.B. Dubois thought Hitler and Mussolini were the cat’s pajamas until the Reich’s National Socialist Program began their final solution.......mass murder, unfortunately for the left, made Fascism less fashionable.

Notwithstanding, Liberals still teach that Fascism is a far right philosophy; despite the glaring lack of right wing ideology expressed by its two greatest practitioners. If you removed the names Hitler and Mussolini from much of what was said both publicly and privately; you would think you were reading the transcript of the latest Bill Moyer Sunday show featuring Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank.

So maybe Mr. Obama is a Pinko, slightly socialist, but not a card carrying commie.
The American left certainly disdains debate like the Fascists and Commies of old. 
In his interview with Fox News’s Bret Baier, Mr. Obama did everything but the moon walk to avoid talking about the health care bill process. 
Similarly, I’m fairly certain I heard Billy Jean starting up as Congressman Anthony Weiner ended his interview with Bill O’Reilly on Obamacare fall out. 
Watching Weiner avoid admitting that the IRS will enforce the healthcare bill, looked like Dracula evading a garlic wreath, all fangs and hissing.

Actually, the O’Reilly v Weiner debate on "The Factor" was like watching Abbott and Costello perform Who’s On First? I kept waiting for Weiner to preemptively shout: “Who's on 1st?”

America is supposed to be an open society; yet the left works tirelessly to quash any debate.
You see it played out on liberal college campuses across the country as students, often provoked by their instructors, deny invited conservative speakers the right to voice their views. 
This was recently displayed at the University of Ottawa, where an Ann Coulter dialog was canceled due to rowdy students letting their fascist slips peak out from beneath their brown hems.

Since liberalism on it’s own strength cannot compete in the market place of ideas, you have fellows like MSNBC's Ed Schultz  calling for Congress to “equal out the audience” by bringing back the “Fairness Doctrine”.
Schultz goes on to say: “Hell, if we’re gonna be socialist, lets be socialist across the board.”

If the President is not a socialist and he is not a Pinko, then what is he?
Do we need a new name for a new “ism"?
The President’s impromptu and none to private tête-à-tête with Joe the Plumber sounded like socialism to me. 
Forcing people to buy health insurance against their will to pay for others health insurance sounds like socialism too.

The 21-year-old-- fresh out of school and on his first job, can opt out of the health care plan; but he still has to pay a fine enforced by the IRS to pay for the guy ensconced on his sofa playing Wii all day long. 
That’s not too fascist is it?

If President Obama is not a socialist or a fascist, he certainly has a strong predilection for those who are.
He has dinner with them.
He starts organizations with them.
Obama hangs out with them and appoints them to his Cabinet.

What the Liberal Leftists don’t get is that in their attempt to be conciliatory when talking about the president, they do him a disservice.
How is that?  
Because by doing so, they are suggesting that the President is too stupid to know he is promoting a socialist agenda.....that Mr. Obama is too dumb and oblivious to know what he is doing.

Despite the nattering denials; Congressman Dingell is too out of touch to even care about denying this healthcare bill is about controlling people. 
Whether it’s the insurance companies or the common man he advocates controlling; it is, make no mistake, about control.

What shall we call this new thing? Controlism? Governmentalism? Regulatism?
If President Obama is not a socialist my friends, what is he?

These excerpts come from the common sense genius of Digital Publius' blog; a site well worth reading if you are so inclined.

Wednesday, April 14, 2010


CONGRATULATIONS to Marc Brown and the voters of Harris County.
Qualifications trumped party politics last evening in a BIG way....who'd have thunk it?

Don Smyth and now Marc Brown have both successfully demonstrated that the voters of Harris County want a real change from politics as usual.  Specifically, the voters were more informed this cycle and were not content to be led like cattle to the political slaughterhouse.
In these two judicial races, proven ability was able to carry the day in Harris County......a welcome setback for the notorious boiler plate political spin machine that rampantly infests the luncheons and high teas hosted by the Republican women's groups.

Although Brown's victory was by the closest margin, he highlighted this awakening on another level.
Brown BEAT the party blue hairs and their despicable spokesman,Terry Lowery, in their stronghold setting....the RUNOFF.
WOW!!!! I hope this symbolic victory becomes a trend.

Jared Woodfill's landslide victory over Ed Hubbard, on the other hand,  revealed that if a candidate is to overcome the political machine of corruption, the challenger must have overwhelming qualifications.

Unlike 2008, the ADAs who sought political office were not smeared as Rosenthal lieutenants; but rather were judged on their respective ability and qualifications.
Critiques of the candidates were based on the relative merits supported by objective facts and did not lend themselves to the angry unfounded extrapolations of innuendo and outright defamation of character.

If the Harris County voters continue to support ability and proven qualifications over misleading innuendos and blatant lies; DA Pat Lykos will have cause for concern in 2012.
The "blame Rosenthal dog" won't hunt next go round.....that rabid hound will no longer be able to infect the good and strong sled dogs.

The days of dictatorial rule in Harris County Republican politics took a significant hit yesterday......I hope the paid political whores and their blue haired minions get a knock out punch in 2012.

Thursday, April 8, 2010


Murray Newman's blog has exhaustively highlighted the ineptness of Pat Lykos' "leadership" in her blundering role as the "elected" Harris County District Attorney.
I urge readers who support justice, fair play and equal protection under the law, but are not familiar with Mr. Newman's blog, to read it will be shocked and saddened by his rendition at how the Harris County District Attorney's Office has been compromised and politicized. 
An elucidation here on the Lykos laundry list of inappropriate behavior would be both exhausting and redundant; but the unfortunate consequences to the citizens of Harris County are easily apparent.

By all credible accounts, Lykos and her fledgling hand picked lieutenants promote a self-serving policy of arbitrary rule; utilizing fear and intimidation on employees to mask their own incompetence.
An astonishing exodus of seasoned prosecutors has been the result.
After the upcoming November elections, the competent prosecutorial cupboard will be bare.
Throwing the baby out with the bath water is not cleaning house; it is irresponsible behavior.
Prosecutors that endure will continue the chant: "stay under the radar".

The propagation of fearful cowering employees at a district attorney's office to placate the media and Defense Bar's accusation that the alternative is necessarily a "win at all costs" cavalier cowboy prosecutor type is absurd.
Prosecutors are not social workers or preschool teachers.  A prosecutor is charged with pursuing JUSTICE at all costs; and everyone is not a winner.
When a prosecutor's work environment has defeated his mindset professionally and personally and by extension he thereby acquiesces when presented with a challenging, albeit righteous, criminal complaint; he has breached his sworn duty.
The disgrace inherent in one's acceptance of a losing mentality--whether in trial or in inappropriate plea deals to avoid courtroom humiliation and repercussions--casts a dark cloud of shame upon the entire District Attorney's office.
It might be politically correct to promote mediocrity in America; but the political beating down of prosecutors is exactly why the Harris County District Attorney's Office needs to be apolitical.

Circumventing the Texas state legislature to ease jail overcrowding and exploiting extra-jurisdictional issues such as illegal immigration is NOT within the course and scope of the elected DA's job description.  The focus at DA office meetings with Division Chiefs should be on how to better train and supervise ADAs so that THEY can perform at the highest level; not to provide a figure head DA with bullet points to present at Republican womens' luncheons or media events.

Image over substance seems to have replaced the principle of having the courage to pursue truth and justice to the best of one's ability regardless of difficulty or political fallout.
When the political consequences of a prosecutor's actions become paramount in the fulfillment of her duties; that prosecutor has been rendered ineffective counsel for the people she has sworn to serve.
How dare an elected DA be more concerned with how she is judged by the Houston Chronicle than by the victims of crime who expect a fair and even handed ENFORCEMENT of the laws of the state of Texas?

The ones who never quite measure up on the merits are quick to condemn those that do. The excuse makers and others challenged by mediocrity are eager to discount the means and ability of the prosecutors who consistently bust their butts and win the arduous non-whale cases.  To this ilk of angry underachievers, those who successfully prosecute a case without a harpoon must be either lucky or corrupt, racist, theatrical, unethical, Hitleresque, and all things Satanic. In fact, such a prosecutor is reduced to a greater personification of evil than the serial killer sentenced to the "inhumane" death chamber.

Well folks, I submit that luck is nothing more than the result of obsessive preparation that meets, recognizes and seizes opportunity; and luck is running out at the Harris County District Attorney's Office.

Wednesday, April 7, 2010


On July 1, 2010 the 10% arbitrary tax on tanning booths takes effect to help defray the cost of Obamacare.
So where is the outrage on this racist provision?  How does a tax on a racially identifiable class pass Constitutional muster? How about if the government next decides to place a tax on hair relaxers? How about a tax on all Kosher foods? How about a Kotex tax?

A law that permits the United States Federal Government to single out and tax a product or service based on the racial, ethnic or gender makeup of the targeted consumer is blatantly unconstitutional.
This is not a tax on cosmetic enhancement generally; but rather a penalty on a service used almost exclusively by people with white skin.

If the argument is made that tanning booths increase the risk of skin cancers and thereby increase the cost of health care; why are other similarly situated goods and services not treated equally?
Is the government going to tax beach resorts and the owners of swimming pools next?
Artificial sweeteners and red meats are known carcinogens as well so let's tax them least racism wouldn't rear it's ugly head.
What about fat people? Talk about high risk.

And  the Colonists were pissed off about a Tea Tax!

Thursday, April 1, 2010


The American Revolution: Causes of Conflict

Taxation Without Representation

Excerpts of Kennedy Hickman

As tensions regarding colonial lands and taxation increased during the 1760s and 1770s, many American leaders were influenced by the liberal and republican ideals espoused by Enlightenment writers such as John Locke.
Key among Locke's theories was that of the "social contract" which stated that legitimate state authority must be derived from the consent of the governed.
Also, that should the government abuse the rights of the governed, it was the natural responsibility of the people to rise up and overthrow their leaders.
The ideas of Locke and other similar writers contributed to the American embrace of "republican" ideology in the years before the Revolution.
Standing in opposition to tyrants, republicanism called for the protection of liberty through the rule of law and civic virtue.

While many of the Founding Fathers may have had contact with the writings of European thinkers, many other Americans came to their republican beliefs through dissenting churches such as the Puritans and Presbyterians. Through religious study, men like Benjamin Franklin and John Adams, were taught key tenets such as: that all men are created equal, that there is no divine right of kings, and wicked laws should be disobeyed.
Across the colonies, these philosophies were preached by Revolutionary clergy in their sermons....bringing the ideals of republicanism to the masses.

As the British government assessed methods for generating funds, it was decided to levy new taxes on the colonies with the goal of offsetting some of the cost for their defense.
Passed on April 5, 1764, the Sugar Act placed a tax of three pence per gallon on molasses as well as listing specific goods which could be exported to Britain. While this tax was half of that stipulated by the 1733 Sugar and Molasses Act, the new Sugar Act called for active enforcement and struck the colonies during an economic downturn.
The passage of the Sugar Act led to outcries from colonial leaders who claimed "taxation without representation," as they had no members of Parliament to represent their interests.
On March 22, 1765, Parliament passed the Stamp Act which called for tax stamps to be placed on all paper goods sold in the colonies. This represented the first attempt to levy a direct tax on the colonies and was met by fierce opposition and protests.

In several colonies new protest groups, known as the "Sons of Liberty" formed. 

Delegates from nine colonies gathered at the Stamp Act Congress in New York.
Guided by Pennsylvanian John Dickinson, the congress drew up the Declaration of Rights and Grievances which stated that as the colonies had no representation in Parliament, the tax was unconstitutional and against their rights as Englishmen.
In London, colonial representative Benjamin Franklin argued a similar point and warned that continued taxation could lead to rebellion.

Still seeking a way to generate revenue, Parliament passed the Townshend Acts on June 29, 1767. An indirect tax, the acts placed import duties on commodities such as lead, paper, paint, glass, and tea.
As with past taxation attempts, the colonists protested with claims of taxation without representation.
While colonial leaders organized boycotts of the taxed goods, smuggling increased and efforts commenced to develop domestically-produced alternatives.

Over the next three years, boycotts and protests continued in the colonies.
These came to a head on the night of March 5, 1770, when angry colonists began throwing snowballs and rocks at British troops guarding the Customs House in Boston. In the commotion, British troops opened fire on the protesters, killing five (5) Colonists.

Parliament repealed most aspects of the Townshend Acts in April 1770, but left a tax on tea.

Across the colonies, British tea was boycotted and attempts were made to produce tea locally.
In Boston, the situation climaxed in late November 1773, when three ships carrying East India Company tea arrived in the port.
Rallying the populace, members of the Sons of Liberty dressed as Native Americans, boarded the ships on the night of December 16. Carefully avoiding damaging other property, the "raiders" tossed 342 chests of tea into Boston Harbor.

A direct affront to British authority, the "Boston Tea Party" forced Parliament to take action against the colonies.
In response to the colonial attack on the tea ships, Parliament passed a series of punitive laws in early 1774.
The first of these, the Boston Port Act, closed Boston to shipping until the East India Company had been repaid for the destroyed tea.
This was followed by the Massachusetts Government Act which allowed the Crown to appoint most positions in the Massachusetts colonial government.
Supporting this was the Administration of Justice Act which permitted the royal governor to move the trials of accused royal officials to another colony or Britain if a fair trial was unobtainable in Massachusetts.
Along with these new laws, a new Quartering Act was enacted which allowed British troops to use unoccupied buildings as quarters when in the colonies.

The colonial leaders began planning a congress to discuss the repercussions of the Intolerable Acts.
Meeting at Carpenters Hall in Philadelphia, representatives from twelve colonies (Georgia did not attend) convened on September 5, 1774.
In the discussions that followed some delegates argued in favor of establishing a new governmental system while others desired to work towards reconciliation with Britain.

In Boston, royal authority was asserted with the arrival of Lieutenant General Thomas Gage
In the spring of 1775, Gage began a series of raids with the goal of disarming the colonial militias. On the evening of April 18, Gage ordered some of his troops to march to Concord to seize munitions and gunpowder. The next morning, British troops encountered colonial militia in the village of Lexington.
While the two forces faced off, a shot rang out.
Though the source of the shot is unknown, it touched off eight years of war.

America is coming full circle......