Detractors of "The Draft" will cite the short term higher cost. That it will cost an exorbitant amount of money to train the plethora of young inductees who are predicted to serve a mere two (2) to four (4) years and bolt. However, the adage that career soldiers volunteer and are not drafted may not be as accurate as it once was. Notwithstanding, the long term cost benefit analysis to American society will reveal that it is well worth the investment, regardless of the attrition rate. The Israelis have drafted their young men and women for generations and look at the character of their society.
In reality, the only real issue most politicians are concerned with is getting re-elected. So with polls resoundingly rejecting the notion of reinstating the draft; it is of no surprise that Obama supports the idea while most other folks in the cesspool of D.C. move to quash the proposal.
We redeploy our young warriors over and over again. They are worn out physically and mentally. Soldier deaths, serious bodily injury and post traumatic stress disorder are more and more commonplace. The available new recruits are often times ill prepared for what is asked of them and the old guns are burned out. The cost of this reality is unacceptable.
To be viable, the draft must be TRULY fair and equitable. Political favor and political correctness can have no place in the draft. Every conscript must serve to the best of his/her capacity; regardless as to birth right.
Having a U.S. Senator as a parent is of zero consequence with respect to eligibility and assignment of duties.
Any LEGITIMATE impairment shall be "common sense" considered in deciding how best an individual shall serve his country. Flat feet, psoriasis, diminished intellectually capacity, religious pacifism, etc. are insufficient to warrant a total exemption of service.....everyone is not a front line warrior but politicians' kids are not going to be photographers either.
The consequences of a military draft are not as readily apparent as one might suggest.
If the children and grandchildren of Congress serve like the rest of American families; the decision to declare war will be taken more seriously. Once American troops are engaged, our boys and girls will take precedence over political correctness and profiteering by the industrial military complex.
Politicians will provide the mission objectives; while combat strategy will be determined by real military leaders.
The tragic lessons of Viet Nam have been too often forgotten.....it's time to pull out the embedded reporters and put in the sons and grandsons of our Congressional leaders.
A Mosque filled with enemy combatants will no longer be a safe haven if a single American soldier is thereby placed at risk. Wars will be fought to win.
Soldiers from all walks of life will be forced to live, work, fight, pray and die as brothers and sisters.
People will be judged more by the content of their character than by the color of their skin or by the God they worship.
The comradery that grows from the Esprit de Corps is based on a commonality of experience and character.
Hardship does not have to breed the bigotry that plagues America's street and prison gangs.
Privilege does not have to breed the bigotry inherent in college fraternities and sororities.
Imagine if young inner city high school drop-outs had the U.S. Marine Corps as a role model instead of joining the Aryan Nation to survive in prison?
Discipline, sacrifice, pride in self and country and a marketable skill will provide a better future than the lessons learned in gang life.
A kid might not know who his baby daddy was; but he'll never forget who was his Sergeant Major.
Imagine if a young poor black Marine saved a privileged white boy's life on the battlefield? That white boy will have a whole different appreciation of PEOPLE if he subsequently joins a fraternity in college.
The diversity agenda of America's politically correct highlights the differences among Americans instead of the similarities.......it is no wonder that class envy, racism and cultural bias is at an all time high.
The broader the gene pool of our military personal; the stronger and more effective America's fighting force will be...........AND the more unified our fellow Americans will be towards each other.
FREEDOM is the most expensive PRIVILEGE a people can fight for......and we must ALL contribute to the best our ability.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
LYKOS' ASSAULT ON THE HARRIS COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM MIMICS OBAMA'S ASSAULT ON TEXAS
Texas is Bush Country. It is a conservative Red state.
The energy capital of the world and home to NASA.
The Lone Star State has minimal union influence and a strong military presence.
Texas is a right to work state with NO state income tax.
Texas business has minimal government intervention and as a result thrives in comparison to other states.
We are home to the best barbeque in the world.
The Texas Medical Center in Houston is world renowned.
Friday nights highlight the best high school football in the country and successful college programs heavily recruit our boys.
Texas' farms, ranches and fishing industry feed not only Texans; but also many families outside of our borders.
Texans are not ashamed of their strong faith in God and the right to bear arms.....we don't "cling" to these beliefs out of fear; but rather stand strong for our freedom and convictions.
Obama's "Bush bashing" is wearing thin.
His agenda highlights the dismantling of NASA, moving the energy capital to Brazil, crushing American health care, unionizing the Texas work force, ostracizing Christian values, imposing unprecedented tax burdens on Texas business.........heck, Cap and Trade might even make it impracticable to tailgate.
Texas is a state of mind that Obama detests. I get that.
But what I don't get is why District Attorney Pat Lykos is steering the Harris County District Attorney's Office in self-destruct mode? Does she not care, is she that oblivious or this a deliberate act? Either way she's making the notorious Chuck Rosenthal look more and more competant and moral every day; and I am NO Rosenthal fan by any stretch.
Pat Lykos has professed to be a Republican for longer than most of us have been alive; yet her bizarre behavior contradicts basic Republican principles.
Republicans support responsible behavior and are therefore strong advocates of real justice.
Merit and common sense are touted to trump political correctness at the GOP HQ.
Prosecutors should be treated equitably and with self respect by the District Attorney. If cronyism, deceit and hypocrisy are the hallmark of Lykos and her lieutenants what should the community expect from the ADA foot soldiers?
Lykos' blatant self interest over community justice is largely ignored by the media so long as she promotes their liberal agenda. Who knew?
Lykos is a fool of a prosecutor but a damn savy politician. Because without media coverage, Lykos is confident that only a relative handful of folks will ever know what a truly disastrous job she is doing outside of our little courthouse world......and that will never be enough votes to make a difference.
Lykos' fatal flaw, however, will be the growing number of monied players who are disgusted with her behavior and ready to support a tough qualified opponent. Money talks and bullshit walks; so the Harris County District Attorney's Office will have her day of redemption when a Rock Star prosecutor instead of a politician takes the helm in 2012.
Lykos may be an expert at saying, " I'm the queen of the Harris County Republican Party and support The Rule of Law"; but she does not appear to have the slightest idea what that means.
Ronald Reagan was a true Republican. He stood out as a great leader because of his core values.
Reagan had faith in Americans as a people and gave that back to us.
He was not afraid to surround himself with a team of advisors based on merit and ability. Reagan was secure enough to appoint the most qualified people to positions of power instead of the most malleable.....America's interests came first.
He created an environment that rewarded hard work and sacrifice. He fostered a pride in America.
He did not throw his people under the bus. He did not base his presidency on blaming Jimmy Carter. Reagan led by example with honor and respect. America flourished.
Reagan's principles were reciprocated when Alzheimer's overwhelmed him. His cabinet not only had Reagan's back, they had our country's back.
A great leader is measured not by what he accomplishes for himself, but for those he leads.
Lykos and Obama will be remembered for many things.............but never as great leaders.
The energy capital of the world and home to NASA.
The Lone Star State has minimal union influence and a strong military presence.
Texas is a right to work state with NO state income tax.
Texas business has minimal government intervention and as a result thrives in comparison to other states.
We are home to the best barbeque in the world.
The Texas Medical Center in Houston is world renowned.
Friday nights highlight the best high school football in the country and successful college programs heavily recruit our boys.
Texas' farms, ranches and fishing industry feed not only Texans; but also many families outside of our borders.
Texans are not ashamed of their strong faith in God and the right to bear arms.....we don't "cling" to these beliefs out of fear; but rather stand strong for our freedom and convictions.
Obama's "Bush bashing" is wearing thin.
His agenda highlights the dismantling of NASA, moving the energy capital to Brazil, crushing American health care, unionizing the Texas work force, ostracizing Christian values, imposing unprecedented tax burdens on Texas business.........heck, Cap and Trade might even make it impracticable to tailgate.
Texas is a state of mind that Obama detests. I get that.
But what I don't get is why District Attorney Pat Lykos is steering the Harris County District Attorney's Office in self-destruct mode? Does she not care, is she that oblivious or this a deliberate act? Either way she's making the notorious Chuck Rosenthal look more and more competant and moral every day; and I am NO Rosenthal fan by any stretch.
Pat Lykos has professed to be a Republican for longer than most of us have been alive; yet her bizarre behavior contradicts basic Republican principles.
Republicans support responsible behavior and are therefore strong advocates of real justice.
Merit and common sense are touted to trump political correctness at the GOP HQ.
Prosecutors should be treated equitably and with self respect by the District Attorney. If cronyism, deceit and hypocrisy are the hallmark of Lykos and her lieutenants what should the community expect from the ADA foot soldiers?
Lykos' blatant self interest over community justice is largely ignored by the media so long as she promotes their liberal agenda. Who knew?
Lykos is a fool of a prosecutor but a damn savy politician. Because without media coverage, Lykos is confident that only a relative handful of folks will ever know what a truly disastrous job she is doing outside of our little courthouse world......and that will never be enough votes to make a difference.
Lykos' fatal flaw, however, will be the growing number of monied players who are disgusted with her behavior and ready to support a tough qualified opponent. Money talks and bullshit walks; so the Harris County District Attorney's Office will have her day of redemption when a Rock Star prosecutor instead of a politician takes the helm in 2012.
Lykos may be an expert at saying, " I'm the queen of the Harris County Republican Party and support The Rule of Law"; but she does not appear to have the slightest idea what that means.
Ronald Reagan was a true Republican. He stood out as a great leader because of his core values.
Reagan had faith in Americans as a people and gave that back to us.
He was not afraid to surround himself with a team of advisors based on merit and ability. Reagan was secure enough to appoint the most qualified people to positions of power instead of the most malleable.....America's interests came first.
He created an environment that rewarded hard work and sacrifice. He fostered a pride in America.
He did not throw his people under the bus. He did not base his presidency on blaming Jimmy Carter. Reagan led by example with honor and respect. America flourished.
Reagan's principles were reciprocated when Alzheimer's overwhelmed him. His cabinet not only had Reagan's back, they had our country's back.
A great leader is measured not by what he accomplishes for himself, but for those he leads.
Lykos and Obama will be remembered for many things.............but never as great leaders.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
THE LYKOS OBAMA CONNECTION
After reading Murray Newman's latest Blog at, "Life at the Harris County Criminal Justice Center"; it struck me how eerily similar Pat Lykos and Barrack Obama really are.
So in that light I thought it would be interesting to list the top ten (10) similarities that pop to mind.......
Please feel free to add any characterisics that I miss.
Obama/Lykos Commonalities:
1. Minimal (if that) qualifications to hold their elected position. Obama is a "natural born" US citizen over 35 years of age. Lykos has a pulse and is licensed to practice law in the state of Texas. If anyone is aware of other job related qualifications either of these folks have I'm all ears.
2. Narcissism.
3. When speaking in a public forum, the audience might as well be a third grade home room.
4. Spare no expense when spending tax payers' money on their own personal office decor, personal travel and other non- essential personal benefits.
5. Blame their predecessor to mask their own ineptness.
6. Promote self serving legislation with total disregard as to the consequences or the Constitution. Obama's Health Care reform. Lykos' DIVERT Program.
7. Re-name existing policy and then claim it as their own.
8. Surround themselves with incompetent yes men.
9. Are media whores.
10. Have cocktails and a smoke with Satan every Friday afternoon......
So in that light I thought it would be interesting to list the top ten (10) similarities that pop to mind.......
Please feel free to add any characterisics that I miss.
Obama/Lykos Commonalities:
1. Minimal (if that) qualifications to hold their elected position. Obama is a "natural born" US citizen over 35 years of age. Lykos has a pulse and is licensed to practice law in the state of Texas. If anyone is aware of other job related qualifications either of these folks have I'm all ears.
2. Narcissism.
3. When speaking in a public forum, the audience might as well be a third grade home room.
4. Spare no expense when spending tax payers' money on their own personal office decor, personal travel and other non- essential personal benefits.
5. Blame their predecessor to mask their own ineptness.
6. Promote self serving legislation with total disregard as to the consequences or the Constitution. Obama's Health Care reform. Lykos' DIVERT Program.
7. Re-name existing policy and then claim it as their own.
8. Surround themselves with incompetent yes men.
9. Are media whores.
10. Have cocktails and a smoke with Satan every Friday afternoon......
Thursday, September 9, 2010
ERIC HOLDER IS THE FEDERAL VERSION OF PAT LYKOS
Craig Young of EASY CHAIR posted the following:
In Federal District Court on July 20, 2010, the ATF won a conviction from an Austin jury that defies logic and reason. In a trial before Federal Judge Sam Sparks, government lawyers conceded Texas resident Paul Copeland did not know his buyer was an illegal alien, but the jury they should convict him anyway because he "had reasonable cause to believe" he was selling to an illegal alien because the two men and a boy who were present at his table at the time of the sale: 1) were Hispanic, 2) spoke Spanish, and 3) wore cowboy clothing. And the jury did as asked. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Freel acted as lead prosecutor in the case.
The firearm transaction at issue occurred on January 16, 2010, at a gunshow at the North Austin Events Center, at 10601 N. Lamar Blvd., in Austin, Texas. Undercover ATF agents followed Mr. Huerta, his son, and another Hispanic male, Hipolito Aviles, around the "Texas Gunshow" that day, and claimed to observe Huerta’s transaction. Austin P.D. used Copeland’s case as the reason to close down the gunshow, leading to a protest by Austin residents in front of APD headquarters on January 25.
Mr. Copeland is a 56 year old Cedar Creek resident and Vietnam veteran who liked to buy, sell, and trade firearms as a hobby. On January 16, however, he had the misfortune to sell a handgun to Leonel Huerta Sr., who spoke both English and Spanish. Huerta Sr. negotiated his purchase from Copeland in English, showing Copeland his Texas Driver’s License. At Copeland’s trial Huerta admitted on the witness stand, that he is in the country illegally, (Huerta Sr. had previously admitted this fact to Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) Special Agent Leo Buentello). ATF Agent Shawn Kang claimed he saw Huerta later hand off the gun to Aviles. Despite these admissions, Huerta Sr. was never arrested, charged, or deported. Instead, his presence at the gunshow was used to entrap an American citizen into an unwitting violation of a federal gun control law. Huerta Sr., who is a resident of the City of Austin, appeared as a witness at the trial, admitted he was in the country illegally before federal prosecutors and a federal judge, yet he was allowed to leave the courtroom under his own power. To date Huerta Sr. has not been prosecuted for his purchase, possession, or disposition of the handgun he bought from Copeland, while Copeland is now a convicted felon.
"Instead of busting the illegal alien for buying, they bust the citizen for selling," commented Paul Velte, attorney and founder of Peaceable Texans for Firearms Rights, a gun-owners rights advocacy group from Austin. Velte asked, 'who was in a better position to know the buyer’s immigration status, the buyer or the seller?" He also said, "What happened to Paul Copeland should enrage all Americans. The Federal Government is using illegal aliens to entrap citizens lawfully exercising their right to sell firearms. The illegal alien walks free, but the citizen gets convicted. The same government charged with controlling immigration is the one using illegal immigrants to attack its own citizens. Does this make any sense? It makes no sense unless the purpose is to discourage attendance at gunshows and frighten citizens from selling their firearms to other citizens."
Velte pointed out that "There is no way for a citizen to know who is here legally or not. In fact, under Austin’s ‘sanctuary city’ policy, not even the police officer at the door of the gunshow was allowed to ask a person’s immigration status, yet the average Texan inside the show is expected to assume that a person standing before them with a Texas driver’s license is in the country illegally just because they look Mexican and speak Spanish." Velte noted that the federal government’s lawsuit against Arizona was based on that very type of conduct: Concluding someone could be here illegally based on their looks or their language. Velte said gun owners in his group are outraged, and they want to know:
1.Why is the illegal alien who purchased the gun, Leonel Huerta Sr., still living in Austin?
2.Why does he still have a Texas Driver’s license?
3.Why is ATF using illegal aliens to set up and convict American citizens?
4.What has he been promised for his cooperation?
5.Why has he not been prosecuted? He committed three distinct crimes: he purchased a firearm knowing he was an illegal alien, he possessed the firearm, and he transferred the handgun to another illegal alien (Hippolito Aviles, who was convicted and given time served on June 30, 2010).
6.Why has Huerta Sr. not been deported?
Judge Sparks sentenced Copeland on August 27 to six months confinement and 24 months of probation, and called Copeland "a liar" for not admitting guilt. ATF confiscated Copeland’s entire gun collection and initiated forfeiture proceedings. Copeland was also fired from his job due to the indictment, and he would have lost his home to foreclosure, if not for his family stepping in to pay his mortgage while he serves his sentence."
How's that for political correctness?
In Federal District Court on July 20, 2010, the ATF won a conviction from an Austin jury that defies logic and reason. In a trial before Federal Judge Sam Sparks, government lawyers conceded Texas resident Paul Copeland did not know his buyer was an illegal alien, but the jury they should convict him anyway because he "had reasonable cause to believe" he was selling to an illegal alien because the two men and a boy who were present at his table at the time of the sale: 1) were Hispanic, 2) spoke Spanish, and 3) wore cowboy clothing. And the jury did as asked. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Freel acted as lead prosecutor in the case.
The firearm transaction at issue occurred on January 16, 2010, at a gunshow at the North Austin Events Center, at 10601 N. Lamar Blvd., in Austin, Texas. Undercover ATF agents followed Mr. Huerta, his son, and another Hispanic male, Hipolito Aviles, around the "Texas Gunshow" that day, and claimed to observe Huerta’s transaction. Austin P.D. used Copeland’s case as the reason to close down the gunshow, leading to a protest by Austin residents in front of APD headquarters on January 25.
Mr. Copeland is a 56 year old Cedar Creek resident and Vietnam veteran who liked to buy, sell, and trade firearms as a hobby. On January 16, however, he had the misfortune to sell a handgun to Leonel Huerta Sr., who spoke both English and Spanish. Huerta Sr. negotiated his purchase from Copeland in English, showing Copeland his Texas Driver’s License. At Copeland’s trial Huerta admitted on the witness stand, that he is in the country illegally, (Huerta Sr. had previously admitted this fact to Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) Special Agent Leo Buentello). ATF Agent Shawn Kang claimed he saw Huerta later hand off the gun to Aviles. Despite these admissions, Huerta Sr. was never arrested, charged, or deported. Instead, his presence at the gunshow was used to entrap an American citizen into an unwitting violation of a federal gun control law. Huerta Sr., who is a resident of the City of Austin, appeared as a witness at the trial, admitted he was in the country illegally before federal prosecutors and a federal judge, yet he was allowed to leave the courtroom under his own power. To date Huerta Sr. has not been prosecuted for his purchase, possession, or disposition of the handgun he bought from Copeland, while Copeland is now a convicted felon.
"Instead of busting the illegal alien for buying, they bust the citizen for selling," commented Paul Velte, attorney and founder of Peaceable Texans for Firearms Rights, a gun-owners rights advocacy group from Austin. Velte asked, 'who was in a better position to know the buyer’s immigration status, the buyer or the seller?" He also said, "What happened to Paul Copeland should enrage all Americans. The Federal Government is using illegal aliens to entrap citizens lawfully exercising their right to sell firearms. The illegal alien walks free, but the citizen gets convicted. The same government charged with controlling immigration is the one using illegal immigrants to attack its own citizens. Does this make any sense? It makes no sense unless the purpose is to discourage attendance at gunshows and frighten citizens from selling their firearms to other citizens."
Velte pointed out that "There is no way for a citizen to know who is here legally or not. In fact, under Austin’s ‘sanctuary city’ policy, not even the police officer at the door of the gunshow was allowed to ask a person’s immigration status, yet the average Texan inside the show is expected to assume that a person standing before them with a Texas driver’s license is in the country illegally just because they look Mexican and speak Spanish." Velte noted that the federal government’s lawsuit against Arizona was based on that very type of conduct: Concluding someone could be here illegally based on their looks or their language. Velte said gun owners in his group are outraged, and they want to know:
1.Why is the illegal alien who purchased the gun, Leonel Huerta Sr., still living in Austin?
2.Why does he still have a Texas Driver’s license?
3.Why is ATF using illegal aliens to set up and convict American citizens?
4.What has he been promised for his cooperation?
5.Why has he not been prosecuted? He committed three distinct crimes: he purchased a firearm knowing he was an illegal alien, he possessed the firearm, and he transferred the handgun to another illegal alien (Hippolito Aviles, who was convicted and given time served on June 30, 2010).
6.Why has Huerta Sr. not been deported?
Judge Sparks sentenced Copeland on August 27 to six months confinement and 24 months of probation, and called Copeland "a liar" for not admitting guilt. ATF confiscated Copeland’s entire gun collection and initiated forfeiture proceedings. Copeland was also fired from his job due to the indictment, and he would have lost his home to foreclosure, if not for his family stepping in to pay his mortgage while he serves his sentence."
How's that for political correctness?
Monday, September 6, 2010
PAT LYKOS AND THE BOILING FROGS
If you drop a frog in a pot of boiling water that little fella will jump out right quick to survive.
However, if that same frog is placed in a pot of cold water which is then heated; it will not take evasive action, but rather will be complacent and perish as the water boils.
So go the frogs at the Harris County District Attorney's Office.
People fear change and often grasp at any excuse not to rock the boat ......never realizing that they can actually swim to shore.
Life throws some overboard to sink or swim, others jump on their own volition and some are content to sit idly on board as the ship sinks or putters along.
Educated Americans living in this great country have choices.
An individual may choose to listen to the voice that tells him that security, safety or even great wealth trumps integrity and honor. OR he may choose to listen to the voice of righteous values AND walk the walk.
The dignity inherent with the freedom to DO, not merely SAY, what is right BECAUSE it is the right thing to do is what separates us. It is what USED to make GREAT prosecutors.
On the other hand, politicians, cowards and the politically correct tend to merely talk the talk.
Which voice will you listen to?
However, if that same frog is placed in a pot of cold water which is then heated; it will not take evasive action, but rather will be complacent and perish as the water boils.
So go the frogs at the Harris County District Attorney's Office.
People fear change and often grasp at any excuse not to rock the boat ......never realizing that they can actually swim to shore.
Life throws some overboard to sink or swim, others jump on their own volition and some are content to sit idly on board as the ship sinks or putters along.
Educated Americans living in this great country have choices.
An individual may choose to listen to the voice that tells him that security, safety or even great wealth trumps integrity and honor. OR he may choose to listen to the voice of righteous values AND walk the walk.
The dignity inherent with the freedom to DO, not merely SAY, what is right BECAUSE it is the right thing to do is what separates us. It is what USED to make GREAT prosecutors.
On the other hand, politicians, cowards and the politically correct tend to merely talk the talk.
Which voice will you listen to?
Monday, August 30, 2010
DA PAT LYKOS: SCARED, INEXPERIENCED OR JUST PLAIN STUPID
I am not a big fan of the Houston Chronicle, its agenda-driven biased editor, Jeff Cohen, or KPRC TV (Channel 2 in Houston); but I strongly support their First Amendment right to have access to a video surveillance tape which might document police misconduct.
Any limitation on the videotape's publication should be based strictly on the degree of graphic content and not political favor.......our Constitution would demand nothing less.
How can DA Pat Lykos explain her teaming up with the Houston Police Officers' defense teams in support of a protective order that hides the tape of an alleged HPD police brutality incident from the public?
1. Does the criminal defense bar really intimidate the Keystone Cops running the Harris County District Attorney's Office to that extent?
2. Perhaps Lykos does not appreciate the cultural differences between Houston and Los Angeles?
3. Could it be that Lykos' inexperienced crew is too afraid to try a high profile slam dunk case after the public videotape viewing?
4. The publicity of a public viewing would undoubtedly preempt a plea bargain.
Well whatever the case might be: "The Rule of Law", "Transparency", purging "The Culture of Corruption", etc. etc. is as meaningless to DA Pat Lykos' administration as it is to any other cartel.
The Chronicle's legal counsel, Joe Larsen, summarizes the issue quite well noting: "the videotape is indisputably the key evidence in the case and is a court record." Larsen went on to say, " It looks more to me this motion (the Lykos Protective Order) is to protect law enforcement more than the trial process."
The absurdity and blatant subterfuge by Lykos is succinctly spelled out by Larsen when he effectively points out that Lykos' argument that, "a public release of the videotape would prejudice the entire jury pool does not account for the fact that the jurors are going to see this whether they see it on the Web or see it when they are empaneled as jurors, and the impact will be the same."
Benjamin Hall, who is representing the alleged police brutality victim at the Civil courthouse, is not afraid of taking this matter to trial and neither should the Harris County District Attorney's Office.
Heck, even Clint Greenwood or a comparable first year law student could prosecute this whale and win.......so maybe DA Pat Lykos can bust her cherry and actually prosecute her 1st criminal case.
Any limitation on the videotape's publication should be based strictly on the degree of graphic content and not political favor.......our Constitution would demand nothing less.
How can DA Pat Lykos explain her teaming up with the Houston Police Officers' defense teams in support of a protective order that hides the tape of an alleged HPD police brutality incident from the public?
1. Does the criminal defense bar really intimidate the Keystone Cops running the Harris County District Attorney's Office to that extent?
2. Perhaps Lykos does not appreciate the cultural differences between Houston and Los Angeles?
3. Could it be that Lykos' inexperienced crew is too afraid to try a high profile slam dunk case after the public videotape viewing?
4. The publicity of a public viewing would undoubtedly preempt a plea bargain.
Well whatever the case might be: "The Rule of Law", "Transparency", purging "The Culture of Corruption", etc. etc. is as meaningless to DA Pat Lykos' administration as it is to any other cartel.
The Chronicle's legal counsel, Joe Larsen, summarizes the issue quite well noting: "the videotape is indisputably the key evidence in the case and is a court record." Larsen went on to say, " It looks more to me this motion (the Lykos Protective Order) is to protect law enforcement more than the trial process."
The absurdity and blatant subterfuge by Lykos is succinctly spelled out by Larsen when he effectively points out that Lykos' argument that, "a public release of the videotape would prejudice the entire jury pool does not account for the fact that the jurors are going to see this whether they see it on the Web or see it when they are empaneled as jurors, and the impact will be the same."
Benjamin Hall, who is representing the alleged police brutality victim at the Civil courthouse, is not afraid of taking this matter to trial and neither should the Harris County District Attorney's Office.
Heck, even Clint Greenwood or a comparable first year law student could prosecute this whale and win.......so maybe DA Pat Lykos can bust her cherry and actually prosecute her 1st criminal case.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
FAILURE OF THE FOURTH BRANCH
The concept of the media or press as a fourth branch of American govenment stems from a belief that the news media has a responsibility to OBJECTIVELY inform the populace and as such is essential to the healthy functioning of the Republic. The media's role should be as a watchdog to protect its readers and viewers from corrupt government and special interests; not to be a lapdog in bed with either of these folks. Once a publication's dissemination of truth and objectivity is marginalized, its only valid function is to line a birdcage.
"The most effectual engines for [pacifying a nation] are the public papers... [A despotic] government always [keeps] a kind of standing army of newswriters who, without any regard to truth or to what should be like truth, [invent] and put into the papers whatever might serve the ministers. This suffices with the mass of the people who have no means of distinguishing the false from the true paragraphs of a newspaper." --Thomas Jefferson to G. K. van Hogendorp, Oct. 13, 1785. (*) ME 5:181, Papers 8:632
"I fear the newspapers more than a hundred thousand bayonets."
— Napoleon Bonaparte
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference.
Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief.
HOWEVER, despite popular misunderstanding, the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the first amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows INDIVIDUALS to express themselves through publication and dissemination.........it does not afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to citizens in general.
Capital punishment is often the subject of controversy and the Houston Chronicle continues to shirk its responsibility to provide objective journalistic integrity in coverage of the issue.
Jefferson would be appalled at a publication, such as the Houston Chronicle, which furthers an editor's agenda to place a national moratorium on the death penalty above fair and balanced objectivity to its readers.
In a death capital case, the media's responsibility is not to usurp or attempt to influence the jury's deliberations; but rather to fairly and objectively report the facts.
Capital punishment, or the death penalty, is the execution of a person by judicial process as a punishment for an offense. The term capital originates from Latin capitalis, literally "regarding the head" (Latin caput). Hence, a capital crime was originally one punished by the severing of the head.........severe historical penalties include breaking wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement, crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, scaphism, or necklacing.
The great state of Texas provides for meting out the death penalty when a defendant's conduct satisfies statutory guidelines and is so terrible in nature that twelve jurors agree unanimously that death by lethal injection is appropriate. To effectively argue that the method of "death by lethal injection" is cruel and unusual, the courts need to place a moratorium on general anesthesia.
Opponents of the death penalty argue that it has led to the execution of innocent people, that its main motive is not justice but revenge, that to save money, life imprisonment is an effective and less expensive substitute, that it discriminates against minorities and the poor and that it violates the criminal's right to life.
Ironically, it is the very people who complain about the high cost of death row that are responsible for the exorbitant cost.
Supporters believe that the penalty is justified for only specified murderers by the principle of retribution, that life imprisonment is not an equally effective deterrent and that the death penalty affirms the right to life by punishing those who violate it in the strictest form.
To date, as many as 39 executions have been carried out in the U.S. in face of compelling evidence of innocence or serious doubt about guilt. Newly available DNA evidence has allowed the exoneration of more than 15 death row inmates since 1992 in the U.S., but DNA evidence is only available in a fraction of capital cases.
Debate is sometimes revived by particularly brutal murders, though few countries have brought it back after abolishing it. However, a spike in serious, violent crimes, such as murders or terrorist attacks, has prompted some countries (such as Sri Lanka and Jamaica) to effectively end the moratorium on the death penalty. In death penalty countries, the debate is sometimes revived when a miscarriage of justice has occurred, though this tends to cause legislative efforts to improve the judicial process rather than to abolish the death penalty.
Most religions weigh in on the ultimate punishment.
Followers of Judaism either oppose the death penalty altogether or support it only in extreme cases with absolute proof, such as well-documented cases of genocide.
The WW II genocide cases were 100% eye witness testimony based AND never had supporting DNA. Where is the media's outrage in reporting on the Nazi hunters? Imagine if a Harris County defendant was sentenced to death with the same type of evidence!
Some Christians interpret that Jesus' teachings condemn violence in The Gospel of Luke and The Gospel of Matthew regarding turning the other cheek, and John 8:7 in which Jesus intervenes in the stoning of an adulteress, rebuking the mob with the phrase, "may he who is without sin cast the first stone"; others consider Romans 13:3–4 to support it. Many Christians have understood that Jesus' doctrine of peace speaks to personal ethics and is distinct from civil government's duty to punish crime. Also, Leviticus 20:2–27 has a whole list of situations in which execution is supported. Christian positions on this vary. The sixth commandment (fifth in the Roman Catholic and Lutheran churches) is preached as, 'Thou shalt not kill' by some denominations and as, 'Thou shalt not murder' by others. As some denominations do not have a hard-line stance on the subject, Christians of such denominations are free to make a personal decision.
I wonder what the folks at Lakewood Church's view is?
The state has not only the right, but the duty to protect its citizens from enemies, both from within and without. A concept that Obama and the Houston Chronicle have a difficult time understanding.
It is often argued that it is better to let ten guilty men go than to punish one innocent man.
What is so magic about ten why not let 10,000 or even a million guilty men go so as to insure that not a single innocent man is wrongfully punished? Well what about the potential carnage these tens of guilty men will rain on innocent members of society that are subsequently exposed to the risk?
EVERY REASONABLE failsafe must be employed to minimize wrongful prosecution; but no judicial system comes with a warranty.
Society's need to provide for the common good of the whole is greater than the good of any particular person. The life of certain heinous criminals is an impediment to the common good of human society. Therefore, certain individuals must be removed by death from society; as a diseased limb or a cancer must be removed for the good of the whole individual.
As the head of a rabid dog is severed; the rest of the pack may survive and prosper.
The argument that evildoers should be allowed to live in the hope that they might be redeemed is frivolous. If they would not repent in the face of death, it is unreasonable to assume they would ever repent.
How many people are we to allow to be murdered while waiting for the repentence of the wrongdoer?
Using the death penalty is vastly more humane than the alternative. Further, a speedy execution is not only cost effective, it protects inmates and guards and negates any possibility of escape.
Sharia Law or Islamic law may require capital punishment. There is great variation within Islamic nations as to actual capital punishment. In Islam, apostasy and stoning to death are controversial topics.
Although the Qur'an prescribes the death penalty for several hadd (fixed) crimes—including rape—murder is not among them. Instead, murder is treated as a civil crime and is covered by the law of qisas (retaliation), whereby the relatives of the victim decide whether the offender is punished with death by the authorities or made to pay diyah (wergild) as compensation.
"If anyone kills a person—unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land—it would be as if he killed all people. And if anyone saves a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all people" (Qur'an 5:32). "Spreading mischief in the land," can mean many different things, but is generally interpreted to mean those crimes that affect the community as a whole and destabilize the society.
Crimes that have fallen under this description have included: treason, apostasy, piracy (essentially armed robbery), murder, terrorism, rape including pedophilia, adultery and homosexual intercourse.
So what makes it "OKAY" with the Houston Chronicle's Sunday edition that Peter Cantu will be executed on Tuesday, August 17, 2010, for his role in the brutal killing and rape of Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Pena 17 years ago?
Why is Cantu's confession more credible than others on death row?
Why are these two young girls' lives more precious than any one elses'?
Why is their horrific torture and death so much more gruesome than untold others in Texas?
Why is Cantu not deemed incompetent or insane?
Why does the Houston Chronicle have an exclusive on deciding when a killer deserves to pay the ultimate price for his atrocities?
MOST importantly, when the next Ertman Pena slaughter occurs in Harris County, WHO at the District Incompetent's Office will prosecute the vermin............
"The most effectual engines for [pacifying a nation] are the public papers... [A despotic] government always [keeps] a kind of standing army of newswriters who, without any regard to truth or to what should be like truth, [invent] and put into the papers whatever might serve the ministers. This suffices with the mass of the people who have no means of distinguishing the false from the true paragraphs of a newspaper." --Thomas Jefferson to G. K. van Hogendorp, Oct. 13, 1785. (*) ME 5:181, Papers 8:632
"I fear the newspapers more than a hundred thousand bayonets."
— Napoleon Bonaparte
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference.
Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief.
HOWEVER, despite popular misunderstanding, the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the first amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows INDIVIDUALS to express themselves through publication and dissemination.........it does not afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to citizens in general.
Capital punishment is often the subject of controversy and the Houston Chronicle continues to shirk its responsibility to provide objective journalistic integrity in coverage of the issue.
Jefferson would be appalled at a publication, such as the Houston Chronicle, which furthers an editor's agenda to place a national moratorium on the death penalty above fair and balanced objectivity to its readers.
In a death capital case, the media's responsibility is not to usurp or attempt to influence the jury's deliberations; but rather to fairly and objectively report the facts.
Capital punishment, or the death penalty, is the execution of a person by judicial process as a punishment for an offense. The term capital originates from Latin capitalis, literally "regarding the head" (Latin caput). Hence, a capital crime was originally one punished by the severing of the head.........severe historical penalties include breaking wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement, crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, scaphism, or necklacing.
The great state of Texas provides for meting out the death penalty when a defendant's conduct satisfies statutory guidelines and is so terrible in nature that twelve jurors agree unanimously that death by lethal injection is appropriate. To effectively argue that the method of "death by lethal injection" is cruel and unusual, the courts need to place a moratorium on general anesthesia.
Opponents of the death penalty argue that it has led to the execution of innocent people, that its main motive is not justice but revenge, that to save money, life imprisonment is an effective and less expensive substitute, that it discriminates against minorities and the poor and that it violates the criminal's right to life.
Ironically, it is the very people who complain about the high cost of death row that are responsible for the exorbitant cost.
Supporters believe that the penalty is justified for only specified murderers by the principle of retribution, that life imprisonment is not an equally effective deterrent and that the death penalty affirms the right to life by punishing those who violate it in the strictest form.
To date, as many as 39 executions have been carried out in the U.S. in face of compelling evidence of innocence or serious doubt about guilt. Newly available DNA evidence has allowed the exoneration of more than 15 death row inmates since 1992 in the U.S., but DNA evidence is only available in a fraction of capital cases.
Debate is sometimes revived by particularly brutal murders, though few countries have brought it back after abolishing it. However, a spike in serious, violent crimes, such as murders or terrorist attacks, has prompted some countries (such as Sri Lanka and Jamaica) to effectively end the moratorium on the death penalty. In death penalty countries, the debate is sometimes revived when a miscarriage of justice has occurred, though this tends to cause legislative efforts to improve the judicial process rather than to abolish the death penalty.
Most religions weigh in on the ultimate punishment.
Followers of Judaism either oppose the death penalty altogether or support it only in extreme cases with absolute proof, such as well-documented cases of genocide.
The WW II genocide cases were 100% eye witness testimony based AND never had supporting DNA. Where is the media's outrage in reporting on the Nazi hunters? Imagine if a Harris County defendant was sentenced to death with the same type of evidence!
Some Christians interpret that Jesus' teachings condemn violence in The Gospel of Luke and The Gospel of Matthew regarding turning the other cheek, and John 8:7 in which Jesus intervenes in the stoning of an adulteress, rebuking the mob with the phrase, "may he who is without sin cast the first stone"; others consider Romans 13:3–4 to support it. Many Christians have understood that Jesus' doctrine of peace speaks to personal ethics and is distinct from civil government's duty to punish crime. Also, Leviticus 20:2–27 has a whole list of situations in which execution is supported. Christian positions on this vary. The sixth commandment (fifth in the Roman Catholic and Lutheran churches) is preached as, 'Thou shalt not kill' by some denominations and as, 'Thou shalt not murder' by others. As some denominations do not have a hard-line stance on the subject, Christians of such denominations are free to make a personal decision.
I wonder what the folks at Lakewood Church's view is?
The state has not only the right, but the duty to protect its citizens from enemies, both from within and without. A concept that Obama and the Houston Chronicle have a difficult time understanding.
It is often argued that it is better to let ten guilty men go than to punish one innocent man.
What is so magic about ten why not let 10,000 or even a million guilty men go so as to insure that not a single innocent man is wrongfully punished? Well what about the potential carnage these tens of guilty men will rain on innocent members of society that are subsequently exposed to the risk?
EVERY REASONABLE failsafe must be employed to minimize wrongful prosecution; but no judicial system comes with a warranty.
Society's need to provide for the common good of the whole is greater than the good of any particular person. The life of certain heinous criminals is an impediment to the common good of human society. Therefore, certain individuals must be removed by death from society; as a diseased limb or a cancer must be removed for the good of the whole individual.
As the head of a rabid dog is severed; the rest of the pack may survive and prosper.
The argument that evildoers should be allowed to live in the hope that they might be redeemed is frivolous. If they would not repent in the face of death, it is unreasonable to assume they would ever repent.
How many people are we to allow to be murdered while waiting for the repentence of the wrongdoer?
Using the death penalty is vastly more humane than the alternative. Further, a speedy execution is not only cost effective, it protects inmates and guards and negates any possibility of escape.
Sharia Law or Islamic law may require capital punishment. There is great variation within Islamic nations as to actual capital punishment. In Islam, apostasy and stoning to death are controversial topics.
Although the Qur'an prescribes the death penalty for several hadd (fixed) crimes—including rape—murder is not among them. Instead, murder is treated as a civil crime and is covered by the law of qisas (retaliation), whereby the relatives of the victim decide whether the offender is punished with death by the authorities or made to pay diyah (wergild) as compensation.
"If anyone kills a person—unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land—it would be as if he killed all people. And if anyone saves a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all people" (Qur'an 5:32). "Spreading mischief in the land," can mean many different things, but is generally interpreted to mean those crimes that affect the community as a whole and destabilize the society.
Crimes that have fallen under this description have included: treason, apostasy, piracy (essentially armed robbery), murder, terrorism, rape including pedophilia, adultery and homosexual intercourse.
So what makes it "OKAY" with the Houston Chronicle's Sunday edition that Peter Cantu will be executed on Tuesday, August 17, 2010, for his role in the brutal killing and rape of Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Pena 17 years ago?
Why is Cantu's confession more credible than others on death row?
Why are these two young girls' lives more precious than any one elses'?
Why is their horrific torture and death so much more gruesome than untold others in Texas?
Why is Cantu not deemed incompetent or insane?
Why does the Houston Chronicle have an exclusive on deciding when a killer deserves to pay the ultimate price for his atrocities?
MOST importantly, when the next Ertman Pena slaughter occurs in Harris County, WHO at the District Incompetent's Office will prosecute the vermin............
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
