Before the old Liberty County Republican Party Chairman even leaves town, the new one’s plea for keeping everything “positive” among Republicans may be tested. But I hope not.
Over the last few months it has become more and more obvious that some of the most outspoken activists in Liberty county will differ on who they want to win between two potential primary opponents in two different races. My hope is that the group known as The Outsiders who now count former Republican candidate Eddie Shauberger among them, will promote their choice for sheriff and for district attorney in a positive race with no negative campaigning. I am urging Shauberger and The Outsiders to join me in following County Chairman Ken Coleman’s directive and just lay out to the public their view of why they plan to vote the way they plan to vote. I hope they can express why they believe Henry Patterson deserves to serve four more years and why attorney James Farmer should serve the next four years as district attorney while people like me do the same thing on behalf of our choice for these positions.
As for me, I solicited both of the leading candidates for sheriff to run for office years ago and hope they will both discourage negative campaigning as our primary is conducted. Years ago I was the county chairman when Bobby Rader decided he wanted to run for JP and that despite a streak of over 100 years of Democrats holding the position he was running for, Bobby wanted to run as a Republican. Around that same time, I was invited to try and persuade Henry Patterson to run as a Republican for county sheriff. That position had not had a Republican win in over 100 years either and I liked Henry and wanted to help a small handful of people talk him into running in our party. Of course as many of you remember, we were unsuccessful and Henry ran the first time as a Democrat Unfortunately Henry was defeated in the Democrat’s primary by one of the Republican party’s most notorious foes, Greg Arthur. Thankfully, Henry changed his mind four years later and ran as a Republican and beat Arthur. Though I am supporting his primary opponent, I must say that anyone who knows Henry Patterson knows he is a true Republican. Both men are fine family oriented church-going Christians and surely would like a primary race like Chairman Coleman envisions.
Though I like both men and have friends that will support both men, I have come to the conclusion Bobby Rader would be the best man for the job the next four years. I appreciate both men’s contribution to the local Republican Party and wish them both well. Of course I am just any one person and am not sure anyone will really care who I support, but in the tradition of Liberty Dispatch and with the freedom I now have because I do not hold any position in the party, I hereby endorse Bobby Rader for sheriff.
In the primary for district attorney it again is my hope to promote the idea of being “positive” in our primary as I differ from Shauberger and The Outsiders and choose to back Assistant County Attorney Karen McNair rather than James Farmer they have said they will be promoting. I have met James Farmer and in my two brief conversations he seems to be a very capable and very charming person. Over the summer I have been very pleased to get to know Karen McNair and find out who the person that has been working so hard the last few years to help build a stronger local Republican party. The truth is I was very suspicious of Karen before I got to know her, and I have really enjoyed finding out she is a good ole common sense conservative Republican just like her parents and that she is the kind of person who is motivated to do whatever she feels like is best for our community. Again this is just one man’s opinion, but at this time... I will be urging Republicans to choose her as our candidate for the general election.
These endorsements represent the views of Richard Pegues. The former three term Liberty County Republican Party Chairman is one of Liberty Dispatch’s and Liberty County’s most politically knowledgeable contributors .
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
NO RED-LIGHT CAMERAS!
My name is Byron Schirmbeck. I was the petition organizer for the vote against red light cameras in Baytown. I also recently addressed the Dayton city council as they have placed the question of whether or not Dayton will install red light cameras on the November ballot. Considering the HCRP and Texas GOP have placed a statewide ban on their platform, that the programs are run by corrupt companies and politicians and make the streets less safe from this money grab and citizens have voted out cameras each and everytime this should be something your site should publicize.
Here is the background info http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/cleveland/news/article_72e075a2-a508-528c-a12d-f7117b7fa9db.html
Also, democrat harris county district judge Mike Miller, who is up for re election in 2012 signed an order declaring our election in Baytown void. Any judge that would sign away our votes does not deserve to sit on the bench. Please consider giving these two issues coverage on your site. Please call or email me with any questions. You can see more info at www.saferbaytown.com and www.citizensforsaferstreets.com
Byron Schirmbeck
Proposition 1 passed, the cameras are coming down! Thank you Baytown! www.saferbaytown.com
Here is the background info http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/cleveland/news/article_72e075a2-a508-528c-a12d-f7117b7fa9db.html
Also, democrat harris county district judge Mike Miller, who is up for re election in 2012 signed an order declaring our election in Baytown void. Any judge that would sign away our votes does not deserve to sit on the bench. Please consider giving these two issues coverage on your site. Please call or email me with any questions. You can see more info at www.saferbaytown.com and www.citizensforsaferstreets.com
Byron Schirmbeck
Proposition 1 passed, the cameras are coming down! Thank you Baytown! www.saferbaytown.com
Monday, October 10, 2011
“Fallacious Rhetoric against the Tea Party & the Demise of Civilized Discourse” By David Pring-Mill September 19, 2011
LD Supports Mr. David Pring-Mills
I. Slander against the Tea Party
I. Slander against the Tea Party
At the time of this writing, the current U.S. national debt is $14,699,021,631,213.05[1]. The nonpartisan CBO recently noted, “The $1.3 trillion budget deficit […] for 2011 will be the third-largest shortfall in the past 65 years (exceeded only by the deficits of the preceding two years).”[2] With a startling lack of transparency, trillions of government dollars have been spent to bail out and support the financial institutions that recklessly wreaked havoc upon the U.S. economy.[3] In 2009, President Obama signed a stimulus bill that cost $787 billion.[4] Following that first year in office, the Obama administration has shown no signs of mitigating its urge to spend, and an aspect of Obama’s healthcare plan, the mandatory insurance provision, has been judicially deemed to be unconstitutional. Obama now wants to pass a jobs bill that will cost $447 billion. During his September 8th address to Congress, he repeatedly demanded “pass this jobs bill” and “you should pass it right away.” This refrain was uttered 17 times. [5] The veracity of these figures is undisputed, and the implication of these figures is clear – under the President’s leadership, our government is spending money that it doesn’t have and justifying this spending with an increasingly dubious, ineffective ideology and macroeconomic theory. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 46.2 million Americans lived in poverty last year – a record high. The bureau noted that this is “the largest number in the 52 years for which poverty estimates have been published.”[6]
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, author of The Tea Party Goes to Washington, recently provided a reporter with a concise description of the political movement referred to as the Tea Party. He stated, “What the Tea Party stands for, and what unites everybody in the Tea Party I think, is their concern about the debt, and the concern that we're borrowing so much and printing so much to pay for our debt.”[7] After considering the aforementioned figures and the stated goals of the Tea Party, one would presume that the Tea Party reflects the sensibilities of almost all citizens – and 30% of Americans do support the movement[8], yet to keep that number from growing further, certain leftists seem determined to depict the movement as a mob of fringe lunatics suffering from simmering, unspoken racist motivations. Rather than engage in a substantive economic discussion, these leftists have chosen to try to malign and marginalize the Tea Party. There is cause for concern here – the national debt is approaching fifteen trillion dollars and the people who want to cut spending are routinely labeled as racist and crazy. This has led me to wonder whether I am living in a farfetched political satire that has somehow risen from fictitious origins into reality.
In political debates, fallacious straw man arguments are sometimes used to misrepresent an opponent’s position, quote the opponent out of context, and oversimplify the opponent’s position, etc. These days, members of the left have gone one step further in the direction of slanderous discourse. As the result of unspecified telepathic methods of espionage, they now have the gall to state what is in their opponents’ minds, including the thoughts that their opponents’ minds conjure up but subsequently suppress. Biased left-leaning media outlets have bestowed undue, copious amounts of airtime upon those willing to slanderously mischaracterize Tea Party supporters in this manner. Comedian Janeane Garofalo was allowed a platform on MSNBC in which she bashed the movement by saying, “Let’s be very honest about what this is about. It’s not about bashing Democrats, it’s not about taxes; they have no idea what the Boston Tea Party was about. They don’t know their history at all. This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of tea bagging rednecks.”[9] For Ms. Garofalo to imply that there are no valid grounds to oppose the president and conclude that the sole motivation for the Tea Party’s opposition to him is race may suggest that she herself views Obama as a black man and nothing else, and is consequently in a state in which she is somehow oblivious to his policies and the controversies therein. HBO-appointed political pundit Bill Maher said, “And ever since Obama came on the scene, there is a word that has been sticking in their throats that they would love to say, but they can’t ‘cause it’s not the 1950’s. They would love to say this word, it begins with ‘N’ and ends with ‘R,’ and it’s not ‘nation builder.’”[10]
Furthering this disturbing trend in which leftists try to develop their ability to read minds, writer Aaron Sorkin criticized Tea Party leader Sarah Palin in a Huffington Post article[11], in which he took aim (no pun intended) at her for hunting a moose while being filmed for her reality TV show. He wrote, “You weren't killing that animal for food or shelter or even fashion, you were killing it for fun.” After shaming her for the sadistic pleasure that he decided had occurred inside of her mind, he went on to state that he eats meat and uses animal products but doesn’t “relish the idea of torturing animals,” and therefore feels “no pangs of hypocrisy.” To be clear, Sorkin was angry at Palin because of what he thought that she’d been thinking while she hunted a moose that lived in the wild, but he claims to be on higher moral ground than her because he merely passively pays to have animals confined for their entire lives in factory farms and then subsequently slaughtered. And he does, after all, feel lingering guilt about it. When Mr. Sorkin eats a burger, he never thinks of it as fun – it’s a solemn duty.
This trend of fallacious criticism cheapens the political discourse. We must ask ourselves why we support media outlets that support these tactics when the outlets could instead publicize and disseminate discussions of intellectual merit. If our political debates will henceforth be based upon feigned mind reading, perhaps the next step is to use Tarot cards to pass legislation. Yet there seems to be no sign of these tactics relenting. At a closed-door Democratic Caucus meeting, Vice President Joe Biden reportedly said that members of the Tea Party “acted like terrorists” by being uncooperative with the administration’s efforts to raise the debt limit.[12] In a Salon article, Michael Lind, the Policy Director of the Economic Growth Program at the New America Foundation, wrote that, “The mainstream media have completely missed the story, by portraying the Tea Party movement in ideological rather than regional terms.” He went on to state that “Tea Party conservatism speaks with a pronounced Southern drawl,” and he provided a pie chart to convey the Tea Party’s regional distribution. Mr. Lind thinks that the geographical location of Tea Party supporters somehow proves that the Tea Party is a continuation of historical Southern racism.[13] Be careful where you stand – that is to say, where you stand physically, not politically, because, according to Mr. Lind, if a group is centralized in one physical location then that group must be of a similar mindset with the people who historically did things on that same piece of Earth.
Jeffrey O.G. Ogbar, a professor and associate dean at the University of Connecticut, wrote an article in which he asserted that Rep. Michelle Bachmann, notorious for her uninformed verbal gaffes, is in fact a “master manipulator.” Preceding this description of Bachmann, he linked to and quoted from a white nationalist site as part of his effort to claim that conservatives are actively stoking racial fears.[14] After refuting the claims made on the unequivocally racist site, he sloppily transitioned into criticism of Bachmann, ergo equating overt white nationalism with Rep. Bachmann, the Tea Party, and the far-ranging spectrum of the political right. The professor resorted to these smear tactics because he was hard-pressed for citable evidence that racism is explicitly promulgated by mainstream Republican leaders.
Yet there is no lack of evidence that loud and prominent voices on the left have utilized fallacious tactics akin to the professor’s. Only fringe elements of the Tea Party have been explicitly racist and those fringe elements have been denounced by Tea Party leaders, whereas the vitriolic sentiments and smear tactics of celebrities, pundits, and lower ranking leftists is consistent with the rhetoric of elected congressmen and the Vice President. Their shared objective is seemingly to discredit the Tea Party movement and to further engage in high levels of government spending, and there doesn’t seem to be any sense of moral restraint when uttering rhetoric as a means to attaining that end. These tactics are sickening. They’re sickening to a political atmosphere that is already sick, and divisive to a country that is already divided. The Tea Party critics pretend that unspoken and imperceptible thoughts and motivations exist within their opponents’ minds; then these critics disparage the Tea Party on the basis of their own overreaching pseudo-psychoanalytical theories. In condemning the Tea Party movement as racist, these critics rely upon the very mechanisms of racism – Mr. Lind made a generalization based upon a geographic area, and other critics are willing to point to a proportionately small number of racists within a crowd of thousands as an excuse to speak ill of the entire crowd. Racism is not exclusive to any geographic region or political party. Racism is pernicious and pervasive. To invoke the topic and ascribe racist views to political opponents without sufficient evidence shows a blatant disregard for fair and civilized democratic discourse. I have no doubt that there are individual Tea Party supporters who are racist, and I have no doubt that there are individual members within all political parties and movements who harbor racial biases. I have no doubt that some Tea Party supporters have protested with offensive signs and chanted vile slogans and shouted racial epithets, and I have no doubt that some protestors held offensive signs and chanted vile slogans and shouted their own brand of hatred while opposing the Bush administration. Individuals are responsible for themselves. A political movement is responsible for its primary unifying message – and the message of fiscal conservatism prompted the Tea Party’s founding.
II. Partisan Maneuvers & Methods
Liberals have long argued that fiscal conservatives are racist because many of them want to change welfare from a system of dependency into a transitional measure. Opposition to an unreformed continuation of institutionally flawed welfare programs may affect minority recipients, but such opposition does not necessarily imply a racist motivation; such an opposition can also be prompted by a more general ideology towards government spending. Whether you agree or disagree with that ideology, and the contradictions therein, is the subject of a separate discussion entirely – and that is the discussion that this country should be having. Unable to prove that Tea Party leaders or mainstream GOP policy is explicitly racist, the only way for leftists to substantiate the racism claim is to dubiously plumb the depths of their opponents’ psyches and ascribe racist motivations to Republican opposition to Democratic legislation, though it is my understanding that opposition to another party’s legislation is a fundamental tenet of partisanship. In response to Tea Party critics making unsubstantiated racism accusations, I have pointed out that prominent black Republicans such as Michael Steele, Condoleezza Rice, Herman Cain, and others would be interested in learning that they are being racist against themselves, as would Tea Party-supported Congressmen Tim Scott and Allen West. The response has been the oft-repeated liberal refrain that the Republican Party has tricked many Americans into “voting against their own self-interests” and has likewise bamboozled its own minority elected officials into legislating against themselves. A fair-minded person would note that all people of all races are entitled to their own political opinions – black people can be for the Tea Party, and black people can be against the Tea Party; such is the nature of our modern democracy. I make arguments in favor of the Tea Party, but I am also receptive to any opposing arguments provided that the arguments are supported by facts and aren’t maliciously false. The Tea Party critics with whom I have spoken seem to have no interest in respecting their fellow citizens in this manner. A simple internet search of this “voting against their own self-interests” phrase will reveal the staggering extent to which the line has been used. Leftists can dismiss the many minorities in the GOP as being ignorantly self-destructive and gullible, and it is evident that many leftists have no reluctance in doing so, but it isn’t actually the left’s prerogative to determine other people’s “self interests.” This parental approach to America in which liberals tell poor and minority Americans “I know you think you want that, but it’s actually bad for you” is appallingly condescending. It also presumes that lower income conservatives ought to be single issue voters – with that single issue being the amount of personal monetary benefit that they stand to gain from government policy; all other components of party platforms should apparently be disregarded. If you are a poor conservative, leftists will accuse you of voting against your own self-interests; in essence, you are not being selfish enough – stop being selfless. If you are a rich conservative, those same leftists will accuse you of being selfish for not favoring policies that would result in your own taxation – be more selfless. However, contrary to Democrats’ expectations and the bitterness that results when those expectations are not met, the Democratic Party is not actually entitled to the votes of any economic class or demographic. If a party feels entitled to your vote and chastises you by specifically telling you that you have been foolishly hurting yourself, then it is clear that the party doesn’t have a very high regard for your intellect.
And it is with that same spirit of condescension and the same we-know-what’s-best-for-you philosophy that the Democratic President, having secured the votes of poor people whose homes were foreclosed on, proceeded to bail out the financial institutions that caused the housing crisis in the first place, all the while saying that he knew that what he was doing wouldn’t be popular with the American people. Biden and Pelosi laughed in the background as Obama addressed the public in his first State of the Union speech by saying, “We all hated the bank bailout. I hated it, you hated it; it was about as popular as a root canal. But when I ran for President, I promised I wouldn’t just do what was popular. I would do what was necessary.”[15] The patronizing attitude could not be more apparent – it is heard in statements directly from the President. Americans who had lost their jobs and homes had been angry when they’d learned that their own tax dollars were being used to bail out the banks that significantly contributed to their country’s economic problems. And then they sat and watched as their President compared the bailout to a root canal and suggested that his policies, like trips to the dentist, are hated but necessary. This same attitude was evident in Obama’s recent jobs bill speech when he dismissed the public’s political awareness by outright saying, “The millions of Americans who are watching right now, they don't care about politics. They have real life concerns.”[16]
The demeanor of certain members of the left is derisive, their tactics are immoral. In addition to being fallacious, fear-instigating, and inflammatory, the left’s race baiting tactics happen to be unnecessary. There are valid grounds to criticize conservatives. Fiscal conservatives weren’t sufficiently vocal in trying to reclaim the libertarian component of the Republican Party when George W. Bush, a Republican President who campaigned on his opposition to nation building, proceeded to overthrow and then rebuild the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq throughout the duration of his presidency, incurring a war debt of $3 trillion.[17] Furthermore, Rep. Bachmann’s homophobia is undeniable and clearly spelled out in her public statements. Honorable leftists will oppose her on the basis of homophobic statements that she has actually made instead of repudiating racist thoughts that they think that she is thinking.
I can’t speak definitively as to why the racist accusations have in numerous instances been made apart from condemnation of some conservatives’ anti-gay stances for one would think that anti-racism pretensions would be more convincing if made as part of an overall depiction of conservative bigotry, but this oddity may in fact be a political maneuver. Historically, the Democratic Party was pro-slavery and anti-civil rights, yet the Southern strategy represented a shift in the political loyalties of the black community. Perhaps shouting “racism” is a way for the Democratic Party to solidify its base, garner more support, and divert attention away from the fact that real median income for black households has significantly dropped during the Obama administration. The evils of racism are widely condemned, yet most state governments won’t acknowledge that gay citizens have the right to wed on terms equal to those of heterosexual couples. This dismissal of the devotion of gay couples invalidates their orientation in a fundamental way, causing a homophobic ripple effect throughout society. It is widely perceived that homophobia is particularly rampant in the African-American community[18] – therefore, the attempts to shore up black support and gay support are often distinctly separate endeavors. It would of course seem appropriate for Professor Ogbar and Policy Director Michael Lind to follow up their unsubstantiated racism charges with substantiated charges of homophobia, but when it comes to the latter subject and its comparatively less broad appeal, they fall conspicuously silent in the aforementioned articles. It is a lot harder to fight on behalf of a minority group that is still actively harassed and discriminated against than it is to speak on behalf of a minority group that still encounters adversity but has nonetheless won the toughest of its civil rights battles. Granted, fighting on behalf of gay people won’t get the Democratic Party as many votes, and opting to instead label opponents as racists may cause others to gather within the party out of a fear of the validity of the repeated accusations or a fear of becoming subject to the accusations – but at least Mr. Ogbar and Mr. Lind wouldn’t have to resort to fallacy.
And why do Mr. Ogbar and Mr. Lind bash the Tea Party as being covertly racist when the birther movement has been overtly racist? There may be some overlap in the belief systems of self-described birthers and tea partiers, but the Tea Party was founded with clear motives of fiscal conservatism and libertarianism, and the birther movement has been explicitly racist in its efforts to discredit the legitimacy of Obama’s presidency. However, the birther trend, while disturbing, merely threatened to harm Obama’s reelection campaign whereas the Tea Party has been successful at wielding legislative influence that has partially thwarted the full implementation of his policies. Therefore, the need has remained to condemn racism while mentioning the Tea Party by name – ergo, the object of condemnation is not racism generally but the Tea Party specifically.
Some of the leftists utilizing these dirty tactics seem to be aware that they are in the wrong. Vice President Biden later denied that he said that the Tea Party members were acting like terrorists in spite of the fact that sources from within his own party had provided the information. During a controversial speech, Rep. Carson of the Congressional Black Caucus said, “Some of them in Congress right now of this Tea Party movement would love to see you and me ... hanging on a tree.” On CNN, he later backpedaled to a more moderate tone by saying, “Well, I wasn't talking about the entire Tea Party. I think the Tea Party is absolutely right when they call for increased transparency in government, when they call for a cutback on excessive government spending. I am deeply concerned about some elements of the Tea Party who are extremist.”[19] Instead of being self-righteous for partisan purposes, perhaps our politicians should do the right thing by uniting behind practical cost-cutting measures. During the CNN/Tea Party debate, Newt Gingrich said, “If you simply had a serious all out effort to modernize the federal government, you would have hundreds of billions of dollars of savings.” He cited Strong America Now, a bipartisan nonprofit organization dedicated to the elimination of wasteful government spending.[20] [21]
III. Maintaining Tea Party Ideals & Moving Past Partisanship
It should be noted that my intention in this essay is primarily to discourage dirty politics and to encourage a productive and independent mentality that can lead to actual solutions. It is time to reduce, reform, and reprioritize government spending not for the sake of partisanship but for the sake of the country. The Tea Party must hold steadfast to this task because the movement is at risk of becoming a mere reflection of the full spectrum of the Republican Party, distinguished only by the ardency of its members. The movement will always have some extremist members with unfortunate fringe views, but this reality applies to every political movement in the history of the world.
I would like to conclude by explaining that I am a registered independent, and furthermore, I am a human being, not a political ideology. As a human being with an independence of thought, I feel no need to make generalizations about an opposing party, though I will point out observable and overt partisan trends. I do not feel compelled to defend the thoughts, words and actions of every member of a party with which I am aligned, for I am aligned with no party. I am aligned with my fellow people and I want an economic environment in which people do not suffer. Our President campaigned on the virtue of hope. And I do hope that Obama’s economic policies won’t cause stagflation. I hope that the jobs bill, if passed, will put some unemployed people back to work and reunite them with a sense of professional worth and fulfillment. I hope that Obama's proposed multi-billion dollar high-speed trains will take Americans back to a time when Americans took trains. But just as offensive allegations need to be substantiated, political appeals to the virtue of hope need the accompaniment of substance in the form of policies and economic ideologies that have a demonstrably positive impact on the country as a whole.
The bureaucratic structure of our government has become large and corrupt, and our nation in its current state is a sharp departure from the vision of our founding fathers. Lobbying efforts, corporate influence, and huge campaign contributions and the resulting tax credits, subsidies, wars, and policies have tilted the government’s overly complicated workings towards epic dysfunction. We have a national debt that is skyrocketing towards fifteen trillion dollars, additional massive spending is being proposed, and some proponents of the Obama administration are now making the argument that the massive stimulus package didn’t work because it wasn’t massive enough.[22] [23] But does the electorate have the objectivity necessary to set the country on a more promising path, and more importantly, does government still contain the institutional capacities that would enable us to do so? Most Americans identify themselves as being independent-minded – but in reality, many of them gravitate towards one of two contradiction-riddled, all-encompassing partisan ideologies that will assuredly be justified, promoted, and defended on the behalf of all adherents.[24] Too many Americans, in practice, define themselves by association and by opposition. Partisanship has led people to think of the Tea Party and gay rights as being mutually exclusive political positions, and yet in this very essay I have written favorably of both – and it is completely valid to do so because, upon disregarding partisan packaging, it becomes apparent that there is no innate contradiction between the two positions. (It is this lack of inherent incompatibility between the two positions that has allowed for the formation of the Log Cabin Republicans.) When leftists mock the partisanship of the right, they habitually suggest that conservative followers have either been tricked into “voting against their own self interests” or haven’t thought things through because, according to President Obama, millions of Americans don’t care about politics. The truth is more complicated: Democrats and Republicans alike start thinking in narrow-minded ways because they are partisan, and people are partisan because they live in a country with an entrenched two-party system, and they think that it is more effective to pick the side that they deem to be the lesser of two evils within that system than it is to resist the system. However, with a nearly fifteen trillion dollar national debt, it is exceedingly apparent that partisanship is ineffective and our reality is such stuff as satires are made on. Therefore, I do not impugn the ability of people to form sensible opinions – I impugn the two-party system that constricts the people’s opinions and intellectually corners them; at present, the people evaluate the party platforms, determine which positions resonate most within their hearts, and then choose accordingly. Most of them are aware of the constrictions imposed upon them. Neither Democrats nor Republicans have chosen wrongly per se with regards to their partisan preferences; all have been born into a flawed system. Open up democracy to once again respond to the will of the individual and individuals will be more open-minded. Keep democracy crudely fashioned towards the will of a corporately influenced two-party system and peoples’ minds will remain crude, and as the apparatus of government moves in its characteristically slow and sudden tectonic shifts, citizens will fall through the chasms, casting aspersions as they plummet.
Both parties got us into this debacle and systemic changes are necessary for the wellbeing of this country. The Tea Party has proposed systemic changes. It is time for people to part with their partisan biases in order to consider all of the ideas on the table without fallaciously disparaging the other people sitting at the table. We are all here together, and we need to act in the togetherness of America towards the grand plans and purposes innate within the Constitution of the United States.[25] We need to urge our elected representatives to reduce, reform, and reprioritize government spending.
David Pring-Mill is a writer, independent filmmaker, and activist. He lives in New York City. He can be contacted at pringmill@gmail.com. Follow Dave’s tweets at twitter.com/davesaidso.
Saturday, October 8, 2011
NANCY ARCHER’S EMPTY STABLE
Nancy Archer has much more difficult problems than she did in past years when she had to somehow convince voters to re-elect public officials that held public office during a culture of corruption. She has the impossible task of attempting to win horse races with an empty stable.
It seems like an eternity since former Liberty County Republican Party County Chairman Lester Ray Wisegerber bragged that he was talking with Liberty County Democratic Party Chairman Nancy Archer on an almost daily basis. Those must have been hopeful days for the Democratic chairman. In a time when it was all but certain it was the last of the good ole days for Liberty County Democrats, Archer could at least see a glimmer of hope in her Republican counterpart’s naivety and his infamous comments that “it really doesn’t matter whether a person has a “D” or a “R” by their name.
Even four years of dubious leadership by local Republican leadership only slowed down the onslaught of losses local Democrats were destined to experience insure. Now Archer faces what appears to be an insurmountable challenge. Archer not only has very few people willing to run as Democrats, she also has to deal with the uncertainty caused by rumor after rumor of more defections. One can only imagine the conversations she has had with the remaining incumbent Democrats. She has to act like there is no question about their loyalty to the Democratic Party, while she must also try and get a count on what she has left to work with.
Mark McClelland, a close friend of the Archers, retired at the end of the summer. McClelland’s ties to the Archers went beyond the many years of working together in the local Democratic party and included thousands and thousands of dollars’ worth of checks he signed paying Archer to collect delinquent taxes. And perhaps because of those close ties, we may see no better act of allegiance to the dying and defeated local Democrat party than McClelland quitting rather than switching political parties.
So who does that leave for Archer to strut out in front of the public and say as she and her husband once said: “We win elections because we have good candidates and they simply never run anyone worthy of the voter’s consideration.” (Paraphrased)
They have two commissioners, Fontenot and Hunt, who continue to behave like tax and spend Democrats though there have been rumors of different dates in the past that one or the other were going to announce they were going to switch parties. I guess Archer could encourage them to switch parties and if somehow Republicans overlook over a decade of them both enslaving the county with their penchant for bond indebtedness and other behaviors closely linked to Democrat politicians, Archer could claim victory.
Or Archer if she really wants to pull off some magic could present Mike Little as either an old fashion conservative Democrat or she could try and pull sheepskin over him and say he is now a Republican – even though he has been on the top of the “needs to be driven from office” list of many Republican activists for years.
What will Nancy Archer do? Will she have candidates to run in all of the races? How will she talk to incumbents if they want to pull a McClelland and quit rather than face the voters? How will the Archers have a power connection in the courthouse if Mike Little retires? Will Nancy Archer sign up to run for another term as chairman?
Answers to all of these questions will be forthcoming sooner than in the past because the sign up period has been moved up to between November 16th and December 16th. Nancy Archer has the worst win-loss record of any Democratic Party chairman in the last 100 years. Her husband John has the second worst.
It seems like an eternity since former Liberty County Republican Party County Chairman Lester Ray Wisegerber bragged that he was talking with Liberty County Democratic Party Chairman Nancy Archer on an almost daily basis. Those must have been hopeful days for the Democratic chairman. In a time when it was all but certain it was the last of the good ole days for Liberty County Democrats, Archer could at least see a glimmer of hope in her Republican counterpart’s naivety and his infamous comments that “it really doesn’t matter whether a person has a “D” or a “R” by their name.
Even four years of dubious leadership by local Republican leadership only slowed down the onslaught of losses local Democrats were destined to experience insure. Now Archer faces what appears to be an insurmountable challenge. Archer not only has very few people willing to run as Democrats, she also has to deal with the uncertainty caused by rumor after rumor of more defections. One can only imagine the conversations she has had with the remaining incumbent Democrats. She has to act like there is no question about their loyalty to the Democratic Party, while she must also try and get a count on what she has left to work with.
Mark McClelland, a close friend of the Archers, retired at the end of the summer. McClelland’s ties to the Archers went beyond the many years of working together in the local Democratic party and included thousands and thousands of dollars’ worth of checks he signed paying Archer to collect delinquent taxes. And perhaps because of those close ties, we may see no better act of allegiance to the dying and defeated local Democrat party than McClelland quitting rather than switching political parties.
So who does that leave for Archer to strut out in front of the public and say as she and her husband once said: “We win elections because we have good candidates and they simply never run anyone worthy of the voter’s consideration.” (Paraphrased)
They have two commissioners, Fontenot and Hunt, who continue to behave like tax and spend Democrats though there have been rumors of different dates in the past that one or the other were going to announce they were going to switch parties. I guess Archer could encourage them to switch parties and if somehow Republicans overlook over a decade of them both enslaving the county with their penchant for bond indebtedness and other behaviors closely linked to Democrat politicians, Archer could claim victory.
Or Archer if she really wants to pull off some magic could present Mike Little as either an old fashion conservative Democrat or she could try and pull sheepskin over him and say he is now a Republican – even though he has been on the top of the “needs to be driven from office” list of many Republican activists for years.
What will Nancy Archer do? Will she have candidates to run in all of the races? How will she talk to incumbents if they want to pull a McClelland and quit rather than face the voters? How will the Archers have a power connection in the courthouse if Mike Little retires? Will Nancy Archer sign up to run for another term as chairman?
Answers to all of these questions will be forthcoming sooner than in the past because the sign up period has been moved up to between November 16th and December 16th. Nancy Archer has the worst win-loss record of any Democratic Party chairman in the last 100 years. Her husband John has the second worst.
Friday, October 7, 2011
CITY REVERSES A GOOD DECISION
Some time in the last couple of years the City of Liberty implemented one of the strategies many are predicting will continue to be a popular trend around the country in the future, but more recently they reversed the plan. The City of Liberty lengthening their work hours on Monday thru Thursday in order to close at noon on Friday was both progressive and conservative (if that is possible). It seemed to have been saving money and increasing employees’ job satisfaction.
Around the country leaders are considering ways to shut off air conditioners and lights and save taxpayer money while still offering the same services. Schools and cities and both private and public enterprises across the country are considering and sometimes implementing what the City of Liberty was doing before they changed back to their old schedule. The new strategy being used around the country not only has proved to save money, it also had a great appeal to city workers, school teachers, and others that might consider the two and a half day weekend as part of the trade-off for not being as paid as much as some other jobs.
I am not looking to blame anyone, but I have heard the change was made because of one lone complaint. I would just like the leaders who make these decisions to know that many of us adjusted to the convenience of the longer hours Monday through Thursday and we liked that people in this community who worked for the city seemed to enjoy the new schedule. I would like them to know it is highly likely there is a silent majority who would prefer the city to be open four and half days and save taxpayers money versus staying open Friday afternoon for a few people who refuse to use the telephone or the mail.
Even though I respect anyone’s right to advocate the hours that best fits their personal schedule or their personal preferences, I believe most of us are willing to work within the boundaries of what is practical and efficient. If people knew leadership would set policy because of a single complaint or a handful of complaints rather than setting reasonable and responsible policies, the city library and other places could end up opening much much later for all of the people who don’t want to adjust to the current hours. And one enterprise after another could be yo-yoing their hours to please this person or that group.
I commend the City of Liberty leaders for setting a schedule that balanced the taxpayers’ role as the payer of the bills and the taxpayers’ role as consumer of services and I respectfully ask you to reconsider and go back to the four and half day work week with extended hours Monday through Thursday. If you take a scientific survey and I am in the minority, I will gladly applaud that decision just as I applauded the one I am advocating now. But I believe this community was adjusting to minor inconveniences and we were supportive of your innovation.
Sincerely,
Richard Pegues
Around the country leaders are considering ways to shut off air conditioners and lights and save taxpayer money while still offering the same services. Schools and cities and both private and public enterprises across the country are considering and sometimes implementing what the City of Liberty was doing before they changed back to their old schedule. The new strategy being used around the country not only has proved to save money, it also had a great appeal to city workers, school teachers, and others that might consider the two and a half day weekend as part of the trade-off for not being as paid as much as some other jobs.
I am not looking to blame anyone, but I have heard the change was made because of one lone complaint. I would just like the leaders who make these decisions to know that many of us adjusted to the convenience of the longer hours Monday through Thursday and we liked that people in this community who worked for the city seemed to enjoy the new schedule. I would like them to know it is highly likely there is a silent majority who would prefer the city to be open four and half days and save taxpayers money versus staying open Friday afternoon for a few people who refuse to use the telephone or the mail.
Even though I respect anyone’s right to advocate the hours that best fits their personal schedule or their personal preferences, I believe most of us are willing to work within the boundaries of what is practical and efficient. If people knew leadership would set policy because of a single complaint or a handful of complaints rather than setting reasonable and responsible policies, the city library and other places could end up opening much much later for all of the people who don’t want to adjust to the current hours. And one enterprise after another could be yo-yoing their hours to please this person or that group.
I commend the City of Liberty leaders for setting a schedule that balanced the taxpayers’ role as the payer of the bills and the taxpayers’ role as consumer of services and I respectfully ask you to reconsider and go back to the four and half day work week with extended hours Monday through Thursday. If you take a scientific survey and I am in the minority, I will gladly applaud that decision just as I applauded the one I am advocating now. But I believe this community was adjusting to minor inconveniences and we were supportive of your innovation.
Sincerely,
Richard Pegues
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Controversial Liberty County Party Chairman Placed
Coleman is a controversial placement as party chair since he was a previous VP Chair under Lester Ray Wisegerber. People who follow our local Republican Party history will remember that during Coleman’s and Wisegerber’s tenure, Chairman Wisegerber made the infamous R’s and D’s statement- basically saying that it didn’t matter if you had a (R) or a (D) next to your name and if you promoted the Republican Party you were "crazy".
There are those who say this move to place Coleman in as party chair was done to help unscrupulous RINO’s and corrupt Democrat carpetbaggers slip into our party. One clue to the possible further defilement of our local party is the embracing of Coleman by the local democrat/liberal Liberty County media.
Coleman's actions as party chair will be watched closely. It is LD's hope that Coleman acts to protect and strengthen our party, not bring more internal damage.
The battle lines are quickly being drawn… Stay tuned.
The infamous (R's) and (D's) statement by Chairman Lester Ray Wisegerber, Ken Coleman VP.
Monday, October 3, 2011
Cheney says Obama should apologize to Bush administration after al-Awlaki killing
Former Vice President Dick Cheney says that following the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, President Obama owes the George W. Bush administration an apology.
Cheney, speaking on CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday, offered support for the targeted killing by drone strike last week of the Yemeni-American radical cleric al-Awlaki, but he said that Obama now needs to reverse his past criticism of how the Bush administration interrogated suspected terrorists.
The Obama administration "in affect had said that we had walked away from our ideals or taken policy contrary to our ideals when we had enhanced interrogation techniques," the former vice president said. Al-Awlaki's death indicates that members of the Obama administration "clearly have moved in the direction of taking robust action when they feel it's justified," Cheney said.
"You'd like an apology, it sounds like?" host Candy Crowley asked the former vice president.
"Well I would," Cheney responded, "I think that would be a--not for me--but I think for the Bush administration."
"I think it was a very good strike. I think it was justified," Cheney added regarding the strike against al-Awlaki, CNN reports. But Cheney added, "I'm waiting for the administration to go back and correct something they said two years ago when they criticized us for 'overreacting' to the events of 9/11."
The Obama administration has been criticized by civil liberties groups and others, including Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, for authorizing the killing of al-Awlaki. These critics argue that, as an American, al-Awlaki had a right to due process.
The Justice Department reportedly issued approval for the CIA to kill al-Awlaki by concluding in a memo that he was not entitled to due process because he was a war combatant.
AP, Wire
LD and company supports and salutes VP Dick Cheney's resolve and ability to tell it like it is to the liberal scourge that is the Obama administration. Mr. Cheney is not a well man and almost in his dieing breath... he is rebuking the Obama administration for their lies. Mr. Cheney, a real American, keep up the great work!
Ray
Cheney, speaking on CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday, offered support for the targeted killing by drone strike last week of the Yemeni-American radical cleric al-Awlaki, but he said that Obama now needs to reverse his past criticism of how the Bush administration interrogated suspected terrorists.
The Obama administration "in affect had said that we had walked away from our ideals or taken policy contrary to our ideals when we had enhanced interrogation techniques," the former vice president said. Al-Awlaki's death indicates that members of the Obama administration "clearly have moved in the direction of taking robust action when they feel it's justified," Cheney said.
"You'd like an apology, it sounds like?" host Candy Crowley asked the former vice president.
"Well I would," Cheney responded, "I think that would be a--not for me--but I think for the Bush administration."
"I think it was a very good strike. I think it was justified," Cheney added regarding the strike against al-Awlaki, CNN reports. But Cheney added, "I'm waiting for the administration to go back and correct something they said two years ago when they criticized us for 'overreacting' to the events of 9/11."
The Obama administration has been criticized by civil liberties groups and others, including Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, for authorizing the killing of al-Awlaki. These critics argue that, as an American, al-Awlaki had a right to due process.
The Justice Department reportedly issued approval for the CIA to kill al-Awlaki by concluding in a memo that he was not entitled to due process because he was a war combatant.
AP, Wire
LD and company supports and salutes VP Dick Cheney's resolve and ability to tell it like it is to the liberal scourge that is the Obama administration. Mr. Cheney is not a well man and almost in his dieing breath... he is rebuking the Obama administration for their lies. Mr. Cheney, a real American, keep up the great work!
Ray
Sunday, October 2, 2011
DISCRETION IS NOT A FOUR LETTER WORD
Discretion is the power or right to make official decisions using reason and judgment to choose from among acceptable alternatives. Most people realize our system does not work without judicial discretion or prosecutor discretion, but in politics it is very common to criticize or even demonize your opponent’s use of it.
An analysis of Liberty Dispatch is a good example of how evaluating the use of discretion is very important in the way we all evaluate the job our public officials do.
Whether it is District Attorney Mike Little’s and County Attorney Wes Hinch’s decision to use their discretion NOT to prosecute former county officials Lee Groce and Phil Fitzgerald or former District Judge Rusty Hight’s use of discretion to set a two time convicted sex offender off with no jail time, it all effects most people’s opinion of how they do their job. Hearing examples of prosecutors ducking their responsibilities because they don’t want to be criticized or step on their buddies’ toes- or hearing how a judge takes lightly sex crimes involving minors can almost make the word “discretion” seem like a four letter word. The above mentioned corrupt actors in Liberty County abuse discretion time and again for their own personal and maniacal gratification.
From what I know of Justice of the Peace Bobby Rader and the thousands of decisions he has made as a city judge and a JP, he is a great example of how discretion is used properly. I have seen two juveniles in his courtroom that have been found guilty of the same offense. I have seen him use the power we have given him with wisdom and mercy. I remember when the first juvenile came before him to be sentenced and how the kid was defiant and rude and seemed to have no regrets. Through questioning, Judge Rader could tell the kid thought he had nothing to lose. He had no money so his mother would have to pay any fine that was set. He would refuse to go to community service and he had heard nothing else could be done. Judge Rader asked the kid if he had a bike and if he had any video games. When the kid said yes his sentence was to sell them both and pay his fine and 20 days of community service (to be closely monitored by Rader’s office).
When the second juvenile was brought into the court later in the day, he was visibly upset. He was being raised by his mother also, but the entire time he was before Judge Rader you could tell he was more concerned that he had disappointed his mom more than what the courts were going to do to him. He was polite and expressed regret for his behavior. Judge Rader sentenced him to 10 days of community service.
JP’s and City Judges make many rulings in the course of just one year. The use of discretion is vital to their ability to be effective. As a result, Bobby Rader may be seen as a harsh law and order judge to some, while others would say he is wise and merciful. Anyone taking a snapshot of his use of discretion could pick and choose cases and make him look anyway they wanted. But an analysis of all of the ones I have looked at reveals he is a fair, just, and wise judge and a great example of how allowing judges some discretion makes the system work well.
An analysis of Liberty Dispatch is a good example of how evaluating the use of discretion is very important in the way we all evaluate the job our public officials do.
Whether it is District Attorney Mike Little’s and County Attorney Wes Hinch’s decision to use their discretion NOT to prosecute former county officials Lee Groce and Phil Fitzgerald or former District Judge Rusty Hight’s use of discretion to set a two time convicted sex offender off with no jail time, it all effects most people’s opinion of how they do their job. Hearing examples of prosecutors ducking their responsibilities because they don’t want to be criticized or step on their buddies’ toes- or hearing how a judge takes lightly sex crimes involving minors can almost make the word “discretion” seem like a four letter word. The above mentioned corrupt actors in Liberty County abuse discretion time and again for their own personal and maniacal gratification.
From what I know of Justice of the Peace Bobby Rader and the thousands of decisions he has made as a city judge and a JP, he is a great example of how discretion is used properly. I have seen two juveniles in his courtroom that have been found guilty of the same offense. I have seen him use the power we have given him with wisdom and mercy. I remember when the first juvenile came before him to be sentenced and how the kid was defiant and rude and seemed to have no regrets. Through questioning, Judge Rader could tell the kid thought he had nothing to lose. He had no money so his mother would have to pay any fine that was set. He would refuse to go to community service and he had heard nothing else could be done. Judge Rader asked the kid if he had a bike and if he had any video games. When the kid said yes his sentence was to sell them both and pay his fine and 20 days of community service (to be closely monitored by Rader’s office).
When the second juvenile was brought into the court later in the day, he was visibly upset. He was being raised by his mother also, but the entire time he was before Judge Rader you could tell he was more concerned that he had disappointed his mom more than what the courts were going to do to him. He was polite and expressed regret for his behavior. Judge Rader sentenced him to 10 days of community service.
JP’s and City Judges make many rulings in the course of just one year. The use of discretion is vital to their ability to be effective. As a result, Bobby Rader may be seen as a harsh law and order judge to some, while others would say he is wise and merciful. Anyone taking a snapshot of his use of discretion could pick and choose cases and make him look anyway they wanted. But an analysis of all of the ones I have looked at reveals he is a fair, just, and wise judge and a great example of how allowing judges some discretion makes the system work well.
Saturday, October 1, 2011
THE RANTINGS OF A MISSIONLESS MAN
The editors will not like seeing this article submitted for posting. They won’t like it because they will say it is already established in most people’s minds that Allen Youngblood adds nothing to our community’s dialogue. But I can’t resist. I have to ask our readers to look at the opening salvo in one of Youngblood’s editorials. Here it is (unedited): “People on a mission are an incredibly misguided group and history does repeat itself. We seem to never learn anything from it at all.”
Wow! An editorial that declares that everyone that is “on a mission” is ………..”
Then Youngblood does his usual Christian bashing and throws the Catholics under the bus by using the Crusades to try and convince his poor audience that anyone on a mission is hiding behind God or using him as an excuse to do evil. Here are Youngblood’s next few sentences: “Take a look at the crusades hundreds of years ago. Folks in England decided that it was their mission and calling in life to rid the Holy Land of the infidels that occupied it and controlled it. This was to them a mission that was completely in accord with God’s wishes and it was up to them to do it. And they did.”
Of course Youngblood conveniently leaves part of his history out. The Crusades originally had the goal of RECAPTURING Jerusalem and the Holy Land from Muslim rule. They didn’t wake up one day and attack innocent people. In fact their campaigns were launched in response to a call from the leaders of the Byzantine Empire for help to fight the EXPANSION of the Muslim Seljuk Turks into Anatolia. So what can we conclude from Youngblood’s idea that all missions are evil? If Muslims successfully attacked Hawaii, would Youngblood say we should not take it back?
Youngblood could have written the same article and said that people on a mission sometimes lose their way. Despite a laudable goal, the Crusaders often did commit horrible war crimes and seemed to have forgotten their original mission. But Youngblood doesn’t say that. He dogs the Catholics for doing the same things we read God sanctioned in the Old Testament. Makes you remember how much Youngblood hates scripture (excuse me certain scripture).
Then Youngblood really tops off his whiny little argument with this statement: “The frightening part about people on a mission. They will do absolutely anything in order to complete the mission.” Those are pathetic words from someone who has defended almost every scoundrel that voters have defeated in the latest elections. His distortions and lack of interest in facts are infamous across Liberty County. It is he that will “do anything in order to complete his mission”.
Even still, if Youngblood’s mission was for the good of Liberty County and the good of our country, it could be that being “willing to do anything in order to complete the mission” was something to be proud of - like our soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. But Youngblood’s mission is stop people from casting doubts on certain public officials. That is an unusual mission for a media person. His mission should be “truth”, not deception. His mission should be to have an open and honest public discussion, not to try and beat people down and shut them up.
His mission has never been as holy and good as the Crusaders. It hasn’t gotten off track. It was never on a track.
Wow! An editorial that declares that everyone that is “on a mission” is ………..”
Then Youngblood does his usual Christian bashing and throws the Catholics under the bus by using the Crusades to try and convince his poor audience that anyone on a mission is hiding behind God or using him as an excuse to do evil. Here are Youngblood’s next few sentences: “Take a look at the crusades hundreds of years ago. Folks in England decided that it was their mission and calling in life to rid the Holy Land of the infidels that occupied it and controlled it. This was to them a mission that was completely in accord with God’s wishes and it was up to them to do it. And they did.”
Of course Youngblood conveniently leaves part of his history out. The Crusades originally had the goal of RECAPTURING Jerusalem and the Holy Land from Muslim rule. They didn’t wake up one day and attack innocent people. In fact their campaigns were launched in response to a call from the leaders of the Byzantine Empire for help to fight the EXPANSION of the Muslim Seljuk Turks into Anatolia. So what can we conclude from Youngblood’s idea that all missions are evil? If Muslims successfully attacked Hawaii, would Youngblood say we should not take it back?
Youngblood could have written the same article and said that people on a mission sometimes lose their way. Despite a laudable goal, the Crusaders often did commit horrible war crimes and seemed to have forgotten their original mission. But Youngblood doesn’t say that. He dogs the Catholics for doing the same things we read God sanctioned in the Old Testament. Makes you remember how much Youngblood hates scripture (excuse me certain scripture).
Then Youngblood really tops off his whiny little argument with this statement: “The frightening part about people on a mission. They will do absolutely anything in order to complete the mission.” Those are pathetic words from someone who has defended almost every scoundrel that voters have defeated in the latest elections. His distortions and lack of interest in facts are infamous across Liberty County. It is he that will “do anything in order to complete his mission”.
Even still, if Youngblood’s mission was for the good of Liberty County and the good of our country, it could be that being “willing to do anything in order to complete the mission” was something to be proud of - like our soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. But Youngblood’s mission is stop people from casting doubts on certain public officials. That is an unusual mission for a media person. His mission should be “truth”, not deception. His mission should be to have an open and honest public discussion, not to try and beat people down and shut them up.
His mission has never been as holy and good as the Crusaders. It hasn’t gotten off track. It was never on a track.
THE JOE WARREN CASE : “THE AFTERMATH”
While Liberty Dispatch continues to express the opinion that District Attorney Mike Little should have at the very least put Assistant District Attorney Joe Warren on administrative leave until charges of tampering with a witness and threatening to burn a house down were adjudicated. The two groups involved in investigating and defending that case has been working long and hard from behind the scenes with declared war on each other.
In case there is still some doubt who dug up the case involving Joe Warren’s dangerous tirade against his next door neighbors and those trying to suppress it- Liberty County Sheriff’s Office (LCSO) Captain Louis Guthrie re-ignited both sides a few days ago. Guthrie sent out an exclusive press release to “The Outsiders” website and to Vanesa Brashier at The Cleveland Advocate/The Dayton News. Besides signaling to the public that Liberty Dispatch is not, and has not been, part of the investigation – Guthrie’s press release might as well have admitted that this case is over and done, and that the sheriff’s department and "The Outsiders” can only defend what they did from here forward.
Guthrie and company’s decision to put their defense in the form of a letter to the media has set up a situation where they can continue to defend their actions against Brashier and company (Mike Little, Joe Warren, and others). In addition, part of the aftermath of this case should clarify once and for all that despite the fact Liberty Dispatch and its readers have clearly stated their opinions about this case, it is "The Outsiders” and the sheriff that has joined forces against Brashier and other media that the D.A. is using to try and pin and defend.
Brashier’s demotion from the editor of two local papers to online editor, still leaves her with an interactive comment section. Several people have pointed out how Brashier seems to be disguising herself and her opinions under the cloak of the online commenter name “Moodswing.” Her obvious alias in the comment section of both papers is an active critic of everything to do with the LCSO and an active defender of Mike Little and Joe Warren. Guthrie sending a press release to Vanesa Brashier and the Advocate is an obvious attempt by The Outsiders' idea of how to respond to the “no billed” case and the difference between their view of the case and the grand jury’s view.
There are those who are calling for the Federal Government to investigate suspected jury tampering by Joe Warren and his boss Mike Little after the original witness tampering charges against Warren.
Liberty Dispatch is sure the Joe Warren case and his boss Mike Little’s actions will be the topic of future stories in Liberty County.
Stay tuned…
In case there is still some doubt who dug up the case involving Joe Warren’s dangerous tirade against his next door neighbors and those trying to suppress it- Liberty County Sheriff’s Office (LCSO) Captain Louis Guthrie re-ignited both sides a few days ago. Guthrie sent out an exclusive press release to “The Outsiders” website and to Vanesa Brashier at The Cleveland Advocate/The Dayton News. Besides signaling to the public that Liberty Dispatch is not, and has not been, part of the investigation – Guthrie’s press release might as well have admitted that this case is over and done, and that the sheriff’s department and "The Outsiders” can only defend what they did from here forward.
Guthrie and company’s decision to put their defense in the form of a letter to the media has set up a situation where they can continue to defend their actions against Brashier and company (Mike Little, Joe Warren, and others). In addition, part of the aftermath of this case should clarify once and for all that despite the fact Liberty Dispatch and its readers have clearly stated their opinions about this case, it is "The Outsiders” and the sheriff that has joined forces against Brashier and other media that the D.A. is using to try and pin and defend.
Brashier’s demotion from the editor of two local papers to online editor, still leaves her with an interactive comment section. Several people have pointed out how Brashier seems to be disguising herself and her opinions under the cloak of the online commenter name “Moodswing.” Her obvious alias in the comment section of both papers is an active critic of everything to do with the LCSO and an active defender of Mike Little and Joe Warren. Guthrie sending a press release to Vanesa Brashier and the Advocate is an obvious attempt by The Outsiders' idea of how to respond to the “no billed” case and the difference between their view of the case and the grand jury’s view.
There are those who are calling for the Federal Government to investigate suspected jury tampering by Joe Warren and his boss Mike Little after the original witness tampering charges against Warren.
Liberty Dispatch is sure the Joe Warren case and his boss Mike Little’s actions will be the topic of future stories in Liberty County.
Stay tuned…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)