Monday, January 26, 2015


Why are RINO'S are pointing out other RINO'S?

I think accurate words can help communicate and describe people and where they are coming from. I am not one of those people who says they "hate labels". But an opportunity for explanation or rebuttal may be necessary by the person labeling or the person getting labeled.

Recently I have noticed a trend has developed by people that would choose to label themselves Libertarian over the label Republican. These political activists are freely labeling people in the Repblican party RINO's. RINO is a pejorative  term conservatives have used to label people they do not believe are committed enough to the principles of the Republican party. Sometimes the term has been used to describe party switchers that appear to be uncommitted and sometimes it has been used to opportunists who seem to have a commitment to themselves and no principles. But in all cases whatever the person labeling someone a RINO might intend ........ it has never been a good thing. In  the past this was not compliment.

A problem arises when people that do not identify themselves as Republicans (without reservations) chooses to use this label. Now we must wonder if  the person using this label means it as a positive thing. Anyone who does not want to commit to being a Republican or has reservations about their goals could easily be labeled a RINO if they associate themselves with the party as a candidate or as a member. Therefore, their use of the term RINO could easily mean something good.

It "could" mean something good,but it has been my experience that it is mix of two totally different things. They are identifying the same RINO's Republicans have tried to shun for decades or it is libertarians criticizing Republicans they do not want to hold office.

As a result, we Republicans have the strange situation where many times we agree and appreciate the help from these Libertarians, but we also realize they are not real Republicans. Libertarians have huge fundamental differences with the pro-life party that believes the best way to prevent war is to have a military budget that is more than enough to fulfill its Constitutional duty. Their labeling who RINO's  would be the same thing as a third party effecting who the Democrat party nominates by pushing labels on their candidates in a similar way.

The result is, the Republican party's candidates are sometimes being chosen by people who patently disagree with Republican goals. Sometimes they have a candidate that they want to elect so they spew out the RINO label. It is easy to do. Spending or enlarging government in any single area can be interpreted by them as RINO, even though reducing the size of government overall by weeding out the useless and reducing the waste does not necessarily mean voting against spending on every bill. ev.

Saturday, January 10, 2015


Years after all of the protest meetings and the secret gatherings to get a new county commissioner in Dayton, now one of the men who said he could fix the Dayton areas county road problems has served his time and has been retired by his opponent.

Former Commissioner Norman Brown faced tremendous problems as he came into office over eight years ago on the votes of an angry electorate. Whether the job was even something the public would have ever thought someone successfully fulfilled is debatable. Brown may or may not have had an impossible job. That kind of thing will be left up, as they say, to the eyes of the beholder".

But as Leon Wilson comes in to serve there is one thing Norman Brown did in his last days in office that is undebatable. Maybe he did it because as he was first elected as a Democrat, it was "old hat" for Democrats to do what Brown ended up doing after he lost in his re-election bid. What did Brown do? At best, he made decisions he should have left for his successor. At worst, he spat in the face of the voters.

What am I talking about? Among other things, I am talking about selling important equipment that belonged to Liberty County after he lost his primary to Leon Wilson. The equipment included a truck and trailers.

This is the kind of stuff that makes people hate politics. This behavior is the kind of thing that has made it difficult for Dayton to repair roads and other things they hoped their commissioner could do.

Regardless of how you thought Commissioner Brown did his job before losing, there is no doubt he did not have Dayton's best interest in mind in his waning days. And that is unfortunate.


In case you thought John Boehner always cried in the clinch, please take note: SPEAKER BOEHNER TAKES REVENGE.

Exactly what Representative Ted Poe wanted to avoid. Some, if not all of the 25 Republicans who did not vote for Boehner, may look back and realize their influence, and the influence of their district, in this Congress, was diminished as they lost plum committee posts.
Ted Poe knew what most of the Republicans knew going into the actual vote. He knew where his constituents stood on Boehner and he knew there were not enough votes to send the voting to another ballot. So Poe knew what his district wanted was not going to happen, regardless of how he voted.

After Boehner was assured of his third term as Speaker of the House f, Boehner moved swiftly to dismiss two of the insurgents from the influential Rules Committee. That could be just the start of payback in the months to come for the Speaker’s betrayers, who might never see subcommittee chairmanships and other perks as they might have.

Some of Boehner’s allies insulted the men that voted against him by calling them "insignificant" and "unheard of", as if they don't know what they are doing yet. But Boehner and his allies do know what they are doing. They are said to be eager to finally have persuaded Boehner to stop being too nice to people who are eager to stab him in the back, and go for their throats - mostly out of the sight of the public and the media. 

The removal of Florida Reps. Daniel Webster and Richard Nugent from Rules was public however. It was meant to send a clear message that what Boehner and other party leaders accepted during the previous Congress is no longer acceptable, not with the House’s biggest GOP majority in decades.

GOP leadership thought seats on the Rules Committee were a plum that these two no longer deserved and it just took a little bit of one day for Webster and Nugent (and tehir districts) to find themselves on the outside of a power structure they were once very much a part of.

The House Republican leadership is carefully reviewing the list of members who voted against the speaker and those who opposed a procedural motion in December on the so-called “crominibus,” the $1.1 trillion spending package to keep the government open through to September. Top Republican sources suggested that the process could take months to unfold.

“This is one of those cases where the fire has only gotten more intense,” said a GOP lawmaker. “More attention has been brought to this now. It’s not going to go away.”

Tuesday’s tally brought “double the number” of anti-Boehner votes compared with 2013, noted Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.), one of the most vocal thorns in Boehner’s side. Huelskamp said he was unhappy that “only three of the freshmen class” voted against Boehner.

Huelskamp said he was denied a chance to get back his seat on the Agriculture Committee because of his opposition to Boehner. The Kansas Republican was removed from the panel in 2012.
“I am already hearing from my colleagues, and myself, about retaliation against those who voted their conscience, their constituents, their principles, to change the status quo,” Huelskamp said. “My colleagues fully expect that. That’s what they expect out of this leadership team.”

In almost every sense, Boehner worked much harder for this reelection than he did in 2013. Two years ago, the Ohio Republican was caught off guard by a handful of rebels, one being Steve Stockman (infamous for leading "charges" only to find no one following - example, Stockman filed a bill to impeach Obama).

Poe saw how the vote was going to go and that it would be little more than symbolism for him to vote with the rebels. And he decided to vote in a way that gave his district as much clout for future votes and issues as possible.

“We don’t need these fringe guys as much as we did anymore,” said a GOP leadership aide, speaking on condition of anonymity. “We can let them walk on certain bills, and it just won’t matter. That gives us breathing room.”


The "present" vote is in effect a "no" vote, but it is a "no" vote that sends a message. Hold on before you hear what I have to say and simply disagree. Keep an open mind and read the entire article. I have left those who want to continue their anger and disappointment an opportunity to agree with me and still interpret a “present” vote as “cowardly” if that is their impression of the person that cast it. Keep reading and you will see how, at least historically, a “present” vote has been interpreted to send any one of three possible messages.

Regardless of what the intent of the message, I must point out however that those needing a “yes” vote are frequently the ones most upset and they are also the one with unique powers to claim revenge. Even if there is only one vote of “present”, the one who cast that vote can be the recipient of retribution for the entire time they hold office.

Undoubtedly, the “present” vote has been a tool used in elections to interpret the one who cast it in as negative a terms as possible. It has been interpreted in all three ways we will discuss by those wanting to elect someone other than the one who cast it.

Let’s start our discussion with the infamous votes cast by Illinois State Senator Barack Obama. How many did he casts? Was it 191 “present” votes? Republicans lost some of the insight they could have gained by exposing his “present” votes as simply those of a fence riding coward. That is one of the three choices for sure. And these 191 Obama votes surely deserve that characterization. Especially in retrospect. 191 votes! But let me present you an argument for why that analysis falls short of what should have been identified by voters when they heard it.

First let’s look at these votes when most of them were cast. Most of them were cast when Obama had no inkling of ever running for President. If you accept that as fact, then most of these votes, if not all of them, were cast when he could have never assumed that his votes and his character would ever be examined as closely as they have because of his candidacy and his win in the run for the Presidency.
So let me submit to you reason number two some vote “present”. The one his most artful and articulate admirers have used in his defense.

Number two reason goes goes like this:”The "present" vote is used by lawmakers in situations where they agree with a bill in spirit, however the current version of the bill is not good enough to vote "yes;" either it is too expensive, it is inadequately planned or funded, or it has riders or earmarks attached that are entirely inappropriate.

This is classic Obama. Nothing is as good as he could have done it. The man with a “messiah complex” had 191 bills come through that simply were not good enough. This my friends was a huge hint into the kind of person the American people elected twice to be the Commander and Chief. Obama, we now know for certain, is a coward who tries to avoid taking a stance; AND he is an arrogant men with few things to recommend him as a leader.

The third reason? Obviously, the one I believe affected our Congressman. Someone who can not be characterized as a coward or someone who thinks they sit at the right hand of God, could conceivably cast a “present” vote. Those not willing to consider this because they already planned on giving a politician grief for their entire time in office because they wanted someone else elected, or those who interpret every single issue, even a vote in a losing cause, as a matter of principle – brace yourself. Your temperature may spike! If voting on filling a position, the third reason could be that you wanted to vote “no” on the candidate, but also wanted to preserve your vote “for’ someone (until you knew who they were a little better or until a new candidate emerged).

On the matter at hand, I have known Brian Babin for almost twenty years. I feel sorry for anyone that has judged themselves to be a better Christian than Brian. I feel the same way about someone who either openly or silently has judged him to be a coward. All I can say is you must not know him or you are a poor judge of character and perhaps you should leave that area to someone else.

For thise that simply disagree with his voting “present”….. this is politics. I love it. Now let’s do what we can to help Brian as our Congressman to vote the way we believe he should from here forward. Let’s not waste any more time or energy and help marginalize our own Representative. Two years will be here before you know it and if you don’t want to re-elect him, that is your time for unending, unfiltered criticism

Thursday, January 8, 2015


WASHINGTON — For people that like a Representative in the House that is fearless, I present to you Brian Babin, representing southeast Texas. As Freshman Rep. Brian Babin of Woodville prepared for his first vote as a U.S. Congressman by taking a detour towards where timid people would never travel on the House floor. He looked up Speaker John Boehner. He wasn’t searching the Speaker out for advice on the vote; he was informing the Speaker that his district’s vote would be cast to indicate the voters in the district were not “for” him having another term as Speaker.  Like Representative Babin’s predecessor Steve Stockman two years earlier, Babin said he wanted to register unhappiness with current management. But unlike his predecessor, he also delivered that message in person.

Babin, a dentist and military veteran, said he didn’t talk to Stockman before casting his vote. He said he voted “present” to reflect constituents’ dissatisfaction with party leadership in the wake of the “Cromnibus” bill, a $1.1 trillion government funding measure. The bill’s eleventh-hour passage in December averted a government shutdown, but some of its provisions rankled Republicans and Democrats alike.

“Since the pass of this last omnibus bill, our district and constituency believes that we need to start seriously looking at possibly getting some new leadership. And I heard them. I heard that call. That’s the reason I did what I did,” Babin said Thursday.

Babin was one of four Texas Republicans and 0ne of only twenty-five Republicans in the House not to vote for Speaker John Boehner in his bid for a third term leading the House. The race brought intraparty tensions to bear.

Babin said he voted present rather than casting his ballot for one of Boehner’s challengers because he would have preferred to see Boehner denied reelection on the first ballot, forcing a closed-door GOP caucus meeting at which a replacement might emerge. Two challengers had almost no support and Babin was unfamiliar with the third.

For those wondering where our Representative goes from here after being seen as a challenger to the lost powerful man in the House, we must hope his assignments to committees is not effected by this first vote. Babin has always put forth the idea that what we have needed in a Congressman is one that builds coalitions and picks battles that actually make a difference, not a statement. He is there to help build a more conservative House.

When Babin says, “I definitely can work with this leadership.  I could work with anyone that they had up there.” He is talking about having a seat at the table to represent a district in southeast Texas that is conservative.

Sunday, December 21, 2014

Republican Activist Notices County of Intent to Take Civil Action - Akins

(12/21/2014 Liberty County, Texas) Former Liberty County resident and Republican political activist Ray Akins, has filed a "Notice of Claim" with Liberty County Judge Craig McNair and Liberty County Attorney Wes Hinch.

Mr. Akins is seeking unspecified damages for:

"Conspiracy, Oppressive/Punitive Bond, False Arrest, Unlawful Restraint, False Imprisonment, Filing False (Government Documents) Criminal Record, Official False Vehicle Records Retrieval, Official Misuse of TCIC and NCIC, Official Oppression, Official Misconduct, Malicious Prosecution and all cost in Liberty County case"

Stay tuned here for lawsuit and fillings update and .pdf files.

Notice was emailed to representatives for Liberty County as follows:

Honorable Craig McNair, Liberty County Judge
1923 Sam Houston
Suite 201
Liberty, TX 77575
Fax: (936) 336-4518

Dear Liberty County Judge Craig McNair:

Please be advised this letter/correspondence is a Federal 1983/85 action “Notice of Claim” - of my intent to take legal action against Liberty County, Texas and several of its representatives/agents in their official capacity, individually and severally.

The subject claim/s damages include the following:

Individuals in consort and/or conspiracy to commit the following torts/civil rights violations against Akins of – Conspiracy, Oppressive/Punitive Bond, False Arrest, Unlawful Restraint, False Imprisonment, Filing False (Government Documents) Criminal Record, Official False Vehicle Records Retrieval, Official Misuse of TCIC and NCIC, Official Oppression, Official Misconduct, Malicious Prosecution and all cost in Liberty County case – CR28372, State of Texas vs. Frederick Akins.

Plaintiff Akins has been irreparably harmed by the outrageous and illegal behavior of individuals/defendants further known as:

1. Michael R. Little, Prior Liberty County, Texas District Attorney;
2. Daniel Bradley, Pro-Tem - as appointed via motion by Michael R. Little;
3. Joseph Warren, Liberty County ADA;
4. Wesley Hinch, Liberty County Attorney;
5. Liberty County, Texas.
6. -Other conspirators/actors unknown as of this date per discovery/rule-

The above defendants used the good name and official offices of the State of Texas and Liberty County to exact political revenge and charge Akins with a crime - WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE - in an attempt to harm him. These specific claims arise from the 09/29/10 indictment and subsequent arrest of Frederick Akins for “Organized Crime” – 71.02(a) PC. (Charges dismissed, 09/05/14)

I claim damages in excess of the trial court/s jurisdiction for the above named torts/civil rights violations and for required legal representation to perfect the subject claim.
Claimant- Frederick Ray Akins

Sunday, November 23, 2014


Stephen King specializes in giving readers nightmares, but his latest bestselling novel,11/22/63, draws its strength from a wistful, widely shared daydream.
A yarn about a time traveller who thinks the best way to make the world a better place is to foil the assassination of president John F. Kennedy, Mr. King’s hefty tome impressively demonstrates the staying power of the JFK myth – the idea that the youthful president embodied all the noble aspirations of the sixties and that his killing was the beginning of the violence that destroyed the dreams of the decade.
It’s joined on the bestsellers list by Chris Matthews's Jack Kennedy, Elusive Hero. Mr. Matthews, the motor-mouthed host of the MSNBC political talk show Hardball, gets misty-eyed when talking about his lifelong fascination with Mr. Kennedy.
As the books' sales show, a large and receptive public likewise continues to worship at the shrine of JFK. Polls show that the U.S. public ranks Mr. Kennedy as among the greatest of American presidents, often in the same league as Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Rarely is popular mythology so completely disengaged from historical reality.
To place Mr. Kennedy in the same pantheon as Lincoln and Roosevelt is absurd. Lincoln presided over the Civil War and freed the slaves, Roosevelt laid the foundations for the American welfare state and led a reluctant nation into the Second World War.
Mr. Kennedy had no comparable achievements. Save for the assassin's bullet that gave him a martyr's halo, he was a mediocre president, distinguished mainly by his combination of eloquent rhetoric and often-reckless foreign policy.
Curiously, the cult of Kennedy is particularly strong in liberal circles, even though he was among the most conservative Democrats ever to be president. One character in11/22/63 says that stopping Lee Harvey Oswald's great crime is a chance to “save Kennedy, save his brother. Save Martin Luther King. Stop the race riots. Stop Vietnam, maybe.”
Not likely, actually: The son of an isolationist, Mr. Kennedy came of age politically in the late 1940s, when the tide of Cold War sentiment was at its highest. His father was close friends with Joseph McCarthy, and unlike other Democrats JFK never turned against the blacklisting senator. Indeed, like that famed demagogue, he consistently derided any attempts to negotiate with the Soviet Union or China as evidence of appeasement and unmanliness.
In the 1960 presidential campaign, Mr. Kennedy ran to the right of Richard Nixon on foreign policy, falsely accusing the Republicans of allowing a “missile gap” to develop. As president, he gave free rein to the military-industrial complex that his predecessor, Dwight Eisenhower, had criticized. Mr. Eisenhower's attempt to apply a rational cost-benefit analysis to military spending went out the window under Mr. Kennedy.
Not only did military spending increase by 13 per cent under Mr. Kennedy, but he also militarized government agencies such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, which became a showcase for the strutting of American power.
Foreign aid also became a Cold War tool under Mr. Kennedy, with the Alliance for Progress providing cover for America arming and training the militaries and police forces of Latin America. The military coups that rocked countries such as Brazil and Chile in the 1960s and 1970s were often led by American-trained military men.
Mr. Kennedy is often credited for his sagacity in handling the Cuban Missile Crisis. What gets forgotten is the fact that at the root of the crisis was the president's determination to spur counterrevolution in Cuba, from the Bay of Pigs fiasco to numerous assassination attempts. In avoiding nuclear war, he merely defused the crisis he helped to create by his own belligerence.
In an authoritative introduction to the bookKennedy's Quest for Victory, historian Thomas G. Paterson summed up JFK's foreign policy as consisting of “escalation in Vietnam; an arms race of massive proportion and fear, including the bomb-shelter mania that the administration stimulated; a huge increase in nuclear weapons; neglect of traditional, patient diplomacy; involvement in Third World disputes beyond America's capabilities or talents to resolve; greater factionalism in the Atlantic alliance; and a globalism of overcommitment that ensured crises and weakened the America economy.”
If Mr. Kennedy was reckless abroad, he was a foot-dragger at home. On the most important domestic issue of the day, civil rights, he followed a policy of caution. Virtually all the major domestic achievements of the 1960s came under his successor, Lyndon Johnson, who was prodded by the civil-rights movement to a much bolder course of action than Mr. Kennedy ever dared.
The Johnson presidency was troubled because the epic achievements of the Great Society were undermined by the Vietnam War. Perhaps one use of the JFK myth is that it allows liberals to separate out the mixed legacy of the sixties, crediting Mr. Kennedy with the achievements of the era while laying the blame on LBJ. If anything, that gets it backward.
“The heart of the Kennedy legend,” journalist James Reston once said, “is what might have been.” Stephen King plays to this dream by offering a pure fantasy. But what might have been wasn't – and what really was is not the stuff of legends