League City Political Whining

Mel Kelly, you've been mentioned a lot.  You're rather vocal and you want to waste our tax dollars holding a recall election.  That makes you a target for my disgust.  I thought about responding to your petty comments such as what better things I must not have to do, etc... but really, that's distracting from the purpose of this blog.  But there are two things I must respond to:

1. Slander.  Please consult a dictionary or a lawyer before using this word.  In fact, you like to brag about the phone calls you made to the state AG's office as you researched your recall effort, perhaps you could ask them to clarify this word for you.  It's a dangerous word to throw about without knowing what it means.  Playing semantics, I've done absolutely nothing that could be interpreted as slander - that requires spoken words.  Now, forgiving the shortcomings of your vocabulary, I'll go ahead and assume you intended to use the word libel (the written form of defamation).  For something to be libel it must be something written which can be proven to be untrue.  Please prove any statement or claim I've made as untrue.  I've made references to other sources and asked someone to refute them.  I've provided links to definitions and supporting data for any positions I've supported.  Anything negative I've said has been purely subjective.  In other words, you can say I bad-mouthed, trash-talked, derided, and generally been not so nice to you, but you shouldn't use the word slander.
2. I haven't blocked anyone.  Initially I tried to engage you and your friends in Mr. Mallios's Facebook group.  Then some of that group decided to hide behind the Facebook "Real Name" policy to kick me out of the group (because it's easier to attempt to silence the opposition than dispute their facts and logic).  When I created an alternative Facebook group (League City Outsiders) I allowed everyone to join the group (including Janice Hallisey, Justin Gripon, Larry Millican, and Jake Lass) because, unlike Mr. Mallios, Holly Shelden, John Bowen, or the rest who complain about my use of a pseudonym, I actually WANT to hear from those who disagree with me.  Unfortunately, my ideas and questions so frightened enough of Mr. Mallios's group that they had my account locked out of Facebook.  In other words, I haven't blocked anyone.  You further complained about a lack of means to contact me - I'll point out to you, at the bottom of every single post on this blog there's a little link to post a comment.  Please do so, I'd love to hear a single response to any of the points I've raised instead of the childish responses that y'all have managed to string together so far.  But of course, you don't want to disappoint Mr. Turski and Mrs. Shelden in their desire that y'all not "give forum" to those who disagree with you, so I highly doubt you'll bother commenting.  So please, go on assuming that the fact that my blog is published under a pseudonym somehow makes y'all look like the "light side" and my position as the "dark side", but the way y'all are acting and trying to hide anything I have to say speaks volumes to all the other residents of League City.  And that is what I was after to begin with - to be a voice for anyone who doesn't happen to agree with y'all.  The social media discussion was being completely dominated by Pat Hallisey's sycophants, and I wanted to show that this group was unreasonable and completely  frightened by the truth.  Your little tirades today in reference to this blog has helped to show that.  Thanks, y'all!

League City has an Oligarchy? No mandate for council-manager?

Jake Lass & Former Mayor Tim Paullisen, some responses to your comments (since I've been locked out of Facebook)

Jake Lass,

You should look up a few words before using them.  Specifically, oligarchy, lies, and defamation.  You see, Mr. Lass, calling something a lie puts the burden on you to prove it's a lie.  Please refute ANY claims I've made with facts if you're going to call them lies.  In fact, I'm curious as to which statements I've made you feel are lies.  Since the bulk of what I've written are comments about the nature of our city government, opinions about it's effectiveness, and references to back up such positions, what would make that a "lie".  You could say it's a slanted representation of the position, if you had examples.  You could argue with an alternative opinion.  But what is a "lie"?  Please provide examples and proof that anything claims I've made (which are VERY few) are lies.

Now, let's talk about an oligarchy.  We can all vote.  If only a few have chosen to participate, that does not make our city government an oligarchy.  In fact, if anything points to an oligarchy, it's the fact that y'all are pushing forward a candidate that has a park in town with his family name on it.  Or that the green team keeps trotting out retread losers like Pat Hallisey. 

Now let's talk about your claim that the city staff is hellbent on spending money regardless of the wisdom behind that spending.  A couple points that make this statement absolutely ludicrous:

1. The bulk of expenses coming up now are the result of previous councils' decisions.
2. The new projects being proposed all seem to me to have quite a bit of wisdom being considered as part of the decision.  Example - the downtown revitalization effort, which had numerous examples cited showing the value of the investment in returns to the city.  Now, you could research and provide examples where such plans have failed (please do so) but to blanket claim they are spending money carelessly and senselessly is garbage.  The other expenses I've seen the council undertake (sometimes under advisement of the city staff, sometimes on their own initiative) have been things such as roads and water projects.  Y'all like to complain about the state of infrastructure in this city, then you complain about the spending.  You can't have improvements without paying for them.  It's that simple.  And the fact is, all of these are projects that will help the city continue to attract people to it, both residents (increasing property values, which will increase money in your pocket should you sell your house, and increase city revenues to ensure balanced budgets in the future) as well as outsiders, who will spend money here (again, increasing revenue to shift the burden of funding the city from the homeowners to the outsiders).  Furthermore, these projects will all serve to bring in more commerce and industry - again, effective investments to shift the tax burden off of the homeowners.  Please specifically identify how these projects like concern about the wisdom behind them.  Bear in mind, there is a substantial difference between simply spending money and investing money.

Now, your comments about "is this someone we should be listening to" are in general offensive, but to be expected, since they were posted on the League City Politics is a Ful Contact Sport page.  Should we say the same about some of your regulars, like the people who have been kicked off the ethics committee because of past issues with the law?

Mr. Paulissen,

After the way Pat Hallisey threw you under the bus and made you sound like a pushover at the last city council meeting, I'm surprised you're still defending his supporters.  But that's neither here nor there; so let's get to your point.  I believe you're referring to Proposition 5 from the 2010 election and only a politican would interpret that as saying we want the Mayor involved in the day-to-day administration of the city.  The actual purpose of that amendment was to make the City Charter conform with State Law regarding requirements for competitive bidding for city procurement.  Obviously the people want their city to conform with State Law.  And as the existing language of the charter (prior to the changes required to implement Proposition 1 from the 2010 election, which were proposed during the same election as this proposition) refers to the Mayor as the executive responsible for day-to-day operations,  the wording of propostion 5 would be in accordance with the strong-mayor form of government (and require further update should proposition 1 also pass).  Furthermore, your claim that the small print made Proposition 1 take precedence over the text of Proposition 5 couldn't be much further from the truth.  In fact, it's only the small print of the wording of proposition 5 (which likely wasn't read by most voters) that could possibly be interpreted as the public supporting a strong-mayor form of government.  In other words, you have NOT made a case that there anything other than a clear mandate to transition to a council-manager form of government.  Nice try, though. 

(If anyone wants to refer to the propositions from the 2010 ballot, you can find them by following links through the Ultimate Clear Lake article referenced here:  https://ballotpedia.org/League_City_Charter_Amendments,_19_%28May_2010%29)

League City Politics - Civics for Dummies

Before I get into the meat of this post, let me start by stating the following:

Byram Lass - I would think as a Christian you would try to avoid making errant assumptions.  I am NOT affiliated with Elaine Kosty, nor any candidates she endorses, in any way whatsoever.  Also, since it was discussed, I am, in fact, male.  Y'all may like to think I am associated with Kosty, and you're welcome to do so, but I question your values when you continually make such an assumption.  My only interaction with Elaine Kosty was that she DID respond to messages on Facebook before y'all locked out Mr. Rothbard (Which is more than can be said for Chris John Mallios who simply refused to reply).  The information I share is not anything I've been fed by anyone whatsoever.  Google is a powerful tool, and what I share is the result of my own research.  This is why I've left so many open questions for you clowns at League City Politics is a Full Contact Sport to answer - I've got an open mind; however, the only person who has clarified anything regarding information I've dug up on my own is Elaine Kosty.  Instead, y'all like to stick to making assumptions about my identity and allegiance.  So, y'all may continue to take George Turski's advice and try to silence my voice.  Or you can continue to assume I'm someone else you remember from the past, like Mick Phalen wants you to do.  But here's the truth - You don't know me.  I've never been involved with any League City politicians.  What I am is a concerned League City resident who found the tone of comments at City Council meetings, set by such caustic personalities as Mr. Bill Heins and Ms. Mel Kelly, to be not only a waste of time for our Council and Mayor to listen to, but such a turn-off that I've decided to become a mouthpiece for more reasonable individuals.  Here's a lesson in marketing for you - silence your loud-mouths (Byram Lass, Mel Kelly, John Bowen, Bill Heins, Mick Phalen, and Karl Wankowicz) or y'all are going to completely turn off the rest of the average joe voters in League City.  But hey, you don't have to take my advice on this, in fact, please don't: keep damaging the chances for the candidates y'all support.  In fact, I'll just throw this out there so the candidates themselves can see it - I was excited about Mr. Millican running for council.  Every time he has spoken he has a calm, reasoned, thoughtful position that he is taking.  He doesn't seem to fall victim to the knee-jerk reactionism that afflicts you regular clowns on League City Politics is a Full Contact Sport.  However, given the tone y'all have taken, and how you have responded to anyone who disagrees or so much as poses questions on Mr. Mallios's Facebook group, and the fact that y'all are endorsing the trio of Salcedo, Gripon, and Millican, I don't think I can vote for him.  Being a small-l libertarian Republican myself, I was also excited by Mr. Brown at first; however, the comments from his wife and his attempts to ingratiate himself with your group of clowns has also turned me off.  What a waste.  Two good candidates ruined by your loud mouths.  So y'all can try to silence me, but I promise you this - the rest of the public is seeing this same thing, and my opinion is not unique.

Moving on to Civics for Dummies.  Here's a lesson in the council-manager form of government for y'all.  First a couple points in bulleted format for you TL;DR types:

• The large majority of cities in Texas are council-manager, not strong-mayor form of government (>80%)
• The council-manager form of government is being adopted every year by more cities than it is being abandoned by cities.
• "Managers serve at the pleasure of their city councils and sometimes must bear the brunt of attacks that sometimes should be levied against the governing body." (1)
• Because of this, contracts and severance agreements are becoming more prevalent." (1)
• "The position of “mayor” present in this type of legislative body is a largely ceremonial title... with no executive functions" (2)
•  The City Manager functions like a CEO, NOT the Mayor
• The purpose of a City Manager is to limit the potential for political machines (like the Green Team) and to prevent the spoils system from developing (probably the reason y'all would like to go back to a strong mayor - what's in it for you?)
• The National Civic League (which advocates for transparency, effectiveness, and openness in local government) recommends the council-manager form of government

Now, I have to ask - why have the Mayor and his supporters picked a fight with our City Manager?  Here's the reasons I think this was a mistake

• League City voted to have a council-manager form of government with a 73-27% ratio, in a standard election.  Mayor Hallisey was elected in a 52-48% ratio, in a special election that saw far fewer voters turn out.  In other words, the public provided a CLEAR  mandate that we want a city manager, not a strong mayor, but there was nothing related to a "mandate" for Mayor Hallisey (no matter how loud his supporters may shout)
• The City Manager serves at the will of the Council.  Y'all don't like the Council, and you want to have the Mayor's babies.  I get it.  But you need to consider the following:
• Had Kranz won as mayor, would you want a Strong mayor (I highly doubt it)
• Should the Green Team gain control of the Council - wouldn't you want a City Manager who is so skilled at implementing the policies of the Council that the opposition hates the City Manager?  In other words, your anger is misdirected when attacking the City Manager.
• Y'all are just sore losers and an extremely vocal minority that has a slight taste of power because you have the ceremonial Mayor's position (for now)
• The potential for someone to abuse power as City Manager is VERY limited - the Council is in charge of them.  The potential for someone to abuse power as a strong mayor is great (probably why the Mayor likes to keep fantasizing that we'll revert to this archaic form of government).  

And finally, here's some other final points about the City Manager y'all should consider before you talk out your collective rear ends:

•  You complain about turnover of city staff and perceived slights you've felt the Council has dealt the staff and police officers - yet the City Staff are the ones who have the most complaints about the Mayor.  The City Staff are the ones who are happy with the City Manager.  You should keep this in mind if you're concerned about retaining quality civil servants.
• The way you want to punish the City Manager (for being good at his job and performing as expected by his employers - the City Council) will make it hard for League City to attract and retain quality employees in the future should the Green Team go after the City Manager and City Attorney for performing their jobs well in support of their employer. 
• Y'all may fancy the people to be the employer of the city staff; however, there is no way they could serve everyone, and the fact is we have a representative form of government.  The staff works for the council.  The council works for the people.  As petty as I view Mel Kelly's recall-Becker effort to be; at least she somewhat gets it - the answer, if you're not happy, is to change the council.  Again, as 311 put it... it's a case of misdirected hostility.
• Some of y'all have complained about the "golden handcuff" contract for the City Manager- but it's EXACTLY because of your vindictive attitude that the city has to put that into contracts if it wants to be able to hire any decent city manager.  In other words - it's your fault, thanks a lot.

Now, y'all don't have to respond to any of this - but be sure that there are plenty of other undecided voters out there that will see this (over 600 page views for a blog that's been up for less than a week).  Your silence in response to questions and issues I've raised will be noted, as that speaks volumes of what your candidates think of the rest of us in this city besides the "friends" who have run their campaigns.  
References:

1) Texas State Historical Association - https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/moc02
2) Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council-manager_government

What's good for the goose...

So there's a Citizens that want to Recall Dan Becker group on Facebook, and a petition going around to do just that.  Mr. Mayor, You Sir, are the embarrassment, NOT the council.  Now normally, I'm opposed to recall petitions outside of extreme circumstances (example - the Mayor of Toronto going on crack benders); however, since that cat is already out of the bag, let's get a Recall Pat Hallisey petition started.  At least that way we can get a 2-for-1 on the election should Mel Kelly ever manage to scrape together enough signatures for her petition.  We've got enough ethics and charter violations already to clearly take this smarmy Mayor out of office.

Children, children

A lot was made by the LCPIAFCS band of clowns about the council making our city into a "laughing stock".  Now, ignoring two main facts (namely, that this isn't the first time there's been disagreements at city council in League City, and this isn't unique to League City) and acting on the assumption that disagreements at council somehow makes this fine city a laughing stock, let's look at tonight's council meeting.  The Mayor and Councilman Dugie (which, by the way, shame on you, I had much higher hopes of what some youth on the Council would accomplish) sure upped the ante on the laughing stock status tonight.  The Mayor, in his bitter, and rather unilateral feud with the City Attorney (who has shockingly remained VERY calm and professional despite the Mayor's outburst) attempts at shaming the Attorney with a claim "I don't know that rule" should have been completely embarrassed when the Attorney read the rule which was cited to silence the Mayor word for word to the Mayor.  Dugie one-upped the shenanigans when he proceeded to complain about the rules and the City Attorney (even though the City Attorney was just reading the rules and didn't write them).  Finally, The Mayor capped off his performance by ignoring the rules and speaking on an issue anyways after being told that the ethics rules forbid his participation.  So LCPIAFCS clowns (particularly you, Mr. Jay Ewend and Mr. William Heins, since y'all are so fond of filing ethics complaints) will you please file one against the Mayor for KNOWINGLY speaking after having been told that violates the rules?  Or do you only use these rules in support of your "Green Team" clowns?  PS - bet you're all looking around the room to see who just posted this.

What's in a name (or a letter, even)?

1. Use of Real Names (Facebook) to silence the dissenter (and others) - why would someone choose to remain anonymous

Chris John Mallios hides behind the rules of Facebook (Rules, which, mind you, are being challenged by a seemingly bizarre alliance of businesses which don't want to tie their business page to an employee's personal account, but are essentially forced to do so, the ACLU which views the practice as discriminating against those who are persecuted for who they happen to be, and international groups that are attempting to provide a voice for the oppressed citizens of regimes which limit free speech - all things that Chris John Mallios, as the raging liberal he claims to be, should understand) when he silences opposition. He goes on to state "...if you do not want to use your real name stay off this page. While i do not actively seek those with false names when they do lift their head i will cut it off."  His friends on the League City Politics is a Full Contact Sport page then chime in with the atta-boys, praising Chris for "...keeping it real", or "It is his page..." - all of which are fine; except, his definition of the purpose of the group:  "This is a group where the politics of League City, Texas can be discussed WITHOUT profane language and cheap shots. Everyone has an opinion so respect it. Remember 3 Things 1. League City politics is a full contact sport 2. it’s nothing personal it’s only League City Politics 3. Politics is not life and death."  If it's not life and death, if it's nothing personal, and if you respect everyone's position - why do you need "real names".  Sure, technically, that's Facebook's requirement, and you can hide cowardly behind their policy if you like.  But why do y'all report pseudonymous accounts?  And why don't y'all report those who agree with you that aren't using their real names (Lowell's Travels, ps, sorry, got his account locked out, now how will he share photos with his friends and family of all his wonderful travels?)  Is it because you only want people to express opinions that agree with yours, and you'll punish those who dissent in every possible manner you can come up with?  If a business owners disagrees with your group of clowns, will you boycott their business and spread rumors about them?  If a city employee expressed a view y'all didn't like, would you fire that employee should your crowd seize control of the city council?   I don't doubt it for one minute.  If your neighbor expressed a view you didn't like, and was running for a position on the board of the HOA, would you work to see them defeated because of their views on the unrelated local politics?  If an employee at a company where you happen to know their superior or the business owner expressed a view you didn't like, would you have them fired for trumped up reasons?  Again, I don't doubt it.  There are so many legitimate reasons to remain anonymous when dealing with the likes of y'all, even if simply for to prevent your group from making the argumentum ad hominem fallacy, by attacking the person challenging your beliefs and positions instead of replying to the point which is made.  Y'all still haven't explained how you defend Pat Hallisey after I posted links to evidence of his crass behavior, deceits, and funding provided from developers.  Instead, you took a victory lap to celebrate getting a pseudonymous profile removed from Facebook, providing evidence that my decision to remain unknown was sound, as argumentum ad hominem is still your favorite fallacy to embrace. 

2. Sycophants, False Idols, and Red Herrings (LCPIAFCS, Pat Hallisey, and Elaine Kosty)

Sycophants, yes, this is what I'll label you.  Holly Shelden, with your "I believe the mayor 100%", and Karl Wankowicz with your tin-foil-hat conspiracies about everything ranging from Facebook comment re-ordering to assumptions that anyone who disagrees with you is a "puppet" for Elaine Kosty, to assumptions that parked vehicles with endorsement signs on the side are strategically placed to limit attendance of events at near-by facilities... this is what you are.  You blindly follow the Mayor.  And since y'all do, you embrace every member of the Green Team.  You then challenge anyone who disagrees with you to discuss the accomplishments of those they support, or to provide evidence of their level of love for League City by providing a resume of volunteerism.  All of this is because you are so blindly supportive of the team that has at it's core a smarmy career politician who has, at various times, claimed to support or oppose every single position, just to get elected. Which leads me to my next sub-topic, False Idols.

Byram Lass, you should pay attention to this one, I'd appreciate your thoughts (given that so much of the New Testament is devoted to warnings against false teachers and wolves in sheep's clothing, I'd think you would be FAR more cautious in embracing the Green Team seemingly so blindly).  Let's talk about False Idols - and yes, I'm talking about Hallisey/Gripon (although mostly Pat Hallisey, Gripon seems just to be his devoted lackey at this point).  Pat Hallisey's shady granting of favors to political donors while director of the Galveston County Parks Board (summarized here: http://www.leaguecityxfiles.) shows him to be less than honest.  Yet y'all never once responded to this bit of his history.  Please tell me how you can trust him not to be involved in quid pro quo as mayor of our city, given his history?  While we're on digging up the past, Karl Wankowicz, John Bowen, and Mick Phalen (aka, the Political Sign Policy Regulators), let's talk about Pat's history with signs - Pat Hallisey was fined by the Texas Ethics Commission for claiming to be a Mayor on political signs (http://www.leaguecityxfiles... and as you said, John Bowen, "If you can't follow the simple rules. What are you going to do with the tough ones."   Now personally, I think all this sign shenanigans is just useless noise.  It's a big old dose of couldn't care less; however, since y'all do, explain how you still support Pat Hallisey.  Perhaps you've simply forgotten how he operates?  

So now, let's talk about Red Herrings.  The LCPIAFCS forum likes to point to Elaine Kosty (aka, the Black Widow) as some evil manipulator of local government.  Outside of endorsing candidates, I've seen no involvement from her.  Feel free to provide me with evidence of positions she's supported that are bad for the city, actual wrong-doing from her, or something other than what amounts to childish whinings of those who've lost out because candidates she's supported were better funded and better prepared.  Until then, she's just a Red Herring for your own political shortcomings.

3. D, R, L, I you ain't got no alibi 

Non-partisan local elections are a myth, plain and simple.  You don't leave your party identity at home when you go vote, and the fact of the matter is - your views and thought processes on such concepts as state vs the individual, freedom vs control and a multitude of other issues are telling on how you'll handle many things that will come up even at a local level.  This site has a decent summary: https://jimaikin.com/election-.  So yes, Mr.Lass, you are correct, there are MANY who care more about whether a candidate is a republican or a democrat than "what they will bring to this city".  Furthermore, I've seen NO candidates, not those on the Green Team, nor those opposed to them, state what they're going to bring in concrete terms.  I've seen no "I'm going to work to get X built, to get Y solution for Z problem."  I've seen a lot of platitudes about being good listeners, representing everyone, hope, change, unity, family, apple pie and bald eagles.  However, that being said, I have a lot more respect for a Democrat like Chris John Mallios who proudly acknowledges what he is, than I do for a Democrat like Greg Gripon, who upon realizing the tide of public opinion in League City has swung solidly red, now claims he's a conservative Republican to pander to the public.  So, Mr. Gripon - My question remains - how are you different than your Proud Democrat dad (you know, the one you praised so many times with your 3-minute ramblings in front of the City Council meetings in the last couple months) (reference Lynn Gripon's views here: https://www.facebook.com/ do YOU hate the NRA, like your dad does?  Are you going to work to limit our ability to carry concealed or open in this city?  Are you going to create more gun-free zones?  Your dad was a "middle of the road" democrat who believed, "collectively we should help the less fortunate and that the working class deserves a larger piece of the pie."  Does this mean you're going to raise taxes in part of plan of redistributing wealth?  What other "collectivist" policies can we expect from you?  Keep in mind, the Democrat plans for helping your neighbor is not charity or volunteerism, but forced redistribution of wealth.  How are you going to provide a "larger piece of the pie" to the working class?  Are you going to tax it out of the rest of us?  And Brian Brown, as a self-professed Libertarian with the big L, that should concern you too!!  I haven't seen any evidence of flip-flopping or poll-following from the non-Green Team candidates yet, so that puts them ahead of the Green Team in my book.  

Let's start with this for shedding some light - everyone on the Facebook group League City Politics is a Full Contact Sport, here's some lies or gross overstatemetns from Chris John Mallios that need exposed:

1) Chris John Mallios is an amiable old guy who is trying to serve the city by creating a forum for political discussion that's supposed to be free of cheap shots and foul language.  LCPIAFCS is anything BUT a forum for discussion and debate.  It's a forum for Pat Hallisey and his Green Team to spread their propaganda.  Those who speak out against them are kicked out of the group for silly rules that Mr. Mallios likes to claim he fairly enforces.  But the enforcement is anything BUT fair.  First he says he has a rule that you must use your real name - that's why he kicked good ol' Jefferson Rothbard out, after all.... then he allows a user who goes by the name "Lowell's Travels" to remain in the group even after it is pointed out the user isn't using their real name.  Of course, Mr Travels spoke out in ardent agreement with Mr. Mallios instead of challenging his hypocrisy, so there he remains in the group.  (Hey, reasonable people, I suggest you flag this account with Facebook as violating their real name rule so it can be locked out just like Jefferson Rothbard was locked out).  Furthermore, he claims the group is ONLY for League City residents, and likes to parade around as if he's some web-sleuthing genius becuase he knows how to head to galvestoncad.org to look up your address.  You're SO clever Mr. Mallios.  But then, he allows people who agree with him yet show an address on Galveston island to remain, again, even when challenged.  Mr. Mallios: you, sir, are a liar or an idiot (no wonder you like Pat Hallisey and Greg Gripon so much!)

2) Chris John Mallios can NOT locate your IP.  (Holly Shelden - pay attention!).  Mr. Mallios can't trace any IP from Facebook.  If he sends you a message with a link to his blog, then there is a SLIGHT chance he could trace your IP... but from Facebook: HE CAN NOT.   Furthermore, the ONLY people who would know an IP from Facebook would be Facebook itself, and they usually don't even comply with government requests for user details, much less provide it to the wonderful less than truthful incompetent, Mr. Mallios.

3) Chris John Mallios likes to spread misinformation by insinuation.  He specifically alluded to law-suits regarding Elaine Kosty that seemed petty and trivial, and painted her as a litigious individual who is cruel and vindictive.  Of course, he then refused to discuss it further, and after talking to Elaine Kosty I've realized she was the victim of an out of control HOA (that's something most of us in League City have experienced in one way or another).  But hey, if you can insinuate something bad about someone, that works on simple-minded people, the likes of which Mr. Mallios is clearly used to dealing with (here's looking at you, Byram Lass and John Bowen).

I'm sure there's more, and I'll share them as they come to me.  So, League City Dingbats, you won round one - you got Jefferson Rothbard blocked from Facebook for using a pseudonym.  But you didn't kill him.  In fact, he's back, and even more emboldened to shine a light on the misinformation you and your ilk are tryign to spread.  So, Mel Kelly, you want to take League City Back?  You'd better start enrolling the dead to vote, it's the only chance you have-beens have.

#WhoShotJR

You children over at the League City Politics is a Full Contact Sport group on Facebook should be proud of yourselves.  You managed to get Jefferson Rothbard locked out of Facebook.  Congratulations for confirming my suspicions.  Y'all are concerned neither with the truth, nor with actually discussing politics in League City.  You're simply a mouthpiece for your favorite politicians in League City (right now, those being Mayor Pat Hallisey and Council candidate Greg Gripon).  So this blog will serve to shine light on the darkness of your comments.  I will bring out the truth.  I will embarass your pathetic talking points with facts and logic.  And most importantly, I will work to spread the message that y'all have tried to shout down.  For now, that message is simple - Pat Hallisey is a smarmy career politician that y'all are trying to pass off as a career city servant.  Greg Gripon is a liberal Democrat that y'all are trying to pass off as someone who will help "unify League City".  Well I don't want your Obama style hope, change, and unity coming to this city that I love, and I will help to show that your misfit band of former Republicans, RINOs, NeoCons and self-professed Libertarians (who function as anything other than lovers of liberty) are at best, misguided, and most likely completely dishonest.