If there is one thing that I loath in this world besides al-Qaeda, cancer, liver, and lima beans, its rich, snobbish, white guiltish liberals, like Dick Alexander, from The Woodlands, who complain that the real meaning of "tax relief is to cut taxes for the wealthy and to pass debt on to future generations."
Folks, if you haven't heard the news, the Federal revenue in April hit an all-time high, which has helped improve the budget deficit this year. Governments all over are flush with money, yet Stalinist liberals like Dick Alexander wants us all to submit to him in the spirit of '1984,' because good 'ol Dick will then be in the "Big Brother" crowd.
Alexander, who chairs a successful company (thank goodness its private or I would have called my Edward Jones rep. and dump any interest I had) has donated $1,500 to Hillary Clinton, another stinking rich white guiltish liberal, who wants to be "Big Sister."
Alexander blames President Reagan, and both Presidents Bush for our national debt, while convienently leaving out President Clinton, but of course good 'ol Dick does not examine any of the details and just throws out statics in his recent Republicans BAD, Democrats GOOD letter to The Bulletin Publisher and Editor Mike Ladyman.
I don't know what good 'ol Dick believes to be "bad policy," but what President Reagan and the Presidents Bush have done is to face real world threats, not run away from them like President Clinton did. Facing world threats takes money, and the truth. It's incredible, that in the time since 9/11 our economy has doubled, and still in the liberal media we only get news stories about the stock market correcting.
I bet you good 'ol Dick has never once thought about the Soviet Union in writing any of his tripe, nor has he thought about any of Clinton's trickery while ignoring his contributions to the national debt.
Of course good 'ol Dick will never mention, if memory serves me correct, that when President Clinton restructured the national debt during his Presidency, he choose to use short-term loans with slightly lower interest rates than the 30-years interest rates that were offered at the time. All this so Clinton's poll numbers would look good and he could be heralded in the liberal media. A lot of good that did oral-sex legacied president.
That's Democrats folks. They show you a trick with their right hand and lift your wallet with their left.
We all know that the Clintons take credit for the great economy in the nineties, but it was not until 1995, when Republicans gained leadership in The House that the economy started to take off until late in Clinton's Presidency when his policies started to slow it down, and it can be argued that President Reagan set the stage for the roaring economy of the '90s with the reduction in tax rates, and that it's the Bush 43 tax cuts that are responsible for record revenues we are having today.
I am tired of liberals like Dick Alexander, trying to scare us to death over the national debt. During the Clinton years, they said the budget could be balanced in two years, then five, then ten, and so on. It wasn't a priority to the Clinton's then, and neither should it be now.
The national debt has been an issue since before I was born, and none of the predictions that we are going to be wiped out by the deficit have never materialized, yet our ecomony keeps chugging along.
The Democrats are the party of "tax and spend." Democrats, and good 'ol Dick Alexander want you to panic. They want you to run to them like scared puppies running to their Mother's teet as it thunders outside.
I say don't panic. Don't let liberals like Dick Alexander put you into panic.
"The wealthy" such as Dick Alexander, "and the corporations" such as Global Shop Solutions, "have been the primary recipients of Republican tax cuts," and the both of them are thriving.
Five will get you ten that good 'ol Dick structures his compensation much like Warren Buffett and other CEO's who would be stupid to pay themselves huge taxable salaries, when other means of compensation can be found. And of course, if the tightwad Dick Alexander would have shelled out another hundred thousand or two, he could have had a home on Lake Woodlands rather than living across the street from it. I guess he couldn't get a government handout.
Look Dick Alexander, if you feel so guilty about being successful and rich, do as The Bible says, and sell all your possessions, and give the money to the poor. But instead, you want a Big Brother type government to take everybody elses money and possessions, and give them to the poor.
Mr. Alexander, If you are so adamant that "'tax relief' means cutting taxes for the wealthy and creating a large national debt to be paid for by future generations," why don't you set a liberal example for once -- GIVE YOUR TAXCUT BACK.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
TW KOOK Jim Farrell 'Bush/Cheney must be impeached' (If he didn't lie, he'd have nothing to say)
Once one KOOK leaves The Bulletin's grace (i.e. - the Conroe KOOK Bill Barnes), another one takes his place. This time, it is The Woodlands KOOK James T. Farrell, out of Oak Ridge North. I wouldn't be surprised if this guy already has a Barack Obama for President yardsign in his front of his house for the white guilt he oozes.
The kook James Farrell, who has written several letters before, would believe a poll stating that more than 70% of Democrats believe that the sky is green. And in liberals ever belief, however made up polls are, Farrell touts one of Bruce Feins latest pieces breeding dream "impeachment scenarios" involving President Bush and Vice President Cheney.
And as with most liberal arguments, The Woodlands kook Jim Farrell, in order to get his point across in his tripe -- HAS TO LIE!!! Look, Fein may have worked for Republicans in the past, but he is not a Conservative Republican who has abandoned Bush/Cheney and started writing against him with all haste.
When Fein writes for the "liberal hawk" Slate.com, the kook Farrell still labels Fein as Conservative. Bullcrap. That proves that the kook is nothing but a cheat, liar, and fraud. And the worst thing is that he has to lie to himself. How do you think that his letter found itself in The Bulletin's mailbox?
If you look at the pledges of Bruce Fein's organization American Freedom Agenda, they appear to be talking points from the ACLU and Democratic National Committee, and are very much supported by al-Qaeda in every which way.
The kook Farrell's idea that by including a so-called "Conservative Republican" in his letter who is against President Bush, he didn't think that someone would actually take a few moments to verify his assertions -- its ridicuous. But what do you expect from The Bulletin's readers.
I would venture to guess that Jim Farrell has never supported the United States. I honestly believe that he couldn't define American Exceptionalism, nor does he believe in the greatness of America.
The kook does believe that the US's kidnapping and jailing of bad guys is bad, and that the governments listening in of the most select of phone conversations involving suspected terrorists is much worse. Hopefully in the future we will be able to do what FDR did to suspected terrorists during WWII -- open their mail.
The kook Farrell never explores why the US does what its does. He never examines that we have not got hit again since 9/11. No, with the kook, the US is always the bad guy, no matter how barbaric al-Qaeda can be.
Of course The Woodlands kook completely ignores al-Qaeda's chopping off of American prisioners heads, or the fact that al-Qaeda's bakes pre-teen boys like a pig, and serves them to his family in order to recruit them to their brand of the Religion of Peace. Even The Woodlands kook Jim Farrell has his standards.
Look, I don't want to know what our good guys are doing to al-Qaeda to keep us safe. To leak that stuff only hurts us, and you know if Clinton or Obama are ever elected President reporting like that will suddenly stop. All of a sudden, the economy will look bright, worthless Democrat oversight of the Clinton or Obama Administration will stop, and we will suddenly get good news out of Iraq.
To The Woodlands kook James T. "Jim" Farrell, if the US is so bad as you say, why don't you do like a lot of other Americans liberals who adore socialism -- MOVE TO CANADA!!!!
The kook James Farrell, who has written several letters before, would believe a poll stating that more than 70% of Democrats believe that the sky is green. And in liberals ever belief, however made up polls are, Farrell touts one of Bruce Feins latest pieces breeding dream "impeachment scenarios" involving President Bush and Vice President Cheney.
And as with most liberal arguments, The Woodlands kook Jim Farrell, in order to get his point across in his tripe -- HAS TO LIE!!! Look, Fein may have worked for Republicans in the past, but he is not a Conservative Republican who has abandoned Bush/Cheney and started writing against him with all haste.
When Fein writes for the "liberal hawk" Slate.com, the kook Farrell still labels Fein as Conservative. Bullcrap. That proves that the kook is nothing but a cheat, liar, and fraud. And the worst thing is that he has to lie to himself. How do you think that his letter found itself in The Bulletin's mailbox?
If you look at the pledges of Bruce Fein's organization American Freedom Agenda, they appear to be talking points from the ACLU and Democratic National Committee, and are very much supported by al-Qaeda in every which way.
The kook Farrell's idea that by including a so-called "Conservative Republican" in his letter who is against President Bush, he didn't think that someone would actually take a few moments to verify his assertions -- its ridicuous. But what do you expect from The Bulletin's readers.
I would venture to guess that Jim Farrell has never supported the United States. I honestly believe that he couldn't define American Exceptionalism, nor does he believe in the greatness of America.
The kook does believe that the US's kidnapping and jailing of bad guys is bad, and that the governments listening in of the most select of phone conversations involving suspected terrorists is much worse. Hopefully in the future we will be able to do what FDR did to suspected terrorists during WWII -- open their mail.
The kook Farrell never explores why the US does what its does. He never examines that we have not got hit again since 9/11. No, with the kook, the US is always the bad guy, no matter how barbaric al-Qaeda can be.
Of course The Woodlands kook completely ignores al-Qaeda's chopping off of American prisioners heads, or the fact that al-Qaeda's bakes pre-teen boys like a pig, and serves them to his family in order to recruit them to their brand of the Religion of Peace. Even The Woodlands kook Jim Farrell has his standards.
Look, I don't want to know what our good guys are doing to al-Qaeda to keep us safe. To leak that stuff only hurts us, and you know if Clinton or Obama are ever elected President reporting like that will suddenly stop. All of a sudden, the economy will look bright, worthless Democrat oversight of the Clinton or Obama Administration will stop, and we will suddenly get good news out of Iraq.
To The Woodlands kook James T. "Jim" Farrell, if the US is so bad as you say, why don't you do like a lot of other Americans liberals who adore socialism -- MOVE TO CANADA!!!!
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
The Bulletin's Liberalism Wanes (Yet their silence on al-Qaeda atrocities is deafening)
As of late The Bulletin Publisher and Editor Mike Ladyman has evidently become aware of this blog and has pulled back from his outright liberal message.
Even The Conroe "Kook" Bill Barnes has limited himself to one-liners agreeing with other Kooks who write-in to The Bulletin, but in time both of them will be back.
To bad these guys continue to berate the United States, all the while al-Qaeda is literally "baking" 11-years old boys in efforts to gain converts to their brand of the "Religion of Peace."
And by "baking," yes I do mean in an oven, (as in 'shake and bake") with an apple in the boys mouth, and served to his own family under penalty of death.
The silence in the liberal media is deafening over America's enemies doing the most cruel and barbaric of things, but if a US soldier so much as gives an al-Qaeda member a wedgie, all hell breaks lose in the liberal media.
Thankfully the "Big-Three" nightly newscast are slowly dying. Katie Couric is certainly a big flop in her endeavor at CBS News -- Thank God. And in time, America will hopefully get an hour of Wheel-of-Fortune a night instead of the tripe that passes thru Katie's lips on a nightly basis.
To my friends in the liberal media and their fellow Kook supporters, "what is wrong with being pro-American?" (would create to much independence among the people, and the Democrats need victims to vote for them, seeing as they aborted their base of 40 million fetuses, and now need illegial immigrant votes to survive).
Can you find me one example of liberals supporting the troops without throwing-up afterwards? (no).
Why do you liberals continue to put the Democrat Party ahead of God, Family, and the security of our Country? (simply put -- power. Democrats envy dictatorial power such as with Chavez in Venezuela, yet you hear nothing from liberals about the collapsing of democracy and free speech in Venezuela).
In this age of the new threat of nuclear terrorism the liberal attitude that "it can't happen hear" is totally ridiculous as we just saw in the UK and Scotland, and with us on September 11th. I would hope that some expressions coming out of The Bulletin would express support of the United States, its military, our mission in Iraq, which al-Qaeda itself has said Iraq "is the place to be and fight the infedels" since a democratic Iraq, to al-Qaeda, cannot survive.
Even The Conroe "Kook" Bill Barnes has limited himself to one-liners agreeing with other Kooks who write-in to The Bulletin, but in time both of them will be back.
To bad these guys continue to berate the United States, all the while al-Qaeda is literally "baking" 11-years old boys in efforts to gain converts to their brand of the "Religion of Peace."
And by "baking," yes I do mean in an oven, (as in 'shake and bake") with an apple in the boys mouth, and served to his own family under penalty of death.
The silence in the liberal media is deafening over America's enemies doing the most cruel and barbaric of things, but if a US soldier so much as gives an al-Qaeda member a wedgie, all hell breaks lose in the liberal media.
Thankfully the "Big-Three" nightly newscast are slowly dying. Katie Couric is certainly a big flop in her endeavor at CBS News -- Thank God. And in time, America will hopefully get an hour of Wheel-of-Fortune a night instead of the tripe that passes thru Katie's lips on a nightly basis.
To my friends in the liberal media and their fellow Kook supporters, "what is wrong with being pro-American?" (would create to much independence among the people, and the Democrats need victims to vote for them, seeing as they aborted their base of 40 million fetuses, and now need illegial immigrant votes to survive).
Can you find me one example of liberals supporting the troops without throwing-up afterwards? (no).
Why do you liberals continue to put the Democrat Party ahead of God, Family, and the security of our Country? (simply put -- power. Democrats envy dictatorial power such as with Chavez in Venezuela, yet you hear nothing from liberals about the collapsing of democracy and free speech in Venezuela).
In this age of the new threat of nuclear terrorism the liberal attitude that "it can't happen hear" is totally ridiculous as we just saw in the UK and Scotland, and with us on September 11th. I would hope that some expressions coming out of The Bulletin would express support of the United States, its military, our mission in Iraq, which al-Qaeda itself has said Iraq "is the place to be and fight the infedels" since a democratic Iraq, to al-Qaeda, cannot survive.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Conroe KOOK Bill Barnes 'Has more faith in the insurgency in Iraq than his own Country'
The Bulletin Publisher and Editor Mike Ladyman has evidently stopped posting Bullpen pieces passing them off as his own, but that has not stopped the kooks who regularly spew their tripish letters on paper much more valuable than the words printed on them, and Conroe kook Bill Barnes is no exception.
Obviously Barnes must have been dropped on his head as a baby, or somehow has been indoctrinated into total hate for his country, because the man has some issues upstairs that need to be resolved. As my nephew says, it's always "opposite day" with Bill Barnes given his hatred for America.
Bill Barnes is easily coercised as we have seen with Algore's “hoax” of man-made global warming, and “the farce” of Y2K. Bill will tell you to buy a Prius, but he'll be seen around town in a busted up old polluting truck. He'll tell you to seperate and recyle your trash, but he'll be the guy burning his trash in the back of his house.
Barnes is a man of hate. Of course he's a Democrat, because when Democrats break the law, he convienently looks the other way, and finds no fault in those Democrats, but he will pound on the Republican who makes the slightest of all missteps. Barnes is a fraud, and he will not be happy until everyone is miserable like him.
The Kook does not want the US in Iraq. He doesn't realize that even if a Democrat is elected President, the US will still remain in Iraq. We must leave a stable Iraq, or face a true bloodbath in the future. The vacuum created by a US withdrawal will truly bring carnage such be as Cambodia following the US withdrawal in Vietnam.
Conroe kook Bill Barnes reports that the "on May 8th, without mention in the U.S. media, the Iraqi parliament signed a petition calling for US withdrawal." Of course the kook websites ran with this. But for fear of being embarrassed because of the false petition the so-called mainstream media failed to carry the breaking news. Hmm.
Would you think a petition sponsored by Muqtada al-Sadr would carry some weight in a US media hellbent on a US loss in Iraq. After all, CNN probably displays their propaganda of US soldiers being gunned down and IEDs killing American troops. Of course the petition participants probably signed their names at the point of an al-Sadr gun calling for the US troops to be withdrawn, and The Kook loves the Al Sadr movement.
Mr. Bill "Kook" Barnes probably thinks that any enemy insurgent against the Bush administration is his friend. Even if that friend would have no qualms about killing Bill Barnes and his entire infidel family. But hell, in The Kooks case -- its all about hating President Bush.
The Kook will never mention of al-Qaeda hinting of peace talks with the US. That would hail Bush as "the peacemaker," and anything less than making President Bush look like a failure in Iraq will not stand. No, for The Kook Bill Barnes, its US withdrawal and failure from Iraq or nothing. He smiles when he hears of another dead American soldier, and especially one from our area.
Yet on the same death note, The Kook Barnes will never bat an eyelash at the latest drive-by shooting that killed a young kid, or how many deaths are caused by doctors bad handwriting, or how many deaths there are in car accidents. All of which run into the high tens of thousands annually, yet The Kook gets pissed when the President claims "that setting a timetable [for a US withdrawal] will 'embolden the terrorists, those who hate and fear democracy'".
It will take many years before we are out of Iraq. Hell, we still have troops in Germany, and Japan, and that was WWII.
Look, we are the United States of America. No matter how much we are loved or hated around the World. We are the still basicly The Worlds "police," but it has to have a strategic interest to the US. We just can't go into Darfur because it makes us feel good, because Kooks like Conroe's Bill Barnes will soon be complaining about that as well, especially if it makes President Bush look good.
Obviously Barnes must have been dropped on his head as a baby, or somehow has been indoctrinated into total hate for his country, because the man has some issues upstairs that need to be resolved. As my nephew says, it's always "opposite day" with Bill Barnes given his hatred for America.
Bill Barnes is easily coercised as we have seen with Algore's “hoax” of man-made global warming, and “the farce” of Y2K. Bill will tell you to buy a Prius, but he'll be seen around town in a busted up old polluting truck. He'll tell you to seperate and recyle your trash, but he'll be the guy burning his trash in the back of his house.
Barnes is a man of hate. Of course he's a Democrat, because when Democrats break the law, he convienently looks the other way, and finds no fault in those Democrats, but he will pound on the Republican who makes the slightest of all missteps. Barnes is a fraud, and he will not be happy until everyone is miserable like him.
The Kook does not want the US in Iraq. He doesn't realize that even if a Democrat is elected President, the US will still remain in Iraq. We must leave a stable Iraq, or face a true bloodbath in the future. The vacuum created by a US withdrawal will truly bring carnage such be as Cambodia following the US withdrawal in Vietnam.
Conroe kook Bill Barnes reports that the "on May 8th, without mention in the U.S. media, the Iraqi parliament signed a petition calling for US withdrawal." Of course the kook websites ran with this. But for fear of being embarrassed because of the false petition the so-called mainstream media failed to carry the breaking news. Hmm.
Would you think a petition sponsored by Muqtada al-Sadr would carry some weight in a US media hellbent on a US loss in Iraq. After all, CNN probably displays their propaganda of US soldiers being gunned down and IEDs killing American troops. Of course the petition participants probably signed their names at the point of an al-Sadr gun calling for the US troops to be withdrawn, and The Kook loves the Al Sadr movement.
Mr. Bill "Kook" Barnes probably thinks that any enemy insurgent against the Bush administration is his friend. Even if that friend would have no qualms about killing Bill Barnes and his entire infidel family. But hell, in The Kooks case -- its all about hating President Bush.
The Kook will never mention of al-Qaeda hinting of peace talks with the US. That would hail Bush as "the peacemaker," and anything less than making President Bush look like a failure in Iraq will not stand. No, for The Kook Bill Barnes, its US withdrawal and failure from Iraq or nothing. He smiles when he hears of another dead American soldier, and especially one from our area.
Yet on the same death note, The Kook Barnes will never bat an eyelash at the latest drive-by shooting that killed a young kid, or how many deaths are caused by doctors bad handwriting, or how many deaths there are in car accidents. All of which run into the high tens of thousands annually, yet The Kook gets pissed when the President claims "that setting a timetable [for a US withdrawal] will 'embolden the terrorists, those who hate and fear democracy'".
It will take many years before we are out of Iraq. Hell, we still have troops in Germany, and Japan, and that was WWII.
Look, we are the United States of America. No matter how much we are loved or hated around the World. We are the still basicly The Worlds "police," but it has to have a strategic interest to the US. We just can't go into Darfur because it makes us feel good, because Kooks like Conroe's Bill Barnes will soon be complaining about that as well, especially if it makes President Bush look good.
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Conroe KOOK Bill Barnes 'Believes Every Word His Environmentalist Wacko Bishop Al Gore Says'
The Bulletin Publisher and Editor Mike Ladyman may have taken a week off in printing anti-American propaganda in honor of Memorial Day, but the kooks who regularly write letters to him have not made the same deal.
Conroe kook Bill Barnes, who is an ever believer in the church of global warming, takes on all-comers whenever the bishop of his environmentalists wacko church, Al Gore, is attacked in any way. The receipient of Barnes rath is Steve Casey from Stonewall, Louisiana, who "wrote in the April 6 Bulletin, noting a similarity between “the hoax” of global warming and “the farce” of Y2K."
The kook Barnes writes, "Mr. Casey's analogy between possible over-reacting to the perceived threat of inconvenient costly computer chaos and the very real and scientifically proven threat of life-threatening, catastrophic global warming is weak and Ill-conceived." Undoubtedly Barnes, has changed his tune from his old communist loving days, which most wacko environmentalists have switched over from in an everlasting effort to control our lives from the cars we drive to how many breaths the Democrats will "authorize" us to take in the future.
Barnes complains of Mr. Casey not having any "documentation" to support his cause, but their is plenty out there for those who really want to find out the truth. If there is anyone who does not provide any "documentation" it is Al Gore himself. In his worthless book "Earth in the Balance," commonly referred by Conservatives as "Earth in the Learch," Gore does not include one scientific reference to back up his assertions.
In his worthless book, Gore called for the Earth mission of an "environmentalism of the spirit." Casey is right in bringing up the money angle to "the global warming bandwagon." The liberal consensus of "scientists who want their projects financed must go with the cash-flow.” They know the facts when it comes to man-made global warming, compared to natures emissions, man's contribution is miniscule, something like 4% of all emissions the World, including what nature puts out.
So how does the Conroe kook Bill Barnes rebut Casey, with worthless tripe of course and not with science. Who cares how much was donated to whom, where is your science Mr. Bill "Kook" Barnes. I guarantee you that President Bush's ranch in Crawford is much more environmentally friendly than Al Gore's mansion in Tennessee, which virtually requires its own power station since Gore uses twenty times the average household in a single month.
It seems to me that Al Gore is nothing more than a "do as I say, not as I do liberal." It also seems to me that Mr. Bill Barnes of Conroe, herein known as "The Kook," can quote just about every argument outside of the science realm to justify his rage at man's so-called "raping" of the planet.
How the hell wacko environmentalists such as Al Gore, and The Kook Bill Barnes have been able to promote their cause this winter and spring has to boggle one's mind. This year's winter has been one of the coldest on record, in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. In Conroe, we have had nightime lows in the 50s in this month of May, which to many of us is unheardof. In Anchorage this winter, fire hydrants were bursting from the cold. Two global warming researchers were forced to call off their mission to the North, when they got "frost-bite" of all things, the Canadian seal hunt had to be delayed or cancelled because the fleet was trapped in ice. In fact, multiple global warming conferences scheduled this past winter were cancelled because of "the cold."
In the Southern Hemisphere, a South Africa newspaper reported last week "winter has started to take hold of the country as very cold conditions are expected over the central interior of South Africa this week," and this has begun to affect crops and give South Africans their own big chill.
If any of you see "The Kook" Barnes this week or next, ask him how the Sun plays out in the Global Warming debate. It does cycle, which causes the Earth to warm or cool over hundreds or thousands of years. Ask "The Kook" how does rain factor into global warming? Or better yet, ask "The Kook" "how did man get an SUV on Mars?" because their polar ice caps are melting too.
The Kook will not be able to fight you with facts on science. He'll tell you how "Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds, Chevron, Exxon, Shell Oil, Tenneco Gas, American Petroleum Institute, Amoco and Atlantic Richfield," all "contributed heavily to Bush/Cheney'04."
The Kook will complain that you that you are contributing to global warming, that "NASCAR fans, churchgoers, labor-union members, small businessmen, engineers, hunters, sportsmen," all are contributing to global warming. And not to mention, ask The Kook if he uses one-square of toilet paper, and suffers from a case of the "sticky-butt."
Ask The Kook if “An Inconvenient Truth” were made by George W. Bush rather than Al Gore, how much of "a testimony to our duty as stewards of the earth God," would it be. See environmentalism is a religion -- Earth is their God, or was it Bill Clinton, Al Gore, or Barack Obama, I can't remember.
The Kook Bill Barnes really sums up how desperate or stupid he is in writing this statement, "watch Al Gore's gift to mankind and decide for yourself before it's too late," for Earth's sake (not Christ's of course).
I'm sure The Kook would have wrote if he thought he would get away with it, "please watch Al Gore's gift to mankind and decide for yourself before it's too late, the Earth only has 90 days to live."
The Kooks final plea to Conroe's stupid, please "rise above politics and religion," please support my environmental bishop Al Gore, and "don't be deluded by charlatans like Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh." It is pathetic isn't it.
I suppose The Kook Bill Barnes would at least listen to liberal talk radio if they could keep it on the air for liberal talk radio, Air America included, has been a dismal failure. The Kook ought to listen to Beck and Limbaugh, and maybe, just maybe, he might just smarten up.
Conroe kook Bill Barnes, who is an ever believer in the church of global warming, takes on all-comers whenever the bishop of his environmentalists wacko church, Al Gore, is attacked in any way. The receipient of Barnes rath is Steve Casey from Stonewall, Louisiana, who "wrote in the April 6 Bulletin, noting a similarity between “the hoax” of global warming and “the farce” of Y2K."
The kook Barnes writes, "Mr. Casey's analogy between possible over-reacting to the perceived threat of inconvenient costly computer chaos and the very real and scientifically proven threat of life-threatening, catastrophic global warming is weak and Ill-conceived." Undoubtedly Barnes, has changed his tune from his old communist loving days, which most wacko environmentalists have switched over from in an everlasting effort to control our lives from the cars we drive to how many breaths the Democrats will "authorize" us to take in the future.
Barnes complains of Mr. Casey not having any "documentation" to support his cause, but their is plenty out there for those who really want to find out the truth. If there is anyone who does not provide any "documentation" it is Al Gore himself. In his worthless book "Earth in the Balance," commonly referred by Conservatives as "Earth in the Learch," Gore does not include one scientific reference to back up his assertions.
In his worthless book, Gore called for the Earth mission of an "environmentalism of the spirit." Casey is right in bringing up the money angle to "the global warming bandwagon." The liberal consensus of "scientists who want their projects financed must go with the cash-flow.” They know the facts when it comes to man-made global warming, compared to natures emissions, man's contribution is miniscule, something like 4% of all emissions the World, including what nature puts out.
So how does the Conroe kook Bill Barnes rebut Casey, with worthless tripe of course and not with science. Who cares how much was donated to whom, where is your science Mr. Bill "Kook" Barnes. I guarantee you that President Bush's ranch in Crawford is much more environmentally friendly than Al Gore's mansion in Tennessee, which virtually requires its own power station since Gore uses twenty times the average household in a single month.
It seems to me that Al Gore is nothing more than a "do as I say, not as I do liberal." It also seems to me that Mr. Bill Barnes of Conroe, herein known as "The Kook," can quote just about every argument outside of the science realm to justify his rage at man's so-called "raping" of the planet.
How the hell wacko environmentalists such as Al Gore, and The Kook Bill Barnes have been able to promote their cause this winter and spring has to boggle one's mind. This year's winter has been one of the coldest on record, in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. In Conroe, we have had nightime lows in the 50s in this month of May, which to many of us is unheardof. In Anchorage this winter, fire hydrants were bursting from the cold. Two global warming researchers were forced to call off their mission to the North, when they got "frost-bite" of all things, the Canadian seal hunt had to be delayed or cancelled because the fleet was trapped in ice. In fact, multiple global warming conferences scheduled this past winter were cancelled because of "the cold."
In the Southern Hemisphere, a South Africa newspaper reported last week "winter has started to take hold of the country as very cold conditions are expected over the central interior of South Africa this week," and this has begun to affect crops and give South Africans their own big chill.
If any of you see "The Kook" Barnes this week or next, ask him how the Sun plays out in the Global Warming debate. It does cycle, which causes the Earth to warm or cool over hundreds or thousands of years. Ask "The Kook" how does rain factor into global warming? Or better yet, ask "The Kook" "how did man get an SUV on Mars?" because their polar ice caps are melting too.
The Kook will not be able to fight you with facts on science. He'll tell you how "Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds, Chevron, Exxon, Shell Oil, Tenneco Gas, American Petroleum Institute, Amoco and Atlantic Richfield," all "contributed heavily to Bush/Cheney'04."
The Kook will complain that you that you are contributing to global warming, that "NASCAR fans, churchgoers, labor-union members, small businessmen, engineers, hunters, sportsmen," all are contributing to global warming. And not to mention, ask The Kook if he uses one-square of toilet paper, and suffers from a case of the "sticky-butt."
Ask The Kook if “An Inconvenient Truth” were made by George W. Bush rather than Al Gore, how much of "a testimony to our duty as stewards of the earth God," would it be. See environmentalism is a religion -- Earth is their God, or was it Bill Clinton, Al Gore, or Barack Obama, I can't remember.
The Kook Bill Barnes really sums up how desperate or stupid he is in writing this statement, "watch Al Gore's gift to mankind and decide for yourself before it's too late," for Earth's sake (not Christ's of course).
I'm sure The Kook would have wrote if he thought he would get away with it, "please watch Al Gore's gift to mankind and decide for yourself before it's too late, the Earth only has 90 days to live."
The Kooks final plea to Conroe's stupid, please "rise above politics and religion," please support my environmental bishop Al Gore, and "don't be deluded by charlatans like Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh." It is pathetic isn't it.
I suppose The Kook Bill Barnes would at least listen to liberal talk radio if they could keep it on the air for liberal talk radio, Air America included, has been a dismal failure. The Kook ought to listen to Beck and Limbaugh, and maybe, just maybe, he might just smarten up.
Monday, May 21, 2007
If Bush is No Churchill, then Clinton is No Kennedy (Nor John Holmes)
In Salon.com's "Last refuge of the scoundrel," which is labeled "Bush Ain’t No Churchill And Iraq Ain’t No World War II... But Don’t Tell That to the G.O.P.," in this weeks The Bulletin, in which Publisher and Editor Mike Ladyman tries to pass on as his own, the statements are rather lame on the part of the liberal Democrats or Progressives, or whatever the want themselves to be referred.
I do believe that Democrats "are a cross between Benedict Arnold and Tokyo Rose," but I don't believe that a majority of the American people are traitors. Deep down, I believe they want to win the war, and have peace. And believe me, peace thru dialogue will not work. Just as the people of the Czechoslovakia found out in 1938.
I think many Americans are misinformed by a purposely misleading propagandists liberal media, Mike Ladyman included, which gives them power in the Press with the hopeful achievement of controlling the White House, the Congress, the Courts, just as the Nazis did in the early 1930's with their control of an entire people in every aspect of their lives, including their thoughts.
I guarantee you, as a loyal American, as a Taxpayer, the GOP, the Republican Party (once they get off their duffs and get on the right track), will do the right thing, especially with this illegal immigration issue. NO AMNESTY!!!
I challenge every Democrats patriotism. Look, when you have the Democrat civilian Leadership saying "WE CAN'T WIN THIS WAR," what would you rather have -- someone with the qualities of PM Churchill, as we have seen in President Bush, or someone with the surrender qualities of Marshal Pétain, like the leadership of the Democrat party as we have seen with Liberal Senator Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.
I wonder how many Americans have been rethinking their 2006 votes when they heard or read "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's statement, "As long as we follow the president's path in Iraq, the war is lost,"" or how many Black's are thinking of switching back to the Republican Party when they realize how their voices will be trampled down by millions of newly legalized illegally-based citizens. I truly believe the Democrats know not what they do.
I do believe that Democrats "are a cross between Benedict Arnold and Tokyo Rose," but I don't believe that a majority of the American people are traitors. Deep down, I believe they want to win the war, and have peace. And believe me, peace thru dialogue will not work. Just as the people of the Czechoslovakia found out in 1938.
I think many Americans are misinformed by a purposely misleading propagandists liberal media, Mike Ladyman included, which gives them power in the Press with the hopeful achievement of controlling the White House, the Congress, the Courts, just as the Nazis did in the early 1930's with their control of an entire people in every aspect of their lives, including their thoughts.
I guarantee you, as a loyal American, as a Taxpayer, the GOP, the Republican Party (once they get off their duffs and get on the right track), will do the right thing, especially with this illegal immigration issue. NO AMNESTY!!!
I challenge every Democrats patriotism. Look, when you have the Democrat civilian Leadership saying "WE CAN'T WIN THIS WAR," what would you rather have -- someone with the qualities of PM Churchill, as we have seen in President Bush, or someone with the surrender qualities of Marshal Pétain, like the leadership of the Democrat party as we have seen with Liberal Senator Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.
I wonder how many Americans have been rethinking their 2006 votes when they heard or read "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's statement, "As long as we follow the president's path in Iraq, the war is lost,"" or how many Black's are thinking of switching back to the Republican Party when they realize how their voices will be trampled down by millions of newly legalized illegally-based citizens. I truly believe the Democrats know not what they do.
But you know what the kicker is, the Democrats are in power. Yet they won't suggest anything other than losing the war as long as its saddled on Bush. Because if we run from the WOT like we ran in Somalia, we invite one or two more 9/11's, perhaps even a nuclear 9/11, which can never be blamed on President Bush. The Democrat's French-like statements of weakness are incredible. Doesn't anybody have a memory.
Does anybody remember when President Bush 41 was running for office, how he was label by the liberal media as a "wimp" on National Defense. How far we have come when the Democrats can openly herald "We've lost the war," and stage worthless votes on bringing the troops home and cutting off funding. Each and every Democrat would sell their Mother to the Devil if they could regain control of all branches of the Government.
What's missing from Salon.com's worthless tripe is the word "Vietnam," a time when liberals believed that the "best and brightest" were not fighing in 'Nam, but protesting in our city streets and universities across the United States. The liberals of today want to relive those days, but the magic has been lost, due to blogs, old age, and some changing of wills. The media couldn't bring down the war like Kronkite did in one broadcast in 1968.
It has taken four years of totally negative broadcasting that makes the whole WOT look lost, when truth be told, an American soldier has a greater chance of being killed in New York City than he does in Iraq.
For Christ's sake, we've had the coolest winter on record for ages, and no liberal even mentions anything about "man-made global warming" being a fraud, we've had only a little more than 3,000 killed in Iraq, no liberal even begins to rage about the 7,000 US deaths annually from Rx mistakes made from doctors bad handwriting.
For Salon.com or Ladyman's The Bulletin readers to buy any of this crap, they have to be totally brainwashed. They must be stupid to first, not have a sense of history, and second, not have a sense of what a people with a radical belief in Islam are capable of doing -- which we saw on 9/11. Seeing as most liberals don't believe in God, but instead they believe in Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, two living constitutions if I ever saw one (like Hitler or Jim Jones). But what happens when that leader dies, the whole movement falls apart. That's why we have a Constitution in the first place, so no one man or Democrat party can rest control over the whole government.
I'm glad the Bush Administration has labeled President Carter as "increasingly irrelevant" after he said Bush's administration had been the "worst in history." To me, that's shows desperation. For instance, a Conroe area soccer team recently won the State Championship in soccer for their age group. They beat an all Hispanic team from a South Texas border town that had not lost all season, and that STX team beat all their opponents in convincing shutouts. The STX team had it in their minds that they already won the state championship, that they were just to show up and receive the trophy when they get to the State Championship site.
The Conroe area team on the other hand had some shutouts, but lost one game and tied one game. They weren't the biggest team on the field, nor were they the strongest. But they did have a strong passion for the game and trust in their teammates and coach. Something the Democrats don't have. The Conroe team is about half White and half Hispanic, which is a great mix, and they all get along really well.
My point is, if the coach of the Conroe area team had looked at the other team from STX and their record, and said "we can't win," then left the field of battle. Then how would Conroe have ever known if their team could have ever beaten the STX team without trying. In the end, the coach of the STX team and the players were making mistakes in a desperate effort to win late in the game, and making statements like Jimmy Carter's worthless tripe.
If only the Democrats could look at little kids soccer teams that faced insurmountable odds, and yet still prevailed, we possibly could have won the War on Terror by now.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
"Rudy's New Low" Completely Plagiarized from Salon.com 'Can "The Bulletin" ever come up with an original thought'
Low and behold, will The Bulletin Publisher and Editor Mike Ladyman ever give credit to pre-published articles in his liberal rag.
This time Ladyman takes his cue from Salon.com and their piece "A new low for Giuliani," which looks a lot like Ladyman's copied "Rudy’s New Low: Giulani Attacks Dems to Cover Up his 9/11 Mistakes." Now I know that all liberals think alike, but this is a little ridiculous.
In even reviewing the tripe that was posted, I asked my myself, "when it comes to criticizing Democrats, will liberals eat their own?" I mean, you will never read of Ladyman writing (or plagiarizing for that fact) about Louisiana Democrat William Jefferson and the FBI investigating him for his hiding of $90,000 in cold cash in his freezer from some scandal. You won't read of Nevada Democrat Senator "Dingy" Harry Reid and his very questionable land deals, or Jack Murtha and his abscam fame, or Nancy Pelosi and Diane Feinstein, and their crafting of legislation specifically designed to benefit their husband's businesses.
No, with liberals, it's all about "macaca" and "Mark Foley" and that stupid part of the electorate that believes anything the liberal media tells them.
But you will never read any of that by the hand of Montgomery County liberal Propaganda Minister Mike Ladyman. He does not take into account liberal indiscretions; only the few Conservative ones. Mike lies to me and you just as he lied to his grade school friends about not having any cookies to share at lunchtime. If anyone is "selling out" America -- it's Mike Ladyman.
Come to think of it, with Mike Ladyman or his staff, they've probably never have come up with an original thought in their lives to present to their readers, seeing as I've already come up with another example of them copying a piece to their wordprocessor, and this time not even modifying it to at least try and pass it off as their own.
The story in Media Matters titled "MSNBC discussed Giuliani's attack on Democrats over terrorism, did not question Giuliani's own record on terrorism," may or may not have started it all, but Salon.com finished it, and Ladyman copied it given his readers the idea that he came up with it himself. If it was me being copied, I know I would be pissed. My stuff has been republished before, and the proper notations made.
So what's the big deal about what The Bulletin is doing. The deal is, whether it's Mark Williams or Ladyman, they are not being honest in their work, or their intentions in regards to the reader. It's incredible how liberal Democrats still seek to destroy President Bush with their rhetoric, but when true history is finally written (free of today's liberal spin machine), he will be regarded as a great President.
The first GOP debate was about the liberal moderators and not about the Republican candidates. I would have loved for one of the candidates to say "pardon me, is President Bush in this race, or are we going to talk about the future of this great country." At least the GOP candidates had the guts to go on a leftist cable network for their debate. Of course, Ladyman won't tell you that the Democrat presidential candidates fear of Fox News forced them to refuse to go on the top cable news network for a debate for fear of getting some hardball questions.
One thing is clear about a Democrat 2008 White House victory. If they win, they will have won by using propaganda. They will not have been able to tell the truth about their agenda for fear of being scorned and laughed at.
You can already see signs from the 2006 elections. Of course, for the last two weeks of the election, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were totally out of sight. The Democrats ran Conservative candidates in the House and Senate, and they basicly had no theme for the election. No catch-phrase to propel them to victory. The liberals won on virtually nothing -- hot air if you will. Would you think the Democrats had won if they sent out the message, that they are sending out today. The message of "we want to lose in Iraq," and we are going to stop funding this war because we think you will still vote for us -- you dopes.
Yes, a liberal 2008 White House victory will definitely scream to al-Qaeda and the rest of the world that the United States is a weak country, weaker than we have ever been by electing a woman or black Democrat President. Now that doesn't make me a racist, I would still vote for a Conservative woman or black GOP nominee, but electing Mrs. Bill Clinton or Barack Obama -- PLEASE!!
Look, the words "nuclear terrorism" are slowly making their way to the forefront of our society. And our appeasement to terrorism, and not to mention, appeasing nuclear or soon to be nuclear nations such as North Korea and Iran, and if the lessons of World War II are not heeded, then we are all screwed.
Keep it up liberals. Continue to avoid the lessons that brought about WWII, and you will bring about our destruction by the hands those terrorists who believe in God more than you, and are more than willing to die for their God more than you are willing to die for you God(s) -- Bill Clinton, for the Blacks, and Barack Obama, for guilty white interlopers like Mike Ladyman.
This time Ladyman takes his cue from Salon.com and their piece "A new low for Giuliani," which looks a lot like Ladyman's copied "Rudy’s New Low: Giulani Attacks Dems to Cover Up his 9/11 Mistakes." Now I know that all liberals think alike, but this is a little ridiculous.
In even reviewing the tripe that was posted, I asked my myself, "when it comes to criticizing Democrats, will liberals eat their own?" I mean, you will never read of Ladyman writing (or plagiarizing for that fact) about Louisiana Democrat William Jefferson and the FBI investigating him for his hiding of $90,000 in cold cash in his freezer from some scandal. You won't read of Nevada Democrat Senator "Dingy" Harry Reid and his very questionable land deals, or Jack Murtha and his abscam fame, or Nancy Pelosi and Diane Feinstein, and their crafting of legislation specifically designed to benefit their husband's businesses.
No, with liberals, it's all about "macaca" and "Mark Foley" and that stupid part of the electorate that believes anything the liberal media tells them.
But you will never read any of that by the hand of Montgomery County liberal Propaganda Minister Mike Ladyman. He does not take into account liberal indiscretions; only the few Conservative ones. Mike lies to me and you just as he lied to his grade school friends about not having any cookies to share at lunchtime. If anyone is "selling out" America -- it's Mike Ladyman.
Come to think of it, with Mike Ladyman or his staff, they've probably never have come up with an original thought in their lives to present to their readers, seeing as I've already come up with another example of them copying a piece to their wordprocessor, and this time not even modifying it to at least try and pass it off as their own.
The story in Media Matters titled "MSNBC discussed Giuliani's attack on Democrats over terrorism, did not question Giuliani's own record on terrorism," may or may not have started it all, but Salon.com finished it, and Ladyman copied it given his readers the idea that he came up with it himself. If it was me being copied, I know I would be pissed. My stuff has been republished before, and the proper notations made.
So what's the big deal about what The Bulletin is doing. The deal is, whether it's Mark Williams or Ladyman, they are not being honest in their work, or their intentions in regards to the reader. It's incredible how liberal Democrats still seek to destroy President Bush with their rhetoric, but when true history is finally written (free of today's liberal spin machine), he will be regarded as a great President.
The first GOP debate was about the liberal moderators and not about the Republican candidates. I would have loved for one of the candidates to say "pardon me, is President Bush in this race, or are we going to talk about the future of this great country." At least the GOP candidates had the guts to go on a leftist cable network for their debate. Of course, Ladyman won't tell you that the Democrat presidential candidates fear of Fox News forced them to refuse to go on the top cable news network for a debate for fear of getting some hardball questions.
One thing is clear about a Democrat 2008 White House victory. If they win, they will have won by using propaganda. They will not have been able to tell the truth about their agenda for fear of being scorned and laughed at.
You can already see signs from the 2006 elections. Of course, for the last two weeks of the election, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were totally out of sight. The Democrats ran Conservative candidates in the House and Senate, and they basicly had no theme for the election. No catch-phrase to propel them to victory. The liberals won on virtually nothing -- hot air if you will. Would you think the Democrats had won if they sent out the message, that they are sending out today. The message of "we want to lose in Iraq," and we are going to stop funding this war because we think you will still vote for us -- you dopes.
Yes, a liberal 2008 White House victory will definitely scream to al-Qaeda and the rest of the world that the United States is a weak country, weaker than we have ever been by electing a woman or black Democrat President. Now that doesn't make me a racist, I would still vote for a Conservative woman or black GOP nominee, but electing Mrs. Bill Clinton or Barack Obama -- PLEASE!!
Look, the words "nuclear terrorism" are slowly making their way to the forefront of our society. And our appeasement to terrorism, and not to mention, appeasing nuclear or soon to be nuclear nations such as North Korea and Iran, and if the lessons of World War II are not heeded, then we are all screwed.
Keep it up liberals. Continue to avoid the lessons that brought about WWII, and you will bring about our destruction by the hands those terrorists who believe in God more than you, and are more than willing to die for their God more than you are willing to die for you God(s) -- Bill Clinton, for the Blacks, and Barack Obama, for guilty white interlopers like Mike Ladyman.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Bush Approval Numbers Show how Flawed Polls are in the Days with Dwindling Telephone Landlines in Homes (Cell phone only homes never get polled)
Thank God that President George W. Bush is not liberal and is not mastered by approval polls. If Bush were Clintonesk, we would have already withdrawn from the War on Terror by now.
Let's be honest. For the truly educated our there, you know that pollsters already have a conclusion in mind even before the first poll question is asked, and whether the respondents answer the way the pollster wishes or not, the liberal media headline is still going to read: Bush's approval rating falls to 28%.
Polls todays are made up news that stand in for real news. If they are not totally fake they are vastly skewed. My God, President Clinton had poll numbers in the low 70's following impeachment, and the man never go 50% of the Presidential vote.
Polls are manufactured according to the questions asked in the poll. For instance, if worded right, a poll could make Adolf Hitler look out to be one of the world's greatest humanitarians when we all know he killed millions. So when I see President Bush having approvals in the 30's or 20's, I say please. Even the man's base would not desert him in droves.
I know in the future, that GWB will be regarded as a great President in the future, just as approvals Clinton in the 70's will pan out to him being an average President in the future. In effect, the spin machine cannot go on forever.
In this age of 'cell phone and VoIP only' households pollsters only use landlines to contact their respondents, many people are being left out of polling, which vastly skews the polls in favor of the liberals. And guess whose home with their landlines during the day -- senior citizens and the non-workers. Yes, the Oprah watchers, the drive-by media watchers, are there answering the poles, and making it look like our country is falling apart.
But even if the liberal media were allowed to contact any available number and get all the information they needed fairly -- would anything change?
Let's be honest. For the truly educated our there, you know that pollsters already have a conclusion in mind even before the first poll question is asked, and whether the respondents answer the way the pollster wishes or not, the liberal media headline is still going to read: Bush's approval rating falls to 28%.
Polls todays are made up news that stand in for real news. If they are not totally fake they are vastly skewed. My God, President Clinton had poll numbers in the low 70's following impeachment, and the man never go 50% of the Presidential vote.
Polls are manufactured according to the questions asked in the poll. For instance, if worded right, a poll could make Adolf Hitler look out to be one of the world's greatest humanitarians when we all know he killed millions. So when I see President Bush having approvals in the 30's or 20's, I say please. Even the man's base would not desert him in droves.
I know in the future, that GWB will be regarded as a great President in the future, just as approvals Clinton in the 70's will pan out to him being an average President in the future. In effect, the spin machine cannot go on forever.
In this age of 'cell phone and VoIP only' households pollsters only use landlines to contact their respondents, many people are being left out of polling, which vastly skews the polls in favor of the liberals. And guess whose home with their landlines during the day -- senior citizens and the non-workers. Yes, the Oprah watchers, the drive-by media watchers, are there answering the poles, and making it look like our country is falling apart.
But even if the liberal media were allowed to contact any available number and get all the information they needed fairly -- would anything change?
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Happy V-E Anniversary Day
Sixty-two years ago today, the world learned that Europe was finally free and ushered in was the beginning of the end of World War II. Today, liberals will call it a 'day of shame' for the guilt they reserve over the greatness of the United States.
Now, if our liberal Democrats of today were in charge back in WWII with their attitudes, they would have said that the "war was lost" following the Battles off Guadal Canal, Midway. By then, we had way more than 3,000 dead, and it was still early in that war. It makes one wonder, if Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were in charge back then, would the US be speaking German or Japanese?
I've often asked myself and others, and I ask you today, "what is the consequence to war?" The liberal will tell you -- death. But that is simple and naive. War is a dirty business, and the United States has no reason to be the "agressor nation." We have no reason to be imperialist like we were back during the Spanish-American War, but that was the nature of the World back then. The US is obligated to protect what is ours and our children's future no matter where that may be in the World, and all this liberal crap of cutting and run, withdrawing our soldiers, and defunding our troops, hurts the chances for prosperity in the future. Appeasement gives al-Qaeda more hope, and makes them more aggressive.
The US has grown so much since WWII, that today the liberals of today may not know one soldier, and they definitely have a different attitude since military families are few and far between. During WWII we had over 10 million men under arms, today its closer to 1.5, so the liberals can gamble that their constiuencies have no contact or don't care for the miltary, and liberals can see the US military as the enemy rather than al-Qaeda.
Has the liberal of today ever suffered? Do they have a grasp of history -- they don't. Just look at Wheel of Fortune when the players are forced to answer simple social studies questions and they come up empty. That there defines the state of US public education. Accountability, not more money in education, is what is needed.
In today's history books, Lincoln gets a paragraph, we get nothing on the Spanish-American War or World War I. WWII gets a sentence or two. American aggression on Vietnam gets a paragraph, valiant Vietnam War protesters get a whole page, and the policies of President Clinton get a chapter minus stains on the blue dress. In mathematics, its even worse. No wonder the World's students run rings around us.
So what is the consequence to war? I say PEACE. It is something that liberals will not understand because they don't have the proper grasp of history.
I'll put it together in a cancer analogy. The cancer (al-Qaeda) invades or provokes the host (the US) with its weapons (cancer cells), and the host suffers. The host fights back with its own weapons (chemotherapy), but the host body is weakened, and the left side of the host's brain (the liberals) calls for the chemotherapy to be stopped and withdrawn, the host is suffering to much, the war is lost and the host dies. But for the host to win, it has to suffer, and the the right side of the host's brain (the Conservatives) hold on for dear life that for one day the cancer will be defeated via patience, determination, and lots of chemotherapy.
Don't ask me, even though I survived my cancer. Ask Lance Armstrong. It is possiible to win today's war.
The liberals have made us run from wars before -- Vietnam, Somalia. Millions died in the killing fields following our withdrawal from Southeast Asia. Somalia continues to be a hell-hole today, because less than twenty of our best and brightest died in battle. Blood which can be linked to the liberals hands because they walked away from the fight for democracy. And they call themselves Democrats.
War will always be a necessary evil to achieve peace in a world "governed by the use of force." Thank God the US has the best trained men and women, the best equipment possible to prosecute the war. The only thing lacking is the total will of the America people and its media. I certainly hope that the grandparents, and great-grandparents of today that helped support and win WWII are thoroughly ashamed of their grandchild and great-grandchild liberals that persecute our war effort today.
One thing that was not asked and liberals will never ask, "what are the consequences of appeasement and cutting and running from al-Qaeda." The liberal will say PEACE. If we leave the battlefield, stupid liberal Democrats argue that al-Qaeda will stay in place and not chase us back to the US. Folks, they are already here. Iran and North Korea will be emboldened to continue to develop their programs free of World interference.
In actuality, the consequences of appeasement and cutting and running from al-Qaeda, will usher in the era of nuclear terrorism, whether it be a radiological bomb (a poor-man's nuke) or a full suitcase nuke that will kill thousands instantly, and cause havoc with our economy perhaps for decades. That also will be blood on the liberal's hands.
God Bless the United States, and liberals be damned.
Now, if our liberal Democrats of today were in charge back in WWII with their attitudes, they would have said that the "war was lost" following the Battles off Guadal Canal, Midway. By then, we had way more than 3,000 dead, and it was still early in that war. It makes one wonder, if Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were in charge back then, would the US be speaking German or Japanese?
I've often asked myself and others, and I ask you today, "what is the consequence to war?" The liberal will tell you -- death. But that is simple and naive. War is a dirty business, and the United States has no reason to be the "agressor nation." We have no reason to be imperialist like we were back during the Spanish-American War, but that was the nature of the World back then. The US is obligated to protect what is ours and our children's future no matter where that may be in the World, and all this liberal crap of cutting and run, withdrawing our soldiers, and defunding our troops, hurts the chances for prosperity in the future. Appeasement gives al-Qaeda more hope, and makes them more aggressive.
The US has grown so much since WWII, that today the liberals of today may not know one soldier, and they definitely have a different attitude since military families are few and far between. During WWII we had over 10 million men under arms, today its closer to 1.5, so the liberals can gamble that their constiuencies have no contact or don't care for the miltary, and liberals can see the US military as the enemy rather than al-Qaeda.
Has the liberal of today ever suffered? Do they have a grasp of history -- they don't. Just look at Wheel of Fortune when the players are forced to answer simple social studies questions and they come up empty. That there defines the state of US public education. Accountability, not more money in education, is what is needed.
In today's history books, Lincoln gets a paragraph, we get nothing on the Spanish-American War or World War I. WWII gets a sentence or two. American aggression on Vietnam gets a paragraph, valiant Vietnam War protesters get a whole page, and the policies of President Clinton get a chapter minus stains on the blue dress. In mathematics, its even worse. No wonder the World's students run rings around us.
So what is the consequence to war? I say PEACE. It is something that liberals will not understand because they don't have the proper grasp of history.
I'll put it together in a cancer analogy. The cancer (al-Qaeda) invades or provokes the host (the US) with its weapons (cancer cells), and the host suffers. The host fights back with its own weapons (chemotherapy), but the host body is weakened, and the left side of the host's brain (the liberals) calls for the chemotherapy to be stopped and withdrawn, the host is suffering to much, the war is lost and the host dies. But for the host to win, it has to suffer, and the the right side of the host's brain (the Conservatives) hold on for dear life that for one day the cancer will be defeated via patience, determination, and lots of chemotherapy.
Don't ask me, even though I survived my cancer. Ask Lance Armstrong. It is possiible to win today's war.
The liberals have made us run from wars before -- Vietnam, Somalia. Millions died in the killing fields following our withdrawal from Southeast Asia. Somalia continues to be a hell-hole today, because less than twenty of our best and brightest died in battle. Blood which can be linked to the liberals hands because they walked away from the fight for democracy. And they call themselves Democrats.War will always be a necessary evil to achieve peace in a world "governed by the use of force." Thank God the US has the best trained men and women, the best equipment possible to prosecute the war. The only thing lacking is the total will of the America people and its media. I certainly hope that the grandparents, and great-grandparents of today that helped support and win WWII are thoroughly ashamed of their grandchild and great-grandchild liberals that persecute our war effort today.
One thing that was not asked and liberals will never ask, "what are the consequences of appeasement and cutting and running from al-Qaeda." The liberal will say PEACE. If we leave the battlefield, stupid liberal Democrats argue that al-Qaeda will stay in place and not chase us back to the US. Folks, they are already here. Iran and North Korea will be emboldened to continue to develop their programs free of World interference.
In actuality, the consequences of appeasement and cutting and running from al-Qaeda, will usher in the era of nuclear terrorism, whether it be a radiological bomb (a poor-man's nuke) or a full suitcase nuke that will kill thousands instantly, and cause havoc with our economy perhaps for decades. That also will be blood on the liberal's hands.
God Bless the United States, and liberals be damned.
Monday, May 07, 2007
'The Bulletin' Offers No Janet Reno Input When Crucifying AG Gonzales
Has Attorney General Alberto Gonzales returned a little kid who arrived on our shores from a communist nation back to a communist country. Has Attorney General Alberto Gonzales murdered citizens while carrying weapons on their own property such as with David Koresh's gang in Waco, or parts of Randy Weaver's family at Ruby Ridge. HELL NO!Was Attorney General Alberto Gonzales part of an Administration that fired every US Attorney for personal reasons when existing US Attorneys were hurting the interest of the Clinton Administration. HELL NO! And I won't even bring up Chinagate, and how that was brushed aside by Janey Reno, the Attorney General for Clinton.
Yes, in the latest bilge from our good friends at The Bulletin we get "Enough is Enough: Gonzales Has Got to Go -- And It's Up to the New Congress to See That it Happens," which labels Attorney General Alberto Gonzales as a "clueless, hapless figurehead," Republicans as wrongdoers, Democrats as angelic, and they have to go back to the Nixon Administration to find any so-called "official misconduct" that was just as egregious in a Presidential Administration.
We all know that The Bulletin labels themselves as 'Alternative' in our overwhelmingly Conservative Montgomery County. But for those liberal Democrats who wish to be taken under the umbrella of The Bulletin's liberal breath, let it be known that you either know that you are being lied to, and/or you plain just don't care.
Our good friends at The Bulletin, Mike the publisher, and Mark the plagiarizer, have to think of themselves as the 'liberal souls' of Conroe and Montgomery County. They can be seen as the great withholders of pertinent information that would educate its readership. Just as slaveowners sought not to teach their slaves to read for fear of mass revolt, so to The Bulletin ensures that its slavish readers are kept dumb seeing as an educated liberal democrat will eventually turn Republican.
As one who knows that newspaper and television news are a product just as much as canned vegetables and cereals are stocked in the aisles of Kroger's, HEB, and Budget Chopper, it boggles my mind why our good friends at The Bulletin cater to only 18% - 22% of Montgomery County residents. To me that is bad for business, and for our friends to change their mind and their entire way of thinking they would have to undergo an intervention. It reminds me of the old adage that it takes less muscles to smile than to frown, so why overwork.
Look, if Gonzales were truly guilty, he would have been gone by now. Hardly anyone brings the facts of Clinton's replacing every US Attorney when he moved into the White House, a move I would have supported Bush doing at the beginning of his term.
Quite simply, you cannot trust the liberals, or liberal appointees. You cannot trust the liberal bureaucracy, who believe their jobs are more important than the safety of the nation. You cannot trust liberals with our national security, for they see the US as more of the enemy than they do al-Qaeda.
I don't only blame the liberals for this Gonzales incident, I blame the Bush Administration too for being so damn nice to liberals. So many times they could have blown questions out of the water -- but they are so 'goddamned' nice. And that can be frustrating at times.
This whole so-called "scandal" has truly been manufactured seening as everything that Bush takes part in has to be seen as scandal by the drive-by liberal media. Those US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President, and one or two even were due to be replaced.
Have you noticed the increased amount of "oversight" we are getting from the current do-nothing liberal Congress? The perjury traps set are ridiculous. That's how they got Scooter Libby, whose testimony was based on no crime at all.
There are a lot of stupid people out there. Thankfully most of them are Democrats, who still believe the Duke lacross boys guilt even when proven innocent, and they equally condemn Tom Delay for his so-called 'proven' unjudged offenses. That's why we have two justice systems. The courtroom of public opinion held by the drive-by liberal media, and the actual courts governed by our Constitution, which is sometimes battered but for the most part intact.
Its incredible that I haven't even mentioned race yet. If Gonzales were a liberal under a liberal Administration this whole thing wouldn't even be news. In fact, if Gonzales were a liberal, it would be the fired US Attorneys who would be under fire, and the motivation for the story.
But no, AG Gonzales is not a liberal, and The Bulletin is "telling him to resign." You know, the silence of the Hispanic community is deafening, but that usually happens when non-liberal minorities make it without the help of the Democrat Party.
Sunday, May 06, 2007
35% Democrats (17% of them American) Think Bush Let 9/11 Happen (and French Elections)
A recent Rassmussen Report poll noted that 35% of Democrats think that GWB knew of the 9/11 in advance. Of course this poll will be hailed as the greatest evidence against Bush from our friends at The Bulletin and the liberal drive-by media.
To selectively believe the poll, then you have to totally ignore the suggestions that FDR knew in advance of the attacks on Pearl Harbor, the PI, etc. in December 1941. In all reality in this regard, the thinking that the FDR Administration knew in advance of Japanese attacks may have some plausibility -- multiple war warnings had been issued. But hardcore historians on the subject may more than likely believe that the FDR Administration believed that the Japanese would attack The Phillipines due to its proximity to Japan, and its war making capabilities aside from Pearl Harbor with its compliment of US Army Air Corp planes and the US Navy Asiatic Fleet stationed at Cavite Navy Yard.
Now if the US Pacific Fleet HQ had not moved from San Diego to Pearl Harbor in May 1940, perhaps the main thrust of the December 1941 Japanese attacks would have been pointed at the PI or the attack would have been delayed or perhaps not have taken place at all, but after all, history is history.
This poll exactly defines how kooks such as the MoveOn.orgers and other Soros types have taken over the Democrat Party. Just as our CIA knew back in the days of JFK that the USSR was a paper tiger, I'm placing my "sure thing" bet that the Democrat kook fringe, the drive-by liberal media, of which The Bulletin is apart of, will soon falter, and evidence of that can be seen in the recent French elections.
For Christ's sake, 85% of the French voted over the weekend, and a pro-US French President was elected. What do you expect when France is being relieved of its "Frenchness" by the socialists and immigrants who don't wish to assimilate, those who think ill will of the French teet from which they suck, and seek to poison the rest of the population with their insanity.
When the liberal drive-by media can only muster 22% of Americans to think that Bush let 9/11 happen, you know they have to be failing in their Stalinists endeavor. Like the USSR, the drive-by liberal media, The Bulletin included, is a paper tiger. Thank God they continue to lose readership at every six-month reporting period. And to survive, the drive-by liberal media will one day have to start telling "the truth," because their biggest reader and viewership, gullible senior citizens, who don't research on their own, are slowing dying off.
And guess who the drive-by liberal media and The Bulletin blames for their problems-- YOU, because you are too stupid to understand the liberal medias way of thinking.
To selectively believe the poll, then you have to totally ignore the suggestions that FDR knew in advance of the attacks on Pearl Harbor, the PI, etc. in December 1941. In all reality in this regard, the thinking that the FDR Administration knew in advance of Japanese attacks may have some plausibility -- multiple war warnings had been issued. But hardcore historians on the subject may more than likely believe that the FDR Administration believed that the Japanese would attack The Phillipines due to its proximity to Japan, and its war making capabilities aside from Pearl Harbor with its compliment of US Army Air Corp planes and the US Navy Asiatic Fleet stationed at Cavite Navy Yard.
Now if the US Pacific Fleet HQ had not moved from San Diego to Pearl Harbor in May 1940, perhaps the main thrust of the December 1941 Japanese attacks would have been pointed at the PI or the attack would have been delayed or perhaps not have taken place at all, but after all, history is history.
This poll exactly defines how kooks such as the MoveOn.orgers and other Soros types have taken over the Democrat Party. Just as our CIA knew back in the days of JFK that the USSR was a paper tiger, I'm placing my "sure thing" bet that the Democrat kook fringe, the drive-by liberal media, of which The Bulletin is apart of, will soon falter, and evidence of that can be seen in the recent French elections.
For Christ's sake, 85% of the French voted over the weekend, and a pro-US French President was elected. What do you expect when France is being relieved of its "Frenchness" by the socialists and immigrants who don't wish to assimilate, those who think ill will of the French teet from which they suck, and seek to poison the rest of the population with their insanity.
When the liberal drive-by media can only muster 22% of Americans to think that Bush let 9/11 happen, you know they have to be failing in their Stalinists endeavor. Like the USSR, the drive-by liberal media, The Bulletin included, is a paper tiger. Thank God they continue to lose readership at every six-month reporting period. And to survive, the drive-by liberal media will one day have to start telling "the truth," because their biggest reader and viewership, gullible senior citizens, who don't research on their own, are slowing dying off.
And guess who the drive-by liberal media and The Bulletin blames for their problems-- YOU, because you are too stupid to understand the liberal medias way of thinking.
Saturday, May 05, 2007
The Bulletin's Ladyman Doesn't Know A Damn Thing About The Liberal Media
One of the small consolations that I can take now with the current liberal media and liberal small-wigs like The Bulletin's Publisher and Editor Mike Ladyman is that they cannot control what historians write in the future.
Did you know that President Harry Truman had an approval rating of 22-23% near the end of his Presidency. He had his problems as well as the Korean Conflict, which was considered unpopular back then as well. And now they have an aircraft carrier named after him -- the HST.
Dick Morris has written about categorizing presidents into four tiers:
First Tier - Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, & FDR.
Second Tier - Teddy Roosevelt, Truman & Ronald Reagan.
Third - Kennedy, Johnson, GHW Bush.
Fourth - Every other uneventful President, including Clinton.
Clinton had asked Morris about what it took to be considered first tier and Morris told Clinton that he would never be regarded as first tier because he never won a war. Of course we all know that Clinton's legacy will always revolved around oral sex and Monica.
While reading Ladyman's bunk "Everybody's Talking: How the Media has Dropped the Ball When it Comes to Bush" it was like I was reading an old edition of the communist Pravda newspaper. As one who has been in a communist country, I've seen the empty shelves in person, and the next thing you know Ladyman will be tauting how the Cuban healthcare system can run rings around our own Texas Medical Center.
Has Ladyman ever said one positive thing about the United States? No doubt one the first things he must have thought after he learned about the 9/11 attacks, "damn, now Bush's approval numbers are going to skyrocket." You see with liberals -- everything, and I mean everything -- is seen through a political prism.
I remember back in the days before Nelson Mandela was released from prison. Liberal Democrats were oozing about spreading democracy around the world. My God, since 9/11 the United States has liberated tens of millions from dictatorial rule and since it was a Republican Presidents administration that accomplished the feat liberals have been dead quiet on the subject. And that goes for a plethora of topics such as the economy, high tax revenues coming in due to tax cuts, etc.
Can you imagine how the liberal media would be dumbfoundingly falling over themselves to praise a President Gore or Kerry for the same actions that President Bush has taken. Again, there goes that political prism.
Look, Ladyman would have you believe that we should have never gone into Iraq because as he says "Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Enough said." Look, if Bush would have appeased Saddam, the Iraqi dictator would be well on his way, if not already have nuclear weapons. And get this, if Bush would not have gone into Iraq, those same liberals and Ladyman would be demanding in their tripe-ridden post that action against Iraq be taken. See, President Bush, can do no right when it comes to liberals. If Bush came out and said that man was completely responsible for global warming, the liberal press would go out and find the rightful information on the true cause, our lifegiver -- the Sun.
Now what would you rather have: a dead Saddam, or an alive Saddam of whom Mrs. Bill Clinton said in 2003 in a speech to Code Pink on disarming Saddam, "I have absolutely no belief that he will" disarm. She went on to say in the same speech, "if he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information, intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, tried to discount the political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision. I would love to agree with you, but I can't based on my own understanding and assessment of the situation."
Of course now Mrs. Bill Clinton is singing a new tune in 2007 to appease the George Soros leftist crowd, but she had the same intelligence as all our Allies had back in 2003, and WMDs don't just disappear intoSyria, oops, I mean into the Iraqi desert with some coordination where American soldiers can't find them.
Ladyman has to be the most depressed castrati in Montgomery County. He blames the liberal media for failing to have President Bush impeached for his war crimes. The "Bush administration lies and distortions went unchallenged or were actively promoted." I honestly believe that if Ladyman would come across information of a al-Qaeda terrorist plot to attack the Conroe Wal-Mart on a crowded Saturday, going to the FBI or Conroe Police would be the farthest thing from his mind, and Mike instead would be ready for exclusive news reporting with camera in hand, and e-mails to Al-Jazeera and CNN ready to go to show the blood and gore pictures, just as they willingly show video of American soldiers being sniped.
Toyko Rose Ladyman is definitely frustrated over the liberal medias "inability to determine just why this disastrous war was ever launched." Again, a total inability to connect with the truth on Mike's part. I mean, does this guy have any friends? Does he smile or laugh?
You have to be in denial to say that "Congress rolled over and gave Bush authorization to go to war." We all knew, those of us in the real world, that this war is going to be different from any other war the United States had ever fought. Ladyman's reliving of the glory days of Vietnam activism are far different from today. Appeasement will not bring "peace for our time" such as Neville Chamberlain thought following the Munich Agreement.
How the hell do you appease an enemy whose only item at the peace table calls for all American infidels (those "without faith") to be slaughtered.
For instance, al-Qaeda hates all homosexuals. If the United States appeased them and gave them all American homosexuals, once the last homosexual was killed, they would come back to the table and demand "give us all your feminists." OK, we give them all American feminists. Hmm, maybe al-Qaeda does have a point?
Then the Supreme Court would have to get involved and define who is "one without faith." Definitely the Madalyn Murray O'Hair atheist types would have to go, the wacko enviromentalists would have to go, and the vast majority of liberals. All would be slaughtered for appeasement.
Of course that was tongue-in-cheek, but my point is that American liberalism is bent that they can't see the forest for the trees. Al-Qaeda literally wants to die to kill us, and when that first terrorists nuke hits, even you might be singing a different tune. We can hope.
I've seen war, young kids torn apart and killed, and I tell you we ought to be grateful that only 3,000 Americans have been killed. Hell, during World War II, it was common to lose many times that during major engagements.
I'm tired of liberal Democrats and their selective outrage when it comes to American deaths in the War on Terror. Christ, we have 7,000 Americans that die each year because pharmacist misread doctors shoddy handwriting. Should we withdraw doctors from their offices? We have tens of thousands that die in auto accidents each year. Should we go back to horse and buggy? And I won't even go into how the Democrats have aborted themselves into supporting illegal immigration.
I challenge your patriotism Mike Ladyman. You were obviously offended when Fox newscasters "sported American flag pins" during broadcast. No sir, they weren't "cheerleading for Bush administration policies," they were reporting the damn news and being American.
"It seems like the 9/11 attacks not only killed almost 3,000 Americans, but also killed the mainstream media's ability to challenge the administration." Your pathetic Ladyman. As I said before, liberals look through that political prism before they think anything else.
Walter Cronkite's "we are mired in stalemate" broadcast in late Feb. 1968 killed the Vietnam War in one newscast. This time, it has taken today's liberal media over three years of negative coverage, and still the War on Terror is not dead.
Ladyman, if there is anyone "bordering on treason" in reference to your views on Iraq and non-support of my country, it is you. Man, if we could bring back the Sedition Act of 1918 signed by DEMOCRAT President Wilson, I would have had your ass turned into the government long ago.
Thankfully Ladyman recognizes the "meteoric success" of Conservative media. He even spelled Rush Lmbaugh's and Ann Coultr's names correctly. Of course Mike won't mention the dismal failure of Air America Radio even after it was heavily promoted by the liberal media as an alternative to Conservative Talk Radio. No, he just uneventfully remarks "most of those bucks are on the right, not the left."
Ladyman never defines US failure in Iraq. Look, it took the US thirteen years to OK our own Constitution, it only took the Iraqi's three. They've held successful elections multiple times, yet Jimmy Carter still has to go to Africa to oversee elections. They have a working government that's trying its hardest, all the while putting up with daily violence equivalent to one day of our Virginia Tech Massacre. The Iraqi's are a free people free of a ruthless dictator, and as one who has seen a country start up overnight, I can tell you that all problems will not be solved overnight, in three, four, five, or even ten years. But I can tell you, it will get better -- even in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"One more reason for the media's Iraq failure," and Ladyman it is not "the Bush administration," it is not even "the mainstream media" themselves. It is the fault of stupid Americans like you Mike Ladyman. Americans who refuse to believe in the greatness of America. Americans like yourself who have that "can't do" spirit. Americans who fall for the liberal line hook, line, and sinker, just as the Hitler Youth were loyal to the death for Hitler. Your guilt overides you each day because you believe the United States has so much and the World has so little, and that it is not fair in your book. Meanwhile you overlook the transgressions of dictators and revel with jealousy at the power they command.
Going back to my small consolations that I take with the liberal media and liberals like Mike Ladyman about the unborn historians of the future. President Bush, at the end of his term, may have approval ratings similiar to that of President Truman's 22-23%, but you can be damned sure that Bush will be at least a Second Tier President, if not First Tier, that he had his problems as well as the War on Terror, which was considered unpopular back then. And that they will have an aircraft carrier named after him -- the GWB.
Did you know that President Harry Truman had an approval rating of 22-23% near the end of his Presidency. He had his problems as well as the Korean Conflict, which was considered unpopular back then as well. And now they have an aircraft carrier named after him -- the HST.
Dick Morris has written about categorizing presidents into four tiers:
First Tier - Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, & FDR.
Second Tier - Teddy Roosevelt, Truman & Ronald Reagan.
Third - Kennedy, Johnson, GHW Bush.
Fourth - Every other uneventful President, including Clinton.
Clinton had asked Morris about what it took to be considered first tier and Morris told Clinton that he would never be regarded as first tier because he never won a war. Of course we all know that Clinton's legacy will always revolved around oral sex and Monica.
While reading Ladyman's bunk "Everybody's Talking: How the Media has Dropped the Ball When it Comes to Bush" it was like I was reading an old edition of the communist Pravda newspaper. As one who has been in a communist country, I've seen the empty shelves in person, and the next thing you know Ladyman will be tauting how the Cuban healthcare system can run rings around our own Texas Medical Center.
Has Ladyman ever said one positive thing about the United States? No doubt one the first things he must have thought after he learned about the 9/11 attacks, "damn, now Bush's approval numbers are going to skyrocket." You see with liberals -- everything, and I mean everything -- is seen through a political prism.
I remember back in the days before Nelson Mandela was released from prison. Liberal Democrats were oozing about spreading democracy around the world. My God, since 9/11 the United States has liberated tens of millions from dictatorial rule and since it was a Republican Presidents administration that accomplished the feat liberals have been dead quiet on the subject. And that goes for a plethora of topics such as the economy, high tax revenues coming in due to tax cuts, etc.
Can you imagine how the liberal media would be dumbfoundingly falling over themselves to praise a President Gore or Kerry for the same actions that President Bush has taken. Again, there goes that political prism.
Look, Ladyman would have you believe that we should have never gone into Iraq because as he says "Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Enough said." Look, if Bush would have appeased Saddam, the Iraqi dictator would be well on his way, if not already have nuclear weapons. And get this, if Bush would not have gone into Iraq, those same liberals and Ladyman would be demanding in their tripe-ridden post that action against Iraq be taken. See, President Bush, can do no right when it comes to liberals. If Bush came out and said that man was completely responsible for global warming, the liberal press would go out and find the rightful information on the true cause, our lifegiver -- the Sun.
Now what would you rather have: a dead Saddam, or an alive Saddam of whom Mrs. Bill Clinton said in 2003 in a speech to Code Pink on disarming Saddam, "I have absolutely no belief that he will" disarm. She went on to say in the same speech, "if he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information, intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, tried to discount the political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision. I would love to agree with you, but I can't based on my own understanding and assessment of the situation."
Of course now Mrs. Bill Clinton is singing a new tune in 2007 to appease the George Soros leftist crowd, but she had the same intelligence as all our Allies had back in 2003, and WMDs don't just disappear into
Ladyman has to be the most depressed castrati in Montgomery County. He blames the liberal media for failing to have President Bush impeached for his war crimes. The "Bush administration lies and distortions went unchallenged or were actively promoted." I honestly believe that if Ladyman would come across information of a al-Qaeda terrorist plot to attack the Conroe Wal-Mart on a crowded Saturday, going to the FBI or Conroe Police would be the farthest thing from his mind, and Mike instead would be ready for exclusive news reporting with camera in hand, and e-mails to Al-Jazeera and CNN ready to go to show the blood and gore pictures, just as they willingly show video of American soldiers being sniped.
Toyko Rose Ladyman is definitely frustrated over the liberal medias "inability to determine just why this disastrous war was ever launched." Again, a total inability to connect with the truth on Mike's part. I mean, does this guy have any friends? Does he smile or laugh?
You have to be in denial to say that "Congress rolled over and gave Bush authorization to go to war." We all knew, those of us in the real world, that this war is going to be different from any other war the United States had ever fought. Ladyman's reliving of the glory days of Vietnam activism are far different from today. Appeasement will not bring "peace for our time" such as Neville Chamberlain thought following the Munich Agreement.
How the hell do you appease an enemy whose only item at the peace table calls for all American infidels (those "without faith") to be slaughtered.
For instance, al-Qaeda hates all homosexuals. If the United States appeased them and gave them all American homosexuals, once the last homosexual was killed, they would come back to the table and demand "give us all your feminists." OK, we give them all American feminists. Hmm, maybe al-Qaeda does have a point?
Then the Supreme Court would have to get involved and define who is "one without faith." Definitely the Madalyn Murray O'Hair atheist types would have to go, the wacko enviromentalists would have to go, and the vast majority of liberals. All would be slaughtered for appeasement.
Of course that was tongue-in-cheek, but my point is that American liberalism is bent that they can't see the forest for the trees. Al-Qaeda literally wants to die to kill us, and when that first terrorists nuke hits, even you might be singing a different tune. We can hope.
I've seen war, young kids torn apart and killed, and I tell you we ought to be grateful that only 3,000 Americans have been killed. Hell, during World War II, it was common to lose many times that during major engagements.
I'm tired of liberal Democrats and their selective outrage when it comes to American deaths in the War on Terror. Christ, we have 7,000 Americans that die each year because pharmacist misread doctors shoddy handwriting. Should we withdraw doctors from their offices? We have tens of thousands that die in auto accidents each year. Should we go back to horse and buggy? And I won't even go into how the Democrats have aborted themselves into supporting illegal immigration.
I challenge your patriotism Mike Ladyman. You were obviously offended when Fox newscasters "sported American flag pins" during broadcast. No sir, they weren't "cheerleading for Bush administration policies," they were reporting the damn news and being American.
"It seems like the 9/11 attacks not only killed almost 3,000 Americans, but also killed the mainstream media's ability to challenge the administration." Your pathetic Ladyman. As I said before, liberals look through that political prism before they think anything else.
Walter Cronkite's "we are mired in stalemate" broadcast in late Feb. 1968 killed the Vietnam War in one newscast. This time, it has taken today's liberal media over three years of negative coverage, and still the War on Terror is not dead.
Ladyman, if there is anyone "bordering on treason" in reference to your views on Iraq and non-support of my country, it is you. Man, if we could bring back the Sedition Act of 1918 signed by DEMOCRAT President Wilson, I would have had your ass turned into the government long ago.
Thankfully Ladyman recognizes the "meteoric success" of Conservative media. He even spelled Rush Lmbaugh's and Ann Coultr's names correctly. Of course Mike won't mention the dismal failure of Air America Radio even after it was heavily promoted by the liberal media as an alternative to Conservative Talk Radio. No, he just uneventfully remarks "most of those bucks are on the right, not the left."
Ladyman never defines US failure in Iraq. Look, it took the US thirteen years to OK our own Constitution, it only took the Iraqi's three. They've held successful elections multiple times, yet Jimmy Carter still has to go to Africa to oversee elections. They have a working government that's trying its hardest, all the while putting up with daily violence equivalent to one day of our Virginia Tech Massacre. The Iraqi's are a free people free of a ruthless dictator, and as one who has seen a country start up overnight, I can tell you that all problems will not be solved overnight, in three, four, five, or even ten years. But I can tell you, it will get better -- even in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"One more reason for the media's Iraq failure," and Ladyman it is not "the Bush administration," it is not even "the mainstream media" themselves. It is the fault of stupid Americans like you Mike Ladyman. Americans who refuse to believe in the greatness of America. Americans like yourself who have that "can't do" spirit. Americans who fall for the liberal line hook, line, and sinker, just as the Hitler Youth were loyal to the death for Hitler. Your guilt overides you each day because you believe the United States has so much and the World has so little, and that it is not fair in your book. Meanwhile you overlook the transgressions of dictators and revel with jealousy at the power they command.
Going back to my small consolations that I take with the liberal media and liberals like Mike Ladyman about the unborn historians of the future. President Bush, at the end of his term, may have approval ratings similiar to that of President Truman's 22-23%, but you can be damned sure that Bush will be at least a Second Tier President, if not First Tier, that he had his problems as well as the War on Terror, which was considered unpopular back then. And that they will have an aircraft carrier named after him -- the GWB.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
'The Bulletin' Leans Left on Virginia Tech Massacre (Universities To Stay Gun-Free Mass Murders' Paradise)
Remember before the 2006 Elections, we always heard from the liberal media when interviewing Democrats, "What do Democrats need to do to win in '06?" Since last November, no one has ever heard the liberal media say when talking to Republicans, "What do Republicans need to do to win the next election?" And Mike Ladyman, the Publisher and Editor of The Bulletin is saying it plain as day into what side he clearly supports. "To win elections, Democrats ...."
In The Bulletin's April 26th - May 3rd editorial piece, "Year of the Gun: In the Wake of Virginia Tech, Democrats Must Rethink Gun Control Stance," Ladyman explores every avenue of the massacre at V-Tech except, 'what would have happened if students with legally concealed weapons had a chance to use them during the massacre by Cho.'
I'm of the school that "an armed society is a polite society." Despite what the movies and dimestore novels have told us, the American West was relatively a peaceful place. I'm proud to say that I carry a concealed handgun. I carry it openly when I'm out and about in Conroe. Well, of course its concealed behind what looks like, well, why should I tell you.
I was finally convinced to carry a concealed weapon even though I had had the permit for six months, when I was at HEB one evening last fall before T-Day, and one of Conroe's finely dressed hooded sweatshirt gentleman aborted an atempt on mugging me and my six year-old nephew when he saw an officer at the last second. The very next week I was over at Gun Emporium on FM 2854 picking out my new 9mm.
The liberals will look at the Virginia Tech Massacre and as with most things they will spin it to "search for answers, for those measures that will ensure that something like the massacre in Blacksburg never happens again." We must understand what Cho was going through. We must understand the terrorists. I'm here to tell you that the V-Tech massacre could not have been prevented no matter how much gun control would have been thrown into society.
Do criminals adhere to liberal gun control laws? HELL NO. Cho knew that V-Tech was a "gun-free zone," and a gun or several guns for that matter would give him the power that liberals crave. Yes, Cho was a liberal. Whether he formed his opinion on his own, or more than likely he learned them from liberal teachers and professors over the years, Cho was a liberal. Where else could someone gain the insight to hate "rich kids," "debauchery" and "deceitful charlatans" than by listening to liberal profs spout their hate for President Bush, the United States, and anyone who has a buck more than they do.
Incredibly, Ladyman does not blame President Bush for the V-Tech massacre. He says "much of the responsibility lies with Democrats," which means for those of you in Cut-and-Shoot, that Democrats are in the majority but yet have been unable to do anything in Congress.
The gun control issue has been a dying Democrat issue for quite a while now. Defeat in Iraq and the constant attacks on the Bush Administration are the main issues of the day. If the United States were truly a liberal country, the gun control issue would definitely have more traction, and that is not the case. The liberals have succeeded with making the War on Terror and Iraq look so bad because they continue to pound negative points.
We never hear criticism of al-Qaeda for chopping off some American's head. We never hear enemy bodycounts -- only American. We never see any stories of our soldiers hugging Iraqi kids or helping in the hospitals, or helping build Iraqi infrastructure. Our liberal media is the literal opposite of the Nazi propagandists reporting only good news about The Third Reich until events like the Nazi defeat in the Battle of Stalingrad.
The liberal media does not respect you. The Bulletin does not respect you as a reader. Hence, you get the tripe you get. That's why newspaper readership, such as that of the Houston Chronicle is falling at clip of 2% - 4% every six months, according to Audit Bureau of Circulations, and they continue to layoff people, and yet they still say "our journalism will not be compromised." Those liberals are so stupid that they blame the reader for their "losses" instead of examining if their liberal journalism is the problem to begin with.
This whole thing with V-Tech and gun control revolves around POWER. The power of the gunman to take innocent life. The power of information that the public receives. The power of liberal legislators to push forward issues of gun control. The power of taxation. The power of liberal Democrats to control every aspect of our lives from the womb to the tomb. Why do you think that dictators such as Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro are literally lauded by the liberal media -- because those dictators have absolute control over their constituencies, which is a future goal of the Democrat party if they ever have enough balls to let their true agenda be known.
Gun control, which is only heeded by law abiding citizens gives Democrats power -- a lot of power. If laws are ever enacted that take guns out of the hands of ordinary citizens completely. American communism will be only a few years away. Thank God for George W. Bush and the fact that he "is one of the most pro-gun presidents in history." Thank God that liberal Democrats have so many caucuses they make fools of themselves in everything they do. Democrats look to themselves, then their party, then whatever else, and the United States interest always comes last. They feel guilty about American success stories. I don't.
"Democrats have been turning away from gun control ever since Al Gore's run for the presidency," and rightly so. Hell, John Kerry had to stage his episodes with guns to garner more independent supporters in 2004. It is a losing issue for liberals.
Measures taken in the wake of the V-Tech massacre by the Virginia legislature to have those with mental issues screened for elibility may have some merit, but that's as far as it should go. Look, incrementalism is the liberals best friend here. It has worked with smoking, and it can work with gun control, provided that Americans don't become complacent with gun control creep, as they have with letting the memory of September 11th slip from their memory.
Its no argument that the gun control issue is a tough road ahead for the liberal Democrats. Ladyman even concedes that "a substantial portion of the [Democrat] party's new standard-bearers are pro-gun." which is an issue that the Democrats had to discard in 2006 in order to gain the leadership in the House and Senate with the victories of Blue Dog Conservative Democrats whose big difference with the GOP was about the US pulling troops out of Iraq.
Ladyman attacks GOP Presidential candidate Gov. Mitt Romney on how he pulled back from his previous tough stances on gun control. Who cares? He will not be the nominee anyway. My secret pick for the 2008 GOP nominee -- JC Watts.
Ladyman again attacks Republicans for their "strong public stance on gun control" noting that "victories that [liberal] gun-control advocates won during the administration of former President Bill Clinton" have been flushed down the toilet -- good. Were assault weapons used during the V-Tech massacre -- of course not. But the premise that Democrats want to ban all guns still stands. Thank God that the Republicans had some balls in the 90's and pushed for "sunset" provisions on gun ban laws. "Since then, Democratic attempts to bring the ban back have faltered," and they will continue to fail because they cannot pass any veto-proof legislation.
Ladyman's assertion that "the expiration of the [Democrat gun bans] may have had some consequences in Blacksburg," is ridiculous. Only legal handguns were used at V-Tech. Chains were used to lock students in so Cho would have a more effective killing spree. The gunman had it in his mind that he was going to kill, and that the students and profs were all going to be defenseless. A mass-murders' paradise is what it was.
My prediction is that the Democrats will never get a hand up on the gun control issue. And if they do it is going to take several generations, perhaps even 50 - 75 years or more. "To embrace [Ladyman's] 'third way' gun policy," the Democrats would have to give up the one thing they want -- absolute dictatorial power.
In The Bulletin's April 26th - May 3rd editorial piece, "Year of the Gun: In the Wake of Virginia Tech, Democrats Must Rethink Gun Control Stance," Ladyman explores every avenue of the massacre at V-Tech except, 'what would have happened if students with legally concealed weapons had a chance to use them during the massacre by Cho.'
I'm of the school that "an armed society is a polite society." Despite what the movies and dimestore novels have told us, the American West was relatively a peaceful place. I'm proud to say that I carry a concealed handgun. I carry it openly when I'm out and about in Conroe. Well, of course its concealed behind what looks like, well, why should I tell you.
I was finally convinced to carry a concealed weapon even though I had had the permit for six months, when I was at HEB one evening last fall before T-Day, and one of Conroe's finely dressed hooded sweatshirt gentleman aborted an atempt on mugging me and my six year-old nephew when he saw an officer at the last second. The very next week I was over at Gun Emporium on FM 2854 picking out my new 9mm.
The liberals will look at the Virginia Tech Massacre and as with most things they will spin it to "search for answers, for those measures that will ensure that something like the massacre in Blacksburg never happens again." We must understand what Cho was going through. We must understand the terrorists. I'm here to tell you that the V-Tech massacre could not have been prevented no matter how much gun control would have been thrown into society.
Do criminals adhere to liberal gun control laws? HELL NO. Cho knew that V-Tech was a "gun-free zone," and a gun or several guns for that matter would give him the power that liberals crave. Yes, Cho was a liberal. Whether he formed his opinion on his own, or more than likely he learned them from liberal teachers and professors over the years, Cho was a liberal. Where else could someone gain the insight to hate "rich kids," "debauchery" and "deceitful charlatans" than by listening to liberal profs spout their hate for President Bush, the United States, and anyone who has a buck more than they do.
Incredibly, Ladyman does not blame President Bush for the V-Tech massacre. He says "much of the responsibility lies with Democrats," which means for those of you in Cut-and-Shoot, that Democrats are in the majority but yet have been unable to do anything in Congress.
The gun control issue has been a dying Democrat issue for quite a while now. Defeat in Iraq and the constant attacks on the Bush Administration are the main issues of the day. If the United States were truly a liberal country, the gun control issue would definitely have more traction, and that is not the case. The liberals have succeeded with making the War on Terror and Iraq look so bad because they continue to pound negative points.
We never hear criticism of al-Qaeda for chopping off some American's head. We never hear enemy bodycounts -- only American. We never see any stories of our soldiers hugging Iraqi kids or helping in the hospitals, or helping build Iraqi infrastructure. Our liberal media is the literal opposite of the Nazi propagandists reporting only good news about The Third Reich until events like the Nazi defeat in the Battle of Stalingrad.
The liberal media does not respect you. The Bulletin does not respect you as a reader. Hence, you get the tripe you get. That's why newspaper readership, such as that of the Houston Chronicle is falling at clip of 2% - 4% every six months, according to Audit Bureau of Circulations, and they continue to layoff people, and yet they still say "our journalism will not be compromised." Those liberals are so stupid that they blame the reader for their "losses" instead of examining if their liberal journalism is the problem to begin with.
This whole thing with V-Tech and gun control revolves around POWER. The power of the gunman to take innocent life. The power of information that the public receives. The power of liberal legislators to push forward issues of gun control. The power of taxation. The power of liberal Democrats to control every aspect of our lives from the womb to the tomb. Why do you think that dictators such as Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro are literally lauded by the liberal media -- because those dictators have absolute control over their constituencies, which is a future goal of the Democrat party if they ever have enough balls to let their true agenda be known.
Gun control, which is only heeded by law abiding citizens gives Democrats power -- a lot of power. If laws are ever enacted that take guns out of the hands of ordinary citizens completely. American communism will be only a few years away. Thank God for George W. Bush and the fact that he "is one of the most pro-gun presidents in history." Thank God that liberal Democrats have so many caucuses they make fools of themselves in everything they do. Democrats look to themselves, then their party, then whatever else, and the United States interest always comes last. They feel guilty about American success stories. I don't.
"Democrats have been turning away from gun control ever since Al Gore's run for the presidency," and rightly so. Hell, John Kerry had to stage his episodes with guns to garner more independent supporters in 2004. It is a losing issue for liberals.
Measures taken in the wake of the V-Tech massacre by the Virginia legislature to have those with mental issues screened for elibility may have some merit, but that's as far as it should go. Look, incrementalism is the liberals best friend here. It has worked with smoking, and it can work with gun control, provided that Americans don't become complacent with gun control creep, as they have with letting the memory of September 11th slip from their memory.
Its no argument that the gun control issue is a tough road ahead for the liberal Democrats. Ladyman even concedes that "a substantial portion of the [Democrat] party's new standard-bearers are pro-gun." which is an issue that the Democrats had to discard in 2006 in order to gain the leadership in the House and Senate with the victories of Blue Dog Conservative Democrats whose big difference with the GOP was about the US pulling troops out of Iraq.
Ladyman attacks GOP Presidential candidate Gov. Mitt Romney on how he pulled back from his previous tough stances on gun control. Who cares? He will not be the nominee anyway. My secret pick for the 2008 GOP nominee -- JC Watts.
Ladyman again attacks Republicans for their "strong public stance on gun control" noting that "victories that [liberal] gun-control advocates won during the administration of former President Bill Clinton" have been flushed down the toilet -- good. Were assault weapons used during the V-Tech massacre -- of course not. But the premise that Democrats want to ban all guns still stands. Thank God that the Republicans had some balls in the 90's and pushed for "sunset" provisions on gun ban laws. "Since then, Democratic attempts to bring the ban back have faltered," and they will continue to fail because they cannot pass any veto-proof legislation.
Ladyman's assertion that "the expiration of the [Democrat gun bans] may have had some consequences in Blacksburg," is ridiculous. Only legal handguns were used at V-Tech. Chains were used to lock students in so Cho would have a more effective killing spree. The gunman had it in his mind that he was going to kill, and that the students and profs were all going to be defenseless. A mass-murders' paradise is what it was.
My prediction is that the Democrats will never get a hand up on the gun control issue. And if they do it is going to take several generations, perhaps even 50 - 75 years or more. "To embrace [Ladyman's] 'third way' gun policy," the Democrats would have to give up the one thing they want -- absolute dictatorial power.
"Boom Town" by Mark Williams plagiarized from 'Handbook of Texas'
I usually don't read Montgomery County's The Bulletin because it is obviously a liberal rag, but I recently picked up the April 26th - May 3rd issue because I of course am a history buff, and since I'm recovering from cancer and a recent surgery, I have some extra time to spend reading up on local lore that was loudly broadcast on The Bulletin's front page.The top story of Volume 37, Issue 17 is "Boom Town: Then & Now, Montgomery County's Economic Growth." It was a very informative article because it contained alot of information about Montgomery County history, and since I moved here a few short years ago to be closer to family and friends, I wanted to know more about my adopted home county.
I learned alot from the article. The writer, one Mark Williams, I initially thought of as one sharp guy, I mean doing all this research on Montgomery County had to be hardwork and all, and with The Bulletin, well they obviously can't pay much. It turns out Williams did no research at all, or at the very least the most minute amount to account for his pre-heralded handiwork.
Williams even noted a source, The Handbook of Texas, which was written back in the late '80s, and wrote "numerous artifacts from the Paleo-Indian and Archaic cultures have been found in the area, suggesting that it has been continuously occupied for more than 10,000 years," leaving the impression that that was the only thing noted in Williams piece from the The Handbook.
Well as it turns out with Mark Williams so-called "originality" in regards to the piece, and as with all liberal enterprises such as "man-made global warming" and the Democrats "concern for American soldiers lives in Iraq" -- it was all a FRAUD. Williams is more believeable when he writes about Bigfoot.
You will not find one quotation mark in Williams piece denoting the work of The Handbook articles author Christopher Long, who is now an Asst Professor with UT Austin's School of Architecture.
Mark Williams plagiarism of Professor Long's piece is an affront to journalism. I guess Williams is too busy store clerking or boat valeting, or whatever he does, rather than writing original material. In many places in Williams piece "Boom Town" he copies word for word or closely follows the original Handbook article.
To verify, I typed the words from "Boom Town's" sixth paragraph "When the first Europeans arrived the region it was dominated," after I did an edit-find on The Handbook's Montgomery County article, and low and behold there was a match with not one quotation in sight, and this is quite evident throughout most of the piece.
I'm convinced that Mark Williams copied Long's article to his word processor as the basis for his work, and began nipping here and tucking there, all the while thinking that The Bulletin's dumbed-down readership would do or say nothing, and not to mention "do any of their own research" into what was written. It might as well be the CBS Evening News purposely ignoring good news on the economy, Iraq, etc. just to make the President and the US look bad in front of the world.
The following is the article mostly plagiarized by Williams is posted here, because you know it will be deleted from embarrassment by The Bulletin when the news gets out. To best view Williams so-called original work, do what he did to retrieve it for his foundation. Highlight it, right-click and copy, and paste it into your word processor to enlarge the text.
"Bulletin Time:
Thu May 03 12:03:16 2007
Boom Town
Montgomery County's Economic Growth -- Then & NowMark Williams, Bulletin Staff Writer
To say that Montgomery County has grown in the past two decades is...
well, calling it an understatement is an understatement. Montgomery County is
the 4th fastest growing county in Texas and 36th in the nation. Montgomery
County is, these days, more than just a cluster of bedroom communities for those
commuting to jobs in Houston; it is now considered a destination -- a clean,
safe place when families live, work and vacation. There is an abundance of
restaurants, shopping, multiple locations of Starbucks, fun family events and
concerts.But this has not always been the case: when my family moved to
Conroe from Houston nearly 30 years ago, in the summer of 1978, Montgomery
County was... well, it seemed very small and sleepy -- sound asleep, actually.
The Woodlands was still very much wooded, Lake Conroe was filled with an aquatic
pest called hydrilla and Conroe's busiest shopping destination was the
Crossroads Center. There was no outlet mall, no major department stores, very
few restaurants -- and there wasn't a Starbucks in sight.In 1990, there was just under 183,000 residents in Montgomery County; a decade later, the
population jumped to over 293,000. In 2006, an estimated 394,000 people
inhabited our little part of the world; and in four years, it is predicted that
over 475,000 folks will live around these parts.In the last 20 years, the economy of Montgomery County has been significantly expanded. No longer
dependent on just a handful of industries, the county has attracted a plethora
of manufacturing, retail, health care, construction and tourism businesses. In
shoring up this economic expansion, Montgomery County has attracted a highly
skilled, educated workforce. There are more than 500,000 potential employees
within a 30 mile radius of Conroe and more than two million more workers in
Harris County.Montgomery County has truly come into its own in recent years;
but, despite the sonic boom of a growth spurt brought on by the new century,
Montgomery County has long been the site of human habitation. According to the
Handbook of Texas, published by the Texas State Historical Association at the
University of Texas at Austin, numerous artifacts from the Paleo-Indian and
Archaic cultures have been found in the area, suggesting that it has been
continuously occupied for more than 10,000 years.When the first Europeans arrived in the region, it was dominated by various tribes of the Atakapan
Indians, a predominantly hunting and gathering people whose range extended south
and eastward to the Gulf Coast. In the early 18th century, one of these tribes,
the Arkokisas had campsites along Peach Creek and on the banks of the San
Jacinto River. The Bidai Indians, another Atakapan tribe, also ranged across
most of the future county, their territory extending as far north as the Old San
Antonio Road. Most of these natives peoples eventually succumbed to European
diseases, were killed by other Indian tribes, intermarried, or migrated
elsewhere; by 1850, virtually no trace of them remained.The earliest European explorer of what would become Montgomery County was a Frenchman -- René
Robert Cavelier, who passed through the area in 1687. When news of French
incursions reached Spanish authorities, they sent several expeditions to the
region to reclaim it for Spain. During the mid-18th century, the Spanish made
several attempts to establish settlements in the area and eventually set up
three missions on the banks of Spring Creek within the current boundaries of
Montgomery County, but the missions were abandoned in 1756 and no permanent
Spanish settlements were made.The area was included in the colonization
contracts issued by Spanish and later Mexican authorities to Stephen F. Austin,
and during the early 1820’s Anglo-American settlers began moving into the
region. Over 40 families in Austin's colony got land titles and settled in
western Montgomery County. Among the earliest settlers was Andrew Montgomery,
who established a trading post at the crossroads of the Loma del Toro and lower
Coushatta traces. He was soon joined by friends and relatives and the settlement
eventually grew into the town of Montgomery.During the early 1830’s, the population of the region increased rapidly, and in December 1837, the Republic
of Texas Congress established Montgomery County, which was named for its largest
settlement. The new county was carved from Washington County, and its borders
originally extended from the Brazos River on the west to the Trinity on the
east, and from the Old San Antonio Road on north to the San Jacinto River on the
south, an area which included future counties Grimes, Walker, San Jacinto,
Madison and Waller. The county's present boundaries were established after the
establishment of Waller County in 1870.The town of Montgomery, positioned on the stagecoach line that ran from Huntsville to Houston, was made
the first county seat and became the focal point for new immigrants to the area.
The first courthouse, a two-room log structure built in 1838, was replaced in
1842 by a two-story building of handcrafted lumber, and in 1855 a large brick
courthouse was completed. The population grew quickly during the 1840’s and
1850’s, as large numbers of settlers, lured by the abundant land, moved to the
area. In 1850, the population was 2,300, and by 1860 it reached nearly
5,500.The great majority of the new immigrants came from the Old South, many
of them bringing their slaves with them. Already in 1850 there were 1,448
bondsmen in the county, and by 1860 their number increased to 2,416, or nearly
half of the entire population. As many as two-thirds of the white families owned
one of more slaves, and two of the state's largest slaveholders lived in the
county.Montgomery County's economy in its early years was based on
subsistence farming, but by the 1850s a thriving plantation economy, based
largely on cotton production, had developed. By 1860 the county was producing
more than 8,000 bales annually, most of which was hauled overland by horse-drawn
wagons and ox carts to Houston and Galveston.As the Civil War began, Montgomery County was in most ways typical of the counties of the region,
decidedly Southern in character and outlook, with a rapidly developing
plantation economy. Montgomery remained the largest town, but several other
trading centers had emerged, including Danville, Bay's Chapel, Cincinnati, and
Waverly; in the early 1850’s, Baptists had organized the first church.The Civil War brought big changes to the county. Not surprisingly, given its large
number of slaveholders, 80 percent of Montgomery County residents cast their
votes for secession. The county's men volunteered for the Confederate army in
large numbers, a sizeable number of them serving in the Fourth Texas Regiment of
Hood's Texas Brigade; others joined Terry's Texas Rangers.Many of the early volunteers saw considerable action during the war, and as many
three-quarters of them were killed or injured before the end of the war. For
those who remained at home, there were other problems to deal with: lack of
markets for goods, shortages, and wild fluctuations in Confederate
currency.The end of the war brought changes and struggles to the county's
economy. For many of Montgomery County's white residents, the abolition of
slavery meant devastating economic loss. Prior to the Civil War slaves had
constituted nearly a half of all taxable property in the county, and their loss
coupled with a decline in property values caused a profound disruption for most
planters.Like most of Texas counties at the time, Montgomery County
experienced a prolonged post war agricultural depression. During the Civil War
prices for cotton had skyrocketed, and landowners had planted ever increasing
amounts of land in cotton in order to reap the benefits. After the war falling
prices and the loss of cheap slave labor combined to severely depress the local
economy.To make ends meet, many landowners opted to grow even more cotton,
in the process badly depleting the soil. By the 1880’s the soil in many areas of
the county was so poor that cotton yields were as low as one-third to
three-quarters of a bale per acre. Some farmers turned to livestock raising or
other small grains, such corn and wheat, but cotton nevertheless remained the
county's leading cash crop until the end of the century.The county's economy began to recover with the construction of several railroads. In 1871, the
International-Great Northern Railroad built across the county; in 1879 a
narrow-gauge line known as the Houston, East and West Texas was constructed; and
in 1880 the Houston and Texas Central built a branch line from Navasota to
Montgomery and extended eastward to Conroe.The construction of the railroads
touched off an intense controversy concerning the location of the county seat.
The first railroad missed the town of Montgomery. Willis, a new town on the
railroad was voted county seat in 1874, but the county seat was moved back to
Montgomery in 1880, after the Houston and Texas Central was built to run through
the territory. In 1889, the county seat was moved to the fledgling community of
Conroe, which was positioned at the junction of the International-Great Northern
and the newly built Gulf, Colorado and Santa Fe Railway.The construction of the railroads also set off a major period of expansion in the county. Numerous
new towns grew up, and the population, which had risen only slightly since the
Civil War, saw a marked increase. Despite the loss of considerable territory due
to the splitting off of several new counties, between 1870 and 1880, the number
of residents grew from 6,400 to just over 10,000, and over the next two decades
the population increased to more than 17,000.The construction of the railroads also marked the beginnings of the county's great lumber surge.
Commercial lumbering had begun in the county prior to the Civil War, but the
lack of easy access to river or rail transportation severely hampered efforts to
exploit the area's rich timber resources. With the arrival of the railroads,
however, lumbering quickly developed into a major industry.By 1882, 45 steam sawmills were in operation and within a short time lumbering emerged as the
county's largest source of income. The lumber boom gave rise to numerous new
communities like Bobville, Cowl Spur, Dobbin, Egypt, Fostoria, Honea, Karen,
Keenan, Mostyn, Leonides, and Security -- all of which developed as lumber
shipping points or mill sites.The boom also helped to transform the county
in other ways: as late as the early 1870’s, 80 percent of the county was still
covered by thick pine forests. Over the next four decades much of the county was
deforested, permanently altering the landscape and opening the way for a steady
increase in livestock raising and farming.The agricultural economy, which had been on the wane since the Civil War, began to recover in the 1880’s.
Spurring its growth was the introduction of tobacco, which began to be planted
in large quantities in the 1890’s. The center of the industry was Willis, which
by 1895 had seven cigar factories. But high railroad shipping costs and the high
initial investment and labor involved in curing and sweating the tobacco
discouraged many farmers.Between 1898 and 1901 the amount of land given over
to tobacco production fell dramatically from more than 1,000 acres to only 70.
The subsequent lifting of a United States tariff on Cuban tobacco, which had
kept prices artificially high, finally ended the experiment, and within a few
years virtually no tobacco was being grown in the county.The agricultural economy declined at the turn of the century, but by 1910 it began to show slow
but steady growth. Between 1910 and 1920 the number of farms in the county
increased and the amount of improved acreage grew to over 80,000. Although
cotton and corn continued to be grown in considerable quantities, many farmers
after 1910 turned to truck farming, growing fruits and vegetables for the
ever-expanding cities on the Gulf Coast.Farm production gradually increased after the turn of the century, and by the early 1920’s agricultural revenue in
some areas reached new highs; but the period also saw high land prices that
forced many farmers into tenancy; already by 1910 nearly half of all farmers
were tenants, many of them barely making a living.Despite the upswing in farming, lumber remained the county's primary industry after 1900. In 1914, the
Delta Land & Timber Company built a mill in Conroe, which at the time was
the most modern sawmill in the state and one of the largest in the South. The
lumber industry also gave rise to a number of related business, including box
and cross-tie factories, which flourished during the 1910s and early
1920’s.Timbering remained the area's principal source of income during the
early 1920’s, but by the end of the decade it was in steep decline, largely
because most of the best timber had been cut. The lack of available timber
forced many of the mills to close, and many smaller lumber communities were
abandoned. By the late 1920’s, large numbers of lumber workers were leaving the
county to seek work elsewhere.The countywide population, which had reached
over 17,000 in 1920, fell over the next decade and by 1930 had dropped to
14,000. The decline in the timber industry came at an unfortunate moment for the
county: by 1930, the effects of the Great Depression were being felt, and within
a short time the ranks of the jobless swelled enormously. Hardest hit were the
county's farmers, who were forced to endure the combined effects of falling
prices, soil depletion, and boll weevil infestations. Those with large plots of
land were able to make it through the hard times, but many of the county's
tenant farmers and sharecroppers were forced off the land. Between 1930 and 1940
the number of farms in the county fell sharply, and as many as a third of all
tenants left to seek other work.But a reversal of fortune was in the
offing, when oil was discovered southeast of Conroe in 1932. Evidence of oil had
been found in the county as early as 1901, when Santa Fe Railroad engineers
drilled a water well and noted traces of oil. Natural gas was found southwest of
Conroe in 1924, and several major oil companies acquired leases in the area; but
initial tests were unsuccessful, and the companies lost interest.In August 1931, oil wildcatter George William Strake began drilling a test well 6 miles
southeast of Conroe and in December hit oil; by June 1932 Strake had brought in
a second, even larger well, which was spewing out more than 900 barrels daily.
The discovery immediately triggered an tremendous oil boom. Within days
thousands of fortune-seekers, financiers and roughnecks flooded the area. The
population of Conroe, estimated at 2,500 in December 1931, mushroomed to more
than 10,000 within a few months.At the beginning of 1933 more than 100 wells
had been drilled, and more that 25,000 barrels per day were being produced; by
the end of the year the number of producing wells had grown to 679 and the daily
output was more than 52,000 barrels. Oil was subsequently discovered in several
other areas of the county and the combined oilfields of Montgomery County made
it one the richest oil producing areas in the nation.Although the majority of Montgomery County residents saw no direct benefits from the discovery, oil
money contributed to a general prosperity that helped offset the worst effects
of the depression. Oil money also helped to remake the face of the county. Roads
were graded and paved, new schools were built and public buildings and monuments
erected. Conroe saw a construction boom as numerous new buildings -- banks,
offices, and homes -- were erected with oil money. The population of the county,
swelled by the boom, grew by nearly 10,000 between 1930 and 1940, increasing to
just over 23,000.The prosperity continued during the years of World War II:
oil refineries and a carbon black manufacturing plant were built, and efforts
were intensified to produce as much oil as possible for the war effort. After
the war, oil production declined, but it has remained one of the county's
consistent sources of income; in 1990 alone more than 2 million barrels were
produced.Since World War II, the agricultural scene has also seen
change: during the 1940’s and 50’s, many farmers turned to truck farming, but in
recent years cattle and horse ranching have increased. In the early 1990’s the
majority of agricultural income came from livestock and livestock products, with
smaller amounts from greenhouse and nursery products.Lumber is also once again a major industry: after the wholesale harvesting of the 20’s, many forests
were allowed to grow again, and by the early 90’s over three-quarters of the
land was timbered. The Sam Houston National Forest covers much of the northeast
and northwest portions of the county.Between 1950 and 1960, the number of
residents grew to nearly 27,000, but since that time it has increased more and
more -- rising to just under 50,000 in 1970, nearly 129,000 in 1980, and 183,000
a decade later. Today, as the county has grown in all directions, there are more
businesses than ever before and homes are being built at a frenetic pace. More
and more people from across the country and around the world call Montgomery
County home.But with that growth comes certain problems: roadway fatalities
happen here in greater numbers than ever before and the sale and use of illegal
narcotics is way up in the county nowadays; in 2003, the violent crime rate was
9.8 per 1,000 people in Montgomery County, according to the Federal Bureau of
Investigations -- but the homicide rate was nearly non-existent.However, the good outweighs the bad when it comes to life in Montgomery County; but with
areas like Willis, Lake Conroe, South County and Magnolia constantly building,
growing and changing, we might just be a little hard pressed to find room for
all those nearly 100,000 new residents due to move here in the next three
years.But we'll manage somehow..."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)