Jun 2, 2008

Dear Philip R. Klein (Part III)

In the article below, I addressed your lack of credibility based on statements in your latest editorial on The Southeast Texas Political Review. Here's another example. In the first paragraph, you write:

The DOKS have taught me a lesson today. As I do not read them - for obvious reasons as you will learn today - seemingly the DOKS went on a cruise (sorry a fishing trip) and have now just arrived back in town.

Yet, you wrote later in this same editorial:

That has to be one of the most silliest comments that I have ever read in your writings.

Isn't that a little inconsistent, Philip?   By the way, what's up with this "cruise" stuff?  I'd love to take you fishing, but since my boat only sleeps six, we'd have to tow you like a beached whale. 

Regarding the questions I posed, I'll first note again that you've not responded to Questions Six and Seven; instead, you completely ignored those.

You avoided the entire issue of Question One  with this statement:

I cannot challenge the entire State of Texas, but I da**n sure can in the county to which I live. And because Tom Roebuck says something means nothing.

According to your own figures as published in your Nitwit Tidbits on April 25th, you claimed that the visitors from the U.S. Justice Department numbered among the Top 10 originators of traffic to the Southeast Texas Political Review. You regularly quote your "sources in Austin."

As Roebuck pointed out, a first-time woman offender  in a non-aggravated case generally gets a deferred sentence and probation. I provided the number of sex offenders on probation in the State of Texas, which is approximately 11,040.  If this is truly "about the children" as you claim, then why stop at the county lines?   Or, how many of those 11,040 sex offenders on probation are living right here in Jefferson County? If this is truly "about the children" of Jefferson County as you claim, you should be able to answer that softball question. 

Since you claim to have readers around the world, I'm sure that most of them would be just as interested in hearing about a sexual deviant who received probation for the felony sexual assault of a one-year-old child.

Of course, you dodged that issue in Question Two with this statement:

Let me make it easy for you....this is the SOUTHEAST TEXAS POLITICAL REVIEW - not the Texas Political Review. What....hmmmm.....?

In the case of Dexter Folmar, Rusk is close enough to Southeast Texas for me. But, since when have  you limited yourself to Southeast Texas? 

For example. here's a sample of the stories from the week before I left for my fishing trip:

McCain Talk - Our prediction - Obama by 6+.

Ski Season - Record snow fall. Record visitors. And get this...record legnth of snow season. Global Warming.

Ted Kennedy like all of us has a past...Our question - how much of a loss is it?

Some whacko court has said that money Discriminates the blind opening up lawsuits for...you guessed it...money?

While I'm not a Democrat, I subscribe to Tip O'Neill's statement that "All politics is local." Incidentally, I'm still waiting on these predictions:

Sources close to the Clinton Camp in Austin say that William Jefferson Clinton will be making a visit in six cities across Texas in a last minute push for big money for Hillary before the next primary if she wins in Penn on Tuesday.

Okay - so get this....here comes Ms. Nancy to Texas...what a joke. Nancy liberal San Fran Pelosi?  We expect to raise around $300,000 for the speaker," said a loyal democrat in Houston this afternoon.

Actually, this isn't about the children at all, is it?  It's really about your personal grievance with District Attorney Tom Maness:

I am outraged because the District Attorney, who I have a political beef with, and will never let it come to a conclusion until he leaves office...

As I've already pointed out, you don't know the difference between a personal grievance and a legitimate political difference.

On Question Three regarding your comments on the FLDS Church, you responded with this:

That has to be one of the most silliest comments that I have ever read in your writings. To answer such would bring credibility to your false statement.

Please explain what you meant by this comment from your Nitwit Tidbits of May 22, 2008:

3rd Court - Strikes CPS at their heart. Overturned. Wow!

CPS, of course, was attempting to stop those involuntary marriages of children as young as 12 to older men.  Where is your outrage, Philip R. Klein? As I pointed out earlier, you failed to respond to Question Six, listed below.  Since you're silent on this issue, I assume that you must agree with your subscriber.

I'll address the rest of your response later, but there are more than enough questions for you to answer in these three postings.  I'll leave you with this thought. You wrote:

And of course, fresh back from the cruise (sorry fishing trip), [The DOKS] instead of talking about the issue at hand - and give you the reader an opinion on the sentence or issues surrounding Foulk or Klem - you get more of Kleinbashing.

This is more evidence that your completely confused.  Actually, Kerry Foulk hasn't been sentenced at all. Instead, she pled guilty in a plea agreement.  Rather than jumping the gun and going off half-cocked (still carrying that silly Glock?), perhaps you should wait until all the facts are in during the real sentencing later this month.

Sincerely yours,

Gus Pillsbury

No comments :