The Burka Cannot Cover Perry

No, I am not talking about Perry Hood, the (near?) octogenarian insane socialist from Lewes, Delaware, although I would pay a Philippine Peso to see him in a burqa. No, this is about Texas Governor Rick Perry and the completely out of control, criminal, corrupt, Left-Wing lunatics in Austin. (There’s a reason “they” say “Keep Austin Weird.”)

In case you have been living under a rock, Travis County DA Lehmberg got busted driving on the wrong side of the road with a BAC of .238, or nearly 3 times the legal limit. She then tried to use her position of authority as a bludgeon to get out of her criminality. Among other things, “get me your boss”, spitting at people, kicking things, having to be placed in full restraints while seated all describe Travis County DA Lehmberg’s activities while drunk.

“You’re going to ruin my political career.” Yeah, I think you did that yourself, you belligerent fool, other than the fact you work in Travis County. Keep Austin Weird. “I’m a District Attorney, I’m a District Attorney.” Continuous power-play by the drunk criminal DA of Austin.

And Travis County DA Lehmberg refused to resign her position as chief Law Enforcement Officer in Austin, and head of the “kill the political corruption” unit for the whole of Texas. Governor Perry declared she needs to go, or her office will not get the money for the “kill the political corruption” unit that is normally sent from the budget of the State of Texas to the budget of the DA of Travis County. Imagine that. A convicted criminal is ordered to step aside or money from all the taxpayers of the entire state of Texas won’t be sent to the convicted criminal. And since the convicted criminal doesn’t like when the Governor tells her she is in no position to judge whether other politicians are corrupt, she decides to work to file bogus Felony charges against the person who thinks a convicted criminal is not the type of person who should be looking for corrupt politicians.

I have come up with a solution of my own. Move the “investigate corrupt politicians” unit to neighboring Bell County. It’s right next door to Travis County. And it’s growing rapidly. And it’s not hyper-Left-Wing. Just take the power completely away from those who destroyed Tom DeLay for purely political reasons, and is trying to destroy Rick Perry for purely political reasons. There are multiple years of evidence Travis County (Keep Austin Weird) cannot be expected to have integrity or Honor in their investigations.

So, how did I come up with the title of this article? Where does the Burka come in? Well, now that you asked, Paul Burka is an editor of a dead-tree magazine in Travis County, more notably called Austin, Texas. Keep Austin weird. Two years ago, Paul Burka wrote an amazingly dishonest and agenda-fed article attacking, among others, Governor Rick Perry. Rick Perry, who was the Texas campaign chief for Algore’s campaign to be President. Rick Perry, who just a few short years ago was a card-carrying Democrat. Rick Perry, who dead-tree-magazine editor Paul Burka declared a radical Right-Wing insurgent with no civic interest.

And here’s how I fisked Paul Burka’s article two years ago:
______________________________________

Editor/Journalist/Pundit Paul Burka ( @paulburka ): Research 0, Integrity 0, Propaganda 100

 

(This article made “Post of the Day” for Monday, July 9 at Le-gal In-sur-rec-tion.  Professor Jacobson called it “What’s under that Burka?”)

 

Paul Burka is the Senior Executive Editor of Texas Monthly, a dead tree magazine with an online footprint. And Paul Burka likes to think of himself as better than us plebes. I’ll show you that very clearly throughout this article. But first, let’s quantify Paul Burka just a wee bit, shall we? In writing about the Ted Cruz/David Dewhurst debate in which Burka declared Dewhurst the winner, Burka had this little gem which gives everyone a glimpse into his heart and soul:

[I just want to point out here that the bailouts worked extremely well, that they kept the American automobile industry alive through the worst of the recession, that most, if not all, of the money has been paid back, not only in the auto industry but also in the financial industry, and that the opposition to them is an example of how ideology can be blinding, even when we know all of the facts. Isn’t it clear to everyone by now that the bailouts saved the international financial system?–pb]

That is indeed the position of the radical Leftist establishment, Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, Communists, Fascists, Mainstream Media, and propagandists (brought to you in triplicate by the Redundant Department of Redundancy). That is not at all the position of Conservatives, mainstream Republicans, or even Ruling Class Republicans. It is also not at all true. Ford did not take any Government bailout and it’s doing just fine, thank you very much. The fact Obama threw the entirety of the bankruptcy Laws in the trash heap in order to feed the United Auto Workers Union meant that grandma and grandpa lost a lot of their retirement investments, permanently. And it is a stone-cold fact that GM paid it’s Government loans with Government money and not its own. And the Government still has tens of billions of dollars stuck in GM today. And, no, these bailouts did not at all “save the international financial system”. It is still a mess, and will be an even bigger mess since Government is still getting in the way of Free Market corrections and eliminations of wasteful and failed agendas. The bailouts only made matters worse.

Now that we’re a bit more clear on just who this clown Paul Burka is (he’s clearly a Liberal), let’s get down to Fisking his article in the July, 2012 print edition of Texas Monthly, which I have in my currently nicotine-stained fingers. *crinkle*crinkle*crinkle* It is available online if you’re registered. I’m not registered, so I’ll use the print version. (I trust it more, anyway, because lamestream media outlets are notorious in stealth changes to their articles, or memory-holing them in their entireties.)

Progressives, Mainstream Media Are Anti-Semites

Sorry for the redundancy in the headline. While Truth Before Dishonor is decidedly pro-Israel, as is any Bible-believing Christian, the Democrat Party, as shown in their loudly booing the insertion of pro-Israel language in its platform in 2012, Progressives, Mainstream Media (brought to you by the Redundant Department of Redundancy) are decidedly anti-Israel. To the extreme that they support Islamic Jihadists, Islamic terrorists, child-murdering war criminals against the peace-desiring, self-defense-minded, self-preservation minded Israelis and the only nation in the Middle-East that is both Democratic and tolerant of Mohammedism, Christianity, Judaism, atheism.

From Robert Stacy McCain:

Here’s how the liberal mind works: The only thing they need to know is, “Who’s the victim of oppression?” Once the liberal media decides Palestinians are victims and Israelis are oppressors, it doesn’t matter what actually happens — Hamas suicide bombers blowing up busloads of innocent Israelis, launching missiles at Tel Aviv, whatever — the victim/oppressor dynamic controls the narrative.

Over 100K people have been Killed in Syria since 2011 but Nobody cares b/c they can't blame #Israel #IsraelUnderFire pic.twitter.com/Ihi7KDcPiv

— בועזיז (@Boazziz) July 18, 2014

Stand for Freedom.
Stand for religious tolerance.
Stand for Democratic rule of Law.
Stand against genocide.
Stand against bigotry.

Stand up for the right of Israel to exist and Jews to live.
Down with the lying Media. Down with the lying Hamas and State-sponsored Terrorism.

Editor/Journalist/Pundit Paul Burka ( @paulburka ): Research 0, Integrity 0, Propaganda 100

(This article made “Post of the Day” for Monday, July 9 at Le-gal In-sur-rec-tion.  Professor Jacobson called it “What’s under that Burka?”)

 

Paul Burka is the Senior Executive Editor of Texas Monthly, a dead tree magazine with an online footprint. And Paul Burka likes to think of himself as better than us plebes. I’ll show you that very clearly throughout this article. But first, let’s quantify Paul Burka just a wee bit, shall we? In writing about the Ted Cruz/David Dewhurst debate in which Burka declared Dewhurst the winner, Burka had this little gem which gives everyone a glimpse into his heart and soul:

[I just want to point out here that the bailouts worked extremely well, that they kept the American automobile industry alive through the worst of the recession, that most, if not all, of the money has been paid back, not only in the auto industry but also in the financial industry, and that the opposition to them is an example of how ideology can be blinding, even when we know all of the facts. Isn’t it clear to everyone by now that the bailouts saved the international financial system?–pb]

That is indeed the position of the radical Leftist establishment, Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, Communists, Fascists, Mainstream Media, and propagandists (brought to you in triplicate by the Redundant Department of Redundancy). That is not at all the position of Conservatives, mainstream Republicans, or even Ruling Class Republicans. It is also not at all true. Ford did not take any Government bailout and it’s doing just fine, thank you very much. The fact Obama threw the entirety of the bankruptcy Laws in the trash heap in order to feed the United Auto Workers Union meant that grandma and grandpa lost a lot of their retirement investments, permanently. And it is a stone-cold fact that GM paid it’s Government loans with Government money and not its own. And the Government still has tens of billions of dollars stuck in GM today. And, no, these bailouts did not at all “save the international financial system”. It is still a mess, and will be an even bigger mess since Government is still getting in the way of Free Market corrections and eliminations of wasteful and failed agendas. The bailouts only made matters worse.

Now that we’re a bit more clear on just who this clown Paul Burka is (he’s clearly a Liberal), let’s get down to Fisking his article in the July, 2012 print edition of Texas Monthly, which I have in my currently nicotine-stained fingers. *crinkle*crinkle*crinkle* It is available online if you’re registered. I’m not registered, so I’ll use the print version. (I trust it more, anyway, because lamestream media outlets are notorious in stealth changes to their articles, or memory-holing them in their entireties.)

Saul Alinsky’s “Rules For Radicals”

Saul Alinsky’s “Rules For Radicals” explained Posted by Yorkshire on 30 January 2012, 10:50 pm

If we really remember the 2008 campaign with Hillary and Obama the Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky would creep into the Campaign. For the last week or so, the Name Saul Alinsky has come up. Who was Alinsky? Progressives will tell you he’s great. Conservatives will tell you Barack Obama is the Poster Child for these rules. I would say just in the last few days Romney has employed Rule 13 on Gingrich, with success. Also in 2008 from the Hillary camp we heard and saw this rule in action: 13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Romney is using it, and for Radicals and Progressives relish Rule #5: 5. Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. I think we have seen some of this here on the Blog.

Saul Alinsky’s “Rules For Radicals” explained
Union organizers are often highly trained. In many unions this training includes indoctrination in Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.”

Saul Alinsky was a ruthless radical organizer. He would stop at nothing to win. Before he passed away in 1972 he published a book called “Rules for Radicals” in which he outlined his power tactics and questionable ethics.

Anyone interested in staying, or becoming, Union Free, whether in an organizing campaign or in a decertification or deauthorization election, ought to become familiar with these rules.

This can be very valuable information. As one expert observer points out “Rules for Radicals are reversible and can be used against the Left.”

Here’s a brief summary of the rules. We are indebted to the Public Service Research Foundation for this information.

Rules for Power Tactics:
1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
2. Never go outside the experience of your people.
3. Whenever possible, go outside of the experience of the enemy.
4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
5. Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.
6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
8. Keep the pressure on with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.
9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
10. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside.
12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

I think the best example we see over and over is the charge of Racism

Because Alinsky was sensitive to criticism that he wasn’t ethical, he also included a set of rules for the ethics of power tactics. You can see from these why his ethics were so frequently questioned.

Rules to test whether power tactics are ethical:
1. One’s concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s personal interest in the issue.
2. The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.
3. In war the end justifies almost any means.
4. Judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.
5. Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa.
6. The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.
7. Generally, success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.
8. The morality of means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.
9. Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition to be unethical.
10. You do what you can with what you have and clothe it in moral garments.
11. Goals must be phrased in general terms like “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,” “Of the Common Welfare,” “Pursuit of Happiness,” or “Bread and Peace.”

More Good Stuff Here:

http://theunionnews.blogspot.com/2008/10/summary-of-saul-alinskys-rules-for.html

Liberal Media Biased Agenda

Headline brought to you by the Redundant Department of Redundancy.

I remember reading a Liberal Mainstream Media (there’s that redundancy again) report concerning the TEA Party and how “nearly forty percent” hail from “The South” and how horrible that is! The South is taking over the nation! Run for the hills cities! We should discount the TEA Party because it is too heavily represented by The South!

Let’s look at some numbers, shall we? I mean, let’s actually do something the “journalist” doesn’t want you to do. First off, let’s agree that the TEA Party is mainly Conservative/Libertarian. I don’t believe even “journalists” would disagree with that.

So, the TEA Party is mainly Conservative/Libertarian, and “nearly forty percent” hail from “The South.” Let’s look at the historical record of voting for President in “The South.” Since I’m writing this on the fly, as I do nearly all my articles, let’s give a temporary definition of “The South” as being all states south of Maryland and the Ohio River and east of Colorado/New Mexico.

In the 2008 elections, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida were the only states in “The South” that went Democrat. (US Election Atlas.org)

In the 2000 and 2004 elections, all of “The South” went Republican. In the 1996 elections, 7 of the 16 states in “The South” went Democrat, but 4 of those 7 failed to reach the 50 percent plateau. In the 1992 elections, but only 1 of those 7 states (Arkansas, the home state of Bill Clinton) reached the 50 percent plateau as Ross Perot siphoned off large chunks of Libertarian/Conservative voters.

In 1988, only one state (West Virginia) in “The South” broke Democrat, while two southern states broke more than 60 percent Republican. In 1984, only one single state (other than DC, which went 85 percent Democrat (who would’ve guessed? /snark)) went Democrat. That was Minnesota, the home state of Walter Mondale, and even then, it failed to reach the 50 percent plateau, going 49.72 percent Democrat to 49.54 percent Republican. (Note how close Ronald Reagan came to a 50-state sweep.) In “The South” only Tennessee failed to reach the 60 percent Republican plateau, coming in at 57.84 percent for Reagan. In fact, only 19 of the 50 states failed to reach the 60 percent Republican plateau, and only 1 of those 19 were in “The South.” (Note how a non-establishment Conservative fares with regular citizens, despite the Liberal Media Biased Agenda (Redundant Department of Redundancy at work again).) In 1980, the Democrat Jimmy Carter won only 6 states (12 percent of 50), with 2 of those 6 coming from the 16 states (12.5 percent of 16) that comprise my definition of “The South.” The only state that reached the 50 percent Democrat plateau was “The South” state of Georgia, Jimmy Carter’s home state.

As the historical record shows, from 1964 until now, with the exception of 1976 where the Watergate scandal decided the election, “The South” has been as Conservative or more Conservative than the rest of the country. And the Watergate scandal election of 1976, where Jimmy Carter, a Democrat ex-Governor from Georgia won “The South,” should also point out the position of “The South” in that they don’t brook no cheaters (a much more Conservative than Liberal position).

So it would make sense that a region of the country that has a 40-plus year history of being more Conservative than the rest of the nation would have a higher percentage of representation within a grass-roots Conservative movement. And that alone should wholly debunk the “oh noes! Teh South is gonna take over the country!” mantra of certain members of the Liberal Elite Mainstream Media Establishment (provided by the Redundant Department of Redundancy). But is that really the case? I’ve written in the past (in my Longitudinal Proof Of Media Bias article) about how the Mainstream Media’s editors are clearly more Liberal than the nation as a whole, and how the Mainstream Media’s “journalists” are clearly more Liberal than their editors (meaning the “journalists” are by far more Liberal than We the People). It is easy to compare their numbers to the population’s numbers and see how severely skewed the Mainstream Media is. But is the fact “nearly 40 percent of the TEA Party hails from The South” a true statement of the over-representation of Conservative might in “The South” or is that just a scare tactic?

As I’ve already shown, my definition of “The South” has 16 states, or 32 percent of all states. And that 32 percent of all states is more Conservative than the 68 percent of all states not represented in my definition of “The South.” That alone should show a more Conservative population matrix, and make “The South” more TEA Party-esque. And that alone should rebut the Liberal Mainstream Media Journalist (Redundant Department of Redundancy) alarm bells. But is “The South” actually more heavily represented within the TEA Party than the US as a whole? By elementary logic, it should be. But is it in actuality? Let’s look at the numbers.

The US Census Bureau (pdf) has a different definition of “The South” than my definition, as it eliminates Kansas and Missouri from my definition of “The South” and adds Maryland, Delaware, and DC to their definition of “The South.” According to the US Census Bureau, “The South” has clearly had a much higher rate of population growth than the Northeast and the Midwest, and the West’s population growth has been mostly in the least populous states. That would mean, by sheer population growth, “The South” would have a stronger say in national politics now than prior to 1980. Logic and math would demand so. But let’s dig deeper, shall we? According to the above Census Bureau pdf file,

MOST POPULOUS STATES

The ten most populous states contained54.0 percent of the U.S. population in 2010 (similar to the percentage in 2000) with one-fourth (26.5 percent) of the U.S. population in the three largest states: California (the most populous state since the 1970 Census), Texas, and New York. These three states had April 1, 2010, populations of 37.3 million, 25.1 million, and 19.4 million, respectively. The next seven most populous states — Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, and North Carolina
— contained an additional 27.5 percent of the population. Nine of the ten largest states in 2000 were also among the ten largest
in 2010. North Carolina, which was the eleventh largest state in 2000, moved into the top ten for 2010 (tenth largest)—replacing New Jersey, which fell from ninth largest in 2000 to eleventh in 2010.

The ten most populous and the ten least populous states are distributed among the four regions. The South contained the greatest number (four) of the ten largest states, with three others in the Midwest, two in the Northeast, and one in the West. Furthermore, the Northeast contained four of the ten least populous states (Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont), with three others in the West (Alaska, Montana, and Wyoming), two in the Midwest (North Dakota and South Dakota), and one in the South (Delaware).

Seeing as Maryland, at approaching 5.8 million people, falls far below New Jersey’s 11th place population total, at approaching 8.8 million people (see the above pdf), that means the 14 states of “The South” included in both the US Census Bureau’s definition and my definition contains the 2nd most populous state and 4 of the 10 most populous states without a single state among the least populous. (Delaware was the only state in the US Census Bureau’s definition of “The South” (which contains 32 percent of the states) that fell within the 10 least populous, but it is not part of my definition of “The South.”) With the Number Two and 4 of the top 10 most populous states (and only 1 of the 10 least populous states in the US Census Bureau’s definition of “The South” but not mine), the 16 states of “The South” (whichever 32 percent you select, mine or the US Census Bureau’s) is very clearly over-represented by total population. That means the total percentage of the numbers of whatever group needs to be “over-represented” in “The South” just to match the population distribution. Meaning over 32 percent of any group must necessarily be of “The South” if “The South” is to be properly proportionate to the actual population of the US.

According to “Figure 3” on the US Census Bureau’s pdf file, the 14 states both the US Census Bureau and I agree are part of “The South” have very clearly outperformed the Northeast and the Midwest in population growth. In 2000, the US Census Bureau’s definition of “The South” contained 35.6 percent of the total US Population, over-representing its 32 percent of total states. In 2010, that number changed to 37.1 percent of the total US Population (see above pdf), again over-representing its 32 percent share of total states, and very clearly outgrowing the rest of the nation. Is 37.1 percent of the total US Population “nearly 40 percent”? You be the judge. But by my definition of “The South”, the share of “The South” is even greater. Eliminate Delaware’s 897,934 and Maryland’s 5,773,552 and replace it with Kansas’ 2,853,118 and Missouri’s 5,988,927 and you increase “The South’s” share of population dramatically over the US Census Bureau’s apportionment. So, by my definition of “The South”, it is far closer to the 40 percent mark than the US Census Bureau shows (which is obviously “nearly” 40 percent).

The only question that remains is:
What definition of “The South” did the Liberal “journalist” from the Mainstream Media (Redundant Department of Redundancy working over-time) use to provide his scare-tactic alarm that “nearly 40 percent” of TEA Party members were from “The South”? Because “nearly 40 percent” of all US residents — and growing — live in “The South”, whether according to my definition or the US Census Bureau’s definition.

Associated Press Calls Out Barack Obama

Barack Obama’s campaign tactic of a “jobs” bill and his continuous dishonest spinning of it is too much for even the Associated Press to carry his water. Ed Morrissey has the story.

Last week, the Associated Press’ fact check of a speech implied that Barack Obama might be losing touch with reality. Today, they make the argument more explicit in reporting on Obama’s push on his new jobs bill. Their headline reads “Obama’s jobs bill sales pitch disconnects rhetoric, reality,” and they take him to task for it (via Rob Port):

When Obama accuses Republicans of standing in the way of his nearly $450 billion plan, he ignores the fact that his own party has struggled to unite behind the proposal.

When the president says Republicans haven’t explained what they oppose in the plan, he skips over the fact that Republicans who control the House actually have done that in detail.

And when he calls on Congress to “pass this bill now,” he slides past the point that Democrats control the Senate and were never prepared to move immediately, given other priorities. Senators are expected to vote Tuesday on opening debate on the bill, a month after the president unveiled it with a call for its immediate passage.

The AP concludes that Obama is campaigning, not governing, which has become painfully obvious ever since his speech to a joint session of Congress a month ago. The bill itself contains a number of poison pills that even his own party rejected in 2009, when Democrats had full control of Washington. In fact, Senate Democrats have had to change the rules to keep Obama’s bill from getting a vote at all, not because Republicans oppose it but because a number of Democrats oppose it as well, at least in the form Obama has been pushing the last four weeks.

When the Chicago Thug is so far out to sea that even the Associated Press refuses to carry water for him, you know he’s definitely gone. It’s getting to the point that the normally sycophantic mainstream media can no longer shill for him and maintain what they believe to be their integrity. What remains of his fawning masses are his ever-thinning ranks of delusional lemmings, which are becoming ever more delusional and ever more lemming as time passes. Obama has an absolutely huge problem of his own making. There is a litany of lies, corruption, collusion, obstruction of justice in his wake.

• The “jobs” bill and the propaganda that even the press can’t carry.
• Fast and Furious, involving ATF, DOJ, White House, FBI and others, consisting of over 2,000 guns allowed to be illegally bought (ATF actually illegally selling them to the illegal buyers), illegally walked across the border into Mexico, and over 200 dead bodies on both sides of the border.
• Punishing the whistle blowers by demoting them, trying to engulf those with integrity with the dirty corruption, promoting those heavily involved in the criminal activity and bringing them closer to the DOJ command center to keep a better watch on them.
• Lying to Congress, refusing to release documents, providing documents to Congress so heavily redacted as to be of no worth, refusing to allow other members of the departments to testify before Congress.
• Solyndra, LightSquared, SolarReserve, First Solar, SunPower, the 5 billion dollars in Federal Loan guarantees going out on the very last day of operation, benefiting the Obama campaign contributors and bundlers. And we’re just scratching the surface with these.
• All manner of other corrupt activity.

Soon, all that will be left of Obama’s delusional lemmings will be only the most delusional of all and the most lemming of all. No reasonable person will be able to carry Obama’s water and still maintain any sense of propriety.

UPDATE
Speaking of lemmings, Rebelpundit has video of Occupy Chicago. (HT Hot Air)

Sarah Palin Reloading, Not Retreating

Sarah Palin gave a 50-minute speech followed by a 15-minute question and answer session in St Louis, MO on October 7, 2011. For those who don’t understand, that came after she declared she was not running for President. And Sarah Palin didn’t hold back. She attacked the Obama Chicago Politics Machine. She attacked the Political Class on both sides of the aisle. She attacked Big Government Ruling Class Establishment Republicans. She attacked Democrats. She attacked crony capitalism. She continued to push for the Founders and Framers’ vision of the US as the Land of the Free instead of the home of the subservient. She set forth an agenda for going forward by remembering the past as it truly was. And she did it all in her trademark optimistic Sarah Palin style. Watch it for yourself.

Sarah Palin has not given up the stage. She is definitely going to keep up the fight, and as a result, the candidates for office — Presidential and below — will have to respond to the TEA Party and Palin campaigns to take the US back to its roots of Freedom and Liberty. So yes, this campaign season will indeed be far different than campaign seasons of the past. It will not be SOP out on the stump. Times, they have changed.

UPDATE
Linked by Texans For Sarah Palin

“Crazy” Larry is at it again

… about “sitting on the sidelines” during the nascent civil rights movement in the 50s and early 60s … forgetting that he admitted he does precisely the same thing for the reason Cain’s father told Cain. Check it:

Where do you think black people would be sitting on the bus today if Rosa Parks had followed your father’s advice [for Herman not to make trouble if told to sit in the back of the bus; my note, Cain was 9 years old at the time of Parks’ act of defiance.]

You watched black college students from around the country and white college students from around the country come to the south and be murdered, fighting for the rights of African-Americans; do you regret sitting on the sidelines at that time?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

So, Crazy Larry chides Mr. Cain, yet admitted himself that he doesn’t criticize radical Muslims like he should … because he fears for his life:

HUGH HEWITT: Would you say the same things about Mohammed as you just said about Joseph Smith?

O’DONNELL: Oh, well, I’m afraid of what the…that’s where I’m really afraid. I would like to criticize Islam much more than I do publicly, but I’m afraid for my life if I do.

HEWITT: Well, that’s candid.

O’DONNELL: Mormons are the nicest people in the world. They’re not going to ever…

HEWITT: So you can be bigoted towards Mormons, because they’ll just send you a strudel.

O’DONNELL: They’ll never take a shot at me. Those other people, I’m not going to say a word about them.

Nothing like an admitted socialist like O’Donnell lecturing a black man on what he “should have done” during the civil rights movement when he was a minor and a young college student (because, in part, he feared violence), yet is afraid to do his job as an adult because he fears for his life.

What a sanctimonious hypocritical a-hole.

Our mainstream media and you

They’re at it again. Surprise, that! They still beat the “racist” drumbeat against the Tea Party against all evidence (and/or lack thereof) so when there is ANY connection to a Republican with something obviously racist — no matter how remote — well, they’re gonna LET. YOU. KNOW!! Check it:

So, Rick Perry’s family had a hunting lease on a piece of land that featured a large boulder. On the boulder—either as signage, or a graffiti—was the term “Niggerhead.” As soon as Perry’s family started leasing the land, they painted the rock over. Yet the offensive name was still visible through the paint, and people saw it.

So the Perry family, which never owned this property, eventually turned the rock over to make sure that the offensive term could never be seen. (How much did that cost, by the way? Getting heavy boulder-turning machinery to a hunting camp couldn’t be cheap.)

The Washington Post was able to find multiple people who were willing to claim that the word was visible on the rock while the Perrys were leasing the property—and using it intermittently—back in the 1980s. What the people at the Post apparently cannot reproduce is a picture of the rock. Even though the legend was supposedly very prominent, possibly official signage for that hunting camp, and so difficult to paint over that the word showed through the paint.

Ironically, Perry was a Democrat during most (if not all) of the timeframe in question. That’s probably why it wasn’t worthy of a mention then, but is now, now that Perry is a member of the GOP.

Not to mention — where the f*** was the Post back during campaign 2008 with this story and photos? And back to the “racist” Tea Party, where is all the coverage of the actual hate and lunacy (and arrests!) evident at these Wall Street protests?

That’s right — doesn’t fit THE NARRATIVE^TM