The Weekly Standard on the stands right now, and tucked one week back on the website, presents itself with the magazine’s quest to discover the start of the Republican Party Comeback.  We start with the Fred Barnes tedium hack-work of the week, but I don’t recommend reading it because it is the Fred Barnes tedium hack-work of the week.  Obama is in trouble.  Or soon will be.  He can read the political tea-leaves.  Will this to happen, and sooner or later — it will happen.  Or so seems to think Fred Barnes on a weekly standard.

More pertinent, this article poses the question:  A GOP Comeback — Will it start with New Jersey’s Chris Christie?

I don’t know.  That’s months away.  Why ask that question when you can ask the question about the New York Congressional District’s special election?  Will the AIG Scandal bring the Republican to victory in this longtime Republican district, vacated by a Democrat made into a Senator, carried narrowly by Bush in 2004 and Obama in 2008?  Wouldn’t it be the “start” of a “Republican Comeback” if the GOP wins this seat — in an hour as I type this?  Isn’t that the implication of the article?  And if the answer to that question is “yes”, doesn’t that conflict with the other article about the GOP Comeback?

The answer to the question of whether the AIG Scandal will bring the Republican to victory appears to be “no”.  The answer to the question of whether a Republican victory there presents itself as a sign of anything is, really, no.  The answer to the question about New Jersey is something along the line of — it’s a Democratic state with a corrupt political culture that suggests a Republican victory sometime — yet, that’s been the feeling for the past half a dozen political cycles and yet — .  So… no, in any case.

But I guess these are the questions that animate a partisan political magazine during its out years.

Scott McLemee, noted art and culture critic, shall now face an existential question offered up from “Leaterstocking”, noted Larouchian wikipedia Sock Puppet.  If there is no wikipedia article devoted to you, do you exist?  On March 26, 2009, as seen in a not easily link-specified place here:

The fact that there is no article about McLemee suggests that he may not be notable enough to be mentioned as a critic. Perhaps you ought to author an article about him if you disagree. But regardless, how does being an “award winning book critic” qualify him to offer criticism of political groups?

The perfunctory search engine search suggests that devotees to Carrol Quigley (good overlap there), Thomas Pynchon, Christopher Phelps, and the Spartacist League do not have this same problem with the matter of Scott McLemee’s existence.  But trimming Scott McLemee from the entry is key to Leatherstocking’s sense of balance:

I removed the neutrality tag, because I was satisfied that the article had been returned to a balanced state, but I see that Will Beback has tilted it once more toward his team’s POV.

“Neutrality tag” removed with the “clean editing job” (in the eyes of this Larouchian sock puppet) during the time that “Will Beback” was on vacation.  I bet Scott McLemee didn’t even realize he was on a team.  The LYM as a wikipedia entry poses the probelm that nobody much is paying attention much — there is another struggle to get a couple of dead-link college newspaper articles off, key in that the college environ is the primary place the LYM has a presence enough for anyone to care to demand an article.  Remove such and we are left with the only focal point that takes the LYM seriously at face value:

Remember that in Reliable Sources it says that fringey sources should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities. Thus, LaRouche sources may be used in this article, just as your writings would be appropriate in the article Dennis King. If the material is clearly attributed, the reader can judge its credibility.

But noted cultural and art citics have been removed from the discussion.  (Incidentally, Scott McLemee ceased a “Fringe Watch” on his blog, apparently answering the age old question “What is the role of a critic in a society?” with “Not to spend an undue amount of time commenting on perhaps fascinating, but largely irrelevant political sects.”)

I do not think the LYM warrants a wikipedia page.  In a better world, one where wikipedia editors don’t feel the need to bargain with participants of an elaborate playground mimicry of Mission Impossible shows, this LYM article would be surmised by the sentiments expressed with the Avi Klein citation, perhaps with some citation to some Larouche pronouncments, and perhaps with the items concerning Jason Ross (and there might be two too many “perhaps”es there)– and then tucked firmly into the wikipedia article on the “Larouche Movement”.  As is, the first thing we learn about the LYM on the wikipedia article is that their “war-room” is located in Leesburg — a fact that in its proper context is filed under “LYM planned as instrument to outlast Larouche”.
……………………………….

I have two problems with this British “Channel 4” news report on the “Justice for Jeremiah” Wiesbedan trek:

#1:  skip to the 2:42 mark and wait for the phrase “with views seen by many as anti-Semitic and anti-British“.  I suppose we haggle a tad with “anti-Semitic” and its role, and just what it is to reference a Locust here or there, but I’m wondering who views his call for War Against Great Britain as not being “anti-British”.  (Well, theoretically those who schlep that completely over to the “anti-semitic code language”, I guess — notably some posters at the neo-nazi “Storm Front” board.)
#2, and a wee bit more important, and this is something I harp on a bit:  Skip to 3:42,  “On their website, however, they expressed”.  For the love of god, if you’re going to report on what they expressed on their website, please expand your purview from that narrow line and mention the broader conspiracy it finds that the Duggans have been a part of Tony Blair and Dick Cheney’s goal to destroy Larouche.  (At the very minimum.)
……………………………….

And now it’s time for The “Howie G” Show.  First a few of the loopier comments he posted to former member “European”‘s blog:

Seems to be a couple of lines of inquiry.  Notice the brand new Larouche sock puppet at wi:kipedia (brand new, that is, unless it’s the nineteenth or thereabouts iteration of the figure who originally went by the Simpsons reference “Herschel Kurstofsky”) at Dennis King:

Not much biographical information in this article. He published a book in 1995 — anything since then? What does he do for a living? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coleacanth

Colecanth, eh?  I don’t much know the answer.  Doesn’t Larouche have a line on that?  Something about Drug Money or something?
Which brings us to the next Howie G blog entry… for the life of me, I don’t see what from the LPAC link to a London Times piece I’m supposed to view as troubling regarding George Soros.  But if finding some sense of adventure from fleeing the Nazis excites “Howie G” , so be it..  There is a tinge of “huh” with this statement:
continues his anti-human tradition, by literally pushing drugs.

I suppose I advocate legalizing two things I’m not going to take advantage of: gay marriage and marijuana.  The latter is so anti-human that this. (Then again, that would have had to have been during an Aristotlean Dark Ages Epoch.)

Ironic, as I posted the list of evil conspirators gleaned from the essay “A Defense of Poetry” to a message board I frequent I had the response:
Uhh…errr…I can only assume the author was on a major drug trip whem he wrote that little jem. Or how does that old saying go?…
‘psychotics build imaginary houses and neurotics live in them.’
Unfortunately…
…………………………………………………

Some fascinating discourse on a Larouche speech found in the comments section here.  I guess this is what a Platonic dialouge in Leesburg would sound like?

IFUCKUBITCh says:  yea if we can all work together, we can destroy UK. If we fall into UK’s trap and keep fighting each other, UK is going to gain even more influence.
The gameplan:  nope UK & US will start the war, US will lose ground and then betray UK, US & Russia with send all their nuke to UK at the same time and end the war.

Load1Bongs1Not1Guns chimes in to put this man in his proper credentials:  That man is a former presidental canidate, and you are watching celebrities.

Calebsaccount defends the British:  your a ing hole dude, britians one of the best countries and arnt evil they are trying constantly to help the usa end what will soon be world war 3

Habs1009 lays out his view: world war 3 will start with a coalilation led by russia ft islam nations, ethiopia, turkey vs israel. it will be thwarted by jesus christ. another war will happen7 years later. all the nations led by the antichrist except for russia, china, india, japan, and north korea. the antichrists forces will beat russia the march on israel, after that the asians 200 plus million man army. they will all die

To put a spin on an old saying, “‘psychotics build imaginary houses and psychotics live in them.” Sometimes.
………………………………………………..

Like posting to an article from Adolf Hitler about vegetarianism.

A good friend sent me the link to this well produced video that makes some excellent points. I am fully aware that the source of this video may call into question its veracity, but I have been doing a lot of research for the past year or so and have come to the conclusion that FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) has been spread about LaRouche as well as about nuclear power.

Hm.  Note to the Org: Here’s a good contact for funding!
Meanwhile, another good source for the Larouche organization might to roll down is the list of commenters at this Alex Jones article.  They’ve tapped the same conspiratorial veins.  (But I guess they’d have to remove Obama from the equation in contact… for the moment?)

Though we’ll run into this from the “Science Movement” quadrant:

I also learned that British royalty is an elaborate front for the opium trade, and many other things my education and common sense had led me to embrace falsehoods.

Lindon, bless your heart, your village called, seems they want thier idiot back.

……………………………..

When Joshua Micah Marshall expanded his blog to this community type thing, I don’t think he had in mind providing a forum for Larouchies to peddle their propanda.  And so the question:

Admin question.  How does this diary with no recs make the rec list?
An interesting answer is proferred.  LaRouche is all powerful.
I actually accidentally provided one of these diary entries with a “recommendation”, making one recommendation two, thinking I would be able to deign who the heck recommended it by clicking.  Alas — I’m part of the problem.

This comment is the Comment on the Century!:

The Oligarchs and their low life lackeys are feeling the heat, eh, and you L.M. do not like that because laRouche is so very effective in rallying real patriots from around the globe against them? Tell the truth who do you work for? Bring forward your notable champion of vice and debate laRouche concerning the last 50 yrs. of current history as to what really happened to our nation and the world! Who has the balls to come forward? Your half-truths are bullshit, good to cover your own ass, but a slippery slope to hell for anyone who falls for it! For daring to speak truth to the unspeakable powers, thus unmasking these evil untouchables and their world class criminal tools, traitors, and fools, the fearless folk hero and true American patriot, Lyndon LaRouche was railroaded. Many of those same enemies of LaRouche and of our nation today, still remain protected by the opinion makers of the opinion makers above the law. He was in fact an American political prisoner of George H. W. Bush.! Unlike you and your fiends, LaRouche is the only living economist on the planet, who was always right! LaRouche’s ideas concretized as policy of the United States would save this republic, and the enemies of this nation do not want the nation state to survive under Globalization(Empire). What is needed now is an all-out mobilization to ensure LaRouche’s plan goes into effect—and that those who seek to block it are removed from power. If we would have listened to LaRouche the world would not now have come to endless bailouts and the brink of a new dark age.

Huh.Are you sure you’re not Webster Tarpley?

Anyway — attention Joshua Micha Marshall: dailykos can immediately delete these things when they eke into his “diary” community, why can’t you?

Bryon Dorgan is one of those Senators I frequently spot on the losing and right end of votes of, say, 94 – 5 — not relevant enough to be purchased whole-sale by those corporate conglomerates that form the Great Bi-Partisan Consensus.  So it’s not too surprising to see his quotes from the passing of a key 1999 Banking de-regulation (better to say “re-regulating”, as I don’t know that “de-regulation” exists in affecting these rules of the game) bill now bouncing about the Internet:

”I think we will look back in 10 years’ time and say we should not have done this but we did because we forgot the lessons of the past, and that that which is true in the 1930’s is true in 2010,” said Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota. ”I wasn’t around during the 1930’s or the debate over Glass-Steagall. But I was here in the early 1980’s when it was decided to allow the expansion of savings and loans. We have now decided in the name of modernization to forget the lessons of the past, of safety and of soundness.”

I never trust Triumphantalism of any sort, and tend to think any politician proclaiming a “New Era of Freedom” to be selling us Snake Oil.:

”The world changes, and we have to change with it,” said Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, who wrote the law that will bear his name along with the two other main Republican sponsors, Representative Jim Leach of Iowa and Representative Thomas J. Bliley Jr. of Virginia. ”We have a new century coming, and we have an opportunity to dominate that century the same way we dominated this century. Glass-Steagall, in the midst of the Great Depression, came at a time when the thinking was that the government was the answer. In this era of economic prosperity, we have decided that freedom is the answer.”

 — likewise I don’t believe in the “Silver Bullet” of a solution.  A quote from Bryon Dorgan not seen in this news account of interest in re-considering President Bill Clinton.:

“this bill will also, in my judgment, raise the likelihood of future massive taxpayer bail-outs.”

The Great Accomplishment that shines forth from the fans of President Bill Clinton, particularly in light of his predessors and successor, is his Balanced Budget and Emerging Surpluses.  Can we unequivocably say that, in light of “raising the likelihood of future massive taxpayer bail-outs”?  Clinton looks worse for wear right now.

This past month, the institution of the “Democratic Leadership Council” (hurling us to that scene in 1999) mysteriously was amplified as Evan Bayh (former head of said organization) announced a redundant Senate Caucus of, like a quarter of Senate Democrats and “three or four” mystery meat participants.  Their purpose appears to be to provide a right – plank for the Democratic President.  Harry Reid lent credence to them in stating this about the “left plank”:

He disapproves of liberal lobbying groups running advertisements targeting moderate Democratic senators trying to get them to support President Obama’s budget.  MoveOn.org and Americans United for Change have launched separate ad campaigns designed to pressure House and Senate Democrats to line up behind the administration’s ambitious fiscal plans. “These groups should leave them alone. It’s not helpful to me. It’s not helpful to the Democratic Caucus,” Reid said.

Case in point, Evan Bayh’s donors list — $123,000 from Goldman Sachs between 2003 and 2008; $1 million from securities and investments firms in donations from 2003 to 2008 .  An unhelpful point these activist ads would be bringing up.
… Gingerly?

A little odd because Obama is not much to stray from orthodoxy, for good and bad, and it might not do well to take another gander at his donors.  For Bayh and company, what policy propsoals are there to restrain?

The Vermont state Senate passed by a 26 to 4 margin Homosexual Marriage, proving the opponents of “civil unions” right in the slippery slope from civil unions to marriage.  Just as well that nobody cares much about this slide — opposition to these things is centered on the “Religious Right” and Vermont (and the New England States) have just surpassed Oregon as the most unchurched state in the Union.  The House will pass the bill sometime next week, I’m supposing?

Vermont’s Governor, Jim Douglas, has announced his veto.  I am not an expert on what level of “super” majority is necessarty to override a veto, but I gather 28 out of 32 is more than enough.  Something I don’t understand about Jim Douglas’s veto is the rationale.  It is a line familiar to those watching Evan Bayh form his Cacusus to flank right of the Obama Administration — “In these tough economic times, we can not concern ourselves with such divisive issues.”

Even on its own terms this line does not make sense for the situation in Vermong.  As represented by the elected representatives to the state, it divides the state 28 to 4 — and I have not seen any reason to believe a gap exists between the voting of the representatives with the electorate at large.  That is not very divisive.  Time is not being spent on this matter, which is to say time has just been spent on this matter, and the only way to now dig into that opportunity cost of “dealing with the economy” versus passing gay marriage is to force the Vermont legislature to put the measure back on the agenda and over-ride this veto.

So what does Jim Douglas want here?  If he just wanted to remain squemish at gays being in the rubric of “Marriage”, he could have just said so, let that be his reason for the veto, and let it go at that.  All I can think is that this clears the way for Republican fund-raising when the time comes that he lays site on a US Senate bid at Patrick Leahy’s retirement.  He appears to be a functional governor generally, and I trust the state knows what it’s doing in re-electing him by wide margins, but consider this a sign of the discreprencies with the reconciliation of a state party head in looking at the national party.

As far as I can tell, this is the current face of “The Republican Party”:

Okay.  The two people I am most amenable to replace from this list are Michelle Bachman and Jonathan Krohn — the first the “Crazy Aunt” of the week, the second that irascible 13 year old who charmed and wowed the “C-PAC” meeting, and left everyone else a little bemused.  Also, George Bush has done nothing to remeain here, but his presence lingers and until something fills the vacuum, there he sits… similarly to Dick Cheney, except he’s been out of his bunker a bit.

There are a good number of politicians who would be able to at any time break into this configuration, some people seeking a national profile wisely biding their time and letting this clusterfuck pass while consolidating a state or regional hold, other names from the past who are liable to stick their head out when they have a book to peddle.  But that will have to wait.  Right now, these 16 faces are your national Republican Party.  Good luck to them, I guess.

We are getting to a point where we can count a number of Senators who will probably cease to be in the Senate, nonvoluntarily, in 2011.  Jim Bunning in Kentucky.  Maybe Chris Dodd in Connecticut.  Perhaps I’m misjudging him, and the DSCC head is giving a game face with respect to Illinois, but Roland Burris in Illinois.  And Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania.

The thing about Arlen Specter is that, rolling down the poll numbers, I doubt he’s strayed from where he was in 2004.  The Republican numbers are marginally smaller due to there being fewer Republicans and the Democratic numbers are marginally bigger due to there being more Democrats, the slimming effect with the former happens as the wavering changeovers are less “solid” to the current cause of “Republicanism” and the new adherents to “the Democracy” more inclined to support an Arlen Specter.   If he were to survive a primary challenge, he would be in good shape in the General election, as he was in 2004.  And yet…

In 2004, he barely survived that Republican Primary Challenge — one buttressed by more “Republican Moderates” (ie: non Limbaugh listeners).  The National Review threw their backing behind Pat Toomey and cover featured Specter as “The Senate’s Worst Republican”.  But the Republican Party machine pushed Specter through — Rick Santorum had considerable appeal with this base and he stumped for him, George Bush still was a reasonably popular political figure with a decent chance of winning the state and he stumped for Specter.  And they had to do so — Specter was almost assuredly going to win re-election; Toomey was assuredly going to lose re-election.  But today, The National Review audience (and “Movement” voters) makes up a larger proportion of the Republican electorate, this part of the party is incensed that Specter is in that vulnerable position of being the Deal Maker to get to 60 votes in the Senate, and there is no Bush and Santorum to hitch one’s ride to — or new equivalent.  Hence, Toomey beats Specter by double digits.

Labor offered Specter a salvo for the general election — lay down their arms if he cast what would be that magical vote #60 for the Employee Free Choice Act, which would have further damaged his reputation amongst his conservative base.  I suspect that deed is already cast — he was in favor of it when he was an irrelevant vote and out of sight of political danger — not something the Republican voters can forget about, particularly given that his rationale for casting it aside (“In these tough economic times…”) isn’t an about face.  Also, it’s not going to absolve him of his orginal Obama Era Sin in being a key figure in that “Gang of 4” (the 2 Maine Senators, the Nebraska “Democrat”, and he) in deal-making the Stimulus Bill.

He’s spurned Democratic offers for a party switch, something which would not necessitate too much massaging  of positioning (though it would take a bit) to get into Evan Bayh’s “Democratic” burgeoning Caucus of Difference Splitting Calculators (or, indeed, back to that “Gang of 4”) — an act which would steer him straight to re-election.  This, I guess, is a sign of steadfast commitment to Party Republican — he wishes to “Save the party from becoming a purely regional Southern Party”.  And it looks like he will now have to do so from the vantage point of an ex-Senator.

For a Senator in Arlen Specter’s position, after spurning as unpalatible any available paths to survival, I suggest the only real choice is to assess your committments in matters of policy, and stick to it as a Legacy Builder, leaving smiling when the Democratic Process has thrown you ashunder.  But in Specter’s case, and with respect to EFCA, the problem is I don’t know really what Specter’s position is — which means he could be doing just that and I’d never know for sure.

A few weeks’ ago, Newsweek featured an article about a concert that happened in Salt Lake.  Vanilla Ice and MC Hammer reunited and put on a show in Utah — pretty interesting since they apparently did not get along too well in their hey-day when they toured together, but two decades of being linked together in popular imagination as something of a pop cultural joke will absolve lingering differences.  Where MC Hammer a few years ago put in a couple of Superbowl ads where the joke was his presence, Vanilla Ice just did an advertisement where he “apologized” for his early 90s appearance on the pop cultural stage.  They have a similar sense of their whereabouts.  Just as similarly each of their “one hit”s (more or less) signature songs were riffed off from — a Rick James song and a Queen / David Bowie song.  Just as Vanilla Ice’s stage presence — glittery baggy pants and on — was modeled off of MC Hammer’s.  Ad Naseum.  They diverge only where Vanilla Ice successfully parlayed his fame and fortune through wise investments such that he’s set for life whereas Hammer went bankrupt.

The reaction in the blogosphere to the concert can be surmised with “WTF?”, and tittering at the state of Utah for allowing such a thing to be attended by a sell-out crowd.  “Utah — 2 decades behind the times!” was the common sentiment.  This is unfair to Utah, and I’d say to the two has-been rappers.  There is not a city in America where a concert with the two in a major venue would not sell out.  It’s a combination of kitsch value (in the middle of a modern day Vanilla Ice concert, he shouts out to the audience, “Everyone here Down With the Turtles?”, and goes into “The Turtle Rap” — a song played from the movie Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 3 at the end of the hey-day for both the Turtles and Vanilla Ice* — not something that would be taken seriously by hardcore hip-hoppers.), nostalgia (probably the first albums bought for a good deal of white suburbanites of, roughly my age.**)  Further, I suspect there wouldn’t be too many people would to away thinking they didn’t see a good show.

Though, I don’t think they could get away with more than one tour.  That would pushing it.

*TMNT co-creator Peter Laird would go on to cash in part of his proceeds from this time to finance the production of anti-capitalist manifestos.

** No, not me.  Definitely not me.  I remember in a CCD music session, one kid was rebellious enough to say to the chagrained Music Instructor (as we labored through learned to belt out bad church kids songs nobody would like) he’d rather sing [fill in blank of MC Hammer song nobody remembers.]  He thought he was so cool.

tap tap tap… You know… I haves post about more mainstream political stuff.  Arlen Specter.  Obama’s emerging gaffe chart.  Portland’s boondoggle MLS deal.  But, no… I have to go back to this thing:

The latest missive from L-PAC (and what kind of “political action committee is this?) reiterates two points:  #1: The degree to which the org cares not at all about the Duggans, and #2: a degree to which, and I don’t know quite what degree it is, Revenire does not believe his crap.

But let’s start with a demonstration of how ridiculous the Internet art of “fisking” looks like on a Larouchian article.  (And Jerry Pyenson: please to be posting to a 9/11 Truth board, as I’m disinclined to link directly to L-PAC.  Oh, never mind — I’ll go ahead and post it in the comments.)

March 25, 2009 (LPAC)–A well known group of miscreants,
well known group of miscraents?
steered by circles associated with the British Fabian Society
British Fabian Society?
and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair
and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair?
, are, once again, planning a hate rally against Lyndon and Helga LaRouche in Germany.
hate rally?

Actually that’s enough of that.  But let’s skip the next paragraph (important though it may be with key phrases) and here’s the key paragraphs for show in the two points I made at the top:

The matter first erupted into the public in 2003, several months after Mr. Duggan’s suicide, when Lyndon LaRouche was prominently featured in the British press as a leading American opponent to the war in Iraq instigated under then P.M. Tony Blair’s lying pretext. At that time, British intelligence circles, most notably British scientist David Kelly, were exposing Blair and his aides of “sexing up” the evidence that Blair and U.S. President George Bush had proclaimed as the justification for the war. After a public uproar, Kelly was found dead, supposedly by suicide. Subsequent events have amply proved that LaRouche and Kelly were right and that Blair, Bush and U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney were liars.

Wishing to cover up their public falsehoods, the Blair-Bush-Cheney circle began a war time false propaganda campaign against LaRouche by manipulating the grieving Duggan family into claiming, without any foundation whatsoever, that the suicide of Jeremiah was not properly investigated and encouraging them to promote numerous false and nefarious allegations against LaRouche fed to them by LaRouche’s enemies.

To ask Erica Duggan to accept this is to demand she join the cult in believing Larouche a “World Historic Person”, which clearly she’s disinclined to do even if he’s an important figure in her life after the death of her son.  As a cult focused on Larouche’s Eminence, they are incapable of getting away from this internally, even as externally it’s a necessity.  As for revenire and his mindset:  notice that in his frequent feignings of “sympathy” toward the Duggans’ grief as “hi-jacked” for political purposes (and it apparently it took him until just this last week to discover an amount of animosity and/or distrust by some of the ex-Larouchies at factnet toward King and Berlet) by those long time Larouche haters, he never stated it in the context of Dick Cheney, Tony Blair, and et al. and broader political battles — and that sheer joke of being referred to here as “leading American opponent to the war in Iraq”. 

This LPAC item trips over itself round about here:
After a public uproar, Kelly was found dead, supposedly by suicide.
You don’t say.  Wait!  Is this some sort of double reverse?!  By implying this Suicide as actually a cover-up for a nefarious death, implying the Larouche critics as equally conspiratorial to the Larouchies!  Pretty clever!  It’s actually one step more clever than revenire’s “Bush – Palme conspiracy” contraption, because that one is implied as rejected by the Larouchies while this one is accepted! 

But revenire gets a little bit complicated in allowing me to brush him aside as not entirely believing his crap.  It appears that for the sake of argument and public consumption (figure LPAC articles as in a gray area between public and private consumption), he can’t go into this broader political context because he recognizes its absurdity to the outside world with the always raving matter of “what to do with” the Jeremiah Duggan “problem”.  BUT, in his parting shot, he rattled into the Larouche storyline regarding his place in uncovering Iran Contra — where in reality the Org is a mildly interesting footnote, in the Larouche sphere, he hovers over.  It took me a while to understand what he was stating, elliptically that he did so — a big chit in the reason for Larouche’s Imprisonment, supposedly, as opposed to the actual Credit Fraud as presented in the mindset shown in the recent “Windy City Dialouge” with:

If we don’t get enough money in, I’m going to kill somebody. [laughs]

But here revenire MUST and CAN go into this because this is a bit more in the realm of “Inside Baseball”, and we’ve got this game to play.

Though, nobody believes that one either.

Though, they’re always tripping for a narrative, witness (and I guess this is another board they’ve found useful), Obama’s collapsing ratings.  (Not yet.  It’ll happen eventually, as it does all presidents.)  I also note, a blogger at the libertarian Reason Magazine has discovered the 2 year old insertion into the conspiratorial purview, and European was accused by “Howie Copywriter” of quitting because he wasn’t getting any money or sex.

The Stranger (or employees thereof) has a little fun at the expense of the Alex Jones contraption “The Obama Deception”.

First, I may well get this line out of the way:
The Infowar should be a literal war between Larouchies and Truthers, fought in the streets of Davis, California.

Poke into that Sunday, I guess.  Currently, there are two items which are perculating through the Alex Jones sphere : the threat of “National Service” initiatives — Indeed, if you go over to Alex Jones’s sites, that dominates the page right now (‘Tis a big bugalobo for one of the posters at the Internet message board I frequent with a half dozen posters — such as we get this:

Zen has been drafted to teach a group of ‘troubled’ teens the basics of drywalling as part of this program (part of his sentence). He has just shown the kids the ‘mud’ (plaster) and is starting to laborously put it on the wall (budget doesn’t allow for the quick methods). One of the rowdiest of the kids watches this for a moment, and then goes, “I know a quicker way”. He reaches into the bucket, grabs a great big fist full of the plaster and throws it…at the second rowdiest kid in the class. By the time Zen gets turned around, plaster is flying everywhere. He opens his mouth with the intent of telling the kids to stop only to have a big wad of plaster hit him right in the face. About that time, Zens boss comes calling…,

Congenially I offer to his desire to move to New Zealand this:

Meanwhile, the move to New Zealand. That seems to me the managable size of a nation-state. As it were, there’s those behemoths of, say, China and the US — policy imperatives are to uphold a bureacracy for the sake of upholding a bureacracy so that it doesn’t smash down on us, which would be unpleasant. Time to break the world’s states into smaller units.
Cascadia is about the right geographic size, though I think zenman would think of the ensuing government as Socialist so he’d just as well stay away.

But really:

Some of this stuff is great! The first thing I clicked on explained that “Starbucks wants to make it easy to join Obama’s proposed paramilitary brown shirt volunteers”, because they gave away some coffee to, um, volunteers. Because, er, AmeriCorps and MLK/Vista and the Peace Corps are pretty much the same thing as Hitler’s SA.

The model has a precedent in American history and out of German or Soviet history, don’t it?:

In this sense, of course, the New Deal—particularly the Works Progress Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corps—provides some models. These programs used the unemployed to create new dams, electrical-transmission systems and bridges that boosted the nation’s productive power. Critically, such a program would target blue-collar workers—mostly male and heavily minority—hardest hit in the recession. As conservatives rightly note, the New Deal construction projects did not end the Depression, but they did give people purpose and skills as well as hope, while leaving us with a remarkable legacy of productive structures that inspire us with their affirmation of our national destiny.

But the Brownshirts… that’s the threat.  The expanded Americorp group will turn their attention to the citizens, and lead us to the fear of this group of State Controlled Brownshirts putting their targets on :

The uproar that ensued as a result of our original story about a document issued by the Missouri Information Analysis Center which smeared third party supporters as potential domestic terrorists has forced the Missouri Department of Public Safety to issue an apology to Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr. However, references to people who are anti-abortion, anti-gun control, knowledgeable about the Constitution and even those who simply display political bumper stickers will remain. […]
The MIAC report specifically describes supporters of presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr as “militia” influenced terrorists and instructs the Missouri police to be on the lookout for supporters displaying bumper stickers and other paraphernalia associated with the Constitutional, Campaign for Liberty, and Libertarian parties.
The MIAC report (PDF) does not concentrate on Muslim terrorists, but rather on the so-called “militia movement” and conflates it with supporters of Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, the so-called patriot movement and other political activist organizations opposed to the North American Union and the New World Order.

A bit surrealistically, the first comment on this page, as though to lend support to such a “watch carefully” act:

Rev Donald Spitz Reply:
March 24th, 2009 at 7:45 am

Eric Rudolph is not as bad as some would make him out to be. Those who have killed babykilling abortionists have done so to protect the innocent. People use force everyday to protect the innocent and no one has a problem with it, except when it comes to protecting unborn human beings, then they go ballistic. It’s very simple, the unborn deserve the same protection as the born. Born people are protected with force quite often. Force that you would be glad if it was to protect your children against a murderer. Force that you yourself might use to protect your own children from being murdered. The unborn deserve the same protection.

SAY THIS PRAYER: Dear Jesus, I am a sinner and am headed to eternal hell because of my sins. I believe you died on the cross to take away my sins and to take me to heaven. Jesus, I ask you now to come into my heart and take away my sins and give me eternal life.

Which does spur an interesting theological discussion that dips over to:

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com
its time to discard this dangerous notion of god
and to take responsabilty on our shoulders instead of blaming it on satan or god
the elites that run this planet know all this but use your ignorance to keep you imprisoned

Part of the reason Ron Paulites splintered considerably in support for Chuck Baldwin.  (But Bob Barr was never about to get it all either):

“….profiling of all sorts is a very necessary tool for effective law enforcement. Only morons would try to hamper a lawman’s ability to bring criminals to justice by removing this tool from them.”
-quote by Chuck Baldwin.
Hypocrite.

But, you know, a word about the matters at hand which fuel “Obama Deception” moreso than the free-floating anxiety laid by a Service Program — to wit:

Our pundits worry that a populist rage is loose in the land—pitchforks everywhere! My first reaction upon hearing that was to dismiss the word “populist” as a distraction, an epithet meant to recall episodes in which mass rage made sound policy deliberation impossible. Think of dispossessed 19th-century farmers letting their righteous rage at bankers tumble easily into free-floating anger at “Jewish bankers” and then simply at Jews; of 1970s white South Boston parents stabbing busing advocates with American flags. My second reaction was to dismiss the word as inaccurate. What makes this rage “populist”? This is ordinary rage, rational and focused. The lead pitchfork bearers, after all, are people like New York TimesJoe Nocera, who wrote that AIG’s Financial Practices Group was guilty of a “scam” at which “we should be furious.” You might more accurately call that common sense.
AND

Another article excerpt from the Newsweek batch of “Populism” stories which deftly describes the “outrage” into positive and negative, without stating the obvious manner that Obama and Geithner and company would alleviate the negative… can’t find it with immediacy, punt it to later.