I keep hearing this idea, prevalent in the coverage of Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize ceremony — that Obama is a president during “a time of war”.  I don’t understand that phrase.  Who, really, was the last president during “peace time”, reasonably and properly defined.  The best I can think of in a relative sense is Gerald Ford, a matter of a historical patch between Vietnam and Carter’s re-vamping of the Cold War.

In listening to his speech, it becomes clear just how ridiculous Obama’s Award has become.  It was, by design, a speech promoting American military policies.  “Peace Through Strength” if you have to hold it.  But I’m left with that basic thought that Obama was right when he listed or alluded to the vast number of people more deserving of The Nobel Peace Prize than himself, and previous Greats from the past.  The Nobel Peace Prize is wasted on politicians, particularly political leaders of “Empires”.  And hearing the plaudits from the Gingrich – Palin axis, and how this story is framed in the media, it is enough to suspect some conspiratorial trappings ala this thingy.

To pull the quote that popped out of me while reading and watching this thing, fifth paragraph in his speech.

“Some will kill, and some will be killed.”

That is so very Gandhi – like.

This quick final twist in the odd circuitous path of Health Care Reform Politics has the Conservative Democrats extracting the painful concession from the Liberal Democrats of dumping a badly beaten into submission “Public Option” in favor of expanding the government’s Single Payer System, Medicare, down ten years.  Do I got that one right?

There is a whip lash with this one.  Where did that one come from?  I guess it’s the generally beneficial product which stokes the Insurance Industry, and thus comes out acceptable to all sides on the Democratic Aisle — taking the next group of Health hang ups out of the Insurance Industry’s coverage pool.  Though, it does seem to suggest a few possibilities of — should I call it social engineering?  Consider that a company will have one less bottom line reason to cut from their more tenured (and thus highly salaried) employees when looking to “downsize”.  And consider that this probably would lead to an upsurge of some kind in terms of 50 plus year old entrepeneurs (in their next or final career) — “Unleash the full Entrepenual Spirit” as the Supply Siders always put it in defense of tax cuts.

Looking at this for curious signs of our society — it is interesting to note another item in the Health Care Policy — we see a bending down from age 65 to 55 on that end of the scale, and on the other an offer for an extension of keeping a young lad or lass on their parents’ Health Policy up to the age of… 27, I think?  A curious quilting toward “Cradle to Grave” (of a peculiar sort) — the other 28 years in this equation have to fall into place.  (Mandatory Requirements for them to the Insurance companies!) A brisker division of stages, reminds me of the old Seinfeld monolouge about a movie theater ticket-seller being 15 and the usher being in their 70s, probing the contemplation that you start off there, go to your career’s work, and end up 20 feet over  — the 27 one probably irks Newt Gingrich as running the opposite direction in his long held desire to destroy Adolescence — the new 55 age range — well, that’s something on the order of realizing the age tilt for the upcoming mid term elections.

So we see how the Congressional Process works circa 2009.  In a highly partisan era.  The most partisan era in terms of pure Democratic versus Republican since the Woodrow Wilson era.  With that, it may behoove everyone to look back to see how the legislature ran during the Wilson Era.  Wilson held this strong hankering for various European Parliamentary systems, and the House took up after that.  The Democratic Congress members were bound by a rule that once 2/3 of the Caucus under Speaker Champ Clark agreed to something (or was it 3/4?), they would have to vote party line for the agreed to bill.  This was a surefire road to brisk legislative accomplishments, as well a short lived Democratic Party Era.  I can’t say this item of whipdom is anything anyone would want — but the partisan divisions have been reshuffled in the interim anyways.

#1:   The last time we saw “LaRoucheisright”, he had pretty clearly gotten huge dashes of the “Brainwashing” meme.  We see him still about here, partaking in a pretty odd branch of literary criticism.

December 8th, 2009 at 4:50 am If anybody wants to know how to solve this crisis LaRouche has the plan. You know classical tradgedy has no tragic individuals, the tradgedy is always the culture. Many times in history the man for the job was there but people wouldn’t let him solve the problem. I warn you all now that we don’t have forever. If you want to hideout in the mountians that is great, but what of all those who will die. We can still stop this collapse with LaRouche’s program.

Which is interesting, because continue forward and we’ll find someone trying to sell the idea that someone else has the plan.

mysticphoebos  December 8th, 2009 at 5:53 am The Private Fed Reserve and RBA are playing games with you people they must be abolished, look up Alex Jones, a good place to start.

Or is mysticphoebos  the match, Alex Jones the Fuse, and Lyndon Larouche the Bomb?

AND standard goldbug seller…  labartic December 8th, 2009 at 6:56 am A sure bet is to just invest in some precious metals (monex) and have them shipped to your home. Because if the economy crashes, you will at least have tangible wealth, which will have skyrocketed in value.

#2:  The last time we heard from “Carol, Mouse Warrior of GOD”… well, I actually had never encountered “Mouse Warrior of GOD” outside of her name being floated about at factnet’s forum.  Or I had but forgot about her?  (I doubt it… how could I possibly forget a “Mouse Warrior of God”?)  BUT, you can find her work at this sort of militia-ish Christian Right Forum, “Resistnet”, where she sells Larouche here, and gets some buyers.

carol , mouse warrior of GOD on November 27, 2009 at 10:32pm AMEN… HE WAS IN JAIL IN THE 80’S FOR SPEAKING AGAINST THE PLAN !!

Funny.  I thought he was in jail for defrauding the Elderly.
Odd lady, that “Mouse Warrior of GOD”.  Found Jesus… and Larouche?  Such that she prays against Obama (what ever will she do if the cult switches to support?)   I will have to follow the posting career of “Mouse Warrior”, and see where she takes us.  She promises to be the most interesting Larouche promoter since the Leader of the Larouche Cryonics Movement.

I will note … You can buy Glenn Beck’s new book (he puts out a new one every eight months or so) or Sarah Palin’s new book from this here website.

#3:  The last time we heard some vague innuendo about Larouche leading a Republican Party or Conservative Movement was… um… just a sentence back when I brought up Glenn Beck’s and Sarah Palin’s name as two advertisers on a website where some bizarre Christian Right Larouchie feels she can sell her hero?

For me the most fascinating aspect of the tea party phenomenon that we have witnessed in 2009 is the degree to which it shows that Lyndon LaRouche has taken over the modern Republican Party.

I have to groan.  This is an intellectually dishonest insult and piece of partisan invective.  Perhaps we need to coin something akin to Godwin’s Law that covers use of Larouche in discourse.  My only  problem in formulating a phrase for such a thing is, I do think that allusions to Larouche are useful in relation to off-message Dooms Day Conspiracy Theory, more so than your Hitlers, even as I want to reign it in when it’s misused — such as with that last link.

Anyway…

Ha! Yeah the photo is pretty funny. Great font too. But what’s up with the orange vests and standing in the middle of traffic? With the LaRouche crowd, there’s always just a little extra dose of crazy in there.

#4:  The last time we heard from the PUMA Movement… well, that depends.  I don’t think I saved the link to an item I saw a while back of a full disclaimer against the Larouche org, by way of referencing some nasty things the man has said in the past (before he was a full throttled supporter of the Hillary Clinton candidacy) against Hillary Clinton.  I did regularly last summer link to odd PUMA  proponents selling the Larouche “FDR” video, and related items.

Now, I cannot claim to really understand “PUMA”, circa 2009 (or, for that matter, from the DNC Convention on).  To the degree that they exist, they have been all over the map, weaving about from anti-Obama conspircy theories popularized at Free Republic (who also reject Larouche) and by Webster Tarpley about the evils of George Soros, over to a left plank criticism of  Obama’s Afghanistan proposal.  Nonetheless…

Deb55 12.04.09 at 12:00 pm Good morning All, glad to see blog back..

For anyone here looking into the climate change hoax..very good read from 2007, explaining how this was set up to market, …CHICAGO is the U.S. home (CCX)Chicago Climate Exchange.. of the stock exchange for “climate credits”.

“”The centerpiece of the U.S. emerging market for carbon
emissions trading, is the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), created in 2003″”

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2007/3413carbon_swindle.html

It is not a pretty read..WE have been HAD..and yes.. it is ALL about Money..and we PAY!!!

Zee 12.04.09 at 12:50 pm

Deb, never mind “pretty” read, La Rouche is a nutcase and a predator of college kids into his cult and we don’t need to be reading *anything* by Larouche.

AND:  Deb55 12.04.09 at 1:50 pm
Zee..plead guilty on La Roude..granddaughter doing research..

Zee 12.04.09 at 8:45 pm    #28 Deb!!! All the more reason to inform and protect your granddaughter!

That is exactly whom they target and of course they do it in a smart fashion. The LaRouche method is to adopt the same talking points as whoever is outraged or disengaged that particular year, so he flipflops from bashing everyone from Cheney to Gore. He has no core, just adopts whatever attitude to pick off people from legit concerns!!!
………………………….

Item #5: I’m pondering this batch of taglines.

Description: … EXPOSING FASCISTS Work on field of Larouche Movement LPAC TV off the cuff jun help Alex jones fight george soros tepstolog aljosa durnik April 28.2009 int webcast green global worming swine flu epidemic tarp outbreak money nwo Lindon LaRouche obama world crises economic collapse davos conference Russia us remedy Europe answer bankruptcy United States New Dark Age British Empire war empire bailout wall street fascism recession webster tarpley alex david icke Preview Obama Nazi health

Item #6:  The last time we heard from Alan Osler… well, the most notable time we heard from Alan Osler he was making crude comments about a conference in Wiesbedan exploring the nature of the cult.  Well, he left a comment here.  A few things that jump out at me.

I think that a guy that has been a candidate for president 8 times deserves some respect.

Arguably this fits in with this item.

I am pleased though that you are using big words such as perenial, and that you have no noticable spelling mistakes.

Am I supposed to congratulate a Good catch on “Perennial”?  Never mind.

I don’t know how it works in German or British politics, but in America we tend to play by the “Harold Stassen Rule“.  After two or three runs, one loses credibility quickly.     Perhaps the only problem with this rule in relation to the topic at hand is that Stassen was taken seriously at one time — in 1948, he was the favorite to win the Republican nomination (and thus the presidency) before losing to Dewey.  In 1952, he served as a kingmaker for Eisenhower.  Heck!  Even as late as 1964 he served as a useful “Anybody but Goldwater” marker in the Indaiana primary.

Then there’s the two Socialist Candidates of Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas, who are generally thought of as principled enough candidates of conscience for their multitude runs.  They didn’t pick up all that many votes, but compared to Larouche practically won by landslides.  And Eugene Debs’s time in the slammer for his opposition to WWI looks more noble than Larouche’s time in the slammer for defrauding the Elderly.

Downticket, there are always plenty of amusing candidates running about.  Gordon Allen Pross will run for something in Washington State, as he has every even number year since 1998.  In Montana, Bob Kelleher just capped off his political career with a surprise Republican Senate primary victory — spurred, no doubt, because his name was the most vaguely familiar on the ballot (similar dynamics as the the 1986 Illinois chaos.)  For these candidates, it is a hobby — all it takes is maybe a few hundred dollars in some states, and maybe some signature gathering in other states to get on the ballot.  We will wait to see if L-PAC springs for this for their 2010 candidates — Rachel Brown in Massachusetts, somebody or other in Texas, and I gather a few more down the pike.

I like your criticism. I have read this article a thousand times before though.

Well, it’s good to know that I’m not the only certified non member regularly typing “Larouche” into search engines.  Sure, things can get repetitive — as everyone takes a quick gander and finds out that Lyndon Larouche is a “perenial”  candidate who has a felony conviction for defrauding the elderly.  Other repetitive items that keep coming up — a news story about how the Larouche cardtables are nuisances in front of this or that store or post office.  I swear I’ve read that story 11 times already.  Maybe they’re just cutting and pasting it from previous efforts?

The store claims it does not allow anyone on its property to display anything containing “fighting words, obscenities, grisly or gruesome displays, or highly inflammatory slogans likely to provoke disturbance.”
The market chain says it’s concerned that the activists will continue to offend and drive away loyal customers, as it has already received hundreds of complaints from customers who believe Stater endorses the LaRouche views.
The activists have refused to leave Stater’s property when asked and the police say they cannot remove them without a court order, according to the complaint.

Item #7: Some Random items.   Who is Dr. Deagle?  Dr. Deagle is a highly intelligent whistle-blower with info that you need to know about nutrition, extraterrestrails, New World Order, Moon Base, Mars colony, Deep Underground Military Bases, super soldiers, GMO, Illuminati 4th dimensional workings, even modified attack baboons. And he interviews Harley Schlanger.  He knows a thing or two about nutrition and modified attack baboons!

Item #8:   More of the same bullshit you learned in your mother’s basement reading Lyndon LaRouche pamphlets. No where in the Constitution is the Senate tasked with representing the States. In case you missed it, the Constitutional Amendment that

Item #9:  Is this a compliment? the very funniest Democrat agitator out there

Well, this isn’t.  (And by dent of having two items mention him — one more substantially the next link here, it is Larouche Day at Huffington Post.)

Item #10.  Questions posed.

Montreal.  I was handed a pamphlet and listened to some garble about Lyndon LaRouche being some sort of economic saviour. But it left me asking some questions, are they some sort of political movement? or cult-like entity?

You can always google and find out they are a political cult under the order of a perenial presidential candidate and convicted felon!  Then cut and paste it to your blog.  I won’t mind!

“Clinton was the best president we’ve ever had.  And all that fuss over a little bj.”

This was said by someone after a loose-knit connecting of a bunch of stories (Tora Bora, Bin Ladens flown out of US, etc) to say that Bush had a hand in 9/11.  Usually a 9/11 Truther has no use for Clinton, but I guess there is a small portion who have a partisan edge to the conspiratorialists — or maybe there’s a large number of a different type of conspiratorialists.

“No.  Not Clinton.  ROOSEVELT was our greatest president.”

I kept my lips tight, and kept myself from shouting out “ARTHUR!”

We are getting conflicting reports with this news item.

“The threats (to Obama) right now and inappropriate interest that we are seeing is the same level as it has been for the previous two Presidents at this point,” the Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan said in response to a question at a Congressional hearing.

“They are not,” Sullivan said when Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton asked him if the threats to Obama were higher or not, during a hearing by House Committee on Homeland Security on the security breach in the White House last week.Norton termed “as very comforting news,” when Sullivan dismissed published reports that the level of death threat against Obama was four time higher than that of his predecessors.

“I have heard a number out there that the threat is up by 400 per cent. I’m not sure where that number (came from). It’s not [a] 400 per cent [increase],” Sullivan reiterated when Norton said that the Secret Service needed additional agents to protect the first African-American president.

Compare that with, published just today by this Cannuck publication, but it’s pulled from the New York Times, which published it a day or two ago.:

Kody Brittingham, a 20-year-old lance corporal, wrote that he had taken an oath to “protect against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.” In a signed “letter of intent,” tucked away in his barracks at Camp Lejeune, N.C., he identified a “domestic enemy” he planned to eliminate last winter: U.S. President Barack Obama.

The details of this threat, which were revealed at his arraignment hearing in North Carolina, have not previously been reported. Brittingham pleaded guilty in August and awaits sentencing on charges of threatening to kill the president and attempted armed robbery.

It is one of the cases in a spike of threats against Obama before his inauguration in January and in the early months of his presidency, raising deep fears inside the Secret Service and at the White House.

The threats have levelled off in recent months, officials said, and Obama now receives about the same as his two most recent predecessors, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. But several officials said they took no solace that the volume of reports had receded, because it was the nature of the threats that concern them and because the factors behind the increase remain – Obama’s race prime among them.

So.  Which is it?  Were the threats up 400 percent, and have since levelled back to Clinton – Bush levels, or was that number plucked from thin air and we’re proceeding at Clinton – Bush levels?  Or is this a preogative of the Secret Service, none of the public’s business, and we should really entertain ourselves with the antics of the oddly threatening suggestions that came with the Party Crasher story?

This morning, on a morning news broadcast best left unmentioned.:

“And the TARP Funds are going to cost less than expected.  $200 Million have been paid back out of the package, and will be back on the government books, from the original $700 Billion price tag.  Obama is considering putting the money into Job Creation Stimulus, which would need to move through a legislative process.”

“And I would like to correct that number.  He meant $200 Billion.”

“No.  $200 Million is the correct amount.”

“Oh.  Okay.  Moving on to the next story…”
…………………………………..

The good news is the amount is $200 Billion.  $200 Million out of $700 Billion would not be worthy of a news item — .028571428571% of total returned — which although helpful isn’t much of a drop in the bucket — versus $200 Billion out of $700 Billion — 28.571428571429% returned, and throw around $200 Billion here, $200 Billion there and pretty soon you are talking some real money.

Woe to anyone who was left with their impression that the number is $200 Million.

For a bit of clarification on Hal Turner, and his court proceedings, continuing from my last post, I turn to wikipedia — not a particularly reliable source for things only a handful of people take any concern to care about, but that takes us to the discussions.

Now that more details are coming out about Hal it is wrong to claim he is a White Nationalist and right wing extremeist. In fact he was a paid FBI informant and agent provacateur who played these roles. Just as Jack Nicholson is not “The Joker”, Hal Turner is not what he pretended to be. This article, which is locked, still presents his opinions as if they were legitimately his, and not part of a government false flag operation.

This is quite remarkable really, as Hal Turner was among the most outspoken of the racist right in his prime. It would be as if it turned out that Farrakhan was in fact working for the Mossad or something.

The fact that these issues are only raised later in the article is misleading, and gives more credence to his cover persona than his real persona. In the case of many moles these issues are hard to tease out. Kim Philby, perhaps the most famous mole in history really *was* a British intelligence agent, but few would rate that more important than his deeper role as a Russian mole.

Here is the wiki writeup for Philby. It is much more balanced and perhaps should serve as a model for a re-write of the Hal Turner entry in light of new information.

Harold Adrian Russell “Kim” Philby or H.A.R. Philby (OBE: 1946-1965), (1 January 1912 – 11 May 1988) was a high-ranking member of British intelligence. A communist, he served as an NKVD and KGB operative.

In 1963, Philby was revealed as a member of the spy ring now known as the Cambridge Five, along with Donald Maclean, Guy Burgess, Anthony Blunt and John Cairncross. Of the five, Philby is believed to have been most successful in providing classified information to the Soviet Union. His activities were moderated only by Stalin’s paranoia that Philby was a triple agent.[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.191.160 (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The above comments show no understanding of logic, facts, or WP policy. It is not at all wrong to claim that Turner is a White Nationalist and right wing extremist, as those are well-documented facts. That Turner was at times an informant for the FBI doesn’t change those facts; many police informants are criminals. Unlike Kim Philby, Hal Turner was not a mole, a spy, or a “high-ranking member” of any intelligence agency. — 98.108.196.223 (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

 There are two possibilities with Hal Turner, and they are not mutually exclusive.  The FBI is understating Hal Turner’s utility; Hal Turner is overstating his FBI connections.  I gather that is the issue that “Truthful” tried to reference here, but his/her point remained too obscure for me to divine.  The latter is paramont to his defense, which, after all, is the most compelling argument for a Deadlock:

He pleaded not guilty, and his lawyer said the defense will use “Turner’s background as an FBI informant” and argue he was “trained by the FBI” as “an agent provocateur” to incite people.”^[47][48] Subsequently, in late October Turner was freed on $500,000 bond, and was ordered not to use a computer or any device that can access the Internet.^[49] His trial started on November 30, 2009 and ended December 4, 2009, with the defense opting not to call any witnesses.^[50] After two hours of dicussion, the jury announced it was deadlocked.^[51]

And bleh de bleh bleh.

I going to remove this until it can be better saourced. The ADL article has him saying that the wants to kill some k*ke and some other garbage, but this seems like it should be better sourced. I am no suporter of this person or his hate speech for what its worth. Thank you. —72.209.10.176 (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The actual quote is “Instead of fighting Muslims, we Christians should be rounding up jews [sic] and killing them here in America.” That seems to be correctly summarized. The ADL is a sufficiently reliable source for a direct quote. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Get your character witnesses in a row, I suppose.  The other possible contention being laid out there by my commenter might be in regards to classifying him as “neo-nazi”, which I suppose it is true that he did not advocate for Germany to annex Poland.

It’s easy for me to picture a man who internally exaggerated his FBI informant status, but at any rate I have the luxury of idle speculation.

It’s often been noted that the one thing that President Obama, and by extension his Democratic Party, has going for it as a shock absorber is the current state of the Republican Party.  This is mutual: the one thing going for the Republican Party that serves as a lifeboart is the Democratic Party.  “Indespensable Enemies”, as Walter Karp described it.

There are two damaging and disconcerting polls that have to be vexxing th Donkey Party.  First, the one that guages a whopping 40 percent of Democrats who say they are either definitely or probably not be voting in the 2010 elections, compared to a tiny portion of Republicans stating the same.  It’s partially a product of rallying against the politically possible (anemic) against rallying against the Cause of Opposition..  I won’t pretend to forecast the 2010 elections here, but the pivot point for turning those numbers around on the Democratic side is almost certainly the completion of legislative agenda — Health Care — matched against the broader economic and military situation.

The other poll number fascinates me.  Harvard has found that the under 30 set approves of Obama, and disapproves of much of his handling of policy agenda.  Before someone shouts out claims of Obama and the “Cult of Personality”, I have to state that this is not a new feature/bug of American politics — similar discreprencies surfaced about with Reagan, for instance.  Beyond that, there is a feature of the 2 Party Duopoly at work here.  Disapprove of Obama’s Afghanistan Surge?  Well, la de da… would you prefer the policy strategy of an open-ended Afghanistan Surge promoted by Republican Stalwart John McCain?  Regarding health care, the phrasing here is key — “handling of policy” — we’re watching the sausage get made, and all the compromises to industry that comes with it — like approving or disapproving of Used Car Salesmen – how can anyone like this?  (A simple policy is easier to sell than a complicated policy process).  And, again: would you prefer the Republican approach to “reform”ing Health Care — which, so far as I can tell, seems to be selling us on the idea that  there’s a bazooka of savings to be had by going after the Democratic interest group of Trial Lawyers.  On Gay marriage… well, even the conservative set in the under 30 set hasn’t any problem with the concept, and to be against it is to be against Obama’s position (as the ballot measurers take glee in promoting their case by quoting).