Yesterday was April 11, a “Day That Will Live in Infamy”.  Ken Kronberg committed suicide.  Had it not been for this, it is unlikely that I would still be posting on matters concerning the Larouche cult, certainly not at the rate I have, and I would have moved on to some other bright shiny object of absurdity.  An anniversary like that puts me in mind to look back and answer the question — Why was I around to take special notice of this?  I am a little bit startled in re-reading what fades away in my memory.

The circumstances of the time are these.  A college newspaper writer saw a few posts on this blog — they were re-posted comments to silly posts about the Larouche Movement from a former member giving his warning sirens and relaying his experiences.  Current members descended upon his comments, and the tenor of my general attitude can be seen with this post.
The college writer thought I was that former member.  She was wanting to write a piece for her school newspaper, dangling further possibilities in shopping to the liberal rags of In These Times and something else that escapes my memory — which would be in its immediacy a Cautionary Warning Piece to the campus as the cult started its fall recruits.  I let it pass before she emailed again with more urgency.  I don’t know how this reads, but after a bit of thought, I switched my mind and actively, more aggressive than my laissez faire attitude norm, contacted the man to urge the poster some cooperation with the college newspaper writer.

There’s a bit more to the story, but not much.  Perhaps I leaned on him a bit too hard, perhaps not.  The article was apparently something of a Deadline Buster.  But it was published — made a presence at that campus and online.

There were a few Larouchies who continued to grace this blog with their presence.  Someone with the last name “Bettag”, for instance.  In hindsight they appeared to give me more power than I ever could give myself.  See this statement here.
Do you also suggest solutions to the problems that this ‘nut case’ raises? Economics, the war? Or do you just intend to disparage those who do, thus demoralizing the population with your stuff? Good show!
Really?  This Blog has the ability to “Demoralize the Population”?  Really?  Looking back, I wonder if she meant I was “demoralizing” the members of the Larouche Youth Movement — future daily briefings seem to suggest that possibility for interpretration.  Otherwise, I’m a little stumped — months, years later I’d be sharing closer to the truth: “this blog is read by, like, seven people”.

I was reasonably charitable with the figure of “Steve”, though could not help but balk at his great question “Do you know the difference between Man and the Animals?”  I somehow slipped away “Animals” and replaced it with “beasts” — I think that comes from the various references to “beast-men” and “Bestial”.  So sorry.

Anyway, such comments did not escape the notice of ex-members.  Hence the following comment, shortly after the “Day That Will Live in Infamy”, April 11, 2007:
See if the larouche cultists who show up here can give more details of what happened in larouche’s residence the night before and the morning of the suicide.

Some details emerged shortly, of course.  The Daily Briefing for that morning.  And so Bettag resurfaced here.  What does it make YOU if you publish stuff you have no personal knowledge of? How much research did you do before you published Nick Benton’s article and then responded to it as gospel…?

A fumbling and mad scramble indeed, easily and quickly substantiated — Dennis King published the briefing in full, it was published at factnet by (probably quasi)-anonymous figures — and the larouche org itself chimed in on its authenticity when it blasted Dennis King’s postings at its various websites, the relevant phrase:

These slanders, along with King’s posting of stolen documents.

I will add that nothing came out of this particular message.
Brian Says:  May 1st, 2007 at 2:45 pm I don’t believe you guys have any idea about LaRouche or his movement. I would reccomend all of you to call them and challenge them personally. Making a stupid website called skull / bones and ranting about something you obviously dont know is retarded. I live in Lynnwood WA, we should meet up and have some of the LYM youth there and then you can tell them how bad LaRouche is in person, unless your just a little pussy that hides behind fourms and posts shit like you know something..

I don’t think so.

When  an article for Kenneth Kronberg appeared on wikipedia, the Larouche Wikipedia Team came out and took their whacks.

:::::::::The statement about suicide is clearly hyperbole in the “briefing,” not intended to be taken literally. Benton is treating it as if it were a literal recommendation. “Malicious” seems to be the right word for this. —NathanDW 16:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

And so they continue, as you can see on this wikipedia page, rationalizing the Daily Briefing.  But, for some comedy relief, try this one.:

:::Take a look at WP:SELFPUB. Kronberg was a member of the LaRouche movement, so under Wikipedia policy a self-published source from that movement is acceptable in an article about him. However, in an article about an opponent of the LaRouche movement such as Dick Cheney, material sourced to LaRouche publications would be excluded. —Marvin Diode 14:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The mind boggles.  And, as the Larouche Line evolved, so did the wikipedia assault…

::::How do you know it was “lack of support from his community”? He left no suicide note. For all we know, he was pushed to suicide by a wife who was undermining his life’s work by supporting George Bush. In a matter like this, it is disrectful to the deceased to speculate about his motives, but the real issue here is that the usual gang, King, Berlet, etc., have ghoulishly seized upon Kronberg’s death to push their agenda. That’s why this is a coatrack article. —Masai warrior 13:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

And about the Ken Kronberg Memorial Page.
:It is most emphatically not “his family’s memorial website” — it is a propaganda site run by his cousin, acting as a meatpuppet for Dennis King. —NathanDW 01:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

That’s an extraordinary claim, isn’t it? ”
To follow an evolution of the “Line”, we can track through the material I batched up here and here.  The startling focal point in terms of re-directional hate came when the Larouche org let it be known that Molly Kronberg donated money to the Bush Campaign.  Well, it is a ways from her congressional campaign days in garnering 285 votes, and back then, — that time in the late 1980s which, in the new drive to demonize Molly Kronberg, became another source of historical revision in the organization to meet the new narrative.

So it was this.
Ted Andromidas (not verified) on Tue Sep. 2, 2008 7:31 PM PDT  Now Molly, for over a decade you have ridiculed and vilified LaRouche. I was there, at gatherings, where you did that. So, using your name means little or nothing. The more interesting question for me is, why DID you hang around? What was the point? Why did you live on a paycheck provided by an organization, and those affiliated with it, that you have so despised for 19 years. Really, cut it out>

Submitted by Molly Kronberg (not verified) on Tue Oct. 7, 2008 10:06 PM PDT
However, I didn’t “live on a paycheck provided by [the] organization”–I never got a paycheck from the organization after 1986, and Ken never got a paycheck from the organization after 1978.
As to my vilifying LaRouche at social gatherings–of course I attacked LaRouche for years, and events have shown just how right I was. In particular, the death of my husband, driven to suicide by LaRouche and his associates, as Avi Klein’s article intimates.

Notable is that the cloddlessness of the cult’s members continued unabetted.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon Aug. 24, 2009 2:15 AM PDT.
Whatever you say about Larouche as far as predicting the crash of the economy he was right on target.
Wha–?  See too here.
The Washington Monthly piece is an interesting piece of journalism about a truly disturbing event: the death of Ken Kronberg. Unfortunately both Kate’s post and Avi’s article suffer from the usual problems with LaRouche critics: (i) over-reliance on emotive words like “crazy” which don’t describe much except to advertise your own status in the respectible anti-LaRouche crowd (ii) and total mischaracterization of the ideas of the LaRouche movement. […] Sometimes I think that those who claim that the ideas themselves are simply “crazy” simply use that term to convince intelligent fair-minded people not to bother reading them. Now, LaRouche’s personal behavior makes the critics’ mischaracterizations an easier sell. That may be the true crime.

A very curious game of compartmentalizing and rationalizing, I would say, particularly since what is being rationalized isn’t worth a lot.

Then came this.
My ubderstanding is that there were problems in the marriage and this sort of thing has driven many a man to jump off a bridge, out a window, whatever.
Marielle can say whatever she wants now that poor Ken can’t defend himself can’t she?She’s rather low as human beings come.
Posted by: revenire | March 15, 2009 2:33 PM
And this.
Margaret (author) said:
Molly, aside from being evil, rotten and dirty, your problem is and always was that you are UGLY as SIN. Girl, you were whooped with the ugly stick! Dante needs to come back to create a new circle in Hell just for you.
# 17 September 2008 at 11:39 pm

You’ll forgive me since I wasn’t paying attention, but a prominent right-wing radio talk show host — as in “the” prominent right wing talk radio host — initials R and L — apparently used the word “Regime” in describing the Obama Administration.  Apparently a prominent tediously-inside-the-beltway television news network personality — oft times called “liberal” due to having worked in the Carter Administration — initials of CM– called him out on such a thing.

I was not aware of this controversy, and today I find myself encountering it and being puzzled due to the lack of there is no story here.  In terms of “toxic rhetoric”, this is a misdirection.  Blah blah blah — Get your “Regime Change Begins at Home” stickers out.  I hate anti-president paranelia of this type because of its sucker-pack character: just roll out the new model and you can make a mint.

I suppose I could dig into RL’s sentences.  He states that Obama’s is a “Regime” because he’s “Governing Against Will of People and Purposely Killing Jobs”.  It’s mostly not worth figuring out.  But I will suggest that the “I Want My Country Back” sentence never much impressed me back in the Bush Administration.  (As when John Kerry adopted the Langston Hughes poem “Let America Be America Again” for his campaign purposes.)  Roughly every perfidy of the Bush Administration can be found in the historical record through American history.  I suppose this is the price one pays for evading nationalistic claims.  I suppose for the flip side in thinking about the use for opposition to the Obama Administration (or “Regime” if you must), the thing to do is to discern the differences of what “back” one side wants from America’s past as against the “back” from America’s past lopped off by the previous Administration/”Regime” —

Excuse me for a moment while I laugh at this weasel — NG — wait.  There’s more where that came from!

Newt Gingrich, the former Speaker of the House, is a reader—and something of a postmodern interpreter—of the works of Albert Camus and George Orwell. A few days before President Obama’s big health-care “summit,” Gingrich addressed the Conservative Political Action Conference. He cited Camus’s “The Plague,” summarizing its message with Jack Nicholsonian authoritativeness: “The authorities can’t stand the truth.” His discussion of Orwell was more narrowly targeted. The message of “1984,” he explained, is that centralized planning inherently leads to dictatorship, which is why having a secular socialist machine try to impose government-run health care in this country is such a significant step away from freedom and away from liberty, and towards a government-dominated society.
I could point out that rhetorical black-balling is not new.  Compare the conservative William Graham Sumner’s “Forgotten Man” with the way Franklin Roosevelt used the phrase — arguably in parts re-inverted back by Richard Nixon’s class with the rise of “The Silent Majority”.  But then again, Roosevelt never referenced Sumner, so maybe he’s more home free than Newt Gingrich with respect to specifically citing Camus and Orwell.

Orwell’s position on the House and Senate health-care bills is unknown, but, like Camus, he was a lifelong democratic socialist (he was a member of the Independent Labour Party, which regarded regular Labourites as wishy-washy) and, as such, a big fan of government-run health care. Confusion about who is and who is not a socialist and what is and what is not socialism was endemic at C-PAC, as the conference’s participants affectionately call it. “The hope and change the Democrats had in mind was nothing more than a retread of the failed and discredited socialist policies that have been the enemy of freedom for centuries all over the world,” Senator Jim DeMint, of South Carolina, said, adding, in a reference to the President, “Just because you are good on TV doesn’t mean you can sell socialism to freedom-loving Americans.” Representative Steve King, of Iowa, listed the enemy within: “They are liberals, they are progressives, they are Che Guevarians, they are Castroites, they are socialists.” Then he mentioned a few more key segments of the Democratic coalition, including, besides Trotskyites, Maoists, Stalinists, and Leninists, “Gramsci-ites—ring anybody’s bell?” Strictly speaking, that should be Gramscians, followers of Antonio Gramsci, the Italian Communist Party leader of the nineteen-twenties. Ding-dong!
When we’re upa gainst the Trotskyites, Maoists, Stalinists, Leninists, and Gramscians —
Some people deign the “get America back” as sticking it to a simple matter of black man in the White House — and I suppose that old chestnut of a political wad out of Virginia lends some credence to the various coalitions gelling for political effect.  A long time back there was a fuss about cartoons plastering Obama in the guise of Urkel.  Was this racist?  Sure, though I know from experience you don’t have to be black to be compared to Urkel.  The bigger point is the parody didn’t even really make sense.

But in a world where ACORN is brought down by deceptive pieces of misleading editing — from a video filmer whose benefactor can with a straight face insist that there were no racist slurs tossed to black congress members at their walk past — that — such a thing is somehow not possible.  I don’t understand the automatic denial, except by putting it in the context of the fabricated ACORN video.  In terms of the colors of the hats in old Western movies, the White Hats need to always be wearing the White Hats and the Black Hats need to be wearing the Black Hats.

I have heard argued that talk radio, by which we mean conservative/right wing hosts, and the conservative media — biggest item in the mix is Fox News — cannot be all that powerful, as evidenced by the fact that for all their screechings against Bill Clinton — he was easily re-elected.  But that misses the point.  Back when the younger Bush was filling one of his Supreme Court picks, and I wish I could find this — The Atlantic published a piece about the true ideological breakdown of the Court — apparently by dent of Clarence Thomas being insane, the five to four division we always presume the Court holds (as shown with the “Citizen’s United” decision) is untrue, and we can find something like a 3 – 4 – 2 division definition.

Barack Obama is set to put up a Supreme Court Justice.  Stevens, important for such reasons that he can occasionally nab Kennedy and taper the 5 Justice Majority down – makes his escape before it’s too late politically.  We’re in for a political posturing battle with the definition of the word “mainstream”  justice up the air.  Take a page from GB — ignore the headline for the moment — and figure what this “RADICAL” coming is supposed to mean.  In a world where the old President George Bush threw out CT, and in a world where whoever Obama picks is going to be defacto the most Radical Pick in Human History — just … because.

Out in full force, the “Recall Sam Adams” are.
I grow to despise them. They’re like — two people straight on a Max ride. Like, completely unaware that someone else just came up to me about five seconds ago with the “Recall Sam Adams” clip-board. Like — maybe this is a tactic — person one asks for a signature, you say no, and then you can mull it over for a few seconds and perhaps change your mind when person number two asks for the signature?

Walking forward and outward, man flags me. “Recall Sam Adams?” I say, “Re-elect Sam Adams? Why would I want to Re-elect Sam Adams?”, as I walk past him. He shouts “No! Reca–”

Did Avel Gordly get her $75,000? If she didn’t, and she had gotten the $75,000 — would this Recall Sam Adams scene look even worse, or would that $75,000 somehow siphon the Recall effort into a spot with a greater ratio people to people who care anymore to recall Sam Adams? Given the new-found interest in the oregonian comments section, I suggest they circle around the “Black Blox” demonstrators concerning the police.

Really?  You’re putting in that position of having to defend Alex Jones?  Really?

I don’t know where this sprouting from, but it begins with this citation of Alex Jones as “Larouche Front Talk Show“.  It roams into this Karl Rove Wall Street Journal request to the Tea Party to “Weed out the Kooks” , referenced for the sake of referencing the word “remnants” —

A small fraction of the tea partiers’ leadership are ambitious individuals who haven’t been able to hold office in either the GOP or Democratic Party. Some are from fringe groups like the John Birch Society or the remnants of the LaRouchies. Others see the tea party movement as a recruiting pool for volunteers for Ron Paul’s next presidential bid.

— Interesting, but I suppose false — or maybe it isn’t… I don’t know.  I would note that Ron Paul supporters basically invented the Tea Party movement, and Republican Party structures encroached to it.
But Comedic gold is as always found in the comments section.
Rove advises Tea Partiers to steer clear of fringe groups.

I agree. The top of the list would be the Democratic Party (especially the Obamatrons)and the Republican Party (especially neo-cons).
He laughingly identifies The John Birch Society. Ha! They are one of the finest promoters of Original American values in existence. If Rove says they are fringe, then he is a Socialist.
Thank you John Birch Society.

From Rove’s missive we jump up back to an Alex Jones reference.

The dangerous Lyndon LaRouche cult is attempting to hijack the TEA party movement.   This cult consists of fanatical followers of LaRouche’s peculiar brand of Marxism.  Interestingly, one of LaRouche’s former high level associates, Webster Tarpley, is now openly working with self-described “patriot” Alex Jones, who runs the infowars and prision planet web sites. […]
The strength of the LaRouche appeal to some TEA partiers was dramatically demonstrated in a recent election when LaRouche-Democrat Congressional candidate Kesha Rogers won the nomination in the 22nd District in Texas.  She campaigned on one main issue — impeach Obama.  That message had great appeal to many in the freedom movement and they came across party lines to nomimate her.
Rogers victory has done massive harm to the freedom movement by giving LaRouche the one thing he lacked – his own political foothold on the elective battleground.  He used the TEA party movement to give him what he never had – legitimacy.

Mostly the dangerous Larouche Group is interested in standing in front of the Tea Party and claiming it, in various swarths, as itself.  The Tea Party is not in danger of being hi-jacked by such a thing, nor did they particularly vote in the nomination of Kesha Rogers… which is best understood like this.  A bit less so the final sentences here.

My previous comments on the supposed Alex Jones — Larouche Axis is found here — I’m not going to repost them.  I can assure everyone that neither man invented that one about the Rothchilds, or the Vast Eugenics Plot that in Alex Jones’s estimation is leading to the Government secretly building large numbers of Internment Camps throughout Middle America.  But skip past, for the moment, trying to slice the confluence of Political and Conspiratorial issues and let’s look and Hiring and Employee Relations.  From this article:

Ryan was the new guy. He had answered a Craigslist want ad six weeks earlier looking for a radio producer for an unspecified program. “If I put my name in the ad, I’d have fans lining up out the door to apply,” Jones told me. (The location of Jones‘ studio is a carefully guarded secret.) When he applied, Ryan was a casual listener of the show who enjoyed Jones‘ style but thought the subject matter was “a little out there.” After a few weeks immersed in Jones‘s world, however, he was a believer. “If you saw what we see every day–fifty to a hundred articles all calling for global government, for eugenics, mind control, and everything else–you’d believe it too,” he said.

I’m a little chagrined by the ease of falling into the opinions sprouted by Alex Jones based on a sort of immersion, but it appears there is an exchange of wages for services rendered.  As for the Larouche org, here we see two workers doing their deeds for their employer.

Well, the figures speak for themselves for Renee Sigerson and John Sigerson.  Significant tithing, I would say.

Did you know there’s a war going on in Seattle?  Take ONE.

Rave To our neighbors who for years have treated the neighborhood to the gift of their outdoor tree decorated with different colored lights and charms for every holiday. Thanks for the lovely spectacle!”
Rant To [political activist Lyndon] LaRouche supporters. If you really want to reach the intelligence of voters, do it through intelligent means. I would talk with you, but your posters of President Obama as Hitler make me feel that LaRouche supporters belong to a cult. Though you may be adamantly against his policies, the president is no Hitler, and it’s rude to make that comparison. How about a picture of LaRouche instead, or posters saying how LaRouche can fix our country’s issues? Why turn off people you want to reach?

… And Jeers to this rusty tailgate.
You know.  This is a bad idea.  They are quite capable of doing this — I think I remember seeing them with something in 2004 with Larouche’s visage next to Lincoln and Roosevelt.
Anyway, I think the cult is liable to take this headline seriously, as seriously as they take their War on the British Empire.
… preparing with their Larouche Constitutional Dollars.

According to a police report, another sign-wielding Mooninite (that’s what we’re calling them now) called police at about 4:00pm on March 24th and said he’d been assaulted by an angry passerby.
Police arrived at the scene and found the man “carrying large political signs with a very unflattering picture of our country’s current president.”
The victim told police he was holding his sign “and trying to engage passersby in conversation” when a “very enraged” man walked up to him, circled around him and began screaming “fucking retard” over and over. The suspect also told the victim he “was in a cult,” tried to grab his sign, and then shoved him.

I beg of everyone: this is not the way to fight the War on Larouchies.  They Battle must be Waged and won with Youtube Videos.

Those people are assholes. I had my 85 year-old mother (who still hasn’t gotten over the closure of F&N) downtown a few years back, and one of them got in her face and started screaming some obscenity laced tirade about Bush.
Mom is a Democrat, but she’s also a lady who doesn’t stand for words like that. I thought she was going to hit him with her handbag (if she were twenty years younger she would have)
Seriously, they’re just jerks. I don’t know what they’re trying to accomplish. Reminding us that LaRouche is still alive?

… We’ll see when the man dies if that’s the whole aim of their antics.

… Wait.  They aim to bring Kesha Rogers to congress (though apparently they already think they have), (last sentences in my post already linked), Summer Shields, and Rachel Brown.  Right?  Roll through the campaigns.

In the span of a few minutes, several people spoke to the LaRouche/Brown supporters and signed a document on a clipboard.
When the Advocate editor asked why the Brown supporters had a sign with Obama’s face and a mustache like Hitler’s, they refused to answer, however.
A young male in the group said, “We’re not talking to people.”
Asked if that meant the press, considering that he was talking to several people, he repeated his refusal and said, “It’s all on the website.” He blocked his face with his hand while the Advocate editor took a few more pictures.
The woman in the group said she was a Brown supporter but she also refused to answer questions.
While the press took photos, she turned the sign so her body was blocking Obama’s mustached portrait. She also said to look for information about Brown’s candidacy on her website, rachelbrownforcongress.

Wait.  They’re not talking to people?  Well then.  That’s a start, because it at least means they’re no longer shouting invectives at already.  (See the 85 year old mom in Seattle.)

How’s the Summer Shields campaign going?

Surely the New Jersey readers want to know about supporting this candidate.

Summer Justice Shields, running in the California Democratic Congressional Primary 8th District now represented by Nancy Pelosi, was informed that he would not be allowed a booth at the upcoming California Democratic Party Convention. With the second lowest approval rating in the House of only 11%, her seat is considered one of the most vulnerable. Campaigning, sometimes door to door, Summer Shields has seen widespread support for the need for her and the Obama Administration’s replacement with a return to the nation of a “Hamiltonian” banking and credit system, starting with a “Pecora Commision” federal criminal investigation of the roles of all those responsible for foisting the Wall Street bailouts on the nation, including now Treasury Secretary Timmy Geithner, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and Hank Paulson. The following article is from the LaRouchepac.com website, and at Summer Shields for Congress California Democrats Move to Exclude LaRouche from State Convention

Wait.  Where does that come from?  Here, I guess.  An absurdly low approval rating, an almost absurdly low disapproval rating, and a  bunch of blank.
Rules of thumb:  Congress is NEVER popular — reflected to congressional leadership.  Your congress-critter almost invariably is, in your district.  This is a bizarre trick, apparently coming with the same feelers that hold that Kesha Rogers has been elected to Congress.

Anyway… You know something?  This citation of “Neo-Nazi Girl” is false, but it occurs to me…

Are you kidding? You’re either profoundly incompetent or just plain lying. Do not talk to me about dignity or respect either. You accuse the LaRouche movent of racism and ani-semetism knowing full well that we are running a candidate, Mr. Summer Sheilds, in the Democratic Primary against Nancy Pelosi who is African American. So you permit these kinds of slanders to appear on your website without ever even talking to a LaRouche candidate.
They’re NOT TALKING TO PEOPLE.  What is the press supposed to do about weird people waving nazi-images put together by largely forgotten cults (see Karl Rove’s “remnants” remark.)
Why would they have any particular reason to “know full well” such?  See too this San Francisco newspaper article.  Pelosi, who faces no Democrats in June, will “take a look” at who wins the GOP primary in her district and “go from there,” her political director, Jennifer Crider, said.

Silverchild pops in to echo “European”:
The young lady you reference is NO Nazi, but is fighting fascism!
We will remember that Jeremiah Duggan joined the Larouche organization because of the “Anti-Nazi campaigns” the org was involved with “at the time”.  Silverchild, I will point out, calls Jeremiah Duggan “Jeremy” here — as did Howie G.

Wikipedia Edit Attempt Alert.

Anyway, relating to Duggan… as the recent Channel 4 special brought some new people to view it — an example here —

Any fans of Bugsy Malone?  Event described here, Petition description here.

I am tripping over the latest and very weird Oregonian editorial favoring a Recall of Mayor Sam Adams.  I take it to be a means to try to amplify Avel Gordly’s request for $75,000 from somewhere out there to “Get This Thing Off The Ground.”  So, if someone out there has $75,000 lying around — just send it to Avel Golly — Time Ir Running Out!

The commenters in the piece coming out for a Recall seem to do a good job making the case against the Recall.  Take this item for instance.

Mr LIBBY: I agree, your sickness, is what this is all about, if your sick, think how well feel..LIED TO GET ELECTED, OVER THE TOP COSTLY PROJECTS…..TRAM, SOUTH WATER FRONT, STADIUM FIASCOS, RIVER PLAN, MORE UNFUNDED MANDATES, 600 MILLION DOLLAR BIKE PROJECTS..140,000 LOOS, STUPID DIESEL CONTRACTS, COP PROBLEMS, LACKING FISCAL SKILLS IN HIS ON LIFE VS RUNNING A CITY INTO THE GROUND, COMPUTOR ISSUES……CITY PROCLAMATIONS INTO MATTERS OF NO CONCERN TO THE CITIES BUSINESS…..DID I MENTION LIED TO GET ELECTED….ALL CAPS FOR A REASON….WE ARE SICK AND FED UP.

Now run along, and have a nice day.

He forgot to mention the POTHOLE ON HIS HOME STREET.  Recall Sam Adams for that, why don’t you?  IN ALL CAPS!!!

It’s almost interesting that the “COP PROBLEMS” are inserted into this thing.  So we go to the issue of “apathy”.

This is getting a bit of play.  Here we have the conservative website “Real Clear Politics” pointing to a clip of Barney Frank speak the words, headlined…

… “We Are Trying On Every Front To Increase The Role Of Government”

in the (financial) regulatory area.

And so google this up and we’ll see that newbusters, thefoxnation, the national review, heritage, dailypaul are leading the fight to point to Barney Frank’s quote that

“We are leading the fight on every front to increase the role of government”

in the (financial) regulatory area.

Or, I suppose, Barney Frank is leading the fight to increase the role of government in one particular front.

So it goes into this New Republic Jonathan Chait post which incorrectly cites the quote as looping in “among fringe-right websites” is incorrect, as it’s been looping in mainstream right websites.

Today I’m trying to find the fuller context for John McCain’s statement in his Republican primary battle in Arizona..

“I never considered myself a maverick. I consider myself a person who serves the people of Arizona to the best of his abilities.”

Is there something about that second sentence which would refute the constant branding of himself as “Maverick” over the years in a similar way that the the next few words of the Barney Frank within the context of the debate moots the “every front”?  I don’t think there is.  Maybe I’m being overly reasonable in even asking that question.

It appears that Obama has set the list of his next Supreme Court appointee to three people, as Justice Stevens inches toward Retirement.  So it is … Diane Wood, Merrick Garland, Elena Kagan.  The next Supreme Court Justice is one of those people.

Meanwhile, Mark Ambinder throws out this statement.

Obama and his team are well aware that judicial confirmation battles almost always excite Republicans and confuse Democrats.

I suppose a policy of Total Opposition will do that for the Republicans, along with the basic role of “Judicial Appointments as Fund Raising Tool”.  Isn’t that all Roe V Wade is for the Republican Party, really?  For the Democrats, their tendency to really like and find that Supreme Court Justice the “Real Deal” might well confuse us.  So here too — who does Mark Ambinder think he is — Mark Halperin?

Anyway — read up.  Some thoughts and some links found here.  But this will just confuse you even more.