When asked to clarify his clarification, Reverend Jeremiah Wright clarified, “When I said that when I said them Jews I meant them Zionists, what I meant to say was ‘them shy-locks.  I regret this error.”

Later, he clarified this, and ended the controversy by saying, “I just lost my theasaurus, so I’ll let it end there.”

Obama could not be reached for comment.  Speculation has run rampant in some corners that Rahm Emanuel has advised him not to speak, and you know what Rahm Emanuel is, right?

News reports actually came out about Chuck Grassley tweeted an acidic response to Obama’s Health Care proposal.  Literally, the tweets looked like this.

Pres Obama while u sightseeing in Paris u said ‘time to delivr on healthcare’ When you are a “hammer” u think evrything is NAIL I’m no NAIL
Pres Obama you got nerve while u sightseeing in Paris to tell us”time to deliver” on health care. We still on skedul/even workinWKEND.

This looks to me like the end of our Republic.  The good senator from Iowa is hurling insults at the President using this casual language best suited for Internet trolls. 

But I want to point out some of Chuck Grassley’s other twitterings.   And I want somebody to go ahead and spell-check these things.

Rite now in bipartisan closed meeting on HealthCareReform1:08 PM Jun 8th from txt

Plsnt conv. w sotomyr. 1 hr mtg. Look frwd 2 hrg and mre details abt recrd.

My carbon footprint is abt 25per cent of Al Gore. I’m greener than Al Gore. Is that enuf?

John McCain’s twitter feed reads a little better.  He at least doesn’t go for the casual Internet slang.  But I still don’t really believe him when he tweets, as the Media felt compelled to note:

Great to see Sarah and Todd at the dinner tonight – nice reunion!

Here, for your pursual, are the Congress-critters who feel compelled to twitter in this manner.  For the Record.  Feel free to vote them all out of office.

You know…

… When I hear that a man shot up a Holocaust Museum…

… I’m not sure the discovery that the (ahem: Terrorist) was a “White Supremicist” counts as an “Update”.

… Likewise it is a bit redundant to headline “Anti-Semite is Museum Shooting Suspect”…

… or, for that matter, it’s not news to report that Obama is “Saddened”.

It’d be an update if it was discovered that he wasn’t.

Incidentally, the name is familiar to me.  So I had to google him up to see why that would be, exactly.  I don’t have an exact answer.  While I’ve linked to stormfront a few times, in relation to larouche, I’m pretty sure I have not looked over such neo-nazi message boards long enough to see such admirations.  A bit more likely,  We can expect to see Alex Jones having to defend himself for attracting commenters like him – quoting Texe Marr, actually.  (This would be the second terrorist of that commenting sort.  But, if I recall right, the last one was more plugged in to taking Bernard Goldberg’s book a bit too seriously.  Or was that a different terrorist?) 

Free Republic has a similar problem at hand.

The good news for the “right” is that hates Israel, and every Republican presidential candidate, so we have something there to flount away any queasiness from Napolitano’s “DHS Report” — I note this because in looking about I see a conservative blog crying out on why this man was not a “Right-winger”.  , It bears stating that that DHS Report was not referencing even , say for instance, the Birthers per se…

… though, to play one game of degrees of separation: Hal Turner plugs Von Brunn’s book.  And Sean Hannity really, really, really would like to forget Hal Turner.

It’s interesting to note…

… the various spaces and arenas people will plop down to discuss issues relating to the divisive and emotional issue of Abortion.

The comments sections of youtube videos, for instance.

THIS ONE.

I’m not entirely convinced that’s a worthwhile venue to tackle such things, or even to toss out noxious fumes of the type that abounds from anonymous comments.  The comments section at youtube is weird — it’s so tangeantal to the video that I’m rarely inclined to notice.

Michael Savage has, pretty understandably — even months after the fact, taken up the issue of his bandishment from Great Britain in the form of listing on a “Do Not Enter” List.  I’m not entirely sure the man even has any desire to visit Great Britain, though it’s quite possible he has more desire to do so now that it’s been waved before him as Forbidden Fruit.   From this comes some amusing lines of Narcissim:

He calls for the British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown to take him off the list and protect the free speech.  This comes off the pointers from Gordon Brown’s speech at “Obama Beach” (heh heh) on the inevitable defeat of Tyranny and the victory of Freedom as the story of Human Civilization.  It does take some galls to compare the defeat of Nazi Totalitarianism to the personal pecadilla of an overly-politically-correct government banning an inflamatory shock jock.

But it became stranger still, as Savage cited the recent Larbor Party losses and predicted the fall of Brown’s administration due to this great Savage Issue, throwing out an ultamatum of removing him from the Banned List and “you might just save your political future” or Face Certain Defeat.  As though the greatest and biggest issue that the British electorate are thinking about is Michael Savage.

I suppose you would want to know what Savage discussed next?  He sequed into a faux-interview with a reporter for World Net Daily about Obama’s use of the word “Holy Quran” and repeated Quran quotes which served as coded messages calling on the Muslim World toward Jihad.  Strangely enough, I was more phased by the conceit of this production — it was essentially a taped commentary from the World Net Daily man with Savage placing afterward interjections into the recording — wondering what was the point.

“All the merely petty and spiteful arrows aimed at him have fallen blunted and broken from his shield.” — a NYT endorsement editorial for a forgettable presidential candidate, first half of the last century.

I can never be sure if it’s fair to cite the single most tedious of partisan hacks as THE political argument on the matters of the day — is referencing the words of Sean Hannity a dip to the old Straw-Man?  But, regarding the Obama Cairo speech, Sean Hannity gave us this rather breath-taking piece of propaganda.:

HANNITY: He also decided to give 9-11 sympathizers a voice on the world stage.

OBAMA : I am aware that there are still some that would question or even justify the events of 9-11.

Context is everything, as Obama went on to state that this was completely divorced from reality.  But anyone paying even the remotest attention with an iota of common sense would know where the pit-fall comes in in clipping off a single line of Obama’s speech to make an audacious value call.

One far more valuable criticism of Obama’s speech pertained to the limits of “Soft Power” — all of what Obama said was good and well, but, in a few days the elections in Lebanon are expected to bring Hezbelloh to power.  What then?

I was startled yesterday when, looking around the news, I saw the headline — a minor upset.  Go figure.  I suppose one shouldn’t over-state those results, and this seems to end up less good news and more not bad news.   And yet — and yet — and yet —

It looks like as much of a nudge as Obama can throw there, and as much keeping some space in the International arena with which to work.

I suppose there’s a trap waiting here.  Presume Ahmajinedad wins the election in Iran.  Is that going to be an Iranian reaction toward Obama’s speech and overtures, as much as Ahmajinedad losing would be a reaction toward Obama’s speech and overtures?  Those assessments only go so far.

It struck me today when looking over the “Sunday Morning gab-fests” of politicans hawking the party-talking points on the issues of the day for political talking-heads.

Who do the Republicans have speaking for them?  Senator Richard Shelby.  Senator Jeff Sessions.  Both of Alabama.

Jeff Sessions is notable, as the chair of the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Arlen Specter preceded him in that spot, until political expediency flipped him the Democrats.  Specter would have provided a softer-line for Sotomayor, and I suppose Sessions is getting the Republican base more representation on the score of going to battle.

The political base is a bit tone-deaf to the political implications of such things as the National Review cover, confusing in its ethnic collage work.  One hit against winning the Southwest.  One hit, perhaps, for winning his string of states below the Mason-Dixie line.

Other notable Republican comments from this week — Lamar Smith of Texas is going to assemble some Congress-critters to battle Liberal Bias — a greater threat than a Terrorist Attack or a Depression.  Care to take a peak at the states from whence his “Fight the Liberal Bias” Caucus come?

Obama, meanwhile, is collecting a pile of Republicans in his administration.  I suppose it taints the color of his administration with a certain “Rockefeller Republican” streak — adding with these the Senator of Specter, but this is a counter-reverse to the Republicans collection of conservative Democrats from whence the ideological lines between the two parties were muddled a bit more.

My observation is simply this: when I hear a news quip on the radio prefacing a voice with “Republican Congressman/ Senator / (to a certain degree Governor)”, I expect what will follow is a Southern accent.  Hardly a novel statement, and it is being much bandied about, but it kind of fell down on me like an anvil today.

Ah.  Finally I run into the new(ish) blog from the leader of the Larouchian Cryonics Movement…  Check it out and let us see what animates him, and his self-professed “movement of one member”.

Pearl harbour was staged?
Hippocratic Oath given Nazi interpretation by Obama’s man.

Hm.  Actually none of this is terribly interesting.  The one I’m wondering about is “Comedy That Actually Works“.  Having my fill of some rather low-brow comedy regarding David Carradine’s death, I’m wanting to set my mind on a higher, more Platonic plane.  Unfortunately, the leader of the Larouchian Cryonics Movement is setting aside his material behind passwords, so I’m stuck with his request to go to the EIR site.  Which, I will admit, is a bastion of comedy.

Though not quite as comedic as the commenters that float into the blogosphere:

wow, pretty accurate description of Larouche’s work! If I were’nt already associated with the movement, I’d ask, “where do I sign up to get involved with these people?” Thank you for spreading the word accurately. My only question is, did you investigate anything that you wrote above? is it all really that absurd to you that it doesn’t merit an investigation? Are you that immersed in popular opinion that you just simply cannot think, or are you afraid that Larouche may be right?

The canard of the “Popular Opinion” — a clever device, I’d say, on how the followers can explain away how nobody much thinks about their master, and those that do and pay him slight enough mind to do the cursory glance (and for the most part a cursory glance is what he deserves) come up with “the standard”.

… Very RoughlyDefined as what ends up dumped onto wikipedia.  And now it’s time to look at the concerted Boiler-room Effort at Wikipedia.  Firstly, the round-up for the keeping of an article for Stanislov Menshikov:

Keep. As long as we continue to pretend this is an encyclopedia, I support greater lenience in applying notability standards for articles about legitimate scholars/thinkers than those conerncing pop culture flashes-in-pans. I find the discussion as to whether the article was crated by a (gasp) banned user to be petty and somewhat surreal.–The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I imagine that wikipedia features articles for peoples that are arguably less notable than this Menshikov, and doesn’t have articles for peoples that are arguably more notable than Menshikov, and to a great extent I don’t much care — in the end I barely care about the odd dents that the Larouchians have affected in the Larouche articles, though am fascinated enough to observe and note this process.  But whatever it’s worth, the only reason that article was created was because the Larouche organization wants to use him to push forward the idea that Larouche is a somebody.  It is a curious skewing of wikipedia focuses — kind of similar to how the sweep of articles devoted to topics of concern to Larouche is equivalent to, say, Albert Einstein — in and of itself not too much of a problem, I’d say, except it gives a pretty bad impression.  (See the article devoted to Hegla Zepp… and I’ll get to that one in a second.)

Remind me to go to sign up to wikipedia, and get to the task of putting up the Floyd Paxton article.  Who’s he?  He invented the bread-clip and ran the “Qwik Lox Fastener” company.  That’s as notable as an old Soviet functionary, and has more of an impact on our day to day lives, right?

Is there any doubt that Helga Zepp has roughly zero affect on anything outside the cloistered confines of Das Cult?  Well, never mind, she gets a wikipedia article.  A point for her in the Helga Zepp — Jeffrey Steinberg Splinters of Sucession.  Some new arguments have ensued over her article — the travails of EIR as a source (and EIR will hype up any niggling mention of das Cult  — apparently she addressed the Duma, and apparently that is worth something grand).

Incidentally, the state of EIR looks to be rather poor these days:

The EIR is not shipped to the European organization any more. Apparently no (!) copies reach Europe any more. So the LC in Europe cant mail the EIR to the last subscribers here that still does not use the EIW. Apparently the European LC is making photocopies in black-and-white and are mailing it out instead!

Hm.  Nobody’s missing anything.  EIR is now just a compilation of images of Obama photo-shopped with Hitler’s mustache, anyways.
… Say, doesn’t that fall under the Larouche concern last December that Soros (or somebody like that, and also the British) was orchestrating, some heated rhetoric would be the cover for which this might be done, for the Assassination of Obama — which, I’d think the “Obama’s Nazi Health Care Plan” trope would suffice for this purpose, over in that alter-world.  (See my commentings of nazi  related rhetoric here, or look to this item regarding Nancy Pelosi:

“What is she doing about genocide? Doesn’t she know the Obama administration, her own party, is pushing genocide? She doesn’t have time to deal with that? What is wrong with the bitch? She is not paying attention. She wants to change the subject. She is not talking about reality. She wants to talk about schedules.”

Regretably I don’t have enough patience to pin down comments of how an Obama Assassination would come down — and the strange double-track that would preclude his current talk, but I can take us back to when the gang in the Boiler-room was rhapsodizing about Obama’s assassinating, and speculating that (from the “Get Larouche Conspiracy”) “Molly might do it” and “pin it down on us”.

Heh heh heh.  Right?
Oh, that one answers this question — echoing some thoughts expressed by Revenire – that Erik asks here:

One can wonder why so much time is spend on the morning briefing. While EIR cotains some useful articles, the briefing is a piece of paper that is not memorised, stored, re-read or quoted to the outside world.

I collect from all over, and arrange the pieces of the puzzle as best I can.  One item to be noted here — regarding an article on the overuse of the word “extreme” in political campaigns in the state of Virginia:

In 1996, Mark Warner — then challenging Republican Sen. John Warner — tried to paint the old lion as a wingnut, too. “Mark Warner is testing the risky strategy of trying to portray the senator as an extremist,” a news article reported. During a debate, Mark Warner admitted to having voted for John only because he was the lesser of two evils: “Between you and the LaRouche party, you were the clear choice . . . . [But] I don’t think the senator that I voted for in 1990 would have marched in lockstep with Newt Gingrich over the past year.”

Note that in denigrating his opponent as “extreme” he didn’t even bother with a labeling of the 1990 “greater of two evils” Nancy Spannaus candidacy as “extreme” or “loopy” or what have you.

The current line of Obama following the “Nazi Health Care” plot — I’m having a bit of trouble locating on an ideological line in terms of what passions the campaign is aimed to flow out from.  But maybe I’ll contemplate that one later.  I’m having some trouble locating the existence of the org itself at the moment — maybe they can flutter past and leave some debris to remind me that they do exist in the physical economy somewhere.