Rachel Brown is ON THE BALLOT! Again: Rachel Brown is ON THE BALLOT!

So.  It’s been, what, ten days?  How many votes did Summer Shields receive?  Still waiting?
The party hacks blocked Summer from running in the primary as a Democrat, so he’s a write in candidate. No word yet on the results.
No word then, any word yet?  Go to the Elections Office and demand a count.  And, no, Lizard People does not count.

“I am announcing today my candidacy for the Congressional seat currently held by Nancy Pelosi, as a write-in candidate in the general election. I would have preferred the opportunity to defeat Speaker Pelosi in last week’s Democratic primary. However, due to a technical problem with my voter registration, I was disqualified from appearing on the Democratic Party primary ballot.

That’s the closest we’ve heard about the why.  Anyway, the Campaign Continues, I guess.  Novel approach — just keep running even after losing an election.  Move onward so people can sight you like so.

Meanwhile, the campaign for Rachel Brown is getting some notice.  Apparently there is a campaign video on the LPAC websites which shows Rachel Brown going through all the administrative processes in getting on the ballot — walking up to the Mass. elections division office window, submitting signatures, and finally, being certified on the ballot.  Visual evidence in the wake of the Great Summer Shields Campaign.  Which, you know, maybe there was a quid pro quo with the “Party Hacks” in San Francisco on that one — “We leave you off the ballot — and you get to not be on the ballot.  Deal?”

My guess is that years from now, we will be referencing the “Frank – Brown” debate format the same way we do now the “Lincoln – Douglas” format.  Scholarships will be rewarded in debate tournaments to students who mastered the technique — you have one debate sparrer in the audience throwing out a Hitler reference, another at the lectern responding with an Insult — points earned by style and technique.

The Massachusetts 4th Congressional Democratic Primary 2010 Race:


Watching Rachel Brown roam the Mashed Potato Circuit of Party meetings and dinners (the type Alvin Greene was invited to but didn’t attend), I imagine party honchos at various low-level meetings making some quick decisions, it’s possible that we won’t see Rachel Brown at too many more of these.  “Should we bother inviting her to any more of these?” The “Party hack” conspiracy continues, in the clatter of this video — skip to 3:40 on “Mars”, and to  5:05 for the “WHAT?  Boo!” of the crowd.

The quickee description of this meeting is here, complete with what I suppose we’ll see more of in the way of LYMer responses.  Thanks again for the erudition, I’m not sure I can tell you how you have influenced my whole basis of thought!!!  Hm.  There’s a piece on LPAC for you, I suppose, that makes liberal use of puns on the word “frank”.
Really, I’m afraid, of course, that this primary contest already peaked last August.

rockwell_speech_hey  “Why do you continue to support a Nazi policy as Obama has expressly supported this policy?”  (No, I’m afraid to photoshop the word balloon in the image and to stick the Obama – Hitler face pamphlet in his pocket is a case of too much effort for too little reward.)

This has a pretty niche market.  But it’s more digestable to read than to watch the actual Larouche conflab itself — beyond my level of tolerability.  So we get this… and maybe you care, maybe you don’t care about the internal office politics of a Cult’s boot-licking session… Like I said, a pretty niche market.
About 20 minutes into the rambling discourse, John Hoefle rather daringly and quite unwisely injects his own theory into the mix, hypothesizing that the oil disaster is a London response to the American people’s war on Obama and British imperialism.
Boy…, that was a mistake, John!
Lyn rebukes John—right on camera!
“No!! I don’t believe in event-driven history! I belief in policy-driven events!”
Oh. Poor John. He nervously digs his massive paws into the aged fabric of his pants leg, eyes darting back and forth, perhaps feeling as though he has been thrown headlong into a canyon of denunciation! Nancy Spannaus is afraid to even blink, lest Lyn should hear it.
Lyn grinds additional salt into John’s heavily gored heart by denouncing “those older people, even older members of this organisation who think in short-term hit-and-run operations.” Ouch, John. Ouch.
The sad thing for John is that, of course, he said the same thing as Lyn, that the spill is “a policy driving the events at hand,” and he knows he did. It is evident by the excruciating conflict scored into his face. But the horrible reality is, he stepped out onto a limb confident in his ability to woo his elder and better with decades of EIR-brand geoeconomics, but utterly failed to take into account his master’s unpredictable propensity for sawing the limb out from under his enormous ass.

The item of relevance comes about here.
For extra frosting on the cake, Lyn brings up the “Jeremy Case” in great detail, insisting that Jeremy’s unhappy family life made him a confessed suicide prone character on heavy medication to handle chronic suicidal tendencies.  […]
“Not only does the mother continue to conduct a campaign of lies … some within the United States, some former associates, have latched onto the Jeremy case as sympathizers of the British Empire, demanding justice.”
Nancy chirps, “And they’re all led from higher up, aren’t they?”
Fortunately, assures Lyn, “We have the force of history on our side.” John Hoefle folds his arthritic paws lightly in relief, believing the worst is over for him.
So it is there that I jump to the video.  Launch over to 37:55, and I pick that moment only because it is here that I get a good few seconds of a visage of John Hoefel and see to what the above account in referring.  And there we get a few minutes of something … um… something entirely convoluted and maddening.   I can’t diagram this.  To 42 minutes — “Glass Steagall” — No, seriously!  (End at 43:35 — “We have the force of History behind Us.  [I have to write about it… working on it] We are riding on what is potentially the Road to Victory.”  Hm.  We have another incoherent jumbo of randomly thrown historical names coming soon.

Erica Duggan has more grounded concerns than the “force of history”.  But, well, Larouche is concerned.  You see here that Howie G is concerned. 
Take Dave Emory at arms’ length.  More sanely, and more insanely:
Jeremiah was in Germany to attend a conference hosted by the LaRouche organisation. The Ham&High understands the group headed by American radical Lyndon LaRouche has applied to be an ‘interested party’ at the inquest.
Clever ruse of control, that.

I do want to point out something of note from wikipedia:
But then again, nobody in the world is foolish enough to take Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales, Will Beback, SlimVirgin, Chip Berlet and Dennis King serious.
Flawed though wikipedia may be — its history is of giving the Larouchies too much credence in shaping these articles — I see a recent banned user diggint away at the article for “Glass Steagall” alongside one of the larouche articles — this is just ridiculous.  First, citing Jimb Wales seems like cursing Steven Spielberg for the stickiness of of the floor of your local Multiplex.  Second, there are just too many incarnations here for that to be credibly believed by this isp #.  Thirdly, I’ve seen too many people on the web referencing wikipedia and seeing the warning sign — recently, a black fan of David Duke on “what happened to Jeremiah Duggan” — which, I take that brand of severe and acute Contrarianism to be just the sort of alignment susceptible to this crap.

Back to the electoral political campaigns of the trio — Shields and Brown… Not to be outdone, the campaign for Kesha Rogers continues at Post offices and Airports in the Houston area.

“And then you have Barack Obama on the other side, whose policy is to bail out the financial markets and kill people, that’s why we put the mustache on him,” the man at the booth told a passerby.
Only organizations with a nonprofit status can apply to solicit at the airport, and they are assigned to specific locations on a first-come, first-served basis.
The airport said it neither endorses nor supports the display.
Good to know the Airport doesn’t endorse the display.

In the “I voted for the Larouchies in 1986 Illinois” camp in explaining the situation in South Carolina.
And, I probably shouldn’t note but Cliff Kincaid has a headline regarding a recent MSNBC piece about the quote-in-quote “Radical Right”, prominently featured Alex Jones, with title “MSNBC Works With Alex Jones to Discredit Tea Party Movement.”  Hard to take that one seriously.

14 Responses to “Rachel Brown is ON THE BALLOT! Again: Rachel Brown is ON THE BALLOT!”

  1. chator Says:

    Regarding the votes for Shields, I have discovered it takes somewhere between two weeks to a month, or slightly longer to count all the write-in votes. Everyday of the week the count is updated here, http://sfelections.org/results/20100608/summary.php . But, as you will notice, the sum only reflects all the write-in votes, not those for a specific candidate.

    On the reason, or technicality for Shields not appearing on the ballot, I am investigating this. If I discover anything I will post it here, or on the facnet forum.


  2. Rachel Holmes Says:

    With the new inquest on Jeremiah Duggan’s death coming up on Tuesday, June 22, let me recommend websites to check for the latest news:




    I imagine Dennis King and Eaglebeak will have updates too.


    (Dennis King)



    (Factnet, where Eaglebeak hangs out)

  3. Justin Says:

    Chator — I assume to investigate is to move through three steps: #1: Emailing the LYMers in Berekley or thereabouts, if no answer move to #2: Email and ask Elections in California and/or the Campaign of Nancy Pelosi, #3: Study carefully California Election law for any possible answer. The thing is, though, this is the Larouche org’s story — their Grand Historic Struggle against the British Oligarchy. By any rule, THEY should be putting it out and releasing the story of how the Democratic Party hacks, in behest of the British Oligarchy, were so afraid of the Summer Shields campaign and the Mass Strike that they thumped it by matters of technicality.
    Meantime, here’s what we see on Summer Shields’s campaign website for “Upcoming Events”:
    Summer Shields for Congress Hosts: Lyndon LaRouche’s Live International Webcast
    Event date: Saturday, June 26, 2010 – 10:00am
    Location: Fort Mason CenterRoom C235
    San Francisco, CA 94123
    (Enter at the Intersection of Marina and Buchanan Street)

    Kesha Rogers’s is out of date:
    Meet and Greet Kesha & showing of LPAC’s “New America”
    Event date: Saturday, June 12, 2010 – 1:00pm – 3:00pm
    This Saturday at Coffee Oasis the Kesha Rogers for Congress campaign will be hosting a showing of LPAC’s “New America” video. The “New America” elaborates the physical economic policies needed to launch an economic renaissance here in the United States, whose driver is a manned mission to Mars within this century.

    Rachel Browns’s needs a better update mechanism as well. The “Schumann vs. Wagner and the fight for the dignity of man” lecture from Harley Schlanger is now over. As is the Emergency meeting over BP at the “Knuckleheads Bar and Grill”.
    I’m curious as to whether this “Historical presentation and discussion on the history of the “Two Massachusetts” by Pam Lowry, wife of late historian H. Graham Lowry, author of How the Nation Was Won at the Taunton Library is a “campaign event” or a lecture being refashioned into a campaign event. A clue, maybe, in that if we wait a few days and go to the same spot, the Larouche International Webcast will be shown.

    Can I suggest someone somewhere transcribe the part of the Larouche video on “Jeremy Duggan”? Maybe I’ll do so myself.

    As I’ve basically been expecting, the South Carolina result has resulted in some new media attention for the Texas result.

    Kesha Rogers made Time!
    Unlike South Carolina’s Greene, Rogers ran a high profile campaign, staking out a corner on a major intersection in the district to appear almost daily with a large sign: “Save NASA. Impeach Obama.” She garnered 7,467 votes, 53% of the vote, in a three way race that included a local information systems analyst Doug Blatt, who gained endorsements from local Democratic clubs and labor groups, and Freddie John Weider Jr., a preacher and onetime Libertarian candidate; Blatt came in second with 28% of the vote and Weider won 20%. “The people of the 22nd district voted for me,” she said. “They recognized the party is not acting in the interests of the people.”

    “There wasn’t a lot of money in the race

    so some blogs link to Time.
    A fairly noxious rhaspberry meme is coming “The Democrats are turning their back on black candidates” — heard with Laura Ingraham doing the honors of interviewing Alvin Greene.

    Hey! It’s Pat Noble!

    In other news.
    LaRouche protester Judy Clark, who was holding a sign that read “Pull over to impeach Obama,” insisted the Hitler mustache wasn’t placed on the photos “frivolously.” She believes Obama is intentionally trying to “exterminate” the elderly via his “Hitler-like” health care policy, and believes one of many of Obama’s destructive goals is to shut down and destroy NASA at its root. Clark and her fellow LaRouche adherents are also convinced that if Obama isn’t ousted, whether through impeachment or agreeing to step down from office, he will succeed in imposing measures that would result in genocide in America and abroad, ultimately leading to the elimination of the sovereignty of the United States. […]

    Staff at the Kohler Village Hall told me they were fielding numerous angry calls and complaints. Below is a 4-part impromptu interview I conducted with Judy Clark, who was manning the LaRouche stand while her husband took a break. During the time I conducted the interview, responses from passersby were about evenly split between expressions of support for the protesters versus support for the president. Clark said approximately 40 people stopped to inquire or collect literature, and she believes there is 70-80% support among Americans for the impeachment of Obama.

  4. Rachel Holmes Says:

    I will try to do the transcription this evening.

  5. Rachel Holmes Says:

    Here is the promised transcript

    LaRouche Speaks on the “Jeremy Case”

    Taken from LaRouche PAC’s “Weekly update 6/11/10”


    (Interlocutors: Nancy Spannaus—NBS—and Lyndon LaRouche—LHL)

    NBS: You can pretty much see that being the case in the city of London as well don’t you think?

    LHL: Oh absolutely, oh yes, why do you think… let’s take the case why do you think let’s take the Jeremy case, hm? Every court in Germany has gone through this with a fine-tooth comb. It’s obvious this guy was a suicide, it’s obvious that his mother knew he was a suicide, because he told us that, he told us he had to take drugs to avoid suicide. He told us.

    Now if he took prescription drugs to try to control a suicide tendency, you don’t think his mother knew about it? And don’t you know that he had trouble when his mother’s marriage was breaking up, when he was a little kid, and he had to go to a (sic) institute for the Melanie Klein kind of treatment , as a troubled child. And he was a troubled child. Who committed suicide. The evidence is absolutely clear that it’s cross-checked back and forth.

    Now what happened? I attacked the, well, — Tony Blair on BBC on two occasions. I was joined,–is or that not or but–not directly, but indirectly, by the followup , by a chief high-ranking intelligence official of the British services, who said this was a cocked-up job, this plan for the war in Iraq.
    What happened is they killed him. It’s now clear by the evidence, medical evidence, that what they said he could have done with one hand, he—he had an injured hand—he couldn’t do it. So therefore it was a faked-up suicide—and that’s coming out now.

    But now what do they do? You take this case, who was not a suicide, but who was a faked suicide, right?—you have another case, the Jeremy case. Jeremy was a suicide-prone character, and he was short of his medicine, which he complained about. He had to get his medicine, in order to check this suicide impulse, which he—is a chronic impulse.

    He was—you know, three different drivers, who he threw hims—whose car he threw himself against, testified to the police immediately, when the police investigated the case. They came forward; they were the cars that had hit Jeremy, the three successive times. They were shocked by it, and it was no doubt, ever/after, thorough investigation by not only the police, who were responsible, but by a whole series of courts. This guy committed suicide in Germany.

    But, what happens? Not only does the mother of this guy, not only does he—does she—continue this, this, go on with this policy, but she knew he’s a suicide case and she’s conducting a campaign of lies.

    Then what do you get? You get people in the United States, some are former associates, who have latched onto the Jeremy case, as sympathizers of the British Empire, demanding justice for him on the presumption that I organized his murder.

    NBS: But it’s all basically being sponsored from higher-ups within the British establishment, right?

    LHL: Oh, well, from the British monarchy itself.

    NBS: Monarchy itself, yeah…

    LHL: With Tony Blair in particular. But this is what the process is—it was Blair’s crowd who set up this Jeremy operation anyway. But it was, what they were doing, they did this because they hated me, and because they killed David Kelly.

    NBS: Right.

    LHL: Right? So what they did is, they used this thing against me to try to take attention away from the fact that they murdered David Kelly.
    NBS: And they also did it because they wanted to destroy you as the organizer, as the only force that can destroy them. (LHL: Yeah) I mean, take, take, just two other quick, you know, examples: One, we know, from direct evidence, that they see the imposition of Glass-Steagall as an aggressive action against their system. And who’s organizing Glass-Steagall, right?

    Number two, they see that the main organizer identifying the Obama personally and other enemies of the United States within are agents of the British Empire, as, I mean, you’re the one outstanding person who’s identified that for the American population, and now, you know, to their horror, this has become a very popular view. And, uh, so, they’re in big trouble, uh, and I think that, uh, what you indicate is obviously the case. They are even likely to do something really nasty, you know, in response to being in big trouble. We have the initiative and we have to ram it through, uh, regardless,….

    And so forth.

  6. chator Says:


    I’m already on step #2. I’m done talking to the LYMers. The whole party hack explanation was a reactionary response, Shields admitted it was a technicality, meaning he was legitamitely disqualified, no conspiracy was involved. I’ve given up on trying to get the truth out of the LYMers, it is clear from their response to me that they are only interested in polemics.

  7. Justin Says:

    (edited as I posted them in blog proper). Okay. Kesha Rogers’s Media Day in the Sun.


    Still… comment-o-poloza. To a link I already posted:
    Larouche student? I can go for that. Let’s hope she is for real.
    Comment by Quantum Leap | June 20, 2010

    Is that Pat Noble again?


    Oh my! A Democrat carrying the ObamaHitler poster. How can that be? I thought that was supposed to be the province of those purportedly racist tea partiers.
    Wait. Wasn’t the Tea Party supposed to be a bi-partisan or non-partisan affair?

    And here’s “Time For Truth”
    The problem with Pete Olson, is that he
    Fine. Start waving “Pete Olson with a Hitler Mustache” posters, you freaks.

    Just read a quote from Kesha Rogers posted by PappyD, who by the way is a must-read for me every time he posts. But I wonder if Pappy buys the quote, which is so over the top for any candidate, let alone a democrat, that it stinks to high heaven. It also has the empty echoes so reminiscent of obama when she says, “Real patriots understand the need to think ahead, to create a meaningful purpose and direction as we rebuild our nation.”

    If she wasn’t a fake, she would have linked the words “patriots” and “nation” with the restoration of constitutional directives as the means to “rebuild our nation.” Instead of offering the Constitution, she thinks that we need to “create meaningful purpose and direction.” That’s classic democrat/obamaspeak.

    Anyway, it wouldn’t matter to me if she did revere the Constitution. She is a democrat. That makes her candidacy, let alone her election to office, dangerous and off limits for any thinking person over the age of 12.
    Hm. Cute.
    Take your pick.
    Meanwhile, conservative talk show hosts held forth in Esther Short Park, followers of Lyndon LaRouche erected an Impeach Obama/Restore Glass-Steagall sign by the clock tower, a fenced beer garden drew a few thirsty partisans, and the sun came out at last.

    More Kesha Rogers Attention:
    In the shadow of Alvin Greene:
    She makes Alvin Greene look like a good candidate.

    Beginning to think about starting a scientific study on whether radiation from cell phones is driving Americans batshit crazy.

    As was the case with Alvin Greene’s stunning win in SC, “Progressives” just can’t explain how this could possibly take place so soon after the Glorious Advent of Obama. Time Magazine describes the shocked, non-explanatory shrug from the Good Germans still in Obama’s thrall.
    Kesha Rogers, Alvin Greene and others of their ilk, are a direct result of Barack Obama’s governance. Democrats, even African-American Democrats, increasingly see the Democratic Party as nothing more than Barack Obama’s political life-support system. They, like the Tea-Partiers on the Right, are appalled by this state of affairs.


    The article seems to imply that the local engineering community had a hand in this woman winning the election. I do hope this is not the case.
    Quick see that there was some support for NASA amongst three relatively unknown candidates in a low impact race. Maybe…

    ObamaIsADummy says:
    June 21, 2010 at 3:23 PM
    Is it just me or does she look like shes 17 years old?
    Kraig says:
    June 21, 2010 at 3:42 PM
    I predict a Kesha Rogers-Alvin Greene ticket in 2012.

    Anytime you want to compare these two Democrat canidates, Al Green and Kesha Rogers, to canidates Paul and Angle, let me know. These two democrats are totally off the reservation.

    Our political discourse is stupid. Arguably the nominations of Kesha Rogers and Alvin Greene might be outliers of tumult for the Democratic Party. But again — outliers. The party’s concerns is not the possibility of losing races by 40 points they’d normally lose by 20 points, it’s the threat of losing races by 5 points they’d normally win by 5 points.
    The thing about Alvin Greene is — I invite everybody to look back to the South Carolina Democratic nomination in 2008, where the Democrats nominated a sort of Bircher Ron Paul accolyte and you had James Clyburn disowning that candidate — and 2008 was a good year for the Democratic Party.
    For the Democratic Party, if you had to trade a Kesha Rogers and an Alvin Greene in those races for a Rand Paul and Sharron Angle to run against in those other races, you go with the latter. (And probably win the Nevada race and lose the Kentucky race.)

    So Kesha Rogers sits in the shadow of Alvin Greene. I’m searching the comments for Larouchies.
    YUMMama on June 21, 2010 10:48 AM said…
    I think that Kesha talks a good talk, but at the end of the day her supporting the impeachment of President Obama is nothing short of a publicity stunt. She still has a long way to go and should be focusing on party unity instead of ways to separate herself.

    Out of curiosity…
    By Catherine on June 21st, 2010 at 3:38 pm
    Actually Kesha Rogers sounds like the Tea Party’s well, err… cup of tea!

    Hm. Yes and no.
    By muffin on June 21st, 2010 at 5:36 pm
    I do not understand the problem with Alvin Greene winning the race. He is negro, possibly going to jail, under suspicion. That means he fits the mold of 90% of Democrats

    By libertarian on June 22nd, 2010 at 11:27 am
    Sounds like America needs more candidates like Kesha Rogers on Capitol Hill

    There’s the “Libertarian” Larouchie I’ve been searching for.

    As for LaRouche, thats just a hate monger pure and simple whose claims get squashed like a bug when matched against the truth.

    Dev says:
    Hi Hannah, nah, she’s been an activist for over six years. This is the real thing. As true to Lyndon LaRouche as followers are true to Ron Paul.
    Believes in colonizing Mars, going to war with Britain, the whole nine yards.
    This is Delay’s old seat that she is fighting a GOP for – and since it is a fairly conservative area, her chances of winning or poor. I would never say never though.
    It’s just so beautiful that I chuckled with every word I typed. If that makes me guilty of gloating, so be it.
    I simply though it was a *delightful* turn of events.

    Hannah says:
    Could she be a “plant.” As in get the votes to get elected then turn into another “Dimocrat?” I hope not. But that would be a slick deal if she did.
    June 21, 7:44 PM

  8. chator Says:


    I believe the technicality that prevented Summer from being on the ballot is the fact that he doesn’t live in the 8th Congressional district and therefore cannot represent it. I’ve emailed Summer for clarification regarding the ‘technicality’ and have not yet received a reply, but that’s what it looks like.

  9. fish Says:

    Does it matter? You sound like Chris Curtis but you’re not. He cut a deal to get out of going to prison. You?

  10. chator Says:

    Well, since someone in the campaign first lied about and claimed Shields was the victim of a Democratic party conspiracy to keep him off the ballot, then later, Shields himself admitted a technicality kept him off the ballot, without divulging exactly what that “technicality” was, i wanted to find out the truth. It may not matter to you, or ultimately in the scheme of things. I have no clue who this Chris Curtis fellow is.

  11. chator Says:

    fish asks, “Does it matter?”. I don’t know, do you want honesty and integrity in your politicans? I think it does matter that the Shields campaign didn’t publicly admit that their campaign was an unofficial write-in campaign, until after the election was over. Did Shields’ supporters know they were donating to an unofficial write-in campaign? How long did the campaign would be an unofficial write-in and keep this information from the public? These questions do matter unless your a LaRouche zealot that believes the ends justifies the means, this is the type of thinking that got LaRouche getting thrown into prison, or don’t you know that?

  12. fish Says:

    Curtis is the ex-LaRouchie who cut a deal with the prosecution to get out of going to prison. He posts as exlc4life or something like that. You know him quite well as a matter of fact.

    If Shields had dotted his i’s and crossed his t’s you’d still be bitching about it because that is what you do: bitch about LaRouche.

    Good luck.

  13. Justin Says:

    Relating to Summer Shields, it’s hardly called “bitching”. As it were, if he had “dotted the i’s, crossed the t’s, dotted the lower case j’s, circled the o’s”, I would report his percentage of the vote, than perhaps — PERHAPS — continue forth with the “write in campaign”.

    And Really? “something like that”? That’s disingenous — you know full well he’s “xlcer”. Regarding his real identity: I know and have seen in the comments sections of various blogs (particularly around the time of the Washington Monthly article) that the Larouche org believes they know his identity. I have no idea whether you’re right, and what’s more — no interest in the matter.

  14. Rachel Holmes Says:

    Well, as a matter of fact, he’s not xlcr. But Babs always thought he was….

    Since by now one might suspect that Babs knows he’s not, this clever posting by fish is intended as a double double bind. Maybe.

    Or it might be the result of being on the LaR org phone team and having to take breaks for psychic rest in between phone calls, hence having time on one’s hands (and access to a computer).

    You can bounce around the world posting, or you can play Go Phish.

Leave a Reply