Hitler.  George Bush was Hitler.  Now Barack Obama is Hitler.  I’ve tried to figure out how Gerald Ford might have been Hitler, but I’ve come up empty.
Also it may well be interesting to explore the differences between the war protests (in 2002 through 2003 organized by Ramsey Clarke’s little outfit, eventually another group came to the forefront and butted them out) and the Tea Party (Freedomworks – Dick Armey.  Glenn Beck’s 9/12 Movement).  The former was larger and had more distance from either of the two major political parties — also generally part of the permanent Protest Culture of the Left and not in any way successful in altering any policy course; the latter probably succeeds in a sort of “murder — suicide” model — everyone’s poll numbers collapse, and probably works for the bottom line interests of the fund-raisings.

Joe Wilson here, along with Dick Armey and others, and see the amusing explanation of Larouche as a “former Labor Party candidate“, is dishonest there — see the video clip I mentioned in a blog post, and libertarian magazine Reason blogger in same for non-Larouchie Obama = Hitler-oids.  But basically Larouche has gone where-ever the “We have a new Hitler” people are, whoever they are at the time.  (Also see the Jon Stewart clip leading up to the Barney Frank confrontation for speakers at some early tea party events.)  I am partial to the “Other side did it” defense, to a large extent.

Now that I’ve gotten that little disclaimer out of the way, I can proceed.  But one last item from the attempted wikipedia edits as it settles into its humdrum stasis position:

Leatherstocking: I had never heard of “ego stripping” until SlimVirgin added the new section.
Once again, I don’t believe him.

The major story in the world of Larouche Politics (sorry, but I can’t take these pronouncements as terribly interesting — though, the phrase here that strikes me as particularly playing with fire is “Obama should back down or he might be hung.“) is the Edmonds, Washington man, a Holocaust Survivor, and his angry reaction to an “Obama – Hitler” sign.  (See also a post here, here, here, :
“I saw Hitler’s soldiers. I saw swastikas every day. To call Obama stupid, even criminal, OK, that’s politics. But Hitler? It’s hurting to anyone no matter who is president,” he said.)

There are over 400 comments left to this Seattle Times article, most of them uninteresting and unilluminating on every level, a lot of straw being burned and nobody has any interest in communicating, some partisan jabs here and there, some arguments I’m terribly familiar with having stared at this for long enough.  I guess this is the first semi-interesting thing I see:

The poster with Adolf Hitler slogan is a clear signal of the evil design of the people working behind the scene be they are political, secret foreign agents or fifth columnist working within the country to foment political unrest with sinister motives, needs immediate apprehension to stop further escalation of their evil designed destructive move.
I love a good conspiracy, don’t you?

They just hate anyone who isn’t LaRouche.
I think there’s a rhyme and reason to some things here.  In the late 1960s, Larouche formed an organization peeling off left wing student activists, where the recruits are.  In the 1970s he “flanked” the sort of liberal president Carter and moved to support some conservative and right-wing causes into the 1980s, where the money is.  In the late 1990s and early 00s, he found recruits where they were, somewhere in a sea of a liberal to conspiracy college aged student base.  And now he’s taken them where the money is, flanking the sort of liberal president Obama (they’re “for single payer”, supposedly.  And in a fictional land, taking control of a broader movement.)  One warning: there are a few glitches to this Grand Unified Theory.

To be fair, susan423, the LaRouche nutjobs that are waving around the Hitler signs are not members of the right or of the left, but are just simple visitors from Planet Crazy.

Do Mr. Gasparian a favor the next time you pass one of the LaRouche tables downtown, along the waterfront or anywhere else. Pick up a pile of their literature, walk away and deposit it in the trash where their messages of hate belong. It’s much more effective than getting arrested.

See also:
LaRouchians remind me of the nuts in Waco and the folks who followed Jim Jones and the tin hatters who thought the Hale Bopp comet was their true home. Where they’re different is that they shove their misguided, ill-conceived theories into the public dialogue. At least the other cults kept to themselves.

But The thing that interests me about this story.
I believe that the Larouche propaganda machine innoculated their membership for this sort of incident.  See the article I cut and pasted here.

At a literature table in the New Jersey region, an older woman was at our literature table, getting briefed on the LPAC fight, and looking at our signs on Obama and Hitler. She looked over the LPAC literature, and exclaimed, “You’re right, his policy is Nazi.” Then she pulled up her shirtsleeve to reveal the numbers tattooed on her arm, put there when she was a prisoner in a Nazi concentration camp in Poland at the age of 9.

And so it goes…
Good for the larouchies that guy had no right to loose his cooll like that, and deserved to be arrested.
Any real organization would recognize this as bad pr.  Ah those LaRouche people; so damn classy!

The mindset is shown with what silverchild57 says (from earlier deployment onto a campus):  I am horrified to witness young people being so “politically correct”, thoughtless, and controlled by popular opinion, as to react to the LaRouche organizers in the same way stupid “liberal” and “right-wing” baby boomers do.
LaRouche has been fighting fascism his entire adult life, even when he was a voice crying in the wilderness, slandered by the rotten news media, unjustly thrown in prison by the George H.W. Bush Administration, etc. A courageous fighter for the truth no matter what was thrown at him. That is one of the things I most admire about him; he fights for what’s right, even if nobody else does! That takes some stones, something virtually nobody in Washington has anymore!

Bleh.  Obama was at the University of Maryland yesterday, rallying his base of youngsters.  One sentence describes something:  A solitary LaRouche volunteer stood at attention with a poster of the president depicted as Adolf Hitler.

In other news, Washington Monthly saw to it to repost their Avi Klein “Publish or Perish” article such that it now surfaces in the google news.  If anybody can illuminate what they did and what thought process went into that, please feel free to do so.

Keith Olbermann, 9-8-09:  First, on this date in 1922 was born one of the greatest American comedic geniuses, Sid Caesar, born the same day, Lyndon LaRouche, now behind some of the Nazi imagery at the health care town halls. The difference between the two men, Sid Caesar realized he was funny.
[Note: corrected transcript, which had the year “1992”.]

My first impulse is to assume that this is false, an item of mild imagination from bystander:
“At the Trader Joe’s in Irvine, the LaRouche Activists wore swastikas, which brought some customers to tears,” according to the complaint.”
But a second thought is that it just might be, along the lines of “Chartor”‘s thought process here.

Leatherstocking Unleashed at Wikipedia!  Searching about for ways to maintain the insertion of the world inside the cult as opposed to the world outside the cult, for instance the confrontation with Lerner.  Which gets him such attention as:

I started watching only after Leatherstocking brought this to the attention of a noticeboard frequent but, since then, I haven’t seen anything egregious from SlimVirgin.Simonm223 (talk) 02:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Both Will Beback and SlimVirgin are quite capable WP:FA writers – I am sure they will do fine with the clean-up. Cirt (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

 A bit too easy on him is “Atama“, in describing his possible relationships with sock-puppets.   And yet, Comedy still ensues.  For instance:

“Antony Lerman is in fact an obscure individual, who had no bio at Wikipedia until SlimVirgin authored it[26], shortly after adding multiple references to him at Lyndon LaRouche.  Lerman consequently does not have the wild-eyed public image that Dennis King has.”

The only place King has a “wild-eyed public image” is within the world of Larouche — maybe too the world of Fred Newman, but I don’t much concern myself over there.  In the world at large… well, he’s a fairly obscure individual.

AND
I apologize; I have only limited time each day to participate at Wikipedia, so it is often difficult for me to keep up.
I don’t believe him.  This is a stalling action to impede wikipedia editing.  See also:
“A teqhnique of Larouche’s opponents is to produce a sort of parody of Larouche’s views and then attack the parody as a strawman and if we exclude primary sources, the reader is likely to get a misleading picture of LaRouche’s views.”
Leatherstocking’s comments are pure Comedy Gold!

Leatherstocking delays:
I would like to make one very specific proposal here. It would be helpful to the mediation process if Will would agree to cease making major deletions or other highly controversial edits until the matter is resolved. My limited time is largely taken up trying to keep track of dozens of controversial edits he is making every day. I would prefer to concentrate on the mediation process.

Second, and this applies particularly to the “Views” article, I am concerned that LaRouche’s core views, which as far as I can tell are about economics and science, may be obscured by undue weight given to secondary issues raised by hostile secondary sources. I raise these points simply because I have for two years observed POV warfare at the LaRouche articles, and I believe that misrepresentation of LaRouche’s views is typically the tactic of anti-LaRouche editors. Many of LaRouche’s views are quite peculiar, but they should be given a fair and neutral hearing. And, his track record on economics is good (as the Chinese and Russians seem to delight in pointing out.) —

I suppose the best way to handle that crisis would be to list out the whole list of the annual predicted slides into Economic Dark Ages.  I actually don’t think anything else matters much in this regard.  This, I guess, would be seen by Leatherstocking as “cariacture of his views”, but it would solve his burning issue of this piece of comedy gold:
In this edit, SlimVirgin changes the date of “LaRouche on financial crisis” to 2008, despite the fact that the cited sources indicate that his forecast was made in 2007. Presumably this was done to minimize the significance of the forecast. Incidentally, in looking at Russian press coverage of LaRouche, there is a lot more material available on this topic.

AND , Atama continues:  We shouldn’t “stack the deck” with the views of his enemies, but at the same time we should try to portray the prevailing opinion of Larouche and his ideas. If 9 out of 10 secondary sources are critical then the article should reflect this. Being neutral doesn’t mean that the article should strive to say as much positive about him as negative. Not to be dramatic, or try to equate the two personalities, but look at Adolf Hitler#Legacy.  

Weback:  Regarding the general view of LaRouche, I came across this recent reference to LaRouche by Congressman Ed Royce. While it wouldn’t add it as a source, it’s illustrative of the general view:
The one thing Democrats and Republicans and Libertarians and Peace and Freedom all agree with is that Lyndon LaRouche is a nut case. [2]
Again, I wouldn’t necessarily add it to an article, but it is an indication of how folks regard LaRouche.  

And then there’s Leatherstocking again:  I will also say, knowing that this is controversial, that the process has been hindered by the banning of knowledgeable pro-Larouche editors who were contributing useful research. I do not have extensive knowledge of LaRouche’s writings or where to look for secondary sources, but I can use Google as well as the next person and perhaps I can contribute something in that regard.
Again, I don’t believe him.
I will confess that I am a bit reluctant, because I am concerned about being labeled “pro-LaRouche” if I add material that appears favorable to LaRouche. From what I have seen, being labeled “pro-LaRouche” leads to bans.
Something about editing against a Kitchen Table applies.

AND  Generally, that would make his views on important issues notable. What constitutes an “important issue” should be a matter of mature editorial judgement. In LaRouche’s particular case, he claims that the media have a policy of suppressing his views selectively (and some of the media appear to cheerfully agree — see Views of Lyndon LaRouche#LaRouche vs. the media. Therefore, I am uncomfortable with the idea of making the media the arbiter of which views get covered in Wikipedia.

Good gravy!  It goes on to allow Leatherstocking the out of “no mathmatical foruma” in placing secondary and primary sources.  Which would be okay, if not for the nature of the editing — Leatherstocking will, and does indeed, take this “general rules of principle but no hard Law” as a license to continue as per usual.  Here is the Funniest item, the Gold Standard in Leatherstocking’s little Comedy Routine:

 

Unlike much material here which has little to do with LaRouche personally, the webcasts seem to be an important, professional activity for him and appropriate to a biographical article.
(This was immediately slapped down by two wiki users… While it may be personally important to him, is it important as part of his biography?Seeasea )
To finish theis excursion into wikipedia up:

WB  Regarding the new account, he’s obviously experienced at Wikipedia, and obviously knowledgeable about LaRouche. Doesn’t that make you wonder if it isn’t a returning baned editor, HK, whose used several socks on this article in just the last couple of months?

I can answer that question for him: No.

Let me ask you this: do you accept that the NPOV policy, particularly UNDUE, means we can’t treat LaRouche sources as being on a par with mainstream sources, and that this article must reflect what mainstream sources say, not what LaRouche says? Do you accept that?

I can answer that question for Leatherstocking: No.

The world in which Leatherstocking inhabits can be gleaned from various web droppings of “Wait. Who are these people?” types:

“Are You Brainwashed”?  No.  But you are.  According to Democratic Presidential pre-candidate Lyndon LaRouche, whose assessment is shared by many competent specialists on terrorism and irregular warfare in this country and around the world, what took place was not a terrorist attack, but a strategic, covert special operation,

A must read exchange between Alfred and Archie.  Two highlights:

Alfred:  I have listened to some og LaRouche´s webcasts and I like these ideas a lot.  He is a visionary but realist, a patriot and has a good economic grasp. Why is Larouche not more popular in the US?
He then goes on to partially answer his question.

You are absolutely right, Archie. Transition is always difficult. I think LaRouche has good ideas. Hitler and Schacht got Germany up on her legs with fiat government money which funded autobahns and a lot of other infrastructure without gold, as Germany had no gold.  The real gold in any society is the brains and natural resources. After WW2 Germany had even less gold but rebuilt its shattered, totally bombed economy in express time, with paper money.  Nowadays, with almost all gold in the hands of bankers and Jews, it would have been a gross mistake to restore gold standard. Anybody can see the logic of it, except the Austrians and Paul.

Turns out it was a political group, linked to Lyndon LaRouche, called BüSo.  We chatted with a young partisan of that party and she described their link with the “large US political group which was responsible for the successful mass demonstrations against the death panels.”  We learned that LaRouche is married to a German politician.  We’ll let you know their German polling percentages when we know.

Hint: somewhere in the low hundredth of a percentiles.

This guy thought he was so clever, he rolled this joke out twice.

Steve Grayce.

Steve Grayceset up an account at Wikipedia.  He made a couple edits that were the same edits as every other “Herschelkrustofsky” nom de plome — obsessed with getting the original subtitle of Chip Berlet’s High Times article in, for instance.  Apparently he made three edits in quick secession, in fact, which lead to his temporary ouster.  He then challenged his temporary banishment.  And was then banned permanently because he was, in reality, none other than  Herschelkrustofsky, the famous Jewish clown on the Simpsons.

Also in familiar to previous “Herschelkrustofsky” puppets, though new as pertaining to new events, Krusty the Clown deigned to remove the reference to Molly Kronberg’s libel suit from the end of “Larouche Criminal Trials” case, when by any measure the article warrants a couple sentences as a post-script.  We also see Krusty’s attempt at forcing newly Larouche’s rewritten history into the Court Trials itself.  Will Weback, ever too gracious in too accomodating these compromises, “added a little more about LaRouche’s allegation.”  Actually, what needs to be added in terms of Larouche’s response to Kronberg’s lawsuit is the reference from the LPAC release as this being part of the British plot against Larouche due to them bring down Obama’s Health Care policies and his opposition to the Iraq War.  A similar feeling I’ve had with respect to both Kronberg’s wikipedia article and Duggan’s — get the craziness there, and don’t white-wash it.

The surreality of this is shown in the manner that they have, in the past, commented disparingly of the use of a college newspaper here and there (one of the people who had any reason to pay attention for the past decade), while “Leatherstocking”, in question for a source, pulled up a college newspaper (as well Italian sourcing and something else — I am having trouble finding this and don’t consider it worth my time trying any harder.  There he made the amusingly bald  statement that “I forgot your search engines only bring up negative references to Larouche.” )

Meanwhile, Krusty’s tag-team member, the sort of “Good Cop” of this “Good Cop / Bad Cop” routine in terms of retaining a permanent presence, comes out with:
Another point of dispute is that recent edits have highlighted the two WP:COATRACK articles on the LaRouche list, Jeremiah Duggan and Kenneth Kronberg, without giving similar emphasis to other articles on the LaRouche list that depict LaRouche in a more favorable light, such as Amelia Boynton Robinson. —Leatherstocking (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Reading the Robinson wikipedia article, I would think that a reference to a recent interview where she expressed great admiration and pride in the presidntial election of Barack Obama should be placed there, as a means of balance.  She likes Larouche and she likes Obama.  Make of that what you will, and I do make of it something but I’ll bite my tongue.

In other news, some amusing clips have shown up at youtube.  And stuff.
This strikes me as important enough to plop from out of my commenting in the comments section.  Barney Frank’s letter to the editor.  Also from out of Boston, they get a sentence or two in a piece about a John Kerry thing.  Funny that, as the Cult leader, in their fantasy world, “took over the Party” and rallied under John Kerry toward victory… or at least to the next hub ub — John Conyers and allegations of irregularities in Ohio.  Also worth mentioning, page A25 of the  Washington Times article for September 3rd has a photo of two Larouchies holding a sign — (first google find here) and is conflicting with the editorial bias of the article and newspaper — unless the Washington Times wants to claim the Larouchies as a legitimate source for their oppositon.

Here’s the current quote-pull at the top of google news search when “Larouche” is sought.:

Instead of name calling about “LaRouche cultists” and such hot-button language, try not to be half-assed on the facts. I have no idea why LaRouche has gone off in the more recent direction, he does seem to have seized the bit in his teeth and is not being reined in, but some of his prior stuff is sane and makes more sense in terms of how the public should be treated than those who have been taking UnitedHealth money and now are representing UnitedHealth interests over the public interest.

It ends with that thud.  Rumble through the conservative blog vane at a Representative Dingle meeting, an “Obama Mustache Poster Waver” is identified as a “Dingle Supporter” — makes sense, Dingle that type the Larouche org would glom on to — and (you’re losing me with this one) “Plant”.  This goes to show you that while there is no moral gain from becoming an enemy, there is also no moral to lose from becoming a “friend” — and vice the versa with the words “gain” and “lose”.  (See too:  I even went outside to ask individuals to stop being rude to all visitors and clean up their acts. I was appalled at the behavior of the LaRouche PAC and am even quoted on their Web site asking them to tone it down. )  OR:  including LaRouche followers, who had scurried to get a protest of their own together at noon, when they found out that those “George Soros funded MoveOn people . . . that support blatant marxism and more Federal control [who] are not the voice of the Texas people” had a permit for a rally. (Actual quote from their e-mail)

The “Liberal Blog Vane” pretty much has its final shot with Larouche as “loose grenade material” with this dailykos post.  What strikes me about the comments is the manner that the partisan Democrats more or less just drop off the fourth wheel of this “Quad” and go for the more clear-cult partisan enemies:  Michele Bachmann, Betsy McCaughey, Sarah Palin.  That actually might be something of a victory for the org — along the lines of how The Guardian managed to mention Anton Chaitkin of Executive Ingelligence Review without mention of Larouche.

For their part, the question What do the LYMers know anyway about this “takeover”?:

Comment #9:   As to the youth movement, I was accosted by a group of them in Seattle just last week. When I responded by saying, “Hey, look, it’s a dining room table”, it quickly became clear that there was only out of the group who had the slightest idea what I was talking about. Now, that’s a pretty dumb bunch, even by dining room table standards.
Purely anecdotal, I suppose, but it begs the quesiton:  How can they be so shut off from the world that they miss their effects of their “World Changing” activism?

Argurably a small bit of whiplash comes with these placed side by side:
#20:  I knew a fellow who was in one of Larouche’s groups years ago, back in the Seventies. Among other things, they thought that Stalin actually had some pretty good qualities, and certainly wasn’t the mass-murdering monster most have come to believe about him.

#39:  To use Lenin’s phrase LaRouche, and now his disciples, have now become the “Useful Idiots” for an American Fascism. Only his death and the eventual falling away of his followers (to the American Nazi Party perhaps?) will reduce the incidence of stupidity within the American body politic!
Strictly speaking, no.  I don’t know “where they will go” — I’ve stated already a suspected more-than-half lifing away after the old cult leader falls away, which at least suggests a bit of remnants.  But not to the “nazi Party”, and this is something that I see drives ex-members crazy.

For his part, Barney Frank was the subject of a cover story for the conservative National Review, which while oppositional and critical made failed in the task of referencing Frank’s Nazi and Fascist and Hitlerite antecedents.  Barney Frank has also thrown in his support behind Ron Paul’s “Fed Audit” bill, putting his name in highlights in some of those Ron Paul adoring conspiratorial sites that Larouchies have to fight for some space.  (See the “google quote news pull” for one particular prisonplanet link — which gets in there by dent of a Larouchie commenter grabbing the first spot in a comments section!  And while I’m on prisonplanet, look to the comments section on this page — one notable quotation: this woman was a agent provacateur   it was a set up AND Anyway – the reason why she didn’t have anything else to say there was probably due to a bug in her programming…)  Add in his name having been floated briefly, and batted away, for possible replacement in Ted Kennedy’s seat, and we see Barney Frank’s career moving away from this odd little footnote.

While “Leatherstocking” in the wikipedia edit attempts tries to forge forward the “Was right about the 2007 — 2008 Collapse into Armegeddon!” insertion, as against a handy chart here.

As for me, after reading the first paragraph of LPAC’s reponse to Lawsuits:
According to various British-steered internet blogs, Molly Kronberg, a collaborator of circles associated with Tony Blair, the former British Prime Minister and controller of U.S. President Obama, wants to sue Lyndon LaRouche and his political action committee, LaRouche PAC. She has teamed up with former LaRouche prosecutor John Markham. This frantic propaganda and publicity stunt is a direct British reaction to LaRouche’s largely successful campaign to defeat the Nazi-like British-designed healthcare plan of the Obama Administration.

I feel the need to assert a certain Britishness.  Well, in honor of a nickname I had way back in high school … there’s this — “SPAM”. 

The obvious observation to the response otherwise comes from here:

Yeah, that’s one response to the lawsuit that might backfire

In other news: a belated report of “a very interesting and successful experience for all involved“, “Speaking In Forked Tongues” and all that.

I never understood the point of the public campaign against Molly Kronberg.  Sure, the private and internal items made sense in that purely vindictive slashing evil fashion, but propelling these items into the public domain (even as nobody was really reading — this was at the time they were evidentally deliberating on which way to go with the new Obama Administration) produced such confused elements as Jerry Pyenson (sp?) posting a Kronberg – headline to a 9/11 Truth board.  I guess this particular “campaign” is best explained as simply stating that they’re a little bit unhinged and a lot paranoid.  Beyond that, it is best not to waste time making sense of the senseless — their internal frustrations spilled out externally.

Roughly concurrent to my posting after seeing the factnet posts, I see Kheris posted on it here (and at another blog), and Nicholas Benton “tweeted” it here.  Dennis King posted this a bit later, propels it to a modest audience, and the “Legal Times” (blog) posted it here.  And also we have this from the Loudon Times.  Note too the additional edit on the wikipedia entry for “Kenneth Kronberg“, unfortunately having to explain his sourceas if to appease your Leather Stocking (“The blog post contains material that has been disputed in earlier discussions here” — Heh!) and (it’s coming) zillion twelth iteration of “Herschel Krustofsky”.
While I’m browsing wikipedia for these things, I will note how problematic these items are for wikipedia’s viability, and leave it at that.  As is taking leatherstocking’s disingenuity about “larouche-planet” published documents seriously.

Last night, my radio left on at the end of the night as Mike Malloy (on KPOJ) finishes his show,.  Next show is one I never listen to — I don’t even know her name right off the bat (Looking it up, it’s Nicole Sandler.)  And at the top of her program she references some Hitler Obama Swastika waver encounter she had for a town hall meeting with Henry Waxman roughly concurrent with the Barney Frank — Rachel Brown meeting, and promotes for next hour’s interview with the author of a piece for “The Daily Beast”, Max Blumenthal who “Found out who is behind these Hitler Obama posters.  Lyndon Larouche … Lyndon Larouche??? He’s still alive?”

Ba da bing, ba da boom.  Or, to quote wonkette.com :”1988 Called, and they want their Larouchies back!”  Obviously the product of the same media black-out that has a confession every so often slip through, such as with the first sentence of this article.  (“Past the filter” indeed.)

Blumenthal says what we basically know and adds little to, for instance to quote myself:

“The question with the Larouche cult’s particular brand of demougery: what measurement can we use to suggest they’ve injected something into our discourse, and to what degree have they simply reflected some bad impulses?  It is, I think, mostly the latter but there are times when the former does impugn on us, and there are a few small times when there are not clear – cut answers.”

Noteworthy, public imagination has it as often as not that they lag.

Blumenthal clearly alluded to Jeremiah Duggan and/or Kenneth Kronberg, without reference to their name, though wisely did not head into an area that he did not have the facts at his disposal and was a tangeant from his broader political point.  “The cult is not terribly interesting”, except inasmuch as we get something like — to quote the cult:

“One senior political operative told EIR that the Republican Party, desperate to regroup after the electoral defeats of 2006 and 2008, picked up the LaRouche attacks on the Obama health-care swindle, studied the documentation, concluded that LaRouche was absolutely correct, and jumped on the bandwagon. By last week, according to the source, every faction within the GOP had picked up on the LaRouche message—to the point that a frantic Karl Rove jumped in, to warn Republicans that they were losing control over the issue to LaRouche.”

And Rush Limbaugh is doing nothing to refute such a proposition.  For instance a listener calls in to suggest the “Hitler” analogies are counter-productive and off base (gives the opposition amunition), and Limbaugh doubles down with the old suggestion that “I’m beginning to think you’re a Seminar Caller”, the term used when a deviating opinion or thought somehow manages to flow into the show.

The next paragraph in the cult’s item here, though, serves to demonstrate the folly of at least not carefully crafting your “partisan problem” with Larouche.

Furthermore, a wide range of Democratic Party-linked voices, from The Nation’s David Greider, to the New York Times’s Frank Rich, to cultural commentator Eli Siegel, to Arianna Huffington, have also joined the attack on President Obama, denouncing him for cutting a dirty backroom deal with “Big Pharma” and “Big Insurance,” and accusing him of being a corporativist—i.e., a fascist.

They think they’re propelling events, with you part of it no matter where you stand.  Hell, they even take credit for the juvenile Uranus pun.  The problem I have with Chip Berlet’s post here is that, whatever else you can say about Larouche and company in relation to the broader agitators (and I see that he subsequently wrote on the broader agitators and assorted demonstrators) — the Larouchies remain interlopers and framing any agitations into their own movements, and not part and parcel to the rest of it.  (Hm.:    Finding a large Lyndon LaRouche pamphlet in my parents’ house was somewhat disturbing. … Mental note: trash them as soon as I leaf through, after spotting on lying around after a “Deployment” happens, to avoid that problem.)

But the part of Blumenthal’s discussion that was most noteworthy for me, aligning to both what we know about Jeremiah Duggan and what is conjectured about his death, and aligning to Peter E. Tennenbaum (“Earnest One”)’s testimony on his experiences with the cult, was his description of a visit to a meeting of Larouche’s young recruits.  After watching them being told to “Give Up Their Dreams” and alerted to the grim task at hand in fighting the Oligarchical Forces, he challenged the speaker to quit “scaring and taking advantage of these young, vulnerable lives” and “quit twisting their minds”.  He then had to rush off, and run to his car to leave, and as he did so, the Larouchies surrounded his car in mob mentality fashion, and to make a break for it (and I suppose the Larouche org would twist these words to suit their purposes) he explained that he had to “practically run them over” in escaping the place.  If you can find the top of the second hour of this program anywhere, it is worth a listen.

(One last note: Yeah, but let’s get one thing straight: he is no Mihkail Gorbachev.)

Hm.

Well, they’ll need all the money from Canada they can get, I guess.
I await the mass deployments with the “Molly Kronberg with Hitler Mustache” iconography.
Lawsuit here.

It might be a good idea to start watching this spot  to see if new insults are hurled on one of the more bizarre stop-motion comments threads out there, and at this wikipedia editing page for the “Criminal Trials”.

Your Dick Armey, representating Freedom Works — an organizer for those there Disrupting tactic protesters, has an interest in assigning all mentions of Obama = Hitler to the Larouche org.  Rush Limbaugh has an interest in telling a “Barney Frank Fag” joke, as well keeping his perogative in pronouncing Obama as Hitler.  I haven’t looked into Sean Hannity so don’t quote me on this, but he appears to be brushing the Larouchie into his band of merry agitators — Barney Frank stomped on her, dagnabit. (Live by the Sword, die the sword?)  Here we see Bill O’Reilly make an attempt to hedge his “Merry Band of Agitators” with a disclamer that the first person there was not real and instead a  “political activist“.  (Er.  Bill.  They’re all “political activists”, as much as you define that as a slur.  Actually the problem here is that his point could have and would have been served better by not mentioning her.  Later in the program O’Reilly chats with Dennis Miller, an interesting conversation I’ll post in the comments, and floats another item of dishonesty by calling the Larouchie a “plant”.)  But wait.  Hold on a Minute!

Every network and most cable stations played the confrontation between Rachel Brown and Barney Frank in their prime time programs, mostly featuring Buffoon Barney’s question about “what planet are you from?” as if it showed he was tough, standing up to the “crazies,” even though most left out Rachel’s LaRouche connection. Most revealing is that both Rush Limbaugh and Jon Stewart, both the right and the left, showed the video of the confrontation, made clear that this was LaRouche vs. Barney, and then suggested that the proper response to Barney would be to note that he was from Uranus – adding another of Lyn’s jokes to popular culture, along with the now famous moustache. It is unlikely that Barney will bring up other planets again.

I didn’t catch that oen with the Jon Stewart clip.  Maybe I’ll have to go back and watch it a third time.  He’s almost certainly told the Uranus joke in the past, oh so ironically juxtaposed next to something more high-minded, for instance.  (Post-script: He meant Stephen Colbert, probably.  Interestingly there, Stephen Colbert has used the visual “Hitler Mustache” image as a running joke.  Witness the “Hitler Mustache” on the old man here for another good visual gag.).  In the anals of the Larouche cult, Larouche is responsible for oh so many things.  SDI, for instance.  SDI and apparently the Uranus joke.  SDI, according to wikipedia (always right, except when it’s wrong, and as always watch this space)  was fathered by Daniel O. Graham, Peter L. Hagelstein, and others.  The Uranus joke I had always thought was authored by this kid I knew back in Kidnergarten — name of Alex.  Now I know better.  The LYM / LPAC film team should get right on that historical docu-drama.  Get me Robert Beltran for narration!

Anyway.  Rachel Brown.  Who’s she?  She is the young “volunteer” of the Larouche organization who Barney Frank shot down.  That is surely enought to catupult her to the top of the pecking order in terms of future Larouchie presidential contender, right?  Do you know who Lane Hudson is?  He is the man who shouted out a question about DADT and DOMA during a Bill Clinton speech a week ago.  Let’s compare blog results for these two names using blogpulse.  (Finally able to upload these things.)

Another way of working this might be to chart “Barney Frank”, “Larouche”, and “Rachel Brown”.

Hm.  “Rachel Brown” and “Larouche”.  Wow.  Who’s getting the fuzzy end of the lollypop here?  Of course, she may be better of off not identified.  Prsumably she’ll have to put this in her past post cult life, and as David P Goldman “Spengler” discovered recently, artful lying is in order — the more traces there are, the harder it is to minimize.

Mike Malloy (mentioned in my last post) brought up the Barney Frank questioning at the beginning of his radio show Wednesday night.  He did not mention Larouche, which was interesting because (as I posted) he relayed a scene with a deployment the night before.  He said (roughly) “When I see an expression like that, I know that one of two things is happening between her ears.  It has either been emptied, or it has been filled with snakes.”

The Larouche org will take the non – mentions as a sign of a media and Elite conspiracy, and play it up to their organization.  First sign of that was this taking on a stray Huffington Post mention arguing that the media was giving too much attention to “crazies”, that they shouldn’t be given any more attention than Larouche.  They may even be ready to slam a supposed victory at Conor Clarke with his admission that he has no interest in looking into this further.  (Amusingly enough, the Larouche organization rather clumsily slammed a puff piece he wrote for the New Republic — I read that to be somewhat in lieu of any reaction to a more substantial piece Avi Klein was working on for the Washington Monthly.  Not that I can criticize Clarke much for delving into an asterisk and footnote of American politics.)

Heh heh.  He said “Uranus”.  Heh heh.

“Children of Satan”* and its long subtitle “Sexual Congress something something” versus “Stop Obama’s Nazi Health Care Plan”?  This demonstrates a shift of style from prog rock, with its long orchestration complete with two minute musical noodling interludes, to punk rock — quick two minute songs riffing three chords on the guitar.  The Lyndon Larouche movement has moved from Yes to the Ramones.

(Sigh.)  Okay, they are receiving more media attention than they have in twenty years.  That being said, it’s very much an asterisk.  An asterisk that allows for some inner contemplation of “Real Player Intrigue”, but an asterisk nonetheless.  On an “Ed Show” (that’s tedious talk radio host Ed Schultz, here with a panel discussion between… talk radio host Michael Medved and talk radio host Stephanie Miller.  Maybe CNN has a point?)

MEDVED: Let me just say, I honestly believe that the people on the fringe who are saying outrageous things — those posters of Obama as Hitler were done by Lyndon Larouche, who, by the way, is a registered Democrat.

The damnedest  “Reagan Democrat” out there, I suppose.

So, I turned on the radio (am dial) this morning, round about 6 am.  And the “News at the top of the Hour” for CNN had a blip of Barney Frank contesting an “Obama — Hitler” questioner.  The media loves a fracus.  And there we have it.  The Lyndon Larouche organization at one of the long time enemies: Barney Frank.  The answer to Barney Frank’s question — “What planet do you spend most of your time on?” — is that it has a url address.   Why is Barney Frank an enemy of theirs?  An interesting question — supposedly a matter of ethical transgressions, but the Larouche organization has a history of standing up for support of black politicos of far deeper and clear ethics problems than Frank.  I conjecture they narrowed the search of an “enemy” through “high profile”, “Banking Committee” and then landed on “Gay”.

I flipped the dial to the Liberal station, KPOJ — local radio host Carl Wolfson, and his co-host (not Heidi Tauber).  They more or less opened their show with the Barney Frank fracus.  And And they categorized the sign waver as a person pumped with the meelee, parroting the line of Rush Limbaugh.  (Wait a bit and they’d have known the truth — note Washington here.)

I feel like I’m in on some really stupid inside joke.

Flash back to our next talk radio host.  And here I found a response to this factnet posting about a New York Larouchian deployment in a heavily Jewish populated New York City district — “Really, what would are they supposed to think?”

I need to get a quick brief on Mike Malloy’s politics out of the way, which I can do with two bullet points.  #1:  Al Franken, his eyes on a political future, forbid Malloy promos from being run during his program.  #2:  It is believed that Malloy was fired from Air America for having a friendly hour-long interview with Webster Tarpley.

Round about 8:30 last night (I say because that’s when I had the radio on), Malloy read a letter from a listener regarding what sounded like this very spot and this very Larouche deployment.  The upshot was a description of a large number of elderly Jewish people ripping this “obviously expensive printing job” (Okay, now I feel like I’m in on some very sick inside joke with that one) in half.  And a question, “Do you really believe these people, a lot Holocaust Survivors, are being led to a state like Nazi Germany?” was met with a cold defiant answer of “Yes.”

I am somewhat disappointed with Bill Maher with this.  The Maher producers have no excuse in not being able to identify them in their extended sessioning, and no excuse in excluding them from this clip — the cast of the rest of the “Crowds” makes their point well enough.  One other fact, not terribly well known, is lost in this thing, and I return back to the “Is this a dumb inside joke?” question.  No, they don’t have Health Insurance — the Central Org in Leesburg dropped the Baby Boomers’ coverage some months back.

Of course, this whole item is a bit of an inside joke, and why — frankly — I never quite bought Avi Klein’s exectation on the death of the cult, or the former members’ statements like this.  It half-lifed twenty years ago, and has just sort of reached its final level, to three-quarters life away after the cult leader finally passes.  The “in” that the small number off on the margins of the margins of the troubled college-aged receives is an illusion of being in political intrigue nobody else is quite privvy to.

It is worth mentioning a rather bizarre item of “Playing Both Sides“, akin to the “They’re Single Payer Advocates leading a vanguard of conservative ‘Tea Party’ Advocates”.  A concern over the conspicuous gun displaying that is taking place has settled into these procedures.

As expressed by the Larouche organization with this.

Hence, the NEXT BIG THING for the Larouche organization, after I suppose they might declare victory of one sort or another with Health Care — or let it pass over when the annual Economic Armageddon comes in October — appears to be concern over Great Britain’s Planned Assassination of President Barack Obama.  It is worth noting, that this had been a previous “BIG THING” last December, when they — for instanced — tied it in with the support of the corrupt black Boston city council-member Chuck Turner (seen here with in exchange of blurred green).  Meaning, the summary of their tropes for Obama for 2008 and 2009 is, roughly:

Obama = Hitler.  (or, privately, monkey.)
Stop the British’s Obama Assassination.
Obama = Hitler.
The British planning to assassinate Obama.

And it appears this bit of cognitive dissonance can be played out for the duration of Obama’s four or eight years (or… eep… some other number?)

There are important side notes always available to drop.  A supposed internal battle between the Clintons and Obama is a key one.  This, of course, makes no ideological sense, except that the Larouchies have it firly in their story arc an “in” with the Clintons.  A show of how little sense this makes, and how inorganic it is, can be shown with Bill Clinton’s speech before the “Netroots Nation” convention (which, I think, is where this deployment item comes from).  Clinton defened Obama’s Health Care policies, the most quotable line being “I`m telling you, I don`t care how low they drive support for this, with misinformation, the minute the president signs a health care reform bill, approval will go up, because Americans are inherently optimistic.  Secondly, within a year — within a year, when all those bad bad things they say are going to happen don`t happen, and the good things do begin to happen, approval will explode.” — tending to negate the “Death Panels” concern.  And he said to be prepared to take “less than a full loaf“, which would tend to be a plea of support that runs counter to the supposed Larouchian “single payer” position.

None of this demonstrates anything anyone doesn’t really already know, but if partisans insist on lobbing the “stink bomb”, a bit of context seems important.  I am guessing that in this moment of footnote triumph, Larouche is receiving a smidgeon of relatively mainstream media interview requests.  From what I understand, this would basically be brushed aside — the better to avoid the fiasco of his appearance on  — and he’ll fall back to that Salt Lake radio outfit, and he’s probably due for a Jeff Rense appearance, don’t you think?

Meanwhile, out in the broader world of politicing — Limbaugh and company will try to  innoculate themselves by pointing to the Larouchies (Dick Armey too!)– (small update: apparently Limbaugh won’t — yet, opting to tell a Barney Frank joke that a Larouchie might tell — see my explanation on why they chose Barney Frank as Enemy), and the liberals will branshish the Larocuhies with their brush  — better off somewhere with this woman (:36), a bad example for their cause.

* It is a show of time passing that when I searched the phrase “Children of Satan” in a database, what popped up sort of academics explaining its hate-group use (for some context to the Holocaust Museum shooter, for instance) and not the series of L-PAC pamphlets put out during the Bush Administration.

For the past few days, I’ve been weighing what to do with Lyndon Larouche’s current place in the news, on the edges of the Town Hall meeting disruptions, with the most media attention grabbing of the signs (Obama with a Hitler mustache), and swirling on the outside as one conduit for the “Death Panel” and “Euthanasia” memes.

The effect in looking at how this swirls about in the blogosphere is wearying.  It is a lot of half-witted “gotchas” and less than stellar intellectually dishonest partisan gamesmanship.  The effect is that I don’t think it’s worth wading into this cavern today — let it die down, and if someone so desires to see a mass of links, go to the comments section of my last entry or read around  the last few factnet posts of one “xlcer“.  The upshoot for the cult, though, is the Toxicity — Lyndon Larouche fills the role as a grenade that everyone thinks can be lobbed at partisan opponents.  [Incidentally, when dissing the nature of the Health Care Town Hall Disrutpors, I’m more inclined toward this guy, and everyone can admit that the Larouchies are but an amusing side-show.]

But the general effect of the Larouchies, in terms of “local color” for the scenes, is probably ultimately this, and I can ignore some things here as beside the point.:

Finally, a rather skeevy-looking older man wearing a “DEFEAT THE BRITISH EMPIRE” sign and stumping for Lyndon LaRouche. Much like Nancy Pelosi and the left improperly characterized the Nazi Party as being on the political right, some of the liberals in line were overheard to mistakenly claim that LaRouche was “just another nut-job conservative”; in reality, LaRouche ran several times for the Democratic Party nomination, and is said to be a student of FDR’s economic policies. Some of the liberals around me knew this already, and a light-hearted moment came when many of us in the line engaged in a bit of bipartisan laughter, each of us taking turns acknowledging that folks on both sides of the political spectrum really don’t care much for LaRouche or his flunkies.

I suspect that in the coming days, Lydnon Larouche will be making hay of the Nancy Pelosi psuedo-controversy, extrapulating it into a grander area of intrigue, with him being part of that great Elite Power-struggle  — you won’t hear about that in the mainstream news because, you see, Larouche is the square root of two.  The only vaguely interesting chestnut from the Larocuhies circling around the “Tea-Parties” was a report of a conservative activist taking their Nancy Pelosi Bad flyer, and tearing out the “LPAC” ingsinia for their own waving use.

Regarding the “Death Panels”: First, the Lyndon Larouche organization has been evading “Death Panels” in Great Britain and Germany for six years now, the “death panels” that would investigate the death of Jeremiah Duggan.

Secondly, it’s worth looking at their “fracus”.    The concern he has with his quasi-common cause with the “right” (“quasi” is a key qualifier), where he has set in next to Limbaugh, Beck, and Palin, is that the government  will be placed in a position where it is making value judgements of  lives to society on perceived productivity and worth to society.   The further item for Larouche’s allegations of Obama’s “Nazism”, which ties in here, comes from their interpretation of the Obama Administration’s Behavioral Economics , which — in this case — would have at those , a nudge toward death.

Larouche’s “interpretation” of Health Care policies — the government ridding itself of what they decide are the “Useless Eaters” within a world of scarcity of resources, reminds me of this memo — and his “policy ” toward Kenneth Kronberg.

Of course, there’s also the matter that the org has dropped their employee’s Health Care Insurance, summarize:
While LYM morons are running around the country doodling mustaches on Obama’s pictures, while Lyn is beating the drums on Obama’s Nazi health care plan, we have the following real-life health insurance story from LaRoucheland.
What would you think of a group that cut off a longtime member’s health insurance when that person had a dependent family member in the hospital in critical condition?
What would you think of an organization that stopped paying that member altogether, and, when that member (who for various reasons might have a hard time getting a job) asked what he should do, just shrugged its collective shoulders and said, “I dunno”? (Actually, it was an individual NEC member who said this, one of the most Stalinist of the bunch.)
How does LaRoucheland have the effrontery to babble about Nazi health care plans when it has condemned so many of LaRouche’s loyal followers to death, disease, misery, and penury?

Hard to say..
I first listened to LaRouche about 10 years ago – he may be correct – certainly he is a hyper intelligent guy and appears genuine – but indeed his ideas are RADICAL like no one else ive ever seen, even Noam Chomsky, the anarcho-syndacalist). That doesnt make him wrong though – maybe idealistic more than pragmatic but his predictions of disaster are emphatic and its panning out how he has long foretold.
…
the Zionist banksters at the Fed and Wall Street are propping up the financial markets, disguising the true bankrupt situation with their complicit media empire, to give just enough time to fool the masses with propaganda and lies. just like they did for Iraq, so Israel and their US puppet terror machine can attack Iran Russia has warned this would mean WW3, which seems to be the Zionist objective for their Zionist controlled one world government
………
la rouche actually has a lot of altruistic policys – listen to the very last question on that webcast, and his answer – i mean – the guy has some serious serious points that needs addressing.
the fact that their youth movement is cultish in appeal means very little to my image cause its not unlike most youth political movements…
……….
Yes, good points. But the members act like its the end of the world and only him and them can fix all the problems. People like that can ruin your image so again, your choice.

It is worth mentioning that the next day of their annual Economic Armeggedon is slated for October 12.  Interesting to note:

“Apocalyptic dissapointment” is the scholarly term given to the failure of predicted events of an apocalyptic nature to come about on the date specified by the guru or inspired leader of a doomsday cult, or rather, the after-effects on the mind and body of the cult. The fallout is usually the loss of several, but not all the members of the said cult. In some cases, “apocalyptic dissapointment,” can be the trigger that spells the beginning-of-the-end for the cult, in other instances, it has a minor impact.

History tells us the cult members have enough delusionary power to continue to chant “Larouche was Right”, as they continue their studies.

I’ve been listening to LaRouche for about a year now. He’s the only one with a viable solution that I know of. He’s a little out there sometimes but well worth hearing. More should start talking about solutions in my opinion

@Phil: Lyndon Larouche has been running for US President since 1976…….he is a self described “physical economist”…and his wife Helga is campaigning in Germany for the presidency there…and yes he calls for Obama’s impeachment….His economic historical perspective recalls the Venetian city states that came to power after the great plague in the 1400’s ( I think)…and the many centers of power since then…and the Rise and fall of the British/American/Dutch empire that we are suffering under today…and the rise of the Shanghai Cooperative nations …..and on and on…
I watched the first 30 minutes of his presentation ( the rest later ). So far , the guy speaks much truth, but spoils his delivery at the very beginning with comparing Obama and Schwarzenegger with Hitler . Shame really, because he didn’t need to do that , the (historic) facts he mentioned were quite correct wrt Empires etc. OTOH, he seems to think that the US should “police” the world to rid it of Empires … by replacing them with one (US) Empire didn’t seem to bother him much ?
…………………..

One last note: I see in this latest burst of interest some linking to wikipedia articles.  Which is, as always, naturally why the wikipedia edit attempts continue… with Herschel Krustofsky Sock Puppets number gazillion, gazillion-two, and gazillion-three.

Also, in honor of Lyndon Larouche being a fan of Stephen Colbert, well… click the Colbert Hitler Mustache appearance of a few months’ back for the Colbert bit about Sarah Palin and “Death Panels”:

Also see.

Yes, I’m thinking that that image was photo-shopped.  (For it in action, see here.  .  He has found the one bit of illogic his membership doesn’t seem to understand is a bit of illogic — See my comment in the last post.  And as for him, meh — I’ve been swirling around this train for some time.  Wherever a political leader is referred to as Hitler, the Larouchies will come in like barnacles.  The answer to Chuck Beardsley’s question lies round about there and with these things.)

Okay.  Here we have Howie G laying down the Larouche line on the town hall meeting disruptions.:
The Republican Party says it’s not behind the protests, but LaRouche Pac and Lyndon Larouche say that they are. Yes, inside sources say that larouchepac is the catalyst in the resistance to a Nazi dictatorship over health care.  The phrasing is off.  Is Larouche saying that the Republicans are saying the Republicans or the Larouchies are not behind the protests?  (Ah.  “Inside sources”.  I suspect the “inside sources” are random Democratic bloggers and cable news commentators wanting to put the Disruptors in its worst possible light?)  Of course he [Harry Reid] doesn’t have enough cajones to admit that Larouche Pac is in on the action.
Uh huh.  Actually the risk of tarring the whole “movement” with its Larouchite barnacle element is not worth the rewards (nor rewarding Larouche, for that matter).  It’s a careful tactic that would require  not tossing in the more mainstream opposition of mainstream Americans into that pot, and such a thing would buttress against a cry of “Hey!”.  (The Reason Magazine blog numerating the “Birthers” citations.)  Sorry, Howie G.  Enjoy your Fantasy World — you’ll get mentioned in passing by the non-Elite.

For the Larouchies, the “Disruption tactic” is in their tradition, learned from sparodic hits on college campus lecture classes where they … dressed up in gorilla suits? … to “challenge” the Newton Cult and inject the Riemann — Larouche into Econ.  So, this is their element, I suppose.

Fringe movements often follow a sort of pattern, where the initial genuine energy of fringe devotees is exploited for the financial gain of their leaders, who then collapse into infighting over reaping the benefits.
Consider that when considering this.:
 I get the feeling that the loudmouths I’ve encountered the past two days at the town halls were most likely LaRoucheites, birthers or truthers rather than people that attended a tea party because of their concern about the current state of the country.
Can’t get too haughty with that one, throwing a link to an article about the Minute Men.  Sometime around that time Keith Olbermann was entertaining the notion of the 2004 stolen Ohio election, with the opening caveat along the lines of “Somewhere between tin – foil hat and legitimate citizen investigative journalism”, one Bev Harris was traversing about for cash and fame.  Also swarming around that one: the Larouchies.  Here it was because they were injecting themselves into the Fantasy Shadow Government as a “player”, working with Representative Conyers they claimed.

Interesting to note: PUMA activity is still going on in the wikipedia editing section.  There is not a whole lot to say about that brief spurt of disgruntled Hillary Clinton partisans, suffering the affront of personal identification with a losing presidential candidate.  Two figures who hovered around this one: Lyndon Larouche and Webster Tarpley.  In this case, I have to say Larouche’s message made more narrative sense.  Larouche wants to claim to be an “Insider” fighting factions of the Elites, and thus he is with Clinton and against Obama.  Tarpley’s stated hope with Clinton, that she would open up a Democratic Party Realignment, made no sense on his own terms of a nation that blows up the World Trade Center.  But I suspect Tarpley just had a long range in his purview, to act as a number one conspiratorial oppenent in the Obama Administration.  He was more consistent in opposition of Obama from that point to the present, whereas the Larouchies toyed with the always lingering Death Threats problem that plagues Obama for a time after the election — watching and waiting for Hub-Ubs to attach to.

Interesting to note, Webster Tarpley has thrown himself well into the Birthers.  He is, at the very least, wading into it, though it looks as though he’s careful not to cement it part of his conspiratorial storyline — offering his radio show as a platform for the Russian women generally mocked on mainstream media, and from the start during the election campaign thrusting it as “an issue that needs answering”.  Larouche, meanwhile, has opted out of this hub ub.  Probably a good idea: he’s positioned himself for re-entry into Obama support if Obama shaves his mustache and somehow is seen as rejecting his Nazi Advisors.

The thing about these things is that I don’t for a moment think Larouche gave one whiff about the presidential run of Hillary Clinton, nor do I think he cares about Health Care Policy.  I don’t think Webster Tarpley cares at all about Obama’s birth certificate.  You know the Columbia University Student strike of 1968, which served as Larouche’s “coming out”?  (I say that aware that his most loyal associates, still today, were with him back to — I think 1965, actually).  The strike had in it the two great struggles of 1960s politics: the Vietnam War and Civil Rights — eliminating Defense Contracts from the University, and wanting to stop the construction of a gym encroaching into black Harlem.  Larouche didn’t care about those issues.  Even then, 1968, before mop-up, ’twas hub-ub and he was a barnacle.
It may or not be worth looking at the wikipedia edit attempts.