The Civil Archipelago, David Remnick, New Yorker, December 19, 2011
How Far Can the Resistance to Vladimir Putin Go?

It’s easy to mock Russia’s “Democratic” system.  But … y’know… this ad … Vote for Putin’s Party, why don’tcha?… we’ve seen dumber, haven’t we?
We oughta mock Italy’s just as fervently.  Berlusconi and all that… owns 90 percent of Italian media, or something like that.

There are a few take-aways from this New Yorker piece.  One, I already knew this, but some of the key big name figures of the “Civil Archipelago” aren’t entirely sympathetic.  Like, Reformist for the Kleptocracy of the 1990s as opposed to the Putin era.  This is somewhat typical — I always need to note that the presidential candidate for Iran’s “Green Revolution” was a project of the Iranian Revolution.

The more interesting of the movements … “Civil Archipelago” as David Remnick terms it… is kind of aburdly… well, .

The streets—the highways, the boulevards, and the crooked lanes of Moscow—are, in fact, one of the unlikely stages of civil protest in Putin’s Russia. Kutuzovsky Prospect is one of the main avenues on which government officials and the super-rich commute between the center of town and the multimillion-dollar estates of Rublyovka. Out in those monied woods are exquisite restaurants, spas, and showrooms for Bentley, Ferrari, Mercedes, and Maserati. Traffic is horrendous from morning till night. And so officials and the well-connected circumvent the halted condition of mortals by obtaining flashing blue lights for the tops of their cars, a signal that forces everyone to get out of the way, as if for an ambulance. The official blue flashers, called migalki, are often acquired through bribes. And the fantastically reckless driving that goes along with them leads to constant accidents—invariably with much smaller, more vulnerable, civilian automobiles.
Nothing could be more maddening, especially for Russian men, who see their cars as a sign of making it. To be pulled over or to be overtaken is humiliating. Thanks to YouTube and the tactics of flash mobs, a group of furious road warriors started putting blue plastic children’s buckets on their cars—a spontaneous movement that became known as the Society of Blue Buckets. When members discovered that Nikita Mikhailkov, a well-known film director, had a car with a migalka, they lambasted him online.
Ivan Alexeyev, a.k.a. Noize MC, is a hugely famous twenty-six-year-old hip-hop artist in Russia who made much of his reputation rebelling against the entitled class of limo riders. Alexeyev grew up near Smolensk, listening to Nirvana, Rage Against the Machine, and Run-DMC. He went to Moscow for college, to study computer science, and he formed his band there, with classmates.
Last year, while he was on tour in the Russian Far East, he heard about an accident near Gagarin Square, in Moscow: a Mercedes bearing a vice-president of one of the major Russian oil companies, Lukoil, smashed into a Citroën, killing two women, including the sister of one of Alexeyev’s friends. The police blamed the driver of the Citroën, but eyewitnesses said that the executive’s car had been driving in the wrong lane, to avoid traffic.
That night, in Vladivostok, Alexeyev couldn’t sleep, and he wrote a howl of outrage, called “Mercedes S666.” The song, and the “South Park”-style video that went with it, was a big hit on the Internet. “Right away, a lot of political parties tried to use it for their aims,” Alexeyev told me. “It feels like you always have to choose one or the other, and I don’t want to choose.”
Alexeyev has performed songs mocking Russian skinheads and Nashi, the pro-Putin youth group. At a concert in the city of Volgograd, last July, he sang a song about police corruption called “Smoke Bamboo” and made remarks from the stage mocking the Volgograd police for being aggressive. “To be honest, my behavior wasn’t very good, but their reaction was even worse,” Alexeyev told me. He was arrested and jailed for ten days.

Cutting around pieces of symbolism, if tangeantal to the core political problems.

Compare the Cutting and splicing of Media Censorship, and the items that gained the name “Orwellian”, Soviet and Putin-ish:

A week after the incident at the Olympic arena, I paid a call on Putin’s redoubtable spokesman, Dmitri Peskov. Tall and mustachioed, Peskov is a kind of ideal projection of his man; he is wised-up, worldly, professional, and subtly forbidding. When he lies, he knows that you know, and you know that he knows that you know. The smile is also meant to convey another message to foreign visitors: So, we’re cynical. And you’re not?
When I asked Peskov about the jeering, he unspooled a convoluted hypothesis about how the crowd might have been reacting to the image of Monson being helped to the locker room: “We called him after that, and he said it’s normal that in America when a beaten guy is leaving the hall they often boo.” Peskov, being as skillful and as modern as the regime he serves, then switched from bald-faced nonsense to allowing at least part of the truth. “I also heard some voices, three or four men,” he said. “Someone really shouted out, ‘Putin, go away!’ ”
When I asked why state television altered the sound for replays, he said, “They switched off the noise.”
Yes, but why? I said.
“I don’t know exactly,” Peskov replied. “That was the choice of the editor.” Peskov couldn’t help smiling at this specimen of disingenuousness. And why did Putin cancel an appointment two nights later to attend an anti-drug concert in St. Petersburg? Instead, the Kremlin sent a deputy prime minister, Dmitri Kozak, to represent United Russia, and so it was poor Kozak who endured the catcalls. “Putin wasn’t supposed to go,” Peskov said. “Trust me.”

Andrew Sullivan:  A blogger at I Talk You Bored challenges me to read a Ron Paul letter entitled “Blast ‘Em,” which provides advice on how to shoot “urban youth” carjackers using a disposable, shadily acquired weapon. I’ll respond in due course.

Fantastic!  Now that Ron Paul is the front runner, sort of, and thought to be on the verge of a victory in the Iowa caucses, we get to revisit the strange career of Ron Paul, and the “Lew Rockwell wrote those horribly racist things!” defense.

Here’s the Daily Paul, for your Ron Paul talking points.

6. Paul often cites Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr and Gandhi as his heroes.

We’re a little tricky arena in mocking this one… see:

In most standard accounts, Hoover’s career began to turn sour after the war, first with his vicious attacks on homegrown communists, later with his illegal Cointelpro campaign against civil rights and New Left activists. J. Edgar pays special attention to Hoover’s surveillance of Martin Luther King Jr., including the infamous hotel room audiotapes that Hoover peddled to the press as evidence of King’s “degenerate sexual urges.”

What this story leaves out is the equally disturbing fact that much of Hoover’s campaign against King was conducted right out in the open, and with the support of millions of Americans. In 1964, during a speech to female reporters, Hoover denounced King as “the most notorious liar in the country,” warning that the civil rights leader was a danger to the national way of life. In a poll conducted a few months later, fully 50 percent of Americans sided with Hoover. Only 16 percent supported King.

But we’ve entered that moment when a Liberal online outlet requests that when one mentions Ron Paul, they should dutifully link to the story of the newsletters.  Though, they could also link to any number of, like, Alex Jones interviews and have the same “Yep.  He’s against the War.  And…” effect.

 Gingrich: Ron Paul’s base is “people who want to legalize drugs”…

Okay.

Thought of the day.  We see the establishment media and Republicans freak about the prospect of Ron Paul winning the Iowa cacuses.  And will this be the harbinger of the end of the meaning of the Iowa Caucuses to the Republican nomination?
Just to be sure:
1988 – Bob Dole (37%), Pat Robertson (25%), George H. W. Bush (19%), Jack Kemp (11%), and Pierre DuPont (7%)
2008 – Mike Huckabee (34%), Mitt Romney (25%), Fred Thompson (13%), John McCain (13%), Ron Paul (10%), Rudy Giuliani (4%), and Duncan Hunter (1%)

And Pat Robertson went on to win Washington’s caucses.  Pat Buchanan won the New Hampshire primary in 1996.  And we’re all full of nuts.

I find this… intriguing… but terribly unconvincing.  From a chapter in Dave Neiwert’s “The Eliminationists“, pulled together from items he posted online…

The result was that white supremacists and other right-wing extremists came to identify politically with George W. Bush more than any other mainstream Republican politician in memory. This was embodied by the endorsement of Bush’s candidacy by a range of white supremacists, including David Duke, Don Black and Matthew Hale of the World Church of the Creator. This identification even cropped up in odd places like the bizarre neo-Nazi flyers that passed around in Elma, Washington, in November 2000 that proclaimed Bush their group’s “supreme commander.”²⁶

However, the signal event of 2000 that went under everyone’s radar was Patrick Buchanan’s bid for the presidency on the Reform Party ticket. It was this move which drove everyone from the Patriot movement firmly into the arms of George W. Bush and the Republican Party.

Right-wing extremists, for the most part, are only a tiny portion of the electorate; they usually represent at best about 3 or maybe 4 percent of the vote. During the 1990s, these voters gave Ross Perot’s Reform Party nearly half its total base. This was critical in the 1992 election, when George H.W. Bush saw much of his conservative base go to Perot. It didn’t matter quite so much in 1996 — Clinton defeated the GOP’s Bob Dole quite handily, with or without Perot’s help — but the lesson was clear. That 3-4 percent was killing the GOP.

So in 2000 came the Buchanan takeover of the Reform Party. He managed to do this with a maximum of acrimony, so that the party became split into its Buchananite wing — which largely was the white-nationalist faction — and its Perotite wing. Buchanan’s side won the war and got to carry the party’s banner in the national election.

And then Buchanan selected a black woman as his running mate.

The white nationalists who had been Buchanan’s footsoldiers abandoned him immediately. And where did they flee? The GOP, of course. As David Duke’s manager explained it to a reporter: “[A]fter Buchanan chose a black woman as his veep he now thinks that ‘Pat is a moron’ and ‘there is no way we can support him at this point.'” The Democrats — with a Jew as the running mate — were threatening at the time to win the race outright. The combination of all these factors herded the far right handily into voting Republican.

If someone had intended to sabotage the Reform Party and drive its voters back to the GOP, they couldn’t have done a more perfect job of this than Buchanan did. While no one can say whether Buchanan’s moves were made with this end in mind — it certainly is feasible he believed his own bullshit — neither does it seem beyond the pale for an old Nixon hand to take a political bullet for the home team.

In any case, what we’ve been seeing in the field since 2000 is that much of the dissipation of the energy in the Patriot movement is directly related to the identification by right-wing extremists with George W. Bush. The announced reason (according to the New York Times) for the disbanding of Norm Olson’s Michigan Militia, for instance, was the belief among members that Bush had the country headed back in the right direction, as it were:

Yes, but a better way to let the Reform Party die out, to dissipate it into the fraction of a percentage point the party line received in 2000…
… is to not get involved.  This is the fate of third parties whose popularity hinges off of a big personality — Ross Perot.  Sure, Donald Trump was at the time floating over the contraption, but that wasn’t getting anywhere either.

What is being suggested here is that Pat Buchanan, coming off of disrupting George Bush the Elder’s 1992 campaign by gnabbing a third of the vote in New Hampshire, and then scaring the moderate vote at the party convention with a Hellfire and Brimstone  speech… and sending the party into apoplexy by winning the New Hampshire primary in 1996.

… and just barely endorsing Bob Dole.

And, yes, Pat Buchanan believed his own rhetoric.  And he found himself a black women who, I recall telling someone with incredulous “She’s further to the right than Buchanan.”  From wikipedia.

Pat Buchanan selected Foster as his running-mate after several other candidates such as Jim Traficant and James P. Hoffa declined his offer. Foster, who had supported Buchanan’s campaigns in 1992 and 1996, quit her speaking tour to join the race.
To believe Neiwert, I would have to believe this factoid came from nowhere.

In the 1980s, she became an outspoken opponent of pornography, the civil rights movement, sex education, AIDS education and gay rights and founded “Black Americans for Family Values.” She was arrested in 1987 with several other women while disrupting the state Republican convention to protest its recognition of the Log Cabin Club, an organization of gay Republicans. In 1992, she was a staunch defender of the police officers in the Rodney King beating case and organized a testimonial dinner for Laurence Powell, one of the convicted officers, in 1995.

In 1994, while teaching at Bell High School in Bell, California, Foster was a public advocate of Proposition 187, a California ballot initiative to deny government programs of social services, health care, and public education to illegal immigrants. Her position was extremely unpopular at the school where she taught, which was 90 percent Hispanic. In 1996, after she argued on PBS’s MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour that illegal immigration was responsible for the low quality of Los Angeles schools, some of her colleagues at the school condemned her in an open letter. Two days later, she attended an anti-illegal-immigration rally where several of her supporters were attacked by members of the Progressive Labor Party, who allegedly wanted to harm Foster herself. Shortly thereafter, she left her job, which she calls a necessity resulting from her treatment at work. She went on speaking tours for the John Birch Society and took workers’ compensation for an undisclosed mental disorder — which she describes as “stress” and “anxiety” — until her official retirement as a teacher in 1998.

Foster has appeared on The Political Cesspool, a white nationalist radio talk show based in Memphis, Tennessee. She has also been a guest on Larry King Live, CBS This Morning, CNN & CO., Nightline, NewsTalk Television, CNN Live, MSNBC, Politically Incorrect, and various CBS, NBC, and ABC newscasts.

“The Political Cesspool”, huh?

Notwithstanding my dismissal of the “Buchanan sabotaged his third party bid” theory, I do want to see it fleshed out… because… I do think those things can be done sometimes.

Hm.

Take this day for instance. When I got up, I read that North Korea dictator Kim Jong-il had died. I wanted to make sure it was true. So I did a news double-take, if you will, reading the story again. And it appeared that yes, it was true, Kim Jong-il, North Korea’s tyrant, had indeed died.

And not a minute too soon. […]

But when I glanced at the news later in the day aftering gloating in Kim Jong-il’s demise to see a report that Jon Bon Jovi had died, I had a very different feeling. For starters, there was also doubt. Heavy doubt. So I looked deeper into the story beyond Twitter, a source that can lead to truth but also is ripe for spreading mass rumor and lies if just one tweeter with followers gets out of hand. I read a good account in IBTimes that explained it all — the hoax.

Shot in the Heart… and you’re to blame.  You give love… a bad name.

The sad reality is that we can probably just pluck all the footage for a retrospective on the life and times and influence of Kim Jong Il from Team America.

I look forward to reading the coverage on the Korean Central News Agency of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.  I’ll post the more interesting links right here.

And the bottom line in international relations:
Kim Jong-il, the pygmy tyrant of North Korea, is dead at the age of 69. His 28-year-old son, Kim Jong-un, now assumes the throne of Pyongyang. According to various press analyses, the new leader is either a bumbling naïf or a clever, multilingual operator who’s already formed alliances with key generals. He will either push market reforms or preserve the status quo. He will reach out to the West or step up confrontation or do neither.

Maybe there’s a gray area in between.

From America in our Time, the Marxist reason to elect Richard Nixon.

Harrington has described one particular meeting at which Max Schachtman “launched into a Marxist attack on pacisfism and the moralistic approach to politics.  In Max’s view, a condemnation of the Vietnam War primarily on the grounds that it was immoral was an excercise in phrase-mongering.”  Schacthman and his freinds argued, on spurious Marxist grounds, that because the peace movement was largely middle class, which it was, ergo it must be acting in a manner contrary to the interests of the working class.  There was a profoundly pessimistic assumption that the mass of of the working class would inevitably support the war:  an assumption that was, in spite of some dramatic and highly publicized symbolic events, only partially borne out, and which might have been even less justified if the Left, in 1965 or even earlier, had thrown its considerable influence with organized labor into the scales against the war.

Michael Harrington, in the end, broke with Schachtman on this issue and finally resigned his cochairmanship of the Socialist Party rather than “pretend any solidarity with people who, in the name of Marxism, were helping Richard Nixon.”  Bayard Rustin, on the other hand, found himself in the tragic posture, for a lifelong pacifist, of justifying the war in the name of a radical coalition that never materialized.

(Actually this isn’t what I was looking for.  I was looking for Schachtman in 1972 further explaining his Marxist precepts in support of Nixon.  Maybe I’ll find it when I get back to this search.)

Some neoconservatives such as former Trotskyist dialectician Max Schachtman, whose arguments were influential with top members of the ALF-CIO hierarchy, offered reasons for voting for Nixon in purely Marxist terms: if the AFL-FIO isn’t backing McGovern and it represents the proleteriant, then which side are you on?

— Max Blumenthal, The Rise of the Counter-Establishment, p 115

From Chris Hedges, Death of the Liberal Class

The pressure of the meetings by the corporations like General Motors, the oil companies, and the drug companies with the editorial people, andd probably with the publishers, coincided with the emergence of the most destructive force to the citizen movement mise-en-scene:  Abe Rosenthal, the editor of the New York Times, Rosenthal was a Right-winger from Canada who hated Communism, came here, and hated Progressivism.  The Times was not doing well at the time.  Rosenthal was commissioned to expand the suburban sections, which required a lot of advertising.  He was very receptive to the entreaties of corporations, and he did not like me.  I would give material to Jack Morris in the Washington bureau, and it would not get in the paper.
Rosenthal, who banned social critics such as Chomsky from being quoted in the paper, decreed that no story built around Nader’s research could be published unless there was a corporate resp0onse.  Corporations, informed at Rosenthal’s dictate, refused to comment on Nader’s research.  This effectively killed the stories.

[…]
Lewis Powell, who was the general counsel to the US Chamber of Commerce, wrote a memo in Aguust 1971 that expressed corporate concern over Nader’s work […]

Moreover, much of the media-for varying motives and in varying degrees-either voluntarily accords unique publicity to these “attackers,” or at least allows them to exploit the media for their purposes. This is especially true of television, which now plays such a predominant role in shaping the thinking, attitudes and emotions of our people.
One of the bewildering paradoxes of our time is the extent to which the enterprise system tolerates, if not participates in, its own destruction.

[…]
The press in the 1980s would say “Why should we cover you?  “Who is your base in Congress?”  I used to be known as someone who could trigger a Congressional hearing pretty fast in the House and Senate.  They started looking toward the neoliberals and neocons and the deregulation mania.  We put out two reports on the benefits of regulation and they, too, disappeared.  They did not get covered at all.  This was about the same time Tony Coelho taught the Democrats, starting in 1979 when he was head of the House Campaign Finance Committee, to start raising big time money from corporate interests.  And they did.  It had a magical effect. […]

Rick Potvin lays down the Larouche line on the Demonstrations in Russia.
My comment: Clearly , this is more British subversion intended to destabilize Russia. This is the value of reading Larouche. All other mainstream media are complicit in the destabilization by failing to report the essential features of what’s going on as Larouche does.

There’s a few things that are curious with this.  Recent larouchie deployments have shown a renewed focus on Hillary Clinton for President, with a suggestion of support for one of those wary Hillary Clinton primary campaigns against the Hitlerite tool of British interests, Barack Obama.

And Hillary Clinton has chimed in with a one of these things.

Sec. Clinton listed out a specific claim that election observers were thwarted in attempts to monitor the Russian elections. She argued that ‘independent Russian election observers, including the nationwide Golos network, were harassed and had cyber attacks on their websites, which is completely contrary to what should be the protected rights of people to observe elections, participate in them, and disseminate information.’ This is another allegation tossed at Putin’s ruling party.

Clinton concluded that the ‘Russian people, like people everywhere, deserve the right to have their voices heard and their votes counted. And that means they deserve fair, free, transparent elections and leaders who are accountable to them.’ This provoked a strong response from Putin and his allies.

Putin fired back that Clinton ‘set the tone for some of our public figures inside the country, sent a signal to them. They heard this signal and launched active work with the U.S. State Department’s support.’ Putin accused the United States of organizing and setting the stage for the large protests.

If there were any intellectual honesty in the cult, this would set up the biggest crisis in the Lyndon Larouche Movement since Summer Shields was unable to obtain ballot access in California, or since the failed prediction about 20 dollar bread loafs.  It appears that their love for Vladimir Putin outstrips their love for the Clintons — must be taken in by those shirtless photo ops he made —

and the Putin loving is curious in a way, since one of the larouchie deployments had a call out to an Obama supporter that she was just for Obama because she wants to have sex with him.  See too the Get Out the Vote ads that Vladimir Putin’s party ran on Russian tv.

We’ll just have to see how this story develops, and how they’ll rationalize  the inconsistencies of Hillary Clinton’s hawkisheness and concern for developments in Russia — “Was It Hillary’s Error?” lest it embarrass Jeffrey Steinberg’s “Desperately Seeking Hillary“, and make themselves available to Russia Today, and to PUMA outlets.

Odd thing about Russia Today — Larouche was cut off on his second appearance, when even they couldn’t stand for his insanity.  He did get a third appearance on, but I suppose it’s better now to swirl down the list of EIR.

Jeff Steinberg of E.I.R. discusses the central role that LaRouche has played to catalyze a global resistance to the British plans for thermonuclear World War III.
Yeah.  And the org has declared War On Christmas — and all the other Holidays.

And now some commentary from a Larouche linker on this coming WW3:
In the 30’s England and Jewry (If there is a difference) sought to destroy Nationalism in Europe, squaring up to their opponent, then starting a(nother) World War after getting slapped the fuck down. Now the Anglo-Jewry changed Germany with Iran. The England of the Middle East, Israel, squaring up to the Germany of the same, Iran. Their hubris will lead an attack that’ll backfire. Of course the useful idiots are no longer Communists waves played off by these twin-vampires, rather American beefcakes who aren’t engineered to enter the breach in the same way. There is no tsunami of endless Russian rapists this time around, rather a multicult Burger-King army whose lack of eagerness can only mean pressing the cheat button.

Some comedy gold from Howie G.  Igor Panarin, ladies and gentlemen.  Maybe this guy can be put in charge of the Russian Larouche Movement?

This guy needs to get on the right page.  Hillary Clinton is not the enemy here.

II.
December 11 National Webcast, as posted to “Peninsula Virginia Tea Party” thingy.

The subject of the Symposium was “Mankind in the Galaxy: Will You Permit the Extinction of the Human Species?”, of which Lyndon LaRouche’s presentation was the final part.

Yeah.  Well.  Apathy reigns in the fight against Human Extinction.  We see this by public reaction to the Fight to save humanity from the org.

Kick Obama out of office on grounds of insanity as La Rouche suggests in his video on youtube.com or look up his website!
Will do, Pat.

“6 billion must die”
Lyndon Hermyle LaRouche, aka Lyndon LaRouche … discussing the mindset of the Queen of England and rulers of Europe on the Alex Jones radio show
a mind that can destroy its own ….
HUNT DOWN THE ROTHSCHILDS (Every Fu&%ing One Of Them) AND AFFORD THEM THE LUXURY OF REMOVING THEIR HEADS FROM THEIR BODIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hm.
After years of listening to these men [larouche and tarpley] lead us around by the nose, I finally gave up on them. I am unlearned and therefore just a bit more FREE, alive and awake.
Interesting stuff.  Worth a gander in a moment.

Candidate Diane Sare, representative of the LaRouche Democratic national slate in NJ, hosted a LaRouche PAC Symposium on December 11, 2011. She gave an address titled “Should We Hold Elections Before or After World War III?
Personally, I think we should do it after World War III.  We survived holding elections after the Civil War started, and after the two world wars started, what’s different with World War III?

III.  In 1971 the editors of the Mormon journal Dialogue invited Georgetown historian Carroll Quigley to write a critical review of Skousen, who had extolled his work. Quigley condemned his whacked-out admirer in the harshest possible terms: “Skousen’s personal position seems to me perilously close to the ‘exclusive uniformity’ which I see in Nazism and in the Radical Right in this country. In fact, his position has echoes of the original Nazi 25-point plan.”

I found that in this book – Blowing Smoke:  Why the Right Keeps Serving Up Whack Job Fantasies about [clever subtitle by way of length]  By Michael Wolraich.  The chapter of interest to anyone with interest in the Larouche Movement is Chapter 8 — Return of the International Jew.  The focus circles around one of the more common items one sees cited from Executive Intelligence Review, here for instance:
“The Secret Financial Network Behind ‘Wizard’ George Soros”. William Engdahl. Executive Intelligence Review. 11-1-96.

I was a little curious about the background for the “Dialouge” piece.  Naturally, it is online.  Right here. I’m slightly disappointed with this set-up, but I suppose if Quigley wished to respond to Clousen’s response he had ample places to do so.

Hm.
Though Egypt is not remotely the economic basket case depicted by the “ex”-LaRouchie and derivatives-trader David Goldman (who seems to think Daniel Pipes-linked publications are legitimate primary-source material), it will be about as “threatening” as a beached whale for at least three generations.

IV.  PO TOUR
Dateline Davis:

The man working the booth explained to a passerby that the Euro was deliberately designed to fail by the British in an attempt to squash sovereign nations in Europe. You can read much more about their stances on their website. It’s more complex and broad than this brief characterization. Regardless, why the large Obama-Hitler signs?
The man working the booth made several Obama-Hitler comparisons, mostly in the form of America’s involvement in Libya and other countries. But he didn’t answer the question as it relates to the signs themselves, which are obviously an attempt to get people’s attention.

Dateline East Greenwich
Officers said they had been sent to the site by dispatch and did not know who made the call. They said it did not come from Dunkin’ Donuts, but employees they spoke to said the owner was probably not going to be happy about the display.

The two men gave their names to the officer when he asked, but would not give them to Patch and would not be interviewed. Any more information, they said, would have to come from LaRouche Pac.

The two did say they had not asked permission from the Dunkin’ Donuts owner to be in front of store, and the police told them the display did not violate any ordinance. They did make them move one sign which was impeding traffic. The men were accepting donations and the officer said he would have to check as to whether that was a violation. The two said they were not selling anything.

Dateline California:
(I did tell the LaRouchies, who were collecting signatures, to impeach Obama, that they were nuts.)

V.  Media citations.

Good lord.  This guy just lost credibility in tackling Andrew Cuomo right here:
But “public-private partnerships” are yet another disturbing step away from accountability. PPPs were favored in Italy in the 1920s, according to an article in the Executive Intelligence Review. The facsists called it “corporatism.”
Douglas Turner, writing for the Buffalo News, randomly tosses out an unnamed article from the larouche publication — the same one that disclosed a vast conspiracy made up of a variety of websites including this one that are at war with America.
The great thing about this particular criticism is it leaves EVERY possible government policy “fascist”, because they’re dealing with “business”.

Meanwhile, this guy — standing before an unflattering picture of Dick Cheney — wants you to know that he predicted everything coming.  And that the powers that be hate him and want to stop him.

Image was found here.

Maybe he should sign up with the one percent by grimacing in the manner of Cheney?

Hey!  Prison Planet now publishing the works of Nancy Spannaus.  Neat!

La Rouche is insane
May the evil queen of England get a bad case of severe Diarrhea, dehydrate and die a slow aggonizingly painful death and her ugly evil corpse be buried in a sewer filled to the very top with smelly disease ridden shit.
For this is what the rest of the evil New World Order loving child molesting, mass murdering bastards deserve also.
Let freedom ring througout the nations of the Earth for the wicked witch of Britian is soon to be dead.
Obama needs to pull out of all foreign councils and treaties and protect American citizens on American soil. He needs to tell the Queen to take a hike and do her own dirty work!
That’s Dr. Paul’s dialogue.
It’s not the House of Windsor we must fear. It’s the Zionist House of Rothschild. Rothschild controls the money supply of the whole world. Rothschild’s minions created the central banks that have turned us into debt slaves. The queen and our so-called presidents and prime ministers are merely puppets following orders. LaRouche is way off base on this.
the queen of england is rothschild’s groom of the stool.