Glenn Beck is turning into Lyndon Larouche.  Witness.:

Beck: I told you over a year ago, please read about the Weimar Republic. Read about the end of the Republic of Germany, Weimar, before it fell into the hands of the Nazis. We are facing the same kind of financial questions that they faced! It was unsustainable! And for the first time in American history we started to monetize our debt! That’s when I told you, please read about Weimar, because they did it! And it ends the same way every single time it has been tried.

Larouche has been saying that for the past five decades, though, of course, it comes from a place in conspiratorial fear and is not all that original. In paranoid fantasy right and left, it’s always 5 minutes to Hitler.  But, Beck gets a bit weirder still.  The cadence of the rant that follows does bare a resemblance to the various Larouche items.

Hm.  Regarding the upcoming Rachel Brown campaign to unseat Barney Frank, supposing for a moment that it’d be imagined as Norman Rockwell’s famous painting or maybe we can go with…

Nah.  That gives the campaign too much credit.  According to their lpac releases, where they had “lead a mass strike” in those teaparty protests, they are now “leading a mass strike” in the California University Student protests.  From their literature:

The obstacle throughout all of the actions has been the small-mindedness of leaders and activists alike. The mental disease that exists, preventing the Mass Strike from thinking bigger, must be overcome.

Currently the cult is making a big deal about “Brainwashing” from society.  It’s a tactic of control to force them against the outside world, surely, unaware of their existence, rolling through political revolts of one kind and another without their assistance.  The googling is now showing a very small trickle, probably not worth pointing toward.  But here’s Some bleeding over from the org regarding the tacking back to the focus on “Brainwashing”, from the cult onto the web.

See this forum posting here.
Which, I guess, is this man’s attempt at getting to advocates of Neuro Linguistic Programming.  At first blush, it looks like a cult to me, or money making scam.  Some quick googling shows it to be it reguarly compared to the concepts and techniques of Scientology.  I see some analysis of the construction of the wikipedia article seen here. But I note that when I clipped from this forum, these were the most current hreads on the forum directory.

Is this an example of cult mentality aligning across two different spots?

This caught my attention, LaRouche does a fantastic job of eliciting and exhibiting his own time mapping and time based values… not everyone would agree with him, but this very clearly demonstrates (from one perceptual position) how time awareness shapes identity… LaRouche steps up to the podium about 2 minutes into this presentation..

So what has our Neuro Lingustic Programmed Larouche recommender been saying in these forum parts?

I would add to this that, IME, many NLP people simple lack the stomach to look into the yawning gates of hell. They want a comfy, rosy, conflict free idealized world, like a cozy lounge where they…

That does sound familiar from the Larouche cult, claiming a member is “not up for the fight” and whatever.  But to one item, for “Ritual Abuse” we get this.

WTF is this ? Green Bomb programming ? A google check on this story shows zero confirmation, zero follow up… sounds more like a case of projective psychosis you encounter in the extensive conspiracy/Illuminati/New World Order/Kennedy Assasination/Purity Of Essence/mercury amalgam dental fillings as UFO detectors/giant eyeball in the sky/twitchy paranoia literature…

I don’t even know anymore.
Anyway, that isn’t much, but the only other presence of Larouche I see for the week consists of repostings like this and this and this andHowie G’s blogging.
Also this complimentary comment to this old story.

WickedPissa  WOW! In the Peoples Republic of Newburyport even. My hats off to the protesters, now watch the moonbats comments follow. He is being exposed daily for the fraud he is. I hope we make it until next years midterms.

Recommendation to WickedPissa: Pick your political allies more wisely.

In other, more important news: the  Transcript of Nov. 5, 2008 proceeding before the U.K. High Court re Erika Duggan’s request for a fresh inquiry into the death of her son Jeremiah and her “skeleton argument” filed by Mrs. Duggan’s counsel last year are available online here.

………………….

And now, Page 3.

Mr Roberts grew up in Rockford, Illinois but didn’t know he was adopted until his sister told him at age 10.   Despite his adoptive father telling him “nothing good” would come of discovering who his real parents were, Mr Roberts used a social services agency to locate his mother, Terry.
She confirmed Mr Roberts was adopted and told him his birth name was Lawrence Alexander but would not reveal the last name.

Roberts, ever curious, wanting to be able to trace his  his life story and history, geneology being a way to place your story in the cosmos, kept at it, but Terry remained tight-lipped on the identity of his father.

And now, page 4. Friends, I’d like to tell you about Bose Radio. or Judy of Plano, Texas writes: Dear Mr. Harvey. My new Bose Radio is amazing.  It certainly is.

Eventually, Roberts wore down his birth mother and learned the identity of his father.  She told him that he bears a physical resemblance to him.  Roberts has been in mailing contact with his father, a prisoner in the California Correctional System, and while he has his phone number he has avoided calling him, though he and has received weird stuff from him in the mail.

And his father’s name… is Charles Manson.

And now you know the Rest of the Story!  Good day!

The Thrill of Victory; the Agony of Defeat.  Or The Fierce Urgency of Now; the Audacity of Hope.  One or the other.  It was in part a way to rationalize or make an advantage of a vote for less executive or legislative experience.  There are other ways to dissect those two phrases and what they mean — a sort of harking back to an argument against the claim for “Gradualism” throughout the first part of the twentieth century as a means to halt any civil rights advancement, for instance.

You know about that well forwarded email by Lou Pritchett believe it or not about how “you scare me”?  The one where near the beginning we get “don’t know your background” (and then, contradictorily enough, rolls into what he believes to be his background)?  That was a Lou Pritchett Problem, not a Barack Obama problem.  You do know that he was in the Illinois state Senate, and that his career there is a part of the public record?  You do know that the newspapers in Illinois covered his votes and politicking?

Chicago Tribune-November 17, 1997
UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE PROPOSED
Invoking the name of Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, a group of physicians and legislators Sunday announced they will seek an amendment to the state constitution to guarantee health care coverage for all state residents.
 Despite the popularity of Bernardin, however, such a measure would face overwhelming odds against winning approval. Previous efforts to institute universal health care coverage in Illinois have failed over the years, primarily because of the massive tax increases that would be required to fund such programs.
The proposed “Bernardin Amendment” would use prose directly from the cardinal’s 1995 pastoral letter to establish health care as a basic right of Illinois citizens and require the General Assembly to enact a plan that permits everyone in Illinois to obtain decent health care on a regular basis by 2002.
“What a fitting way to honor Cardinal Bernardin, who was a voice of conscience, courage and compassion in the health care dialogue,” Dr. Quentin Young, president of the American Public Health Association, said at a news conference at the James R. Thompson Center in Chicago.       
Young noted that more than 1.3 million Illinois residents–about 11 percent of the state population–are uninsured. According to Voices for Illinois Children, some 300,000 children also lack health care coverage.
Rep. Michael Boland (D-East Moline) said he will introduce the measure in the Illinois House in January. State Sen. Barack Obama (D-Chicago), he said, has agreed to introduce the measure in the Senate.

But we’re a long ways from there.  Theoretically it’s covered in the Pritchett penned essay, but the then state legislator now President has since trimmed his sails again and again, arguably right into the presidential campaign and right into this Senate session and is still being pegged as “Socialist Radical” by LiebermanNelsonSouthernDemocratBunchies — the first one’s goal seems in large part little more than to gratify himself with this sort of limelight:

 Reaching the point where the Bill can only be measured as either better than the current system by default, or not.  What it is is a Rube Goldberg device designed to swerve through the “World’s Greatest Deliberative Body” — an artificial device birthed by unholy artificial legislative structure, not organic policy designed to meet the needs of the people.  And what is insuffrable about it is that is projecting to an Obama administration after a sort of customary and unremarkable two or three seat loss in the Senate in 2010 — imagine a 57 to 43 Democratic advantage.  That is still a heafty party majority, and yet unless it clears the way to a sort of “‘Moderate’ Republican” some cover for the same sometimes unremarkable policies that doesn’t exist right now with the Democrats whose being is marked by a definition of “bipartisan”, it becomes more gridlocking.  These are due to, I would suggest in part, the thought process of Harry Reid, as well what a Barack Obama imagines he wants to engage with.  At the moment I’d almost want this thing to be scuttled and a small bore bill of three relatively tepid by tangible reforms to fall into place as a “Health Insurance”

OR is the pressure point looking something like?:

Now, granted the people shouting out that he should have called for “Single Payer” than compromised from there miss the fact that, in American politics sucha program would have been a non-starter and written off from the get-go by the mass of American politicians and “opinion-makers”.  But what needed to be done was for the president to start with somet

There was an impression and label for Obama, contradicting the “Audacity of Hope” “Fierce Urgency of Now”, which followed through the campaign.  Obama is “Cool” and “Collect”.  It garnered him a good slice of the electorate for a small “c” conservative outlook looking for a line of “Stability”, and the appeal lied in the man looking past petty politial contrivances.  This came with the claim to “watch the campaign” to see how he would govern.  It came against a Hillary Clinton, liable to take a wild swing in concocting stories about Bosnian Snipers, and against a John McCain, liable to select a very odd running mate or to bolt during an economic emergency.  The problem with this is it makes for a President unwilling to “rock the boat”, and we see it with acceptance of the status quo and unremarkable allowances to the Banking Industry in getting the Economy Running again — no heads are going to crack.  The irony is that the Lou Pritchett style opponents (worrying that at the end of a second Obama term the man will have effectively silenced the usual suspects of talk radio and menacingly enough destroyed his ability to mass viral forward this email message) seized upon a line about “remaking America” — and he was by his campaign type temperamentally not apt to do such a thing even when called for.  We can brush up the charges leveled against President Eisenhower, except with that chorus of boos along the lines of the most fervent haters of President Roosevelt threw out.

Rudy Giuliani is not going to run for New York governor.  The word on the street is that he is taking a run at the Senate, and the further word on the street is that he is going to use the Seat as a springboard for a 2012 Presidential run.

Or, more exactly, he is going to use the Senate campaign and a Senate campaign victory as a springboard for a presidential run.  For the life of me I don’t know if a victory is necessary for the plan, or if he could just go from a losing senate campaign to a presidential bid.  The good news is that he would be running for the two year remainder of Kirsten Gilibrand’s appointed Senate seat, so there would be no purpose in running for re-election from that post (unless he were planning a 2016 bid.)  As Giuliani would be spending his Senate term running those Presidential hurdles — I suppose this time out making sure to try to win New Hampshire — he’d sort of have those two years of Senate experience in vacancy.

Say what you will about Obama, but when he won the Senate in Illinois in 2004, the voters were voting for a new Senator, not a presidential candidate, and he wandered into the Senate at least long enough to get a campaign booster or two — a Coburn Obama Transparency Act to wield on the campaign.  New Yorkers would best view a Giuliani Senate bid as elecing a passage-way for a Giuliani Presidential bid, akin to what Hillary Clinton’s 2006 re-election bid was, save she had a full term behind her and would have four years of a Senate seat ahead of her should she fail to be elected.

It is a strange prize, and a strange thing to ask the state electorate to vote for.  New Yorkers would be electing Giuliani into a “Temporal Vacuum”.  At the moment, Giuliani leads in the polls, but I suspect this will fade in the campaign season — Kirsten Gilibrand has relatively low name recognition in the polls, and Giuliani would be expecting a split election for Cuomo to the governorship (probably), Charles Schumer for another term as Senior Senator, and him as Temporal Vacuum.

 This sort of tangential review of the new biography out on the presidency of James K Polk is all good and well — the point made about getting away from some political fighting for his grand accomplishments by limiting himself to his one term — except I am stuck at this line.:

A one-term limit is by no means a guarantee of presidential boldness or success; the only other chief executive to enter office with a promise similar to Polk’s was Rutherford B. Hayes, one of our worst presidents ever.

Wait.  I suppose modern opinion holds Rutherford B Hayes as a bad presidency due to the election of 1876 getting defined as the defacto end of Reconstruction, the reason the preceeding Ullysses Grant administration has risen in the Presidential Rankings Sweepstakes.  Check out the graph for that effect .  But, as you can see, his last ranking was 33rd — a small fall from his previous place in the 20s, complying with our evolving understanding of American history, but at any rate far enough up the list to not get the label “one of our worst presidents ever”.

I want Tim Murphy’s explanation as to where he goes off calling Rutherford Hayes one of the worst!

To be fair, there are four presidents I go blank on, and if someone were to ask me to describe the tenor and accomplishments and failures of their administration (in broad brushes, mind you), I’d go blank.  Hayes is one of them.  I’ll leave you go guess the other three names I have in mind.

Regarding Polk and his successful work of a single term: it is remarkable to go through the Democratic Party nominees post Jackson, post Van Buren.  1844: Polk, dark horse.  1848: Lewis Cass, a significant splinter group lead by Van Buren did him in.  1852: Franklin Pierce, was old and harkened the country to earlier less tumultous times in a nation that felt itself falling apart.  1856: James Buchanan: was acceptable to all the party factions due to the fact that he had been out of the country for the previous four years.  The only way for him to be successful is to have pulled away from the recriminations of his party’s (and countries) sectional battles over slavery, and the would be presidents’ desire to appease and amoelerate all sides.

To review.

The staff of the Jon Stewart Show caught Sean Hannity in heading back to the “9/12 Rally” for more impressive footage than was available for the Michelle Bachman organized “Super” Protest.  See here.  Sean Hannity “apologized”, with one snark-laced caveat of “Thanks for watching.”  Inevitable sketch followed, with his teddy bear committing suicide enduring watching the Hannity program.

There are two “Cable News” crap fests of out of context video and photographic footage worth mentioning, regarding Ms. Palin.  Fox News continues the inflated crowds tact of using old footage in showing the large crowds for Sarah Palin.   And MSNBC disgraced themselves similarly, as the current media watchdog du jour of the Jon Stewart Show points toward, with a discussion of a group of those obviously photoshopped Sarah Palin photographs that were swirling around last year (go to 2:08).
But watching that MSNBC flub reminds me to point out one  odd reality of the “Cable News networks”:  as much as I feel compelled to knock everybody from Hannity to Chris Matthews, from O’Rielly to — yes, even Keith Olbermann — and this weird world of partisan political infotainment (the only thing I recommend on the bunch of them is Rachel Maddow) (and, just as aside, you know — there is more actual news going on than these partisan politics) — what is aired in the daytime is ever more insipid and vapid in its inside the beltway tusslings.  But those hours probably only exist as a bridge toward those evening (niche-audience approved) line-ups anyways.

National Review, 11-23,

-   BP “Beyond Petroleum”
-  Mansanto “How can we squeeze more food from a raindrop?” — extra close image of drop of rain falling from blade of grass

-  Energy Citizens, bearded man in hard hat, looking upward and on, “2 Million Jobs Lost”
-  Rosetta Stone — Stauer Diamond — Bose Radio — Lessons from “The Teaching Company” — US Silver Company — Jitterbug Phone  — First Street Power Lamp “For Boomers and Beyond”  — Neptune Upright Bath Lift.  — Cenesenics “How does this 51 year old Neurosurgeon look so good under his scrubs?”
-  1/2 page “Rendezvous With Destiny” book about 1976 Reagan Campaign, with a new foreward by George W Bush (weeee!)
-  Either a $4.97 deal for Sarah Palin’s new book with free trial subscription to Newsmax, or $4.97 deal for trial subscription to Newsmax with free Sarah Palin book
-  1/2 page “Christiandom College” promising you can “Breath Catholic”
-  1/2 page Thomas Acquinas College
– 1/2 page National Debt Big red 16 ditig calculator
-  You too can get voices from the National Review over the phone
-  FLAME, Israeli group
-  1/4 page ad “Where Keynes Went Wrong”
-  Riverboat Cruise Portagal to Spain
– Mortgage Bankers Association
………………………………………………………………..

New Republic, 11-14

America Future Fund
National Association for Home Care and Hospice
Biotechnology Industry Organization
“Fill the Cup” World Food Programme (4 African boys looking upward at a camera, words spell out “HOPE”, the only kid with any food is the “O” who has a bowl of sou.)
1/3 page Herblock Collection
1/6 page “Where Keynes Went Wrong”
FLAME
Phrma (moon shot and “We can Cure Cancer”

National Review continues its mix of corporate advocacy groups, conservative movement doodads, things for staid hobbyists, and goods for old people.  The New Republic has a few ads which can be transferred to the National Review, though the corporate lobbyist groups tend to have a “Green Wash”ing sheen that is not necessary for the National Review audience.

The ad in the National Review with the most current resonance is the Newsmax — Sarah Palin deal.  Just $4.97 for the book and four issues of Newsmax.  What a Deal!

The relevant ad for your consideration in the New Republic is that giant rhaspberry from “America Future Fund”, showing 36 Congress Members who were the “Losers of 1994”, with the rejoinder at the end of a comparison between now and then (citizens rose up at town hall meetings) and the final rejoinder “Keep it up Liberals.  You have nothing to lose but your majorities.”  It is interesting to note quite a few of these Congress members resurfaced quite easily — Jay Inslee and Maria Cantwell pop up at me due to my geography.  I suppose this is reaching the elite opinion makers of, say, the staff of Blanche Lincoln — the same type who were in 1994 reading The New Republic article “No Exit” by Betsy Mccaughey under the watchful editorship of Andrew Sullivan.

In her hour-long interview with Sean Hannity last night, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin finally answered that infamous question Katie Couric asked more than a year ago: What newspapers do you read?

As she told Hannity, she reads Newsmax, the Wall Street Journal, her hometown Wasilla paper the Frontiersman, and “everything online.”
AND

On Tuesday, Palin took time out from her hectic schedule to chat exclusively with Newsmax about her new book, “Going Rogue: An American Life,” and offer her take on the current political scene.

But, before the interview could even begin, Palin excitedly offered her unsolicited opinion on Newsmax.

“Thank you so much for your daily updates,” she said, adding, “If it weren’t for Newsmax, there’d be a lot of us wondering what the heck was going on that day.”

But Palin couldn’t contain her praise for Newsmax.

She continued: “It is very valuable, very helpful, and I appreciate all that you guys are doing to get a good message out there.”

When last you heard from Newsmax, it was running an article advocating a military coup against President Obama.

It could be worse.  When we find out she places on her car the  bumper sticker that is sweeping America, call me back:

There’s a new slogan making its way onto car bumpers and across the Internet. It reads simply: “Pray for Obama: Psalm 109:8”

A nice sentiment?

Maybe not.

The psalm reads, “Let his days be few; and let another take his office.”

Presidential criticism through witty slogans is nothing new. Bumper stickers, t-shirts, and hats with “1/20/09” commemorated President Bush’s last day in office.

But the verse immediately following the psalm referenced is a bit more ominous: “Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.”

It might be worth noting too that this was the top ad on the Drudge Report yesterday.

The controversial Newsweek magazine cover, the repost of the Runners’ World Cover, which Sarah Palin is in a huff about.  For what it is worth, I’d prefer the magazine have not gone with that one — the equivalent is something like having the shirtless Obama Beach photograph as the cover, though I don’t think it is all that much offense with it, and I would not put it past them to have such a cover for a feature on — I don’t know, the imaging of the President.

But Palin is in no position to complain.  Here’s the syndrome she has benefitted from:

During the panel, Mattera took the David and Goliath metaphor another perverse step: If conservatives (David) smite liberals (Goliath), they will be rewarded with the hot conservative women, just like King Saul promised his daughter to the warrior who slew the evil giant. “You know his daughter must have been beautiful because there’s no guy whose gonna die for an ugly girl,” Mattera chortled. “Our women are hot. We have Michelle Malkin. Who does the left have, Rachel Maddow? Sorry, I prefer that my women not look like dudes.”

To her credit, Palin kept herself from posing for the “Women of the Conservative Movement” calendar.  But we have seen prominent bloviators and friendly pundits claim Palin as annoying “the Left” because she’s the first “fertile” female politician to reach her heights.

Meanwhile, Palin gave the “conern trolling” about Levi Johnston, worried about the direction he is taking.  I can’t say that as of yet.  A pretty good sign is that he did not go fully naked in his Playgirl shoot.  My thought on Johnston is that forced into the spotlight against his will, forced into the shotgun marriage and into Sarah Palin’s campaign narrative, he’s now cashing in on his 15 minutes of fame.  Whether this is a “bad direction” depends entirely on whether Levi Johnston is aware or blind to the ending of his 15 minutes, and is prepping himself for the post-limelight when he can return fully back to the Real World.  If he is aware, this was the greatest opportunity he could ever have had, theoretically the same would go for his child.