In the latest wikipedia editing wars, we have a couple of new Larouche sock puppets.  Keinehexan, who I guess is actually an old sock puppet who had to add an “n”, and who apparently has a desire to violate some wikipedia protocol and good manners:

Do not post what you believe to be a real name of a Wikipedia editor who uses a pseudonym. If you do so again your account may be blocked.   Will Beback  talk  02:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I don’t know the back-story here.  As a rule the identities of the Larouchian sock puppets are of some interest to me (though not so much names as role in the org) because it is a coordinated propaganda offensive.  The identities of wikipedia editors, by dent of being editors have earned their chops and also proven them into that relatively insane and uber-dedicated “Wiki Core”.

The current debate at wikipedia seen here show the attempt to slice the names “Jeremiah Duggan” and “Ken Kronberg” out of the article on “Lyndon Larouche”, in this case to sideline them to “Larouche Movement” — where, presumably, the Larouche Movement would swamp them with, for instance, the current on Russian television and Italian Parliament non-victories.  It appears they desire to do away with Kronberg in its entirety:

Color Me Mauve:  The other thing I would mention, having looked over the two articles (Duggan and Kronberg,) is that the Kronberg case got almost no press coverage, only a couple of minor papers

I am actually a little bit surprised that I haven’t seen two or three contrarian-wise eulogies to Paul Harvey — not fuzzy and warm memories but with some acid commentary that Paul Harvey was a bit of a cancer on our national discourse.

I’m pretty sure you could line up comments through the years that if spoken by a different figure would have, say, media matters compiling a long almost daily list.  Paul Harvey wasn’t apolitical, but he was non or a-partisan, and attach that with his non-threatening homesy delivery and his having long pre-dated the “Rise of Conservative Talk Radio” with Rush, and he pretty well flew under the radar for your “Liberal Watch Dog”s.  Also, his politics was basically regarded as having a sort of “Get off My Lawn!”  inconsequential tone.  So, looking at Media Matters, your “Paul Harvey” list seems to start and stop here.

This is why over the past few years, it has been a bit jarring to see anytime liberal blogosphere grabbed a hold of some Paul Harvey comments, in the same way they do on a more regular basis for Bill O’Reilly or Rush Limbaugh.  It’s happened a few times, and my sense is that these moments have added up and are the reason that Thom Hartmann says that “Paul Harvey became increasingly right-wing in the last five/ten/fifteen years” — a statement that is patently false and seems based on that brief compilation of material against a warm and fuzzy understanding of the man.  Reading “The Farther Shores of Politics”, published in 1968, I note that Paul Harvey’s commentary seemed to provide some easy material to fill out various long-gone publications which were full of anti-communism hysteria and John Birchite anti-fluoridation campaign material.  (And he popped into Reader’s Digests — a magazine that actually was probably roughly the equivalent of a a Paul Harvey News Hour.)  The bit of commentary (plucked from the radio, I’m thinking) was of that type of “Good old common sensical” diatribe against evils of taxes or trade unions and that sort of thing.

There is this Paul Harvey affectation that I like and that I have tucked away for use in conversing:  the phrase “For what it is worth.”  But the thing about “for what it is worth” is that whenever Paul Harvey (or his son) used it, what followed was almost certainly a lie or untruth, an urban legend tailor-made from and for the biases of the parochial-minded elder-tilting listenership.  When I referenced Paul Harvey as being a name inserted into email chain messages a few days’ ago, it occured to me that Paul Harvey is actually a pre-Internet pioneer of the Email Chain Message.  Fact checking that type of thing would be a pain for those media-matters types, so I guess that is just as well.  FAIR picked up a few, as well noted this bit of commentary.  (And “This bit of commentary” probably was more plentiful than anyone would care to note.)   The response at the end of the first FAIR link shows the precariousness of that situation:  “Paul Harvey don’t care.”

Well, as they say, GOOD DAY!

While the whole of the chattering classes and the whole of the blogging bloviaters disseminate through the mess of Rush Limbaugh versus Michael Steele, Michael Steele asserting that he is the de-factor leader of the Republican Party and then back-tracking to grovel at Rush Limbaugh…

… and if I may put in what might be an unlikely defense of Rush Limabugh in terms of the quotation that’s not the heart of the controversy but at the bottom of the controversy — “I hope he fails“  — I don’t particularly see anything wrong with it and don’t want to be in the position of thinking a policy goal from a policy maker is doomed and asked “What?  Are you rooting for failure?”  (See Iraq War.)
And opinion #2 in that spat:  Michael Steele should have provided a more politically-crafted and weasley non-answer.

… but while everyone’s dealing with that one, this weekend’s New York Times Magazine article on another concurrent “leader” of a Republican Party is being unfairly sidelined.  The Republican Party is lead at once by Rush Limbaugh, certainly, Michael Steele is somewhere in the Top 20, but up there too?  Newt Gingrich is Back, Baby!  I have to wonder about the gradiosity of this NY Times Magazine writer:

In unmarked office suites scattered across separate floors, some 35 employees divide their duties among a consulting group, two insurgent policy centers, a documentary-film production company and a public-relations firm with only one client. That client would be the man who sits atop this emerging center of opposition, the once-defeated revolutionary who, like Che or Tito, is best known by a single name: Newt.

Purple Prose aside, NEWT is here cast the “Idea Man” for the party, who “delivers 10 ideas in an hour” to all the Republicans who contact him.  And what Ideas they are!

There’s not really any unified, easily distillable argument in these and other proposals, no ideology that might be charted on a continuum and labeled accordingly. Rather, the new-model Newt seems to be pursuing a ruthlessly responsive, almost-wikified brand of politics. His goal is to turn the Republicans into what he calls a “party of the American people” by linking disparate solutions whose only real relationship to one another is that they demonstrate, in surveys, what he calls “tripartisan” appeal — the broad support of Republicans, Democrats and independents. Gingrich told me he has identified about 100 ideas and positions that command anywhere from 62 percent to 93 percent support among such a cross-section of voters: giving out tax credits for installing alternative heating sources in your home (90 percent); awarding cash prizes to anyone who invents a car that gets 100 miles to the gallon (77 percent); keeping God in the Pledge of Allegiance (88 percent). Gingrich’s vision — much more Clintonian than Reaganite — is to use targeted initiatives to create a kind of mechanized compatibility with the masses.

Tax Credits to encourage alternative energy is all good and well; when John McCain proposed the prize idea it was rightly derided as a gimmick, and as much as I fear the symbolic ventures into Culture Wars wedging up the electorate I do have to wonder about the saliency of Keeping God in the Pledge of Allegience.  But I guess these are #1s through #3s for the next “Contract for America”.  Item #4 for this next “Contract America” is getting more airplanes in the sky at any given moment.:

At our first meeting in November, Gingrich laid out for me his latest preoccupation, which, surprisingly, had nothing to do with stimulus or banking. “One of the projects I’m going to launch — we don’t have a name for it yet — is an air-traffic modernization project,” Gingrich told me excitedly. “You can do a space-based air-traffic-control system with half the current number of air-traffic controllers, increase the amount of air traffic in the northeast by 40 percent, allow point-to-point flights without the controllers having to have highways in the sky, and reduce the amount of aviation fuel by 10 percent. So it’s better for the environment, better for the economy. You have far fewer delays in New York, and by the way, you cut the number of unionized air-traffic controllers by 7,000.
“Our thematic is going to be — you’re going to love this — that if you have an air-traffic delay that’s not caused by weather, take the extra time at the airport and call your two senators and your congressman and demand they pass the modernization act,” Gingrich enthused. “Now, notice what I’m doing,” he said, leaning back and smiling. “I’m offering you a better value.”

Skip forward to items of comparison for the Democrats “In the Wilderness”:

I SPENT A LOT OF TIME reporting on the world of progressive politics after the 2004 election, and it’s hard to miss the nearly perfect symmetry between that Democratic moment and the one Republicans find themselves confronting today. Like Democrats after John Kerry’s defeat, Republicans now whine about their failed strategists or their flawed candidate or a media that refuses to expose the obvious deficiency of their opponents. The Democratic establishment in 2005 was under assault from online activists who demanded that the party modernize its message and appeal to voters in all 50 states; now conservative blogs like The Next Right and The New Majority are making the exact same argument daily. Wealthy Democrats got behind a policy group called the Center for American Progress because, they said, the left had no intellectual or rapid response “infrastructure” to compete with the likes of Heritage and Cato. It’s almost comical, then, to hear senior Republicans complain now that none of their policy groups have the capacity to compete with a liberal behemoth like the Center for American Progress.

Differences abound, of course.  There might have been a spurt of this or that Democrat in this or that Conservative district being demaned to say whether they agree with Michael Moore, and there was a Senate resolution passed about moveon,org.

I’m not going to take the concluding statements on Newt Gingirch’s Presidential ambitions too seriously — and Gingrich seems to know himself that even as he desires it he’s unlikely to get there:    — —- —- “I think I’m closer to Benjamin Franklin than to George Washington,” Gingrich told me. “I’m a contributor to my country and to my times. If it turns out that there’s a moment when it makes sense to run, then I’ll run. But if I end up never being able to run, then it won’t devastate me.” —- —- —-  Mitt Romney is sort of the defacto default Presidential Candidate, I guess the key figure — along with Sarah Palin – for what’s tended to be called the “Presidential Wing” of a political party, prepping for 2012.  Then he becomes, I guess, the Leader of the Party.  But for the moment… Newt and Rush.

(Note:  Title came from David Letterman in an interview with Katie Couric that riffed on Rush Limbaugh.  Google it.)

I wondered if wikipedia was keeping a break-neck pace with the developments of the 2010 Kentucky US Senate race — tied with the situation in Illinois as most dysfunctional item of political theater.

The answer has gone from no to yes.  The opening states the situation in a broad outline —

Incumbent senator Jim Bunning was re-elected with 51% of the vote in 2004. He announced his intention to run again, and says he will need to raise $10 million for his reelection.^[1] In 2010, Bunning will be 79 years old. National Republican Senatorial Committee chairman John Cornyn is pressuring Bunning to retire due to fears he could lose a reelection bid.^[2] Despite this, Bunning has reiterated that he is running for reelection.[3]

 some more details are found within the “Possible Candidates” section:

Kentucky State Senate President David Williams is likely to run for the seat whether or not Bunning does,^[6] as he is being actively recruited by the NRSC.^[7] This has resulted in a threat from Bunning to sue the NRSC and any potential Republican challengers,^[8][9] and a threat to resign, which would allow Democratic Governor Steve Beshear to appoint his replacement.[10]

A bit more background on why Jim Bunning is getting bum-rushed by his party: He’s Senile, and was increasingly erratic in that 2004 bid where he barely edged out Generic Unknown Democrat off of the coat-tails of a National Presidential campaign.

But the other two “Possible Candidates” are pretty interesting.  Tim Couch.  Is Kentucky ready to trade in a Hall of Fame Baseball Player for a failed NFL Quarterback?  The other “Possible Candidate”?

Apparently Ron Paul’s son lives in Kentucky.  And, like father like son, looks to be considering a career in politics (though only if Bunning doesn’t run).  I’m sure that would bring out the Ron Paul Republican Supporters in droves.  Ron Paul’s son’s name?

Rand Paul.
Rand Paul.
I said Ron Paul (and wife) named their son “Rand Paul.”

That’s a two-fer there.  Not only did Ron Paul name his son something that approximated his own name but he also put in the name of one of his ideological idols — Ayn Rand.

Is Rand Paul’s younger brother John Galt Ron?  Did Rand Paul’s conception take place with the Rush “2112” concept album blaring in the background, happening sometime in the seventh minute of hte opening clatter in “The Temples of Syrinx”, just before the belting out out of “We are the priests!  Of the Temples!  Of Syrinx!”

No, really.  Ron Paul named his son Rand Paul.

Sheesh.

In other news of the parties building up for the 2010 Senate campaign, historic Jeopardy conteststant Ken Jennings responds to having his name inserted into a poll.

Apparently Utah is such a red state that all you have to do there is not register as a Republican (I’m pretty sure I declared no party affiliation last time I registered there) and national polls will start running your name up the flagpole. I don’t even live in the state anymore and I’m still the second-most attractive candidate! […]

I don’t know if Kos knows this, but it is true that I fielded some phone calls from Senate party leaders in 2005, wondering if I’d want to run for Orrin Hatch’s seat. Why not? You were on a game show! I thought this was a pretty sad sign for American democracy, but did think it would be funny if I ran. I could announce, not on Larry King or Meet the Press, but on Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader? I’d hate campaigning, but just try to stump me with questions about world capitals or the last books I read, Katie Couric!

I honestly can’t tell if Kennings is kidding about being contacted, but it wouldn’t be entirely surprising.  It appears that there are three Democrats in the state of Utah:  Jim Matheson, former Salt Lake mayor Rocky Anderson, and this guy Pete Ashdown.  Matheson is one of the more conservative congressional Democrats, and I imagine the only way some less conservative Democrat would be sent to Washington is if the electoral map were drawn to have a district encircle Salt Lake City instead of how the Republicans in the state have crafted it for their advantage of slicing the city evenly.  Hence Rocky Anderson ended with his stint at Mayor, and that’s as far as he is going.  Pete Ashdown’s campaign made the cover of Wired and was endorsed by boing boing, but for some reason that great “Boing Boing” endorsement was not enough to persuade the state of Utah to push aside Orrin Hatch.  At any rate, Ashdown is coming off of a bruising imaginary governor’s race :

— so there’s nowhere else to turn.

I.  Molly Kronberg on the org’s history of Forced Abortions.
  A.  an aside from old-time ex-members at factnet:  The SWP had a similar policy.  But they’re less hypocritical since they did not take that “pro-life” stance the Larouche org took during the 70s on into the 90s.  But hypocrisy remains, because “pro-choice” indicates the choice of the individual and not a central committee.  Glad to clear that up, that matter of degress of hypocrisy in 60s organizations emitted from out of the 1960s New Left. 
  B.  Two is a trend.  Molly Kronberg has been cited again, publically, in reference to criminal proceedings against a corrupt politician — this time being Ted Stevens.  I now contemplate what item of news that the L-PAC site picks up where Molly Kronberg will be referenced as part of mentioning Larouche’s criminal conviction.  Will it be in defense of another corrupt politician (Blagojevich?  Burris?  Chuck Turner in Boston?) ?  Or will it be a defeat of a HBPA measure in another municipality / state-house?
       1.  An interesting possibility for that one:  Sacramento.  Sure, there’s no mention of Larouche’s criminal conviction, but that shouldn’t be enough to stop the presumption that it was defeated because of scurrious slurs from the hands of Molly Kronberg.
           — Money quote exchange from Sacramento:
The really really freaky thing was a little exchange at the end, after supervisor Roger Dickinson explained that the Board wouldn‘t be taking immediate action on the LaRouche resolution.
LaRouchie: Do you all have cards I can get?
Dickinson: I‘m sure we all have cards you can have.
LaRouchie: You are more than me. But I will surround all of you, with your cards.
Dickinson: Hehe. Ok, thanks.

II.  Wayne Madsen has published an item, which has been picked up some Arab Press, which alleges that the state of Israel is planning on colonizing large portions of Iraq.
   A.  You have never heard of Wayne Madsen, probably, but have quite likely heard of one of his rumor/chestnuts:  President George W Bush is having an affair with Condollezza Rice, an item that saw its first printed publication in a British tabloid.
        1.  This one has held a greater hold in that “You never know / could be” section of public’s imagination that the never-ending calvacade you see in the sub-National Enquirer tabloids of photo-shopped women next to the President with a choice photograph of an expecially miffed First Lady biting her lips.
   B.  Upon seeing the “Israel wants Iraq” story, my thought was “There is a 100 percent chance that Larouche has played up one of Madsen’s more spurious claims.”
       1.  Rolling into  last summer’s Russian Government love-fest, L-PAC played up this Wayne Madsen item disclaiming Russia as the source for the poisoning of Alexandar Litvinvenko, and placing it on the British(and Israel and etc.) in an act of sabotauge against Russia.   It was a release that stood out to me amongst all the other crap I “scanned” (ahem) past, and responded with one giant “Oh!  Come on!”
     2.  I reference, unfortunately one source over because this is what I can find with immediacy, a post which originally was placed onto the website of the conservative / right-wing “Accuracy in Media” website which cites Larouche’s usage of Wayne Madsen as source material.
         a.  AIM was last seen at the CPAC Conference, charging up the “Obama’s fake birth certificate” storyline, which would have put them in league with Larouche in the Spring and Summer of 08, but now aligns them with Webster Tarpley.
            —   Referred to round about here by the Resident Larouchie as perhaps still associated with Larouche (in a weird argument against comments from Larouche) and referenced here as “a nutter”.
       b.  a rather dubious “Guilt by Association” example from AIM happened with the headline “AARP, Larouche Private Social Security Accounts”, a headline reported by me here.  Indicative of both the Larouche Organization’s desire in associating as the primary focal point to opposition to that deservably attacked policy goal, and AIM’s desire of associating the two.
     3.  Wayne Madsen has been banned from user citation at the partisan website “Democratic Underground”.  Probably just like Larouche I am betting, though that one may be more self-correcting in immediate response.  It is evident that dailykos deletes Larouche sources with imediacy — I have seen the ghosts of such postings (indeed, have posted the ghostly remains of such posts), as is the site’s stated policy of ripping away all 9/11 Truth posts.
            b.  That being said, here’s a list of some fairly respectable outlets Madsen appears in, as well not-so-respectable outlets.  Unlike, say, Lyndon Larouche, though like … um… Robert Dreyfuss.
      4.  Herein lies what damaging power the Larouche Organization has externally.  The HBPA Resolutions and handful of members of the Italian Parliament referencing “Larouche” admist a broader handful of Italian Politicos  calling for a “New Bretton Woods” (like calling for a “New New Deal”) really only factor to the org as an internal pressure — giving its membership the eternal illusion that “Things are Snow-balling”.  But the work of, for instance, propping up disinformationational conspiracy — in the case of the source of the poisoning of Litvinvenko in a play to Russia’s burgeoning nationalism– obscures the world picture.
               a.  Or, in this phraseology, “Disinformation Systems Redux or still Uber Alles”?

III. Perhaps a tap on the shoulders to that New Republic blogger who was doing a series of focuses on Robert Dreyfuss, here’s the first paragraphs of a classic piece Dreyfuss wrote for the Larouche Organization, rolling into a “pro” stance on the matter of Jesus Christ:
    A.  The epic battle, lasting three centuries, that resulted in the defeat of the Roman Empire by the fledgling Judeo-Christian movement was a struggle for the survival of the human race itself. The establishment of the Christian tradition, victorious at the famous Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, was the result of a well-organized and self-conscious conspiracy. The artitects of the Christian movement, led at the start by Philo Judaeus of Alexandria and Jesus of Nazareth, viewed themselves as the founders of a new world order. Amid the collapse and degradataion of Roman immorality, the power of the Christian idea slowly won a widespread following among philosophers, the nobility, merchants and traders, skilled craftsmen, and the elite of the Mediterranean world.

Christianity emerged at a time when the entire known world was perched at the brink of utter barbarism. The masses of the empire were caught up in the spell of ancient eastern cults and mystery religions, whose evil priests and priestesses exercised virtual control over the day-to-day life of the emperor and the peasant alike. The alliance between the emperor, the cults, and the Roman army had created a cannibalistic monster whose insatiable demand for loot by conquest and taxation had plunged the world into a cycle of plague and famine.
           1.  Huh.

IV.  Garlic to Vampires.

   A.  Like so:   The man is NOT the crazy person he has been made out to be by those in power who cannot allow this man to tell the truth about what is happening to this country and the world.

V.  Erica Duggan expressed her frustration to the British and German Legal Process here.
   A.  A rebuttal, such as it is, from this blog’s “Resident Larouchie” is found here. 
       1.  The line of Sympathy was rather belated, and it is necessary to note that what is spoken of in terms of “political manipulators” are the names Dick Cheney and John Train and … and all of Larouche’s Enemies circa 2004.
      2.  I have more than once said that I doubt the legal process will end with any great satisfaction, but the pursuit is important and noble and has resulted in the important connection between the Larouche Organization and the untimely death of Jeremiah Duggan being readily available to this generation of supposed potential recruits.
           a.  Now kind of second only in the public’s mind to the Prison Sentence the Larouche Organization seems incessant on bringing up these days.  Refer to the KPOJ Political Button Guess, and in answer to revenire the “Green Party” label was jumped over because the “Prison Sentence” brought the name “Larouche” to mind.  Next thought in the general public’s mind I can reference the other time Larouche was a guess on this radio call-in-game, the answer of “Harold Stassen” to the clue of “was a frequent presidential candidate”.

VI.  I think I promised some item or other on Oskar Peterlini?
    A.  Oh well.  ‘Tis the “Huge in Europe!” syndrome which plagues many an obscure band.
    B.  From L-PAC:  A three-hour debate on the global financial crisis was opened in the Italian Senate yesterday by Sen. Oskar Peterlini, who forcefully reminded those present of the role of Lyndon LaRouche in forecasting the crisis and his New Bretton Woods solution. Peterlini’s arguments were unchallenged in the debate, but in order not to be defeated in the vote, he was forced to weaken decisively the text of his resolution. Thus, the final text–and of four other resolutions, voted up by the Senate on the same subject–is ironically weaker, and even contrary to what Economy Minister Giulio Tremonti says every second day publicly: “That’s parliamentary systems, baby!”
            1.  Really, you gotta love the fractious Italian Parliamentarian System, as mocked in today’s Get Fuzzy, panel #5.
           2.  A note of comparison to the only locality’s news report that I have seen which found the passage of a HBPA act in a manner that happily aligns with the Larouche Organization:  Hazelton, Pennsylvania — that town appears to embody everything conjured up when one hear’s the phrase “Rust Belt.”
                a.  The Org’s Gambit as they’ve forecasted beyond the hilt all 40 of the last two Recessions, but in this Org’s case it has always been a case of mimicry more than moving any Mass Movement, hence the phrase “Small time [fill the blank].”
                b.  Hazelton, Pennsylvania’s mayor received the endorsement of David Duke for her nativist stances on Immigration, for instance.  I suppose this is where Obama plucked up that “bitter, clings to guns and religions” comment, and Jack Murtha referenced “racist district, you can say.” 
                 — Ironically and incidentally, the Perpetual Economic Blight of some areas explains why some numbers of black local legislators will pass these meaningless resolutions.  Eric Fleming former state representative in Mississippi, for instance, endorsed Larouche and ended his political career.  (Unless he ended it by running for US Senate in the most racially polarized state in the nation.)
      C.  Interesting to note Peterlini’s profound disagreement with Larouche on the matter of China and Tibet.

And… I’m out!

A problem with this “New Scientist article“:

After controlling for differences in broadband internet access between states – online porn tends to be a bandwidth hog – and adjusting for population, he found a relatively small difference between states with the most adult purchases and those with the fewest.

The biggest consumer, Utah, averaged 5.47 adult content subscriptions per 1000 home broadband users; Montana bought the least with 1.92 per 1000. “The differences here are not so stark,” Edelman says.

You want to know why Utah is the biggest consumer of Online Porn?
Because Utah is the biggest haven of Blue Laws that greatly reduce offline porn.  There was recently, in Utah, a Porn Czar, whose job it was to watch all the pornography coming into the state and slash away what parts of the porn fall outside their standards of acceptable indecency.

Hence, where else can Utahans go to get their fix of [fill in references to multiples and to penetrations and whatnot] but the Internet?

There’s a great muddle between #10 and #41 — blurring the supposed “Blue State / Red State” focus of this article, and at the bottom lies Montana, which I don’t have any good explanation for.  At any rate, the great cry out I see from the Liberal denziens “Ha!  Those ‘godly’ Conservative Hypocrites!” , as well explanation from the first comments on this article Might it not be the frustrated liberals in their midst who turn to porn to console themselves? and from there… are off base and beside the point.

As with many things for anyone in my generation, the point of reference for Paul Harvey comes from an episode of The Simpsons.

That’s my boy Homer singing.
– Eh, Paul Harvey’s on.
– Ooh!
And that little boy who nobody liked grew up to be…
-Roy Cohn
– [Both] Wow!
And now you know the rest of the story.

Paul Harvey, writer of a thousand Reader’s Digest commentaries positing good ol’ Midwestern Values against- say- taxes, news source for any small-bore mall or store in America which puts the Unruly Youth in their place, and a place-name that can be inserted as the original source for any homely forwarded email, whether or not he really did write about that thing citing statsitics on how everything in America went to Hell after Prayer was taken out of our public schools.

So, my family is driving through the Mountain West, en route to Nebraska probably (relatives) — round about 1994.  My oldest sister and my mom in one car, my brother and father and I in the other car.  We pull over at a rest-stop, where my sister informs us that “Hey.  Paul Harvey’s on!”  (The universe is random.)  “What station?”  “93.7!”

Interesting.  93.7.  Paul Harvey is usually on AM stations.  Well, maybe they do it differently here in Cowboy Country, an adjunct part of the Heartland, than over there in the In-Land of a Coastal State (Which, I guess, strictly speaking, is also “Cowboy Country”).

We turn on the station, prepped for Paul Harvey.  And what we get is… Kiss’s “God Gave Rock and Roll to You.”  My sister just pulled a rather bizarre joke, didn’t she? 

Well, let the disseminating of the most odd or most offending Paul Harvey commentaries commence.

Watching this trailer for the Alex Jones fun-pack “The Obama Deception”, it occurs to me that these folks have set it up to track any time a politico says the words “World Order.”  I had always assumed that it was pegged at “New World Order”, but apparently the word “New” isn’t necessary.  A couple possibilities.  #1:  Obama has not used the words “New World Order” often enough, such that they have to settle for a “World Order”.  #2:  The NWO Oligarchs know just how big a taint the words “New World Order” have, and as such in conversing about such and such an international agreement are content to just use the words “World Order.”

More illuminating material from Jones: Just go ahead and skip the nazi documentary footage to :57 — it’s just your basic runof the mill Nazi Stormtroopers that is standard for this type of thing.  Jone’s performance here brings to my mind a Possibility #3:  World Wrestling Entertainment (formerly the WWF until the Panda-lovers sued for the acronym) has usurped the phrase “NWO”, and thus have to drop the “New”.