Sunday, September 03, 2006:
Lyndon Larouche is a US nationalist and Bircher of a sort (John Birch Society).
Larouche's points follow. Our comments are in straight brackets.
He says that French money-elite conspirators allowed the Nazis to have an opening to flank the French.
[There certainly was a major gap at their flank that was left open despite warnings. He also correctly points out that British and American banking and industrial interests had been backing and funding the Nazis' rise in Germany. Better the Nazis than the Communists was the idea. Winston Churchill even said so. It wasn't much of a choice: Hitler or Stalin. Which one was worse?]
What others things does Larouche put forth?
Truman didn't follow Roosevelt's plan for the United Nations. He used atomic weapons on Japan even after the Japanese emperor had indicated he was ready to surrender. The Japanese had said so through the Vatican. Truman ignored it.
[In other words, the bloody invasion of Japan that Truman claimed we avoided by using the bomb wouldn't have had to happen without using the bomb. He used it for other reasons. He used it in vengeance. He used it to show the world.]
European international bankers are leading the US to lose all of its industrial capacity.
[This thought is capital flight to places with extremely cheap labor and nearly devoid of environmental protection laws or worker rights.]
[Larouche is being nostalgic and nationalistic. We don't agree with slave wages or environmental degradation, etc. Neither do we want Larouche's dirty industries when there are better ways to raise the quality of life in harmony with the planet. Larouche doesn't care about being in harmony with God's natural creation. He's too much of a humanist of the atheistic kind for that.]
Globalism is about fascist empire.
The environmental movement is evil and stupid. Science and technology and industry are the answer. Nuclear energy is the answer.
Democracy is a problem. Representative, regulated, New Deal style programs are the best.
The Federal Reserve is bankrupt.
The banking system needs to be nationalized.
Humans are inherently good, just misled.
[He's not a Christian.]
[Didn't understand the antiestablishment movement of the 1960's or 70's at all.]
The DLC is neocon.
[Well, John F. Kennedy shared some of the neocon mentality but without the rabid false Zionism. Kennedy was a hawk to start.]
The Republican neocons really came out of the Democratic Party. They are expansionists. Now that the Republicans are sliding down, the neocons are pushing back into the Democratic Party to rev up its rhetoric that it can out neocon the Republicans.
[They are just going to do it with a little more Populism, party of the people, language.]
Also, with Labour sliding in the UK, the neocons are moving into the Tory Party for the same reason. They'll just jump parties now to keep the neocon fear mongering going full speed ahead if the people fall for it.
Of course, Larouche is correct to tie the creation of the Federal Reserve System in with the neocon agenda today. It's all about worldly wealth, power, control, and the stimulation of gaining those things for ego. He ties it in with the Round Table Group that he also points out is called "the Rhodes Trust, the Milner Kindergarten, and the Cliveden Set."
[This group really does create money out of thin air from private banks owned and operated by oligarchs who profit hugely by interest earnings and war profiteering with interlocking directorates and stock portfolios run by those with constant inside information.]
[Libertarian Ron Paul's take:]
The Pentagon recently reported that it now spends roughly $8.4 billion per month waging the war in Iraq, while the additional cost of our engagement in Afghanistan brings the monthly total to a staggering $10 billion. Since 2001, Congress has spent more than $500 billion on specific appropriations for Iraq. This sum is not reflected in official budget and deficit figures. Congress has funded the war by passing a series of so-called "supplemental" spending bills, which are passed outside of the normal appropriations process and thus deemed off-budget.
This is fundamentally dishonest: if we're going to have a war, let's face the costs— both human and economic— squarely. Congress has no business hiding the costs of war through accounting tricks.
As the war in Iraq surges forward, and the administration ponders military action against Iran, it's important to ask ourselves an overlooked question: Can we really afford it? If every American taxpayer had to submit an extra five or ten thousand dollars to the IRS this April to pay for the war, I'm quite certain it would end very quickly. The problem is that government finances war by borrowing and printing money, rather than presenting a bill directly in the form of higher taxes. When the costs are obscured, the question of whether any war is worth it becomes distorted.
Congress and the Federal Reserve Bank have a cozy, unspoken arrangement that makes war easier to finance. Congress has an insatiable appetite for new spending, but raising taxes is politically unpopular. The Federal Reserve, however, is happy to accommodate deficit spending by creating new money through the Treasury Department. In exchange, Congress leaves the Fed alone to operate free of pesky oversight and free of political scrutiny. Monetary policy is utterly ignored in Washington, even though the Federal Reserve system is a creation of Congress.
The result of this arrangement is inflation. And inflation finances war.
Economist Lawrence Parks has explained how the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank in 1913 made possible our involvement in World War I. Without the ability to create new money, the federal government never could have afforded the enormous mobilization of men and material. Prior to that, American wars were financed through taxes and borrowing, both of which have limits. But government printing presses, at least in theory, have no limits. That's why the money supply has nearly tripled just since 1990.
For perspective, consider our ongoing military commitment in Korea. In Korea alone, U.S. taxpayers have spent $1 trillion in today's dollars over 55 years. What do we have to show for it? North Korea is a belligerent adversary armed with nuclear weapons, while South Korea is at best ambivalent about our role as their protector. The stalemate stretches on with no end in sight, as the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the men who fought in Korea give little thought to what was gained or lost. The Korean conflict should serve as a cautionary tale against the open-ended military occupation of any region.
The $500 billion we've officially spent in Iraq is an enormous sum, but the real total is much higher, hidden within the Defense Department and foreign aid budgets. As we build permanent military bases and a $1 billion embassy in Iraq, we need to keep asking whether it's really worth it. Congress should at least fund the war in an honest way so the American people can judge for themselves.
The Project for the New American Century still has its website up as of Sunday, September 03, 2006, but it is apparently defunct—just a shell now. They're moving shop.
[It always happens when a name becomes the source of historical memory or continuity concerning the goals of a group whose evil has been exposed by it's fruit. Their goals haven't changed, just some of the immediate tactics, such as the name.]
Now there's the Henry Jackson Society in the UK.
[You can read about Jackson's connection to the whole false Zionist, neocon movement by checking the index of the main body of this work.]
[We don't agree with every position of Lyndon Larouche any more than we ever agreed with the John Birch Society's final conclusions or prescriptions. Nevertheless, that doesn't mean that everything they, Larouche or the Birchers, have said is wrong.]
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)