Executive Intelligence Review
This article appears in the July 19, 2013 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
A STUDY OF PERCUSSIVE INTERCOURSE:

How Silly Could Robert Hicks Be?

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

[PDF version of this article]

July 8, 2013


There Is a Principle Here

The question is: "Have you actually considered how many sad citizens there are out there, in certain parts of our republic, still today? I mean citizens who were caught up, even still today, by a certain implied complicity of conscience, in the nightmare world of the loutish U.S. President Andrew Jackson." If you wonder about those things, and have the stomach for it, you need but glance toward the weird world of the New York Times Op-Ed page this past July 3rd:

"Why?"

For any actually competent historians today, the brutish manner of Jackson as in his actions against the Indians generally, and in his specific frauds against the U.S. Constitution, had represented nothing as much as what was never other than the evils of some lurking, nightmare world. It was a nightmare-world which is still resonating in the spirit of the Andrew Jackson myth in some parts of our nation, today.

Actually Andrew Jackson had been, and remains, in fact, that same spirit of evil, a spirit who had been actually closely linked to our nation's principal enemy, exactly the same Anglo-Dutch empire and banking system which had played the leading role in the treasonous creation of the Confederacy and its war, a war which was, in fact, mustered for the British empire's explicitly expressed intention of destroying our United States. In the end, President Lincoln's greenbacks had been the weapon which was decisive in beating back the British Empire's still-oncoming flood of intended crimes against our republic.

Therefore, you must ask yourself: who was Andrew Jackson, really? The answer, in fact, is, that he was a traitor by intention, and a criminal and a thug by his actions otherwise. Yet, a corrected view, shared by President Lincoln, a view of the broader implications of those citizens who had joined the Confederacy, was that it was the leaders of the Confederacy, and, generally speaking, those leaders alone, who, like Aaron Burr's tribe, were the criminals: they had been evil, and had already known the fact of their own embedded spirit of evil, that from the start.

So, returning to the particular case of Robert Hicks in respect to all this and connected matters presently, Hicks' argument reminds us of the folly of the fictional "Miniver Cheevy" (who was, symbolically, of comparable intent and timber, as during the much later time of "Teddy" Roosevelt). They, too, had their reasons. Such fools as those, are a poor choice of bait for a cruel punishment of a simple man's offenses. President Abraham Lincoln clearly understood such distinctions, and acted so, promptly, in the appropriate moment. Lincoln's action on this account had given new birth to our injured nation of that time.

Therefore, how should we deal, once more, as might be needed, with dividing the sheep from the goats, especially in the matters set before us today? Bloody mass punishment is the self-inflicted doom wrought upon the children and grandchildren of those nations and individuals who would seek "satisfaction" in the killing or torture of fools, all that under the pretexts taken in the mere name of alleged justice.

Andrew Jackson, on the other hand, had been actually a fellow who had served the cause of British imperialism's project for the attempt to destroy our republic, an attempt by him which had been inspired by the morally worst impulses. Jackson had turned out, in fact, as a fellow who had been, at bottom, a mere flunky in the game in which he had played his part. For those who were not fooled, he was, even on the surface, also actually a bullying foe of our republic's vital interests. In fact, he was, actually, only one more soulless tyrant playing sundry vicious roles among a densely packed mass of other swindling British agents: all of whom had been operating in the personal service of the U.S.A.'s worst traitor, that British super-spy, and also the British Empire's most notable professional assassin of that time, Aaron Burr.

But, for this occasion, when that much has been said, let us turn our attention here, to those, then, as also now, who had played the part of Burr's confused dupes in both what has been named "The Confederacy" of the past, and also the mere fantasists, such as the distant dreamer of this report, the New York Times' Robert Hicks of the record of Wednesday. July 3rd.

Lincoln's Justice

Despite the wretched part played by the so-called Confederacy, our President Abraham Lincoln had proceeded with what he had expressed, as the correct judgment, that, for the most part, the participants in the "Confederacy's" action were more often pompously reckless dupes and fools, than they were, otherwise, merely culprits, who were, at bottom, misguided fools lured into playing the part of an enemy of our republic, but, at bottom, the mere dupes of the evil force which is actually, still, the evil Anglo-Dutch British empire of the present day.

Now, to what I have indicated as being The New York Times' confused Robert Hicks, who seems never to have known the actual history of the Aaron Burr legacy, even if Hicks does not show that he knows the actual effect of his contribution published in the New York Times' pages from earlier this past week. The fact remains, that Hicks' current role is neither particularly nice, nor an honest one, nor, at bottom, a competent one in any true sense. His role in history, is, in fact, only what he, and his like, had merely wished to believe, with scant benefit of reason or actual cause. He appears to be essentially confused, and more than a little bit silly.

As President Abraham Lincoln made very clear, in his concluding judgment on the matter of the generality of the Confederacy, we must not crush those whom we should have intended to redeem: even were their error disgusting, it were better treated as mere error, rather than serious crime.

I.

The Presidency as Our System

In the course of the history of our Presidency, even today, when that history is considered in the light since its inception as an institution, our republic has been the repeated target for a set of those bitterly malicious British agents assembled under their monarchy's imperial control of such victims' minds. Their corruption has been a presently continuing practice, one which had been deployed, and that most notably, up into the present time, that done for the intended mass destruction of our United States and people, done also against other targetted nations, which the presently sheer evil of the Anglo-Dutch empire has decreed for mass-executions in such modes as mass-murder practiced on the pretext of population reduction, as presently.

This pattern of criminal practices of that monarchy, had occurred, repeatedly, in the course of which, the dupes had been often aided in the purpose of that assigned mission of that monarchy, and others, as for the purposes of ruining, and, often, whatever the actual motive, bringing on the ultimate destruction of our United States through mass-murder done in the name of "environmentalism," in particular, as at this present time. Such had been the mentality of crime encountered in familiar specific cases such as that of the loutish Andrew Jackson, and also of his absolute master, the professional mass-murderer, Aaron Burr.

Fortunately, such "critters" as that Andrew Jackson, were never as successful on their own account as they might have often wished to have seemed to believe. Nonetheless, their witting, or either their often more or less witless, but habituated devotion, was to undermine our United States in one way, or another. All that had been done, essentially, on behalf of those intrinsically thieving British banking interests, such as those centered now long-since, around New York City's lower Manhattan, or the London-tied financiers in service earlier to the mere myth of what would come to be, later, today's Wall Street, a Wall Street now still operating with aims in the presently continued spirit of Wall Street's London-centered, now long actually deceased Confederacy.

Ironically, the British empire might have succeeded with greater success, early on, but for the fact that those scoundrels who had been sent to destroy us on their behalf, like their agent Andrew Jackson himself, had often wasted their time, more because, like the gangsters they tend to mimic, they are already tempted to stop to cheat and steal for a while, instead of "sticking to business."

The overt British agents working in the effort to destroy our United States, like Tony Blair, had been launched by the highest ranks of the (primitively Dutch) British intelligence services of the late Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, and beyond, all under the direction of the habitually murderous classes composed of a medley of British (i.e. Dutch-British) agents, and with auxiliary American traitors acting in the tradition of such as the relatively most outstanding traitor on the record for the U.S.A. of modern times, who had been for his time, the British empire's agent Aaron Burr, who remained a leading New York banker in his own time, and, also a leading international murderer and thief for longer than he had lived.

Once that much were said, the British empire were better identified for practical purposes of historical accuracy, as the Anglo-Dutch empire (predominantly Dutch in origin) still to the exactly present date. That has been, and remains, predominantly, a part of what is popularly referenced as the nominally British world empire, that to the date of past and present alike. Those who believe the contrary, are the typical fools in current world affairs, notably including, most commonly, the silly fools among our own nation's Wall Street.

Thus, to summarize the immediate point, the result of the lesser, but none-the-less brutish Andrew Jackson's role of incumbency, was, in plain fact, a parade of some members struck in the likeness of a Caribbean "pirates' crew," a collection which, all at the same time, was an accumulation of fully witting, essentially British-directed skunks, against Wall Street lumps, each and all, stacked against our United States. Such traitors of those past and present times, and also our own, were Americans working as a quality of British agents best typified then as those under the direction of Aaron Burr for as long as he had lived. The principle to be considered, still now, is that that pack of murderous "political whores" who have been assigned, for some time, to serve the long-ranging aims associated with the Jackson school of treason, had been typified, otherwise, in their role of supplying continuing batches of political tool and fools, as since the bloody British (Anglo-Dutch) imperialism since the late Seventeenth Century, as that habit had been continued, in fact, through to the present time.

However, from the beginning of both the original Plymouth settlement, and that of the Massachusetts Bay Colony and, later, the subsequent, Eighteenth-century struggle for establishing a sovereign U.S. republic, it had happened that the same forces have been the principal enemy of what was to be the United States, as their motive has been the same as the actually intended motive for the imperialist Anglo-Dutch rulers' crushing of the Massachusetts Bay system, earlier.

It is to be said, that since those earlier times of the Seventeenth Century, through the Eighteenth Century, and to the present day: this set of issues had been our unavoidable struggle against the originally Dutch-created system of modern imperial warfare, that of William of Orange, et al. That which, in turn, had been launched as the active intention of what became the so-called British empire during the course of the Seventeenth Century, and had been renewed by the aid of provocations such as the brutal invasions of Britain and Ireland conducted by the Dutch oligarchy, in turn produced that which is now, still, the integrated Anglo-Dutch imperial system which now still operates under the prominently stipulated, and murderously "green" reign of Britain's present Queen Elizabeth II.

Compare the Case of Hicks

Frankly, once we had considered those points of leading historical fact, Robert Hicks' current literary product appears to be, essentially, speaking historically, a "flat-out" hoax. Whether Hicks is as dumb as he seems to be, or not, whatever you might wish to conclude otherwise, the fact is, that for me here, in what he has preached to whatever choir, the "bottom line" has not been the mere picaresque quality of Hicks' ostensible foolishness, nor options of some intended wicked guile; it is, rather, the ends to which the hoaxes are aimed, such as those which Hicks' folly has expressed in both his current and his past, as amply presented this past July 3rd as merely typical.

He is not to be described as having "merely made mistakes," as much as he might be seen rather most clearly, as having defined himself in that July 3 piece. I think that, perhaps, I would judge the case he himself had presented, if so pitiably, as historically an intellectual mistake. His efforts to make history safely silly, indicate means which might be used to corrupt him, or, perhaps, stupefy him, and therefore as duped into assisting, with some degree of complicity in the continued ruining of our citizenry, ever more widely. In any case, he is not to be considered as otherwise important, as other than simply misfortunate, probably silly, in his preferences.

II.

The Case of "The Bush League"

Before I might turn to some of the most profound implications of the issues posed for our attention as the systemic criminalities of the Anglo-Dutch tyrannies, reference the lesser, but also simpler subject of that system of participating roles in subversion and other corruption of the United States. Even within the bounds of the merely participating roles which have been recently typified from inside the United States itself, as by such cases as that of our temporary subject merely for reference here: Robert Hicks' incompetence is not necessarily also criminal; foolish, or stupid, might be better suited to describe it.

The most convenient example for examining this matter of distinctions with which I had just been wrestling here, as since the beginning of the Twentieth Century, has been, presently, focussing our attention on the case of the presently well known Bush family's traditional politics. Take the "Bush League" in its actual expression as exemplified by the sometime Adolf Hitler backer, Prescott Bush, et al. Or, take, for an example, his role as a prominent, modern example of the roots of "Wall Street," which had inserted de facto treason against the U.S.A., in effect, as Prescott Bush, his cronies, and his ties to Hitler have done, as during the course of the Twentieth Century, in particular.

The Bush family's part as a relatively leading factor in Twentieth-century international affairs, on its surface, might appear to be of less "solid substance," than its convenient literary array of names as such, as being a kind of script which the members of the cult are assigned to read. Yes, they are a bad crew on the known record, like those financiers who were sent to prison, as during the term of the Franklin Roosevelt administration's attention to the crimes of the relevant leading bankers of his time.

Otherwise, the Bush family's roster of, unfortunately, leading influentials in the nation's politics, has been, largely, a reflection of the failed attempt, as, for example, by the precedent of some prison-worthy veterans of the Hoover administration, at bringing a powerfully vicious, even specifically fascist form of government, into power within our United States.

A similar trend followed as the continuation of Wall Street erupted with the time of the death of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, all through an attempted set of take-overs, in replacing the legacy of the Presidency of Franklin Roosevelt, by a replacement, in every sense of the word, as under that nasty President Harry S Truman. Truman had been a particular insertion which was intended to be a characteristic feature of a post-"World War II," "World Depression-trend" under Truman, in quality of impact on the trans-Atlantic world. That impulse has been the source of the setting-off of the broad trend which has continued in our nation's history, since the effects of the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, and his brother Robert, up to the present time.[1]

That conclusion which I had, thus, just stated, leaves no reason for doubt of that conclusion, when the customary lack of principles of physical-economic changes since the assassinations of the Kennedy brothers had been taken properly into account. That which was true already during the last years of the 1960s, has been accelerated into a long-term trend of ever deeper decadence of the trans-Atlantic region (in particular), from the close of the 1960s to the present day.

In those circles of those adversaries of President Franklin Roosevelt, which had come back into power with the deaths of President John F. Kennedy and his brother Robert, Wall Street had been the visible effect of the British agents' working against our nation's interests within the United States' leadership, as typified by the effect of that policy-shaping under the Bush family which had come to the surface since the 1970s, a crew which had been associated with an increasingly brutish power, dedicated much more, over recent decades, to being the parts of an attempted "Bush league," a kind of tyranny which seems to have been clearly of far greater importance to them, than the loss of the security of what had once been intended by some among us, as being our truly sovereign nation in every meaningful sense of the matter.

Now, the FDR Legacy

President Franklin Roosevelt, during the four terms of office to which he had been elected, had thus turned a then outgoing history into a directly contrary, far nobler direction, which was to have been intended for as long as he had lived. However, the greater portion of the interval between the earlier, "convenient assassination" of President William McKinley, which had been quickly followed by the election of the Confederacy-inspired President Theodore Roosevelt, to most of the period then following, and also, the continuing pro-Confederacy strain into Theodore Roosevelt's term in office, had set into motion a parade of "political skunks" continued throughout the greatest part of the 1901 to 1933 interval, as contrasted with the election of FDR. So, with the death of FDR, the political corruption took over again with the accession of Harry S Truman. My personal choice during that and succeeding times, was expressed briefly in the proposal which I made in my concisely brief letter to Dwight D. Eisenhower, at a time when he had been based at Columbia University. There was also no error by me in discerning some actually most relevant "political skunks," in such terms of reference, as I had done from that time, up to the present date, and also the current time.[2]

However, the original fascist scheme affecting some among our own selections of Presidents, had already been built up earlier, as during the period of those acting as successors to the conveniently murdered President William McKinley, through the World War I interval, as continued through most of the interval between the assassination of President William McKinley [assassinated on September 1, 1901, and died on September 14], and the election of President Franklin Roosevelt, in 1932. Its reversal was the effect of what had been the Presidency of Franklin Roosevelt, for longer than he had lived.

However, for as long as while Franklin Roosevelt remained what he had been in death as in the best of his life, the succession of the evil embodied in the Truman Presidency, abruptly changed the absolute direction of our United States under the post-FDR, Truman Administration. That change was a sudden turn-about, a turn back toward an intended trend toward pro-fascist tendencies, as shown in the Truman administration's connections to the consummately evil Bertrand Russell, embodied in his proposing the launching of a "preventive nuclear war" against the Soviet state, a Winston Churchill-Bertrand Russell scheme which lasted, then, for about as long as the plotters had yet to discover that the Soviet Union already possessed a nuclear weapons system roughly comparable in efficiency to that of the United States and United Kingdom. Such were things as they went under the British monarchy and its consenting flunky, the Truman administration.

Fortunately, even then, the residue of what had been the patriotic core of the USA's World War II leaders, was still a significant factor, and that, for a moment in history, was continued as the contribution of a powerful thrust, only typified by the relationship between the Presidency of John F. Kennedy for as long as he had lived, and what General Douglas MacArthur and Dwight D. Eisenhower had briefly inserted into the process of world history even under conditions of their retirement, for as long as they lived. Hope continued up to the point that the rising fascist residue accumulated by a desperate "Wall Street" combined with London, was enabled to enjoy their pleasure in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, and, later, of his prospective successor, Robert Kennedy.

It is urgent, for an effective understanding of the political process on which I have touched somewhat significantly, here, to look back a step or two in history, to recognize the "inside" enemies of the U.S.A. from an earlier century, which had included such specimens as Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren, and also such profoundly critical, contrary cases as the specific resonance, over decades to come, caused by the assassination of U.S. President William McKinley.

The McKinley assassination had been the means which had opened the gates of treason for the triumph of a student of a murderous U.S. traitor, Theodore Roosevelt's most treasonous Confederate uncle. It was that change which opened the gates of Hell, which were opened for the entry of such wretches as Ku Klux Klan fanatic Woodrow Wilson, and for the 1920s followers of a coming wave of fascism set into motion by such wretches of their times as Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover.

Why was that series of assassinations of great Presidents tolerated as much as it was? Guess!

What Happened Then?

The death of Franklin Roosevelt meant a looming cessation of a U.S. patriotic revival against the after-effects of the Harry S Truman role in efforts combined with Britain's Winston Churchill and Bertrand Russell, in their effort to turn the course back, once again, toward what would threaten to become a movement toward both nuclear warfare and fascism. Fortunately, the later role of President Eisenhower as candidate for President, and also actually President, succeeded in checking, significantly, the fascist-and-even-worse (thermonuclear) trends such as impulses which had been already inherent, earlier, in the London-steered Truman administration's impulses toward the "preventive nuclear warfare" demanded by Britain's Bertrand Russell. These latter impulses had been checked, first, in significant part, but only a part, by the Presidency of Dwight Eisenhower, and during the earlier part of the next decade, by the Presidency of John F. Kennedy, the latter in such a degree of effectiveness, that the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and, later, his brother Robert, were virtually the only means by which the Kennedy leadership could have been stopped.

Thus, the threatened inevitable outcome of the wildly fascist rage expressed in both the assassinations of the Kennedys, and in the wicked intentions of the Richard Nixon administration.

The end of the Ronald Reagan administration, and the disgusting qualities of brutish incompetence of President George H.W. Bush and his tribe, had seemed to have allowed the intermittent role of President Bill Clinton, after whom, since, all Hell has been spiralling downward toward our nation's self-destruction, under what have been, practically, the successive dictatorships of George W. Bush, Jr., the worse Barack Obama, and such as the present self-adjudged ruler of the Anglo-Dutch world, the imperial Queen Elizabeth II.

III.

The Spoor of the Anglo-Dutch Tyranny

For this moment, there is no reason of urgency which should oblige me to merely repeat here and now, the skein of evidence which has been the truth about the Bush family Presidencies' pollution of the United States' government over the course since the keystone role contributed by the Adolf Hitler-sponsor Prescott Bush.[3] The influence of the Bush and Obama regimes, has been as it had been followed through, and beyond the relevance of the sundry leading political positions of his son George H.W. and, in turn, of "George W.", all those in roles such as sometime CIA "czar," sometime wretched Vice-President, and both combined in the effects of the reigns of the inherently failed President George H.W. Bush, and his brutishly foolish son, George W. Bush, in turn: all in the sickening exhibitions of both endless Bush-league Vice-Presidents and Presidents, as if this might have become a permanent pestilence in perpetuity. President Barack Obama is the outcome, this far, of that ruinous Bush succession.

Against that background, Robert Hicks' expressed view on the subject of the principles of American history, has no relationship to anything which might be decently considered to be actually a competently defined world-historical process. As I have seen the brief evidence presented, it might suggest that Hicks' mind appears to be occupied on this occasion, but not with any resemblance to actually real-life history. Instead, Hicks is gripped by a hopeless fantasy, an eternally perpetual, and monstrously silly, pin-ball-game likeness, leading a poor fool to continue the legend of the "Civil War Forever." All meaning an outright case of a lunatic denial of reality spanning, in his delusion, about a century and a half later! So, the history of tragedy has sometimes turned into farce.

Therefore, consider that Hicks' expressed view, as in the case presented in the NY Times' editorial pages of July 3rd, has more similarity, as I have said earlier, to playing successive games on a pin-ball machine, than anything resembling the reality of a notion of history as an actual process of the human species' unfolding self-development.

Unfortunately, there had been much graver such folly in the British imperial service, that such as that of Prescott Bush and his relevant progeny to date. Both sets of cases, Bush League or Confederacy, have merely included the follies of those present-day scribblers who seek sympathy for their persuasion, the persuasion that the Civil War which had been actually created and backed by the clear and massive intention of British Empire, was instead to be regarded as merely a polite exchange of differences, if sometimes bloodied differences, among respectable gentlemen, in service of the silly dream of the "Confederacy forever."

All those particular, and related other facts notwithstanding, the fact of the Civil War in the United States, was that it had been an action by actual enemies of the United States, an action which had been organized and directed not by foolish "Southerners," but by the British empire, along with the presently intended, now presently proposed "Wall Street" destruction, through the sheer lunacy of "Bail Out," of the institutions of our United States, as also in Europe. All that had been done on the behalf of that Anglo-Dutch empire whose intent has been perpetually, to destroy our United States at some now very near time. The "peaceful remedy" would have been, formerly, to ship the relevant sponsors of "Black slavery," themselves, into efficient speed, as cargo, backwards, across the Atlantic waters, that done on the account of that British Empire where their actual loyalties to the practice of slavery had long resided. Now, much more mass-murderous schemes than those particular instances, are those present measures of intended genocide now in the frankly naked commitment to an avowed, current world agenda of genocide stipulated by the Queen of England.

Grant that author Robert Hicks has spent some efforts on behalf of a hollow myth concocted to treat the Civil War as if it had been a mere misunderstanding concerning locations of fence-posts among neighbors. The passions expressed among a large ration of the admirers of the folly of the legacy of that Confederacy, remain embodied in much of the "virtual genes" of the Confederacy's slave-system's descendants to the present day. However, sadly, the sordid cult of "race relations" remains embossed upon the electorates of our United States, more emphatically in the "Southern states," than the "North," but also only somewhat less in the northern states. By the way, civilized Christians would have never have tolerated the practice of "Black slavery." Robert Hicks' expressed reaction to such facts of history, as in this current piece, is reduced to a model of an exhausted state of moral mediocrity.

IV.

The Truth of the Matter

I am now on the thin cutting edge of ninety-one years of age. Now, the beginning of what some wished to see become, in their hope, a new " Civil War," had begun, effectively, with the inauguration of President Andrew Jackson, which was established by a truly disgusting sort of law since 1828. All of the lies under the superior authority of what we might choose to measure as the reigning sponsorship of the U.S. traitor, and chronic murderer, Aaron Burr, had threatened to drag us under that then-already long-standing British imperial agent and professional assassin, as that fact was also fixed, indelibly, in the monstrously shameless, and implicitly virtually treasonous folly of fools in the 1828 election of Andrew Jackson.

The full-scale drive for turning the so-called "Southern States" against the United States, had to have been seen as begun in Andrew Jackson's mass-murderous actions, earlier, against the Cherokee Nation, a Cherokee people more literate and civilized than the associates of that Andrew Jackson with his lawless betrayal of honor and of the looted territory of the Cherokee nation. The debt of American honor had reposed in the guarantees by U.S. President George Washington. Jackson was already, clearly, a political whore, teethed in murder, as in his practice against the Cherokee nation at that time: that from much earlier than 1828, and beyond today's 2013, all at my present age of 91 years.

Jackson's claim to honor was all lies, conveniently covered over, in contrast to my own biological inheritance in North America, which had begun with the landing of the Mayflower. These matters, including the pattern of human progress which so many among us have honored, however limited that devotion had been, are not some relic from an obscure part of our nation's history; they are the milestones of a profound dedication to a continuing process of permanent change, a change by means of which human existence were properly to be measured as a constantly living, and always developing, and, hence, always evolving process currently ongoing within our Solar system.

Our republic, in particular, is presently being confronted by attention to matters of evidence bearing on a long failure from among the Earthly mess. A new, higher meaning of mankind's role within the region identified as Earth and Mars, awaits the future soon, if we were to become wise enough, as might become possible within the presently young century.[4]


[1] That was never consistently the case for all Presidents since President Lyndon Johnson's reluctant adoption of launching of the U.S. war in Indo-China; but, it was the trend set by those who had, for example, promoted the deaths of both Kennedy brothers. I had followed, personally, the manner in which the influence of the Bush tribe had overridden the influence of even Presidents of the post-John F. Kennedy intervals, and had then added the Bush tribe's borrowed "spare parts" sequel, British stooge Barack Obama.

[2] Since relatively early during my modest, war-time service, I have always considered myself personally accountable, since for stating and assuming personal accountability in holding myself as accountable for the benefit, or failure of my continuing personal insights into an updated insight into the selection of our U.S. Presidents. Any respectable citizen should have done the same. "If you put that bum into office, you should hold yourself accountable for either what you support, or your failure to assume reasonable responsibility for his performance in office. Otherwise, your choice of candidate, is not worth very much, and your negligence is probably even less worthy." Call it: "put up, or shut up."

[3] See "The Bush Family's British Fascism," Anton Chaitkin, EIR, July 12, 2013 or LaRouche PAC.

[4] Cf. Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.: "Nicholas of Cusa, Kepler & Shakespeare," EIR, June 21, 2013 or LaRouche Pac and also The Great Ontological Paradox, EIR, July 12, 2013 or LaRouche PAC.

Subscribe to EIW