26-11-2009, 09:45 AM
I thought ClimateDepot.com was sufficient attribution, but can't find Monckton's latest there, only some interview he did with Glen Beck.
I guess LaRouche's analysis of the Anglo-American establishment comes from Webster Tarpley who used to work for him, http://www.tarpley.net has some of Tarpley's works for sale and in whole for reading by computer. I think Tarpley left the LaRouche club when it started to turn into a cult. I first remember hearing about LaRouche when he was being smeared in the MSM in the early 80s, when Thatcher and Reagan were in power. I remember they accused him of going from extreme right-wing to extreme left-wing, or vice versa.
Monckton has never tried to hide his past with Thatcher. I don't see what it matters, if Monckton and LaRouche are making sense now, great. I'm perfectly willing to take their arguments at face value, for what they're worth. It's not like that's a promise to vote a certain way or send contributions.
Monckton is slightly off about the US and treaty obligations trumping the US constitution. It doesn't work that way. NAFTA and GATT proponents tried to pretend it does work that way, but I don't think it's legally defensible. Plus, the US has a long history of violating any treaty it deems fit to violate (from the Cherokees to nuclear non-proliferation).
I guess LaRouche's analysis of the Anglo-American establishment comes from Webster Tarpley who used to work for him, http://www.tarpley.net has some of Tarpley's works for sale and in whole for reading by computer. I think Tarpley left the LaRouche club when it started to turn into a cult. I first remember hearing about LaRouche when he was being smeared in the MSM in the early 80s, when Thatcher and Reagan were in power. I remember they accused him of going from extreme right-wing to extreme left-wing, or vice versa.
Monckton has never tried to hide his past with Thatcher. I don't see what it matters, if Monckton and LaRouche are making sense now, great. I'm perfectly willing to take their arguments at face value, for what they're worth. It's not like that's a promise to vote a certain way or send contributions.
Monckton is slightly off about the US and treaty obligations trumping the US constitution. It doesn't work that way. NAFTA and GATT proponents tried to pretend it does work that way, but I don't think it's legally defensible. Plus, the US has a long history of violating any treaty it deems fit to violate (from the Cherokees to nuclear non-proliferation).