PDA

View Full Version : Larouche Role in Obama Health Care plan



Linda Minor
08-27-2009, 12:01 PM
Lyndon Larouche seems to be the man behind the signs at numerous protests calling Obama's health care plan a Hitlerian Nazi scheme based on the medical "committee" and the right appointed to it by the government to decide who should die:


August 25, 2009 (LPAC)-- Lyndon LaRouche found many points to agree with in a vitriolic criticism of Obama by Financial Times columnist Clive Crook Monday morning. Crook writes that Obama's presidency is in trouble, as a result of "his own political bungling." LaRouche agreed.

"For all its brainpower," Crook added, "this White House is a slow learner."

"Slow learner?" said LaRouche. "Does anyone think probably psychotic?"

"The country still does not know what he is advocating," said Crook. "Most of the time, apparently, neither does he." "It's absolutely correct," said LaRouche.

But when Crook went on to say, "Dropping the public option is the first thing Mr. Obama needs to do if he wants to clarify his message," LaRouche exposed Crook's incompetence as follows.

"See," he said, "they don't recognize the fact that the intention is fascist! It's not a 'public option.' It may be a pubic option. The intention is fascist. You want a system which is a government-controlled system, and the key thing, is the damn committee, the IMAC, and it's a Nazi committee. The problem here, why does Obama have this contradiction? What is it that the British fail to see in Obama's pattern? That Obama really is a Hitler! And therefore, just for the same reason that Hitler had to use this kind of public operation, that if you're going to run a Nazi-type operation, that's what you have to do! In other words, the total power of government has to enforce killing! And that's the reason that Obama is in a problem, because he's for mass murder! He's for population control! And he doesn't want to say it, naturally, because that's not going to get him any votes. Not at this stage, anyway.

"These criticisms of Obama are absolutely as incompetent as Obama is," LaRouche continued. "Obama's problem is, he's committed to the option that he refuses to modify, because his intention is to kill people, Hitler-style. And the problem with these guys making criticisms is that they don't really realize what Obama intends to do. And you cannot kill people on a mass basis, the way Hitler did, except through the power of government. And when they look at the question of his special committee, that's it! But Obama's problem is he's committed to trying to sneak that in at the last minute, when nobody is looking. And Obama's stuck with a problem, which is not the fact that he's ignorant of his mission. The fact is that, unlike his critics, he's fully aware that he's out to commit genocide. And that's a very important criticism we have to make in exactly those terms."

- They're Lying, and We Must Say So -

A Friday release from the ADL and a matching article by Max Blumenthal which appeared in www.dailybeast.com on Monday, laboriously "prove" that LaRouche originated the charge of Nazi-like euthanasia against Obama, as though there was anything to "prove." But that's not the point. The point is, as LaRouche emphasized, that they're lying on the real issue,- the euthanasia.

"All this demonstrates is that: first of all, the denial of the charge of euthanasia is obviously a lie. This is not even a mistake, it's a lie. And, of course, we're not surprised by lies coming from Barney Frank. Barney Frank! Barney Frank wouldn't know the truth if it kicked him in the ass!

"It's not a mistake; it's a lie!" he continued. "And because the Obama administration's policy is, while pushing that intention publicly, to anyone with brains,- anyone with brains knows Obama is committed to that policy. Anybody who is stupid, or who wants to pretend to be stupid, will deny it. And people who call people liars who say it, are just simply being stupid. They're probably lying themselves; they know it's true, but they're lying about it.

"That moustache on Obama is a plain truth, and anybody who denies it is either just plain ignorant, and talking off the top of their head without knowing what they're talking about, or is a liar. We must presume that if they're not simply ignorant, they're lying.

"They've misunderstood nothing! They're lying! 'Going along to get along on Capitol Hill,' is called lying. 'Going along to get along,' is a euphemism for lying when ordered to do so."

Just look at the lying press: "The New York Times was identified as the epitome of yellow press," said LaRouche, "and it has not changed its character since. A famous editor of the New York Times said that,- and naturally, he was leaving the position at that time. But he said that plainly: 'We of the press, are the yellow press.' And the New York Times is part of that, and always has been. It's the Confederate press!"

- What Really Happened -

Asked why the British and other gamemasters, like Clive Crook and Financial Times, are now criticizing Obama, LaRouche answered, "What happened is, they were perfectly content, because they set this thing in motion. Obama didn't set it in motion. One has to recognize, in all this question of criticism...as I have said repeatedly: Obama is a puppet. He did not really make any decisions, except decisions to promote and enhance his own ego. He didn't really make any policy decisions. He's not intellectual. He's like Nero; he can't really think! Now, they picked this guy. They give him a program, and they assume that with a great deal of muscle mobilized behind him, he's going to steam ahead, and it's going to be rammed through before anybody can stop it. And he's programmed to do that. Along I come, on April 11 of this year, and point out that Time magazine and others have pointed out exactly what the truth about Obama is. And bring out other facts: the fact that he has a Nero complex. He's a Narcissus. And he's on a program to kill American citizens. This is what the program is, and I outlined the thing. At that point, when I got going on that, and we got going on that, with reluctance on the part of many of our members who thought I was making big a mistake, but I wasn't. They were making a mistake, as usual, as most of my critics among us are. At that point, what I did, screwed up their program.

"Now their program is totally screwed up," he went on, "because we stuck to our guns."

"Obama now is still sticking with the program," LaRouche added, "because he's a stupid ego. Now, the Europeans, the British foremost, are complaining that their puppet was a puppet. And we should say that,- we shouldn't say anything different. And criticize them and laugh at them. These guys create this puppet. The puppet fails, because we intervened to expose the puppet, and what the puppet was doing. Now the puppet has been defeated; they're complaining that the puppet has been doing what they told him to do! He's not doing anything different than what they told him to do! He hasn't got a brain in his head! And you're accusing him of thinking of something?

"The story from the top down, is: Obama did nothing wrong from the standpoint of what these guys who are now criticizing him, told him to do. The poor guy is stupid! That's not insulting him; that's telling him the truth about his problem: he's stupid! Don't you understand it, you jerk? You programmed him: you should know he's stupid!

"But your program didn't work," LaRouche said. "Now, you're blaming him! When you were the guys that told him to do it! And, we should say this is not fair to the poor slob! Obama didn't make any mistakes; he did as he was told. Who put him on this program: Daschle! Now Daschle's criticizing him! He took a puppet, this guy Obama, a puppet. He was part of the team that produced him, created him out of shit. They set him loose on the horizon; they put all the money in the world behind him,- and now he ran into a buzz-saw, because they ran into something which they didn't anticipate. And, it didn't work. And so, the puppet goes ahead, like he's pre-programmed to do, doing what he's told to do, and they criticize him! I mean, he's got a right to complain. Obama's complaint is, 'Look, I was a stupid guy, I admit it.' The problem is his ego wouldn't let him admit it,- then he'd be off the hook. If he weren't such an egotist, he would say, 'Look, these guys advised me. Everybody advised me to do this. And now I turn around, and I find out this is a big mistake. Okay, it's a big mistake. So, cancel it!'

"But, he's not a smart politician," LaRouche concluded. "He's an idiot. And don't blame the idiot for being an idiot. That's how he became the President. Let's be kind to the poor guy. It's 'be kind to idiots week.'"

He keeps talking about "they". Does he mean people at Harvard? Any ideas?

Linda Minor
08-27-2009, 12:28 PM
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/visitors-from-planet-larouche/

August 25, 2009, 4:41 pm
Visitors From Planet LaRouche
By The New York Times

On Tuesday, the Cuban state newspaper Granma published a column by Fidel Castro in which he writes that he was struck last week by an encounter Representative Barney Frank had with a woman at a health insurance forum in a senior center in Dartmouth, Mass. As a much-watched video of the exchange shows, when the woman claimed that President Barack Obama supported “a Nazi policy” endorsing euthanasia, Mr. Frank asked her simply, “On what planet do you spend most of your time?”

Somewhat obscured by the laughter following that punch line was the answer to his question: the woman makes no secret of the fact that she spends most or all of her time on the planet where Lyndon LaRouche is a major political figure. Read more, and watch the video, on The Lede Blog (http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/visitors-from-planet-larouche/).

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/08/town_hall_talk_frank_grills_op.html?hpid=sec-politics


Frank Blasts Nazi Comparisons From LaRouche Backers

Updated 12:15 p.m. 8/20/09
By Garance Franke-Ruta and Sarah Lovenheim
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) was greeted with shouts and boos at a town hall meeting on health care at a senior center in Dartmouth, Mass., Tuesday night, an event that was targeted by supporters of perennial independent political candidate Lyndon LaRouche. But the combative House Financial Services Committee chairman met fire with fire.

"On what planet do you spend most of your time?" Frank retorted when Rachel Brown of the LaRouche Youth Movement compared President Obama's push for health-care reform to the policies of Nazi Germany while holding up a pamphlet depicting the president with a Hitler mustache, a LaRouche anti-Obama health reform campaign image.

"This policy is actually already on its way out. It already has been defeated by LaRouche. My question to you is, why do you continue to support a Nazi policy?" Brown had asked.

"You stand there with a picture of the president defaced to look like Hitler and compare the effort to increase health care to the Nazis," Frank, who is Jewish, blasted back.

"Trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table," he continued. "... I have no interest in doing it."

Video of Frank's remarks quickly went viral online and was shown repeatedly on cable television.

Protesters had greeted attendees of the meeting, organized by the Democratic Town Committee of Dartmouth, by distributing pamphlets criticizing Frank's push for reform and Obama's plan. Images of Obama as Hitler were visible on several of the pamphlets seen in videos of the event. Some protesters held posters that read, "It's the economy stupid, stop the spending," the Associated Press reported.

Ray Medeiros, chairman of the Dartmouth Democratic Party, said the pamphlets came from LaRouche supporters, and that the woman who ticked off Frank was one of about 20 who came to the meeting. Brock Cordiero, the regional chair of the Massachusetts GOP, said Brown was passing out pamphlets from a table with a LaRouche PAC banner on it before the town hall meeting and that he and Medeiros spent a fair bit of time during the meeting trying to contain the disruptions the LaRouche supporters were causing. "They were there to cause problems," he said.

Cordiero, concerned attendees might mistake LaRouche supporters for Republicans, said he went out of his way at the meeting to repudiate the Hitler-Obama imagery in remarks to Frank. "I saw media reports there was Republican booing and jeering," said Cordiero Thursday. "That's not the case."

To those who interrupted Frank's remarks during the event, the congressman from Massachusetts jabbed, "Disruption never helps your cause. ... It just looks like you're afraid to have rational discussion."

Medeiros said that he had encouraged protesters, mostly young people, to leave but that they wouldn't budge. "This is a Democratic Town Committee meeting. We called the meeting to order!" he said he eventually yelled after one refused to clear floor space.

LaRouche PAC has been waging an intensifying campaign against the Obama and congressional health reform proposals since the president's nationally televised news conference of July 22, when he called for an "an independent group of doctors and medical experts who are empowered to eliminate waste and inefficiency in Medicare." The group has interpreted that statement as ordering euthanasia.

"LaRouche PAC members are giving leadership to these town hall meetings all around the country so we are being at any one that we possibly can," LaRouche PAC spokeswoman Nancy Spannaus told The Post of the group's presence in Massachusetts.

"Our Obama mustache poster....It symbolizes the fact that the president is attempting to implement a Hitler health care policy," she said. "At any town hall, you'll know LaRouche people are there if you just look for the mustache."

What's really funny here is that Fox News and Rush Limbaugh are taking Barney's side! What does that tell us?
See:
google search: (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22barney+frank%22+larouche&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=LXiWSq3YGM6wmAf5gJmqBQ&sa=X&oi=news_group&ct=title&resnum=1)

Barney Frank Speaks Truth to Crazy
FOXNews - Greg Gutfeld - ?Aug 20, 2009?
This was a lay-up for Frank, for the chick was a LaRouche follower, a member of a group of far-left conspiracy chuckleheads who, like cockroaches,...

Barney Frank Flips on Right to Yell
RushLimbaugh.com (subscription) - ?Aug 25, 2009?
FRANK AUGUST 24, 2009: Frankly, again you have the Lyndon LaRouche crowd -- and I've been surprised at some of my conservative friends who are defending the ...

Dennis Miller on Barney Frank's Feisty Town Hall
FOXNews - ?Aug 20, 2009?
A couple of plants in there, a couple of LaRouche people giving him a hard time and stuff like that. What do you say? DENNIS MILLER, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: ...

The Friday Rush: Limbaugh, LaRouche, and Laffer
Media Matters for America - ?Aug 21, 2009?
Barney Frank (D-MA) and a town hall questioner who compared the president and his policies to Hitler and Nazism, during which Frank said to the woman: "On ...

Rush says Obama "wants to be the black FDR"
Media Matters for America - Greg Lewis - ?Aug 25, 2009?
Then Rush discussed Barney Frank's "flip flop" on the "right to yell." Rush played an audio clip of Frank on July 28. Frank was discussing Henry Louis ...

Jan Klimkowski
08-27-2009, 07:09 PM
Prime examples of Lyndon LaRouche talking out of an orifice not usually reserved for speech.

I am concerned that Obama's team appears to include population control fanatics and academics whose ideas are logically indistinguishable from eugenics.

See here, for example:
http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1790

However, the implication of LaRouche's statements - which is that the British NHS with free treatment for all is an inherently fascist system - is just plain bonkers.

LaRouche should go and lie down in a dark room with a cold compress.

And perhaps get his private doctor to prescribe him some Michael Jackson style anaesthetics. There's the reality of private medicine plain for all to see....

Linda Minor
08-28-2009, 02:21 PM
I think LaRouche group's biggest fault is that use the term "British" in shorthand fashion to mean the various aristocrats with a fascist mentality. That doesn't mean necessarily that they always win inside the British government, which seems to be much more centered in local elections. I think the parliamentary system has helped to reduce the control the British banker mentality has had over the NHS. If you watch Question Time, the number-one topic always seems to be maintaining good health care, and it does not seem to be under the control of corporate pharmaceutical industry as in America. It's about local services and bedside manner more than about bigger and better machines and drugs.

I think what LaRouchies probably mean when they say "British" is the London-based bankers who invest British wealth (as in the Queen and her Court whose only role in life is fund-raising for "charity") in foreign corporations. In the old days that would mean N.M. Rothschild and Barings, but I can't say who it means today.

Gary McGowan
11-15-2009, 06:17 AM
I browsed this thread a few hours ago and then saw the fresh item below at larouchepac(dot) com. It pasted with no paragraph breaks, so I made my own. I also inserted the quotation marks at the end.

Rachel Brown To Take On Bailout Barney Frank

November 14, 2009 Boston, MA (LPAC) -- LaRouche Youth Movement activist Rachel Brown announced today that she is a candidate for the Democratic nomination to U.S. Congress in the 4th District in Massachusetts, for the seat presently occupied by Bailout Barney Frank.



Brown told a national internet audience on The LaRouche Show today that Frank is one of the key Congressional figures promoting fascist policies, which are destroying our nation's physical economy, and which threaten the lives of millions of Americans. She singled out his role in supporting the bailout of bankrupt banks and financial institutions -- in particular, his attack on Lyndon LaRouche's Home Owner and Bank Protection Act -- and his rabid support of the Obama health care bill, which is modeled on Hitler's Nazi T-4 genocide policy, as evidence that he is unfit to remain in the U.S. Congress.


Bailout Barney Frank, she said, has no problem supporting a bailout of financial institutions, run by swindlers and thieves, at the expense of jobs and industries in the U.S. While millions are losing their jobs and their homes, he repeatedly has sided with those, such as former Goldman Sachs CEO and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke, and current Treasury Secretary Geithner, who have provided more than $23.7 trillion in bailouts to bankrupt institutions, while ignoring the needs of our citizens.



While a mass strike of these citizens has emerged, of people who feel betrayed by their government, who are demanding that the government act in their interests, Bailout Barney worked to sabotage moves to establish a Pecora Commission to investigate financial fraud, and is currently involved in efforts to prevent a return to the Glass Steagall regulatory standards in banking.


And when I asked him at a town meeting, she added, how he can defend President Obama's so-called health care policy, which will kill the sick and elderly, through provisions taken from Hitler's 1939 "useless eaters" policy, he tried to duck the question, instead ranting incoherently.


His actions, she said, are nothing less than a betrayal of the oath of office he took, to uphold the Constitution. The anger directed at him during town meetings has been richly deserved, as his constituents' lives are endangered by what he has done in the Congress, and what he will continue to do if re-elected.


Therefore, she concluded, "I am running for Congress, to defeat him in the Democratic Party primary. To those who have lost your homes, or are in danger of losing them, because of Bailout Barney's actions, join with me, to send him packing. To those who have lost your jobs, or fear you will lose them, join me in getting The LaRouche Plan passed by the U.S. Congress, to revive our tradition of a credit system, to revive our productive economy, while shutting down the bailouts of speculators. For those whose lives, and those of your family members, are threatened, due to his promotion of the Obama Nazi health care bill, join me in defeating this legislation.


Bailout Barney, you ducked my questions once before -- you will not be able to duck me again."

Gary McGowan
11-15-2009, 08:46 AM
Here is more on the relationship of "British" to the National Health Service from LaRouchePAC (Notes are mine.) :


The British Monarchy Caught in a Death Scheme

September 10, 2009 (LPAC)—The Royal Family and panicky City of London financiers began implementing, in 2008, a new program to kill elderly and other sick people, precisely repeating the opening phase of Hitler's 1939 T-4 euthanasia program. Under the Liverpool Care Pathway adopted for general use by the National Health Service, those showing symptoms that might foreshadow death are targeted to be killed by heavy narcotics and the withdrawal of fluids and nutrition. The new policy reportedly accounted for about one sixth of all deaths in Britain last year, according to a study by Dr. Clive Seale, of the prestigious Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry. [1] [2] [3]


When the world financial system meltdown began in 2007, British imperial leaders pursued drastic shifts in funds away from public services and into bailouts of the London-Wall Street axis. They rushed into general practice an all-out euthanasia policy, that had been introduced as a pilot project in 2003-2004 by then-Prime Minister Tony Blair and royal health adviser Simon Stevens.



This British fascist "health-care reform" agenda was at the same time exported to the United States for adoption by the incoming Obama Administration.



The King's Fund is the official agency driving the new euthanasia. A government-funded charity, called alternatively Marie Curie Cancer Care or Marie Curie Hospice, is the operations center tasked with shaping the killing program.


Prince Charles has been president of the King's Fund since 1986, and president of the Marie Curie Hospice organization since about 2000.


What is today called the King's Fund was created in the late 19th Century by the Prince of Wales. After he became King Edward VII, the agency was incorporated in 1907 as King Edward's Hospital Fund for London. This was the Royal Family's planning center for the reform of health care, in accord with the Empire's innovation of the time, eugenics or race-purification theory.



To start up the new killing program in 2008, the Queen became the Patron, the agency was re-incorporated under the shorter name, King's Fund, and Prince Charles and his retainers went into overdrive.


The King's Fund and the Marie Curie Hospice were merged for action with the June 24, 2008 announcement that King's Fund Policy and Development Director Steve Dewar would simultaneously lead the two agencies, to "develop the contribution of both organizations to the further improvement of end-of-life services across the U.K." In July 2008, the National Health Service published its End of Life Care Strategy, developed by an NHS Strategy unit set up for the new euthanasia program.



The Marie Curie Palliative Care Institute in Liverpool is one of two centers for experimental killing regimes. Out of this has come the procedure called the Liverpool Care Pathway, with its Continuous Deep Sedation, which has recently broken into the headlines in Britain due to a public protest against the murders by physicians.


Marie Curie Chief Executive Tom Hughes-Hallett, a King's Fund Senior Associate, chairs the "external Implementation Advisory Board" for the national End of Life Care Strategy. In his forward to the killers' first annual report, published by the National Service in July, 2009, Hughes-Hallett wrote,


"We're trying to change the way this country thinks about and responds to the idea of death. We're trying to change the way the medical and social care professions think about and respond to death. We're trying to change the way end of life care services are commissioned."


Being a City of London financier (with J. Henry Schroeder, and then chairman of Robert Fleming Securities), Hughes-Hallett wrote further on the urgency of getting the killing program going full blast, now: "One thing that has changed quickly, and unexpectedly, is the financial climate. For this financial year and the next, the NHS has new money for this strategy. After that things are much less certain...."


In that national Strategy Report, the "end of life care pathway" starts with "Step One: Identifying people who are approaching the end of life"; it proceeds to "Step Five: Last days of life," in which the Liverpool Care Pathway is the means of termination. After this comes "Step Six: Care after death," or what to do with the bodies and the survivors, and proposed methods for falsifying death certificates to show a natural cause rather than homicide — precisely as was done in the Hitler T-4 program.


A National Health Service-commissioned report by McKinsey and Company, calling for saving $32 billon per year by drastic cuts in health care, was leaked to the press last week. King's Fund chief economist John Appleby (quoted in Time magazine, Sept. 9, 2009) responded that these savings must be accomplished by finding "ways to counter rising health-care costs associated with an aging population, expensive new medical treatments and rising patient expectations." King's Fund chief executive Niall Dickson chimed in that, rather than doing more with less resources, "Doing less with less seems a more realistic scenario."


The Royal euthanasia program was introduced as a pilot project in 2003 and 2004 by Simon Stevens, Blair's chief adviser on health policy from 2001 to 2004. In 2007, Stevens went to the United States to spread the euthanasia project there. Stevens became vice president of Minnesota-based UnitedHealth, the massive private health insurance company for the U.S. and Britain. Stevens' official job is to advise all private health insurers to get behind the new agenda for health-care reform.


Continuing as a trustee of the King's Fund for Prince Charles in London, Simon Stevens connects President Obama with the London-Wall Street axis, for implementation of the urgent strategy in the face of financial catastrophe.
[4]



-----------
NOTES


[1] The Times, October 28, 2009 (Long after the above LPAC article)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6892965.ece



[2] This is worthwhile (Aug. 12, 2009)
http://www.dwdv.org.au/News/News0468.html


[3] The BARTS article is here (not free).
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/339/sep14_1/b3690


[4] A 09/17/2009 A very worthwhile 15-minute video interview with the author of the above pasted article, Anton Chaitkin, is here - http://www.larouchepac.com/node/11764

David Guyatt
11-15-2009, 01:37 PM
The British National Health Service was the brainchild of the Labour Party that came to power post WWII as part of their Welfare State programme. Indeed, my grandfather, an opthalmic surgeon, was involved in birthing the NHS. It is, for all its faults, a fabulous and (on balance) fair system for the delivery of health care to everyone without favour or prejudice. It is absolutely not fascist and the notion that it is is quite unbelievably ridiculous.

It is, in fact, heads and shoulders above the US health-for-profit system of heavily enriching medical practitioners and medical insurance corporations who leech off the misfortunes of others and is thus a truly civilizing advance.

I use the British NHS system all the time and have nothing but respect for it.

Gary McGowan
11-15-2009, 04:21 PM
I don't doubt or have argument with anything you say, David. I have also heard reports complementing the UK system by visitors to the UK. And thank you for the history/background.

As far as I know, LaRouche and colleagues have never said nor intended to imply that "the British NHS ... is an inherently fascist system" (Quote from Jan's post). What they are saying is that the system has recently been subject to austerity measures affecting significantly large numbers of people who are judged as being close to death, and that those (fascist) austerity measures are being promulgated in the U.S.A. and many other countries. Further, they show who is involved in this operation. Details in my post above.

Jan Klimkowski
11-15-2009, 04:37 PM
As far as I know, LaRouche and colleagues have never said nor intended to imply that "the British NHS ... is an inherently fascist system" (Quote from Jan's post). What they are saying is that the system has recently been subject to austerity measures affecting significantly large numbers of people who are judged as being close to death, and that those (fascist) austerity measures are being promulgated in the U.S.A. and many other countries. Further, they show who is involved in this operation. Details in my post above.

The description is in the very LaRouchian propaganda material you posted:


This British fascist "health-care reform" agenda was at the same time exported to the United States for adoption by the incoming Obama Administration.

In one of Linda's posts, LaRouche states:


LaRouche exposed Crook's incompetence as follows.

"See," he said, "they don't recognize the fact that the intention is fascist! It's not a 'public option.' It may be a pubic option. The intention is fascist. You want a system which is a government-controlled system, and the key thing, is the damn committee, the IMAC, and it's a Nazi committee. The problem here, why does Obama have this contradiction? What is it that the British fail to see in Obama's pattern? That Obama really is a Hitler! And therefore, just for the same reason that Hitler had to use this kind of public operation, that if you're going to run a Nazi-type operation, that's what you have to do! In other words, the total power of government has to enforce killing!

OK - Mr McGowan, let's split hairs. LaRouche is describing the "intention" (whatever that may mean) as Nazi and Hitlerian.

All healthcare systems have problems. However, for LaRouche & his sycophants to describe the "intention" of Britain's NHS, with its fundamental principle of free treatment for all, as Nazi or fascist - take your pick - is complete and utter rubbish.

Gary McGowan
11-15-2009, 05:23 PM
It's the "reform" -- the austerity measures -- being promulgated, that LaRouche is talking about, not the NHS itself. LaRouche and colleagues have never said nor intended to imply that the British NHS is an inherently fascist system. It's not!

Killing grandma (or a child with a life-threatening disease) in an attempt to pay for the "bailout" of an bankrupt casino which was said to be a reputable state-of-the-art world monetary financial system is the issue. The trillions (tens or hundreds of trillions?) in debt are unpayable. The financiers are controlling conditions all over the planet to keep their usurious game going.

What we should be doing is to restart building up the physical economy again, not imposing austerity as the propagandists and controllers of popular opinion have steered us toward.

Mustering the political will is the challenge.

Jan Klimkowski
11-15-2009, 07:11 PM
Putting to one side the fact that LaRouche manages to contradict himself several times in the space of a few sentences, the central argument appears to be that "government-control" of healthcare will enable the American government to instruct doctors to kill people rather than heal them. The rationale for this, according to LaRouche, is "austerity" measures: "killing grandma" to pay off Wall Street's debts.

This is a quite preposterous argument. But you appear to be making it here:


Killing grandma (or a child with a life-threatening disease) in an attempt to pay for the "bailout" of an bankrupt casino which was said to be a reputable state-of-the-art world monetary financial system is the issue. The trillions (tens or hundreds of trillions?) in debt are unpayable. The financiers are controlling conditions all over the planet to keep their usurious game going.



There is an entire directory of DPF threads exposing Wall Street's lies and criminal behaviour here:

http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=15

Suggesting that Obama wants to kill Americans to pay off Wall Street's criminal debts is just a ridiculous argument. In fact, the current American healthcare system, which Obama is attempting to reform, provides huge profits to Big Pharma, private hospitals and the Big Medical Insurance companies - all to the massive financial benefit of Wall Street.

Examining the LaRouchies' argument, the corroboration they offer usually consists of a misrepresentation of the "Liverpool Care Pathway". There is a debate going on in the UK about physician-assisted voluntary euthanasia and/or removal of care for terminally ill patients in their last hours. This has nothing to do with the constructed LaRouchian bogeyman of government killing of grandma on behalf of Wall Street.

Here is what the organization Care Not Killing published about the Liverpool Care Pathway in September 2009:


15 September 2009
Liverpool Care Pathway
TERMINALLY ILL PATIENTS ARE RECEIVING GOOD CARE, SAYS NATIONAL AUDIT


An audit of Care of the Dying covering nearly 4,000 terminally ill patients in over 150 hospitals in England has concluded that use of the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) is resulting in high quality care for those who are in the very last hours and days of life. The audit, which was conducted by the Marie Curie Palliative Care Institute Liverpool in collaboration with the Clinical Standards Department of the Royal College of Physicians and the results of which were made public yesterday, underlines the value of the LCP in providing a framework for decision-making by doctors treating imminently dying patients.

The audit does not support criticisms of the LCP that have appeared recently in the media – namely, that patients who are managed in accordance with the Pathway's guidelines are being heavily sedated until they die or that the LCP is promoting a 'tick box' approach in which doctors sometimes fail to spot where patients show signs of recovery. The audit reveals that two thirds of the 3,893 patients whose deaths were assessed needed no continuous infusion of medication in the last 24 hours of life to control distress caused by restless or agitation and that, of those who did require such infusions, all but 4% needed only low doses. Unlike practices in other countries, such as the Netherlands where deep continuous sedation until death is administered according to a protocol, palliative care physicians in Britain have the skills to ensure that the overwhelming majority of terminally ill patients are able to die peacefully and without any significant sedation.

Commenting on the Audit, Dr Peter Saunders, Director of Care Not Killing, said: “This audit of LCP practice in some three quarters of hospitals in England is reassuring. It confirms that deep sedation of terminally ill patients is rare in Britain and that recent suggestions of its widespread use under the LCP are unfounded. It also underlines that any trusts prescribing relatively high doses of sedatives regularly to dying patients 'need to review their practice'”. Professor John Ellershaw, Director of the Marie Curie Palliative Care Institute, confirmed this. “The Liverpool Care Pathway”, he said, “does not endorse continuous deep sedation nor, as has been misreported in some places, the removal from dying patients of beneficial medication”.

Commenting on suggestions that doctors following the LCP's guidelines who do not have specialist knowledge of end of life medicine may sometimes fail to recognise signs of a recovery, Dr Saunders said: “Any tool is only as good as the workman who uses it. It is important to remember, however, that clinical decisions in end of life care are not made in isolation and that palliative care hospital support teams are available throughout the country to support other specialities in this work. These teams include physicians who also practice in the local hospice or palliative care unit”. He added: “There is nonetheless a need for continuing education of health care professionals at all levels in all aspects of modern palliative care, including diagnosing correctly that patients are imminently dying and detecting reversible causes of deterioration in patients in advanced illness. The new version of the pathway has addressed past ambiguities in interpretation and has been warmly welcomed by the Patients' Association but we do need to continue close monitoring to ensure that it is being used appropriately.”

Dr Bill Noble, President of the Association for Palliative Medicine, has also commented on recent press reports on the LCP:

“The Liverpool Care Pathway is not a one-way street and, when further deterioration does not occur, it is common practice to take the patient off the Pathway and re-institute previous treatment. The care pathway approach is now commonly used to aid the work of many specialities throughout the health service. It does not replace clinical judgement, but acts as a prompt to assist clinical teams to ensure that every patient gets adequate attention to every aspect of their care. Clinical pathways are useful in auditing practice and developing services. It is possible to misuse any clinical tool, but our experience of working with colleagues in hospitals and the community is that, with adequate training and support, it is used appropriately”.

SEE ALSO:

End-of-life palliative care needs to start earlier (The Times, 17th September 2009, Dr Bill Noble)

Liverpool hospitals death 'pathway' manager describes her job (The Times 14th September 2009, David Rose, Health Correspondent)

Briefing: Fatal decisions (The Sunday Times, 6th September 2009, Helen Brooks)

The Liverpool Care Pathway need not be a one-way street to death (Telegraph, 5th September 2009)


Liverpool Care Pathway

The draft version of the Liverpool Care Pathway Version 12 is now available, for review and comment. The final version will be launched at the LCP Conference 25th November 2009.

The most recent version of the Liverpool Care Pathway (version 11) is presented in direct relation to the four following categories:

Hospitals
Community
Hospice
Care homes


2008/2009 report by Marie Curie Palliative Care Institute Liverpool (MCPCIL) on The Liverpool Care Pathway

'This audit is a significant step towards the development of a national benchmark across all other health sectors'

Prepared by the Marie Curie Palliative Care Institute Liverpool (MCPCIL) in collaboration with the Clinical Standards Department of the Royal College of Physicians (RCP), this 2008/2009 report is supported by Marie Curie Cancer Care & Department of Health End of Life Care Programme.

Note for Editors


· The Marie Curie Palliative Care Institute Liverpool (MCPCIL) has pioneered the implementation of the LCP. This programme is recognised nationally and internationally as leading practice in care of the dying to enable patients to die a dignified death and to provide support to their relatives/carers. This National Audit is unique in the world in both size and scope collecting data from 155 Hospitals representing nearly three quarters of hospitals in England and in a parallel pilot audit undertaken in Northern Ireland hospitals.

· The Royal College of Physicians of London is responsible for standards of postgraduate training and education for physicians. It provides a huge range of services to its 20,000 Members and Fellows and other medical professionals. These include delivering examinations, training courses, continuous professional development and conferences; undertaking clinical audits; publishing newsletters, guidelines and books through to maintaining the College's historical collections. It also leads medical debate, and lobbies and advises government and other decision-makers on behalf of its members.

· More than half of all deaths in England occur in the hospital sector (ONS, 2005). So high quality personal and nursing care is essential for the comfort of the dying patient and for the hospitals to provide appropriate support to carers.

· The Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient (LCP) has been recommended for use as a template of best practice in the last hours and days of life in UK National policy (DH 2006, 2008) and more recently in the National End of Life Care Strategy: Quality Markers and Measures for End of Life Care (2009). The first National Care of the Dying Audit in Hospitals (NCDAH) of 2672 patients was undertaken in 2006/2007 based on the standards of care within the LCP.

· The second National Care of the Dying Audit Hospitals (NCDAH) includes 3893 Patients whose care was delivered supported by the LCP. This cohort represented 114 Hospital Trusts across all 10 Strategic Health Authorities. A prospective audit design was used to gather LCP data from up to 30 consecutive deaths in each of the participating hospitals between 1st October 2008 and 31st December 2008.

· Care Not Killing is a UK-based alliance of individuals and organisations which brings together disability and human rights organisations, healthcare and palliative care groups, and faith-based bodies, with the aims of:

1. promoting more and better palliative care;

2. ensuring that existing laws against euthanasia and assisted suicide are not weakened or repealed during the lifetime of the current Parliament;

3. influencing the balance of public opinion further against any weakening of the law.
http://www.carenotkilling.org.uk/?show=842

Magda Hassan
11-15-2009, 11:44 PM
What is the La Rouche wish list for health care reform?

Gary McGowan
11-16-2009, 08:15 AM
What is the La Rouche wish list for health care reform?

LaRouche Answers Obama's Challenge: ("What's your plan? What's your alternative? What do you plan to do for all those families whose medical bills are driving them into bankruptcy? ..." ) http://www.larouchepac.com/node/11055

The above video is only a minute and a half, and Mr. Obama gets more time than Mr. LaRouche, because the answer is short and sweet.
1. Eliminate HMOs.

2. Fully restore the previous [U.S.] health care program [the Hill-Burton system].

3. Implement a single-payer system to assist in the implimentation of the restored Hill-Burton system.
Hill Burton’ Hospital Principle [March, 2009]

The rebuilding effort can best be done in the spirit of the 1946 "Hospital Survey and Construction Act," which, for 25 years, built up the hospital and health-care system to high standards and accessibility. The nine-page law, often called the "Hill-Burton Act," after the bipartisan co-sponsors of the Act, Sens. Lister Hill (D-Ala.), and Harold Burton (R-Ohio), mandated Federal and local cooperation and funding, to see that the goal would be achieved of having a community hospital in every county, to guarantee hospital care to citizens: in rural counties at a ratio of 5.5 beds per 1,000 (sparsely settled regions require redundancy); and in urban areas, 4.5 beds per 1,000.

The Hill-Burton concept sees the community hospital as the hub of regional networks of health services, involving education, public health, sanitation, defense against epidemics and disasters, and research.

At the same time that the Hill-Burton hospital construction boom proceeded—providing many of the 3,089 U.S. counties with their first hospital ever—public-health programs and applied medical R&D all but eliminated polio, tuberculosis, and other diseases. Pertussis (whooping cough) declined from a peak of 156,000 cases in 1947 to 14,800 in 1960; diphtheria declined from 18,700 cases in 1945, to 900 in 1960. Mosquito control programs—including the use of the insecticide DDT, begun in 1940—were on the way to eliminating malaria and other mosquito-borne diseases.

By the mid-1970s, the Hill-Burton goal of 4.5 beds per 1,000 was nearly reached as the national average. Intervening laws furthered the approach: Amendments to the Hill-Burton Act in 1954 authorized funds for chronic-care facilities; in 1965, the Medicare and Medicaid health insurance programs were begun.

Then came the downshift, in line with the 1970s policy turn towards deregulation, privatization, and globalization. On Dec. 29, 1973, President Richard Nixon signed into law, with bipartisan support, the "Health Maintenance Organization and Resources Development Act," which, along with follow-up laws, ushered in the era of deregulation of health-care delivery, to the point where today, over 2,000 hospitals have shut down.

Likewise, core public-health functions have been drastically reduced; hundreds of counties now have next to no programs at all.
from 4-pg PDF here (http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2009/2009_10-19/2009_10-19/2009-11/pdf/54-57_3611.pdf).
About the same text (I quoted only a portion above) is also here (http://cecaust.com.au/main.asp?sub=articles&id=2009_05_14_eir-hill-burton.html) as html on a web page.

David Guyatt
11-16-2009, 10:26 AM
I don't doubt or have argument with anything you say, David. I have also heard reports complementing the UK system by visitors to the UK. And thank you for the history/background.

As far as I know, LaRouche and colleagues have never said nor intended to imply that "the British NHS ... is an inherently fascist system" (Quote from Jan's post). What they are saying is that the system has recently been subject to austerity measures affecting significantly large numbers of people who are judged as being close to death, and that those (fascist) austerity measures are being promulgated in the U.S.A. and many other countries. Further, they show who is involved in this operation. Details in my post above.

Thanks Gary. But there are still horrible and inaccurate "designer" flaws in the LaRouche statements. My mother is 86 and recently suffered a very nasty internal injury that brought her close to death. She was treated with great care by the NHS staff and is now back on her feet, hale and hearty. This was the second major operation she has had in the last two years. There were no "austerity measures" in her case.

Likewise, my wife's mother died fairly recently from lung cancer. She choose not to be treated at 79 years of age. The NHS practitioners tried to convince her otherwise but, in the end, accepted her decision and were able to guide her nursing over her last few days with consideration and dignity. There were no "austerity measures" there either.

I could go on and on with cases of friends and others who are elderly and who receive NHS help.

The only austerity measures I have ever come across is the NHS food which is widely regarded as awful. Admittedly there are also not usually the nice comfy private hotel rooms that one gets in a private hospital.

A member of our family who is a GP advises that anyone who benefits from private health insurance should certainly use it, but when it comes to major surgery or life threatening issues he repeatedly recommends patients to use the NHS as private hospitals do not have the staffing or expertise available to them and are not very effective at those levels and should be shunned for that reason alone.

Gary McGowan
11-16-2009, 02:50 PM
He keeps talking about "they". Does he mean people at Harvard? Any ideas?

"The British elites" and "The British imperial interests" would be the simply-put literal answer to your question, Linda. I'm quoting from an Aug. 17 article (http://cecaust.com.au/main.asp?sub=articles&id=2009_08_17_eir-bloody-nose.html) which sets all this in a strategic context from the LaRouche organization's point of view. (A web page, about 2-3 pages on paper)
.

Gary McGowan
11-16-2009, 06:22 PM
"Suggesting that Obama wants to kill Americans to pay off Wall Street's criminal debts is just a ridiculous argument. In fact, the current American healthcare system, which Obama is attempting to reform, provides huge profits to Big Pharma, private hospitals and the Big Medical Insurance companies - all to the massive financial benefit of Wall Street."------------------------------
How about, "The Obama administration is protecting the HMOs."

If you really want to bring down health care costs, make the HMOs illegal for starters. HMOs have nothing to do with health care. You want to know why health care costs are high? Because United Health Group has annual revenue of $81 billion. WellPoint, $61 billion. Aetna $31 billion. Umana $29 billion.
.

Jan Klimkowski
11-16-2009, 06:51 PM
Here's Mr McGowan talking about the LaRouchie viewpoint:


What they are saying is that the system has recently been subject to austerity measures affecting significantly large numbers of people who are judged as being close to death, and that those (fascist) austerity measures are being promulgated in the U.S.A. and many other countries.


Killing grandma (or a child with a life-threatening disease) in an attempt to pay for the "bailout" of an bankrupt casino which was said to be a reputable state-of-the-art world monetary financial system is the issue. The trillions (tens or hundreds of trillions?) in debt are unpayable. The financiers are controlling conditions all over the planet to keep their usurious game going.



Do you want to provide some sort of corroboration for LaRouche's inane claims that introducing the British system is fascism in action, leading to the killing of presumably a significant part of the population, to bailout Wall Street?

As I wrote in previous posts, Wall Street already does very well out of the existing private healthcare system in America which disenfranchises millions of Americans.

Btw one of the reasons most Brits are much more willing to pay income tax than most Americans is because we know a large chunk of our taxpayer money goes to funding universal healthcare.

Gary McGowan
11-17-2009, 02:21 AM
Wall Street already does very well out of the existing private healthcare system in America which disenfranchises millions of Americans.What Wall St. does should not be called "doing well." "Doing evil," I would accept. Wall Street is crime street. The U.S.A. needs a new Pecora commission to expose those crimes.

I don't see how we can engage in discussion unless we can find some common ground. To that end:


* Do we agree or not that Wall St. lobbying strongly influences legislation and U.S. domestic policy, and has done so for many decades?

* Do we agree or not that the HMOs and Wall St. are strongly interconnected?

* Do we agree or not that the HMOs are deeply involved in hedge fund operations and derivatives markets?

* Do we agree or not that the Obama administration is protecting the HMOs?

* Do we agree or not that the Hill-Burton system was better than what the U.S.A. has now?

Jan Klimkowski
11-17-2009, 05:33 PM
McGowan - you come onto this site and post in one thread only, in support of Lyndon LaRouche's ridiculous claims about fascism and killing grandma to bail out Wall Street.

I ask you for evidence to support LaRouche's claims. You fail to provide it.

This thread is not about Wall Street. It is about LaRouche's unsubstantiated claims that Obama's healthcare plan would introduce what he describes as "fascist" "British" "austerity" measures, leading to the American infirm and elderly being killed, by doctors, to save Wall Street.

I put those words in inverted commas because they all have a special meaning to LaRouchies which requires translation for the rest of us. If we are even bothered about Lyndon's increasingly senile rants....

If you want to discuss Wall Street, there's an entire directory on this site, at the link below, with more than a hundred threads exposing criminal and deep political misbehaviour:

http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=15

David Guyatt
11-18-2009, 12:08 PM
I should like also to see the evidence Jan has asked Gary McGowan to provide rather than being given repetitive and unsubstantiated rhetoric in absence of that evidence.

Gary McGowan
11-18-2009, 01:25 PM
I should like also to see the evidence Jan has asked Gary McGowan to provide rather than being given repetitive and unsubstantiated rhetoric in absence of that evidence.
Gentlemen,
What sort(s) of evidence might satisfy? (Really. I'm not trying to play wise ass.) Thanks in advance.
.

David Guyatt
11-18-2009, 02:09 PM
Jan's two posts 19 and 19 above are as specific as one can get.

Gary McGowan
11-18-2009, 04:34 PM
I should like also to see the evidence Jan has asked Gary McGowan to provide rather than being given repetitive and unsubstantiated rhetoric in absence of that evidence.


Jan's two posts 19 and 19 above are as specific as one can get.

Which I am here rewording:
Can you please provide some sort of corroboration for claims that the Obama administration’s so called “health care reforms” further policies which are potentially genocidal? … and for terming this fascism (Corporatism)? … and for connecting these policies in some way to the British system? … and for claiming that these policies are intimately connected with the financial crisis?

Yes. Corroboration here. (http://www.larouchepac.com/health)
.

Linda Minor
11-19-2009, 12:27 AM
http://www.larouchepac.com/node/11975
Instructions: To help others make sense out of your answers, think about the following questions and be sure to explain your answers to your loved ones and health care providers.

If you checked "worth living, but just barely" for more than one factor, would a combination of these factors make your life "not worth living?" If so, which factors?

If you checked "not worth living," does this mean that you would rather die than be kept alive?

Only yesterday I talked to my daughter about this very subject. After watching two of my parents die in a nursing home, I made a decision about what kind of life is worth living. I do not want to be a human vegetable or even a person who has no memory or no ability to function physically and mentally. If that point comes, I told my daughter, do whatever is necessary to make it stop.

For some reason LaRouche is afraid that if people have the legal right to make decisions like that for themselves it will lead to gas chambers like those used in Nazi Germany. It will get people accustomed to the "Brave New World" mentality. That's the reason he fought so hard against Dr. Kevorkian. I can see his point, but I still want to make sure that I have the right to determine ahead of time and give instructions to my family to "pull the plug" on this grandma.

David Guyatt
11-19-2009, 07:10 AM
The position of LaRouche presented by Gary McGowan is quite ridiculous and cannot be sustained - which has been made more than apparent in this thread by Mr. McGowan repeatedly ducking the requests that he substantiate the allegations he presents.

Linking to a LaRouche thread that merely regurgitates the same scaremongering nonsense is not "corroboration".

Dawn Meredith
11-19-2009, 02:10 PM
The position of LaRouche presented by Gary McGowan is quite ridiculous and cannot be sustained - which has been made more than apparent in this thread by Mr. McGowan repeatedly ducking the requests that he substantiate the allegations he presents.

Linking to a LaRouche thread that merely regurgitates the same scaremongering nonsense is not "corroboration".


When I clicked on the link and saw Obama mocked up to resemble Hitler that was more than enough "evidence" for me.

Linda, you and I are in total agreement as to our later- in- life wishes. I just hope that this country has evolved to the point where such wishes are respected.
Dawn

Gary McGowan
11-19-2009, 04:17 PM
“Gentlemen, what sort(s) of evidence might satisfy? (Really. I'm not trying to play wise ass.) Thanks in advance,” said Mr. McGowan.

“Jan's two posts 19 and 19 above are as specific as one can get,” said Mr. Guyatt, ducking the above request.

So, let’s assume that Mr. Guyatt is not setting us up with his uncorrected typo, and look at Jan’s posts 17 and 19:
“Do you want to provide some sort of corroboration for LaRouche's inane claims that introducing the British system is fascism in action, leading to the killing of presumably a significant part of the population, to bailout Wall Street?”

A. Nowhere did Mr. McGowan use the phrase, ‘bailout Wall Street.’ He did say, "The Obama administration is protecting the HMOs [health maintenance organizations]." He did say, “these policies are intimately connected with the financial crisis,” and (quoting an LPAC article), “the London-Wall Street axis.” Jan has plastered that phrase, ‘bailout Wall Street,’ all over the place here, not McGowan. And then, Jan says, “This thread is not about Wall Street… If you want to discuss Wall Street…” Good grief.

By the way, do we all know that huge amounts of the U.S. taxpayers money from the bailout went across the Atlantic? That ain't Wall Street.

B. McGowan didn’t say, “introducing the British system,” he said, “…(fascist) austerity measures are being promulgated…”

C. Re Jan's, “words in inverted commas because they all have a special meaning to LaRouchies which requires translation for the rest of us” –
"fascist" – “Bullying by the corporate elite” fits pretty close. You can play philologist here (http://tinyurl.com/yzr49d4).
"British" – In the tradition of Lord Palmerston and Jeremy Bentham, as opposed to that of Abe Lincoln, the Declaration of Independence, and the
Preamble to the Constitution (of the U.S.A.) Not intended to refer to the people of the U.K. or Britain in general, nor their legislators in general.
"austerity" – looting of the General Welfare to benefit and sustain the financial elite
D. Corroboration. McGowan pointed towards lots of it (http://www.larouchepac.com/health). McGowan can’t force you to consider it thoughtfully or discuss the history or more current reports or analyses presented there, especially in the video documentaries.


E. “The position of LaRouche presented by Gary McGowan is quite ridiculous and cannot be sustained.”
Perhaps McGowan failed to represent LaRouche's position accurately. McGowan did try to point the reader to LaRouche's (and colleagues’) own words, though.
.

Jan Klimkowski
11-19-2009, 05:26 PM
It's the "reform" -- the austerity measures -- being promulgated, that LaRouche is talking about, not the NHS itself. LaRouche and colleagues have never said nor intended to imply that the British NHS is an inherently fascist system. It's not!

Killing grandma (or a child with a life-threatening disease) in an attempt to pay for the "bailout" of an bankrupt casino which was said to be a reputable state-of-the-art world monetary financial system is the issue. The trillions (tens or hundreds of trillions?) in debt are unpayable. The financiers are controlling conditions all over the planet to keep their usurious game going.

What we should be doing is to restart building up the physical economy again, not imposing austerity as the propagandists and controllers of popular opinion have steered us toward.

Mustering the political will is the challenge.

Mr McGowan - above is the argument put forward by Lyndon LaRouche and his organization.

It is clear for everyone to see and judge who is telling the truth here and who is lying.

In your post #27 above, you talk about yourself in the third person.

Do you commonly do this?

Or did one of the LaRouche organization's many propagandists pen that answer for you, hence the bizarre use of the third person?

David Guyatt
11-19-2009, 05:29 PM
D. Corroboration. McGowan pointed towards lots of it. McGowan can’t force you to consider it thoughtfully or discuss the history or more current reports or analyses presented there, especially in the video documentaries.

In other words LaRouche corroborates LaRouche.

Hmmm.

Since there is very considerable doubt about the veracity of the somewhat outlandish statements made by LaRouche in regard to the British NHS, when asking for substantiation (the word I used above) of his claims one would have expected to have been presented with exactly that. Not more LaRouche statements.

There is another fine point too concerning your definition of fascist. Sorry to pernickety, but the British National Health System is not a "Corporation" in the sense you mean (usually charaterized by limited liability, the issuance of shares and operating for profit). On the contrary, the NHS is taxpayer funded, is not for profit and a very great majority of Brits cherich it and despise the thought the business elites are trying to privatize it.

Ergo your argument that the word fascist means "Bullying by the corporate elite" does not fit pretty close at all.

Definition of substantiation by the Free Online Dictionary:


sub·stan·ti·ate (sb-stnsh-t)tr.v. sub·stan·ti·at·ed, sub·stan·ti·at·ing, sub·stan·ti·ates

1. To support with proof or evidence; verify: substantiate an accusation.

But I see this discussion is going to go exactly nowhere -- except in ever decreasing LaRouchian circles.

Gary McGowan
11-19-2009, 06:05 PM
. . .

It is clear for everyone to see and judge who is telling the truth here and who is lying.

In your post #27 above, you talk about yourself in the third person.

Do you commonly do this?

Or did one of the LaRouche organization's many propagandists pen that answer for you, hence the bizarre use of the third person?

Oh, good grief. In reply to the last, no, I don't usually do that. I was indulging myself. In Thai (language-culture, where I live), it's very common. Nobody penned it for me. I've never met a "LaRouchie," and I'm not in correspondence with any such creatures.

If you think someone here is lying, pray, say who, and about what. Why so coy? Stop speaking for "everyone" and speak for yourself.

But your comment here has reminded me of a possible mistake I made in trying to represent LaRouche's views. I said,

LaRouche and colleagues have never said nor intended to imply that the British NHS is an inherently fascist system. It's not! and then, after that, I was reviewing a video in which Debra Freeman, LaRouche's national spokeswoman, who is an epidemiologist, by the way--a medical professional, expressed her opinion of the NHS, which, while I don't recall hearing "fascist," wasn't held in very high regard; and she backed it up with comparative statistics. I'll dig for a minute or two here...

http://www.larouchepac.com/node/11473 about the 10 minute mark or thereabouts. Before that, she talks about her being interviewed by a BBC (?) female reporter which I find a delightfully amusing story.

David Guyatt
11-19-2009, 06:30 PM
Mr. McGowan, if you can find someone independent of LaRouche to amuse us with that wold be preferable imo. At the moment we are all being treated to a LaRouchian spectacle and embedded links to LaRouche in your almost every post.

I hope that does not solely comprises your knowledge base on these subjects.

Please consider posting in other folders, like the banking folder (which you have expressed an interest in), views and information that are not believers epistles from The Holy Church of St. Lyndon the Blessed Saviour. Many of us here probably have views that may be reciprocal to yours in many ways --- x the in-house EIR slant.

As to statistics you will be aware of the famous saying: there are lies, damn lies and statistics. Why bother posting them I wonder - especially as they are LaRouchian stats and, therefore, almost certain to be on message.

A more thorough, wider and independent knowledge of these topics would be find a wider audience I am sure.

Gary McGowan
11-19-2009, 07:10 PM
I hadn't seen this post when I replied to Jan just above.


In other words LaRouche corroborates LaRouche.
...or LL and colleagues make their arguments better than I've been able to.



...the British National Health System is not a "Corporation" in the sense you mean (usually charaterized by limited liability, the issuance of shares and operating for profit). On the contrary, the NHS is taxpayer funded, is not for profit and a very great majority of Brits cherich it and despise the thought the business elites are trying to privatize it.
Yeah. Americans kinda liked the taxpayer funded Hill-Burton system too, before Nixon administration and finding themselves with this privatized HMO crap. (It's past 1:30 a.m. I'm painting in broad strokes.)



Ergo your argument that the word fascist means "Bullying by the corporate elite" does not fit pretty close at all.
Well, except for the fact that I had said, "LaRouche and colleagues have never said nor intended to imply that the British NHS is an inherently fascist system." The corporate elite is bullying American domestic policy. Actually, financier elite might be a better term; then, to my way of thinking, it could apply to U.K. policy too--but you folks can do as you please with your health care. Just please keep Tony Blair and his buddies on the island and out of U.S. affairs.

LaRouche and co-conspirators DO support their views with proof and evidence. You just refuse to engage it.


But I see this discussion is going to go exactly nowhere
It may well be that the behavioral economists who are advising their narcissistic little puppet, Obama, would have slipped their spiffy advisory panel (accountable to nobody--certainly not American citizens) in really smoothly by now had not LaRouche intervened. To me, that's "getting somewhere," albeit a small step.


A little history, just for fun:
The Franklin School Starts Modern England (http://american_almanac.tripod.com/chaiben.htm), by Anton Chaitkin
.

Gary McGowan
11-19-2009, 07:39 PM
Mr. McGowan, if you can find someone independent of LaRouche to amuse us with that wold be preferable imo. At the moment we are all being treated to a LaRouchian spectacle and embedded links to LaRouche in your almost every post.

I hope that does not solely comprises your knowledge base on these subjects.

Please consider posting in other folders, like the banking folder (which you have expressed an interest in), views and information that are not believers epistles from The Holy Church of St. Lyndon the Blessed Saviour. Many of us here probably have views that may be reciprocal to yours in many ways --- x the in-house EIR slant.

As to statistics you will be aware of the famous saying: there are lies, damn lies and statistics. Why bother posting them I wonder - especially as they are LaRouchian stats and, therefore, almost certain to be on message.

A more thorough, wider and independent knowledge of these topics would be find a wider audience I am sure.


Some of their [EIR's] authors, including LaRouche himself, have a very radical way of writing and speaking, which tends to put people off. The facts they report seem to reliable, although I am less sure about their conclusions. Personally, I think their understanding of history, geopolitics, and international crime syndicates is among the best; and in a lot of ways they are pioneers.
-- Joël van der Reijden, http://www.isgp.eu/about.htm
I trust you are familiar with the site and the author's work.

Thank you for the suggestion.

David Guyatt
11-20-2009, 10:23 AM
Yes I know Joel and we have discussed LL. He is broadly in agreement with me that whilst their research material is often insightful and interesting, their interpretation and conclusions are not to be trusted.

You will find others here who have far deeper insights into EIR and LL. In fact, few of us are virgins when it comes them.

A couple of years ago I was sent a newspaper article concerning LL who had attended a Bush White House soiree and was seen in an extended private huddle with Dick Cheney.

This was after LL "brought Cheney down", called for his resignation and so on, in a series of articles spanning several years. Cheney was LL's bogey-man par excellence.

Kinda makes you wonder doesn't it.

In the UK the third political party, the Lib-Dems, never acquires power. I am not alone in seeing in them a sort of lightning rod that diffuses public dissatisfaction with the sham we call democracy. Elite thinking would certainly see the advantage of this.

Gary McGowan
11-21-2009, 01:36 AM
A couple of years ago I was sent a newspaper article concerning LL who had attended a Bush White House soiree and was seen in an extended private huddle with Dick Cheney.
.
Do you want to provide some sort of corroboration for that statement? I should like to see the evidence.

“I saw a newspaper article”

Indeed.
.
.

David Guyatt
11-21-2009, 10:37 AM
Long term readers of this forum will know why I can no longer retrieve my archive these days (or at least not easily), but I can assure you this is true. But do your own research. This article was freely available on the internet no more than three years ago - which was approx. when I downloaded and read it.

But I have to admit that I did post this fragment a bit tongue in cheek because I had the suspicion that it might unsettle your hero worship just a tad and I see that it has. As always its preferable to shoot the messenger than believe the message, eh.

Now that I understand who you are and what you believe I think the sensible course of action for me henceforward is to leave it here.

Gary McGowan
11-24-2009, 10:52 AM
Now that I understand who you are ....

I am just (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnTa4t-Ssjc&NR=1) a poor boy though my story's seldom told
I have squandered my resistance
For a pocket full of mumbles, such are promises
All lies in jest, still a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest
hmm hmm hmmm

When I left my home and my family, was no more than a boy
In the company of strangers In the quiet of the railway station running scared
Laying low seeking out the poorer quarters, Where the ragged people go
Looking for the places only they would know
lie la lie, ...

Asking only workman's wages I come looking for a job, but I get no offers
Just a come on from the whores on seventh avenue
I do declare there were times when I was so lonesome
I took some comfort there
la la la ...

And I am laying out my winter clothes and wishing I was gone, Going home
Where the New York City winters aren't bleeding me, Leading me, going home

In the clearing stands a boxer and a fighter by his trade
And he carries the reminders
Of every glove that laid him down or cut him till he cried out
In his anger and shame, I am leaving, I am leaving,
But the fighter still remains hmm hmm hmm

David Guyatt
11-24-2009, 04:41 PM
It's a great song, as indeed is this:

Hello darkness, my old friend,
I've come to talk with you again,
Because a vision softly creeping,
Left its seeds while I was sleeping,
And the vision that was planted in my brain
Still remains
Within the sound of silence.

In restless dreams I walked alone
Narrow streets of cobblestone,
'Neath the halo of a street lamp,
I turned my collar to the cold and damp
When my eyes were stabbed by the flash of a neon light
That split the night
And touched the sound of silence.

And in the naked light I saw
Ten thousand people, maybe more.
People talking without speaking,
People hearing without listening,
People writing songs that voices never share
And no one dared
Disturb the sound of silence.

"Fools" said I, "You do not know
Silence like a cancer grows.
Hear my words that I might teach you,
Take my arms that I might reach you."
But my words like silent raindrops fell,
And echoed
In the wells of silence.

And the people bowed and prayed
To the neon god they made.
And the sign flashed out its warning,
In the words that it was forming.
And the sign said, the words of the prophets are written on the subway walls
And tenement halls.
And whisper'd in the sounds of silence."

But neither compare to this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YUiBBltOg4)

Linda Minor
12-01-2009, 10:33 PM
THE PROBLEM AIN'T DUBAI. IT'S LONDON!
by John Hoefle

November 29, 2009 (LPAC)—Death never takes a holiday, and neither does the global breakdown. While the attention of America was distracted by the Thanksgiving holiday, the British Empire was on the move, making decisions which include a planned early dumping of President Barack Obama.

The "Dubai crisis," as it is being mis-reported, is actually the breakdown of the London-centered global monetary system. Far from being a mere backwater, Dubai occupies a key place in the dope-running, dirty money, criminal organization which is the empire. To view this merely as a "Dubai crisis," is to miss the point entirely about the nature of the period.

"Since January of this year, but most clearly since the beginning of April, the United States and world civilization, but particularly the United States, is in a process of self-destruction," Lyndon LaRouche observed Nov. 24.

"What you're having now—it should be obvious to you all—is a general breakdown of civilization," LaRouche said. "This is not a financial crisis, though there is one there. It's not an economic crisis—there's a real big one there. But it's a breakdown of civilization... the entire society, especially immediately in the United States, is disintegrating."

The next day, while the American press was busy exhorting Americans to gear up for a Black Friday shopping frenzy, the next phase of the collapse was beginning, in London, and Dubai.

Hello, Dubai

The public portion of the crisis began when Dubai World, a corporate front for the royal family of the tiny nation, announced that it was requesting a six-month moratorium on its debt payments. The move sent European stock markets plunging on Thanksgiving Day, followed by Asian and U.S. markets the next day, as fears of a new round of losses spread around the world.

Bank stocks were hit the hardest. Dubai World has some $60 billion of debts, about half of which is reportedly owed to European banks. The company went deep into debt to fund one of the craziest fantasies we've seen in a while, the turning of Dubai into a tourist destination and pleasure center. It created a series of opulent man-made residential islands, shopping malls, luxury hotels, and high-rise towers, filled with nearly every amenity possible, except maybe good taste. The game worked for a while, but then the financial system blew, and real estate values fell by 50%.

The bank debt and the real estate values are trivial, however, compared to the subterranean money flows which form the real economy of Dubai. The tiny emirate is the central black market for the empire's black-market system, the financial capital of the world's dope and hot money trade. Dubai today plays a role similar to that of Hong Kong in the earlier days of the British Empire, its high-rises home to some of Afghanistan's most powerful drug lords, among other narcotrafficking kingpins. This is the real reason for Dubai's emergence as a financial center.

Dubai is run top-down by the British, built largely with British money, and by British-linked construction firms. Most government agencies have a member of the Dubai royal family as the titular head, with a Brit second in command and actually running the operation. It should come as no surprise that Sheikh Mohammed, the ruler of Dubai, went to London to visit Queen Elizabeth, Prime Minister Gordon Brown, and others, in the days immediately preceding the Dubai World announcement. As the Sheikh himself said, the whole thing had been "carefully planned in advance."

What's Next?

The full extent of what the British have planned remains to be seen, but it is clear that they are not at all happy with the state of their empire, and when they are angry, they tend to lash out. They also tend to make mistakes, which works to our advantage.

Whatever they do, the disintegration will continue. As LaRouche has observed, the system is collapsing faster than the imperialists can put their fascist measures into place, forcing them to constantly react to forces beyond their control. The only way to stop the slide into a new Dark Age, is the full implementation of the LaRouche Plan.

The crash is on. Nothing has been solved, not by all the criminal bailout schemes, not by the so-called stimulus plans, not by the "recovery" lies of the clueless cheerleaders. Through it all, the financial losses have grown, and the physical economy has collapsed. Look at the number of people who have lost their jobs, the number of families who have lost their homes, the number of state and local governments which are now hopelessly bankrupt and cutting services beyond the marrow. This is reality, and it is getting worse.

Rather than moving to help their people, governments are turning openly to fascism. Trillions of dollars for the bankers, but nothing for the people. We get medical cuts for the elderly, cutbacks in cancer screening, and other such measures. These fascist policies continue to be pushed down our throats. The government knows the people are opposed to these measures, but it imposes them anyway.

All of these policies originated in Britain, where a callous disregard for the welfare of the people by a self-serving and fascist elite is the hallmark of that inferior society. Welcome to more British Empire.

More Coming

The empire, and its colonial flunkies in the United States—like President Obama—know the current system is finished, and they are working feverishly to keep us preoccupied while they dismantle what few protections we have left. Much of this is being done under the false flag of reform—financial reform, health-care reform, tax reform, energy-policy reform, and others—austerity, and further concentration of power in oligarchic hands, sold by the behaviorist psychos as progress. The "new and improved" version of the same old fascism.

Look at the banking reforms that are being pushed by the Brits, their Wall Street agents, and their pets in Congress, like nasty Nancy Pelosi and "Bailout Barney" Frank. Notable are the moves to make it easier to break up bankrupt financial institutions, and the proposed tax on financial transactions. On the surface these may seem like reasonable policies, but they are not, at least in the context of the existing system. Absent LaRouche's bankruptcy reorganization, the anti-"too big to fail" moves are really just ways to make it easier for the imperial banks to gobble up their competitors, and the transaction tax a way of charging the victims for being eaten.

No one should ever forget that it was the British Empire that organized and financed the wave of fascism which struck the world in the 1920s and 1930s, the British Empire which gave us Mussolini and Hitler. The empire is still fascist, but since Hitler made it impossible to sell fascism in its own name, it has now been repackaged, as globalization and environmentalism. "It's not austerity, it's saving the planet! You still die, but now it's for a 'good cause.' Don't you feel better already?"

The LaRouche Plan

The only way to stop this descent into Hell is to break the grip of the British Empire over the world, and that means busting up its monetary system. We must take away its power to control money, and give that power to sovereign governments. If that sounds radical to you, just remember it's what the Constitution says on that, and that our divergence from the Constitution opened the door to the current disaster. If we don't break the power of the empire, nothing else we do will make a damn bit of difference. Nothing!

Rather than propping up the casino, we shut it down, writing off all derivatives, putting the mountains of speculative debt in the freezer, and reorganizing the banks under strict regulations. No more derivatives, no more casino. Finance becomes what it should be, the servant of real economic activity. Real bankers will love it, and the gamblers—well, who really cares!

We do this in conjunction with Russia, China, and India—and any other nation which wants to join—to form a bloc powerful enough to force the empire into submission. Sorry, Queenie, no more empire.

That done, we can turn our attention to improving the conditions of life on the planet. That means science and technology, infrastructure and production, education and creativity. Rather than going to Hell, we can go to Mars!

Jan Klimkowski
12-01-2009, 11:09 PM
It may well be that a lot of deep black dope money is laundered through Dubai.

The creation of the world's first purpose built "Shop Till You Drop" World was clearly a front for something.

Lots of idiots with more filthy lucre than brains were sucked into this very C21st fantasyland, airconditioned corridors in the desert with gleaming designer shops selling gleaming designer shite, and whose inhabitants' raison d'etre can be summarized as:

I shop, therefore I am

As for the rest of LaRouche's rant, I have no idea what the old fool is banging on about.

Perhaps his mate with the MI6 family connections, Lord Monckton, Lady Thatcher's shock therapist friend, can explain...

David Guyatt
12-02-2009, 10:11 AM
All of these policies originated in Britain, where a callous disregard for the welfare of the people by a self-serving and fascist elite is the hallmark of that inferior society. Welcome to more British Empire.

This really is a most telling statement and reveals much about the inner turmoil LL must suffer from. This is as clear a case of Collective shadow projection as one can imagine.

I have to conclude that LL's projection of his own Collective (American) demon onto the nassy ol' Brit Baggins's compensates for his increasingly obvious power Complex as it puffs and huffs itself ever larger day by day.

There is, naturally, nothing new about political projection and it is something that has been indulged in since time began.