Terry Mauro

A Look Back at Britain, Secession, and Texas July 20 (LPAC)--The bold, hostile interference inside the USA by Britain's Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in the 1990s, and by Churchill family representative Jonathan Sandys today, reminds us of the British project known as southern secession, the slave-owners' Confederacy. Beginning several decades before the Civil War, Texas was central to British imperial attempts to destroy the United States and recover domination of this hemisphere. Britain sent their envoy Charles Elliott to Texas during its fight for independence from Mexico. Having redeployed from China, where he had started Britain's opium war, Elliot worked to prevent Texas from being annexed to the United States. Though he failed in 1845, the anti-U.S., British underground networks that Elliott left behind made up the core of the 1860-61 secession movement fighting against the Union-loyal governor, Sam Houston. Quoting from {Treason in America, from Aaron Burr to Averell Harriman}: "A particularly chilling example" of these networks was "the case of Edward House. His father Thomas House was a British merchant who came to the Texas province of Mexico in the 1830s. The elder House did not stick by Sam Houston when Houston fought against Secession; Thomas House made a fortune as a British national, carrying arms from Britain through the Union blockade to Texas. After the Rebellion was defeated, Thomas House returned to England and educated his son Edward at Bath. Years later, the young man returned to America to tend his father's cotton plantations; he despised the United States as an enemy land, and retained a fierce loyalty to Great Britain. {This was ``Colonel'' House, who directed the foreign policy and much of the domestic affairs of the United States during the administration of President Woodrow Wilson} ... the years of the World War and the League of Nations. President Wilson was not unsympathetic to House's viewpoint--his own father had been a Confederate Army chaplain and slaveowner." With the help of Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and Colonel House established the "special relationship" with America's only real enemy, the British Empire. Texas still remains infested with international jet-set oligarchs and their die-hard Anglophile would-be aristocrat American friends, who have welcomed Jonathan Sandys and his new secession projects.

Documentation of Jonathan Sandys speech in Clear Lake TX. JONATHAN SANDYS: I'm not going to take too much of your time, but I want to just tell you a bit about what's happening abroad. I want to tell you the response we're having in Britain, over America, and particularly over Barack Obama. We are absolutely disgusted by what your President is doing, and has done. Thus far, he has insulted my country no less than five times! He sent the bust of my great-grandfather from the Oval Office, straightaway back to the Embassy in Washington. He told it to "get the Hell out of here." On his way back from coming to visit my country, his wife, having hugged my Queen -- not curtsied, but hugged!... Now, guys, who stood with you on September the 11th, 2001, when the Twin Towers came down? Does anyone remember that? Yeah? Who was there? Who stood alone for a year, during World War II and didn't surrender? That was the British. Who did you guys fight in 1776? [laughter] Okay, you slaughtered us.... I don't have a vote, but I would kill for a vote, because I want to get that man out of the White House! ... I have never come across a bad Republican, only a very bad Democrat! And he's sitting in the White House! And next to him is sitting a woman, who was a member of an organization called the Black Panthers! Now, the African-American community complains about the Ku Klux Klan, and rightly so, for what they have done and what they did. But somebody needs to mention to the press about the Black Panthers. Somebody needs to point out that this organization is incredibly racist, even more so than the Ku Klux Klan! ... {Let us get Republicans back in the House and in the Senate.} Let us send a message to that man in the White House: "Your days are numbered!" ... You are Americans and you are proud of it. But more to the point, guys, you're Texans! {This} is where it starts. This is the state that has the guts. This is the state that has a governor, who threatened to secede this state! It is not going to be long, before 38 states decide they, too, are going to secede! Join me! http://www.larouchepac.org/node/15250

- An interview with Jonathan Sandys - On July 20, EIR reporter Anton Chaitkin interviewed Jonathan Sandys (pronounced "sands"), Winston Churchill's great-grandson and a representative of the Churchill family. Sandys moved to the United States in 2008 at age 33, married a Texan, and set up the {Churchill's Britain Foundation} in Houston in 2009. Chaitkin phoned Sandys after viewing an LPAC-TV video (see video transcript in Documentation section of this briefing) of Sandys' speech at a meeting of the Clear Lake (Texas) Tea Party, in which he urged the secession of Texas from the United States. Sandys told Chaitkin that he has been interested in the breakup of the United States since moving to Texas. He has met several times with Texas Governor Rick Perry, who has suggested that Texas could secede. Sandys said Perry plans to visit England and install a plaque at the site of the Texas embassy -- which the state has maintained in England ever since gaining independence from Mexico in the 1840s. "You may well see a repeat of 1861," Sandys said, the launching of the slaveowners' war of secession, the American Civil War. He said Obama's U.S. government is alienating the allegiance of the states, and indicated that should "38 states" (where he indicates there are secession movements) decide to utilize their Constitutional right to secede, the British will heartily welcome them into a special friendship. "If Texas leads the way and goes out," he said, "Britain will establish a new special relationship with Texas. This will be in writing," as opposed to the special relationship with the USA that was only informal. "In fact, Texas already has its own long established special relationship with Britain," he assured EIR. Sandys described the real welcome that Anglophilic Texans have given him, as a representative and spokesman for the Churchills. He said he had frequently seen Pamela Harriman, former daughter-in-law of Winston Churchill who later married Averell Harriman, when she was in England for Churchill family get-togethers. Jonathan Sandys' mission in the USA reflects his family's long history of "America handling." Winston Churchill, himself the grandson of Wall Street speculator/New York Times owner Leonard Jerome, took over managing Harry Truman after Franklin Roosevelt's death. Duncan Sandys, grandfather of Jonathan Sandys, married Winston Churchill's daughter Diana in 1935. The next year, as a Tory Party member of Parliament, Duncan Sandys spoke in favor of Nazi Germany's right to take over Central Europe, in line with the trans-Atlantic Astor family's "Cliveden Set" pro-fascism. Duncan Sandys served successively as Britain's Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs and Secretary of State for the Colonies from 1960 through the assassination of President John Kennedy, into 1964. He was a trustee with David Astor of the Parliamentary Group for World Government and World Security Trust. In 1972 Sandys became chairman of the Tiny Roland/Royal Family company, London and Rhodesia Mining Company ("LONRHO"), stalwartly supporting colonial Rhodesia's white ruler Ian Smith against the efforts of blacks for majority rule. Jonathan Sandys told the EIR interviewer that he was unfamiliar with British reporter and intelligence figure Ambrose Evans-Pritchard. But Sandys' eager involvement in internal USA secession politics reflects and continues the operations of Evans-Pritchard when he was stationed here as a London {Telegraph} correspondent in the 1990s. Using scandals against President Bill Clinton, Evans-Pritchard agitated for anti-government action by networks connected to private militia movements he himself promoted and helped organize. (Evans-Pritchard's "militia" agent Jon Roland is currently the Libertarian Party's candidate for Attorney General of Texas.) Among these British-manipulated groups were Texas secession movements, some of which are still operating in tandem with the Texas presence of Jonathan Sandys.

Another sign of the times. The "Empire" is grabbing control of commodities and raw materials. Their system is doomed. http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Dispatch/market-dispatches.aspx?post=1783519&GT1=33002

Triple Curve collapse function. This process of collapse has been ongoing since the murder of President Kennedy. http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.alternate-healing-science-christian.ca/triple-curve-collapse.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.alternate-healing-science-christian.ca/economic_breakdown.html&usg=__BeQRlFDITI7byO7qwMVcyf9__k0=&h=317&w=275&sz=41&hl=en&start=8&sig2=w3FpxNSPeesZTzV9wJroNw&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=i9nJI3WhlFCiCM:&tbnh=118&tbnw=102&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dlyndon%2Blarouche%2Btriple%2Bcurve%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26rlz%3D1T4GGLF_enUS265US265%26tbs%3Disch:1&ei=eZdETNOLLoTcnAfe3ZC_Cw

EIR Economics Director John Hoefle weighs in on JP Morgan, Glass-Steagall, and the British imperial system in this 15 minute video titled "Alan Greenspan's 1984 Pamphlet". http://www.larouchepac.com/node/15212

The Guardian takes a look back at 300 years of British Imperial rule; and it's effect on the people and nations it controlled. Even the Brits know their system is finished. The question is what will replace it? The American system or a new dark age ? http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/08/british-empire-colonies-banks-reform The social unrest that might have transformed our politics was instead outsourced to our colonies and unwilling trading partners. The rebellions in Ireland, India, China, the Caribbean, Egypt, South Africa, Malaya, Kenya, Iran and other places we subjugated were the price of political peace in Britain. After decolonisation, our plunder of other nations was sustained by the banks. Now, for the first time in three centuries, they can no longer deliver, and we must at last confront our problems. There will probably never be a full account of the robbery this country organised, but there are a few snapshots. In his book Capitalism and Colonial Production, Hamza Alavi estimates that the resource flow from India to Britain between 1793 and 1803 was in the order of £2m a year, the equivalent of many billions today. The economic drain from India, he notes, "has not only been a major factor in India's impoverishment … it has also been a very significant factor in the industrial revolution in Britain". As Ralph Davis observes in The Industrial Revolution and British Overseas Trade, from the 1760s onwards India's wealth "bought the national debt back from the Dutch and others … leaving Britain nearly free from overseas indebtedness when it came to face the great French wars from 1793". In the late 19th century, Davis shows, Britain's vast deficits with the United States, Germany and its white dominions were balanced by huge annual surpluses with India and (as a result of the opium trade) China. For a generation "the starving Indian and Chinese peasantries … braced the entire system of international settlements, allowing England's continued financial supremacy to temporarily co-exist with its relative industrial decline". Britain's trade surpluses with India allowed the City to become the world's financial capital. Its role in British colonisation was not a passive one. The bankruptcy, and subsequent British takeover, of Egypt in 1882 was hastened by a loan from Roths­child's bank whose execution, Newsinger records, amounted to "fraud on a massive scale". ­Jardine Matheson, once the biggest narco-trafficking outfit in history (it dominated the Chinese opium trade), later formed a major investment bank, Jardine Fleming. It was taken over by JP Morgan Chase in 2000. We lost our colonies, but the plunder has continued by other means. As Joseph Stiglitz shows in Globalisation and its Discontents, the capital liberalisation forced on Asian economies by the IMF permitted northern traders to loot hundreds of billions of dollars, precipitating the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98. Poorer nations have also been strong-armed into a series of amazingly one-sided treaties and commitments, such as trade-related investment measures, bilateral investment agreements and the EU's economic partnership agreements. If you have ever wondered how a small, densely populated country which produces very little supports itself, I would urge you to study these asymmetric arrangements.

They're finally listening to Lyndon LaRouche. June 26th 2010 21st Century Science/Technology http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2010/Nuclear_option_high_priority.pdf

********************* Did someone mention Rio Tinto? http://www.riotinto.com/whoweare/3632_jan_du_plessis.asp

Any text can be misread, as in this case the fault is normally with the readers (Steve and you) not the author. Quigley never said Morgan was tool of the British. Even if he said so he was talking about the early 1900's I gave no indication how important (or not) the commission was the fact that it's chairman became the 1st head of the SEC indicates it was important but you still have to source you claim it reached the conclusion Morgan was working for the British. If Pecora really said this in his book then you should easily be able to cite the applicable passages. I doubt anyone will take your say-so Colby: Quigley never said Morgan was tool of the British. Even if he said so he was talking about the early 1900's Which is it, he never made any such claim or he did make such a claim but with qualifications?

Jim, This is off topic but I wanted to thank you for the expose you did regarding "Farewell America" on Rich Dellarosa's website back in Y2000? You did a masterful job. Thanks

Either Mauro 1) didn’t read the article carefully 2) has severe reading comprehension problems OR 3) was trying to pull a fast one The threatened 21 percent Medicare fee cut stems from a 1997 law Congress passed in an attempt to stabilize Medicare expenditures. That law pegged the cost of Medicare doctor services to growth in the broader economy, as measured by the gross domestic product. For the past 13 years, updates in Medicare doctor fees have been calculated on that targeted growth rate. But doctor bills have outpaced economic growth. [...] As a result, actual spending on doctor fees soon exceeded the targets set by the formula, triggering the need for a correction. In 2002, Medicare required a 5 percent fee cut. Doctors howled. Congress allowed the cut to stand, but the next year it intervened with a temporary delay on a second scheduled cut. Similar delays have been approved every year since. Instead of fixing the formula, however, legislators have simply kicked the problem into the future, with each year's cut stacked onto the last. As a result, annual cuts of up to 5 percent have grown to the current 21 percent whack. It will likely be even bigger six months from now, when the most recent fix expires. In 1997 Republicans controlled both houses of congress and Obama was a 1st year member of the Illinois House and Senior Lecturer at the U. of Chicago Law School. So at best this could be described as part of “Clinton’s British/Republican /Nazi austerity program for poor and aged.” But Clinton is of course one of LaRouche’s heros and before we blame him we would have to see if the former actually backed the bill, signed it under political pressure, refused to sign it or vetoed it and was overridden. Had you read the article you might have noticed that all the article states about the 1997 law is that it pegged the cost of Medicare doctors fees to the growth in GDP (Hardly a cost cutting measure you sophist moron!). Actual payments outstripped the indexed payment schedule, and most if not all shortfalls were fully funded. Read it again the law, if it had been obeyed would have cut costs because medical expenses grew faster than GDP: “But doctor bills have outpaced economic growth....As a result, actual spending on doctor fees soon exceeded the targets set by the formula, triggering the need for a correction. In 2002, Medicare required a 5 percent fee cut. Doctors howled. Congress allowed the cut to stand, but the next year it intervened with a temporary delay on a second scheduled cut. Similar delays have been approved every year since.” "This law is not at the heart of the proposed cuts." According to your article it is “threatened 21 percent Medicare fee cut stems from a 1997 law Congress passed in an attempt to stabilize Medicare expenditures.” See above you misread, the mandated that updates be limited to GDP but docotors bills have grown faster than that. Since 2002 congress has postponed the cap. Now presumably due to economic crisis there is speculation they won’t do so this year which could result in a 21% cut accumaled over the last 8 years. This is Clinton era legislation there was no indication of Obama administration involvement. "What do you think the recent Obama Nazi healthcare bill pushed passed by congress is calling for? "Cut these Medicare payments"!" Citation There is no mention that the Obama administration is responsible for the possible cut, in fact thay aren't mentioned at all, provide evidence they are. Your hero Clinton of course was responsible for various cuts to social programs I stand on my earlier post. Pegging Medicare expenditures to GDP growth has nothing to do with Medicare cuts. The fact that the HMO system looted the system at a rate greater than budgeted for by Congress does not prove your point. As usual you're wrong. This is precisely why the congress delayed making any cuts. They established a bench mark based on GDP growth but they did not enact any cuts to reconcile the budget to actual cost. You confuse the 1997 legislation that indexed annual medicare payments to GDP growth with the upcoming Medicare cuts under President Obama.

COLBY: So far we have a book published in 1966 which if misread indicated Morgan was a British tool around 1900 and an undocumented claim an early 1930’s senate commission reached the same conclusion. Do you really believe the things you write? Perhaps they should have placed a "disclaimer" or "warning" on the jacket cover "misreading this book may lead the reader to make the wrong conclusion". Maybe something similiar to the warning placed on the sides of cigarette packs in the mid 1960's by the Surgeon General. COLBY: an undocumented claim an early 1930’s senate commission reached the same conclusion. This understates greatly the role the Pecora Commssion played in pushing through FDR's banking/financial regulations. Ferndinand Pecora hauled in the top executives/partners of JP Morgan and exposed them, among other things, as being British tools in running financial warfare against the United States. The facts are laid bare in Pecoras 1939 book "Wall Street Under Oath", . Just remember if you decide you get off your lazy bum and do some work you have to be very careful not to misread Pecoras book. There is no telling what kind of conclusions you might reach.

Either Mauro 1) didnt read the article carefully 2) has severe reading comprehension problems OR 3) was trying to pull a fast one The threatened 21 percent Medicare fee cut stems from a 1997 law Congress passed in an attempt to stabilize Medicare expenditures. That law pegged the cost of Medicare doctor services to growth in the broader economy, as measured by the gross domestic product. For the past 13 years, updates in Medicare doctor fees have been calculated on that targeted growth rate. But doctor bills have outpaced economic growth. [...] As a result, actual spending on doctor fees soon exceeded the targets set by the formula, triggering the need for a correction. In 2002, Medicare required a 5 percent fee cut. Doctors howled. Congress allowed the cut to stand, but the next year it intervened with a temporary delay on a second scheduled cut. Similar delays have been approved every year since. Instead of fixing the formula, however, legislators have simply kicked the problem into the future, with each year's cut stacked onto the last. As a result, annual cuts of up to 5 percent have grown to the current 21 percent whack. It will likely be even bigger six months from now, when the most recent fix expires. In 1997 Republicans controlled both houses of congress and Obama was a 1st year member of the Illinois House and Senior Lecturer at the U. of Chicago Law School. So at best this could be described as part of Clintons British/Republican /Nazi austerity program for poor and aged. But Clinton is of course one of LaRouches heros and before we blame him we would have to see if the former actually backed the bill, signed it under political pressure, refused to sign it or vetoed it and was overridden. Had you read the article you might have noticed that all the article states about the 1997 law is that it pegged the cost of Medicare doctors fees to the growth in GDP (Hardly a cost cutting measure you sophist moron!). Actual payments outstripped the indexed payment schedule, and most if not all shortfalls were fully funded. This law is not at the heart of the proposed cuts. The government has been funding these payments for 13 years. For the past 13 years ( the bill enacted under Clinton)doctors fees "updates" have been calculated on the growth of GDP. The policy was not to cut Medicare or Medicaid. What do you think the recent Obama Nazi healthcare bill pushed passed by congress is calling for? "Cut these Medicare payments"! Congress has been funding the "spread" between the difference in real payments versus the budgeted index cost for the last 13 years. The killer cuts to Medicare is being enforced by that British tool Obama.

There is no way Dr. Joseph Shanahan could bring himself to stop seeing Medicare patients. "My mother would kill me," he said. But the Raleigh rheumatologist, who is also board certified in internal medicine, takes a huge financial hit by participating in the federal insurance program for older people. The program's fees to doctors are already low, and a looming 21 percent cut would make a difficult situation worse. "By cutting reimbursements so low, what kind of quality of care are we expecting?" Shanahan said. Although Congress acted last week to once again delay the fee cut, the political wrangling over its enactment and the threat that it will eventually take effect have prompted many doctors to drop their participation in Medicare or quit taking new patients who rely on the government program. A recent survey by the American Medical Association found that 17 percent of doctors nationwide now limit the number of Medicare patients they take, and they cite the uncertainty about the future payment cuts as the reason. "People are scared," said Dr. Conrad L. Flick, Read more: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/07/03/1541586/medicare-cut-scares-doctors-patients.html#ixzz0si9LmBCJ This is Obama's British/Nazi austerity program for poor and aged.

It appears Paul has vanished

There is no proof that shots were fired from the 6th floor window of the TSBD. There was no proof that Oswald was on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting. There is no proof that Oswald brought a rifle into the TBSD on Friday 11/22/63. There is no proof that Oswald ordered or owned or had in his possession the alleged murder weapon. There is no proof that the alleged murder weapon was used to murder JFK. The government never investigated the case.

You've been a JFK Assassination Research student since 1964, you say? I hope it isn't too late to tell you, Terry, that you're wasting your time. This is your argument of Oswalds guilt?

Terry, do you know anything about this case? Do you believe that there is not a single piece of evidence that Oswald killed JFK, or Tippet, in Dallas on 22 November 1963? There is no proof that LHO killed anyone on Friday November 22, 1963. You understand me clearly. I invite you to present evidence to the contrary. I must say it's unusual to see Brit playing the "Lone Nut" role. Usually the Brits love to push their fake "conspiracy" theories on to us dumb Yanks. Count the number of JFK assassination TV specials, books, articles that originate with the Brits. It's mind boggling

Oswald visited his wife on a Thursday, which he'd apparently never done before. His reason for going there on that day was to pick up his rifle, so he could shoot the president the next day. This implies that his intentions were real before Marina rejected him. I agree with McAdams, that in all probability he decided to shoot JFK when he learnt of the motorcade route. As for planning, there wasn't much to do. The president was coming to the assassin's lair. All the assassin had to do was get a gun and sit and wait. Paul. Oswald visited his wife on Thursday (meaningless) He went to pick up a gun ( there is no proof of this. But even if he did pick up a rifle/gun there is no proof it was the rifle used to kill President Kennedy) Back to square one Paul

Of course Terry. LHO didn't kill anyone. There's absolutely no evidence to suggest that he did. You're up to 1,668 posts now Terry, well done. Anything constructive, useful or interesting amongst those? Paul. The stage is yours. I am ready to read any evidence you have that LHO killed JFK or Tippet or..... on 11/22/63. I am 100% certain you will fail in this endeavor. PS- Thanks for counting the number of posts I've made. That's your kind of "simple" truth.

Apologies Martin, for getting your name wrong. I find it irksome that it's so difficult to have a civilised conversation here. The polite, rational members are a small minority. Because I believe that Oswald did it, that somehow makes me a "nutter", and fair game for insults. Hence my bullxxxx comment. I get irritated sometimes. Anyway. I'll have to look that up too. I thought Oswald missed the previous weekend due to a party. If he wasn't going to go to Irving on the 22nd that would add credence to the argument that he just wanted to see Marina and the children. Irrespective of that though, there's still the bag. What was in it? I think it's safe to say it didn't contain curtain rods. Irrespective of that though, there's still the bag. What was in it? I think it's safe to say it didn't contain curtain rods. Why because JFK was shot to pieces? Therefore Oswald brought a rifle into the building where he worked? Now you know why there was no trial

It's a shame that, as a believer in conspiracy, you have no real evidence whatsoever! What has a consipracy theorist ever proven? Absolutely bugger all. Zilch. You have no idea what happened, for some reason you just can't bring yourself to believe the simple truth. "simple" truth seems to be your forte. You have to be brain dead to believe that LHO killed anyone on 11/22/63. Maybe one day the "light" will go on in your garage?

Oh he did? How would you know you little twerp? He probably read this dandy book from way back in 1991. http://www.amazon.com/Conspiracy-One-Definitive-Kennedy-Assassination/dp/0962621927 Jim Moore argues very much like Paul Baker. Jim Moore's 1991 book was probably the silliest and simple minded of all the "Oswald did it" books.

Mrs Paine believed he'd been in there, as the light had been left on. Coupled with the bag evidence, and the fact that the rifle went missing from that location, I'd say that proves beyond reasonable doubt that he'd collected his gun from the Paines' garage that evening. What do you think? Mrs Paine "believed" he(Oswald) had been in the garage because the light was left on. The rifle was missing ( you mean the rifle used to murder JFK or another rifle? ). I'd say your evidence is lacking. You havent proven anything