FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[Len Colby]

You have perfect timing.

Do you have any idea why a portion of my earlier response was deleted?

Because this the Education Forum and not the Cesspool Forum I doubt many members here would want to be part of a forum where comments like yours would be allowed.

Edited May 15, 2009 by Len Colby

[Terry Mauro]

I disagree with your characterization. I think it's very educational for the members. Examining how people think and not what they think (opinions)is a great method for understanding truth and furthermore how the human mind locates truth.

Culture plays a great role in this process. If someone has adopted "Nazi" tendencies, if that is their outlook towards humanity, then this will definitely play a role in the way they think. The opinions they express and their method of thinking.

<offensive remarks removed>

Evan, you have to be kidding. Why do you continue to "black out" the truth?

Now you won't allow anyone to know that Len Colby is part of the Hofjuden Oppenheimer family? To characterize my comments as "offensive" is ridiculous.

Edited May 16, 2009 by Terry Mauro

[Len Colby]

You resort to insults and character assasination because you have nothing else. Who my grandpaprtents were is totally irrelevant to fact that virtually no one at a liberal university in the US or the surrounding metro area could be bothered to hear your guru.

Compare this with the huge turn out for David Horowitz at UW, (see link in earlier post) note that the vast majority of the people who came to see him were against the neo con.

Nor does my family background have anything to do with the lies about the turnout told by Larouche and/or his supporters.

[Len Colby]

You once again focus on irrelevant issues why not address LaRouche's lies about attendence at his speach.

You don't like Horowitz? Great I don't like him either but far more of his critics (mostly students it seems) showed up at one of his speches at UW that supporters or detractors of your guru bothered to appear at Larouche's speech at CCSU. For reasons yet to be made clear Larouche sites lied about attendence at the event.

Attendence at the event is germaine because it seems to indicate a complete disinterest, outside his small cult, to what he has to say.

[Terry Mauro]

You once again focus on irrelevant issues why not address LaRouche's lies about attendence at his speach.

You don't like Horowitz? Great I don't like him either but far more of his critics (mostly students it seems) showed up at one of his speches at UW that supporters or detractors of your guru bothered to appear at Larouche's speech at CCSU. For reasons yet to be made clear Larouche sites lied about attendence at the event.

Attendence at the event is germaine because it seems to indicate a complete disinterest, outside his small cult, to what he has to say.

You show up to debate only after Evan deletes my response. Are you the Education Forum's sacred cow? Or maybe Evan doesnt believe in calling a bottle of milk a bottle of milk?

And how do you know how many people registered and attended the LaRouche presentation? How do you "know" how many people were there? The video you're using to "prove" your contrived issue was filmed and provided by the LaRouche organization.

To be honest I dont care if they said 150-175 people were in attendance and there was less. What could they possibly accomplish by adding 50-80 people to the audience? This is the kind of poop you love to swim in. Habits from your GG Allin days?

And I answered your question on popularity ( Madonna is popular) when I pointed out that millions of adult Americans prefer cartoon watching to anything political, to anything that might require them to leave their fantasy life behind.

I simply go with who is telling the truth. The size of the audience, popularity etc. has absolutely no meaning to me. I couldnt care any less. Idiot President George Bush pulled in much larger audiences than LaRouche, so what's the point. You see where that got the nation.

Are we done with this debate? Now you know, I don't care if there were 50 people in attendance or 150 people. Furthermore I don't see the number in attendance as a reflection of any flaw on LaRouche's part. LaRouche is one of the greatest strategic thinkers alive today. His enemies know this even if you don't know it. <Offensive comment deleted>

http://larouchepub.com/lym/2006/3341campus_watch.html

http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/2006/061019h...z_genocide.html

Edited May 19, 2009 by Evan Burton
Removed attack on members family

[Douglas Caddy]

http://larouchepac.com/lpactv?nid=10201

Lyndon LaRouche is a dangerous man. He makes you think. About 30 years ago I was introduced to his writings and speeches by two of his dedicated associates, Harley Schlanger and his lovely wife, Susan. I am most appreciative of their doing so. I do not always find myself in agreement with what LaRouche advocates but even his critics admit that he is thought-provoking and discusses subjects in public that no one else does. I mean, who on television but LaRouche regularly talks about the relevance of Plato and ancient Greece to today's problems? LaRouche in his discourses cuts across intellectual lines and weaves economics, politics, military, religion and social issues together in a way that challenges the listener to pause and reflect. One thing does amaze me as shown in this video: his mind is just as sharp as it was when I first heard him three decades ago and he doesn't look as though he has aged a bit, even though he must be way up in years.

[Guest Tom Scully]

http://larouchepac.com/lpactv?nid=10201

Lyndon LaRouche is a dangerous man. He makes you think. About 30 years ago I was introduced to his writings and speeches by two of his dedicated associates, Harley Schlanger and his lovely wife, Susan. I am most appreciative of their doing so. I do not always find myself in agreement with what LaRouche advocates but even his critics admit that he is thought-provoking and discusses subjects in public that no one else does. I mean, who on television but LaRouche regularly talks about the relevance of Plato and ancient Greece to today's problems? LaRouche in his discourses cuts across intellectual lines and weaves economics, politics, military, religion and social issues together in a way that challenges the listener to pause and reflect. One thing does amaze me as shown in this video: his mind is just as sharp as it was when I first heard him three decades ago and he doesn't look as though he has aged a bit, even though he must be way up in years.

Douglas,

I discovered a long time ago, even though I noticed, and still notice similarities in my own research findings and concerns as those served up by LaRouche and affiliates, that almost all of the information offered is available elsewhere. My experience is that if you quote LaRouche, any benefit of using an easily found citation is more than offset by the "hit" you take to your own credibility in the reaction from your intended readers or listeners. An example is that this man led an extremely controversial life of both historic accomplishment and criminal depravity, yet LaRouche is described in the man's obituary as "fringe". I didn't make LaRouche's reputation, but I think I have acted in my own best interests by avoiding mentioning him or citing anything directly linked to his name:

http://www.courant.com/topic/la-me-bevel25...0,4556255.story

The Rev. James L. Bevel dies at 72; civil rights activist and top lieutenant to King

By Alexander Remington

12:48 AM EST, December 25, 2008

....After King's death, Bevel fell into a long association with fringe movements. He was the 1992 vice presidential running mate of independent candidate Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr.,....

[Evan Burton]

Terry,

I am not the only mod here. Two others - as well as the admins - have editing powers. Please don't automatically assume I am doing the editing... although I do have issues with some of what you have said.

Thanks for understanding,

Evan

[Evan Burton]

Terry: you can attack Len's ideas or arguments but comments such as those deleted about a member's family are considered to be a personal attack on the member and not tolerated.

If you feel that the comments are an important part of your argument, please clear them with a mod - or considering the nature of the deleted comments, John or Andy - BEFORE you post them.

[Len Colby]

You once again focus on irrelevant issues why not address LaRouche's lies about attendence at his speach.

You don't like Horowitz? Great I don't like him either but far more of his critics (mostly students it seems) showed up at one of his speches at UW that supporters or detractors of your guru bothered to appear at Larouche's speech at CCSU. For reasons yet to be made clear Larouche sites lied about attendence at the event.

Attendence at the event is germaine because it seems to indicate a complete disinterest, outside his small cult, to what he has to say.

You show up to debate only after Evan deletes my response. Are you the Education Forum's sacred cow? Or maybe Evan doesnt believe in calling a bottle of milk a bottle of milk?

John also edited you comments I imagine that even on the Deep Phertilizer Forum gratuitously attacking another member's family members would not be allowed especially calling someone whose father* was killed in a concentration camp a Nazi. More than a bit ironic that someone who worships a man who sent his goon squads to beat up opponents and associated with a former KKK grand wizard** and Willis Carto** (Once America's leading neo-Nazi) would use Nazi as an epitah.

* i.e. my father's father

** http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/natio...rouche/main.htm

And how do you know how many people registered and attended the LaRouche presentation? How do you "know" how many people were there?

People don't normally have resister for such events. I don't know exactly how many people were there but only about 30 people and a little over half the hall are visible so lets assume 60 people showed up.

The video you're using to "prove" your contrived issue was filmed and provided by the LaRouche organization.

It looks like video posting hand didn't know what the lying about attendance hand was doing and vice-versa.

To be honest I dont care if they said 150-175 people were in attendance and there was less. What could they possibly accomplish by adding 50-80 people to the audience?

More like adding 90 - 130 people to the audience. "What could they possibly accomplish" by exaggerating attendance 3 - 4x? Was that really a serious question? Creating the false impression anybody gives a $#!t what he has to say, note they laughably claimed the crowd was capacity suggesting that even more people wanted to attend.

This is the kind of poop you love to swim in. Habits from your GG Allin days?

No its called cold hard facts and they are yet another indication only a minuscule fraction of a percent of people care what your guru has to say let alone support him.

And I answered your question on popularity ( Madonna is popular) when I pointed out that millions of adult Americans prefer cartoon watching to anything political, to anything that might require them to leave their fantasy life behind.

Strawman I never indicated Larouche is a fringe personality because he doesn't have mass appeal but Larouche's is well below 0.1%

I simply go with who is telling the truth. The size of the audience, popularity etc. has absolutely no meaning to me. I couldnt care any less. Idiot President George Bush pulled in much larger audiences than LaRouche, so what's the point. You see where that got the nation.

Are we done with this debate? Now you know, I don't care if there were 50 people in attendance or 150 people. Furthermore I don't see the number in attendance as a reflection of any flaw on LaRouche's part. LaRouche is one of the greatest strategic thinkers alive today. His enemies know this even if you don't know it. <Offensive comment deleted>

I'm not saying that the most popular politician or even writer, band movie etc is the best but you should wonder why IF he is as much of a genius as you believe his appeal is so minuscule.

=====

Douglas wrote:

"...but even his critics admit that he is thought-provoking and discusses subjects in public that no one else does."

Please cite an example of one of his critics saying anything like that.

"I mean, who on television but LaRouche regularly talks about the relevance of Plato and ancient Greece to today's problems?"

Which give his speeches an air of substance that don't really have.

======

Tom wrote:

"LaRouche is described in the man's obituary as "fringe""

The obit referred to Larouche's 1992 presidential bid in which he place 9th only getting 26,333 votes,out of 104,425,014 cast or 0.025%. That was only good for him to come in 9th place. I doubt many people outside his cult bothered to vote for him. With the possible exception of "Bo" Gritz he wass the most well know of minor candidates. Even among them he was in 6th place and got 0.4% of the fringe vote. That made him officially fringe de la fringe.

http://www.presidentelect.org/e1992.html#others

EDIT - Formating error corrected

Edited May 19, 2009 by Len Colby

[Guest]

. His father, considered a Nazi collaborator, was kept at the prison in the Irish Sea, the Isle of Man, a tiny nation separate from England but housing prisoners for England. The Koppels ended up In Canada.

"[The Isle of Man is also a notorious criminal bank money laundry center for use by the Monarchy's private enterprise, Coutts Bank London. See Skolnick's article 'The Overthrow of the American Republic', Part 48 , 'The Bribery List'.]

http://www.usmbooks.com/hofjuden.html

What a lot of shocking misinformation about my homeland

The Isle of Man was indeed a detention centre for prisoners of war during WW2. My mother has vivid memories of supervised POWs coming round to cut the grass in her family’s garden. The best account of this period in the island's history is recorded in Island of Barbed Wire.

A very wide range of people were interned on the Isle of Man from POWs to conscientious objectors.

The Isle of Man is a British crown dependency with considerable and successful devolution of power to its own assembly 'Tynwald'. It is the oldest parliamentary system in the world and boasts a long history of democracy.

The Isle of Man has its own legal system and independent financial and taxation systems. It is a well respected financial and business centre and complies fully with global standards for tax cooperation and exchange of information

As for being a 'tiny nation' - you wait until we get a f****ng gun boat!!!!!

[Terry Mauro]

This is for Douglas Caddy who was so eloquent and succinct in his analysis of Lyndon LaRouche.

{A Notre Dame event:}

{{DON'T ASK OBAMA}}

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

{May 18, 2009}

-----------------------------------------------

{In these times, including the} {{New York Times}}, {the

common failure of many highly publicized debates, is that none of

the opposing parties, and few among the members of the audience,

knew virtually anything worthwhile knowing about the purported

subject of that May 17th occasion at Notre Dame University. It

was clearly, a lack of knowledge of elementary morality which

encouraged them to speak more freely, since they were

unencumbered by that burden known as truth. What is actually

important about President Barack Obama's appearance at Notre Dame

University that day, was his certain, curious kind of innocence

of what he had done. He showed no comprehension of the political

issues of life-versus-death which he promised to compromise.}

{Compromise was what he had set upon the table for that

occasion, and, indeed, the compromise, his innocence, called, by

wiser men, his ignorance, was incarnate in himself. His

appearance at that occasion may be therefore compared,

figuratively, to the failure of the man in the crowd who got the

pin of the hand grenade which he was carrying stuck in the belt

of his trousers, and, quite accidentally . . .}

{But, then, he had walked on quickly, hearing the noise some

seconds later; but, he never told his children, and never knew,

himself, how many he had left to die when he had walked away,

pausing to admire himself in his reflection in the pool he

passed, on that weekend's day.}

------------------------------------------------

{Compare President Obama's statements of May 16, with Adolf

Hitler's decree of September 1, 1939, seventy years earlier, on

"lives not worthy to be lived."}

Clearly, a novice U.S. President might be excused, if not

forgiven, for a certain number of sins of ignorance, or, perhaps,

you might be of the opinion that, in this case, it goes the other

way around. However that might be, from one case to another, I am

neither attacking, nor praising President Barack Obama in this

present instance; I am merely pointing to an object, a less than

worthless opinion, which he had happened to have dropped, and

left behind in passing, on his way to, and from, that place.

The fact is, clearly, President Obama's conduct suggests,

that he, like the world's worst drug-pusher, George Soros, is

apparently free of the burden of any knowledge of the {moral

}implications of the abortion of a living human foetus. From his

reported remarks at Notre Dame that day, he seems not to

understand that the human foetus, is not "a thing;" it is not an

animal; it is a human being, who, at virtually any stage of life,

in, or out of womb, has a specific, creative {potential,} that of

a quality which does not exist in any other living species. Those

who are not accustomed to actually thinking creatively, might

have difficulty with that concept. Obviously, Obama did.

The problem with that Notre Dame debate is, that the

argument of neither of those contending parties, as told,

reported, by the {{New York Times}} or {{The Washington Post}},

has any affinity at all for that quality of inborn creativity,

which actually distinguishes the human individual from the

beasts. Morever, neither of them, or anyone like them, has shown

the slightest intellectual grasp of what actual human creativity

is. The evidence supplied by the habitually hollow sophistry

prescribed by the example of {{The New York Times'}} style book,

will serve, on this occasion, as illustration of my point (not to

speak of my personal experience with the product of the

{{Washington}}--ugh!{{Post}}).

No elaborate inference is required to demonstrate that

President Obama lacks an efficient quality of actual knowledge of

the potentialities inherent in the human foetus (and also

unadulterated voters). He talked, but, as we have often seen with

him of late, in respect to matters of principle, there is no

credible evidence that he had an actual conception of the

implications of what he was talking about. Often, we find, that

some Harvard lawyers these days are trained to think like that,

especially Harvard lawyers who have been close to Larry Summers;

in his speaking as a lawyer on that occasion, he enjoyed what

some might consider the exculpatory advantage of innocence of any

actual knowledge of that subject, theology, on which was

speaking. He might seek to claim innocence on the grounds of

stupidity. For the President, in this matter, the mere form of

the implied debate was everything, and the content, for him, was

nothing.

Of such compositions by that President, as the {{Times}} and

{{Post}} described that occasion's event at Notre Dame

University, we must cry out, as Lord Byron might: what shall we

say of such a poet and his press reviewers now?[1]

{{WHAT WENT WRONG WITH RELIGION?}}

-----------------------------------------------

In matters bearing on the policies of governments, let us

not speak of religious denominations. Rather, let us look at the

nature and history of the legacy of European governments since

the time of the contemporaries of the Jesus of Nazareth who was

born in the time of the reign of that Roman Emperor Augustus

Caesar who had allied himself with the priests of Mithra cult.

Jesus was murdered by crucifixion, under the specific authority

conferred upon Pontius Pilate by the latter's virtual

father-in-law, that monstrous habitué of the Isle of Capri,

Tiberius. Such were the times of the similarly murdered Apostles

Peter and Paul, and also the time of the most beloved Apostle

John.

The bearers of that Christian heritage, shared a certain

wisdom with the wise person, considered a great scholar of the

Hebrew faith from that same time, Philo of Alexandria, Philo's

attack on Aristotle, in defense of the Creator's power of

creativity, went to the core of what became the heritage of

European civilization, still today. It was men and women of that

legacy who gave birth to what has become the constitutional order

of the United States traced to the Winthrops and Mathers of

Seventeenth Century Massachusetts today.

Put to one side those sundry contemporary interpretations of

Christian doctrine which appeal more to the ignorance of the

faithful than the wisdom of the Creator. Seek more solid ground

for a judgment on a luminary figure such as our President. Look

instead, at the verifiable legacy of the Christian faith and what

it shares from its origins with the commitment of Philo of

Alexandria. Our republic defined itself as Christian; therefore,

look at the follies of the recent event at Notre Dame University

in terms of what we know of the legacy which one might presume

should be shared by those assembled, thus, at that university, or

perhaps, a much better one, more like the Harvard of Increase

Mather, today.

Then, ask and answer the question: What is the meaning of

the immortality of the soul of the mortal human individual? What,

therefore, are we killing when a child in the womb is killed by

whim? Or, similarly, later? What is the difference of the death

of the child, in the womb or later, and the death of the animal?

You will not find the answer to that in Silicon Valley!

Therefore, instead of the tiresome labor of disputing

scripture with sententious theological idiots, simply ask and

answer the question, what is the creativity of the human

individual which separates the death of the child from the death

of a beast, or, on the contrary, of a soldier in war, or of the

person who is murdered, in point of fact, by that withholding of

the medical care which might have preserved that human life which

President Obama's proposed policies now propose? Instead of

splitting hairs over the words of scripture, answer that clear

fact.

Do you know what human creativity means? I have seen no

evidence that President Obama has even a glimmer of such precious

knowledge; thus, what could he possibly know of the human soul,

or, therefore, the killing of a living child in the womb? "What

is Hecuba?" Certainly, his currently proposed health-care

policies, which are explicitly echoes of the exact-same policy of

genocide which Adolf Hitler dictated as the German law dated from

September 1, 1939, have no agreement with what civilized

societies call law.

The issue is not the death of the innocent itself; you

errant creatures shall not be let off so easily! The Satanic

quality of what President Obama's Behavioral psychologists

present as their Hitler-echoing "health-care policy," lies not in

the killing itself, but in the nature of the intention which the

uttered doctrine of Peter Orszag and that faithless "Big Wheel,"

Ezekiel Emanuel typifies. There is an essential difference in

moral principle, in death inflicted in combat, or by negligence,

or if ordinary murder, and the willful extinguishing of the soul

of the innocent person, either for reason of malice, or so-called

economic convenience. There is a wide and deep moral gulf between

the argument for the cause of death imposed by intent or by

willful negligence, which President Obama defended at Notre Dame,

and the death, even the murder of persons, for other causes.

Nor, is there an ordinary sort of punishment for such an

act.

The essential nature of the crimes which Orszag and others

have presented to President Obama as their wicked intention,

must, of course, be confessed to be the fruit of their intention;

but, the nature of the offense does not in the death itself, but

in the evil of the Hitler-like intention which Orszag and his

dupes and other accomplices represent as their intended design of

the relevant form of proposed law. The evil lies in the

legislator who permits such laws to be enacted. The essential

evil lies in its true origin, in the intention of the

perpetrator, not the act by the individual person, but the fault

of the consensual law of that society.

The fault lies, essentially with those churches and the

policies of the society which generates the general opinion which

the individual act merely expresses. The root of the problem, and

also the remedy, lies not in the individual member of society,

but, rather the fault, to the extent it exists, lies on the

shoulders of the leading molders of public opinions and law. It

lies, for example, on those who promote that impoverishment of

the people, as the current economic policies uttered by President

Barack Obama prevent certain of the typical classes of remedies

which might be available. Therein, similarly, in the economic and

related dynamics of the general policy, including the general

morality of the state, is wherein the remedy lies, a remedy

beyond the means of control by the mere individual person as

such.

It is the society, not the mere individual, who must be

considered accountable.

For the sake of his own soul, that poor fellow, that poor

heathen, President Obama must, especially, think about that.

{{"How Green Was His Valley?"}}

There are, chiefly, two aspects of the current policy of the

Obama government which tend to demand that the President promote

the increased misery of the generality of our nation and its

citizens. First, he allows the great theft by what is called

"Wall Street" and also its likeness around the world. To pay for

this immorality of current policies of the most powerful

governments generally, including Obama's own, the poor are

intended to pay by Obama's adoption of policies which will

increase their pain and misery and shorten their lives. Second,

he supports a lying and bestial cult-belief, expressed as "cap

and trade," which drives the economies which tolerate such a

swindle into greatly increased economic ruin; this ruinous policy

will kill our citizens, and those of other nations, in vast

numbers. To support that fraudulent policy, the President is, so

far, disposed to drive the greatest portion of our own and other

populations into vastly increased suffering and death-rates.

Neither the U.S. Government, nor its officials, can consider

themselves the faithful moral servants of the general welfare of

our people, a general welfare which is mandatory under our

fundamental law, if they promote, or even tolerate either those

policies or their effects. The promotion, or even the toleration

of such policies, is inherently immoral, and, under our

Constitution, impeachable. Speaker Nancy Pelosi's complicity in

the effort to bury the relevant idea of a "Pecora Commission" in

the same political graveyard as the ill-fated hoax of "The Warren

Commission," or "9-11," is typical of the principle involved.

The underlying systemic problem in the making of law which

thus confronts us here, is that, whereas, the Constitutional law

of the United States, as in both the Declaration of Independence

and Federal Constitution, was derived from the specific

principles of dynamics introduced to modern society by Gottfried

Leibniz, whereas much of the flawed law practiced by our

government and its lawmakers and courts since is based on the

entirely contrary, scientifically incompetent doctrine and method

typified by the teaching of the science-incompetent Rene

Descartes, and such depraved followers of that Descartes as Adam

Smith ({{The Theory of Moral Sentiments}}--1759) and the British

Foreign Office's Jeremy Bentham ({{An Introduction to the

Principles of Morals and Legislation}}--1781/1789).

Like Descartes' pseudo-scientific method, the British

empiricist dogma, to the present day, as also that of the typical

Wall Street ideologue, is premised on the depraved notion of the

human individual as being merely an object engaged in statistical

forms of kinematic interaction with other bumpable objects in

otherwise empty space. It is a cardinal principle of the

empiricist method derived from such precedents as the Ockhamite

dogma of Paolo Sarpi and Rene Descartes, that there is no actual,

knowable morality in society, other than bumps and grinds of the

kinematic encounters among the mere particles of empty space (and

also virtually empty heads) of Paolo Sarpi's system of government

and Venetian finance. That Sarpian heritage is the doctrine of

the empire of the British East India Company, and of British

empiricism doctrine and notions of law against which our republic

fought, since the February 1763 Peace of Paris, for independence

from the evil which that British imperial system represented as

depravity then, and its imperial murder and thievery of today.

The morality of any decent republic, and, therefore, its

law, recognizes that the connection between the individual and

the society is dynamic, not kinematic. It is the function of the

state dedicated to those principles on which our republic was

founded, in bloody opposition to British empiricist degradation,

that the state is responsible for creating those preconditions of

law through aid of which the moral objectives of the true

republic are reached in effect. It is the way in which we compose

the actualized constitution of our republic, which must create

those conditions which are necessary, but beyond the control of

the individual citizen, or even a large portion of that

population.

It is, therefore, within the bounds of the necessary,

constitutional commitment to the fostering of the scientific and

related progress of the condition of present and future

generations, and their individuals, that the practical

realization of the necessary moral conditions of life of the

individual and the larger body of society is attained and

defended.

The distinction of man from beast, on which the sacredness

of the life of the individual human foetus, or born person

depends for its protection from the actions of its adversaries,

lies in the society's devotion to the distinction of man from

beast, which lies, uniquely, in not only the existence, but the

promotion of what are those creative powers of the individual

mind of the human individual mind which are the essential, and

only distinction of man from beast among living human

individuals.

Of such matters, President Barack Obama either knows nothing

of his most essential moral responsibilities, or has chosen to

ignore those responsibilities, for one reason or another.

Therefore, in numerous ways in his recent behavior in

office, especially since his pilgrimage to worship objects in

Buckingham Palace, he has acted with indifference to the

violations of morality, and therefore constitutional principles

of our law, which are, in particular, specific to the creation

and progress of the existence of our republic. There lies the

essential practical issue; there lies the issue of proper law and

its practice,

{{In Defense of Creativity}}

When we speak of the human mind, we are referring to the

"fire" which the Olympian Zeus of Aeschylus' {{Prometheus Bound}}

had banned. "Fire," such as the presently indispensable reliance

on the use of the power of high energy-flux-density. That means

power on the level of the standard set by the nuclear-fission

power, on which the continued existence of the present level of

population of our planet now depends. No "alternative," low

energy-flux-density alternatives exist, or ever will exist. The

right of every society to its own use of the benefits of

nuclear-fission, and also higher qualities when they become

available, is as essential as the availability of a quality of

health-care which President Obama's administration is presently,

and passionately, determined to destroy.

The alternative to a pro-nuclear-power policy, would become

genocide on the scale of billions of human deaths. The use of

nuclear power, in and of itself, is not a moral issue, but the

denial of its use is comparable to the genocide, and related

effects, caused by the policies of Adolf Hitler, the willful

cause of the needless death of billions of the people of this

planet, soon. So, if President Obama's health-care policies could

cause even billions of avoidable early deaths, what of it. His

policies of "sun and wind" would tend to have the same effect.

Wind or killer pills, the fact remains, that the policies

presently pushed foremost by the Obama administration up to this

point, are policies respecting health care which are just as

mass-murderous in the near term today as Adolf Hitler's were

between September 1939 and May 1945.

Which brings us back to the event at Notre Dame.

30-30-30

Footnotes

[1]. Should such debaters bring to our mind what

Shakespeare's Doll Tearsheet, who was honest in her certain way,

said of Ancient Pistol?

"You a captain! you slave for what? For tearing a poor

whore's ruff in a bawdy house? `He's a captain!' hang him, rogue.

He lives on mouldy stewed prunes and dried cakes. `A captain!'

God's light, these rogues will make the word as odious as the

word `occupy,' which was a wondrous good word before it fell into

bad company; therefore, captains had need look to it."

End of Footnotes

[Len Colby]

Ironic that Larouche who championed the the Clintons and to a lesser extent Kerry condemns Obama for being pro-choice.

There seems to be little rhyme or reason to his likes and dislikes

Reagan = Good, Bush Sr. (and Jr) = Evil

Clinton (and his wife) = Good. Gore = Evil

Kerry = Good, Dukakis = Evil

Do his followers know what he is talking about? I doubt it, their not understanding him is taken as a sign of his "briliance"

[Len Colby]

To be honest I dont care if they said 150-175 people were in attendance and there was less. What could they possibly accomplish by adding 50-80 people to the audience? This is the kind of poop you love to swim in. Habits from your GG Allin days?

And I answered your question on popularity ( Madonna is popular) when I pointed out that millions of adult Americans prefer cartoon watching to anything political, to anything that might require them to leave their fantasy life behind.

This is to a certain extent true, Larouche's minimal support doesn't invalidate his claims and his and their belief his understanding of world events is close to devine but by the same logic no one but David Shayler himself believing he is the 2nd comming doesn't invalidate his belief either.

[William Kelly]

Just the question I wanted to ask. Has anybody heard of this guy Michael Morrissey, an linguist and English teacher in Germany

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Was-the-A...090517-296.html

I first heard of thie OpEdNews when somebody I don't know posted my review of of JFK and the Unspeakable, and a half dozen people who read it emailed me to comment on it, and asked them where they read it and they refered me to OpEdNews.

Apparently it is a mini-liberal (choke) internet news service that reposts interesting articles,

and has a substantial following of passionate people.

Operating out of Bucks County Pa, they seem to be self-sustaining, and have volunteer editors and writers on different subjects, one of whom Ray McGovern, I know from sitting next to him at the Congressional Briefing on 9/11 that Cynthia McKinney sponsored.

Ray's a good guy who used to work as a CIA analysist, and usually has a good perspective on important things.

Being a fledgling new news organization, specializing in Editorial Opinions, they could also

be an outlet for some original works, or even referrals of good articles by other

writers.

Hey, if they post my stuff, there's no limit to the possible.

BK