Under Obama, Global War and Collapse are Inevitable; So Let's Impeach the British Bum!

April 27, 2010 (LPAC)-- The dynamics of the mass strike (led by rage against the banks), and the determination of certain policy circles to prevent global war, are creating a very fluid situation politically, with significant openings for LaRouche's Global Glass-Steagall and his Strategic Defense Initiative strategy, best known today as the Four Power agreement. These very openings underscore what LaRouche has stressed continually: until now, only we and some of our closest associates in economic policy-shaping, have had the solutions.  It is we, who must put them out far and wide, with absolutely no compromise on the fundamental principles on which they are based.        

Start with the global economic and financial breakdown crisis. Even as the usual official and similar idiots proclaim the alleged recovery, the inner circles are well aware that the ongoing collapse is accelerating. Among the latter, some leading circles have finally determined to go with a Pecora Commission approach, which is now expressing itself in the fully justified witchhunt against Goldman Sachs. In this environment, what had been, until now, the nervous Nellies who have known that LaRouche was right on the need for Glass-Steagall, are finally raising their voices, and we are likely to see a lot more of this in the coming days.        

But, our job is to force through not just the word, but the principle—specifically: the principle of dumping the hundreds of trillions of funny casino money, and carrying out a bankruptcy reorganization, as we usher in the Glass-Steagall principle separating commercial from investment banks once again. Only LaRouche has clearly defined this issue, and it is his proposal that must be rammed through.        

On the strategic issue, the situation is equally interesting. Over the last week or so, there have been an increasing number of instances in which acknowledged enemies of LaRouche and Reagan's SDI have come forward to propose cooperation between the U.S. (or even NATO) and Russia on building a joint ballistic missile defense system. The latest example was Sen. Carl Levin today, who addressed a forum on U.S. Russia relations with just such as call, which he explains as being very important technically, and as a political signal against Iran.         The problem is: it won't work. There is no way that the U.S. can eliminate the principle upon which LaRouche, and also President Ronald Reagan, based the SDI, and proceed on the basis of technical cooperation.        

The only successful way to implement the SDI, as we have stressed in recent EIR articles, and Lyn stressed again in his April 24 discussion on the Russian question, is to proceed from the standpoint that such cooperation is a matter of vital common interests for not only Russia and the U.S., but all mankind. Only those who admit that Lyn, and Reagan were right back in the early 1980s—along with certain Russians, as well—can take the proper standpoint. In effect, the U.S. and Russians have to agree to break free of the British Empire.        

The SDI was not a diplomatic tactic, but the design of a revolution in statecraft, a measure needed to ruin the power of that British Empire, such as Churchill's British Empire in late April 1946, which created what was, from the standpoint of vital U.S.A. interests, the U.S.A.-Soviet conflict which FDR had opposed, and worked to defeat for as long as he lived.        

Remember what the SDI is, and was proposed to be. It demands not a compromise, but a joint scientific effort for "the common aims of mankind," on the most advanced scientific level, as scientist Edward Teller had proclaimed at the Erice conference of that time.  Today, the pursuit of the SDI technological revolution is intimately  related to space exploration, and requires, still today, specifically  anti-British imperialist, joint collaboration, rather than merely diplomatic compromises, in that area as well. The SDI was devised by Lyn, personally, not only to stop war, but to elevate mankind to the role of collaborators in a scientific venture to discover new principles in the universe, that can generate progress into future generations. It was not a "practical matter," but a clear view of the only long-term perspective for the secure future of all mankind.        

For that reason, we have to face the ugly fact that this cannot happen under Obama. Under Obama, who is, essentially, nothing as much as an asset of a power foreign to our United States, who is not only a British asset, but also virtually the inhumanly brutish one of his own and the British monarchy's Hitler-like health-care policy, who continues to show his commitment to unleashing war against Iran, global war is inevitable. You can't have a Nero as President of the United States, and expect to avoid the kind of spreading global warfare which plunges the entire planet into a prolonged "new dark age" like that of Europe's Fourteenth Century.        

In fact, the first and foremost popular enemy of Obama has been shown to be, not the U.S. Congress, nor the leading parties as such, but the American people: the Nazi-like health care bill shows that moral failure of both parties, especially the leadership of the Democratic Party, as shown again, most recently in California.  With a man of Obama's lack of moral character continued in the Presidency, it is not only the Democratic Party that will destroy itself, but the nation as a whole.        

From that standpoint, the flank of the Blagojevich scandal remains very, very hot, as a potential lever for removing this President. But, do not be lured into sticking to one tactic. We present what has to be done, without compromise, while remaining flexible on how it can be achieved. The aim is victory for the cause which the tradition of LaRouche's original design of the SDI represented against such opponents as British "fellow travellers" in the Soviet government then, and similar opponents of mutual strategic anti-Ballistic-missle defense, still today.   What is required, is not a diplomatic compromise, but a commitment in commonly shared principle, among respectively sovereign nations, but to a common end.