edit SideBar


 From: 	EIR News Service <>
 Subject: 	[BRIEFING-FULL] Briefing Jun 19 2011 (Sun)
 Date: 	Sat, 18 Jun 2011 23:31 -0400 (06/18/2011 08:31:00 PM)

 [B1-25-7/BFG001]:BFG:L:             1 of  35   Pages
 |                                                               |
 |                                                               |
 |                       MORNING BRIEFING                        |
 |                                                               |
 |                     Sunday, June 19, 2011                     |
 |                                                               |
 |                                                               |

 Lyndon LaRouche NEC Meeting, Saturday, June 18, 2011


 [The recording had severe technical problems]

 LYN:  Well, there are two subjects.  One is brief and the other
 is longer.  First of all, I have published a document, "What
 Self-Interest?"  which pertains to something you should reflected
 upon in depth.  You may have some fun with that.  But in a
 similar vein, talk about one of the problems we have, which
 involves the younger generation's work, that, there's a certain
 uncertainty among the younger folk in our ranks, about how we
 should orient ourselves, that is, what thoughts you should have
 to orient yourself in approaching this situation.
 We're now in a situation, which ... [audio loss]
 HOLLIS:  You keep drifting away... Adam, do your number.
 LYN:  Are we Adamant yet?  Okay.
 It  comes out of a discussion we've had with Alicia and
 others in the operation, on what the problems are, in trying to
 get an adequate production of the kind of materials which we
 should be presenting.  And the point is, we had for some... we
 had a situation in Purcellville, in which there were tendencies
 for "lone man operations," in terms of video productions.  Not
 entirely lone man productions, but a lot of the thinking that
 went into designing the product, was lone man style.
 And this meant a certain dissonance in the effort, and also
 a lack of focus.  Because the issue here is not, "What's My
 Line?"  -- hmm?  the old television show.  The issue is to reach
 the population, not to reach your own ego.  Which sometimes
 became the problem:  "I want to get this message out, this is my
 opportunity to get my message out."  And that is not sensible.
 Because, the problem is, is that.... [audio loss]
 Okay, this is easier, then.
 The point is, as I discussed with some people:  You have
 three audiences, when you do a show, three audiences, not one.
 You have the audience like the speaker, or the people who are
 creating the production.  You have the reaction to this
 performance by the people who are witnessing the [inaudible] in
 general.  And the two do not necessarily coincide.  The person
 who is speaking, in faith that the people on the other end, the
 receiving end, are getting the message -- but they're not.  So,
 the first tier, or problem, apart from getting the right kind of
 message out, is to make sure that the same message that you're
 presenting from podium, is also what is being heard in terms of
 ideas and conceptions, in the mind of the audience.  This is a
 little bit of sophistication, perhaps, but it's what's necessary,
 and it's one of the most neglected features of some of our
 productions, both in audio and written work.  Written work is a
 little less difficult in some respects.  Sometimes it's more
 difficult.  But that's number one.
 Number two, we're working in a context -- right now, I got a
 report from Debbie on what happened in the leading political
 institutions of the United States, a vote in the U.S. Congress,
 where people voted against something because they were afraid it
 would make me a folk hero. So therefore, the leadership of the
 Congress decided to vote against legislation with which they were
 sympathetic, for fear that their doing that would make me a folk
 hero.  Hmm?  And I was getting similar reports from other
 circles, including an old friend of mine, who's a very important
 figure, saying essentially the same thing.
 So therefore, the important thing here, is that
 demonstrates, is the reverberation outside of what we present, is
 also a factor, because it's the part that reacts most immediately
 to us.  That is, people who are critical or supporting, but from
 the sidelines, not either the direct audiences itself or even the
 members of the sides who are listening to it, or watching it as
 direct performance.
 So really, if you want to craft something that works, you
 have to put in your own mind, a fair expert sense of these three
 different points, and how do you make your response to them
 coincide. Hmm?  In other words, are you clear?  Is your clarity
 clear to an audience, and are you adapting to what is going to be
 saying, in the response?  Not necessarily part of the audience,
 but reacting to what we're saying.
 So therefore, you have to have a crafting process, which is
 not, how do I put myself across?  You know, like a four-year-old
 girl who's doing her first party, she's doing little audition in
 her first party she's attended.  But you have to think in larger
 terms, you have to think of communications.  And communications
 is you are affecting the way various people are thinking, as a
 result of what you're saying, and you have to craft the product
 to {include} things that are necessary to make that point, as
 well as to get an accurate representation of what your idea is,
 and to bear in mind that the audience may have a different
 conception of the idea you're expressing, than you think your
 idea is going to signify.  That means that you have to have a
 mutually critical view, of the way you express, whatever you
 craft video, audio, and so forth, and just plain speech in
 addressing audiences; you have to craft that, with a reflection,
 on the fact that you've got three audiences to consider,
 functionally:  One, is you;  right?  You are hearing yourself,
 therefore, you pass judgment on yourself.  You're talking to
 yourself.  Which is what many people do, in production!  They
 don't realize, they're talking to themselves, not to an audience.
 Secondly, you've got to consider the audience, and make sure
 the message you're sending, in their mind, corresponds to what
 you want them to react to, in theirs.
 Thirdly, you have to realize that when you do something
 publicly, make a public statement of any kind in any medium, you
 also have to react to what you can anticipate is that reaction
 to: These are the editors, these are the politicians, these are
 the institutions of influence, and they are reacting.
 Now, they're reacting to us.  We're not virgins any more.
 Some of us may be, inadvertently perhaps, but  -- [laughs] I
 think it happens also that way!
 But in any case, you have to consider the interaction of the
 three audiences, and right now, as I have it from {very}
 responsible layers, and also in terms of a vote in the Senate,
 where people voted against me, because they didn't want to make
 me a folk hero, and said so: So they voted against a bill they
 would have supported, because they were feared it would make me a
 folk hero.  And that's all over the national circuits of these
 Now, once you do that, you are entering a different
 dimension, and you realize the importance of a constant flow, of
 collaboration among the people who are producing the product
 that's going out, including the video product.  It can not be
 somebody's expression, like Little Miss at the age of four or
 five, doing her tap dance at Mrs. Something-or-Other's garden. It
 has to be collaborative, and there has to be a political
 conception, and it has to be a valid one.  The fact that you want
 to express something does not mean it's valid.  It's the {effect}
 of what you're expressing, that determines validity.  The idea
 has to be correct, but the mode of expression must be valid:  The
 choice of subject must be valid, because you're trying to
 influence an audience.  Too many of our people think, often, that
 we have very little influence in this society, and therefore, we
 should just say what we want to say.  But that's not true.
 We have great influence on the process going on now, not
 only in the United States, but internationally.  What we're
 saying and doing, in this period of crisis, particularly because
 it {is} a period of crisis, has significant impact at the highest
 level in various parts of the world, right now!  And if you
 operate on the assumption that that's not true, then you're
 making a great mistake in your whole approach to everything.  And
 you're not even resonant to yourself, then.  Because if the ideas
 you're expressing do not have resonance, then you don't have
 resonance with yourself.  Because  when you go into the public
 market, you have to have resonance with yourself, as well as the
 audience.  And you have to have to take into account your
 responsibility, for considering the reaction you're going to get,
 in public, from our doing this.
 Now, this comes up, as a problem which I address in this
 thing, "What Self-Interest?" which to the same point, but it goes
 more to the personal point of young people, what they're up
 against; but the same thing applies all over the place.  You have
 to think about ideas, in a different way, and what we're having
 the problem, the problem is that, people in the younger
 generation, are convinced of Liberalism.  They may not believe in
 Liberalism, as a philosophy, but they believe in it as a force.
 And they believe in it as a force to which they have to reckon,
 with which they have to deal.  And some of the Boomers are
 experts at this, because they were once young people, who had
 this problem and now they've grown older, and more stubborn, and
 more inconsiderate of any alternative.
 But the problem essentially is a pessimism, a cultural
 pessimism, which is based on the idea of democracy.  The idea of
 democracy is, you must respect other people's opinion, because it
 is their opinion.  That is wrong!  You have to tell the truth,
 that's your first obligation; and you have to tell the relevant
 truth, that's you're second obligation;  and you have to tell the
 relevant truth, which moves people in a relevant way, that's your
 third obligation.
 And the problem comes to this:  The idea of democracy.  You
 have people, including in our own association, the young people
 in particular, who will say, "well, they have a right to their
 opinion.  Therefore, we have to respect their opinion."  Now,
 many of the opinions out there are clinically insane, or fascist,
 or something like that.  Our job is to know what the truth is.
 That's where you have to be critical.  You have to know what the
 {truth is}.  You have to know what the {relevant} truth is,
 especially.  In other words, something may be true, but it's
 irrelevant to the problem.  What you have to deal with, are those
 things which are the factors of influence which will produce the
 necessary result:  We're now at a point where civilization is in
 the process of disintegrating.  And the disintegration of
 civilization, which is coming this month, next month, or August
 -- it makes little difference; it makes a practical difference,
 but little difference in terms of policy -- we have to have the
 policy, for whatever, over the summer months, {now}!
 So don't worry about what date your target is, for effects:
 Your commitment is to the policy which you face this summer.  For
 example, during this summer, the great crisis you're going to
 face is the disintegration of civilization.  Because, if this
 Glass-Steagall is not enacted, in this period, you're coming into
 a point, where the attempt to prevent a collapse, means some form
 of bailout, or "haircuts," as they call 'em.  This has reached
 the point, that any addition, in terms of bailout or haircut, at
 this point, is so critical, that {the whole system can blow up},
 just on that basis.
 So therefore, our policy is based on dealing with this
 problem, this danger to society.  Now, there's only one solution,
 and that is, for the United States to enact Glass-Steagall.  If
 the United States does not enact Glass-Steagall, you don't have a
 chance, of existing.  You may exist for a while, but you don't
 have a {chance} to exist!  Your chance is gone!  If you we don't
 get through Glass-Steagall!
 Now, right now, you've got the point where you've got people
 in the Congress voting, shall we say, against a bill, because
 they thought it would make me a folk hero, and therefore, to
 prevent me from becoming a folk hero, they voted against their
 own conscience.  And this was the leaders in the Congress, the
 {leaders} in the Senate, and in other institutions!  And a former
 President, and others, have the same view, {that} is what is out
 there!  The fear in these circles that I'll become a folk hero
 because the legislation which I'm proposing, and actions which
 I'm proposing, will be that of a folk hero.  And they're not
 ready to do it themselves, hmm?  Therefore, they don't want me to
 do it, for fear that if they do that, under my instigation, I
 will become a folk hero and that's not good for their political
 career, or ambitions -- or whatever.  Hmm?
 Also, the other side of this thing is, we have to consider
 the number of people we're going to bankrupt, or what class of
 people we're going to bankrupt.  We're going to cancel, directly,
 on the direct bailout thing, we're going to cancel trillions of
 dollars of assets of Wall Street and similar places! Also, beyond
 that, we're going to have chain-reaction effect, on all the
 fictitious assets out there!  You have {purely speculative,
 marginal interests, which, if the main part goes down, if the
 Wall Street parts goes down, you're going to have a
 chain-reaction, not in trillions, {but in quadrillions of
 dollars,} measure of so-called nominal worth!  Because, all the
 speculation on the speculation, all this margin stuff, goes down!
 And the prices and values of many pieces of property, relative to
 the wage level, is also going to collapse -- and it has to
 Now, we will survive, that is, the nation will survive.
 Nations will survive, under this condition.  Under a
 Glass-Steagall reform, which can only be initiated by the United
 States; {no other country in the world can initiate
 Glass-Steagall!}  Without Glass-Steagall's initiation, the world
 is going into collapse.  Therefore, {the United States must enact
 the original Glass-Steagall, reenact that, and nothing else!  And
 it must be done immediately!}  Now, immediately, may mean weeks
 or so forth, or even beyond, but the commitment, the dedication
 to doing it, must be {now}!  With no option of "maybe" -- "maybe"
 is not allowed.  Because "maybe" means the death of civilization,
 it's a risk you can't afford to take.  Because if you don't get
 Glass-Steagall through, {it is going to go down!}  And you have a
 short time in which to do it!  Because you've got to go through
 the process of the House of Representatives, and the Senate, and
 the impeachment of the President.
 Now, the impeachment of the President is doing nicely.  It's
 in process, and he's helping us!  Isn't that nice of him?  He's
 being the kind of damned fool we need, as a target, a target of
 opinion.  And he can't help himself:  He's a British whore.  You
 didn't know there were male British whores?  They're {abundant}
 in Britain!
 So, but that's what we're up against.  {We must do that!}
 And we must focus everything we do, to that intention, the effect
 of that intention.  Everything we must do, and there are many
 kinds of things we must do, but they must all focus on one
 intention:  Getting Glass-Steagall through, and what that {means}
 through.  Because Glass-Steagall by itself, is essential, without
 which you can't save civilization, but by itself is not
 sufficient.  For example, list some of the problems here:  First
 of all, we have states which are bankrupt.  Most of them are
 bankrupt.  We can fix that; we can fix that not only by putting
 money back in, to balance the state budgets, so they are no
 longer bankrupt.  We can also increase employment, simply by
 using money to get employment going. And if you get employment
 going again, under these conditions, you'll get a chain-reaction
 of growth:  That is, when some people are working, other people
 are eating.  When other people are eating, other people are
 So you have a multiplier factor either way.  A collapse goes
 back into chain-reaction styles, and regrowth goes into -- and we
 have all the {job positions} available in the public sector, that
 are needed.  The firemen, the police and so forth, all these
 things, all the things that were cut under Obama, are things that
 can be put back to function on the state level, and bring the
 states back into a manageable balance.
 Then we have to go into the larger projects, which are more
 difficult, because we've destroyed the productive capabilities to
 a large degree, or disorganized them.  So we're going to have to
 get some major projects going, which are needed by the nation,
 and which will shift us, from collapse toward growth.  A lot of
 the growth will come from collaboration with China, and to a
 lesser degree with India.
 But China is very important, because China has been a
 dumping ground for U.S. industry, dumped out of the United
 States.  And also, China has been deprived of access to certain
 high technology areas of production; we, in the United States,
 can fix that.  We give China a full spectrum of access to the
 technologies which are needed! Because it's very much to our
 interest, that the Chinese nation increase its productivity to
 stabilize its population. China has been depending, essentially,
 on the markets in Europe and the United States.  If those markets
 go down, China goes down.  Without those markets, China can not
 sustain itself because it has a very large population, or part of
 its population which is very poor.
 So therefore, if you don't have a growth factor in China,
 China is not in balance.  China, by itself now, could not sustain
 its present economy. It depends upon the world market in large
 degree.  And it has a large number of very poor, with very poor
 and little skills.  They're doing the right thing, in rebuilding
 the country, China, but if the western part, the trans-Atlantic
 part of the world were to go down, then China would be caught in
 the chain-reaction, together with India.
 So the whole world would go into the deepest dark age, you
 can imagine, because it would be planet-wide, as a result of
 these two factors: the collapse of the trans-Atlantic region,
 which is the primary source of the collapse, and the secondary
 collapse in the Asian market, which means the whole world goes.
 So, our getting Glass-Steagall through is the keystone
 action, on which the world economy and the welfare of humanity
 We also have to overwhelm this green policy.  Now, the best
 way to overwhelm the green policy, is to get a panic started, a
 very good kind of panic.  And that panic is the panic of the
 success of the United States in going back into employment, at a
 time that the green areas of the world, are worse than useless.
 It is only the {pessimism} caused by the economic collapse which
 has enabled the green movement to increase its influence as it
 has done!  If you put optimism back into -- in Germany, for
 example, Italy, France --  you will get a change!  You will get a
 change in the social policy.  This conditioning is, that when you
 convince people that everybody's going to get hard times,
 everybody has to suffer, everybody has to sacrifice, especially
 their babies and neighbors,  hmm?, that it's a self-feeding
 fascist movement.  If you reverse that, the fascist movement, if
 you do it in time, the fascist movement will evaporate.
 So that's our situation.
 Now, back to this question of youth:  In this context, this
 present context, we have an additional problem internally, but
 it's generally a youth-wide problem, at least that's the form it
 hits us with.  People say, "Well, we have our ideas.  These ideas
 that we have are good.  Hmm?  They're very good ideas.  But... we
 don't have the right to impose them on other people."  Now, what
 this comes up with, is a very deadly equation.  If you believe
 that other people have the right to "their own opinion" and you
 don't have the right to replace that opinion by your influence,
 or by some kind action to educate them, or change their point of
 view, then society's going to Hell.
 Now, it has another consequence:  If you accept the views,
 which are opposite to our own right now, in terms of growth and
 so forth, economy, technology, whatnot, then, in that case,
 civilization dies!  What it means, in effect, if our own people,
 take the view that they don't have the right to impose our views,
 contrary to what other people believe presently, and induce those
 other people to change their views, by appropriate means, then,
 what you're saying is, in effect -- which some people say!  --
 "When I die, when my generation dies, the world in which I have
 lived dies, and my life becomes meaningless to the future, except
 as raw material."  On other words, a {deep cultural pessimism,
 comes out of existentialist tolerationism.}  And what we find
 among our own youth, is this idea of consent, which is actually a
 pathological conception of consent, {because it's wrong}.  It's
 {wrong} for humanity!  Poison, giving people poison in the name
 of democracy, is not an expression of humanity.
 There are such things as a struggle, as in science, for
 right ideas, and they're defined by the same sort of criteria
 that we apply to what is proper in physical science, or at least
 the effects of physical science.  What is necessary to sustain
 the human population, to increase its opportunities, to develop
 its culture?  You know, here we are, in the galactic kill period,
 where mass killings of species are sort of on the table now, or
 coming up:  What if we stick to this fixed-term society?  What
 happens to humanity then?  Well, if we are doing what mankind and
 other species have done before us, we're going to have some mass
 kills -- whole species like the dinosaurs, will go >>whsskkksk!<<
 gone!  Because they're inefficient, anyway.  Hmm?
 We can go the same way!  We're now an obsolescent species,
 in terms of the directions of policy of humanity.  If we don't go
 to nuclear power, thermonuclear power, mass matter-antimatter
 reactions, if we don't go in that direction and the leverage that
 gives us, we are not going to be able to provide humanity the
 kind of protection, {needed to protect our species, itself!}, as
 we go into this area, the new part of the galactic system, {where
 man has never gone before!}  You know the other one, "where man
 never gone before," and that is really dangerous territory!  So
 therefore, we depend upon our advancement in technology, our
 ability to manage the environment from a high-tech standard, in
 order to ensure the safety of the human species' existence during
 this coming galactic part of the cycle!
 We have to be committed, {not} to toleration, of just any
 old idea.  We have to be committed  -- as in science, to ideas
 which are valid, as opposed to those which are wrong and
 damaging!  We have to have the right method of correcting
 people's wrong ideas!  But, we have to correct them!  We have to
 outnumber them, outweigh them -- that doesn't mean getting fat,
 but outweigh them.  And the problem is, therefore, if you have in
 our own youth, therefore, this sense of this idea of toleration,
 of permissiveness, that permissiveness will destroy not only the
 organization, it will destroy the chances of survival.
 So there are some ideas that have no inherent right, to be
 promoted:  Wrong ideas.  Therefore, society should be a process,
 of wrong ideas going through kind of filter, in which people are
 won over to the right ideas.  And the basic weapon you use for
 convincing people, is not threats, but optimism.  The greatest
 threat to bad ideas, is providing a surge of improvement in the
 conditions of life of human beings: Which means, high-tech
 investment, on a grand scale.  It means massive projects of the
 type we have not been allowed to conduct over the past period,
 the Teddy Roosevelt tradition of "no more growth in the Western
 lands," the ruin of the country!
 And those ideas which must be imposed, {on behalf of the
 interests of all the people}, must be brought into effect by
 various methods, including persuasion, outnumbering, and so
 forth.  Because the ideas that are prevalent in the United
 States, today, officially, in the parties, {are a menace to
 humanity!}  The ideas which prevail in Europe today, are a menace
 to the human race!  Those ideas must be eliminated.  There's a
 just process for eliminating them:  The best process is
 {optimism}.  And the expression of optimism has to be practical.
 It has to be producing effects, which people recognize, and the
 most important effect, is that of technological and cultural
 progress:  The excitement bestirred, by progress, is the greatest
 weapon, against backwardness.  If people like and want it,
 because it's good for them, and because they know it's good for
 them, that's your best shot!
 That's what this country was based on doing, from its
 beginnings in Massachusetts, based on exactly this.  And against
 that, {no} idea is correct, as ideas!  People can have them --
 they can go in the outhouse and do what they want to.  But the
 question of which ideas are the right ideas for mankind, as in
 science, the same thing: And essentially, as in science, the
 process of achieving these ends, is the same.  How do you do it?
 You convince people on the existence of a principle.  And above
 all, you understand the {danger} among our young people, who tend
 to be tolerant, and show {indifferent} respect, that is, through
 indifference, to the dangerously, deadly, destructive ideas,
 which have been spread out there, through propaganda and related
 methods.  Like the drug addictions, and so forth and so on.
 There's right and there's wrong. And there's a right way, to
 right wrongs. And we have to get that idea across.  And that's
 where, the essence of the Purcellville operation, is a propaganda
 machine:  This involves the right method, of ensuring the flow of
 the product.  It means the right method of getting enough product
 on the site, and of the right quality, and of the right
 intention. Hmm?  And the intention is now, since we have the
 leverage, out there,  not in majority of people, not the
 so-called idea of the "majority wins," that's a foolish idea!
 What wins is the right idea!  And democracy only comes in as a
 matter of the way you get that result, hmm?
 And that's the way we have to go.  And we can not give
 credence to anything, which can not be tolerated in that process.
 Say, "Okay, you have a right to your right, Joe, but you're
 stupid!  You're right, Joe, that you have a right to do that,
 but, you're crazy.  Joe, you have a right to say that, but,
 you're a dangerous lunatic.  And as long as understand that,
 we've got a good basis for collaboration."  [laughter]
 Anyway! That's that.  And now,  I'll get this apparatus on,
 so I can hear what you people have to say -- if anything, out
 I'm in my clown suit, now!


 LYN:  How do you do, young lady?!
 LIMARI:   I'm like the opening of a {Tale of Two Cities},
 inherently contradictory.  But, Lyn, you've talked about this
 question of the existentialism in the youth generation, and the
 toleration, many times before, but, it's funny, because I've
 never really fully understood what you meant about the consent
 and the toleration, except right now, you just said, it comes out
 as indifference.  Is that how you see it expressed?
 Because I mean, you see it in discussions that people have,
 where they agree not to talk about something, silently.  But they
 don't ever say it, overtly.  And I've been curious about how
 you're actually seeing this expressed.
 LYN: Well,  the point is, you have to compose it, you have
 to compose the objection, in a competent way.  But, you have to
 do it.  You can not tolerate wrong opinions, by giving sanction
 to them.  You have to say, they're wrong.  "Hey, Joe, you're
 wrong.  Hey, Joe, that's stupid.  You want to find out why, I'll
 tell you why.  That will kill people.  You won't listen to that,
 Joe? Well, then, you're wrong.  If you won't listen to what I
 have to say to you, Joe, you're wrong.  Joe, you're being stupid.
 Stop being stupid -- c'mon, I'm your friend, stop being stupid!
 We love you, Joe, but stop being stupid."  And that's the way you
 have to deal with that.
 Because if you don't do that, if you take a contrary
 attitude, then you're contributing to the death of civilization.
 Because dangerous ideas, poisonous ideas, must be recognized as
 such, and they must be dealt with in an appropriate fashion.

 LIMARI: Do you mean in the way we interact with the
 population, or each other, or both?
 LYN:  Both.  [laughs]  One in fraternal, the others not.
 Those who've paid their dues, have special credences, have
 special attitudes.  Those who haven't joined the club, don't get
 the special privileges.
 We got  a lot of problems, you know!  They get in our way of
 functioning!  We could function much better!  If people would
 come up to the plate, and hit a few, once in a while. [laughter]
 But the fact is, that this deference, this deference is a poison,
 this Liberal deference!  "Well, they got a right to their own
 opinion!"  No, they don't have a right to their own opinion!
 They have a right to form an opinion.  And sooner or later, they
 better come up with the right one, or we're not going to pay
 attention to them.

 LIMARI: But, no one would ever say that out loud.  No one
 would ever say, "people have a right to their own opinion," at
 least not in our organization.
 LYN:  Well, they would say it not with their mouth, but with
 their feet.

 LIMARI: ...With their feet, yeah.
 LYN:  It's the same thing.  The feet smell stronger.
 Sometimes, they do say it, too, though.  I generally force that
 out.  I'm the one most likely to get that reaction -- {rage!!!!}
 That's all right, they have to tell the truth, and I have a short
 time, I have to live with the truth.

 LEANDRA:  Well, there's one thing that I can say, just on
 the consent, is that at least from what I know to be true, it
 starts with consenting to ideas that are in your head, that you
 know shouldn't be there, but not even having the guts, in
 yourself, to say, "that idea is crap, I don't have to listen to
 it."  And I wonder how often that occurs in other people, that
 they can't just say, they just kind of go along with a thought
 that comes up, even if it's going to poison them, internally.
 I have one other question, which is on a different subject,
 which is -- that's one aspect; the other thing that came up in a
 discussion we had this morning.  Sky was there also.  It's on the
 video that Matt produced.  And he had a real inclination towards
 what I think was the main point in your memo "Sleepers Awake!"
 And Sky brought up that he could have, by the end of that video,
 he had made the case on the War Powers Act, Obama's violation of
 the War Powers Act, {so well}, he had the audience, fully.  And
 could have brought the audience to a much higher conception,
 around what he started the video with, and what was featured in
 your memo.
 I wonder if you have any thoughts about that?
 LYN:  Well, Sky and I have been working together on ideas,
 we've been working together on ideas for some time, but
 especially on this kind of conception on time.  Which Sky got
 onto and we're having a lot of fun with it.  Because there is no
 such thing as time.  This is the great fun.  That people have
 been trying to explain time, by first adopting it as a subject --
 and that gets in the way.
 Time is not a subject.
 See this is what goes into this question about how the mind
 works.  And people often use the conception of mind, is based on
 belief ...[audio loss]  as they experience it, is essential.
 And, in point of fact, that is not essential.  As long as there's
 belief ... [loss] you don't have an understanding of the mind!
 The mind is essentially... oops!  Okay, we're doing something
 The point is, the idea of mind, the way it's defined is
 wrong.  The mind, if you think about the number of different
 kinds of agents, that have been to the so-called "immortal five,"
 that now exist in terms of all kinds of instruments which may
 depend upon an intermediary role of sense-perceptual
 capabilities, most of the principles that run the universe, as we
 know it today, are dependent upon instruments which have the
 function of new senses, for mankind.  These are {numerous} today,
 so that the five senses are merely a little toy, in terms of
 their relevance, for what we know.
 So you have a conception of mind -- Once you break free of
 the idea that your flesh and blood, your impression of yourself
 which is given to you, by sense-perception, is truth, you're in
 trouble.  You're in trouble, not if you're ape-man, or if you're
 a birder in the Netherlands, or something in ancient times, but
 if you're a scientist, you're in trouble!
 And now, you take the case of this President, who is not
 really a President.  He's actually a dummy -- but anyway.  This
 President, what'd he do?  He said the sensory devices needed to
 forecast earthquakes, tornadoes, and so forth, are unnecessary
 and don't work.  The man's a liar!  He's also an idiot!  He's
 also a vicious bastard, all at the same time.
 The fact of the matter is, that these instruments, and these
 techniques we use, which are {not} themselves sense-perceptions,
 but are actually an essential part of our understanding,
 competent understanding of the universe in which we live, {as we
 live}.  We depend, today, to exist, to continue to exist as a
 human species, on many factors which are not the five senses.  As
 a matter of fact, the five sense ... [audio loss] and the
 ignorant people can not possible sustain society!  Because the
 technologies required, to deal with the challenge of society, as
 with earthquakes, volcanoes and so forth, are way beyond the five
 This is very clear.  It's very clearly defined.  Now, how do
 you defined mind?  Do you defined as a product of the five
 senses?  No!  Of course not.  The mind is not the five senses.
 The mind is the way in which we conceptualize, the evidence of
 different kinds of sense perceptions.  And this includes, now,
 the large repertoire, of scientific instruments which have the
 same significance as sense-perception.  And this is according to
 the principle of Riemann in the third part of his habilitation
 So, today, actually since  the 18th century, the idea of the
 five senses, is childishness!  It's foolishness!  When you think
 about the great experiments that have been run, and the whole
 thing was defined, especially, with this development of the
 different senses of things, by Riemann, in particular, by Riemann
 and Dirichlet.
 And so, we're now in a domain, where the human mind, if
 you're sane and civilized up to the present level, is represented
 by the mind which is independent of the sense-perceptions, the
 mind function is separate from the sense-perceptions, is the
 first lesson to understand.  And the experience of all these
 different kind of sensory experiences which do not exist as five
 senses, show that.
 Now, if you're an educated, reliable person, that's
 civilized, your sensorium is no longer five senses.  Your
 sensorium is all the kinds of things which we can use, and the
 method by which we use them, in order to do such things are
 forecast tornadoes, and earthquakes, and other kinds of
 phenomena.  Does our mind come up to that level?  Have we
 educated our population to come up to that level?  Or do you have
 a distinction between people who are simply the {hoi polloi}, who
 are supposed to confine themselves essentially to five senses,
 and those who are privileged, through universities, to
 misrepresent what they know, in terms of other means, as common
 So the key issue here, is the identification of where does
 the human identity lie?  Where is the human mind?  The human mind
 is not part of the senses.  The human mind has been demonstrated,
 by the addition of all these factors, which are equivalent to
 sense-perceptions of a different kind, these factors now {define}
 the human mind; they define mankind as an evolving species.  We
 don't {need} to become a different species biologically, because
 our mind permits us to evolve, as a higher species, without
 changing our physiology!
 Simply by getting more and more experience which is absorbed
 into our mental sensorium, as opposed to our physical one, which
 utilizes these factors.   So that the average person, when they
 look in the mirror, and think they're seeing themselves, they're
 not {seeing] themselves!  They're seeing an image of their body
 -- which may or may not still be moving, hmm?  But the
 personality lies {not} in body, as such!  Not in the sensorium of
 the body.  It lies in the larger sensorium, but not in the
 sensorium itself, but in the ability of mankind to evolve into a
 higher species without changing his biological character!
 This is the meaning of human creativity.  This is the
 meaning of {everything valuable}.  Everything I love, is based on
 this!  It derives to a higher --  Mankind is a self-evolving
 species, evolving to a higher level.   {Only} on this basis, can
 we expect, as a species, to survive the great kill that's coming,
 implicitly, with the factors of this galaxy.  People are looking
 at themselves as physical selves.  Well, the physical self is
 something significant, but {only} , when you look at people, you
 know, who in human relations, rise among the virtual bestiality
 of primitive man, and rise to a higher conception of other human
 beings, and themselves!  Man is evolving!   Man is evolving as a
 creating, thinking person!  As a type of person.
 And that's why we have the right to survive as a species,
 and not wait for the mass kill that takes our species out.   And
 the only way we can achieve that survival, is through this
 technology, and through finding our identity, in the powers, the
 creative powers of mind, not in mere sense-perception, as such.
 Yes, sense-perception is important, but it's only important to
 the extent, that it's a function of the mind.  Your relations to
 people are not based on physiology as such; it's based on the way
 the physiology is related to the mind!  And the way the mind
 evolves, to higher states.  And evolves through the sense of
 {self-consciousness} of the individual {of} this difference.
 The individual values progress, because that's human.  The
 lack of progress is inhuman.  Because progress itself, is the
 nature of the human species, and the ability of the human species
 to survive as a {permanent species} in this Solar System, depends
 upon that factor.
 No, we've been working on this.  I mean, Sky's been in on
 this kind of discussion, and some of the Basement has spilled
 over on this thing, especially through last summer.  We went
 through this -- you know, we're dumping space.  We just abandoned
 space, space doesn't exist.  It's a bogeyman.  Space is full of
 matter, called, universal radiation.  It's all that, there is no
 empty space:  Only in the heads of Liberals, "Vacancy
 Well, that's my view of life:  Human beings can be
 beautiful.  But that's your great persuasion:  "Hey, c'mon Joe,
 don't be a lower species all your life."  Isn't that a loving
 gesture?  I don't think the Liberal will answer that question.
 He'll stomp off in the huff.

 LEANDRA:  He's still find someone to rent out his empty
 space.  [laughter]
 GERRY:  It's called flipping real estate.
 LYN:  [crosstalk] Because his mind defends empty space, and
 occupies it!  It's cherished deeply within him.
 See you may have some fun with this "What Self-Interest?"
 particularly the younger people who are looking at the older
 people.  The younger people look at the older people with an
 {accusing glare}: "What is {your} self-interest?"  [laughter]
 Well, you know what's said about the barest regions, don't
 you?  Gerry, isn't that what you say to the regions?
 GERRY:  Absolutely!  [laughs]  Absolutely!  Some of them are
 old enough to figure out, it's not personal.  [laughter]
 LYN:   A good joke or two doesn't hurt anything.  It's the
 desert on the menu!
 Anyway.  Anywhoo.  So now, I have bespoken myself.  Well!
 Got nothing more to say?  At least, not in my presence?
 [laughter] Well, okay! You're voting with your feet, or


 Our young existentialists:


 By Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

 June 18, 2011
 Some would say: "I admit that I am, so far, like most of the same
 generation of intellectually active minds among the maturing,
 younger adults today, Deep  somewhere within me, I confess to
 myself that I am probably, really, something's 'windup toy.' I am
 a  contemporary, young-adult existentialist.  I am bright, and
 can be  clever when the strange impulses which inhabit me, and
 which  control me, may permit me to be clever; but those impulses
 do that   in ways which I do not understand.  Then, too often,
 these impulses  which are like those of a wind-me-up-toy (which
 somebody, or  something else controls) might permit me to play,
 or,  may act to  shut down my will to act.  I try to do the
 things which suggest to me  that I have free will, but, in my
 darkest moments, I know that that  belief in my own free will is
 only another consoling delusion, when  these unknown voices
 permit me to enjoy such a moment or two of  pleasure.  There are,
 in short, strange voiceless voices speaking to  me, from where I
 do not know, voices which will cause me to punish  myself, if I
 do not obey them when they silently speak.  Will  someone please
 tell me 'why'."

 There is a general affliction, which is most clearly  evident in
 the cases of a young-adult generation today.  It  came to the
 surface in our United States itself in a new  anarchist
 generation of the post-World War II time.  This  obsession
 fastened a grip of a such a kind on a large  portion of the
 children born during the immediate post-war generation, and was
 spread in Europe as the 1950  launching, by such as Professor
 Sidney Hook et al., under  the title of the European Congress for
 Cultural  Freedom, a certain kind of grey-tinted sexual congress,
 which emerged then as a kind of haunting, existentialists'  limbo
 of  lost souls, something typified by the  existentialist
 insanity which struck the Germany of the  1920s with samples such
 as a "fur-lined tea-cup and  saucer," an existentialist fad which
 supplied the influence  of an emerging fascism during that decade
 and beyond.

 I am among the eyewitnesses of that process of  degeneration.

 The present phase of such pestilences of  existentialism, erupted
 in the guise of the post-Kennedy-assassination wave of despair
 among those now steered in  the directions typified by the
 "68ers."  I recall, vividly, out  of my own experience,  how the
 existentialist pestilence of  the post-war period to date took
 over the impulses of three  generations to date.

 I count myself fortunate, that from childhood on, I  do not
 believe easily.  As a child during the 1920s, and  beyond, I knew
 that the beliefs for which parents and  others sought to
 indoctrinate me, were not true, as I  adduced from conversations
 which I heard, or overheard   as instruction, or had overheard as
 remarks of the adult  generation.  It was not an arbitrary
 opposition on my part;  it was chiefly my awareness of both the
 intentional and  unintended forms of habituated lies of the adult
 generation, as often echoed during those times, up through  the
 present date.

 The best choice of illustration of the principled  character of
 my reaction, was the seminal quality of  influence on me by my
 adolescent's rejection of Euclid's  a-priorism, and my consequent
 inclination to a physical  geometry, rather than the effort to
 derive the ordering of  the physical universe from the
 reductionist's emptiness of  the imaginary and silly belief in
 the claims advanced for  the mere myth of a physical efficiency
 of mere  shadows  on a wall.

 During my childhood, adolescence, and beyond, the  droning chant
 of the term "popular" haunted the  experience of those mere
 shadows on a wall: I began to  hate the very word "popular," and
 that hatred was to  become one of my advantages in life later on.

 The mental and moral weakness of the minds which  were more
 likely to succumb to the temptation of being in  accord with
 "popular opinion," is the key factor to be  considered in the
 effort to understand the source of what is  often the
 existentialist sort of emotional and intellectual  anguish
 suffered, even among the brighter souls of our  adult youths'
 generation  today.  I know how what are the  attributable
 malaises of that generation, as I have  experienced them through
 the course of my life's work to  the present date, as those
 anxieties have come into playing  the role toward which they are
 expressed in the rather  typical anxieties of which the young
 adult generation has  been subject at this present time.

 The point which I make here, is therefore a  reflection of my
 insights into the urgent need of freeing  the members of that
 generation, in particular, from the  crippling grip of the
 existentialist fevers of these present  times.


 Taking the case of some persons from a stratum of the  young
 adult generation of, say, between approximately 25 and 35  years
 of age, who experience what is felt by them as some  ostensibly
 inexplicable influence gripping their moods, and,  therefore,
 their will to react in a manner which is "objectively," as  one
 might say, "irrational," one may, and should sense the presence
 of a factor which has little in the way of a truly realistic
 behavior, a behavior which, when expressed in some relatively
 extreme form, becomes a phenomenon approaching the state of what
 might appear to be a case of "demonic possession."  In society
 today, conditions  approaching the latter extremes are not really
 uncommon, and may  not be adequately diagnosed unless the
 manifestation is rather  spectacular; thus, do such symptoms,
 reflect a part of factors which  play an influential role in the
 behavior of even what may be  presumed to be "normal" members of

 The basis for such problematic states of personal and group
 behavior, does have what may be usefully considered as being a
 "perfectly rational" explanation, but, this is the case, only if
 one  chooses an actually competent insight into the matter.
 There is no  need to consider such aberrations as the result of
 actually  mysterious influences.   A competent, which is to say
 "anti-Euclidean" standpoint of reference, is sufficient.
 Aeschylus,  Socrates, and Plato understood the problem as
 expressed explicitly  in the topical area of physical science --
 but, only on the  presumption that the idea of "physical," is
 properly adduced, and  therefore, "de-mystified," as follows.

 Atheists not wanted here.  Atheists are among the most
 superstitious of them all. The proof of that fact is elementary,
 once  we have come to understand the relationship between what is
 merely sense-certainty, and a higher category, which is to be
 recognized as reality. As I shall show in the course of this
 present  report, reality exists only "outside" the domain which
 is defined by  deceitfully naive belief in an assumed reality
 attributed to  the  systemically deluded notion of an
 ontologically essential quality of  sense-perceptions.

 The access to the needed insight into this subject-matter, can
 be defined in elementary terms of systemically scientific
 reference,  as the relevant proof is to be celebrated from
 adequate reflections  on the concluding section of Bernhard
 Riemann's 1854 habilitation  dissertation, and in the light of
 the discoveries to this same set of  effects associated with the
 corrective treatment of the notion of non-algebraic (e.g.,
 outside mathematics as such) Abelian functions as  the real
 meaning of the conception  of such functions was  discovered by
 both Lejeune Dirichlet and Riemann.

 The possibility of a competent representation of the work of
 Riemann depends, most critically, on the summary presented by
 Riemann in the third section, as with the resounding conclusion
 of  the dissertation as a whole, his warning that physical
 science must  begin outside the bounds of mere mathematics.

 Clever mathematicians can produce academically plausible
 explanations of particular parts of Riemann's work; but, the most
 essential conceptions can not be so treated.  The physicist's use
 of a  mathematical illustration, is not only permissible as a
 part of the  pedagogy of introducing Riemann's discovery.
 However, that  notwithstanding, the actually competent
 understanding of a modern  physical science does not lie with the
 bounds of mathematics as  such.   The mathematical illustration
 may be fine, as a temporary  measure for calming the
 reductionist's rage of a mathematician, but,  it is not a
 substitute for the reality which lies outside the bounds of
 mathematics as such.  In this respect, the implications of the
 closing  section of Riemann's habilitation dissertation, are of
 crucial  importance for physical science today, as the subsequent
 work of  such as Max Planck, Albert Einstein, and Vladimir
 Vernadsky  illustrate that point.

 The actual solution for the formal issues which I have just
 outlined, has come to assume an extremely relevant sort of
 practical  importance for practice, in the relative facility of
 viewing the  legendary five biological sense-perceptive
 capacities as being mere  a virtual "one among many" of those
 principles of scientific insight  which are not only accessible,
 but provide essential facilities for  practice extending far
 beyond the limits of five senses s such.  Indeed, crucial
 experimental evidence demonstrates that deduction  from five
 senses is a serious, and, as in the case of the outrageous
 frauds of President Barack Obama on this account, even a grave
 error with respect to policy-shaping of a survivable mode of
 behavior of mankind presently.

 Consider the additional qualities of instruments which are,  each
 in their own way, equally principles of sense-perception
 provided as experimental principles comparable to those of sense-
 perception as such.  That has a crucial meaning in respect to the
 manner in which even the very name of physical science has been
 extended by modern physical science, again and again, as new
 principles which respond to the challenge presented summarily in
 Riemann's concluding section of his habilitation dissertation.
 It is  as it were that the soul of mankind, as once attributed
 widely to five  senses, is now enlarged in its essential
 character, and also continues  to be enlarged, by the new,
 man-synthesized, categorical forms of  sense-perception
 associated with the practice of any competent  practice of
 physical science presently.

 With that pattern of developments, the relatively foolish,
 because relatively primitive notion of the human mind, is being
 superseded, again and again, by the role of addition of
 scientific  instruments which extend the notions of
 universalizing principles,  with ever-new, added  qualities of
 universal principles of that  growing science, presently.

 Once the expansion of the sensorium has been extended in  this
 manner, there are no limits to the existence of the individual
 human soul.  All that dies in the temporal aspect, but not the
 principle of any human mind which partakes of the discovery and
 extended employment of discovered principles which mark
 soul  were immortal, and the body merely the package in which,
 and by  which it is delivered.

     - Accepting The Truth -

 It has been the correlated effect of reductionist's belief in
 the five senses as the limits of mankind's existence, which is
 "the  offending organ" of belief which I have indicated in the
 opening of  this present report.  Suddenly, the actual soul of
 the human  individual, and the human species, come into the view
 by the  human mind.  With that, the meaning of "human mind"
 itself has  been changed, that in a relatively fundamental way.
 No more  insane ghosts are permitted to play the tricks of a
 poltergeist upon  the minds of men and women.

 With the practical acknowledgement of that fact, the evil old
 graveyard ghosts are compelled to vanish.  With that, the true
 meaning of the immortality of the soul, departs the graveyard.

 I explain.

 The idea of the "soul" has been long corrupted by what is
 typified by Philo of Alexandria's denunciation of the "God is
 dead"  hoax of Aristotle and the modern reductionists.  The
 universe is  being expanded constantly, both in extent and in
 quality.  Whatever  kinds of living cognitive forms of life
 comparable to the creative  activity of a human being, may exist
 in the universe, we need not be  ashamed of any limitations
 within the development of those  elements of universal noetic
 principle of mankind.  However many  varieties of living beings
 exist within the universe as considered in  the large, and
 whatever the relative span of mankind's powers,  relative to that
 backdrop, man's specific characteristics as a species  are in
 accord, in its nature, with everything which is truly creative in
 the universe.  Man is thus distinguished as the Christian Apostle
 Paul wrote in I Corinthians.  There is a mystery which can be
 understood in its nature on this account, whatever the experience
 of  "change" that Apostle has indicated as to be encountered and,
 thus,  discovered.  It were sufficient, therefore, that we be
 content with  that.  We are part of an implicitly invincible
 principle of creativity,  and our lives, and the meaning of our
 living, through all the  uncertainties that encounters, is part
 of that, provided we are  committed to that wonderful quality of
 mission in human life.

 The human soul, as it is sometimes called, is implicitly
 immortal in its consequences, for better, or for worse  -- or


 The cruelest of all crimes, is the form of practice which
 condemns the meaning of human life to the death of the legendary
 mortal frame.    This is not some "mere" theology.  An associate
 of  mine, a still young and promising scientist, has joined me in
 wrestling against the silly and irrational notion of the ontology
 of  "time" associated, typically, with frauds such as the
 hoaxster Isaac  Newton, and the desperately demonic reductionist,
 Pierre-Simon  Laplace, who defined himself a victim condemned to
 an eternity in  ticking clock-time: click, click, click ...

 It is not un-typical, that the young adults of today, should be
 inclined to the view, that their chosen way of life ends with
 their  demise.  Thus, for a significant part of that roster,
 there is no truth,  but only a preference for a certain niche
 which they have chosen to  occupy, up to the point that their
 proverbial time runs out.  Such is  the cruelty essentially
 implicit in the evil hoax of contemporary  existentialism.

 The issue so located within the spectrum of current beliefs is,
 in its effect, a very deep-rooted cultural pessimism, which may
 temporarily relish being relatively young and still living, but
 which  has no homeland in its future. Behind the smiling "company
 manners" facade, there exists a deep despair; such a despair can
 be  merely postponed, not actually overcome.  The effect is the
 temptation to deny reality through aid of pleasant experiences,
 for as  often, and as long as they last.  What is missing, is
 often missing  because it has been lost in the disquieting
 effects of an undeniable  cultural decay of our republic's
 culture, lost for many among us with  the assassination of
 President John F. Kennedy, and the onset of the  war which his
 assassination -- and that of his brother, the  Presidential
 pre-candidate -- was effected to bring on.

 The teachers and professors who were schooled in the art of
 avoiding the true lesson of those assassinations, taught their
 pupils  accordingly.  So, a deep, thus inherited pessimism,
 enmeshes the  otherwise promising young adult of today.

 Therefore, take the devil by his nose!

 The scientific principles of such correction are a very large
 subject in their own right; but, a few more modest comments
 should  be sufficient for this specific occasion.

 There exists a certain authority of necessity, such as the
 existential importance, for all sane mankind today, of
 accelerated  reliance on the precedence urgently required now for
 nuclear fission,  thermonuclear fusion, and matter-antimatter
 functions needed not  only to increase, but accelerate the
 physical-economic progress of  mankind, per-capita, as a whole.

 The universe progresses inevitably.  The continued existence,
 and the usefulness of our human species depends now upon our
 society's "measuring up" to that standard. The opponents of such
 progress must, indeed, be virtually the children of Satan. For,
 unless  that is policy, the human species were threatened with
 rather early  extinction, as is suggested by the currently
 changing position of the  Solar system with our galaxy.

 Let us, nonetheless, presume that that sort of now threatened
 human extinction were not fulfilled.  The failure to adopt the
 measures which I have indicated, would lead to an equivalent sort
 of  deadly effect for the human species.  I refer to what is
 notorious, at  least among competent historians, as "the
 oligarchical principle"  treated as the evil of the Olympian cult
 of the Delphi temple.

 The so-called "oligarchical principle," as typified in the
 succession of forms of the original Roman Empire, Byzantium, the
 Venetians' use of the "crusader puppetry," and the New Venetian
 Party's founding, under William of Orange, of what became the
 British (or, "brutish")  empire, is the essential model of global
 depravity within civilization still today.

 Bertrand Russell was a leading British proponent of a policy  and
 practice of regularly repeated mass-death actions effected by a
 ruling British oligarchy.  Russell's scheme for a genocide far
 vaster  than Adolf Hitler's, was perpetuated by the Anglo-Dutch
 duo of the  World Wildlife Fund's Prince Philip and Prince
 Bernhard.  Now, the  British monarchy is leading an international
 scheme for global  genocide far more savage than any serious such
 plot in history ever  before.  The current President of the
 United States is passionately  committed to actions which could
 not have any different effect.

 That recurring scheme for genocide, is rooted in what the  dramas
 of Aeschylus had presented as the practice of what has been
 called "the oligarchical principle," the same current policy of
 the  present British monarchy, and long the practice of Britain,
 formerly  in India, and still currently against the populations
 of Africa.

 That tendency for a policy of genocide against humanity
 generally, today, is the natural outcome of the so-called
 "oligarchical  principle."  That is the policy of keeping the
 underclass of each  society dumb and not-too-pregnant.  The
 avowed, long-standing  policy of the oligarchical principle has
 been that keeping the people  dumb is the way to maintain the
 oligarchy's control over them, as in  the rape of the United
 States by bail-out policies launched and  continued by George W.
 Bush, Jr. and Barack Obama, who have  functioned as British
 puppets in bringing down the people and  economy of the United
 States now.

 The point is, that if the general population is not kept
 relativity dumb, and if technological progress, such as that of
 nuclear  power, were not aborted, the oligarchy would soon lose
 control over  the virtual peasantry of "the lower classes."

 Every genocide known in Mediterranean-centered  civilization has
 been an expression of the oligrachical principle, the  principle
 which must now be destroyed as it were a raging disease  now
 threatening the human species' continued existence.

 Against the background of those and related considerations,  we
 must identify and uproot, from within our own ranks that sort of
 induced pessimism which denies the right of posterity to enjoy
 the  progress of the future, as a sacred obligation of the
 present  generations.

 Such is the practical expression of the crisis which still tends
 to envelop even among the best currents of American young
 citizens  today.





 CONSTITUTION." Lyndon LaRouche said on Saturday that Obama had
 the intent to violate the Constitution in regard to the Libya
 war. He said that Obama is functionally insane, and is following
 the Richard Nixon road to impeachment.  He said Obama is a
 complete fool,-- "that can be said in my name."  LaRouche pointed
 out that there are also completely unnecessary deaths of U.S.
 soldiers going on in Afghanistan,-- another catastrophe for which
 Obama is responsible.


 LAW. (see slug)

 whose names have still not been revealed. The White House did not
 admit to the meeting until after the New York Times exposed it on
 June 13.  Although it was sponsored by the DNC, Obama spokesman
 Carney denied on June 17 that the meeting had been a fundraiser,
 and gave no reason why the White House had never disclosed it.
 But he claimed that this administration is the most open in
 At the time of the secret meeting, Obama was in process of
 preparing to launch his re-election campaign, and QE III was
 under discussion publicly, along with the working-out of the
 Dodd-Frank changes between banks and regulators.


 GOOD." New York Times financial reporter Joe Nocera contributed
 an editorial to the Saturday, June 18 edition which calls
 Glass-Steagall a "banking miracle" and the Depression-era bank
 regulation which "probably did the most good."  But Nocera
 ignores the fact that HR 1489 is before the Congress today, and
 lies that "it's impossible to imagine it passing today."



 downgrading its growth forecast for the U.S. economy in 2011 from
 2.8% to 2.5%. "For the U.S., it is critical to immediately
 address the debt ceiling and launch a deficit reduction plan that
 includes entitlement reform and revenue-raising tax reform," it
 said. [London Telegraph]



 budget cuts and to demand fair treatment during union
 negotiations with Gov. John Kitzhaber. State workers gave 10
 furlough days in the last two year budget, and there's now a bill
 before the legislature to require them to pay more of their
 health benefits. []


 "Harmony" Which Means Doom For Europe (see slug)

 (see slug)

 MASS STRIKE IN BRITAIN: British Public Sector Workers Call
 for Biggest Strike in 100 Years (see slug)


 Even Supporters of the Libya War Know Obama is Breaking the Law

 June 18 (LPAC)--Barack Obama's arrogance with respect to the War
 Powers Resolution is even making some supporters of the
 intervention uncomfortable.  Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), an
 enthusiastic supporter of this latest war, told Fox News' Greta
 Van Susteren, on Thursday, that he thought "it would be
 important" for Obama to seek Congressional authorization for the
 war.  "He should comply with it," he said.  "There's a lot of ill
 will here that he went to the Arab League and NATO and the U.N.
 without coming to Congress."  The Washington Post, which played
 such a huge role, in the 1970's, in the watergating of Richard
 Nixon, makes the same argument in an unsigned editorial in this
 morning's paper.  The Post denounces the intervention as
 "half-hearted," and, like McCain, thinks the US ought to be
 employing much greater force to remove Khaddafi from power.
 However, the US involvement is not so halfhearted "as to justify
 the administration's evasion of its legal duties under the war
 powers law." But while the Post argues for greater US
 involvement, "it strikes us as fatuous to argue that the United
 States is not involved in hostilities, given that the NATO
 bombing campaign could not be taking place without active U.S.
 Rep. Dennis Kucinich and conservative columnist George Will,
 both of whom oppose the war, raise the War Powers issue to a much
 higher level, however.  Will, in an op-ed column in the
 Washington Post, and Kucinich, in a pair of statements released
 on Thursday and Friday, both reject the White House rationale,
 and implicitly raise the impeachment question.  In a statement on
 Thursday, Kucinich announced that he would be proposing an
 amendment to the upcoming defense appropriations bill to cut off
 funding for the war.  "In a direct challenge to Congress, the
 Administration is continuing the war despite its inability to
 provide a constitutional or legal justification for bypassing
 Congress," he said.  "Congress must use its constitutional
 authority of the power of the purse to end this war." In Friday's
 statement, which followed the release of the New York Times story
 reporting that Obama rejected the legal advice of both the
 Justice Department and the Pentagon's legal advisor, Kucinich
 patently called Obama's actions on the war unconstitutional.  We
 have the makings of a Constitutional crisis when the President,
 who as a U.S. Senator acknowledged the duty of a President to
 come to Congress for permission to conduct a war, simply changes
 course on his interpretation of the War Powers Resolution and
 determines to conduct a war absent Congressional authorization,
 even when it is contrary to the best legal advice of the Pentagon
 and the Justice Department," he said.  "The deeper problem
 appears to be that the Administration is hostile to the
 Constitutional imperative of Congressional authorization for war.
 War is war, even if it is conducted by robots in the air," he
 added.  "This is a stunning turn of events in which politics has
 trumped policy, keeping this nation in a war in violation of the
 Constitution and our statutes," said Kucinich.  "An immediate
 remedy to this fiasco is needed.  Congress must move swiftly to
 cut off funds for the operation."
 George Will characterized Obama's approach to the war as
 "Nixonian" (and we all know what happened to Nixon).  "Were
 Barack Obama not taking a Nixonian approach to the law -- the War
 Powers Resolution -- his intervention would have ended last
 month," writes Will, noting that the WPR requires military
 interventions to end in 60 days, absent Congressional approval.
 Will's primary target is NATO, which he calls a "Potemkin
 alliance" which, having accomplished its mission with the end of
 the Cold War, has now become "an instrument of mischief." Will
 chonicles Obama's shifting position -- after first saying the
 intervention would be limited to implementaing a no-fly zone, by
 May, "Obama's Bushian mission was to make Libya `finally free of
 40 years of tyranny,'" and now it boils down to "Kill Qadaffi,"
 or what Will calls "the most protracted and least surreptitious
 assassination attempt in history."
 Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), on the other hand,
 has joined with House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to
 fully endorse Obama's flagrant violation of the War Powers
 Resolution.  During an appearance on the PBS Newshour, last
 night, Reid said, "We did an authorization for Afghanistan; we
 did one for Iraq.  But we have no troops on the ground there [in
 Libya], and this thing is going to be over before you know it
 anyway." In stating so, Reid broke with his own number two, Sen.
 Dick Durbin (D-IL), who told reporters in Chicago: "Congress
 alone has the constitutional authority and responsibility to
 declare war." [cjo/ews]


 Brutish Oligarchy Tells World's Poor: Many of You Will Die
 Because of High Food Prices

 June 18 (EIRNS)--The joint annual OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook
 2010-1029 report, issued June 15, announces that the British
 oligarchy's policy of mass death of a large portion of the
 world's population by starvation, is now the official policy of
 the UN and OECD for the populations in the world. The report
 asserts: "Higher agricultural commodity prices here to stay,"
 noting that the higher food costs "will undermine food security,
 especially for the poor who spend a significant share of their
 budgets on food." It admits that at least one billion people are
 now estimated to be undernourished, a gross underestimate.
 According to the report, average wheat and course grain
 prices will be 15-40% higher over the next 10 years (adjusted for
 inflation) than they were during the 1997-2006 period. Real
 prices for vegetable oils are expected to be more than 40%
 higher, and dairy products 16-45% higher. A senior economist for
 the FAO said that over the next 10 years, meat prices will be 30%
 higher than in the last decade. These estimates depend on a large
 anticipated increase in food production in Russia, Ukraine,
 Brazil, China, and India--which will not happen as the world
 economy implodes due to the bankrupt monetary system. So in fact,
 the situation will be even worse.
 The report attempts to place the blame for what they see as
 a prolonged period of inordinately high food prices on objective
 factors, such as higher energy costs raising the price of
 production, demand for biofuels, and the rapid growth in Asia and
 South America, which is creating more demand for food and feed.
 The report rules out speculation as a causative factor in
 the sky-rocketing prices: There is " convincing evidence
 that positions held by index traders or swap dealers impact
 market returns. The Task Force on Commodity Futures Markets,
 established by the International Organization of Security
 Commissions [the fox guarding the henhouse] to look into these
 matters, reviewed the available research and came to the
 conclusion that they `do not support the proposition that the
 activity of speculators has systematically driven commodity
 market cash or futures prices up or down on a sustained basis.'|"
 The report also cited the October 2008 IMF World Economic
 Outlook, which concluded "that there was no evidence of a long
 term systemic effect due to speculation on commodity prices...."
 The report concludes that to solve the problem,production
 will have to be increased, and "a well functioning, rules-based
 trading system will be crucial to fair competition and to ensure
 that food can move from surplus to deficit production areas,"
 i.e. no protectionism for purposes of developing local food
 production to create food security, is to be allowed. [ddg]

 Arizona to the Unemployed: Let them Eat Cake

 June 18 (LPAC)--If you're unemployed in Arizona, and a number of
 other states, and you're approaching the 80th week of collecting
 unemployment benefits, you might soon be out of luck. Congress
 acted, last December to continue to make available to the states
 federal funding for extended unemployment benefits if their
 unemployment rates were higher than three years before. Al that
 was required was that states make a one-word change in their
 relevant state law. Most states rushed to make the change, but a
 few resisted, mostly for ideological reasons, among them,
 Arizona, Wisconsin and Alaska. In Arizona, Gov. Jan Brewer called
 the state legislature into special session to make the change,
 but the Republican leadership is resisting, and hasn't even
 brought up a bill. They say they'll only consider the change if
 it's packaged with other provisions, including, believe it or
 not, stricter rules for receiving unemployment benefits in the
 first place. They must think that that $240-a-week check is so
 large that it takes away any incentive for the unemployed to find
 work. "We prefer to look for long-term solutions so when the
 Obama administration money runs out Arizonans will have jobs,
 Andy Tobin, the Republican speaker of the house, told the New
 York Times. The reality is, they won't have jobs when the money
 runs out because neither the Obama Administration nor Arizona
 Republicans {have} a jobs program. [cjo]


 Obama To Announce Afghan Troop Plan Next Week

 June 18 (LPAC)--The Obama Administration is expected to reveal
 its plans for Afghanistan, next week, just as the Congressional
 revolt against his Libya war moves him closer to impeachment.
 Obama is reported to have been buoyed by assessments by senior
 defense officials that the US strategy in Afghanistan is moving
 that country in the right direction and is weakening the Taliban
 insurgency. These officials apparently fear the pressure for
 substantial troop withdrawals coming from the Congress, because
 the "progress" is still too fragile to leave to the Afghans
 alone. "The situation is terrible. Has there been a qualitative
 change that disadvantages the opposition and advantages the
 (U.S.-led) coalition? I don't buy it," said a U.S. official,
 speaking anonymously to McClatchy News. "The Taliban remains a
 clever, adaptive enemy." Earlier this week, 27 US senators, from
 both parties, wrote to Obama, calling on him to begin a "sizeable
 and sustained US troop withdrawal.
 Perhaps Obama's intends something else for Afghanistan other
 than peace. On Saturday, Afghan President Karzai confirmed that
 the US is involved in preliminary peace talks with the Taliban.
 Shortly afterwards, suicide bombers blew up a police station in
 down town Kabul near the presidential palace, killing 9 people.
 Peace talks have started with them already and it is going well.
 Foreign militaries, especially the United States of America, are
 going ahead with these negotiations, Karzai said. The
 announcement follows action by the UNSC earlier this week to
 treat AQ and the Taliban separately: The Taliban is only
 interested in power in Afghanistan whereas the AQ is waging
 global jihad. Such a distinction is supposed to make negotiating
 with the Taliban easier. [cjo]


 A Franco-German "Harmony" Which Means Doom For Europe

 June 18 (EIRNS)--The emergency summit of French President Nicolas
 Sarkozy and  German Chancellor Angela Merkel on the Greek bailout
 yesterday, just confirmed what Helga Zepp-LaRouche has warned in
 her June 17 open letter to the German citizens: namely, that
 there is not a single idea in the minds of Europe's present
 leaders that can save Europe. Sarkozy and Merkel agreed on a
 "joint initiative" to mobilize more billions of euros for the
 bailout, to have the EU summit next week give its okay for that,
 and not to have any forced "haircut" for the private banks, but
 leave everything to the bankers' voluntary commitment to accept
 Neither France nor Germany will do anything on the bailout
 front without the consent of the EU Commission, the ECB and the
 IMF--in other words, no real restructuring of the Greek state
 debt of the kind which German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble
 still insisted on, in his June 6 letter, will occur. The
 Schaeuble position has been thrown out, in favor of a simple (but
 unfeasible, actually) rollover, which tries to leave bankers'
 claims untouched, with the exception of a few dimes that bankers
 will throw in just to show some "good will," and to secure
 approval of the construct from the skeptical German parliament.
 The Sarkozy-Merkel agreement is accompanied by an ominous
 joint propaganda initiative of 70 leaders of major German and
 French companies who endorse a Greek bailout and will campaign
 publicly for it with large newspaper ads across Europe next week.
 The list of signers reads like a "Who's Who" of the Franco-German
 business elite. On the German side, it includes Daimler boss
 Dieter Zetsche, Peter Löscher of Siemens, René Obermann of
 Deutsche Telekom, electricity utility E.On chief Johannes
 Teyssen, as well as BMW head Norbert Reithofer and Deutsche Post
 head Frank Appel. The French executives include the heads of
 aerospace giant EADS, oil company Total, carmaker Renault and
 energy utility EDF. The German and French executives who have
 signed the statement are responsible for more than 5 million
 employees and revenues of a total of more than EU1.5 trillion.
 "A collapse of the euro would be a disastrous step backward
 for Europe," the ad reads, noting that the international
 competitiveness of European companies has risen considerably
 since the introduction of the euro. The executives defend the
 billions in aid that governments are providing to the Eurozone
 members with crushing debt like Greece, Ireland and Portugal,
 claiming that this policy is without any alternative. And any new
 bailout shall be based on stricter budgetary discipline, implying
 increased austerity.
 The Franco-German managers also categorically oppose
 removing countries like Greece from the Eurozone, stating that
 even if rescuing the euro ends up costing billions, Europe and
 its currency are worth the effort. (rap)

 Juncker Dislikes Any Discussion About Bankers' "Haircut"

 June 18--A "hard haircut" for investors in Greek securities (as
 proposed by German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble two weeks
 ago) would risk "contagion" to other European countries and have
 unpredictable subsequence effects, Jean-Claude Juncker, head of
 the Eurogroup of Eurzone finance ministers, told German
 newspapers in an interview. "We have absolutely no experience as
 to what may happen if a member of a single monetary union such as
 this one were to take such a step," Juncker claimed, "The risks
 are so great that I can only warn against such a move."
 "A hard haircut would risk contagion for many European
 countries with unpredictable consequences," Juncker said, naming
 Belgium and Italy as the first countries that would be affected.
 But Juncker's remarks are a joke: The contagion is already there,
 it cannot be blamed on the haircut discussion, and the
 contagion--which is a contagion caused by the euro, not by
 Greece--involves all countries of the Eurozone, already. Known
 for being a longtime mouthpiece of the Empire, the remarks coming
 from Juncker, both Prime Minister and Finance Minister of the
 Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, do not come as much of a surprise, nor
 would they help to help the Empire survive. (rap)

 British Public Sector Workers Call for Biggest Strike in 100

 June 18 (EIRNS)--General Secretary Dave Prentis of UNISON,
 Britain'spublic sector union, is calling for the biggest strike
 action in Britain in 100 years in order to defend public sector
 pension rights. While this is the only thing the 1.4 million
 strong union can legally strike on, because they are now in
 negotiations with the government on the pension issue, the strike
 action is also aimed at the general cut in public services,
 redundancies, and wage cuts.
 Prentis said there was growing anger over a public sector
 pay freeze that could trigger more disputes. "It will be the
 biggest since the general strike. It won't be the miners' strike.
 We are going to win," Prentis told the {Guardian}. (In 1984,
 Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher crushed a miners strike after 51
 weeks, which allowed her to impose austerity conditions, layoffs,
 and closures.)
 While Prentis said he still hopes to negotiate a settlement
 with the government through talks that are currently under way,
 "I strongly believe that one day of industrial action will not
 change anyone's mind in government... The purpose of industrial
 action is not industrial action, it is to get an agreement that
 is acceptable and long-lasting. But we are prepared for rolling
 action over an indefinite period. This coalition has got to open
 its eyes and see that in just reacting to a {Daily Mail} view of
 the public sector they are walking into a trap of their own
 making."  Prentis also called on the Labour Party to support the
 Prentis said he had full support from his members and they
 were now recruiting support for the campaign outside the
 workplace, sending representatives into community groups to
 garner support. A motion at the union's conference next week
 would formalize this campaign. UNISON is part of the Trade Union
 Congress which organized the general strike earlier this year
 that was the focus for mass protest against the government's
 austerity measures. [dea]


 U.S. HOUSE: In session June 21-24
 Districts: June 25-July 6
 In Session: July 6-15
 In Districts: July 16-25
 In Session: July 25-28, and August 2-5
 Summer Recess/Districts: August 5-Sept. 5

 U.S. SENATE: In session except July 4-11
 Summer Recess/Districts, Aug. 5-Sept. 5


 June 21
 850 union workers at Salinas Valley Memorial Hospital in
 Monterrey County plan a 24-hr walkout on June 21, to protest
 hospital plans to lay off 150 workers and their demand for wage
 and benefit concessions.  [Monterey herald]


 June 30
 THE Filipino-American community in Los Angeles is invited to
 attend the Global Summit Town Hall Meeting and Gotohan at the
 Philippine Consulate at 3600 Wilshire Blvd Suite 500, LA. The
 special event will be on June 30, from 5:30-7:30pm.

 July 23-28
 NAACP National Convention, Los Angeles.


 New Democratic Party Convention, (IAM participating)
 June 17-18, Ontario, Canada.


 June 17-21
 US Conference of Mayors 79th Annual Meeting June 17-21
 Hilton Baltimore Convention Center Hotel
 401 W. Pratt Street, Baltimore, Md.


 July 27-29
 National Urban League Convention, Boston.


 Congressional Progressive Caucus Speak out Tour.
 June 27: Detroit, 6 p.m. -  8 p.m.,
 Historic King Solomon Baptist Church 6100 14th Street, Detroit,
 Join Representatives Keith Ellison (MN- CPC Co-Chair), John
 Conyers (MI) and Hansen Clarke (MN)


 June 16-19
 Netroots Nation National Convention, Minneapolis. Russ
 Feingold to keynote.

 Sept 29-Oct 2
 Second annual AFL-CIO Young Workers Summit in Minneapolis.
 Participants will focus on building an economy that works for all
 workers, including young workers, and strategies for creating
 opportunities in the union movement for young workers.



 June 30: New York City, NY 6p.m. -8 p.m.
 Hostos Community College, 500 Grand Concourse, Bronx
 Join Representatives Charlie Rangel (NY) and Jerrold Nadler (NY)

 June 20
 New York States Public Employees Union holding
 demonstrations in 12 cities across the state, re stalled
 state-employees' contract negotiations and beginning of layoffs.
 Only detail found is: Albany, Noon, West Capitol Park


 June 25
 State Democratic Party Dinner

 June 27-July 2ND
 LULAC National Convention,  Cincinnati.


 Pennsylvania State Council of Machinists
 June 20 -21, Holiday Inn Conference Center - York, PA


 Thursday, June 30th, 6:30pm
 Sumter Town Hall
 Central Carolina Technical College (Health Sciences Center)
 133 South Main Street, Sumter, SC


 Aug 8-11
 NCSL Legislative Summit, San Antonio, Texas


 Tuesday, June 21: Salt Lake City Emergency Meeting
 "Glass-Steagall or Global Genocide!" Day-Riverside Branch Library
 1575 W 1000 N, Salt Lake City; 6:00 pm; Meeting: 6:30-8:45 pm
 Speakers Jack Stockwell & Harley Schlanger.
 Free Parking in lot and on street


 July 15-16th
 Democratic Party of Virginia holds "The Virginia Summit" at
 Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond.  The Summit will be
 a unique opportunity for Democrats and progressive activists to
 come together


 June 20, 2011 -- 6:00 pm at Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial
 Library, 901 G Street
 workers and union members are encouraged to attend a town hall
 meeting sponsored by the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 689
 Email for more information.

 July 21
 Lyndon LaRouche webcast

 July 23-26
 National Council of La Raza, Washington DC

 July 30th
 Healthcare Now! events marking the 46th anniversary of the
 passage of Medicare, in DC and across the country, details TBA

 July 30
 SOS Million Teacher March (DC and locations throughout the
 country: TBA)

 August 5-7
 Jobs with Justice National Conference.


 June 4-June 20th
 STATE CAPITOL as Legislature debates the budget.

 Rep James Sensenbrenner.

 Monday, June 20th
 7:00pm  West Allis Public Library

 Sunday, June 26th
 7:00pm  Brookfield Public Safety BuildinG

 Congressional Progressive Caucus Speakout tour
 June 28: Milwaukee, WI,  6p.m. -  8 p.m.
 Vincent High School 7501 N Granville Rd.
 Join Representatives Raul Grijalva (AZ-CPC Co-Chair), Gwen
 Moore (WI), Tammy Baldwin (WI) and Jan Schakowsky (IL)

 July 12.
 Recall elections for Six Republican State Senators.


     2    Session ends for South Carolina State Legislature.
     6    Session ends for Nevada State Legislature.
     8    Session ends for Connecticut State Legislature.
     8    Session ends for Nebraska State Legislature.
     13    Session ends for Alabama State Legislature.
     14 - July 4    Special session begins for the South Carolina
 State Legislature. This special session is for redistricting
     15    Session ends for Maine State Legislature.
     20    Session ends for New York State Legislature.
     23    Session ends for Louisiana State Legislature.
     28    Special election: Alabama House of Representatives
 (District 105).
     30    Session ends for Delaware State Legislature.
     30    Session ends for Oregon State Legislature.
     early June    Session ends for North Carolina State
     late June    Session ends for Rhode Island State Legislature.
     1    Session ends for New Hampshire State Legislature.
     12   Special election: Arkansas House of Representatives
 (District 54)

 |       NORTH AMERICAN OPERATIONS BULLETIN                      |
 |                                                               |
 |    Sunday, June 19, 2011                                      |
 |                                                               |

 minutes that were originally missing, now reinstated. There are
 unfortunately still technical interruptions in the discussion.


 The  Minnesota organizing team attended the Congressional
 Progressive Caucus Speakout For Jobs Now meeting. This meeting
 was the first of a 12 city  "listening tour"  the first of which
 coincided with the Netroots Nation Conference, and was in a
 church near the conference in downtown Minneapolis. The meeting
 was addressed by Reps Keith Ellison (Mn) and Raul Grijalva(Az)
 who are co chairs of the caucus, as well as former Rep Mary Jo
 Kilroy (Oh)
 The format of the meeting was that Ellison, Grijalva and
 Kilroy made short general speeches about the need for jobs to
 fulfill the American Dream, and the need to push back against the
 big money tea party agenda. They stressed that this is a
 listening tour and people were encouraged to line up and speak
 for two minutes about the problems they were having getting jobs,
 health care etc. This went on for most of the meeting, with the
 Reps.sitting there "listening"  sympathetically,while people
 broke down about the things they were going through. Minn
 organizer Jim S cut through this lame environment saying that the
 only solution to all these problems is to pass HR1489, Marcy
 Kaptur's Glass Steagall bill. He stressed the intense
 mobilization being led by LaRouchepac and identified the co
 sponsors and the Union endorsement. He said Ellison and Grijalva
 should be cosigners. They said nothing in response, as the agenda
 of the meeting let them off the hook on answering anybody. Jim
 was the only one of all the people speaking raising anything
 about solving the problem, let alone it obviously being the right
 solution. After the meeting many people came up to Jim and the
 other two organizers  saying they thought the solution Jim had
 brought up was really  important. There were about 250 people
 there and they all got the  LPAC Glass-Steagall  leaflet,
 including the speakers.
 Throughout the entire Netroots Nation conference they got an
 open, interested response. No one turned down leaflets, many knew
 of Glass-Steagall but didn't know there was a bill and told the
 organizers they intended to call their Congressmen to co-sponsor
 it. There were a number of people who said they had had some
 disagreements with LaRouche in the past , but were in complete
 agreement on Glass-Steagall, with the funniest example of this
 being a physicist from Seattle who told them that while LaRouche
 had some way out there ideas like attacking Newton, he completely
 agreed with LPAC on Glass-Steagall.


 3-4 pm ET
 Post-Show Message Line: 916 233 0630, Box 595
 Intro: While You Were Sleeping & The World In Review
 Message #1: Webcast or The Weekly Report
 Message #2: Webcast or The LaRouche Show

 For Calendar see "Organizing Opportunities" section of the

     *** END OF BRIEFING ***
Edit - History - Print - Recent Changes - Search
Page last modified on October 27, 2012, at 03:25 PM