| Four-Power Agreement for a New Bretton Woods: Executive Intelligence Review; Volume 45, Issue 32 Contributor(s): Larouche Jr, Lyndon H. (Author) |
|
 |
ISBN: 172597231X ISBN-13: 9781725972315 Publisher: Createspace Independent Publishing Platform OUR PRICE: $9.50 Product Type: Paperback Published: August 2018 |
| Additional Information |
| BISAC Categories: - Political Science | International Relations - Treaties |
| Physical Information: 0.14" H x 8.5" W x 11.02" (0.39 lbs) 66 pages |
| Descriptions, Reviews, Etc. |
| Publisher Description: Aug. 5-For many among those Americans only now confronting the reality of the philosophical fight encompassing the last 70 odd years of global history, this sudden rendezvous with history is nothing short of bewildering. The unravelling of the plot-by British MI6 intelligence, and Obama CIA chief John Brennan and other Obama loyal minions-to topple the duly elected president of the United States, has opened before the eyes of patriotic Americans a significantly broader image of the world they have in fact been living in all along. Among President Trump's loyal base of supporters, the sense of commitment to defend the President, especially on matters of brokering peace agreements, has been solidified. In many respects, thanks in large degree to the work of the LaRouche Political Movement, the fascist coup against the President has backfired. The fake newscasters were beside themselves, lamenting the cheers Trump received at a campaign rally in Pennsylvania, when he expressed pleasure at how well his meeting with President Vladimir Putin had gone. They were furious that Trump seemed to side with Putin over the FBI on questions of election meddling. They even attempted to claim that the content of the discussion between the two Presidents was being entirely withheld from the American public-further evidence of Trump's nefarious plotting with the Russian enemy. However, continued efforts to stymie future meetings between the two leaders, (much of the intention of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's witch-hunt against the President) seem to be failing. President Putin has been invited to meet with Trump in the oval office some time after the end of the year. In a recent poll, more than half of the American population is estimated to support plans for a second Trump-Putin summit. While this political support among Trump's base (fully in opposition to the fraud known as Russiagate) is in full swing against efforts to assemble an impeachment-oriented Democratic majority in the U.S. Congress, it is not yet mobilized to support dismantling of the Wall Street derivatives bubble, a ticking time-bomb just as dangerous to the functioning of the Presidency as election of the pro-impeachment Democrats. There is also not an effective comprehension yet among the pro-Trump electorate, of why strengthening the U.S. relationship with China and Russia is so vitally important to the future of the world economy. These are obvious factors inhibiting President Trump from breaking, in a more meaningful way, from the very U.S.-British "special relationship" which he has in fact broken with over the defense of U.S. manufacturing and in his rejecting further regime-change wars. Certain fissures in the ideological edifice, however, suggest the potential to break open further meaningful fights over principle: President Trump has effectively declared war on one of the biggest donors to Republican congressional candidates, the pro-drug legalization, pro-free trade, libertarian billionaire Charles Koch, who has broken profile and begun supporting Democratic Congressional candidates whose Republican opponents are too close to Trump on matters of free trade and presumably other policies. Meanwhile, this past week, Fox Business operated as a platform for individuals inside and outside the Trump Administration, pressuring Trump to move to escalate tariffs against China rather than making concessions in the name of good faith and mutual benefit. At political tables in the streets and at campaign events, the LaRouche PAC is effectively confronting the American people with their own designated role in history. Not their role in an election, not passively "supporting" or voting, nor in saying they are for this or that, but in recognizing their place in an ongoing process of history for which they are responsible. |