The Revolt Begins Against
Obama's Fascist Agenda
by Jeffrey Steinberg
June 22—A coast-to-coast revolt, led by leading California and New York Democrats, has begun, against President Barack Obama's plans to dismantle what remains of President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal system of protection of the general welfare of America's "forgotten majority." With unemployment skyrocketing all across the country, at rates approaching those of the Great Depression, President Obama's so-called stimulus package has done nothing to reverse that trend, and his much-publicized plans to "reform" Medicare and Social Security are turning out to be nothing more than a replay of Hitler's policies of euthanasia against the elderly, the sick, and other highly vulnerable segments of the American population (see Documentation).
As the result of Lyndon LaRouche's bold intervention, daring to publicly draw the parallels between the Obama health-care "reform" plan and Hitler's Tiergarten-4 (T-4) euthanasia program of 1939-41, some leading Democratic Party circles have begun to wake up to the dangers of what the White House is peddling, and are now, for the first time, pushing back against the drive for the elimination of what Hitler himself called "lives not worthy to be lived."
Sources within the leadership of the Democratic Party have confirmed to EIR that several recent White House actions catalyzed the break with the President and his top policy advisors.
First, the President outright rejected pleas from California Democratic Party leaders, that action be taken by the Federal government, to avoid a bankruptcy default by the state, when the fiscal year ends on June 30. Instead of providing loan guarantees and other assistance—small change compared to the $8 trillion bailout of Wall Street—the President, according to the sources, first demanded murderous cuts, in effect backing Republican Gov. Arnold "Terminator" Schwarzenegger against his own party. Similar White House behind-the-scenes scheming is reportedly going on with New York City's corporatist Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
One senior member of the California Congressional delegation candidly acknowledged that, eventually, the White House will take some action, because "California is too big to fail," but the team of behavioral economist austerity freaks, led by Office of Management and Budget director Peter Orszag, want to force California to first slash vital social safety net programs, including welfare assistance to 1.6 million desperately poor Californians, equally drastic cuts in Medicaid, and wholesale firing of police, fire, and school personnel.
The White House intends to use California as the example for the entire country, and leading Democrats from California and New York have concluded that the President's health-care schemes will further slash funding for medical care in the biggest, most heavily populated states. Thus, on June 21, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) declared on national television, that she will not support the President's health-care reform bill, because it will slash $6 billion from California's health-care system, and will gut other large states.
Earlier, three leading House Democrats from the two states—Rep. Charles Rangel (N.Y.), Rep. George Miller (Calif.) and Rep. Henry Waxman (Calif.) introduced a health-care reform bill that called for increases in Medicare payments, and rejected some other key components of the White House plan. Their bill, which will be the subject of three separate Congressional hearings this week, was drafted after the three House leaders were brought to the White House by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), to be haranged by President Obama, Orszag, and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, on the need to slash health-care expenditures to "save" Medicare and Medicaid, and extend insurance coverage to the uninsured.
The swindle of the White House plan was made transparently obvious, when the President issued a diktat: There will be no consideration of any "single-payer" reform, and no attempt to crack down on the insurance companies and HMOs, with their 30% overhead costs. All the cuts will come from health-care services—including Federal aid to hospitals, which now covers the costs of treating the uninsured.
One senior U.S. intelligence official told EIR: "The Obama White House has totally caved in to the insurance companies and the HMOs."
Social Security Is Next
The second development that crossed the line with a growing number of leading Democrats was the June 18 op-ed by Peter Orszag in the London Financial Times, in which he candidly declared that, once the health-care "reform" has been passed, the next target will be Social Security. While the White House has acknowledged that, with the crash of the stock market, all schemes for privatization of Social Security are off the table, instead, the White House planners are pressing Democratic Party economists to back a massive increase in taxes on Social Security—for the lower 95% of income brackets!
The backlash against the Obama health-care reform schemes, and, now, the planned trashing of Social Security—a backlash catalyzed by the LaRouche Political Action Committee's mobilization, via a relentless campaign of video exposés on the LPAC website, and the release of an initial 200,000-run pamphlet, caused such consternation at the White House, according to sources close to the Presidency, that a decision was made several weeks ago, that the President himself would have to go out and sell the plan.
Beginning on June 11, with his town hall speech in Green Bay, Wisc., the President has been on a berserker one-man sales campaign, to convince the American people and Congress to buy into the euthanasia schemes. While it is true that Orszag, chief White House economic advisor Larry Summers, and Rahm Emanuel, on their own, could never defeat the LaRouche-led opposition to the killer health-care cuts, the President has not exactly turned the tide, with his personal touch.
Things got so bad that former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), an architect of the Obama Presidential campaign, and a leading advocate of the creation of a national health-care board to impose mandatory cuts in services, went to the President last week, and urged him to back down from his drive to pass the health-care reforms by Oct. 1. Daschle, a former Senate Majority Leader turned K Street lobbyist, seeing a looming disaster, argued that a delay in the campaign to ram through health-care cuts, would be far better than an outright strategic defeat. But the President, according to sources in the White House, would hear nothing of it. Instead, he scheduled a high-profile June 24 nationwide TV interview to push for the health-care agenda, offering ABC-TV all-day access to the White House, in a final effort to sell the killer scheme.
Why the desperate rush? One senior Congressional staffer laughed, when told that Rahm Emanuel has informed Congressional leaders that the President wants to sign the health care bill into law on Oct. 1. "Oct. 1 is the start of the flu season," the person said, "and everyone is scared to death that we are going to be hit with a killer pandemic of swine flu. Any chance of passing cuts in health-care delivery, once the pandemic strikes, will be gone." Of course, the swine flu pandemic is not going to wait for the October flu season. Already, the spread of the flu is out of control in parts of the world, and that includes parts of the United States.
Indeed, the Obama health-care "reform" plan, while gutting everything that President Franklin D. Roosevelt stood for, is totally in line with Britain's Prince Philip and Prince Charles, who preach Malthusian genocide, and would welcome a biological holocaust that would wipe out 80% of the human race.
The late Lord Bertrand Russell infamously wrote in the 1950s that he would welcome a "Black Death" once every generation, to radically reduce population—particularly the darker-skinned races.
Barack 'Hoover' Obama
The revolt against Obama has spread beyond Congress and the Democratic Party apparatus with breathtaking speed. The July 2009 issue of the 150-year-old liberal magazine Harper's, has a cover-story, "Barack Hoover Obama: The Best and the Brightest Blow It Again." The author draws a compelling parallel between Presidents Herbert Hoover and Barack Obama, contrasting both to FDR, who went to war with Wall Street, to save America from the depths of the Great Depression.
"Much like Herbert Hoover," author Kevin Baker wrote, "Barack Obama is a man attempting to realize a stirring new vision of his society without cutting himself free from the dogmas of the past—without accepting the inevitable conflict. Like Hoover, he is bound to fail....
"Still worse is Obama's decision to leave the reordering of the financial world solely to Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner, both of whom played such a major role in deregulating Wall Street and bringing on the disaster in the first place. It's as if, after winning election in 1932, FDR had brought Andrew Mellon back to the Treasury. Just as Herbert Hoover could not, in the end, break away from the best economic advice of the 1920s, Barack Obama is sticking with the 'key men' of the 1990s."
And the latest poll data from Gallup and other agencies shows that, while the President still enjoys a better-than-60% approval rating, when asked about the Obama Administration's economic policies, people gave thumbs down—with under 30% supporting his handling of the bank bailout. That kind of gap spells disaster, especially for a President who lives and breathes by his belief that he can do no wrong.