Author: Alicia

To the failure of Obamacare has now been added the failure of the Republican attempt to make a cut-price version, while claiming to be “repealing and replacing” it. The quest of the health insurance companies to keep extracting major private profits from what is a public utility in nearly every other advanced economy — and from an increasingly sick and self-abusive American population as well — caused failure of both Obamacare and GOP “not-Obamacare.” (Big Pharma-related businesses remain far more successful at this perverse pursuit, but that should be ended.)

President Trump now says he expects to work with Democrats at some future point to legislate a better healthcare system; and some close associates have indicated that the bill he supported in hopes of a Republican legislative victory, was not his idea of a good healthcare system.

Rep. John Conyers’ (D-MI) H.R. 676, “The Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act,” which in concept enjoys wide public support and has 70 House Democrats sponsoring it, now becomes more important. It is the only healthcare system, of those now used or proposed in the United States, which can work for the American population as a whole.

The failures of current American healthcare are so widely known they need not be repeated, and even its few, great supposed strengths — fast access to care, high quality of hospitals and specialists — are only middle-ranking among OECD countries. Americans are in worse health, and kill themselves and each other, accidentally or deliberately, much more often than the people of other advanced economies; so until that can be changed, U.S. healthcare costs must be higher per capita and as a share of GDP. But not double! And prescription drugs — the same prescription drugs, for the same conditions — cost far more in the United States, because of the tens of thousands of opaque “pricing deals” that Pharma makes with separate health plans, drug distribution and management companies, hospital systems, government agencies at all levels, and pharmacies.

Total U.S. healthcare spending was $3.3 trillion in 2016. The largest government health insurance programs Medicare and Medicaid cover about 42% (125 million) of the 300 million Americans with health insurance, with about 39% of the nation’s total expenditure. But those 125 million are either over 65, of low income, or both, and therefore collectively have more health conditions to treat than those on public or private employer plans, Obamacare exchanges, etc. The case is even clearer with Medicare alone, which provides better coverage than Medicaid, and spends 50% more per beneficiary than Medicaid. Without Medicare, large numbers of seniors, as individuals, would be absolutely uninsurable on private insurance markets despite subsidies, vouchers, etc. because of their health conditions. Yet it covers the oldest 18% of the American population with just 19% of national health expenditures.

Conyers’ H.R. 676 rests on the starting premise that Medicare could clearly cover the 80-plus percent of Americans under 65, for less than the $2.7 trillion in expenditures now spent by and on them, even with Medicaid benefits greatly improved. Medicare administrative overhead costs are about 2% (so are Medicaid’s), while private insurers’ overhead costs are 12-15%. Conservatively $200 billion annually would be saved there. If a single-payer national insurer with, say, 250 million beneficiaries bargained with Pharma on drug prices (Medicare is not permitted to bargain by the 2003 law for seniors’ drug coverage, but the Veterans’ Administration does; other nations’ national plans do, and the results are undeniable), most estimates are that an additional $125-150 billion would be saved annually. And then there would be reduced physicians’ and hospitals’ administrative costs as well. $400 billion/year is a not-unreasonable assumption of savings, within the first few years.

Thus the national healthcare bill could be brought back down below $3 trillion to start with. Then further improvements would depend on growth and productivity in the economy.

Why? Because a single-payer healthcare system, or Medicare for all, should be funded primarily on a payroll tax, whose revenues will grow with economic, productivity, and wage/salary growth. The principle of H.R. 676, and of the single-payer idea generally, is that taxes rise, while premiums, co-pays, deductibles, etc. largely disappear for up to 200 million Americans and their employers. But then healthcare costs can slowly fall relative to the economy as a whole, only if the productive economy revives.

The additional condition, is that the Hill-Burton standards for hospital and specialist clinic facilities per capita be restored, because healthcare is held down now by the simple shortage of sufficient emergency room, hospital and clinic capacity.

Medicare has much broader bedrock support in the American population than Medicaid, fundamentally because Medicare recipients paid a payroll tax for it all their working lives. FDR fully understood this principle — from the first (Social Security) payroll tax, to war bonds, to the patriotic March of Dimes to fight polio. Everybody pays in; everybody benefits. Lyndon Johnson and the 1965 Congress used it in creating Medicare.

Let us assume, as H.R. 676 does, that all the present public insurance programs, from Medicaid to Federal and State Employee Health Benefits plans, brought their beneficiaries and their current funding into Medicare-for-all or single-payer insurance. And assume single-payer produced the national savings reasonably named above. Then — though not specified in the H.R. 676 outline — a payroll tax of about 6% each for employees and employers, producing about $1.1 trillion in revenue to begin with, would complete the funding of the whole single-payer system. This means quadrupling the current Medicare payroll tax. Including the Social Security payroll tax of 6.2%, gives 12.2% total payroll tax, rather than the current 7.7% total.

An employee filing $40-60,000 in taxable income, then, would pay $2,400-3,600 payroll tax a year for healthcare (not for health insurance, for healthcare), or $200-300/month. The average U.S. employee in an employer plan now pays about $120/month toward the premium, and then shells out for a deductible, co-pays for doctor visits, prescription drugs, etc. The employer of that average employee typically pays significantly more, about $375/month toward the premium. That employer’s savings could partially go to higher wages.

This doesn’t rule out small “harm reduction” taxes on consumption like alcohol and soft drinks to ensure that everyone, including those unemployed or out of the workforce, is paying something in, getting healthcare benefits out. But the payroll tax can be its bedrock. Single-payer universal healthcare does NOT need to involve “taxing the rich.”

To the failure of Obamacare has now been added the failure of the Republican attempt to make a cut-price version, while claiming to be “repealing and replacing” it. The quest of the health insurance companies to keep extracting major private profits from what is a public utility in nearly every other advanced economy — and from an increasingly sick and self-abusive American population as well — caused failure of both Obamacare and GOP “not-Obamacare.” (Big Pharma-related businesses remain far more successful at this perverse pursuit, but that should be ended.)

President Trump now says he expects to work with Democrats at some future point to legislate a better healthcare system; and some close associates have indicated that the bill he supported in hopes of a Republican legislative victory, was not his idea of a good healthcare system.

Rep. John Conyers’ (D-MI) H.R. 676, “The Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act,” which in concept enjoys wide public support and has 70 House Democrats sponsoring it, now becomes more important. It is the only healthcare system, of those now used or proposed in the United States, which can work for the American population as a whole.

The failures of current American healthcare are so widely known they need not be repeated, and even its few, great supposed strengths — fast access to care, high quality of hospitals and specialists — are only middle-ranking among OECD countries. Americans are in worse health, and kill themselves and each other, accidentally or deliberately, much more often than the people of other advanced economies; so until that can be changed, U.S. healthcare costs must be higher per capita and as a share of GDP. But not double! And prescription drugs — the same prescription drugs, for the same conditions — cost far more in the United States, because of the tens of thousands of opaque “pricing deals” that Pharma makes with separate health plans, drug distribution and management companies, hospital systems, government agencies at all levels, and pharmacies.

Total U.S. healthcare spending was $3.3 trillion in 2016. The largest government health insurance programs Medicare and Medicaid cover about 42% (125 million) of the 300 million Americans with health insurance, with about 39% of the nation’s total expenditure. But those 125 million are either over 65, of low income, or both, and therefore collectively have more health conditions to treat than those on public or private employer plans, Obamacare exchanges, etc. The case is even clearer with Medicare alone, which provides better coverage than Medicaid, and spends 50% more per beneficiary than Medicaid. Without Medicare, large numbers of seniors, as individuals, would be absolutely uninsurable on private insurance markets despite subsidies, vouchers, etc. because of their health conditions. Yet it covers the oldest 18% of the American population with just 19% of national health expenditures.

Conyers’ H.R. 676 rests on the starting premise that Medicare could clearly cover the 80-plus percent of Americans under 65, for less than the $2.7 trillion in expenditures now spent by and on them, even with Medicaid benefits greatly improved. Medicare administrative overhead costs are about 2% (so are Medicaid’s), while private insurers’ overhead costs are 12-15%. Conservatively $200 billion annually would be saved there. If a single-payer national insurer with, say, 250 million beneficiaries bargained with Pharma on drug prices (Medicare is not permitted to bargain by the 2003 law for seniors’ drug coverage, but the Veterans’ Administration does; other nations’ national plans do, and the results are undeniable), most estimates are that an additional $125-150 billion would be saved annually. And then there would be reduced physicians’ and hospitals’ administrative costs as well. $400 billion/year is a not-unreasonable assumption of savings, within the first few years.

Thus the national healthcare bill could be brought back down below $3 trillion to start with. Then further improvements would depend on growth and productivity in the economy.

Why? Because a single-payer healthcare system, or Medicare for all, should be funded primarily on a payroll tax, whose revenues will grow with economic, productivity, and wage/salary growth. The principle of H.R. 676, and of the single-payer idea generally, is that taxes rise, while premiums, co-pays, deductibles, etc. largely disappear for up to 200 million Americans and their employers. But then healthcare costs can slowly fall relative to the economy as a whole, only if the productive economy revives.

The additional condition, is that the Hill-Burton standards for hospital and specialist clinic facilities per capita be restored, because healthcare is held down now by the simple shortage of sufficient emergency room, hospital and clinic capacity.

Medicare has much broader bedrock support in the American population than Medicaid, fundamentally because Medicare recipients paid a payroll tax for it all their working lives. FDR fully understood this principle — from the first (Social Security) payroll tax, to war bonds, to the patriotic March of Dimes to fight polio. Everybody pays in; everybody benefits. Lyndon Johnson and the 1965 Congress used it in creating Medicare.

Let us assume, as H.R. 676 does, that all the present public insurance programs, from Medicaid to Federal and State Employee Health Benefits plans, brought their beneficiaries and their current funding into Medicare-for-all or single-payer insurance. And assume single-payer produced the national savings reasonably named above. Then — though not specified in the H.R. 676 outline — a payroll tax of about 6% each for employees and employers, producing about $1.1 trillion in revenue to begin with, would complete the funding of the whole single-payer system. This means quadrupling the current Medicare payroll tax. Including the Social Security payroll tax of 6.2%, gives 12.2% total payroll tax, rather than the current 7.7% total.

An employee filing $40-60,000 in taxable income, then, would pay $2,400-3,600 payroll tax a year for healthcare (not for health insurance, for healthcare), or $200-300/month. The average U.S. employee in an employer plan now pays about $120/month toward the premium, and then shells out for a deductible, co-pays for doctor visits, prescription drugs, etc. The employer of that average employee typically pays significantly more, about $375/month toward the premium. That employer’s savings could partially go to higher wages.

This doesn’t rule out small “harm reduction” taxes on consumption like alcohol and soft drinks to ensure that everyone, including those unemployed or out of the workforce, is paying something in, getting healthcare benefits out. But the payroll tax can be its bedrock. Single-payer universal healthcare does NOT need to involve “taxing the rich.”

An audience of 130 gathered at the Sheraton Arabella Park hotel in Munich, March 25, for a one-day conference organized by the Fusion Energy Forum and the Schiller Institute on the occasion of the 100th birthday of the German-American space pioneer Krafft Ehricke. The theme of the event was “Krafft Ehricke’s Vision for the Future of Mankind” placing his work for a new paradigm of human existence in the context of the present-day effort of the New Silk Road.

Werner Zuse

After remarks of welcome by Werner Zuse of the board of the Fusion Energy Forum, who particularly welcomed Lyndon LaRouche who was attending the conference, three artists (Diana Milewa, soprano; Roland Albrecht, baritone; Elena Arnovskaya, pianist) who also performed again after the first break, introduced the event with three pieces (Josef Haydn: “Nun scheint in vollem Glanze der Himmel,” aria from The Creation; two songs by Franz Schubert: An die Musik; Fruehlingssehnsucht).

The first speaker, Marsha Freeman, science editor of EIR and biographer of Krafft Ehricke, spoke on his “extraterrestrial imperative” which laid out a vision for a human civilization that would finally be liberated from wars and poverty and make use of man’s creativity the potential of which is unlimited.

Marsha Freeman

Ehricke’s commitment to space exploration as the venue for this new paradigm was sparked by Fritz Lang’s 1929 movie “Frau im Mond” (The Woman on the Moon) which he saw in at the age of 12, and during the early 1930s he wrote short fiction pieces portraying how human civilization had changed in the course of space exploration and colonization, as seen from a date in the future. Ehricke was always guided by the question: where will we live in 50 years, in 100 years from now? Focusing human creativity on the realization of this vision would finally unify all peoples and nations, mankind would finally become mature.

While in his addition to his work on the technical realization of space exploration, Ehricke was a prolific author also on the political and social aspect of this entire process over decades, he made a special effort at the end of the 1960s to elaborate his concept of the “extraterrestrial imperative” further, he gave interviews, speeches, writing articles and books. He did that explicitly as a fight against the rise of the rock-drug counterculture, the movements against nuclear power and against science, whose aggressiveness reminded Ehricke of the Nazi shock troops he had experienced in Germany at the end of the Weimar Republic.

Ehricke, who died of cancer in 1984 at the age of 67, had long before become a household word in the United States, he and his role in shaping the American space programs had made his name familiar to everybody. His designs for “Selenopolis,” a permanent human settlement on the Moon powered by fusion energy and with a maglev transportation system, and for “Astropolis,” a permanent station in space as large as a city, and the logical step forward deeper into the Solar System were visions popular throughout the United States and beyond. Ehricke’s personal contribution to the development of space technology and the designs of space missions is uncontested, reviving his work also for the present younger generation is a must.

A personal message from Christa Ehricke, his eldest daughter who could not attend the conference, was then read to the audience. There, she portrayed him as a scientist totally committed to the development of space science and technology, being a caring father at the same time, who always challenged his daughter to understand concepts and to develop new ideas. She and the Ehricke family grew up in the immediate environment of the first U.S. astronauts who carried out the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo missions.

The three musicians performed several pieces also during the first coffee break: Ave Maria for soprano by Giulio Caccini; two duets for soprano and baritone by Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy, Ich wollt meine Liebe ergoesse sich, and Volkslied; and “Casta diva,” an aria for soprano from Vincenzo Bellini’s opera Norma.

The second speaker at the conference was Jacqueline Myrrhe, a renowned freelance space journalist in Germany who also publishes the Go Taikonauts! journal. She presented the development of the Chinese space program from its first conception in 1958, through the highly disruptive periods of the Maoist “Great Leap Forward” and “Cultural Revolution” periods which prohibited real progress in Chinese space science and technology.  Only from the 1970s on, China’s space sector made progress with the work on a  geo-satellite from 1981 on, and on a space station from 1992 on. The space sector has always been viewed in China as a science driver with a priority on the national economic and social development, the broader perspective of it being the roadmap for progress until the year 2050. The Chinese space program may have been slow, particularly in its earlier stages, but it has taken up pace and shows the absolute determination of the Chinese to turn its plans into reality within a set timeframe. Others, particularly the United States, may have been there first, but China is arriving there step by step. The space station, the lunar missions (first unmanned, then manned), the Mars program of China, feature a consequent and optimistic development of technological and scientific capacities, and the entire future program is open for cooperation with other nations, as is the design for the New Silk Road, Myrrhe explained.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche

The afternoon session of the conference, beginning with a speech by Schiller Institute President Helga Zepp-LaRouche, was introduced with a Chinese love song, performed by Feride Gillesberg-Istogu (soprano) and Benjamin Lylloff (piano). Zepp-LaRouche spoke on her personal memory of Ehricke, whom she first met in the early 1980s and engaged in intense dialogue with until his early death in 1984. Ehricke was characterized by a strong optimism, he was firmly convinced  of the necessary evolutionary step mankind had to make to develop from a terrestrially-confined species to a space species. This will be an epochal change comparable to the one which occurred from the Middle Ages to the modern civilization, triggered by the Renaissance period. The New Paradigm which China is introducing with the New Silk Road strategy, is congruent with what Ehricke designed and what the LaRouche movement has campaigned for for more than four decades: a new and just world economic system which will develop conditions appropriate to promote human creativity.

The New Paradigm poses a challenge to the old paradigm, the oligarchical system of Western globalization whose inhuman axioms do not want to be overcome. In this strategic context, Helga explained the issue of “Trump,” the fact that the new U.S. President, whose declared plans pose a threat to the elites of the old system, is attacked by an unprecedented campaign of lies, black propaganda and hatred serving the defense of the doomed old paradigm, the British System. In his most recent public speeches, in Detroit, Tennessee, Kentucky, Trump has addressed the importance of reviving the American system as practiced by Abraham Lincoln, Henry Carey, George Washington; he has announced to invest $1 trillion in the domestic infrastructure, to stop the regime change wars abroad, to establish a mutual cooperation with the two other world powers of Russia and China. Trump’s meeting soon with China’s President will, if it works well, bring a positive breakthrough in the global strategic situation, that is why Trump is attacked by the same intelligence agencies that have worked for the old system, for Obama, for the British. The task which is ahead for the United States is comparable to the one that Friedrich List defined, when writing almost 200 years ago about the American System as an alternative to the British System.

The Chinese New Silk Road strategy, first formulated in 2013, has been able to recruit 4.4 billion people in more than 60 nations for a global development program in the range of $21 trillion, promoted in projects along  six routes (Belt and Road) on land and one maritime route reaching out beyond Eurasia also into Africa. What China is initiating there in Africa in terms of infrastructure development, is largely congruent with the Africa plan presented by Lyndon LaRouche about 30 years ago—Europe, which ought to play a constructive role there on its neighboring continent, remains absent, but the New Paradigm  keeps marching forward, Zepp-LaRouche said.

The advance of mankind on the Moon, she explained, was seen by Ehricke as a process opposite from what has occurred on Earth: there, man arrived very late in the evolution, whereas on the Moon, man will be the beginning of evolution. The lunar civilization will develop characteristics different from those which have dominated man on Earth, mutual cooperation for the good of all others will have to be the basis of human life under lunar conditions, there has to be harmony at the center of relations, as it has to be at the center of the New Silk Road development, according to China’s leading official Yang Jiechi during his recent visit to the United States. The notion of harmony as laid out by Confucius and by Nikolaus von Cusa, who also portrayed peace and harmony as only coming on the basis of all microcosms working for the benefit of each, the education in universal history and the best contributions of all cultures should guide mankind in the future, Zepp-LaRouche said.

The second speaker of the afternoon session, former Swiss astronaut Prof. Claude Nicollier, gave a review of his personal “Steps in Space” which included four service missions at the Hubble Space Telescope carried out from the Space Shuttle. Nicollier, today President of the Swiss Space Center Lausanne, said he fully agrees with Ehricke that space is the necessary next step in human evolution. This is a challenge, as much as it was when Kennedy, in his famous Houston speech in September 1962, said that the Americans want to go to the Moon, not because it was easy but because it was hard, because Americans were confident they would have the capability to overcome all difficulties and make it to the Moon by the end of the decade—which they did. The lunar exploration program unfortunately was terminated with the Apollo 17 mission, but the ISS was built, and the Hubble Telescope for deep space investigation was built. These are important steps into space, and new manned missions have to follow, which Nicollier is optimistic will follow.

Professor Claude Nicollier

Before the last speech at the conference, a message of endorsement of the revival of the Ehricke heritage by Thomas Stafford, a veteran U.S. astronaut from the Gemini missions on through the entire Apollo Program, and the work on the orbital stations Salyut and ISS, was read to the audience, and two videos were shown: from a Silk Road-connected new science initiative for the youth of Yemen; and from a Leipzig-based team of German youth who have developed a prototype of a Moon rover which won a contest past year at an international presentation of rovers in Huntsville. A video showing Trump’s endorsement and signing of the NASA Transition Authorization Act of the United States just a few hours before, was shown as well.

The concluding speaker, Prof. Carl-Otto Weiss, former president and professor at the National Metrology Institute of Germany (PTB), spoke on human creativity being the only resource of mankind that will and can secure a future. The attacks on science by the green movement, by the climate hoaxsters, have from the propaganda drive of the Club of Rome on, caused a loss of optimism among people. This propaganda, behind which Weiss sees a method originating in the interests of the economic-financial oligarchy of the Western system, has to be challenged with facts which show that the past inventiveness of man in the course of his evolution allows confidence that all problems will and can be solved—by science, creativity and development.

Climate change is not man-made, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever backing this ideology, the nature of climate is determined by other factors that have to do with the fact that the Earth is not a closed system but embedded in the Solar System and in the Universe which have profound effects on terrestrial conditions. The green propaganda causes fear, and intimidated populations are easy to manipulate.

Ecologism is the new religion, which has replaced the churches as traditional partners of the ruling elites, Weiss said, stressing that there is no such scarcity of resources as claimed by the new religion, there is an abundance of raw materials to guarantee supplies to mankind for thousands and millions of years. Mankind made its first big step in the evolution with the discovery of fire, its next big step has been the development of nuclear power, to be followed by an even larger resource with nuclear fusion, Weiss said.

He also explained that for him, a particular aspect of the green propaganda is that it is the heaviest in and against Germany for a special reason: Anglo-American geopoliticians have always wanted to destroy the scientific-technological potential of Germany, especially its potential to work with Russia which has been perceived as a mortal challenge to the Western system.

The conference was concluded by the Schiller Institute Chorus, singing “Va Pensiero,” the “Chorus of the Hebrew Slaves,” from Giuseppe Verdi’s opera Nabucco.

On Saturday, March 25, President Donald Trump issued a powerful and inspiring five minute video as his Weekly Address, announcing his intention to lead the nation back into space following seven years of Obama’s destruction of NASA and the nation’s space program. Trump drew inspiration from the Hubble Telescope peering into the void in 1995, only to discover there are yet thousands, or millions — or more — new galaxies yet to be discovered. As Trump said: “The discovery was absolutely incredible. But the unforgettable image did not satisfy our deep hunger for knowledge. It increased evermore, and even more, and reminded us how much we do not know about space; frankly, how much we do not know about life.” Every citizen on Earth must be given the opportunity to watch this video.

Perhaps not coincidentally, the Schiller Institute and Fusion Energy Foundation, founded by Lyndon and Helga LaRouche, were simultaneously holding conferences in Munich and in Houston to honor the great German-American space scientist and visionary, Krafft Ehricke, who was born 100 years ago. While several presentations in Munich discussed Ehricke’s extraordinary life and character, and his close relationship with the LaRouches, one presentation by a Swiss astronaut, Prof. Claude Nicollier, who had visited the Hubble Telescope during his four missions to space, showed a number of spectacular Hubble photographs of galaxies which the telescope had discovered.

Only minutes later, when the Trump video was sent to the conference, immediately following its release by the White House, the audience was stunned and inspired to see many of the same beautiful pictures of our universe which they had just viewed during the Swiss astronaut’s presentation.

With few exceptions, the mainstream American media, fixated on destroying the American President based on British imperial lies about the danger of Russia to the world, have totally ignored this historic video presentation. Not since JFK’s call to go to the Moon, and Ronald Reagan’s call for the US and Russia to cooperate in creating a strategic defense in space against nuclear weapons, has a president so inspired the nation — and yet, most people will not even hear it, if we do not take that responsibility upon ourselves.

Just as Reagan’s SDI was directly inspired by Lyndon LaRouche, we are seeing President Trump moving to adopt policies which have been initiated and championed by LaRouche — and in most cases only by LaRouche — over these past 50 years. Consider LaRouche’s “Woman on Mars” video of 1987; his War on Drugs Magazine of the 1980s; his American System program for restoring Alexander Hamilton’s discoveries; his Great Projects approach to world development; his Four Powers approach to uniting the U.S., China, Russia and India; his book “There Are No Limits to Growth” of 1983 — all these are increasingly reflected in the policies being adopted by Donald Trump.

Will they succeed?

This will depend on the global capacity of mankind — not only Americans — to lift themselves to a higher state of being, to what Helga Zepp LaRouche calls the “adulthood” of mankind, based on the harmony of the human race through creative cooperation in advancing our state of knowledge and culture. This harmony is the root of the European Renaissance, as inspired by Nicholas of Cusa, Brunelleschi and others; and also the root of the Confucian Renaissance of the Song Dynasty inspired by Zhu Xi, as well as the new Confucian Renaissance today inspired by Xi Jinping.

We are experiencing a revolution in civilization. As Lyndon LaRouche has always insisted, when this moment arrives, it will be no time for cheerleading or following the crowd. It is a time for leadership and personal responsibility for mankind as a whole. That time is now.

On Saturday, March 25, President Donald Trump issued a powerful and inspiring five minute video as his Weekly Address, announcing his intention to lead the nation back into space following seven years of Obama’s destruction of NASA and the nation’s space program. Trump drew inspiration from the Hubble Telescope peering into the void in 1995, only to discover there are yet thousands, or millions — or more — new galaxies yet to be discovered. As Trump said: “The discovery was absolutely incredible. But the unforgettable image did not satisfy our deep hunger for knowledge. It increased evermore, and even more, and reminded us how much we do not know about space; frankly, how much we do not know about life.” Every citizen on Earth must be given the opportunity to watch this video.

Perhaps not coincidentally, the Schiller Institute and Fusion Energy Foundation, founded by Lyndon and Helga LaRouche, were simultaneously holding conferences in Munich and in Houston to honor the great German-American space scientist and visionary, Krafft Ehricke, who was born 100 years ago. While several presentations in Munich discussed Ehricke’s extraordinary life and character, and his close relationship with the LaRouches, one presentation by a Swiss astronaut, Prof. Claude Nicollier, who had visited the Hubble Telescope during his four missions to space, showed a number of spectacular Hubble photographs of galaxies which the telescope had discovered.

Only minutes later, when the Trump video was sent to the conference, immediately following its release by the White House, the audience was stunned and inspired to see many of the same beautiful pictures of our universe which they had just viewed during the Swiss astronaut’s presentation.

With few exceptions, the mainstream American media, fixated on destroying the American President based on British imperial lies about the danger of Russia to the world, have totally ignored this historic video presentation. Not since JFK’s call to go to the Moon, and Ronald Reagan’s call for the US and Russia to cooperate in creating a strategic defense in space against nuclear weapons, has a president so inspired the nation — and yet, most people will not even hear it, if we do not take that responsibility upon ourselves.

Just as Reagan’s SDI was directly inspired by Lyndon LaRouche, we are seeing President Trump moving to adopt policies which have been initiated and championed by LaRouche — and in most cases only by LaRouche — over these past 50 years. Consider LaRouche’s “Woman on Mars” video of 1987; his War on Drugs Magazine of the 1980s; his American System program for restoring Alexander Hamilton’s discoveries; his Great Projects approach to world development; his Four Powers approach to uniting the U.S., China, Russia and India; his book “There Are No Limits to Growth” of 1983 — all these are increasingly reflected in the policies being adopted by Donald Trump.

Will they succeed?

This will depend on the global capacity of mankind — not only Americans — to lift themselves to a higher state of being, to what Helga Zepp LaRouche calls the “adulthood” of mankind, based on the harmony of the human race through creative cooperation in advancing our state of knowledge and culture. This harmony is the root of the European Renaissance, as inspired by Nicholas of Cusa, Brunelleschi and others; and also the root of the Confucian Renaissance of the Song Dynasty inspired by Zhu Xi, as well as the new Confucian Renaissance today inspired by Xi Jinping.

We are experiencing a revolution in civilization. As Lyndon LaRouche has always insisted, when this moment arrives, it will be no time for cheerleading or following the crowd. It is a time for leadership and personal responsibility for mankind as a whole. That time is now.

Media in the United States, China, and Asia continue to report that Presidents Trump and Xi will meet in the United States April 6-7. But there is still no confirmation of this from either government, under concerted attacks by the British and their allies who fear “major power agreements” among America, China, and Russia.

The closest thing to substantiation from China came from the Foreign Ministry March 19: “On this visit to China by Secretary of State Tillerson, both sides had a deep discussion on arranging a meeting soon between the two heads of state and began relevant preparatory work,” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said. “Both sides agreed to remain in close touch about this, to ensure the smooth success and fruitfulness of exchanges between the heads of state.”

In the United States only Secretary of State Tillerson’s decision not to attend the April 6 NATO foreign ministers meeting has led to reports that Tillerson will be taking part in Xi-Trump meetings. After angry British reactions, the State Department said March 21 that Tillerson was open to the NATO meeting date being changed so that he would attend.

Meanwhile, the White House confirmed President Trump will go to the NATO heads-of-state meeting May 25. China has invited him to the Belt and Road Initiative Forum in Beijing May 14-15.

Reports that Tillerson would go to Moscow April 12 also remain unconfirmed by either the United States or Russian officials as of March 22.

Media in the United States, China, and Asia continue to report that Presidents Trump and Xi will meet in the United States April 6-7. But there is still no confirmation of this from either government, under concerted attacks by the British and their allies who fear “major power agreements” among America, China, and Russia.

The closest thing to substantiation from China came from the Foreign Ministry March 19: “On this visit to China by Secretary of State Tillerson, both sides had a deep discussion on arranging a meeting soon between the two heads of state and began relevant preparatory work,” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said. “Both sides agreed to remain in close touch about this, to ensure the smooth success and fruitfulness of exchanges between the heads of state.”

In the United States only Secretary of State Tillerson’s decision not to attend the April 6 NATO foreign ministers meeting has led to reports that Tillerson will be taking part in Xi-Trump meetings. After angry British reactions, the State Department said March 21 that Tillerson was open to the NATO meeting date being changed so that he would attend.

Meanwhile, the White House confirmed President Trump will go to the NATO heads-of-state meeting May 25. China has invited him to the Belt and Road Initiative Forum in Beijing May 14-15.

Reports that Tillerson would go to Moscow April 12 also remain unconfirmed by either the United States or Russian officials as of March 22.

Speaking to a dinner of the Republican National Congressional Committee March 21, President Donald Trump fervently spoke of the “American System of economy” for a second day, following his evocation of Henry Clay, Abraham Lincoln, and the American System at a Kentucky mass rally March 20. The last president to preach the American System may have been William McKinley; Trump’s “whig” speeches have generated a freaked-out response from the Von Mises Society and similar British and “Austrian school” free traders and “libertarians.”

Know your history: The American System

“I called it the American model,” said Trump, in a speech that had at first trod familiar ground of congratulations to fundraisers and Republicans present including himself. “And this is the system our Founders wanted. Our greatest American leaders — including George Washington, Hamilton, Jackson, Lincoln — they all agreed that for America to be a strong nation it must also be a great manufacturing nation.”

The President invoked McKinley: “The Republican platform of 1896 — more than a century ago — stated that `Protection and reciprocity are twin measures of American policy and go hand in hand…. We renew and emphasize our allegiance to the policy of protection, as the bulwark of American industrial independence and the foundation of American development and prosperity.”

Then Trump progressed to the American System’s “internal improvements,” or infrastructure projects in today’s terms. “Our first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, ran his first campaign for public office in 1832 — when he was only 23 years old.  He began by imagining the benefits a railroad could bring to his port [part] of Illinois — without ever having seen a steam-powered train.  He had no idea, and yet he knew what it could be. Thirty years later, as President, Lincoln signed the law that built the first Transcontinental Railroad, uniting our country from ocean to ocean….

“Another great Republican President, Dwight Eisenhower, had a vision of a national infrastructure plan. As an officer in the Army after World War I, he joined a military convoy that trekked across the nation to the Pacific Coast. It traveled along the Lincoln Highway — called then the Lincoln Highway. Its journey began by the South Lawn of the White House, at a monument known today as Zero Milestone.  Anybody know where that is? The journey made a great impression on then young Eisenhower.  More than three decades later, as President, he signed the bill that created our great Interstate Highway System — once again uniting us as a nation.

“Now is time for a new Republican administration, working with our Republican Congress, to pass the next great infrastructure bill. Our party must dream as big and as bold as Lincoln and Eisenhower.”

Trump continued to the American System subjects of invention, and foreign policy. “Imagine the breakthroughs that will breathe fresh life into forgotten places. Picture the new roads that will carve pathways all across our land — and we need them. And think of the new inventions that will lift up the sights of our nation.

“Finally, as we imagine this new prosperity at home, let us also work to achieve real and enduring peace abroad…. The best Republican Presidents have not only been warfighters, but also peacemakers.  We will never hesitate to do what we must to keep us safe today, but we will always seek a more peaceful tomorrow. We will, and we will succeed…. If we stand for these things — safety, prosperity and peace — then there is no limit to what we can achieve.”     

Quoth the very bothered Von Mises Society, “The economic policies of Whigs endure. Unfortunately, the dangers of Whig economic folly and fallacy do not diminish with time.”

What “endure,” are great nations built on the American System.

Speaking to a dinner of the Republican National Congressional Committee March 21, President Donald Trump fervently spoke of the “American System of economy” for a second day, following his evocation of Henry Clay, Abraham Lincoln, and the American System at a Kentucky mass rally March 20. The last president to preach the American System may have been William McKinley; Trump’s “whig” speeches have generated a freaked-out response from the Von Mises Society and similar British and “Austrian school” free traders and “libertarians.”

Know your history: The American System

“I called it the American model,” said Trump, in a speech that had at first trod familiar ground of congratulations to fundraisers and Republicans present including himself. “And this is the system our Founders wanted. Our greatest American leaders — including George Washington, Hamilton, Jackson, Lincoln — they all agreed that for America to be a strong nation it must also be a great manufacturing nation.”

The President invoked McKinley: “The Republican platform of 1896 — more than a century ago — stated that `Protection and reciprocity are twin measures of American policy and go hand in hand…. We renew and emphasize our allegiance to the policy of protection, as the bulwark of American industrial independence and the foundation of American development and prosperity.”

Then Trump progressed to the American System’s “internal improvements,” or infrastructure projects in today’s terms. “Our first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, ran his first campaign for public office in 1832 — when he was only 23 years old.  He began by imagining the benefits a railroad could bring to his port [part] of Illinois — without ever having seen a steam-powered train.  He had no idea, and yet he knew what it could be. Thirty years later, as President, Lincoln signed the law that built the first Transcontinental Railroad, uniting our country from ocean to ocean….

“Another great Republican President, Dwight Eisenhower, had a vision of a national infrastructure plan. As an officer in the Army after World War I, he joined a military convoy that trekked across the nation to the Pacific Coast. It traveled along the Lincoln Highway — called then the Lincoln Highway. Its journey began by the South Lawn of the White House, at a monument known today as Zero Milestone.  Anybody know where that is? The journey made a great impression on then young Eisenhower.  More than three decades later, as President, he signed the bill that created our great Interstate Highway System — once again uniting us as a nation.

“Now is time for a new Republican administration, working with our Republican Congress, to pass the next great infrastructure bill. Our party must dream as big and as bold as Lincoln and Eisenhower.”

Trump continued to the American System subjects of invention, and foreign policy. “Imagine the breakthroughs that will breathe fresh life into forgotten places. Picture the new roads that will carve pathways all across our land — and we need them. And think of the new inventions that will lift up the sights of our nation.

“Finally, as we imagine this new prosperity at home, let us also work to achieve real and enduring peace abroad…. The best Republican Presidents have not only been warfighters, but also peacemakers.  We will never hesitate to do what we must to keep us safe today, but we will always seek a more peaceful tomorrow. We will, and we will succeed…. If we stand for these things — safety, prosperity and peace — then there is no limit to what we can achieve.”     

Quoth the very bothered Von Mises Society, “The economic policies of Whigs endure. Unfortunately, the dangers of Whig economic folly and fallacy do not diminish with time.”

What “endure,” are great nations built on the American System.

Against the backdrop of a crumbling imperial system of war and globalization, the British continue to scream bloody murder about the “affront” to the good name of the GCHQ (Britain’s communications spy center) spy apparatus, which really has to do with their desperation that the United States is slipping from their grasp under President Trump.

GCHQ has a new boss, current deputy director-general of MI5 Jeremy Fleming, who is expected to hop across the Atlantic as soon as possible to “seek assurances from our partners” that all is well, the London Times reported Sunday. His biggest challenge, the Times adds, will be maintaining GCHQ’s “close working relationship with U.S. intelligence agencies.”

Hysteria? An “informed source” quoted by the Times rants, “I don’t think the rubbish being uttered by the Trump camp will affect the day-to-day operational cooperation between the UK and U.S. intelligence agencies, but it will be important to remind our partners that more consideration and respect need to be afforded to the intelligence communities by the Trump administration.” Tut tut.

Revealing is the screed published in The Guardian yesterday by Sir Peter Westmacott, who served as British ambassador in Washington from 2012-2016, and who, in his admiration for Obama—he defends him from any involvement in spying against Trump—liked to say that the U.S. and the UK were “joined at the hip” and always “on the same page.” While arguing that the claims of GCHQ spying on Trump were “absurd,” Westmacott admitted that the context for the charges “was unsettling” and that London “was understandably keen to kill off any suggestion, however nonsensical, that British intelligence agencies had been acting against the new President’s interests.”

Westmacott was incensed that Trump failed to seriously answer the question posed to him at his March 17 press conference with Chancellor Angela Merkel, on the allegations against GCHQ, (saying instead that he and Merkel shared the experience of being spied on), and that White House press secretary Sean Spicer had denied that any apology to Britain had been made. British press continue to lie that U.S. officials “were forced to make a formal apology” for defaming GCHQ. In their dreams.

The intelligence relationship between Britain and America is “unique and precious,” Westmacott affirms. “Gratuitously damaging it by peddling falsehoods and then doing nothing to set the record straight would be a gift to our enemies they could only dream of.” 

in an article published in Forbes magazine March 19, author Wade Shepard offers an excellent, detailed description of China’s One Belt, One Road Initiative, underscoring that the global development proposal put forward by President Xi Jinping in 2013 is truly the new name for peace. Shepard has authored several good articles on this subject, written as he travels through the countries that form part of the New Silk Road.

Under the headline, “Coopetition on the New Silk Road: A Recipe for Peace?” Shepard points to the “emerging network of economic corridors, enhanced transportation routes, logistics zones, ports and manufacturing centers which stretch from China to Europe as part of the New Silk Road.”

Speaking with Shepard about Xi Jinping’s “win-win” concept, Taleh Ziyadov, head of Azerbaijan’s new port of Baku, explains: “This hub concept is going to integrate [more] closely most of these countries, and we are going to want the others to succeed as well. Because if I have good roads, good rail, good ports, and if Turkmenistan or Kazakhstan or Georgia doesn’t have the same quality of roads, railways or ports, then I’m in trouble.”

Shepard quotes Huang Jin of the National University of Singapore, who explained a key dimension to Xi Jinping’s 2014 use of the term `community of the Same Destiny.’ This, he said, is “a new concept of collective security based on joint economic development. This is all that One Belt One Road is about. If there is a political dimension, that dimension is to try to find a new way to avoid confrontation, try to find a new way to avoid division in the international community that we all learned in the Cold War years.”

The New Silk Road, Shepard says, “is a network of mutually supporting endeavors where the success or failure of any one project is dependent on the success or failure of many others.” He quotes Karl Gheysen, first CEO of the Khorgos Gateway dry port on Kazakhstan’s border with China: “From the overall holistic point of view, this is the creation of something new in logistics. This is a new concept, an entire new market. Volumes will be more than sufficient to support all the stakeholders, and instead of competition, this will create even stronger ties, since all projects will become interconnected; and that is what the New Silk Road is all about: interconnectivity.”

Shepard details many of the rail corridors, ports, roads, and other infrastructure projects connecting the countries along the Road, which stand to benefit mutually from them (instead of competing with each other). Once, he notes, it was unheard of, for one country to invest billions of dollars to build infrastructure in another country, but today this is standard operating procedure.

“These big infrastructure deals are now seen as international ties of `friendship,’ binding countries together for the long haul, and serve as a platform for increased political cooperation and trade.”