Obama's Doomsday: First JASTA, Next Glass-Steagall

September 23, 2016

Past Issues

By Michael Steger and Kesha Rogers

“‘But he hasn't got anything on!’ the whole town cried out at last.

“The Emperor shivered, for he suspected they were right. But he thought, ‘This procession has got to go on.’ So he walked more proudly than ever, as his noblemen held high the train that wasn't there at all.”

September 21—Obama is nearing his own doomsday. Since the beginning of September, the international community has shamed him, exposed him as a fraud, and even called him a son-of-a-whore. Since the 70th anniversary of the U.N. General Assembly in September, 2015—and with special emphasis on Putin’s near-miracle intervention against Obama-backed ISIS forces in Syria—China and Russia have taken the mantle of international leadership. In so doing, they have committed their shared efforts to international law, ending terrorism and the corresponding international drug trade and financial sponsors, and eradicating poverty through broadscale, long-term development.

Obama prepares himself for another disaster.

After nearly eight years of criminal fraud and economic malfeasance, war crimes, and extrajudicial murders, it is now time for the U.S. to reject the most failed and murderous President to sit in the Oval office. As this is written, the widows and families of the victims of the 9-11 terrorist attacks remain persistent in their efforts on Capitol Hill to override Obama’s threatened veto of the JASTA bill (Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act). The Senators, with a sudden sign of life, are now describing the override vote as a fait accompli. How unthinkable, that the U.S. would tolerate a President who sides with Anglo-Saudi financial sponsors of the 9-11 attacks against the very families who lost their husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, and sons and daughters on that day fifteen years ago.

This week the Congress, in hearings on the systemic fraud of Wells Fargo (which implicitly includes all other Wall St. banks), called for criminal indictments of Wall St. executives for the first time since the 2008 crisis, when, under Obama, the U.S. provided major bailouts and golden parachutes to the most criminal institutions and individuals involved.

Now on the verge of a dangerous breakdown of diplomatic efforts between the U.S. and Russia over Syria, entirely due to the U.S. bombing of Syrian Army soldiers (a gross violation of international law), and the destruction, most likely by U.S. backed-terrorists, of an U.N. aid convoy—actions taken by a desperate Obama, who, facing international and national ridicule, looks to drive the world into nuclear war in retaliation for his own abject failings—we are reminded of the final actions of an isolated Adolf Hitler.

Now is the time to end Obama’s tragic Presidency. With Obama out, or similarly relegated, we have the power to create a New Presidency independent of both of the currently failed candidates, who most Americans already greatly abhor. Such a moment cannot be lost.

Free of Obama’s insanity, we can implement LaRouche’s FDR-inspired Four New Laws, and nothing short of a 1933 Ferdinand Pecora-style investigation will suffice. The Wall-Street Criminal bankers must be jailed and the big banks must be broken up with Glass-Steagall. Justice for the 9-11 families and for the nation as a whole means bankrupting the London-based terror apparatus.

As Mr. LaRouche recently stated, if Glass Steagall is not enacted, many more people will die on top of the scores of people who have already died as a result of the collapsing economy.

These steps, which will restore the necessary confidence in the powers of government, should be followed with the restoration of a Hamiltonian National Banking System, the definition of a federal credit policy focused on broadscale industrial development and infrastructure nationally, and the establishment of a crash program for fusion energy development and international cooperation on space exploration.

There is simply no need for an Emperor, or a British Queen, any longer.



JASTA Proves Obama Backs Saudis, and ISIS

by Alicia Cerretani

On Tuesday, September 20, family members of victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks descended on the nation’s capitol to protest President Obama’s promised veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA). The bill—passed unanimously in both houses of Congress before arriving on Obama’s desk—would hold Saudi Arabia accountable for their role in the 9/11 attacks by allowing victims’ families to sue them.

Beginning with a rally in front of the White House where members of the press interviewed the 9/11 families and supporters of JASTA as they shouted “President Obama you can’t hide, the Congress plans to override!” and held signs with pictures of Obama with Saudi King Salman which read “Don’t choose them over U.S.” and “9/11 Families and Survivors Waiting for Justice.”

President Obama has promised to veto the measure for months, however when the bill arrived on his desk almost 15 years to the day of the September 11 attacks, the White House, along with top lobbying firms hired by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, turned up the heat on Capitol Hill and immediately began targeting leading members of the U.S. Senate to help block an override.

Once a bill is sent to the White House, the President has 10 days to veto it or it goes into law. As of the morning of the protests, the White House plan appeared to be to wait out the clock and veto the bill at the last moment so that the Congress would not be in session to override his veto. But over the course of Tuesday afternoon the news quickly spread that the Congress would be staying in session past the 10 day deadline, and into the following week. And while a variety of reasons were given for their delayed departure, the Capitol Hill daily, The Hill ran as its leading story, “McConnell: Senate will delay vacation to override Obama veto,” sending a clear message to Obama.

The following morning, in an unmistakable defense of the Anglo-Saudi global terror network over the American people, President Obama reiterated his promise to veto the bill, and continues to reiterate the false claim that JASTA would undermine the sovereign immunity laws which protect U.S. diplomats abroad—claims which 9/11 widow Terry Strada and Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal took head on during a press conference on Capitol Hill following the rally at the White House.

“JASTA has nothing to do with whether a private citizen or even a private company can be sued for alleged wrongdoing. JASTA deals with immunity of foreign states. So the White House’s press comments that enacting JASTA will threaten suits against the U.S., which Mr. Earnest emphasized as a risk of JASTA, are categorically untrue. I am sure the White House knows that, too.

“And more importantly, our military is not at risk for being sued if JASTA is enacted. The narrow text of JASTA, like our legal history, specifically distinguishes between acts of war and acts of terrorism. The text of the bill, for anyone who cares to read it, and it is surprisingly short, specifically excludes acts of war. I am sure the White House knows that, too.

“JASTA requires that the terrorist attack at issue must have been done by a terror organization formally designated under U.S. law. To equate what we do to protect ourselves from terrorism with what others do in support of terrorism completely misreads the bill and discourages U.S. policy.” —Terry Strada

“If the Saudi government is innocent, it has nothing to fear from a day in court. If it is culpable, it should be held accountable. This legislation makes no prejudgment, it reaches no verdict. It simply says that the Saudi government , or its agents or its operative, or any other foreign actor, has to be in court to defend itself.” —Sen. Blumenthal (D-CT)

Why would the Saudi government spend hundreds of thousands of dollars lobbying the U.S. Congress not to pass JASTA, if they were innocent? Why does Obama go to such lengths to defend the Saudis, the world’s leading exporter of terrorism, if he does not support the spread of terrorism, as in Syria?

The truth must be told about the Anglo-Saudi global terror machine. The passage of JASTA is not only a critical piece of shutting down the Obama-backed Saudi terror regime, it demonstrates what a small but powerful group of ordinary citizens can do in the name of justice.

Behind the Notes

John Sigerson demonstrating the science of the Verdi tuning at a Schiller Institute conference in NYC,January 26, 2013. He illustrated his argument by having the chorus perform the chorus “Va Pensiero” from Verdi’s opera Nabucco, at the A=432 Hz Verdi tuning, and then at the popular A=440 Hz tuning.

An interview with John Sigerson, Musical Director of The Schiller Institute and Conductor for the 9-11 Living Memorial performances of Mozart’s Requiem held throughout the NYC area. The interview was held on September 20, 2016.

Q: How did your approach to directing and balancing the orchestra and chorus in the the Requiem differ from that which we often hear as the approach to Mozart's work at location such as the "mostly Mozart" performed at Lincoln Center?

A: Well, it's been many years since I've listened to Mostly Mozart at Lincoln Center, so I don't want to say anything about that particular ensemble today. But I will say that ever since the 1980s, I've noticed a marked shift in the attitude of many professional string players in how they believe they are expected to play works of Mozart and other composers of that era. Instead of the rich, passionate bow-strokes typified by Lyndon LaRouche's friend Norbert Brainin, who led the Amadeus Quartet for so many years, string players began to believe what was required of them for Mozart, was shorter bow-strokes and very little vibrato, a practice which tends to destroy the beautiful legato line which is the hallmark of great bel canto singing.

At the same time, what I can fairly describe as a false dichotomy developed between "instrumental" and "vocal" performance. In his written works, Lyndon LaRouche has often inveighed against the absurdity of this dichotomy, and has rightly insisted that the fount of all Classical performance is the well-trained bel canto singing voice. What he said resonated with me personally, too, because in my student time at Juilliard, I was fortunate enough to study with the great contrabass soloist Gary Karr, who insisted that even on that seemingly grumbly instrument, one must sing passionately and expressively, and not just saw away at the notes.

This kind of dichotomy goes even further back to the conflict between Wilhelm Furtwängler and Arturo Toscanini regarding the relationship of the musician to the musical score. Whereas Toscanini insisted that his purpose was to interpret as exactly as possible what is in the written score, Furtwängler countered that the performer must always strive to recreate the work in such a way that listeners are drawn into the mind of its creator, and that therefore the performance must focus not so much on the notes themselves, as what is "behind the notes." And of course, I'm on Furtwängler's side on that.

Q: How did the Sunday performance, embedded in the Catholic liturgy, differ from the others?

A: What we planned jointly with the Co-Cathedral of St. Joseph in Brooklyn on Sunday, Sept. 11 was in fact a unique experiment integrating the Mozart {Requiem} with a Sunday Catholic Mass. The Requiem Mass service is generally never performed on Sunday, and so in the course of a number of meetings with Msgr. Kieran Harrington, the Parish Rector of the Cathedral, we fashioned a sequence which was both congenial to the performance requirements of our chorus and orchestra, while at the same time adhering to the liturgical requirements.

One question that immediately came up in those discussions, was the {Requiem}'s lack of a "Gloria" section as required by the liturgy. This I solved by inserting a "Gloria" section from one of Mozart's earlier masses, namely his Missa Brevis in D-minor, which is in the same key and mode as the Requiem. And it came as a nice, not so surprising surprise, that at the very end of this little "Gloria," Mozart inserts a little proto-fugal theme which foreshadows the Requiem's main "Kyrie eleison" fugal subject--which, in turn, harkens back to J.S. Bach's and Handel's magnificent work with this same theme.

Q: How did the C=256 tuning change the transparency exhibited in the performances?

A: Just to be clear: We performed at the Verdi tuning of A=432 Hz, which is slightly higher than the A=430.5 Hz required for setting Middle C at exactly 256 Hz. Both of these slightly different tunings work fine with the vocal registration that Verdi was concerned about, however I have tended to stick with A=432 Hz because it's marginally easier to get an orchestra with modern instruments to play at that pitch. For example, in our performance the clarinets were right at their limit, and I doubt they could have played in tune even one cycle lower.

As far as transparency is concerned, we are still at the very start of being able to construct an orchestra that can play really well and easily on modern instruments (i.e., not "period" instruments) at the Verdi tuning. We still have a great number of technological problems to solve in this regard, and until they are solved, everything is quite experimental.

But as for the chorus, there is definitely greater transparency, not only because the vocal registration works (even though many singers in the chorus are only half aware of where their registers sit), but because there is a certain ease or rightness which sets in once singers become accustomed to singing at this tuning. And this ease of delivery results in greater transparency--and a lot more fun!

Q: Is there, in fact, any appreciable difference, which is important, between the first sections of the Requiem, and those composed by Süssmayr after Mozart's death?

A: For anyone who has seriously studied this work, there is a definite difference between the genius shown in the sections by Mozart, and the respectfully workmanlike completions by Süssmayr. For me personally, the difference becomes most palpable in that indescribable moment where Mozart, near death, breaks off in after the first bars of the "Lacrymosa," which had to be completed by Süssmayr only based on Mozart's verbal indications.

Another example is the "Benedictus." As beautiful as Süssmayr's composition of this section is, I can't help thinking that had Mozart been able to compose it, it would have had something much more profound, perhaps foreshadowing the incredible "Benedictus" section of Beethoven's Missa Solemnis.

Q: There was a notable difference in the attack delivered at the very beginning of the Requiem performances, and there was also a significant difference in how you conducted and how the chorus sang sections such as the Lacrymosa section. Why was that?

A: The opening back-and-forth in the strings has to evoke the deliberately slow, solemn, somewhat hesitant steps as one enters the cathedral to participate in the Requiem. Both the tempo and the slightly lengthened bow-strokes must reflect that. I almost succeeded in getting this, but lack of rehearsal time prevented me from getting exactly what I wanted.

The "Lacrymosa" section is so emotionally compelling, that I concluded that a thunderous "Amen" at the end--which is the way it is commonly done--tends to undermine the total effect. Calming down the ending "Amen" has the effect of allowing us to wipe away the tears that inevitably flow if we allow ourselves to be moved.

Q: How did you think the combination of African-American spirituals, Mozart's Requiem, and selections from Handel’s Messiah worked?

A: Diane Sare, who conducted those pieces, is committed to reviving the correct performance of these spirituals, many of which have been arranged by collaborators of Antonin Dvorak during his extended stay in the United States. They are a crucial Classical antidote to “gospel” singing's tendency to drift into banality and plain bad singing. Similar to the German Lied for German-speakers, these spirituals strike a deep chord in the soul, with their assertion of the fundamental distinction between man and beast. And for these reasons, they fit perfectly with our intention with the Mozart Requiem.

As for Handel, Mozart venerated the man, as did Beethoven, and even made an arrangement of Messiah to suite Viennese tastes. I don't think he would have any problem adding Handel's great D-major "Amen" chorus at the end of Mozart's own unfinished work in D-minor. After all, Beethoven's Ninth Symphony works the same way, beginning in D-minor and ending the final "Ode to Joy" movement with a tumultuous D-major.