LaRouchePAC Fredags-webcast 20. november 2015:
Obamaregeringen skaber kaos med overlæg ved at sprænge
verden luften. Fjern ham, eller se en større katastrofe i øjnene.

LaRouchePAC Fredags-webcast 20. november 2015:
Obamaregeringen skaber kaos med overlæg ved at sprænge
verden luften. Fjern ham, eller se en større katastrofe i øjnene.
image_pdfimage_print

Som hr. LaRouche eftertrykkeligt erklærede under vores diskussion med ham, så er den amerikanske præsident Obamas politik den førende årsag til det kaos, som verden nu befinder sig i, og har ikke alene bevirket skabelsen af en frugtbar yngleplads for vækst og deployering af terrororganisationer som ISIS i Mellemøsten og Nordafrika, men har også bragt os helt ud på randen af krig med Rusland og Kina – en krig, som ville blive en verdenskrig med anvendelse af atomvåben, som ville betyde udslettelsen af det store flertal af denne planets befolkning. Med Jeff Steinberg m. fl.

Engelsk udskrift.

 

International LaRouche PAC Webcast for Friday November 20 2015

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening. It’s November 20, 2015. My name
is Matthew Ogden, and you’re joining us for our weekly broadcast
here from larouchepac.com. I’m joined in the studio tonight by
both Jeffrey Steinberg from Executive Intelligence Review, and
Benjamin Deniston from the LaRouche PAC Science Team, and we have
a very timely and important presentation prepared for you
tonight, which was informed by a meeting that the three of us had
earlier today with both Lyndon LaRouche, as well as Helga
Zepp-LaRouche, who joined us via video-call from Europe.
Obviously we’re meeting here tonight exactly one week
following the horrific terrorist attacks in Paris last Friday. As
Helga LaRouche emphasized during our discussion with her earlier,
the sheer horror of these attacks, striking as they did at the
heart of one of the leading cities of Europe, claiming the lives
of 130 innocent people, who were slaughtered in cold blood as
they went around their usual business on a Friday night — this
has absolutely changed everything, and has served to force people
across Europe, and in the United States, to recognize that a
sudden and dramatic change in policy must be adopted, or else the
entirety of Western Civilization is on the verge of descending
into a total hell on earth, from which it would be virtually
impossible to return.
As Mr. LaRouche emphatically stated in our discussion with
him, the policies of US President Barack Obama are the leading
cause of the chaos which the world now finds itself in, and have
served not only to create a fertile breeding ground for the
growth and deployment of terrorist organizations like ISIS in the
Middle East and North Africa, but have brought us right to the
edge of a war with Russia, and with China — a war that would be
world war, which would involve the use of thermonuclear weapons,
which would mean the extermination of a vast majority of the
population on this planet.
Now in a very significant development, which I know Jeff
will go a little bit more into, and will elaborate on in his
remarks, this fact has been explicitly stated by a Congresswoman,
whom we’ve spoken about previously on these broadcasts, Rep.
Tulsi Gabbard, a Democrat from Hawaii, in a press release which
she issued earlier today, announcing the filing of a bill in the
House of Representatives that, in her words, would bring an
immediate end to the illegal, counter-productive war to overthrow
the Syrian government of Assad, Barack Obama’s war. Congresswoman
Gabbard explains:
“The war to overthrow Assad is illegal and
counterproductive, because it actually helps ISIS and other
Islamic extremists achieve their goal of overthrowing the Syrian
government of Assad and taking control of all of Syria.” Then she
lists 10 reasons, which include the fact that if we are to
succeed in overthrowing Assad, as Barack Obama wishes, it would
open the door for ISIS to take over all of Syria, including
Damascus, in which case, she says, “there will be genocide and
suffering on a scale beyond our imagination.”
She also states that the overthrowing of the government of
Assad is the goal of ISIS, and other Islamic extremist groups,
and “we should not be allying ourselves with these Islamic
extremists by helping them achieve their goal, because it is
against the security interests of the United States and all of
civilization.” And she also says that we should learn from the
past mistakes in both the regime changes in Iraq and in Libya,
which is saying something from a combat veteran, Congresswoman
Gabbard, who was herself deployed in the war in Iraq.
Now, she also makes the point that Obama’s war has been the
direct exacerbation of the chaos and the carnage in Syria
inflicted by ISIS on the innocent people of that country, which
has caused the number of refugees being forced to flee Syria and
elsewhere, to continue to increase at a rapid rate. And later in
the broadcast that is something that I know Ben Deniston will
also be addressing.
But most significantly, she lists as reason number 10:
“Because our war to overthrow the Assad government puts us in
direct conflict with Russia, and increases the likelihood of war
between the United States and Russia, and the possibility of
another world war.” So, as far as I know, that makes Tulsi
Gabbard the only sitting member of Congress to have had the guts
to state that fact as explicitly and clearly.
I just want to read one more short excerpt from her press
release before introducing our institutional question for this
evening. Congresswoman Gabbard concludes her press release by
stating: “To destroy ISIS will take international alliances. If
we are serious about defeating ISIS, and solving the refugee
problem, we’ll work in partnership with Russia, with France, and
anyone else who is serious about destroying ISIS and affiliated
Islamic extremist organizations worldwide. The problem is because
the U.S. is trying to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad,
and Russia is supporting the government of Assad, it is
impossible for us to have an effective cooperative relationship
with Russia in our mutual fight against ISIS. Our focus on
overthrowing Assad is interfering with our ability to destroy
ISIS. We must immediately end the illegal, counterproductive war
to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad, and ally ourselves
with any countries willing to focus on destroying the Islamic
extremists who pose a genuine threat to civilization.”
So this brings us directly to our institutional question for
this evening, to which I’m going to ask Jeff to deliver Mr.
LaRouche’s response. The question reads as follows: “Mr.
LaRouche, the Russian Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev has said
that the best way to combat the so-called Islamic State of Iraq
and Syria, or ISIS, is for Russia to unite with the West in a
grand alliance to defeat this common threat of terrorism. In this
regard, Russia is already coordinating airstrikes against ISIS
with France. How do you envision a closer collaboration between
the United States and Russia in this fight to defeat ISIS, and
all of its affiliated terrorist organizations?”

JEFFREY STEINBERG: Thanks, Matt. Mr. LaRouche was very
blunt, as you’ll hear in a just a moment, and in fact, he took
the question one step beyond the otherwise very important and
admirable comments made by Congresswoman Gabbard today. And by
the way, that press release was announcing the introduction of a
bill into the U.S. House of Representatives that would formally
ban the Obama administration from any further actions to
overthrow the Assad government.
Now, during our discussion with Mr. LaRouche, I took rather
detailed notes so what I’m about to read to you are not verbatim
transcripts of what Mr. LaRouche had to say, but they will give
you a very clear flavor, and represent I think a pretty accurate
accounting from Mr. LaRouche’s comments. And the very first thing
that he said is, to defeat ISIS in partnership with the Russians,
you have to get rid of Obama. Putin surprised everyone with his
military move into Syria in September; and it was the only way to
do it. Obama is sunk in, and there is no alternative until he is
removed; and this cannot be postponed. We’re running out of time,
and we are on the verge of the total collapse of the US system;
he must be thrown out immediately. And LaRouche went on to add,
we must totally dump Wall Street and adopt the approach of FDR at
the start of his New Deal. Roosevelt solved the problem within
weeks of taking office, by changing the entire direction of the
nation after the disaster of President Herbert Hoover. Everything
changed within a few years. The idea of totally shutting down
Wall Street is not difficult for intelligent people to
understand; nothing else works. Congress is pussyfooting around.
Wall Street must be shut, and a new Federal operation must be
launched to rebuild the nation. Do not try to salvage any part of
the old system. The problem is that most people in Congress are
idiots; and the President of the United States is a criminal.
When you have a criminal leading idiots, you have a system that
will not work. So, Obama must be thrown out, and there is no
alternative to that. All of the evidence is there. Shut down Wall
Street! It’s not needed.
Furthermore, Obama has committed so many crimes in fact,
that he can be removed from office at any moment. Start with his
Tuesday kill sessions; these are crimes that not only demand his
removal from office, but should land him in prison for mass
murder. Obama has presided over the destruction of the US
economy, to the point that a majority of our citizens are facing
the disaster of impoverishment. He has followed the George
Bush/Dick Cheney cover-up of 9/11; this is typical for Obama, who
is nothing but a British agent protecting the brutish.
And so, the problem is not with the evidence; the problem is
that most members of Congress lack guts. The Tuesday kill
meetings tell it all. The vast majority of people killed on
Obama’s personal orders, were innocent bystanders; not even the
so-called “legitimate targets”. And Obama personally signed off
on every one of those killings.
Now, I want you to take a look at one of the documents that
was released as part of the “Drone Papers”. We’ve talked about
this repeatedly for the last four or five weeks. The “Drone
Papers” that were published by {The Intercept}, a web-based news
organization founded by Glenn Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill, are
hundreds of pages of documents from the Pentagon and from the
House Select Committee on Intelligence. Now the specific document
that you’re looking at, is a flowchart that goes through
step-by-step the procedures that are used to establish who will
be killed. This is the process that ultimately leads up to those
Tuesday kill meetings, where President Obama personally presides.
If you follow the chain of command — and this is dealing with
two specific operations within the overall drone kill program —
one operation in Somalia called Operation Jupiter Garrett; and
another operation in Yemen called Copper Dune. In every instance,
the process for deciding on the kill order goes up from the local
military intelligence units on the ground, up through the
military command all the way through the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
up to the Secretary of Defense, and up to the Principals
Committee and the Deputy Principals Committee; these are the
Cabinet and Deputy Cabinet officials of the government. But
ultimately, everything leads back to the President of the United
States. And it’s only with President Obama’s personal signature
that the kill orders go out; the clock starts, and there is a
60-day deadline to track down and kill the designated target.
Now, even by the criteria that are contained in this
document, we know from the House Intelligence review and from
other exposés that none of the guidelines have been followed; and
that all of procedures that were supposedly built in to make sure
that innocent civilian casualties were avoided, that there was
direct confirmation of the whereabouts of the target — none of
those things were adhered to. At the very bottom, it says that
“At every level, the targetting window suitability is determined
by rules of engagement.” The rules of engagement are that there
must be low collateral damage estimates; meaning “collateral
damage” is a polite word for innocent civilians being killed in
the course of the attacks. There must be “near certainty” of the
high-value individual’s presence, based on two forms of
intelligence and no contradictory intelligence; and then, all the
way up the chain of command — including the host government —
must all concur, or otherwise no strike is allowed to take place.
Now, I can tell you that having reviewed the totality of the
“Drone Papers”, that these procedures — as minimal and as
limited as they are — were never adhered to. None of these
conditions were met in the overwhelming majority of these kill
incidents. And to give you an idea of the callousness of this
structure under President Obama, the formal name given to the
summary documents; the photographs and documentary evidence that
was used to determine whether or not the President will sign off
on a kill order, is referred to in these meetings as the
“baseball card”. So, in other words, the lack of any sense of
what this program is all about, is absolutely stunning.
Now, let me just add that, earlier today, President Obama,
Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, and CIA Director John Brennan
received a letter that was written by four former US Air Force
Drone Team members. They are: Brandon Bryant, Sion Westmoreland,
Stephen Lewis, and Michael Haas; all four of them operated for
years as members of the drone crew. And they wrote this letter,
urging the President to end the program right now; and I want to
read you what they had to say, because I think it’s one of the
most powerful testaments to the murderous criminality of our
President. And it should make very clear that anything short of
immediate removal from office, by impeachment, or invoking of the
25th Amendment, or forcing his immediate resignation is
unacceptable and doesn’t rise to the magnitude of the crisis that
we’re in, or the crimes that he’s committed. Here’s the letter:
“We are former Air Force service members. We joined the Air
Force to protect American lives and to protect our Constitution.
We came to the realization that the innocent civilians we were
killing, only fueled the feelings of hatred that ignited
terrorism and groups like ISIS, while also serving as a
fundamental recruitment tool similar to Guantanamo Bay. This
administration and its predecessors have built a drone program
that is one of the most devastating driving forces for terrorism
and destabilization around the world. When the guilt of our roles
in facilitating this systematic loss of innocent life became too
much, all of us succumbed to PTSD — post-traumatic stress
disorder. We were cut loose by the same government we gave so
much to, sent out in the world without adequate medical care,
reliable public health services, or necessary benefits. Some of
us are now homeless. Others of us barely make it. We witnessed
gross waste, mismanagement, abuse of power, and our country’s
leaders lying publicly about the effectiveness of the drone
program. We cannot sit silently by and witness tragedies like the
attacks in Paris, knowing the devastating effects the drone
program has, overseas and at home. Such silence would violate the
very oaths we took to support and defend the Constitution. We
request that you consider our perspective, though perhaps that
request is in vain, given the unprecedented prosecutions of
truth-tellers who came before us, like Chelsea Manning, Julian
Assange, and Edward Snowden. For the sake of this country, we
hope it is otherwise.”
Now, again, Mr. LaRouche has put the right punctuation mark
on the situation, and has made clear that nothing can be
accomplished, nothing can be effectively achieved in partnership
with the Russians, unless Obama is removed. I want to continue
briefly reading the remainder of Mr. LaRouche’s comments to us
this afternoon, and then we’ll move on. ` He said, the
gutlessness of the Congress really started in the current context
with the attacks of 9/11, with Cheney and company. He said, I
still have vivid recollection of the planes crashing into the
twin towers. This is a Manhattan issue. It goes to the heart of
the Bush family, and the heart of the Obama legacy. Obama’s
personality was shaped by his step-father, who was a cold
murderer. Obama has blood on his hands; he’s too dangerous for
mankind. Since the Russians launched their Syria operations in
September, and especially since the Paris attacks of one week
ago, there is an implicit taming of Obama, but he is still too
dangerous to be allowed to remain in office. Imagine where we
would be today without Putin’s actions and the actions of China.
The Victory Day parade in Beijing attended by Xi Jinping and
Putin established the Asian factor as a supreme factor in world
affairs. Compare that to the mess we see in France, the mess we
see in Germany, and elsewhere. So you must remove Obama from
office, or we can’t make it.
Now, he then returned to the question of Wall Street, which
Obama’s Presidency has protected up and down the line. Wall
Street is about to implode, and we must shut it down now. Treat
Wall Street as something that no longer exists. Use FDR’s methods
with even more emphasis. Write off all of Wall Street’s assets
out of existence, and develop a program, an FDR program, to
change the direction of the economy. Create a credit system, and
make it known that nothing will be paid on the useless assets of
Wall Street. And Mr. LaRouche ended by simply noting, Clinton was
blackmailed into going along with the end of Glass-Steagall, and
Hillary was unfortunately used as a tool in that process.
So, again, there is no question that a coordinated alliance
between the United States and Russia to defeat ISIS, using the
same approach that was used to defeat Hitler in World War II, is
feasible. Some leading retired American military officials have
openly called for a formal military alliance between the United
States and Russia. Let Russia, which has been formally invited
into Syria, handle the assault on the ISIS forces from the Syrian
side, and let the United States, which has been invited-in by the
Iraqi government, handle the assault against the Islamic State
from the Iraqi side. Run that as a pincer operation. Hit them
from both flanks, and crush them under the weight of the
capability that could be brought to bear by the United States and
Russia in combination. But again, while that is absolutely
feasible, there is no reason to assume that the British will let
that happen, so long as Obama remains in office. And therefore,
it is essential, if we are going to have this alliance, if we are
going to avoid many more Paris-es — perhaps the next one on the
streets of New York City, or Washington DC, or Chicago, or Los
Angeles — then Obama must be removed now, and Congress
collectively must find the guts to take the necessary action.
OGDEN: Thank you, Jeff. Now, as we mentioned last week on
our broadcast here, which we recorded just hours after the
initial attacks occurred in Paris, before there was last Friday’s
attacks in Paris, which killed 130 people, there were also the
fore-going attacks in January of this year, against the editorial
offices of the satirical magazine {Charlie Hebdo}.
As a matter of very eerie coincidence, just hours after
those attacks occurred, on January 7th of this year, several
members of Congress, including Walter Jones, and Stephen Lynch,
as well as former Senator Bob Graham, of the State of Florida,
and additionally, family members of the victims of 9/11, convened
a press conference on Capitol Hill, on the morning of January
7th, which had been previously scheduled, on the subject of a
bill to release the redacted 28 pages of the Congressional Joint
Inquiry Report into the attacks on 9/11, an inquiry of which
former Senator Bob Graham had been co-chair at the time. We are
going to replay a very short excerpt of Senator Graham’s remarks
at that press conference then, January 7th of this year, but
while we play this for you, I want you to reflect on how even
more relevant and urgent his statements are, now, in the wake, in
the aftermath of last Friday’s attacks in Paris, not to mention
the attacks in Beirut, the attacks in Mali earlier today, and
elsewhere, and the fact that the failure to release these pages
{then}, on January 7th, or January 8th, in the immediate wake of
that press conference, the failure to release the 28 pages
{then}, puts the blood of the innocent victims of these
subsequent attacks on the hands of those who insist on
perpetuating this cover-up to this day. So watch this brief
excerpt from the press conference on January 7th.

[RECORDING] CONG. WALTER JONES: I introduce the esteemed
Senator from Florida, Bob Graham. Thank you.

SENATOR BOB GRAHAM: Walter, thank you very much. And I, too,
want to thank Walter and Steve — Congressmen Jones and Lynch —
for their leadership in bringing this matter to the attention of
the Congress. I want to thank the family members, who have been
without question the most influential force in all of the changes
that have occurred as a result of 9/11, and will be the most
significant force in terms of convincing the President that it is
time to give the American people the truth. Needless to say, my
remarks that I will espouse this morning, are considerably
different than they would have been, but for events in Paris this
morning, which in my judgment, bring this matter into its proper
focus.
What have been the consequences of this refusal to release
the pages? The consequences, in my judgment are three:
One, is a denial of the truth. A core question in 9/11 is,
did these 19 people act alone, or did they have a network of
support which facilitated their ability to carry out a very
complex plot? No one who has looked closely at the facts,
including the individuals that I just named, has come to a
conclusion other than that it is highly improbable that the 19
people could have acted alone. Yet, the official position of the
United States government has been that they did act alone, and
that there is no necessity for further inquiry into the question
of whether there was a support network.
The second issue, is the issue of justice. Some 3,000
members of the families who were lost on 9/11 have been trying
for years to get justice through our system for the losses that
they have suffered. The position of the United States government
has been to protect Saudi Arabia, at virtually every step of the
judicial process. When the United States government was called
upon to take a position, it has been a position adverse to the
interests of the United States citizens seeking justice, and
protective of the government which, in my judgment, was the most
responsible for that network of support.
The third consequence is the issue of national security, and
frequently those who have defended nondisclosure, have said, this
cannot be made available to the American people, because it would
be adverse to our national security. It will affect methods and
sources of information, or other information that is
inappropriate to be made publicly known. As the two Congressmen
have just said, they both read the reportnot 12 years ago, when I
participated in writing the reportbut they have read it recently,
and have both come to the same conclusion that we did a dozen
years ago: that there is no threat to national security in
disclosure.
I’m going to make the case today, that there is a threat to
national security by non-disclosure, and we saw another chapter
of that today in Paris.
Here are some facts:
The Saudis know what they did. They are not persons who are
unaware of the consequences of their government’s actions.
Second, the Saudis know that we know what they did! Somebody in
the Federal government has read these 28 pages, someone in the
Federal government has read all the other documents that have
been covered up so far. And the Saudis know that.
What would you think the Saudis’ position would be, if they
knew what they had done, they knew that the United States knew
what they had done, and they also observed that the United States
had taken a position of either passivity, or actual hostility to
letting those facts be known? What would the Saudi government do
in that circumstance, which is precisely where they have been,
for more than a decade?
Well, one, they have continued, maybe accelerated, their
support for one of the most extreme forms of Islam, Wahhabism,
throughout the world, particularly in the Middle East. And
second, they have supported the religious fervor, with financial
and other forms of support, of the institutions which were going
to carry out those extreme forms of Islam. Those institutions
have included mosques, madrassas, and military. Al-Qaeda was a
creature of Saudi Arabia; the regional groups such as al-Shabaab
have been largely creatures of Saudi Arabia; and now, ISIS is the
latest creature!
Yes, I hope and I trust that the United States will crush
ISIS, but if we think that is the definition of victory, we are
being very naive! ISIS is a consequence, not a causeit is a
consequence of the spread of extremism, largely by Saudi Arabia,
and if it is crushed, there will be another institution
established, financed, supported, to carry on the cause.
So the consequences of our passivity to Saudi Arabia, have
been that we have tolerated this succession of
institutionsviolent, extreme, extremely hurtful to the region of
the Middle East, and a threat to the world, as we saw this
morning in Paris.
So I conclude by saying, this is a very important issue. It
may seem stale to some, but it is as current as the headlines
that we will read today. It is an issue that goes to the core of
the United States’ contract with its people, that the people
would give the government the credibility and support to govern;
the government would give the people the information upon which
they can make good judgments, as to the appropriateness of
governmental action. It’s as fundamental as justice to our
people, who have suffered so, by this evil union of extremism and
a very powerful nation-state. And it is the security of the
people of the United States of America.
So, I again thank the Congressmen for their leadership. I
hope that they will soon be joined by a rising tide of other
members of Congress who recognize the importance of this issue.
And then, finally, that the President of the United States will
declare that he is going to adopt the Lincolnesque standard of
full disclosure, and rely on the intelligence and judgment and
patriotism of the American people to decide what the appropriate
course of action should be.
Thank you.

OGDEN: Now both Jeff Steinberg and myself had the
opportunity to be in that room on that day, January 7, present at
that press conference, and I know Senator Graham’s presentation
sent chills through the audience, especially because it came in
such proximity to these terrible attacks on that day, on the
headquarters of {Charlie Hebdo}; but especially when he said —
and I think this stood out for you, probably, when you were just
listening to this again — when he said, this is a very important
issue. It may seem stale to some, but it is as current as the
headlines we will read today.
And tragically, that applies just as much this week, in the
aftermath of the horrific attacks in Paris of last Friday, as it
did then, in the aftermath of the attacks at {Charlie Hebdo}. And
as long as this cover-up continues, innocent people continue to
die. Paris, Beirut, Mali, the Russian airliner — what’s next?
What must be done to ensure there {is} no next time?
So I know that Jeff has been deeply involved in this issue
for several years, over a decade, and I’d like him to come to the
podium to briefly comment on the significance of what you just
heard Senator Bob Graham say.

STEINBERG: The statement I read a few moments ago from the
four former drone pilots reminded me that among the documents
that were released in 2010 by WikiLeaks, which of course began
the process of revealing some of the murderous behavior of the
Obama administration, included a document which was a cable from
then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Richard Holbrooke, who
was the Special Envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, who was
preparing to make a visit to Saudi Arabia soon after that memo
was written, towards the end of 2009. And what that memo said was
well, we’re in possession of massive evidence that the number one
source of financing for all of the various Sunni jihadist terror
groups is Saudi Arabia. And we’ve got to begin to develop a
policy for putting some kind of pressure on Saudi Arabia so
they’ll cut it out.
So, in other words, there was full knowledge in 2009 at the
very beginning of the Obama administration throughout the
administration that Saudi Arabia was still continuing to be a
major source of support for the al-Qaeda networks that carried
out the 9/11 atrocities. Remember also that General Michael
Flynn, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency until he was
unceremoniously fired last year by President Obama for daring to
continue to supply intelligence on the fact that Obama’s own
policies were fueling the growth of al-Qaeda and eventually
fueling the growth of the Islamic State — ISIS. So, this should
be a further reminder of the points that were made by Senator
Graham and the others that this administration, from day one, has
been fully on notice about the continuing role of Saudi Arabia as
the principal source of financing and logistical support for the
activities of these hideous jihadist terrorists.
Now just in the past week, really in the past several weeks,
we can account for hundreds of people who’ve been killed by the
very apparatus that this President has refused to take any action
against. You had the bombing of the Metro Jet airliner — 224
people killed when the plane blew up by a terrorist bomb over the
Sinai Desert. Secondly, you had two suicide bombings in the
southern portions of Beirut, targetting a largely Shi’ite
neighborhood. We don’t have the precise number of people killed,
but it was a large number of people killed and wounded. And of
course, we now have a death toll of 130 in Paris. And even
earlier today, you had a jihadist assault on the Radisson Blue
Hotel in Mali, where again we’re still awaiting the body count;
but 180 or so people were taken hostage by a group of armed
gunmen, and ultimately Malian, French and American commandoes
raided the hotel. And again, we witnessed a significant fire
fight; people were killed — innocent civilians arbitrarily
targetted simply because they were in the wrong place at the
wrong time.
Now, let’s face the reality. If those 28 pages had been
published back in 2002, and had revealed the indications of the
role of the Saudi monarchy and Saudi intelligence and Saudi
defense industrial company in providing the key support for the
9/11 hijackers, there would have been a public outcry. There
would have been a serious investigation into Saudi Arabia. There
would have been a fundamental change in the US relationship to
Saudi Arabia. And by the way, the investigation into the specific
funds provided by Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan to
the Saudi intelligence agents who were managing and supporting
two of the hijackers in San Diego, would have directly led to the
doorsteps of the British; because some of the money that went
from Bandar’s personal account into the hands of those
terrorists, came from the al Yamamah agreement — the
British/Saudi barter agreement, which {EIR} documented created an
offshore slush fund of tens of billions of dollars, perhaps
hundreds of billions of dollars over the scope and sweep of that
agreement — that was used to finance terrorism. Prince Bandar
openly boasted that funds from the al Yamamah project went to
financing what were then called the Afghan mujahideen; the
so-called freedom fighters who soon were known as al-Qaeda and
Taliban.
So, the track record is enormous; it’s unambiguous. There
has been a top-down Presidential cover-up of the Saudis and
British and their role in this terrorism under the Bush/Cheney
administration, and continuing under Obama. And in spite of all
of that evidence, the Obama administration continued to smuggle
weapons out of Benghazi into the hands of Syrian rebels;
including those who became part of ISIS and the Nusra Front. And
that’s not idle speculation; that’s from documents from the
Defense Intelligence Agency that were presented to the President
by no later than the Fall of 2012. One of those documents
specifically said, why are we still smuggling weapons into the
Syrian rebels out of Benghazi, when those networks just
assassinated a US ambassador and three other American officials?
So again, let’s go back to the original comments in response
to tonight’s institutional question by Mr. LaRouche. Obama’s got
to be removed from office because he’s got blood on his hands.
And the United States will never ever be able to actually
re-establish its role as a leading force for good in the world,
so long as we tolerate a President in office who’s got that much
blood on his hands and continues to carry forward the same
policies despite all of the evidence and all of the warnings.

OGDEN: Now, a direct correlative of this entire situation in
Syria, Libya, Iraq, and elsewhere is the unprecedented refugee
crisis now being experienced by the people of this region; who
are flooding across the Mediterranean and into Europe. And I know
this is one of the items that was directly cited by Congresswoman
Tulsi Gabbard in her list of ten reasons why the illegal war
against Bashar al-Assad must be ended. And it’s impossible to
underestimate the urgency and the significance of the currently
ongoing refugee crisis. This is a massive displacement of human
beings on the scale of millions, flooding into Europe from the
Middle East and North Africa; fleeing from the carnage and the
chaos which have taken over that region, which is a direct result
of the regime-change wars of first the George W Bush
administration, and now the Barack Obama administration. Again,
the culpability lies on the doorstep of Obama. And in Europe,
even before the terrorist attacks in Paris last Friday, we saw a
frightening rise of a right-wing, proto-fascist, xenophobic
backlash within the European population against these refugees;
driven by the effects of the policies of such persons as Schäuble
and his so-called “Black Zero” policy. And the danger is that
this could drastically worsen and spin out of control as the
economic breakdown in the trans-Atlantic region continually gets
worse; and it will get worse rapidly, as long as the necessary
policies of a top-down complete bankruptcy re-organization of
this Wall Street system are not taken, which must begin with
Glass-Steagall, and the correlated policies that Franklin
Roosevelt enacted at the beginning of his New Deal.
Now this is the real civilizational crisis, threatening
Europe, the United States and the entire world, and {not}, as
Obama and his fellow travelers in the British Royal Family would
have you believe, the so-called crisis of anthropogenic global
warming. This is the real crisis: this refugee crisis, the crisis
of the destabilization of the entire region of the Middle East
and North Africa, and the threat of a total blow-out of the
trans-Atlantic bankrupt financial system. This is the real
crisis, which responsible leaders of the world’s leading powers
should be discussing as they gather in Paris next week for the
so-called COP21 Summit in Paris.
So before I say more about that, I would like to ask Ben
Deniston to come to the podium to make some very relevant
comments in that regard.
BEN DENISTON: Thanks, Matthew. From our discussion with
Lyndon and Helga Zepp-LaRouche earlier today, we were discussing
a certain article that had just been released in the last couple
days, and Helga and all of us thought it would be an important
thing to highlight, given the relevance of this article to what
Matt just referenced. You should have graphic on your screen,
just a screen-shot of one publication, one blog, which is hosting
this article. The title is, as you can read, “Terrorism and a
Cold Winter Refugee Crisis,” with a subline reading “A Brutal
Cold Spell Could Kill Refugees.” Paris COP21 delegates need to
discuss this climate issue.
Now this article was authored by two leading so-called
climate skeptics, two individuals who have been out front
fighting against this fraudulent claim of a man-made climate
change crisis. One individual, just to give you a sense of who
they are, Joseph D’Aleo, is a certified consulting meteorologist;
he’s a fellow of the American Meteorology Society; and he’s one
of the original co-founders of the Weather Channel. So, he’s
somebody familiar with climate and weather. The other author is
Paul Driessen, who is a self-proclaimed former environmentalist,
until the environmentalist movement went against human beings,
and he decided it wasn’t a good thing to stick with. But he’s the
author of such books as the 2003 book “Eco-Imperialism: Green
Power, Black Death.” And he’s also done a number of interviews
with {Executive Intelligence Review} magazine, one of which is
part of the 2015 report put out by {Executive Intelligence
Review}, which, if you don’t have a copy of, we encourage you to
get a copy of immediately. Our recent report “Global Warming
Scare is Population Reduction, not Science”
So, they came out with a rather interesting piece which we
want to just put on the table and then comment upon. But just to
quote the beginning of their article. They open by saying “Even
after these latest Paris massacres, and previous radical Islamist
atrocities in the USA, in France, in Britain, in Canada, in
Spain, India, Iraq, Syria, Nigeria and elsewhere, politicians
still absurdly say that hypothetical man-made global warming is
the greatest threat facing humanity. In reality, fossil fuel
contributions to the climate change pose few dangers to people or
planet, and winters actually kill 20 times more people than hot
weather.”
So after that lunge, they go on to highlight some very
relevant facts. They go into focus on the millions of refugees
that Matthew just referenced, who are desperately now trying to
escape the horrors of what frankly Obama has unleashed with the
Islamic State. As we discussed, many of them fleeing into Europe.
Well, the authors of this article make the relevant point that
these people are coming from a climate that is on average
generally 20 to 30 degrees warmer in the winter time than their
current destinations they’re heading into in Eastern and Northern
Europe. That this people who are fleeing desperately to get out
with their lives intact, are simply not prepared to just plunge
into this much colder climate of Europe, and especially if
they’re just simply left to try and survive in makeshift shelters
or tents, we could be seeing the beginnings of a very horrific
mass death scene, as these people suffer the horrors of a cold
European winter.
And these authors give a warning, that this could actually
be worse, this particular winter, if we see the return of some of
these periodic blasts or movements of frigid, extremely cold
Siberian air transfer over Europe, which is a not-uncommon
phenomenon, and could give rise to, again, a very cold, deadly
cold in this case, winter over Europe.
Now, they make the point: this prospect of a potentially
harsh cold is obviously in stark contrast to just the insane
propaganda lies about global warming, including, for example — a
couple of their highlights are rather useful, if anything, for
comic relief. But they cite a headline article from the German
publication {Der Spiegel} from 15 years [ago], from the year
2000. And the title of this article was: ” Goodbye, Winter. In
Germany cold winters are now a thing of the past.” This was
declared in 2000 to be the reality. Or a scientist with a British
Climate research unit, who was quoted saying, again about 15
years ago, around the year 2000: “Children are not going to know
what snow is.”
So, despite these crazy lies that have been spouted for
decades, and are being spouted again now, they make the relevant
point that for five years, between 2008 and 2013, you had a whole
series of extremely cold winters throughout Europe, in some cases
setting many records. England, for example, having one of the
coldest winters they had in centuries. Mind you, 8 to 12 years
after it was proclaimed that children in England would no longer
know what snow is, they had the coldest winter they’ve had since
sometime in the 1600s, in the Little Ice Age.
So anyway, they go on to point out that with most recent
scientific knowledge, these particular climate conditions, these
blasts, this movement of very frigid, cold air from the Siberian
region into Europe, tends to be associated with certain
fluctuation in the Atlantic ocean, certain multi-decadal cycles
in the Atlantic, in correspondence with certain changes in solar
activity. There’s a very close correlation and indications
between these solar phenomena and this particular process leading
to extremely cold winters in Europe. And they — obviously none
of this having anything to do with human CO2 emissions.
But Driessen and D’Aleo do make the point that the fact of
the matter is that the current phase of what the ocean is doing
in the Atlantic, the current phase of solar activity, generally
points to the possibility that we could be seeing another very
harsh, very cold winter in Europe. Now, it’s not to say for
certain that’s going to happen, but that is the type of reality,
the type of threat to these people, that we should be thinking of
— that the people in Paris should actually be addressing.
So, with literally millions of lives on the line, we thought
today in our discussion that these authors’ call could not be
more correct, could not be more relevant: their call on the
delegates to this upcoming UN conference on climate change —
which, as Matt said, is going to start in just a little over a
week and run for two weeks in December — that at this event,
this is the climate issue that should be being discussed. And
they present this refugee crisis against evidence for a broader
reality, that quite frankly — and as has been shown even in more
detail on some recent studies — cold weather generally kills
something on the order of 20 times more people than hot weather.
Periods of extreme cold, winter is on average, averaged over many
locations, far more deadly than warming. And on top of that, this
entire Green energy program makes it even worse; it’s making it
more expensive if not impossible for many people — especially in
cold regions — to be able to afford basic heating for their home
to keep themselves alive during the winters.
So with this framework, this particular article concludes
rather sharply that it would be an “unconscionable crime against
humanity if the nations gathering in Paris implement policies to
protect our planet’s energy-depraved masses from hypothetical
manmade climate change occurring decades from now by perpetuating
poverty and disease that will kill millions of people tomorrow.
These are the reasons that climate change is a critical, moral
issue. We need to recognize that and stop playing games with
people’s lives.”
So again, in the discussion earlier today, we thought that
this recent article, Helga Zepp-LaRouche said in particular that
this should serve as a real challenge to people. This should be a
challenge to many of the so-called “climate skeptics” out there;
it should be a challenge to really all individuals who, for one
reason or another might be claiming they’re opposing this
upcoming UN climate conference. And it should really be a
challenge obviously, to anybody participating directly in this
process. This is not an academic debate; this is not a debate
about one scientific theory against another in academia. This is
a life or death issue for millions upon millions of people. This
has real world consequences; it has had them, it’s having them
now, it’s going to have them in the future. If this type of thing
is going to go through, you’re literally condemning millions of
people — potentially billions — to unnecessary poverty, to
suffering, and to early death. Those are the facts of the matter.
So the question on the table right now is, will you let this
happen? Will you go down in history as having let this happen?
And as we’ve documented, especially in this report and in other
locations, we know what this is all about. This is intentional;
this is the 21st Century version of Thomas Malthus’ policy. This
is the modern Zeus policy.
Who did we just hear is going to be one of the leading
prominent speakers at this Paris COP 21 conference? Prince
Charles, the British Empire; the next in the series of
degenerations of the British Royal Family, following Prince
Phillip and Queen Elizabeth. And it’s no secret these people are
promoting a policy of outright genocide; they’re advocating and
promoting a policy saying the world can only support 1-2 billion
people. And we need to push to reduce the world’s population to a
few billion people. So if you let this type of program to go
through, this will go down in history as the greatest mass
killing on record; save perhaps Obama’s thermonuclear war if we
let him launch that. But if that’s not launched by Obama, this
would go down in history as the greatest mass death; and you will
be the people who let that happen.
So the crisis conditions facing these refugees are a leading
expression of this more general threat. And this is occurring at
the same time as we’re seeing this gathering for this fake global
warming scare conference in Paris, which is just about to occur.
If you reflect on this process, it really almost sounds like
you’re describing the opening scenario of a rather famous short
story by Edgar Allan Poe; it’s almost reminiscent of something
like {The Mask of the Red Death}. We have some major gathering of
representatives of upper class layers of society, gathering in
some isolated, climate-controlled conference halls — very
comfortable; hoping they can celebrate their own delusional
picture of the world. Hoping they can celebrate their
determination of the fate of the masses of people, under the
fantasy that they themselves are going to free from the effects
of their actions. Well at the same time that this absurd scene is
going on, you have millions of desperate people gathering around
them throughout Europe; fleeing into Europe. Running from the
policies which most of the people at this conference refuse to
address; Obama’s policies. Masses of people suffering from the
reality that those people at this conference refuse to accept;
which is the fact that global warming is nothing but a Malthusian
hoax. So, it’s got an eerie similarity to some stories of the
past, but unlike Poe’s dramatic account, what we have now is that
you still have the time to act.

OGDEN: Thank you very much Ben. And let me just say in
conclusion, there is a petition which is circulating; it was
authored by the Schiller Institute, and it is now posted on the
LaRouche PAC website titled, “A Resolution To Defend Billions of
Lives; We Say ‘No’ to Paris COP 21″. So, we invite you to sign
that and to circulate that as widely as you can in the coming
days. Also, as Ben mentioned, that {EIR} Special Report is
available from {Executive Intelligence Review}. So, that’s
available for you to obtain as well. So, I’m going to bring a
conclusion to our broadcast here tonight. I want to thank very
much both Ben and Jeff for joining me here; I want to thank you
for tuning in, and please, stay tuned to larouchepac.com.

0 Kommentarer

Skriv en kommentar

Din e-mailadresse vil ikke blive publiceret. Krævede felter er markeret med *

*