LPAC Fredags-Webcast, 30. oktober 2015:
Hvordan vil du agere som aktør på menneskehedens historiske
scene for at konfrontere denne store prøve på menneskets
moralske evne til at overleve?
Inkl. dramatiske optagelser fra flygtningekrisen.

I kølvandet på den banebry-dende pressekonference med Helga Zepp-LaRouche og fhv. Senator og præsidentkandidat Mike Gravel må amerikanerne stille sig selv det spørgsmål: kendsgerningerne er fremlagt, den presserende virkelighed står klart, hvordan vil du agere som en aktør på menneskehedens historiske scene for at konfron-tere denne store prøve på menneskets moralske evne til at overleve?

English Transcript

MATTHEW OGDEN:  It’s October 30, 2015.  My name is Matthew Ogden, and you’re joining us for our regular weekly Friday evening broadcast here from larouchepac.com.  I’m joined in the studio tonight by Jeffrey Steinberg of Executive Intelligence Review; and the two of us did have an opportunity to have an extensive meeting with both Lyndon and Helga LaRouche, during which we had the opportunity to discuss at length the contents of tonight’s broadcast.

Now, we’re going to begin tonight’s proceedings with a short, condensed excerpt of the video of a quite extraordinary and ground-breaking event which occurred earlier this week; on Tuesday, to be precise.  This was the really quite historic press conference that was held at the National Press Club, sponsored by Executive Intelligence Review; featuring Mrs. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the founder of the Schiller Institute and the chair of the German Büso Party, as well as former Democratic Senator from Alaska Mike Gravel, who was also a candidate for the United States Presidency in 2008.  Senator Gravel, of course, is famous for his incredibly courageous actions in June of 1971, in reading the so-called “Pentagon Papers” concerning the true extent of US military operations in Vietnam and in neighboring countries into the Congressional Record; thus releasing the contents of this heretofore priorly [sic] classified report to the US public.  And catalyzing a very dramatic backlash among the American people against the policies of the Nixon administration and the continuation of the Vietnam War at that time.  Much more will be said in detail by Jeff Steinberg concerning this historic action by Senator Gravel after we see this video excerpt; and Jeff, I know, will elaborate on its direct implications for today.

But let me use the example of Senator Gravel before we view this excerpt here tonight; both the example of what Senator Gravel did at that time, but also the example of what you will see he continues to do today to make a point which will be hopefully thematic over the course of this show.  The point being, for those of you who are viewing this broadcast here tonight, the persistent question that you must ask is:  What does this imply for me?  The facts have been presented, the case has been made, the evidence has been thoroughly exposed; none of these are in question.  The question, however, will remain — What will the American people do to respond?  How will you react to that which is shown to you here tonight?  What must we do, collectively, to pull this story off of the television screen and to put these facts that will have been presented here tonight into action, to change the course of history?  What sort of political activism, what sort of intellectual leadership, what sort of courage will be required to do justice to this moment of human history that we now find ourselves in?  Senator Gravel, of course, is an outstanding example of this sort of courage; but more of us are now required to be like him, and to be like Mrs. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, as you will also see here tonight.  As Mr. LaRouche emphasized during our discussion with him, and as he has emphasized repeatedly before, just as in the Classical Shakespearean theater, the most important individual in the room is not any of the actors who are on stage; but rather, that member of the audience for whom the play is being performed.  We ask you, therefore, to indulge us here tonight as you become our audience in this great historical drama which is about to unfold before you.  So, without further ado, let me present to you the excerpt of this week’s press conference with Helga Zepp-LaRouche and Senator Gravel.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Thank you.

Well, let me welcome all of you.  I think most people in the world right now are aware that we are really experiencing a civilizational crisis, not only a financial crisis. Many military crises around the world, wars, terrorism, hunger, refugees, it’s just an enormous amount of simultaneous crises.  And while all of these individual crises have local causes, which trigger them and cause them, I think it’s fair to say that the underlying cause of the strategic, civilizational crisis, is the fact that trans-Atlantic financial system is hopelessly bankrupt.  And it is that dynamic which is behind the war danger, which is behind local crises, and which is the biggest threat to the world right now.

So, an instant collapse into chaos is really the danger we are talking about.  Now, there is a remedy to that.  The remedy is to introduce Glass-Steagall, the banking separation law which was introduced in 1933 by Franklin D. Roosevelt, in response to the economic crisis of the early ’30s, and there are several motions in the U.S. Congress and in the Senate — there is actually legislation with the exact, same text in the Congress and the Senate.  So if the political will could be mobilized, that problem could be solved.  But it has to be solved.  There is no other way than to shut down the casino economy of the Wall Street.

So now we are hit with an additional problem:  the refugee crisis in Europe.  Now, I know people in America think this is very far away, but I tell you, this is becoming a key strategic factor, also affecting the United States.

It is now publicly debated in Europe, that this refugee crisis was caused by U.S. and British wars in the Middle East, by a policy of regime change, by a policy of playing the so-called “Islamic card” going back to Brzezinski in 1975, when he initiated this policy; and then having a policy of always supporting the “good rebels,” training them, only to see that the good rebels join the terrorists; then you have to make a new war against the terrorists, then you have to bet on the “good rebels,” and so forth and so on!

This has now led to a situation where basically millions of people are trying to get into Europe.  Germany probably will have, minimum, 1 million this year.  The UN Human Rights report says that there are presently 60 million in flight right now.  So we’re not talking about a temporary refugee crisis.  We’re talking about a large migration of people running away from war, hunger, epidemics, mainly from Southwest Asia, but also to a certain extent from Africa.

And it is very clear, this will not stop!  This will not stop, and you see right now the effect:  The EU has completely failed.  They ignored this problem since many years, because they left Italy and Greece completely alone for years; there were hundreds of people drowning in the Mediterranean for years!  Some of them arriving in Lampedusa in Italy, and the EU said, “that’s an Italian problem.”  The same with Greece.

But now with the recent developments in Syria, this is really exploding and you see the pictures. And the pictures are horrible!  There is no unity in Europe; there is no solidarity, there is no Europe.  It now turns out that something, which was transformed into an interest group for the banks — namely, the EU after the Maastricht Treaty — that you cannot pretend to have “union,” which is bound together by nothing other than the defense of the banks and the defense of the high-speculation system.

And the biggest threat right now is the maintenance of the present financial policies of Wall Street, the City of London, the ECB, which is reflected by the finance minister Schäuble, who says “We must protect the so-called `black zero’, which is a synonym for balanced budgets, which is the idea that no matter how many expenses you have to spend for the refugees, the budget must remain balanced, and that means you have to cut in other areas, like social expenditures, kindergarten, schools, health system; and naturally, for the people who are in a precarious economic situation already, like the unemployed, like the people who have a low but precarious income, they feel threatened.  And therefore, Schäuble’s “black zero” fuels the kind of xenophobic reactions which you have heard about, that already this year 500 housing projects for the refugees have been attacked or burned down, and right-wing violence is on the increase.

You see now that President Putin was absolutely when he said several months ago, or even a year ago, that the big mistake of the West to support Nazis in Ukraine, in the form of the Right Sector, has the danger that this Nazism is spreading to other European countries.

So the only solution is, obviously, to change the economic policy, to stop what is high-risk speculation for the United States on Wall Street; to stop what is the “black zero” policy of Schäuble in Europe. And, fortunately, there is an alternative.

Now, very little known, because the Western media in Europe and the United States are generally not reporting it, or if they report it, they misrepresent it, there is an alternative economic system, which has developed.  It started, really — well, it started 25 years ago, when we proposed the New Silk Road as a response to the collapse of the Soviet Union; but it was put again energetically on the table by the Chinese government in 2013, when President Xi Jinping announced a New Silk Road to become the policy of China in Kazakhstan in September.  And in the meantime, this dynamic, of building a New Silk Road in the tradition of the ancient Silk Road — meaning an exchange not only of culture, of goods, of ideas, but also of technologies, of improving the relation among nations, this has spread like wildfire!

And what you see now is the unfolding of an alternative economic system which is completely based on different principles than the trans-Atlantic high-risk and high-profit speculation. It is based on real investment in infrastructure, on uplifting populations out of poverty, like China has done in lifting 600 million people out of poverty in the last 30 years; and it is offering now, in reality, the Chinese economic miracle, to other countries that participate in the construction of this New Silk Road.

It has reached a point where mankind is challenged, that either we change the paradigm and establish an order in which all people on this planet can live as human beings, or we will not make it, and we will vanish as the dinosaurs did 65 million years ago because we have proven we are not any smarter.

Now, I think the human species is smarter, and therefore, I’m confident that if we put this question on the table.., which is eminently possible through the approach we have taken by this report, which says “The Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge,” by simply extending the existing New Silk Road development into all of these areas.

Now I think the whole world is waiting for that, and what we are trying to do, is we are trying to cause this shift to happen. We just have to evoke the better tradition of America to make that happen.

So that is where I think we are. I think we are really in danger, if a collapse of the system happens without the reform of Glass-Steagall protecting the normal population from that, we could really end up in mass killings of an unprecedented dimension.  If this would happen in Europe, on top of the refugee crisis, I think we would have civil war in Europe, and we probably would have civil war in the United States.

So I think the incentive to change policy, as long as there is time, is gigantic, and the optimistic note is that the alternative is already in place. Thank you.

Gravel: Thank you very much. Wasn’t that a fantastic expose by Helga LaRouche?  [applause]  It leaves no room for me to talk!

All I can do is underscore her comments in this way:  Stop and think that in the world today, you have really two choices. You can either grow and prosper as a result of growth; or you can turn around and follow a different path of militarism.  As an American citizen, I say it all the time, I’m very patriotic; I love my country, I love the world more, but I do love my country. And I’m embarrassed, absolutely embarrassed at the conduct of my country for the last 40 years.  And your choices are very simple, when you look at what China is offering with the Silk Road vision, it’s an offer to unify the world economically through mutual growth; addressing the problems that are so vital to our personal benefit as human beings.  That’s what China offers.  And now, what does the United States offer?  We try to sabotage institutions that will be able to finance growth; we turn around — and I’ll go deeply into this — we try to antagonize China.

Now, you read in the American press, particularly this morning there was in the paper about the — and Helga referred to this — about a destroyer that was sailing very close to this Spratly Islands, an island just bordering the 12-mile limit.  Why are we doing that?  These are silly boys playing with silly toys! That’s really what it is.  It makes no sense at all.  This destroyer came out of Japan, and so this is a provocation.  So, this is our approach, the American approach, to dealing with the crises of the world, is to provoke China.  Because of what? China is in the ascendancy economically in the world; there’s just no question that with their present plans that China will be the country of the 21st Century.  And its vision, to share that growth, with the rest of the world, it’s just awesome as a vision, and will define what the 21st Century is all about.

And it won’t be the American Century.  And I would only hope, and it just stands to logic, that if the United States would join forces and hold hands with China and proceed to develop the entire world; boy, would this be a human accomplishment nonpareil.

Now, when I look at what’s happened in the Middle East, I’m reminded of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse: that’s our foreign policy.  For those of you who may forget, the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse: Famine; War; Destruction; Death. That’s our foreign policy!  You can call it, Obama has the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, and he’s riding it like a chariot. When you really in depth look at these elements, it just breaks your heart.  Because as Helga just outlined, it’s so easy to pursue the other course; it’s so much more humane to produce the other course.

And when you look at what we’ve done here; you read the American press, and of course, everything is Putin has been demonized. We are demonizing China and to some degree Xi Jinping; and this is wrong. These people shouldn’t be demonized; they’re heads of governments.  You don’t see them demonizing Obama; you see people like myself demonizing Obama, and rightly so.

And I do this because, you have heard the cliché, “my country, right or wrong.”  Well, for me, that’s the most immoral statement you can make. If you love your country, and you see it doing something wrong, you should do something to correct it. And that’s where I have charted my course in life; and at my age, I hope I have another five, six years, and I’m going to try to raise as much billy hell as I can, on our foreign policy. Because that foreign policy is wrong, and as I said earlier, it’s a policy of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

And so what can we do about it? Well, the first thing that I’m going to try to do,  I get into very many causes as a result of this, and I have become a spokesman or endorser of these various causes, like endorsing what the LaRouche organization is doing with China.

I’m delighted to be associated with the LaRouche organization and the wisdom they’ve brought forward in a leadership role. And here, I’m taking a page out of their book, suggesting that the leadership of China should take the initiative and bring the Silk Road to the commons of the China Sea. Thank you very much.  [applause]

STEINBERG:  Senator Mike Gravel is 85 years old. Lyndon LaRouche is 93 years old. They are two of the last stalwarts of the generation that grew up as children under Franklin Roosevelt, and directly participated in the Second World War. They have a certain level of moral commitment and moral authority that is sadly lacking in most of the leadership of our nation today. I just want to tell you a bit more about Senator Gravel’s actions back in 1971, in releasing the “Pentagon Papers.” Because it’s of great relevance today, and it really puts an onus on not only every member of Congress, but every individual who considers himself a patriotic American citizen, to hold yourself and your fellow citizens up to the standard, to hold your elected officials, up to the standard that was reflected in what proved to be an historic action by a lone individual in the U.S. Senate. Now, in 1971, the war in Vietnam was raging out of control. Richard Nixon was a highly popular president, and months later, in the 1972 elections, he would win an absolute landslide victory. Yet, the consequences of Vietnam, the consequences of Nixon’s ending of the Franklin Roosevelt Bretton Woods system, that began this slide into economic decay in 1971, was something that had to be dealt with. The U.S. Congress commissioned a whole series of documents from the Pentagon on the status of the war in Vietnam. Those documents were maintained under strict control, under lock and key, and were basically barred from being presented to the American people. Under those circumstances, a handful of patriots, who would be vilified for their actions, decided that they had to do something. Sen. Gravel, who I had the pleasure of spending a day earlier this week up on Capitol Hill with, recounted the story. He received a cryptic call in his office from a man named Daniel Ellsberg, who at that time was a national security official working directly under Henry Kissinger, had access to the copies of what came to be known as the “Pentagon Papers.” One evening, he called up Sen. Gravel, and simply asked him, “If I provide you with a copy of these papers, will you make them public?” Sen. Gravel said, “Yes!” and said “Let’s not talk about this on the phone.” There’s a whole, basically, a cloak and dagger story, that I won’t bother to go into here, but suffice it to say that Sen. Gravel was provided with a hard copy of something like 7,000 pages of Pentagon documents that showed that the Vietnam War, contrary to media coverage, contrary to statements by most elected officials, was not going well. Yes, the body-count was piling up, but the United States was losing the war, and it was known, certainly before 1971 that that was the case. But the American people were kept in the dark. Much of the Congress was kept in the dark. And so Sen. Gravel took the courageous act of releasing the “Pentagon Papers.” He used the opportunity of chairing a late-night subcommittee on buildings and maintenance to come up with the proper formulation for releasing those documents. He knew that under the strict principles of the U.S. Constitution that it was perfectly legal, because members of the Congress — members of the House, members of the Senate — in fulfilling their obligations to the American people to keep the population fully informed, was given absolute immunity from any kind of criminal prosecution for any sort of release of data, no matter how its classified “Top Secret,” if the data is released as part of the normal business transactions of the United States Congress. Now, in point of fact, the courageous release of the “Pentagon Papers” — the efforts of Daniel Ellsberg, the efforts of Sen. Gravel — resulted in a bright light being shined on the fiasco of Vietnam, and it began the process of forcing a fundamental reversal of U.S. policy. Within a period of time, Richard Nixon, soon after his landslide victory, was on his way out the door. And, it was in the context of the “Pentagon Papers” that some of the worse crimes of Nixon in fact took place. For example, one of the break-ins, in addition to the Democratic Party’s national headquarters, that was ordered out of the Nixon White House, was the break-in to Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office, to try to obtain discrediting information on Ellsberg. This is not the way the Constitution provides for the U.S. government to function. So, Sen. Gravel took an action, and the Supreme Court, in one of the rare instances of a unanimous decision on a critical constitutional issue, ruled that Sen. Gravel’s actions were completely legal, were completely constitutional, and that therefore he was protected from any vindictive action coming from Nixon, or anyone else, as a result of what he did. That started the ball rolling, for bringing an end to one of the most disastrous chapters in modern American history, probably the single most disastrous event in the post-World War II period, right up until the point of the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq. Now, one of the things, that is immediately begged by reflecting back on what Sen. Gravel did, is the obvious fact that we’ve been talking through these Friday night webcasts for quite some time about the role of the British and the Saudis in the original 9/11 attack.  We’ve told you about the 28 pages from the original joint Congressional inquiry into 9/11, that were blacked out and declared secret by George W Bush, and have been maintained secret by President Barack Obama.  These are vital facts in these 28 pages that reveal an aspect of action on the part of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and by extension our so-called British allies in organizing and supporting the most heinous crime that’s been committed on American soil since Pearl Harbor; namely, the 9/11 attacks in New York and at the Pentagon here in Washington.  So, you’ve got to ask yourself.  The information is out there.  Where is Senator Mike Gravel today?  Why is it that no members of the US Congress, who have read those 28 pages, have used the precedent of the Supreme Court’s unanimous 9-0 ruling in the Gravel case to say, “We are completely free to tell the American people the truth about 9/11.”?  Why is it?  And we’ve been harping on this issue on this broadcast for the last two weeks. Why is it that the blood on President Obama’s hands, through his drone-kill policy, has not led to the convening of impeachment proceedings in the House of Representatives?  How is it that the American people and our elected representatives have become so callous to the reality, and so committed to “going along to get along”, as President John F Kennedy warned about in his famous Profiles in Courage book?  How is it, that there is not a single individual in government, how is it that there are not millions of people in the street taking up these issues?

Now, you’ve just seen some of the photographs of the refugees who are flooding into Europe.  And in every instance, these are refugees from regime-change wars that were either initiated by the Bush administration in partnership with the British, or in some instances with the French; or regime-change operations initiated by the Obama administration.  How is it that these millions of refugees flooding into Europe, who are creating a tremendous instability; as Helga warned, creating a potential new Hitler moment in Europe?  How is it that there is no action in Washington?  How is it that it’s possible that the US actions, which directly led to this humanitarian nightmare, are being ignored by you the American people and by our elected representatives?  There is a callousness; there is a fear; there is an avoidance of reality that permeates our entire system and our entire culture right now.

And the bottom line is that we are facing an imminent danger of war; potentially thermonuclear war.  You, just in the last days, had a US Navy ship entering into territory that China claims as sovereign Chinese waters in the Spratly Islands. You’ve had just in the last 24 hours, General Philip Breedlove, the commander of NATO, basically saying under no circumstances is he prepared to cooperate with Russia.  [that] Russia is carrying out a diversion in Syria, because the fundamental issue is actually Ukraine.  How can these kinds of statements and these kinds of actions, which could bring us to the very brink of thermonuclear war under a President who has been consistently pursuing policies of mass kill; how can this be tolerated?  What is it in you, the American people?  What is it in our elected representatives that has created these conditions where the evidence is mounting by the day that we’ve lost the moral fitness to survive as a nation?  And if we continue to tolerate for one moment more, the danger is that we will be staring down the barrel of thermonuclear weapons; or that the kind of absolute chaos that Helga warned about in the press conference earlier this week, in Europe and here in the United States, is about to erupt.

This is a fundamental moral flaw that can and must be addressed and reversed.  The moment for toleration of criminality on the part of the President of the United States has come to an end.  There were ample grounds for the impeachment of George W Bush and Dick Cheney, for the lies that led to the Iraq War and many, many other things.  There were bills of impeachment that were being drawn up by Representative John Conyers, by his staff on the House Judiciary Committee, during the Bush period.  And a deal was struck between the two parties, where the famous quote from Nancy Pelosi was, “Impeachment is off the table.”  Well, that deal has carried forward as President Obama has carried out similar crimes, and in some respects, even more egregious crimes. The idea that every Tuesday afternoon there is a meeting at the White House, chaired by the President, where he signs off on the latest list of targets to be stalked and executed; to be murdered in cold blood by drone strikes.  The toleration for this has now reached the point where it’s absolutely intolerable.

Over the past several weeks, we’ve provided you with the facts; there’s no need to provide any more details.  The facts are available; they’re in the public light.  You can read them on the LaRouche PAC or EIR websites; you can go to The Intercept and read the primary documents themselves.  But clearly, that’s not the issue.  The issue is that we’ve lost our moral compass; and that we’re now at the point that unless there is a fundamental moral change in the fabric of our people, it may just be too late.

OGDEN:  Thank you very much, Jeff.  Now, I’m going to read the brief institutional question that came in for us this week. And this was presented to Mr. LaRouche when we had a chance to meet with him.  The question reads as follows:  “Mr. LaRouche, what is your view of the current state of the US economy, and do you think the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System should raise the interest rates?”  Now, I know how I would respond. I think instead of hiking the interest rates, the Governors of the Federal Reserve System themselves should take a hike; but I’ll let Jeff deliver Mr. LaRouche’s response.

STEINBERG:  A number of years ago, Mr. LaRouche regularly repeated a kind of a irony, a metaphor for the state of mind of the American people.  He said, “Your typical American walks out on the street, gets hit by a car; breaks his leg and then crawls back inside and turns on the television.  And until he sees on the local news that his leg has been broken, he’s not quite certain that it’s actually happened.”  Well, I think as for the state of the US economy, there’s a great similarity to the situation we’re dealing with right now.  Again, it’s obvious to most of you out there, if you simply ask yourselves a very simple question:  Are your conditions of life better today than they were 15 years ago, before we entered into this prolonged period of an abysmal control, a British control over the US Presidency, first under Bush and now under Obama?  Do you still have an optimistic view about the future? Can you honestly look at your children and grandchildren, and assure them that their conditions of life will be better than yours, and that what you did with your life in some small way, contributed to the idea that future generations will be better educated, better clothed, better fed, with more leisure time to pursue real culture? I think for the overwhelming majority of Americans, the answer to that question is a resounding “No.”

So, let’s just consider a few facts that have just come out in the last week about what the actual state of the American economy is, and maybe presenting the sort of gross picture, and taking it out of the domain of “I’ll get by, I’ll struggle through; as long as I can watch television and take my mind off of the problems of the real world, I’ll somehow be able to make it.”

Today in the United States, there are 16 million children living in households that on a regular basis, face severe food shortages, meaning that you’ve got a rampant outbreak of malnutrition among young  people in this country. That 16 million figure, by the way, represents 21% of all of the children in the United States. Across the board, in every corner of society, 25% of all American men are living either at, or near, the official poverty level, and that level is abysmally low; does not really reflect, even closely, the horrors that these people are living through.

And if you think that this is something that largely involves our elderly, our senior citizens, people nearing retirement, no. Among 18-34 year olds, in the United States today — men, that is — 33% are at or near poverty. You have 22 million Americans living in what is officially defined as deep poverty, which means living at, or below, one half the official poverty rate. To give you an idea of that: The official poverty rate is, for a family of four, to be merely $24,000 a year. Think about what kind of family of four could possibly live on that amount of money.

There’s 1.5 million households in the United States which have absolutely no cash income whatsoever, meaning that they are living 100% on government social safety net programs, and can’t survive on that.

Yet you read in the newspaper that the official unemployment rate is 5.1% or 5.2% and that the jobless rate at the peak of the “recession” back after 2008 has been cut in half. Well, the only reason that that number has been reduced is because there are now 94 million working-age Americans who are not counted in the labor force. That’s not because they’re disabled, and unable to work. It’s because they’ve either never been able to find a job, or they have been unemployed for such a long period of time, that they don’t even appear in the statistics any longer.

So, that’s a brief snapshot of what has happened in our nation. You know it. Probably a majority of people out there watching this broadcast now are personally experiencing it, and feeling it. And the fact is, there is something you can do about it. You can change your behavior. You can continue going along as you are in a fantasy world, or you can decide, now is the time to put your foot down. We live in what was once a great republic, and therefore, we can make those changes. We can force our elected representatives to take the kinds of emergency actions.

Helga talked about the re-instatement of Glass-Steagall. That means Bankrupt Wall Street. It’s got to happen now, it’s got to happen immediately, if there’s to be any kind of reversal of the real state of economic collapse and poverty.

Now, to just contrast the downward spiral and the financial bankruptcy of the United States, and really the whole trans-Atlantic region, let’s consider what, in human terms, has been the result of the Chinese policies that both Helga and Senator Gravel were talking about on Tuesday. Over the last 30 years in China, 600 million people have been lifted out of poverty. At the same time, during that same 30-year period, we’ve been in a persistent downward spiral, and that spiral is now exponentially escalating towards a complete crash, over the last 15 years, under the Obama war Presidency and the Bush war Presidency before it.

So again, the issue is not sufficient facts. You know that. You know it in your own mind and your own heart what’s actually going on. The question is, will you act and will you act in time?

OGDEN: Thank you very much, Jeff.

Now, as a consequence of you watching what has just been presented here tonight, you are now an actor on this stage, the stage of human history, for the reason that you are now faced with a decision: What will you do with what has just been presented to you? How will you respond? With the clarity of the historical decision that is now facing us to be made, how do we take what has just been presented, and literally, pull it off of the screen, as Mr. LaRouche termed it, and put the necessary actions in place, as Jeff has just outlined them in detail.

Now that you have seen, and you have assimilated the case that has been put before you tonight, you have now become one of the actors, one of the active players, in this great Shakespearean drama of today. The question lies not in the fact of the case; the facts are all there. The facts are all clear. But rather, the question lies in how we respond. How will we act on the stage of history today? What will we do with the reality as it now faces us, and act to shape a future which is worthy of what the human species uniquely can, and must, be?

And for those of you who have also been participating in the weekly Fireside chat discussions with Mr. LaRouche, and especially the Manhattan meetings, which Mr. LaRouche has been addressing on a consistent basis every Saturday, you know that this is taking hold, and this is what Mr. LaRouche has been discussing with you, and is becoming a movement within the American people, at least those intellectually courageous few who have been engaged with this, and have made these crucial decisions.

So with that I would like to bring a conclusion to this broadcast here tonight. If you haven’t viewed the press conference featuring Mrs. Helga LaRouche and Senator Mike Gravel in full, it is available on the front page of the larouchepac.com website, and by all means, please circulate this as widely as you possibly can. This was a very significant event.

So I would like to thank Jeff for joining me here in the studio tonight, and I would like to thank you all for joining us here as our audience this evening. Please consider what you’ve seen here tonight, and what that implies for you. And please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.  Good night.

 




LPAC Fredags-webcast 23. oktober 2015: Benghazi-høring med Hillary Clinton.
Implikationernene af ‘Dronepapirerne’. v/Jeffrey Steinberg m.fl.

Jeffrey Steinberg og Matthew Ogden gennemgår intrigerne bag torsdagens Benghazi-høring med Hillary Clinton og den fortsatte uenighed og implikationerne af offentliggørelsen af Intercepts »Dronepapirer«. … American Civil Liberty Union har krævet officielle Kongresundersøgelser, især af de utallige civile, der er blevet dræbt som en del af dette program – dette målrettede dræberprogram – der alle er klassificeret under fjendtlig kæmperstatus til trods for det faktum, at der ikke engang er nogen, der kender identiteten af det store flertal af disse mennesker, der blev dræbt.   

Jeffrey Steinberg and Matthew Ogden reviewed the machinations behind Thursday’s Benghazi hearing with Hillary Clinton and the continued fall out and implications of the publication of the Intercept’s “The Drone Papers.”

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening. It’s October 23, 2015. My name is Matthew Ogden, and I would like to welcome you to our weekly broadcast here of the LaRouche PAC Friday night webcast. I’m joined in the studio tonight by Jeffrey Steinberg from Executive Intelligence Review, and we’re here to deliver the message that Mr. LaRouche had to deliver when we met with him earlier this morning; only a matter of hours ago. Now, last week, for those of you who watched this broadcast, we discussed in depth the content of the so-called “Drone Papers,” which were published by Glenn Greenwald’s publication, The Intercept, along with Jeremy Scahill last week. And based on documents that were leaked or were provided to The Intercept by a whistleblower, a second Edward Snowden, from within the drone program itself. The content of those papers is horrifying, to say the least; but the implications of the release of the Drone Papers are continuing to resonate. And the effect is continuing to grow; especially as pertains to Barack Obama, who has presided over this policy during the extent of his entire Presidency. The ACLU has called for official Congressional investigations, especially into the innumerable number of civilians that have been killed as a part of this program — this targeted killing program — who are all classified under enemy combatant status, despite the fact nobody even knows the identities of the vast majority of these people who were killed. And there’s also a press release that has been published and released by former Senator Mike Gravel and also former Democratic Presidential candidate from the 2008 Presidential primaries. This press release was published on the LaRouche PAC website, as well as Executive Intelligence Review, and is available. And again, Senator Gravel takes this directly to the point; that this is the murderous policy of the current President, President Barack Obama.

Now, this is what the subject of our institutional question is for this week; and we’re going to begin by reading the text of that question, and then I’m going to ask Jeff to deliver Mr. LaRouche’s response, plus a little bit more additional background. So, the question reads as follows: “Mr. LaRouche, some officials within the Obama administration believe that the drone program is key to fighting the war against global terrorism. Others believe that the program is a clear violation of the US Constitution, and of international law. Please give us your assessment of the legal issues involved in the drone issue.”

JEFFREY STEINBERG: Thanks, Matt. As Matt said, we had a very extensive discussion with both Lyndon and Helga LaRouche earlier today; and I’ll get into some of the more legal issues that are on the table here, but I first want to just read you some things that are not quite verbatim quotes, but very clearly reflect the major thrust of Mr. LaRouche’s response to this question.

First, he said, were it not for the recent actions of Russian President Vladimir Putin, humanity as a whole may already have been lost. And this is clearly reflected in the British and Obama policies that came very close to triggering global conflagration, whether over the Ukraine situation or Syria. On the specific issues of the drone policy, what Mr. LaRouche said is if Obama is allowed to run loose, even on a reduced basis, it poses a grave danger to mankind. He gets by with murder; he’s a satanic figure, and he’s already been allowed to complete two terms in office. And furthermore, he is still killing people. The United States, under first Bush and now Obama, has become an unsafe nation with no competent leadership. Obama must be kicked out of office quickly, and Wall Street has to be shut down. If Wall Street is shut down, we can save the USA; but so long as Wall Street maintains its grip over the US economy, we’re doomed.

And Mr. LaRouche made direct reference to the personal aspects of President Obama, which he’s been identifying and actively discussing since the very early months of the Obama Presidency; precisely since April 11, 2009, when he delivered an international webcast and warned that the President had the personality of Emperor Nero. Someone, who had a severe narcissist disorder, and that this would pose a grave danger to the country and the world, if it went unchecked. Now, I think we briefly discussed last week, the fact that we know that one of the defining influences on President Obama during his early formative years when he was a preteen, was his stepfather in Indonesia; who himself was a real killer. He was brought back from graduate studies in Hawaii to participate in the Suharto coup and the mass bloodletting that followed. And there was household brutality, both directed against Obama’s mother and against young Barack Obama personally. These things have deep and enduring, scarring impact; and so much of the personality of the stepfather rubbed off on Obama. And we’re seeing the consequences of that in this drone policy.

I call all of your attention to the fact that in 2012, two reporters — I believe from Time magazine — published a book-length account of the 2012 Presidential elections. The book was published in 2013. And what they recounted was a conversation that President Obama had with some senior White House aides; it was after one particular incident in his long line of drone killings, where Anwar al-Awlaki — a US citizen — was killed in Yemen in a drone strike. Now, one could debate al-Awlaki’s role as a figure within al-Qaeda, and there are many things that could be said, but are not relevant to the topic here. The point is that an American citizen, by order of President Obama, was murdered in cold blood by a drone attack signed off on by the President; but as an American citizen, al-Awlaki was deprived of any due process. Now, mass murderers are subject to due process, to fair trials; but in this case, because he was on Obama’s kill list, despite the fact that he was an American citizen, he was murdered. Several weeks later, his 16-year old son was murdered, along with yet another American citizen, in drone attacks in Yemen. And, while the administration claimed that the murder of the son was not intended, but was a consequence of targeting others, it remains the fact that at least three now — I’m sure many more — American citizens have been murdered overseas by President Obama.

So, in this incident that’s recounted in the book by these two Time magazine reporters, Obama is quoted telling one of his close aides — boasting in fact — that it “Turns out I’m really a quite good, effective, killer. I never thought that I was going to emerge as a great killer, but here I am.” In the ensuing two years since the book was published, to my knowledge there have been no attempts by the White House to deny the accuracy of those quotes. They’ve attempted to explain it away, and complain instead about the fact that there are too many leaks coming out of the inner circle, but nobody has outright said that that was not Obama’s statement, those were not his words. So, you’re dealing with somebody, who clearly has the pathology of a killer.

Now, a week and a half ago, the German Bundestag, soon after the release of the “Drone Papers,” held hearings in which they brought two American former drone pilots to testify, and those hearings were serious and substantial. And, yet, here we are, two weeks after the release of the “Drone Papers,” and there’s not been a public hearing; there has not been a word to speak of, from any members of Congress. We know that there’s pressure from ourselves, from groups like the ACLU, for some kind of congressional hearings, but the fact of the matter is, that the dis-functionality of the two political parties, and the dis-functionality of Congress as the result of that, has meant that President Obama has literally been able to get away with murder, and continues to do so, right up to this moment.

So, the fact of the matter is, that the drone program, as we’ve now been given a very in-depth window into it, through the House Intelligence Committee’s review of the Executive Branch procedures — of the various Obama guidelines on how to manage the drone program — we know that none of these things have actually worked; that this is a reckless, “Murder, Inc.” operation, that violates a 1975 ban, signed by President Gerald Ford, against assassination. And the fact that these assassinations are simply referred to as “targeted killings,” does nothing to mitigate the fact that President Obama has been guilty of mass-murder. And there’s an entire structure of government that is complicit in that process. And the guilt spreads beyond the U.S. borders, and becomes clearly another clear bit of evidence that President Obama has been, from the very outset and remains to this moment, a British agent. Mr. LaRouche pointed to the specific role of Valerie Jarrett as one of the key British agents within the Obama inner circle. But let’s look a bit further at the testimony that was delivered before the German Bundestag. What one of the two drone pilots testified, was that there’s an entire international network that has all been involved in working up the targeting information, and feeding in key data to facilitate the mass-murder operations that are carried out under this drone program. In particular, there is a working intelligence-sharing alliance, known as “Five Eyes.” These are the national intelligence services, the technical intelligence services, of the United States — in this case, the National Security Agency — the services of Canada, Great Britain, Australia, and New Zealand. In other words, four countries: Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, which are not just simply members of the British Commonwealth, but are countries where Queen Elizabeth II is the Sovereign; where in each case, those countries are run by a privy council that is appointed by, and reports directly back to the British Monarchy, in this case Queen Elizabeth.

So, you have the United States and the British Monarchy participating as a single, seamless entity, in gathering the targeting data that has been used in this mass drone killing program which began right at the very outset of the Obama Presidency.

And, again, what we heard in the Bundestag testimony, and we’re yet to see a moment of congressional hearings on this, up to this moment, is that those five agencies, with other assistance — the German Federal Intelligence Service (BND) was involved in this program as well. They’ve developed the technique to use the GPS functions on cell phones to track down the exact locations of where a particular cell phone is, at any given moment, and in fact, the drone kill program targets cell phones, which have been “associated” with people on the kill list. But the ability to verify that the person holding that cell phone, at the moment, that the drone strike takes place, is the actual target, is something that doesn’t function. There’s very little evidence that there has been much consideration about whether or not they’re even going after the right targets.

So, in effect, we’re dealing with an even more out-of-control drone program, where all of the guidelines that were established by President Obama and the administration, at the very beginning, for how to conduct the drone warfare, fully implemented, it would not make any difference, from the standpoint that these are war crimes, and crimes against humanity, and represent instances of mass murder. The fact of the matter is, that even those limited guidelines — for example, if an individual can be captured and interrogated, rather than killed, that’s preferable — well, throw that out the window right away. There’s never been any effort, once you’re on the kill list, you are a target, and, within a 60-day period, if feasible, you will be gone after, and you will be dead, or perhaps someone else at that moment carrying your cell phone, will be dead.

So, the program is absolutely unconstitutional, is a clear violation of the UN Charter, and is not only illegal and should be the basis for President Obama’s immediate removal from office, but let’s go one step further. There should be no presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, whether in U.S. Federal Court, or in The Hague, for these heinous crimes. Now, the bankruptcy of the U.S. governing institutions, the failure of Congress to instantly take up this issue, the failure of the federal courts to act against this drone program in a decisive way, has meant that the prospect of justice under this situation right now in the United States, is gravely impeded.

So, what do we find out? In Germany, Somali family members and Yemeni family members of individuals killed in the drone warfare have filed lawsuits against both the German and American governments. There’s no attempt to get at justice in the U.S. court system, because of how badly the whole structure’s been corrupted since George W. Bush, and even more so under Obama. So, the situation is that families seeking justice are going to the federal courts in Germany, in Cologne, and are filing against the German and U.S. governments. The German government is clearly complicit in this. The Ramstein Air Force base is one of the major hubs of the U.S. drone operations, and it’s being done with the complicity and cooperation of the German government.

How far does it go? When we looked at the Bush administration’s illegal renditions and torture program, it took a long time to get to the bottom of it, and find out how many countries were complicit and were cooperating in this crime against humanity and war crime. So we’re dealing here with a matter of a bankruptcy and a failure of institutions to live up to their Constitutional responsibilities. And that’s where you, the American people, have an enormous amount of responsibility. The evidence against President Obama and the chain of command that he sits on top of in this drone mass-murder program is cut and dry. It’s been known for a long time, but now with the release of this hundred-plus page House Intelligence Committee review of the program, which contains previously-unpublicized details, the book of evidence is there. This President should be immediately removed from office. The crimes that are evidenced in this documentation alone go vastly beyond the crimes of Richard Nixon, that resulted in his forced resignation. Nixon was facing impeachment, was facing the activation of the 25th Amendment at the time that he wisely decided to resign. We’re in a situation, that is far more advanced and far more grave now, than we faced under Nixon back in the early 1970s. So it’s up to you to make sure that our institutions of government begin to function, and if we can achieve that, then this President will be removed from office, and the dangers associated with his continuing on the job, including the danger of thermonuclear war, will at last be removed.

OGDEN: Thank you very much, Jeff. Let me just follow up what we’ve begun to discuss here. As I’m sure most of you are aware of, the hearing of the Benghazi Select Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives took place yesterday, at which Hillary Clinton was called as a witness. This has certainly been a central focus of attention for a number of months now, leading up into this hearing. However, after literally hours upon hours of questioning of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, hardly any of the Congressmen, in either party, managed to get at the true issues. There were significant questions that were raised, certainly. However, even those who did raise those questions, for the most part failed to pursue their lines of questioning to the necessary and actually relevant conclusions.

First of all, why does Hillary Clinton continue to insist on covering up for Obama’s role in directly ordering her, on the night of the Benghazi attacks, to lie about the events that occurred that night — even though it’s been proven multiple times that she knew exactly what was really going on, that there was clearly, this was clearly a pre-meditated attack against a U.S. Government compound on the anniversary of September 11th, carried out by jihadist militants, as opposed to the made-up story that was then echoed several days later by Susan Rice, of a spontaneous demonstration in response to a video denigrating the Prophet Mohammed. Why does Hillary continue to cover up for the fact that Obama directly ordered her to lie?

And secondly and maybe even more significantly in a broad sense, where did the policy that led to the events that night in Benghazi even come from? As former Chairman of the House Permanent — or the House Select Committee on Intelligence, Congressman Peter Hoekstra, identifies correctly, in a book which he just released earlier this month, titled Architects of Disaster — The Destruction of Libya, the entire thing ultimately is Obama’s fault, in the continuing takeover of Libya, Iraq, and now parts of Syria, by these terrorist groups — ISIS and related — including those who attacked the compound that night in Benghazi, September 11, 2012, this is all a direct consequence of the decision that was made by Obama to invade Libya, to overthrow a sitting sovereign government, and to kill former President Muammar Qaddafi in cold blood. And, as Congressman Hoekstra makes the point, Qaddafi was our ally in the war on radical jihadist terrorism — very reminiscent of the policy now being carried out by Obama against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, today, exactly the same scenario. Makes you wonder where Obama’s true allegiances lie.

Now, as I said, the majority of the members of Congress who had the opportunity to question Hillary Clinton during the Benghazi hearing yesterday completely failed to address these two crucial points. But, virtually simultaneously with the hearing taking place on Capitol Hill yesterday, in Russia, in Sochi, Russian President Vladimir Putin was addressing a gathering of the Valdai international discussion club in Sochi, and he did address precisely these issues, in very direct terms, denouncing Obama’s policy in Libya and in Syria, of supporting and arming the very terrorists that we’re supposed to be fighting against in the interest of using them to overthrow yet another sitting president, the government of Assad. And in addition, President Putin addressed the even broader question of the generally imperialistic outlook now being typified by Barack Obama, which is leading mankind right now to the very real danger of total self-destruction through global nuclear war.

What Putin started his speech by focusing on, was the question of the history of the fundamental notions of war and peace themselves. He said it’s a proper subject for a Russian president to address, since Leo Tolstoy wrote a book called War and Peace. But he said that for centuries, the concept of peace had been based on the notion of the balance of power, for better or for worse. But now, in a world of nuclear arms, and thermonuclear arms, he said, the traditional ideas of peace from this standpoint can no longer function. We need a new concept, a new paradigm, a post-war, at least, vision. He said any major war today would not bring victory to either party, but would only end in the guarantee of mutual total destruction. The only thing that’s protected humanity from this terrible fate, he said, over the last 70 years, are the principles of international law that were established under the framework of the United Nations following the Second World War, as well as the general sobriety and self-control of those leaders who have found themselves operating on a global stage, such as during the Cuban Missile Crisis with President John F. Kennedy. However, he said, now we’ve reached a point where some powers are pursuing a model of unilateral domination of the planet, and the danger that a military situation may get out of control, and just such a mutually-destructive nuclear war be unleashed, has now become all too real. And the emergence of the doctrine of what he called the disarming first strike — be it nuclear or even non-nuclear — has further skewed this postwar balance of power and the system of international law, which has protected mankind since the end of World War II, and has further increased the possibility of the outbreak of a devastating global conflict. And he said, there are those who possess the illusion that there exists the possibility of victory in such a world conflict, without the irreversible, unacceptable consequences that would follow such a nuclear war. So for this reason, he said, you’ve seen a general weakening of the underlying psychological aversion to the idea of war itself, which has gripped previous generations; and the very perception of war has been changed, turned into an almost media entertainment. As if, he said, nobody actually dies in a conflict; as if people do not suffer and cities and entire states are not destroyed. But this is the reality of war.

It’s very significant, as I think Mr. LaRouche has pointed out previously, for President Putin, whose family died and suffered in the siege of Leningrad, the realities of what war means are much more real than what are generally held by those such as the American generation of an Obama or some sort. But I just want to read one quote from what President Putin had to say, just to bring this to the point of what necessarily needs to be addressed when we look at the background of what has brought us to this point. This is a quote; he said, “Why is it that the efforts of say our American partners and their allies in their struggle against the so-called ‘Islamic State’, has not produced any tangible results? Obviously, it’s not for lack of military equipment or capability. It goes without saying that the United States has a huge potential; the biggest military potential in the world. However, it is impossible to play a double game; to declare war on terrorists, and simultaneously try to use some of those same terrorists to arrange the pieces on the chessboard in the Middle East according to what you perceive as your own interests. It is impossible,” he said, “to combat terrorism in general, if some terrorists are used as a battering ram to overthrow the regimes, that are not to one’s liking. You cannot get rid of those terrorists. It is only an illusion that you can come in and get rid of them later; clean up the mess. To take the power away from them, or reach some sort of negotiated agreement with them. And the situation in Libya,” he said, “is the best example of this.”

So, as I said, this really goes directly to the point here. If you’re serious about fighting to eliminate the danger of global terrorism, then perhaps you should stop arming and supporting the very same terrorists who you claim to be fighting against in the interest of using them to overthrow sovereign governments that are not to your liking. And to me this seems to be a somewhat more reasonable approach than running a drone program that ends up just killing a majority of innocent civilians; or perhaps releasing the 28 pages, documenting the role of the Saudis in supporting the 9/11 hijackers would be a good place to start as well.

But while Putin has made it clear that Obama’s policies in Libya were not exactly what they expected when they supported the UN resolution, this disastrous consequence that has taken place as a result of that invasion and that regime-change operation, is definitely not a mistake that Putin is going to let happen again in the case of Syria. And thus, we see the crucial and decisive actions that have been taken in the recent weeks in what’s being characterized by some as President Putin’s third Chechen war; because of the extent of the overlap and the interconnection between those whom Putin successfully fought against in Chechnya in 1999, and those who he is now fighting in Syria today, among the Islamic State and otherwise.

So, Jeff, I know that Mr. LaRouche has put significant emphasis on the importance of this historical view of the current situation during our discussion with him earlier today. And this is the type of background which he — Mr. LaRouche — has a very unique view of, due to his experience and his personal role that he played as a central figure that he played throughout much of this history. So, while many people have a tendency, including in the US Congress itself, to exhibit a very short-sighted and shallow insight into these types of questions — including even the questions concerning the current Benghazi investigation — maybe you could give a little bit of a deeper background and insight into what the true questions are that are at hand; along the lines of what President Putin was indicating in his speech.

STEINBERG: You’ve got to start from the standpoint of understanding the British factor, the British problem, and how that has impacted on the sweep of recent history. And it requires getting away from the idea that history is a string of successive events; these are processes, these are dynamics, and there are certain cardinal events that fundamentally alter the direction of history. And these are the things that people really have to grapple with to be able to really sort out and made sense of the deep, profound crisis that we’re going through right now. I think you’ve got to start from the fact — and this was a major subject of our discussion with Lyn and Helga LaRouche earlier today. You’ve got to start with at least a modicum of a sweep of recent history.

The fact is, that the last time that we had a viable and effective Presidency was with Ronald Reagan. And there were many caveats that have to be identified in terms of the Reagan Presidency. There was intention on the part of Reagan and on the part of an inner circle of close advisors and collaborators going into the 1980 Presidency — the elections and then Reagan’s inauguration in January 1981 — to fundamentally change the direction of US policy. We had been through a turbulent period of the 1970s; the watergating of Nixon, the end of Vietnam, the emergence of a Trilateral Commission government that brought us to the brink of nuclear war in the 1970s. The policy of that government and of the Council on Foreign Relations to being a process of controlled disintegration of the U.S. and world economy.

All of these had already taken place; and this was the backdrop to the beginning of a critical collaboration between Mr. LaRouche and President Reagan. There was a convergence of thinking and commitment to restore the American tradition; and to do it by presenting Presidential leadership. And it was in that context that on a number of leading issues, the leading one in particular being the LaRouche-Reagan collaboration on what came to be known as the Strategic Defense Initiative [sdi]. That was a shaping directionality for a sweeping change in the US Presidency and particularly in the major US global relations. There was a very real prospect with the LaRouche-Reagan-Edward Teller and other collaboration around the idea of a joint Strategic Defense Initiative between the United States and the Soviet Union, with allied countries from both blocs involved, to bring an end to the threat of thermonuclear war. Reagan doggedly pursued that, even in spite of the fact that within his first 100 days in office, there was a serious assassination attempt against him. And of course, many of you may recall that that assassin, John Hinckley, came from a family that was intimately associated with the Bush family. So, right from the outset, within that first 100 days, Ronald Reagan was gravely wounded; he survived and, in fact, did continue in the Presidency. And the high water mark of that was the SDI policy. Reagan had also intended to make a dramatic break with Wall Street that was symbolized by the fact that he and some of his Kitchen Cabinet advisors were in depth involved in discussion with Mr. LaRouche over firing Paul Volcker and fundamentally changing the whole nature of the Federal Reserve System. And this became an issue that was a matter of outright warfare between Wall Street and London on the one side, and the Reagan inner circle on the other. The Reagan assassination attempt greatly weakened the Reagan Presidency and paved the way for George HW Bush to emerge as more and more of a dominant figure in the Reagan Presidency. They were never able to dissuade Reagan from pursuing the Strategic Defense Initiative that he had worked out with LaRouche; but nevertheless, Reagan was weakened, and many things that were promised at the outset of the Reagan Presidency were never able to materialize because of British interference. And that included the fact that British agent Yuri Andropov came into power in the Soviet Union and put the kibosh on the SDI collaboration. The entire effort against Wall Street and against the policies of the Fed, were basically shut down at the point that Reagan was shot, and had to go through a prolonged period of recuperation. So, you had a real Presidency with Reagan, despite the Bush factor, and despite the consequences of the assassination attempt. And there was a period of four years or so where on a number of policy issues, there was a Reagan-LaRouche cooperation; many of the details of which are frankly yet to come out in public.

We had the Bush 41 Presidency that was a disaster. LaRouche was railroaded into Federal prison; and for all practical purposes was expected to die in Federal prison. And that would have very likely happened had Bush been elected to a second term in office. What happened, however, was that Bush was defeated for re-election; and Bill Clinton came in. And there was a level of collaboration once again with the Presidency; there was potential with the Clinton Presidency to revive some of the core ideas that had been running through the Reagan Presidency, and reflected back earlier on the successful Presidencies of John Kennedy and before that, obviously, Franklin Roosevelt. But, Clinton ran up against a buzz saw. The British launched literally warfare against the Clinton Presidency; they manipulated the First Lady to be a factor that further disrupted. You had the factor of Al Gore as Vice President; which was as bad a choice as George Herbert Walker Bush was for Ronald Reagan. So, in effect, the Clinton Presidency never lived fully up to its potential; and towards its concluding year, at the point that Clinton was about to make a significant move against the preponderant system of London offshore global finance, he was gone after. He was set up; his Presidency was destroyed. He went through House impeachment, and at the end of the day, Clinton made the gravest mistake of his political career, by signing the bill that repealed Glass-Steagall.

Now, what’s happened since that point, with the George W Bush Presidency for eight years, and then now with the Obama Presidency already for seven years, is that the British have been in the driver’s seat in the White House throughout that 15-year period. And so, what President Putin identified correctly in his Valdai speech, needs to be fleshed out much further. It’s got to be understood that there has been effectively a British-Wall Street takeover of the Executive branch of the US government. It’s come to be completely dominant over the Republican Party and over the Obama wing of the Democratic Party.

So, if you step back and realize that the entire history of the United States has been a struggle against the British Empire, then you get an idea from a much deeper historical appreciation of how this process, how this dynamic has played out and brought us to the point that we’ve reached right now. Now, there are other examples that come up throughout history; even the history of the shaping events that established the American republic, its character, and the war against the British. At the very beginning of the 18th Century, you had a giant of a figure; one of the key figures who revived the entire Renaissance tradition in Europe, namely Gottfried von Leibniz. Leibniz was a key player in European political affairs. His interests extended to an extensive understanding and appreciation of China and of the commonalities between Confucianism and Western Christianity. He was moving to establish control over Britain to dismantle the empire system that was beginning to come into existence at that time. And it was with the death of Leibniz — and there were people waiting breathlessly to confirm that indeed he was dead. But with his confirmed death about 20 years into the 18th Century, that’s when the British Empire took off. Leibniz had been instrumental as an adviser in the British court, to establishing some of the key players who shaped and framed the United States; some of the leading governors who were sent over as Royal Governors from England during the period of Leibniz’s influence in London. You had Spotswood in Virginia; you had Hunter in New York. These were leading international republican figures, who were part of the Leibniz networks. Franklin was a student of Leibniz’s writings, and traveled to Europe in the 1750s to obtain access to some otherwise difficult to obtain writings of Leibniz. But Leibniz’s death was one of those cardinal moments in history that framed events that moved forward from there; just as there was a concerted move coming from the worst elements of the European oligarchy to crush the influence of the Golden Renaissance.

So, these kinds of critical historical events, which are really reflective of long-term processes, are the big challenge to be understood. If you’re going to shape history and define a viable future for mankind, then it’s very helpful to know from an historical standpoint, who are your friends and who are your enemies. In January of 1981, in fact on the day of Ronald Reagan’s inauguration, Executive Intelligence Review, Mr. LaRouche’s flagship publication, issued a warning forecasting that there would be an attempt to assassinate President Reagan within his first 100 days in office. This was not based on some kind of footprints of would-be assassins; but it was based on an understanding that the Reagan election represented a potential break from British control over the US Presidency that had been a dominant factor since the assassination of John F Kennedy.

We knew that at critical moments, the British have assassinated American Presidents in order to prevent break-out of the United States as a proper republican leader of the world. You had it take place early on, not with a President, but with a giant of the American Constitutional republic, Alexander Hamilton; who was assassinated by an undisputed British agent, Aaron Burr. You had the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, which doesn’t even need any further elaboration; it was a British assassination carried out by Confederate networks, but operating out of British intelligence centers, including Montreal, Canada. You had the assassination of President McKinley, who was reviving the Lincoln-Hamilton tradition at a critical moment; and was pushing back against British imperial operations. His assassination brought Teddy Roosevelt, the favorite nephew of one of the heads of the Confederate Secret Service — headquartered in London — into the Presidency. You had the assassination of Kennedy; a British assassination, for again, reasons that are too obvious to have to deal with in any detailed explanation here.

So, it was on the basis of that knowledge and understanding of the sweep of the US fight against the British Empire forces in the world, that drove us to issue a warning that there would be an attempt to assassinate President Reagan because of what he represented as a best hope for a return of the United States to its historic mission and its historic tradition and policy. We were, unfortunately, correct. It was about the 90th day of the Reagan Presidency that John Hinckley carried out the assassination attempt; and while Reagan survived it, it weakened the potentiality of the Reagan Presidency.

So, you’ve got to look at those kinds of historical processes and dynamics, and think through how these events play out. If you want to understand Benghazi, you can’t start on September 11th of 2012; you’ve got to go back to the fact that a British policy that was coordinated with rotten elements in France — the same elements that were directly involved in the attempts to assassinate President Charles de Gaulle a decade or two earlier — those elements, along with Obama. British directly, Anglo-French forces and Obama, decided to bring down Qaddafi and to unleash absolute Hell throughout North Africa and into the Middle East. Where were the weapons that fueled the Islamic State and the Nusra and other insurgencies in Syria coming from? They were coming from Benghazi; they were coming from the Libya that became an absolute Hell on Earth. An absolutely ungovernable area, because the British — with their French and Obama underlings — got rid of Qaddafi to unleash this process. To unleash a state of permanent warfare across the entire North African and Middle East and really the entire Islamic world.

So, if you don’t understand that British factor, it’s very difficult to understand why we are in the crisis that we’re in. If you understand that dynamic, and you understand that Obama — like Bush before him — was effectively a British agent; then you understand why it is an imperative that Obama is removed from office, and that the other major center of British influence in the United States — namely Wall Street, which is completely, irreversibly, unrepentantly bankrupt, has to be shut down. And that this is an urgent matter of life and death for the survival of our nation and for the world as a whole.

Putin understands the broad dynamics; he’s got to even further understand the real nature of the enemy. The enemy resides principally in London; and it’s the London controls and strings that are pulled in Washington, that are the major problem here in the United States. As LaRouche said in our discussion earlier, get rid of Wall Street; remove Obama from office. And that eliminates much of the British influence, the destructive influence, over the United States. Then we’ve got a shot at rebuilding the world and forging the kinds of alliances that are waiting for us: the BRICS alliance; the collaboration with Russia on bringing an end to this bloodshed and horror show throughout the Middle East and North Africa. The opportunities are all there, but step one is Obama must be removed. And now the book of evidence is there; it’s irrefutable, and Congress has to act. And secondly, Wall Street has to be shut down, cold; no compensation. Wall Street goes down; we put back Glass-Steagall, and learn the playbook of Franklin Roosevelt on how to rebuild an economy. If we can do those things, we’re in fine shape; the world is in fine shape. But if those actions aren’t taken right now, then we’re all in grave danger.

OGDEN: Thank you very much, Jeff. And what I want to do to conclude tonight’s broadcast with, is to read something which I think sums up in very cogent terms what Jeff just concluded with. And this is the Presidential policy statement from Lyndon LaRouche that was issued on this website earlier this week. And what Mr. LaRouche says in this, which he issued following the Democratic debate, what he calls “A Brief Statement on the Nature of Our Current National Crisis; and the Proper Framework for Approaching This Vital Presidential Election” is the following; and I’m just going to read it verbatim, from the beginning of where he makes the points about what actions must be taken. He says:

“First, the defining issue for today is the fact that Wall Street is hopelessly, irreversibly bankrupt, and there can be no serious improvement in the conditions of life for the vast majority of Americans until Wall Street is shut down altogether. The first and most immediate remedy for the bankruptcy of Wall Street is the reinstating of Glass-Steagall.

“The simple truth is that an honest appraisal of the disastrous collapse of real productivity in the US economy is that a large and growing majority of our fellow citizens are facing job loss, starvation, collapse of genuine health care services, the destruction of the educational system and an overall disintegration of basic infrastructure. This has accelerated under the Barack Obama Presidency, but it began before that, particularly during the George W. Bush terms in office.

“Any attempt to dodge this fundamental truth during the now ongoing presidential campaigns, by appealing to ‘issues’ or populist slogans, dooms the United States to total destruction in the very short term period ahead.

“Wall Street must be shut down totally. The entire Wall Street system is bankrupt. It must be ended. Then, we must do what Franklin Roosevelt did to overcome the Great Depression. Today, we face an even greater challenge, due, in part, to the decades of collapse of the productive powers of labor in this nation. Shut down Wall Street now, reinstate Glass-Steagall as a means of reconstituting viable commercial banking, and then begin a program of Federal credit to revive the productive economy, through capital investment in infrastructure and other vital programs. We must begin to reverse the collapse of our industrial economy, and we must train a new generation of young people to develop the skills to function in a modern, technology-intensive growing economy.

“This is what the 2016 presidential candidates must address. Any attempt to divert from this essential agenda is tantamount to surrendering to Wall Street and those who would see the United States disintegrate altogether.

“A segment of the American people, horrified by the clown show of last week, is demanding nothing less. Any candidate who fails to meet this standard does not belong in the race. This is not a popularity contest or a test of who can best pander to the worst pragmatic impulses of a beaten-down and terrified public. This is an election that will determine whether or not the United States still has the moral fitness to survive.

“I hear the American people crying out for a future minus the scourge of Wall Street. They deserve nothing less.”

And with that, I would like to thank everybody for watching our broadcast here tonight, and bring a conclusion to this webcast. Thank you very much. Thank you, Jeff, for joining me in the studio. And please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.

 




LPAC Fredags-webcast, 16. oktober 2015:
De lækkede ‘Dronepapirer’:
Brug chancen til at katalysere et presserende nødvendigt oprør,
hvis vi skal redde USA.
v/Jeffrey Steinberg

Som hr. LaRouche understregede, har vi nu en chance for at katalysere et presserende nødvendigt oprør, der kommer internt fra det Demokratiske Parti og de amerikanske borgere generelt imod alt, hvad Obama og hans team står for. Det er den presserende nødvendige handling, der må udføres, hvis vi skal redde USA; og hvis vi skal opbygge et virkeligt kvalificeret præsidentskab til at erstatte Barack Obama i det Hvide Hus, som De forenede Staters præsidentskab. Engelsk udskrift.

LaRouche PAC Webcast, October 16, 2015:

Take the Opportunity of Catalyzing an Urgently Needed Revolt

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening; it’s October 16, 2015. You’re watching our weekly Friday night live webcast from larouchepac.com. And we are broadcasting live tonight, at our usual time; 8pm Eastern, 5pm Pacific. And we thank you for tuning in. My name is Matthew Ogden, and I’m joined in the studio tonight by Jeffrey Steinberg of Executive Intelligence Review magazine. And the two of us had the opportunity to meet with Mr. LaRouche earlier today; and had a very important and necessary conversation that we intend to convey the essence of to you. He had a very concise message; and our aim tonight is to get that across to our viewership.

So, we’re looking at the opportunity right now, as Mr.LaRouche emphasized, of catalyzing an urgently needed revolt from within the Democratic Party and the American citizenry generally, against everything that Obama and his team stand for. And this is the urgent, necessary action that must be taken, if we are going to save the United States; and if we’re going to build a truly qualified Presidency to take the place of Barack Obama in the White House as the Presidency of this United States. Over the course of this week, the evidence against Obama has only continued to pile up. This is very clear evidence; and we intend to present this evidence in summary form to you tonight. This will include, but will be exclusively, significantly number one: The release by Glen Greenwald and by Jeremy Scahill in their publication, {The Intercept}, of what they’re calling “The Drone Papers”; a reference obviously to the famous “Pentagon Papers” of the 1970s, which incidentally were read into the Congressional Record by former Senator Mike Gravel, who has appeared on several forums with representatives of the LaRouche Movement nationally, recently. Number two, you have the continued fall-out from the savage, deadly, murderous bombing of the Doctors Without Borders (MSF) hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, under the orders and the command of Barack Obama; which the MSF organization is referring to explicitly as a war crime. And number three, in this context, we have the announcement by Obama just yesterday that he is extending the US perpetual-war military deployment in Afghanistan even further. And I know that Jeff will get into all three of these points more in depth tonight.

But first, what Mr. LaRouche wanted to begin tonight’s broadcast with, is the significance of what’s being referred to as the “insurrection” that has erupted from within a certain layer of the Democratic Party leadership — the Democratic National Committee — which came to a head around this CNN debate that was held in Sin City; Las Vegas, earlier this week on Tuesday. This insurrection is being led by none other than Tulsi Gabbard, a Congresswoman from Hawaii, who is one of the five vice chairs of the Democratic National Committee [DNC]. Our viewers might recall that Tulsi Gabbard made herself an outright, outspoken enemy of the Obama White House about two weeks ago, by very prominently denouncing Obama’s World War III policy in Syria on national television; stating that 1) the overthrow of President Assad would be a grave mistake, akin to the overthrow of both Saddam Hussein and Muammar Qaddafi. This is significant from Tulsi Gabbard, who is herself an Iraq War combat veteran. She called for the direct cooperation with President Putin of Russia in military operations in defeating ISIS and al-Qaeda. This was in the image of Franklin Roosevelt’s cooperation with Russia during World War II to defeat Hitler and the Nazis; which is by the way an echo of exactly what President Putin himself called for in his speech at the United Nations General Assembly.
And this isn’t the only policy which Tulsi Gabbard has openly disagreed with Obama on; she’s also a major and outspoken supporter of the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall. And this is a point that Mr. LaRouche stressed was very significant and must be emphasized.
So, it just so happens that Congresswoman Gabbard is at the center of the rebellion within the leadership of the DNC against the chairwoman of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who is an ally of Obama. So, according to an article in Bloomberg today, which is titled “Insurrection Erupts at the Democratic National Committee”, this has, in fact, been brewing for quite some time; but it boiled over this week when Gabbard was dis-invited by Debbie Wasserman Schultz from attending the Democratic Party debate in Las Vegas, because she had openly criticized the policy of limiting the number of these Democratic debates to only six.

Only four of them are before the significant primaries at the beginning of next year. And Gabbard also criticized the policy of punishing any of the candidates if they participated in any forums that were not sanctioned by the DNC. Now, what this is being called, and the adjectives that are being used in this Bloomberg article are “autocratic”, “dictatorial”, this policy by Debbie Wasserman Schultz. And there’s an open coup that’s brewing against her leadership of the Democratic National Committee. And I’m going to ask Jeff to get into is the implications of this.

I’d advise that people read some of the coverage that’s in this Bloomberg article. One very significant quote is by another one of the vice chairs, a man named RT Ryback; a former mayor of Minneapolis, who is allied with Tulsi Gabbard on this issue. He is outspoken, saying Wasserman Schultz is operating with dictatorial, autocratic power over the Democratic National Committee; her leadership must be questioned. And he’s almost at the point of saying she should be kicked out as the leader of the Party. Ironically, this is coming on the heels of the exact same treatment that was dished out to John Boehner on the Republican side.
So, what I’m going to introduce Jeff with, is just a quote from this article. And I think this sort of summarizes exactly what we have the responsibility to address here tonight. “Says one Democrat with close ties to the Democratic National Committee, ‘The next Chair is going to have to burn the place down and rebuild it.” So Jeff, how do we do that?

JEFFREY STEINBERG: Thanks, Matt. I think the critical thing to bear in mind here is that Debbie Wasserman-Shultz is nothing other than a total clone and voice at the DNC for President Obama. Go back to the beginning of the Obama presidency. Initially, former Congressman and former Ohio Governor Ted Strickland had been called by the White House, and had been asked to be the Chairman of the DNC, and had been told, “Wait by your phone, because you’re going to get a call from the President very soon.” He waited, and waited, and waited, and then several days
later, read in the newspaper that Debbie Wasserman-Shultz had been named instead as the party chairman.

As we understand this, this was the direct result of an intervention by Valerie Jarrett, by Michelle Obama, and it was a foretaste of many things that would follow from them. So, what she is doing to the Democratic Party is all being done on the basis of orders coming directly from the White House. Tuesday’s debate in Las Vegas was a demeaning insult to the institution of the Presidency. That’s not to say that everything that the participants in the debate said was demeaning, but the whole way that the debate was organized by CNN, which has no qualifications whatsoever to actually be hosting a debate like this, was turned into some version of the Barnum and Bailey circus mixed with the
Gong show. Every candidate brought swarms of people, probably right off the floors of the casinos half drunk, and they were being encouraged to scream and razz and make all kinds of noise whenever their candidate had something to say. It was shameful, it was demeaning, and what Mr. LaRouche said is that this was organized by the British. This wasn’t even done directly by President Obama. This was the kind of stunt that’s meant to demean the office of the Presidency, and people who participated in this process were by and large victims of a set-up that should have never ever been allowed to happen.

Of course, this is the same CNN that bailed out Obama four years ago, when Mitt Romney was about to nail him on what had actually happened in the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks in Benghazi, but instead, you may recall Candy Crowley jumping in on behalf of Obama, and shutting down Mitt Romney mid-sentence. So what you have here is an assault against the appropriate decorum and respect for the Office of the Presidency, and even though there were a few comments by Martin O’Malley, on two occasions, openly calling for Glass-Steagall, the reality is that the entire event
was a shameless circus, and the best thing to do is to make sure that this is forgotten as soon as possible, and that there is never again this kind of insult to the Office of the Presidency by allowing this kind of clown show to occur.

And Mr. LaRouche, during his Thursday night Fireside Chat with supporters from around the country, emphasized that we’ve got to return the Presidency to a constitutional framework. We’ve got to have qualified candidates, and we’ve got to assemble not an individual, not some personality or popularity contest, but we’ve got to assemble a qualified team of people, a President, a Vice President, qualified people to fill out the cabinet, so that we can get away from the horror show of the last 15 years, where 8 years of Bush and Cheney, and now 7 years of Obama, have all but effectively destroyed the institution of the Presidency.

Now the reality is that we can’t wait. The reality is that Obama must be removed from office in the immediate days ahead, and this is not a matter of trying to scramble around to find some pretext in which to do that, because Matt just mentioned at the outset, that the Glen Greenwald, Jeremy Scahill new publication, the Intercept, has published an extraordinary 8-part series, based on newly-leaked government documents. These documents were prepared after Edward Snowden had already dumped his material, and had already left government, and probably already taking refuge in Russia. But what these documents show is that President Obama is guilty of mass murder. The entire drone program that has been the hallmark, the entirety, of the Obama administration’s counter-terrorism program, has been conducted outside the framework of the U.S. Constitution, outside of international law, and represents perhaps the single greatest incident of mass murder in the modern history of this planet.

Now, that may sound extreme, but I would urge all of you to not just read the 8-part series of articles, but to go to the links to the actual documents that reveal the true nature of this Obama administration, completely lawless mass murder campaign. One of the points that’s made right at the outset, in the opening article of this series, is that since 1975 — and you can go back to the history of the revelations about CIA crimes, the Church and Pike Committee investigations — during that period President Gerald Ford issued an Executive Order and laws were passed, making it explicitly illegal for the U.S. President to order assassinations. And of course, President Obama, since the very beginning of his term in office, has been regularly convening Tuesday meetings at the White House, where they’ve been specifically developing kill lists of targets to be gone after. And so, rather than use the appropriate and accurate term of assassinations, President Obama and his team choose the word “targetted killings,” but the concept is identical.
Now, we’ve talked on a number of occasions in recent weeks, on these webcasts on Friday night, about the fact that General Michael Flynn, who was the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency and was fired by President Obama in the summer of 2014 for being a major obstacle to the kinds of illegal programs the Administration has been running since the beginning – General Flynn was interviewed by The Intercept to comment on the documents and to comment on his own first-hand knowledge of this assassination program. General Flynn had been the Director of Intelligence for the Joint Special Operations Command, for Central Command, and then became the head of the entire Defense Intelligence Agency. Here’s what he had to say about the Obama Administration’s program:

“The drone campaign right now really is only about killing. When you hear the phrase ‘capture or kill’, capture is actually a misnomer. In the drone strategy that we have, `capture’ is a lower case c. We don’t capture people any more. Our entire Middle East policy seems to be based on firing drones. That’s what this Administration decided to do in its counter-terrorism campaign. They are enamored by the ability of Special Operations and the CIA to find a guy in the middle of the desert, in some shitty little village (pardon my French), and drop a bomb on his head and kill him.”

Now to hear President Obama, you would think that the White House program has been surrounded by Constitutional lawyers who’ve been studying every step along the way, to make sure that everything involved in this program is legal. In a speech at the National Defense University several years ago, President Obama discussed the program, and again, quote: “The United States has taken lethal, targetted action against al-Qaeda and its associated forces, including with remotely piloted aircraft, commonly referred-to as drones. As was true in previous armed conflicts, this new technology raises profound questions about who is targetted, and why. About civilian casualties and the risk of creating new enemies. About the legality of such strikes under U.S. and international law. About accountability and morality. Drone strikes, he concluded, are effective and legal. Now, it happens that under pressure, particularly after news reports about his Tuesday kill-meetings at the White House, caused quite a stir, the White House issued a policy document. It’s in the public record, it didn’t have to be leaked out. It’s called “U.S. Policy Standards and Procedures for the Use of Force in Counter-Terrorism Operations Outside the United States and Areas of Active Hostilities.” I won’t bore you with the precise language of this document, but among the highlights, they say, “In every instance we prefer to capture rather than kill. We have precise standards for the use of lethal force, and these criteria include, but are not restricted to, near-certainty that the terrorist target is present, near-certainty that non-combatants will not be injured or killed, an assessment that capture is not feasible at any time of the operation, an assessment that the relevant government authorities in the country where action is contemplated cannot or will not address the threat to U.S. persons, and an assessment that no other reasonable alternatives exist to effectively address the threat to U.S. persons.” And they say, “There must be a legal basis for using lethal force, and secondly, that lethal force will only be used against a target that poses a continuing imminent threat to U.S. persons.”
Now, the fact of the matter is that these were strict rules for targetted killing that were promulgated by the Obama Administration, signed by the President himself, and as documented in The Intercept series, by commentaries by people like General Flynn, this policy has been violated in virtually every instance. So even by the criteria that his own Administration set forth, President Obama has been guilty of carrying out what can only be described as mass murder. Now, there are procedures for dealing with crimes of mass murder.
Number one, to the extent that the President is directly implicated in these actions, this is cause for immediate and obvious impeachment, and perhaps, because of the urgency and timeliness of this, it would be more appropriate to simply invoke the 25th Amendment. If you have somebody who has been living under the cloak of apparent civility and respectable position, but who turns out to be a mass murderer, then you’d have to conclude that that person was suffering from a form of socio-pathological insanity. That invokes the 25th Amendment immediately. And so, that’s the situation that we’re dealing with. What Mr. LaRouche said, is in this case, you would want to remove that person, President Obama, from office immediately, and then immediately commence with criminal proceedings for the mass-murders that he’s committed.

Now, among the documents that were leaked to the authors of this series of articles, is a document that was prepared by the House Select Committee on Intelligence, in April of 2012. It was called the Performance Audit of the Department of Defense Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR). And what this audit by the House Intelligence Committee concluded, is that the entire targetted-kill program was rife with violations, with failures to live up to any of the standards that would be appropriate under the Constitution, or even under the Obama Administration’s own guidelines, and that basically there was a mad rush to try to line up as much money as possible for these drone-kill programs, and therefore there were shortcuts, there was misrepresentation of the program, and in fact since the September 11 attacks, the Defense Department has spent $67 billion on putting together the ISR infrastructure that the Obama Administration has exclusively used for the drone killing-program.

Now, other comments on this. Again, from General Flynn. He said that the White House, for expedient reasons, abandoned its own guidelines. There were no attempts to capture. There were no attempts to work with local governments on setting up the circumstances to capture. There was no attempt to live up to the standard that to be a legitimate target for these assassinations, the individual had to oppose an immediate and imminent threat of terrorist attack against the United States. And what General Flynn said, quote, “We’ve tended to say, drop another bomb via a drone, and put out a headline that ‘We killed Abu Bag of Donuts’ and it makes us all feel good for 24 hours. And you know what? It doesn’t matter. It just made them a martyr. It just created a new reason to fight us ever harder.” Flynn went on to say that there was “way too much reliance on technical aspects of intelligence, like signals intelligence, or even just looking at somebody with unmanned aerial vehicles. He gave an example. “I could get on the telephone from somewhere in Somalia, and I know I know I’m a high-value target. And I say in some coded language, ‘The wedding is about to occur in the next 24 hours.'” Flynn said, “That could put all of Europe and the United States on a high-level alert, and it may just be total bullshit. SIGINT is an easy system to fool, and that is why it has to be validated by other INTs, namely like human intelligence. You have to ensure that the person is actually there, at that location, because what you really intercepted was the phone.”

And in fact, one of the things that was concluded in this in-depth House Intelligence Committee review of this drone-kill program was that in most instances, there was almost exclusively reliance on the tracking of cell phones, and so, very often, it was the cell phone that was the determinant of the location where the drone attack occurred. And in many instances, almost a majority of the instances, many innocent people who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time were killed, and immediately afterwards, even though these people were not known, they didn’t even know what their identities were when the drone-firing took place, they would immediately be classified as unknown enemy combatants. In other words, if you were there, you were de facto a terrorist, and it was de facto justified that you were a legitimate target for Obama’s assassinations.

Now, the documents also included a number of structural flow-charts. The point that the Pentagon and the CIA wanted to make, was that these programs did not involve a few people sitting around in a room, going through piles of what they themselves called “baseball cards” — photographs and biographical information on the people who were on the potential-target list. It was based on the data in these “baseball cards” that the President of the United States would sign the kill-order. And once the kill-order was signed — and by the way, it usually took on average 58 days from when an individual was identified by name to when he went through the process of investigation, surveillance, and his name landed on the President’s desk for a finding that this person should be killed. And then from that moment on, there was a 60-day time deadline for accomplishing the killing. I’m sure part of the reason for that is that every week there were more and more names being added, and the priorities were continuously shifting. But the fact of the matter is, that there was an elaborate chain of command through which this vetting process took place; chains of command within the military and the CIA. Then there was a chain of command which led up to what was called the Principals Committee, which are the leading members of the President’s Cabinet and heads of other agencies that have critical roles to play in this process. And then in every single instance, the ultimate decision was made and was signed off on by the President of the United States. So, in other words, every single person killed in this drone warfare program was authorized for assassination by President Obama.

Now, we know that there were a number of leading advisors, particularly John Brennan; who for the first four years of the Obama Presidency was the President’s Counter-terrorism Advisor right there at the White House — then he was made Director of the CIA. We know that David Petraeus, who was formerly a high-ranking military commander, brought over to the CIA, and who was found not only to have been engaging in an extramarital affair, but was caught passing massive amounts of classified documents to his mistress and biographer; and yet he only received a slap-on-the-wrist misdemeanor, and to this day is still a key advisor to President Obama. Petraeus propagated a series of orders, establishing the chain of command and the operational profile of at least the Joint Special Operations Command [JSOC] part of this kill program. But ultimately, everything landed on the desk of President Obama; and when he signed the kill order, the 60-day clock began to tick down, and that was when the operations in the field went into action.

We know, of course, that Anwar al-Awlaki — an American citizen — clearly someone who had an association with al-Qaeda, was put on the assassination list; and yet, as an American citizen, he was denied any of the Constitutional due process that all American citizens are entitled to. And so, al-Awlaki was killed in an American drone attack in Yemen; several weeks later, his 16-year old son and another American citizen were killed in another drone attack. The administration had to scramble to cover that up. And now there are at least some indications that Anwar al-Awlaki may have been targeted for cold-blooded murder; because he was an FBI informant, and in that capacity, knew certain secrets about how this whole process and program of targeting was working, and perhaps knew of certain government ties to al-Qaeda. We don’t know that, but there are court actions underway right now that may provide an even further light on the specific case of al-Awlaki. In Afghanistan, in Yemen, in Somalia, in Pakistan — those were the four major areas where this mass assassination was taking place; there were extensive drone bases, massive amounts of military equipment. But yet, in all of the instances, it would appear that more often than not, the criteria that the administration itself put forward were never in a single instance adhered to; and the collateral damage, the number of innocent people later, after the fact, posthumously declared enemy combatants was massive. We don’t even begin to have a total death toll, but for every individual on the Presidential-approved kill list, there were multiple numbers of people who were killed simply because they were in the immediate vicinity. And one aspect of the program evolved to the point that targeted assassination operations were conducted on the basis of activity profile, not even identification of specific individuals. In the case of Afghanistan, there were instances where drone-targetted operations were directed against weddings, simply because the drones detected a large number of young males holding up guns in the air and firing them into the air. Now that happens to be part of a fairly typical tribal wedding ceremony in Afghanistan; so we don’t know how many of these targeted assassinations were conducted on the basis of those kinds of activities.

Now, there was a report that was issued in 2014, that was done by General John Abizaid, who was the former head of the Central Command, and a lawyer from Georgetown named Rosa Brooks, who was a former attorney at the Department of Defense. And that report noted that there are “enormous uncertainties” in drone warfare, and that these uncertainties “are multiplied further when the United States relies on intelligence and other targeting information provided by a host nation government. How can we be sure we are not being drawn into a civil war; or being used to target the domestic political enemies of the host state leadership?” So, in other words, this program was completely out of control, off the charts; but was thoroughly embraced by President Obama from his first days in office – probably initially courtesy of people like John Brennan. But the fact of the matter is that a massive number of crimes have been committed. The official documents, including those classified documents leaked out to {The Intercept}, make it clear that there was an absolute, unambiguous chain of command. In other words, the way that law enforcement would map out the structures of a mafia organization that they were going to break up; and unambiguously, the godfather of this entire mass kill program was President Obama. And if that doesn’t constitute sufficient criteria for immediately launching impeachment proceedings or invoking of the 25th Amendment, then we’ve pretty much lost any sense of what our Constitutional republic is all about.

OGDEN: OK, I would like to just present the institutional question which we got in this week, which is very brief. It reads as follows: “Mr. LaRouche, the United States is to extend its military presence in Afghanistan beyond 2016. What is your opinion about the extension of our military presence in Afghanistan?”

STEINBERG: Well, I think first of all, you’ve got to consider the timing of this announcement. Regardless of whatever process there was, however long the deliberations were about making this decision, I find it extremely distasteful that the President chose to make this announcement just days after the United States had bombed the hospital of Doctors Without Borders in Kunduz. There are new developments just in the last 24 hours, indicating that some American or NATO either tanks or APCs — armed personnel carriers — had arrived on the site soon after the bombing had ended, and had basically plowed through the rubble. And at least in the eyes of Doctors Without Borders, this was an attempt to bury and conceal evidence of a major crime that was committed. We spoke last week about the fact that Doctors without Borders had issued a call under the Geneva Convention for a top-down investigation, and they basically say that the actions that were undertaken under the auspices of President Obama, constituted war crimes.

So I think if you step back, and think about the thrust of what we’ve presented here in the last half hour or so, about the nature of the drone program, and then situate the bombing of this Doctors Without Borders hospital within that overall framework, I think you’ll see that this situation is completely out of control, and lawless. In fact, one of the commentators who have been noting the horrors of this incident has pointed out that it may come down to the fact that President Obama’s only legacy is that he will have been the only Nobel Peace Prize award recipient to bomb another Nobel Peace Prize recipient — because Doctors Without Borders has also been far more legitimately granted that award.

Now, the fact of the matter is that the United States has been engaged in Afghanistan since 2001, since soon after the 9/11 attacks, and here we are, 14 years later, still debating the question of whether or not we’re on the verge of the Taliban taking the place over again. I think that that 14 year process, at an estimated cost to U.S. taxpayers of well over $2 trillion, ought to raise some serious questions about whether this policy is advisable to continue indefinitely into the future, even past the Obama Presidency. And one of the ways that the argument is being framed, for why the U.S. should remain and why NATO should remain, in Afghanistan, is the argument that there’s more training, there’s more assistance needed, but the implication is that there’s only a binary choice: either we stay, or we go, as if there were no other options on the table, which is emphatically not true.

There are some senior retired U.S. military officials, and others, who have recently proposed that there is a viable alternative, and that you have the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which is a regional security arrangement which involves Russia, China, all of the countries of Central Asia, and as of their last meeting earlier this year, it also includes India and Pakistan. And it’s virtually a certainty, now that the P5+1 agreement has been ratified both here in the U.S. and by the Majlis in Iran, so that the sanctions will be lifted in the months ahead, that Iran will be the next member country given full membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

Just look at that on a map. Every country surrounding Afghanistan is a member of the SCO, and again, within a very short period of time Iran, which borders on Afghanistan, will be included in that membership. Right now, they’re associate members, so in effect they’re already part of the deliberations.

What about having the SCO, which has a strong vested interest in the security and stability of the area, working out a coordination with the US and NATO for a hand-off of security responsibility, as well as economic development responsibility, to the SCO? China, which was one of the initial sponsors of the SCO, has a critical vested interest, because the entire One Belt, One Road policy that is the cornerstone of Xi Jinping’s international outreach, requires stability in exactly that area around Afghanistan. You have countries that are of the same ethnic background. You’ve got Tajiks and Uzbeks, and Iranians, Persians, who form a major part of the population of Afghanistan. You’ve got Pushtuns, who are also across the border in Pakistan. India has historically played an extraordinarily important and close role with the government in Kabul, and of course, Russia is gravely concerned about the security of Central Asia, as well as the Caucasus region of Russia.

So, it would be a sane and natural policy for the U.S., for NATO, to enter into discussions with the SCO, and propose an orderly transition, and develop a coherent strategy for bringing this whole 15 year crisis to an end. If you in fact go back to the original Brzezinski plans for conducting covert operations against the Soviets in Afghanistan, which preceded by six months the Soviets coming into Afghanistan, you see that this area has been affected by an even more than 30 years of war uninterrupted process. So there is an alternative. There’s a thoughtful, diplomatic, economic, security alternative, and one must wonder, if this option is not being considered, whether the real concern here is to keep Afghanistan safe for the opium trade, because 95 % of the world’s opium supply, at enormous profits, is coming out of Afghanistan.

OGDEN: Well, thank you very much, Jeff.

What we’ve now presented in the summary course of this webcast tonight, was what Mr. LaRouche asked for. It is high time for the Obama policy to go. The evidence has just been presented by Jeff and myself here on this broadcast tonight, and that evidence speaks for itself. However, the task still remains, as Mr. LaRouche has emphasized, that LaRouche PAC and responsible citizens across the United States, must also build a New Presidency, to lead the United States out of what is arguably the worst disaster that we’ve ever faced as a nation, after eight years of Bush and Cheney, and then eight more years of Obama.

It’s very clear, what Mr. LaRouche’s thoughts were about the Tuesday Democratic debate, and what Jeff said earlier about the CNN kind of clown show atmosphere that was created around that. But as people who listened to Mr. LaRouche’s fireside chat last night might have heard, he was also emphatic on keeping our vision clear as to what our responsibility as citizens is, not to just pick and choose among candidates, but to create what he calls a Presidency, and to conclude tonight’s webcast, I actually want to read what I found to be a very compelling section of Mr. LaRouche’s discussion on this question of the Presidency last night.

He said: “The point is that people usually think that we want a President. Now, according to our national law, we do get a President, one President. We also get a Vice President. But on the other hand, what we need is a team of citizens who are qualified to lead the formation and institution of a system of government under a Presidential system. In other words, you can’t just say, this is the President; now everyone’s going to listen to him. That’s not right. You have to have a President who is acceptable, who’s qualified to lead the nation, but no one person can control the United States as a nation efficiently. There has to be a team based on the kind of team that we had when we composed a Presidential system. It also means we depend in the way that we can deal with certain members of Congress, in the House of Representatives in general, and so forth.

“You have people who don’t always agree with each other, but we need that kind of office as a deliberation process, in order to have the kind of people of the United States find they have a core of agreement on goals and purposes which suit the requirements of the Presidency.

“Now the other part of that has a feature to it. When we create a Presidential system, we don’t create a President per se. We try, in the best features of our existence, in our history, our intention is always to introduce new concepts, more appropriate concepts, more brilliant, more fruitful than ever before. Maybe some people can come together as a team around that idea. They might be rivals, but our goal is to go to the higher level, the highest level of achievement, of the improvement of our system of government: to create a team of people who are qualified, and actively qualified, to conduct the business of our government as a whole. And that’s the way we have to look at it.”

So, lest we get too distracted by the personality contests, and all of the media hype that’s created by CNN and related organizations, I think it’s important to keep that idea is mind.

And that’s what Mr. LaRouche has devoted his entire career to, over the last 40 to 50 years of his public life. So we have the responsibility as leaders of the LaRouche PAC, and you have the responsibility as viewers of this broadcast here tonight, to cooperate with us in trying to bring that lofty and noble goal about.

I appreciate your attention to our broadcast tonight. I advise that you take the evidence that we’ve presented here, and let it speak for itself. Please share this as widely as you can. Get it around to your friends and neighbors, and continue to participate in all of the events that LaRouche PAC is hosting — from these Friday night broadcasts, to the Fireside chats with Mr. LaRouche, and the continuing activities in Manhattan, including the discussion that I know we will be engaged in again tomorrow, with Mr. LaRouche himself.

So, thank you very much for tuning in tonight, and please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.




LPAC Fredags-webcast 9. oktober 2015:
Skrid til forebyggende handling nu:
Glass-Steagall ind, Obama ud.
v/Jeffrey Steinberg m.fl.

Jeff Steinberg om Lyndon LaRouches vurdering af udviklingen omkring situationen med Rusland, Syrien, Obama og bombningen af Læger uden Grænser-hospitalet i Kunduz, ud fra et standpunkt om de nødvendige kulturelle ændringer, der skal til for at vende forandringerne i det 20. Århundrede omkring. Engelsk udskrift.

 

TAKE PRE-EMPTIVE ACTION NOW:

GLASS STEAGALL IN, OBAMA OUT

TRANSCRIPT

MATT OGDEN: Good evening.

You’re joining us for LaRouche PAC weekly webcast for October 9, 2015. My name is Matthew Ogden, and I will be your host tonight. I’m joined in the studio by Jeffrey Steinberg of Executive Intelligence Review, and by Jason Ross of the LaRouche PAC Science Team, and we, together with a number of others, had the opportunity to meet with both Lyndon and Helga LaRouche briefly before filming this recorded webcast.

What I would like to begin with is just to make the point: that this has been a week of mobilization by the LaRouche PAC and the LaRouche movement across the country, both with our continuing intervention into New York City, and with the deployment of a number of activists into Washington, D.C., including a number of activists from the Manhattan area, who descended onto Capitol hill on Wednesday of this week, to saturate Congress with Mr. LaRouche’s newest statement on the urgent necessity for the immediate action to shut down Wall Street with the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall.

This statement had quite a substantial impact on Congress, which is, itself, in the midst of total chaos in the wake of the resignation of John Boehner, and now with the surprise withdrawal of Kevin McCarthy from the Speaker’s race, who was the nominated, or assumed heir apparent, of John Boehner to replace him as Speaker of the House. This has thrown the entire Congress into chaos, and they were desperately in need of the leadership that LaRouche PAC was there to provide.

The text of this statement is the following, and I think it’s very short, and very concise, and it’s worth beginning our broadcast tonight by just reading this in full. It’s titled “For the Urgent Attention of Congressmen, Senators, and Other Members of the United States Government”:

Oct. 5—Key responsible Congressmen and Senators (and there are some), and other U.S. government representatives must meet at once, to issue Findings of Fact and Statements of Commitment roughly as follows, for immediate enactment into law, and into immediate effect.

  1. There is now an acute emergency which threatens to kill millions of Americans, primarily, and also citizens of other countries.
  2. This is due immediately to the bankruptcy of Wall Street. Wall Street is totally and irremediably bankrupt. The successive Bush and Obama bailouts and the rounds of “quantitative easing,” have only succeeded in making all of Wall Street’s values valueless, and finalizing its bankruptcy.
  3. If Wall Street is permitted to blow out again on its own terms, as now appears imminent, the result will be the worst panic in history, which will close down everything that remains of the U.S. economy. We will have mass death, on the order of the Black Plague which wiped out one-third of the population of Europe. Another Wall Street bailout, which Obama will demand if he is permitted to remain in office, would trigger a hyper-inflation just as deadly.
  4. Hence, Wall Street must be closed down pre-emptively by U.S. Government action, in the spirit of what Franklin Roosevelt would do if he were alive today. (Although the crisis he faced was far milder.) Only activities compatible with a strict Glass-Steagall standard must be allowed to continue.
  5. The Federal Government must issue U.S. dollars as credit to preserve the lives of the population and employ all the employable, in the spirit of Roosevelt’s kindred actions with Harry Hopkins.
  6. Over the slightly longer term, U.S. Federal credit must be used to rapidly raise the level of productivity of U.S. labor, through increased energy-flux density with scientific and technological progress.
  7. Finally removing Barack Obama from office would be an excellent starting-point for these urgent reforms.

So that went out all over Capitol Hill this week, and also across the country, with rallies from San Francisco to Manhattan, and elsewhere in between. And Obama is increasingly being isolated and abandoned by members of his own cabinet, vis-a-vis the Russian intervention into Syria; the split by Hillary on the TPP, distancing herself now, officially, from Obama on that, and also, with the dramatic announcement by Doctors Without Borders that they will be pursuing an independent investigation into whether war crimes were committed with regards to the sustained bombing, for over one hour, of the Afghan hospital. And that’s something that we will get into later in this broadcast.

So, in that context, I’d like to begin tonight’s broadcast by asking Jeff to respond with Mr. LaRouche’s remarks on the institutional question for this week, which I’ll read as follows:

“Mr. LaRouche. There are strong rumors that Vice President Biden will enter the race. Some observers believe key individuals associated with President Obama are supportive of Biden’s nomination. Some Obama campaign veterans are successfully helping Sanders’ fundraising campaign. In your view, is there a concerted effort at the White House to find an alternative to Hillary Clinton?’

So, I’ll let Jeff give Mr. LaRouche’s response to that.

JEFFREY STEINBERG: Thanks, Matt.

I think the reality of the situation goes way, way, way beyond the question of whether or not the Team Obama, the core group of advisors plus the President himself, have it out for Hillary Clinton, because there’s ample evidence that that’s absolutely the case. And, in fact, it’s been the case since the moment that President Obama offered Hillary Clinton the job of Secretary of State, which she unfortunately, very foolishly accepted. And so, is there animus between the Obama and Clinton machines, and family? No question about it. But we’re in a different universe. We’re almost on a different planet right now from the standpoint of the upcoming Presidential elections and events that are much more immediately at hand.

President Obama and the entire inner circles at the White House are in an absolutely frantic state of mind, and under those kinds of circumstances, one can expect that this President will make the kinds of colossal blunders, dangerous blunders, which could lead to general war,—and in fact, there are many indications of exacting that trajectory—and alternatively, will result in the kind of meltdown that will finally catalyze the long, long overdue drive to get him out of office.

Recently, when President Obama spoke at the United Nations General Assembly, there was a state of total shock and disbelief among the diplomats present, when they realized that Obama’s words were full of nothing but lies and hypocrisy. The United States was engaged in a bombing campaign in Syria, which was in violation of the most fundamental concepts of national security, of national sovereignty. The Syrian government did not invite the United States in. There was no United Nations Security Council action, and in fact, there has been no action by the United States Congress giving the President any authorization to carry out any military operations overseas.

So, in effect, the President’s behavior is completely lawless, completely irrational, and generally speaking, sociopathogical. And this is nothing new. Back in April of 2009, Lyndon LaRouche, in a nationwide and internationally telecast webcast, warned that the President had a severe narcissist personality disorder, and that the danger was that if he were allowed to continue in office unchecked, this would lead to a complete breakdown, and to a state of general war that could lead to a thermonuclear war of extinction.

Now we’re on the very edge of exactly that process. As Matt mentioned, we had a large delegation up on Capitol Hill several days ago, and in that discussion process that occurred with many, many members of Congress—around an outdoor rally and around a lot of private discussions—the striking shift in mood, particularly among Democrats, was that when we said: Obama must be removed from office, we can’t wait out the clock and run out the duration of his Presidency, Wall Street is bankrupt, the system is about to blow, and we are on the verge of thermonuclear war—the general response was no longer “Oh, c’mon, that’s impossible. It’ll never happen.” Now people wanted to stop and talk, and the question was not should it be done, but the question was how do we do it.

So, you’ve got an Obama White House that is increasingly being isolated from the rest of the world. You’ve had in the past days a pattern of response to the actions taken by Russian President Putin in Syria, where, instead of this pattern of permanent war, never-ending conflict, with no effort whatsoever to actually solve anything in a decisive way—the Russians have come in and are prepared to use military force, combined with diplomacy, to wipe out the Islamic State, and any other allied Salafist, jihadist forces, and this is a different mode of action.

What President Obama represents is the fact that, for the entirety of the Twentieth Century, we’ve been operating under a continuous degeneration of culture, and of intellectual and moral depth. We’re now at the point that we’re one and a half decades into the Twenty-First Century, and the disastrous course of the Twentieth Century has not yet been reversed.

You go back to the beginning of the Twentieth Century, the beginning of a century of perpetual war and economic breakdown, a collapse of productivity, and you see that mathematics replaced morality and physics and other science, as the basis for all major policy decisions. Clearly you had moments of exception: the Franklin Roosevelt Presidency in its entirety was a dramatic exception to this. But from the moment that Franklin Roosevelt died, we have been on a downward trajectory. We’ve lost the ability to expand productivity in the real economy. The levels of morality have gone downward with every successive generation, and now we’ve reached the bottom of the barrel, with both the Obama Presidency and with the level of overall cultural morality here in the United States.

Now, in our discussion with Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche,—and I should say, by the way, that this is now Thursday late afternoon, and we’ve prerecorded this broadcast, so there may be events over the next 24 hours before you’re viewing this broadcast that change things rather dramatically; it’s the nature of the period that we’re in, that things are changing on an hourly and daily basis.

But Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche recounted the fact that they were watching a show on German television on Wednesday evening, which was a kind of interview/interrogation of German Angela Merkel. Now as those of you who’ve been regularly following these broadcasts, and have followed the LaRouche movement over the years, are aware, we’ve been harshly critical of Frau Merkel: that she’s not been an effective Chancellor. She’s presided over some of the most disastrous decisions that have been made in Germany in the entire postwar period, such as the complete dismantling of Germany’s nuclear power sector.

But, she made the right decision under enormous public pressure, to not go into a xenophobic attack against the urgent needs of the refugees flooding into Europe from North Africa and from the Middle East, escaping the devastating wars that President Obama, and before him President George W. Bush, were absolutely responsible for.

So, Merkel was under vicious attack from some of the interviews on the question of why she was tolerating the flow of these Middle East refugees into Germany.  And why didn’t they just simply create refugee camps on the outskirts of Europe in the Middle East; virtually concentration camps?  And so Merkel, in her own quiet way, held her ground; and Mr. LaRouche’s comment was that basically she steadfastly maintained the view of the majority of Germans.  If you didn’t have Putin taking the actions that he has taken in Syria and elsewhere, and if you didn’t have a majority of the population in Germany sticking with the view that it’s time to open your arms and help out these refugees who are fleeing from wars that are not of their own making, but came from the disastrous policies of the West — particularly from Britain and the United States — we would be on the very edge of war; if not already in a general warfare situation at this moment.

You’ve got a stark contrast in personal experience and personal morality between President Obama and President Putin. Obama was brutalized as a very young child by his Indonesian stepfather; who was by all accounts himself a killer, and who brutalized both Obama’s mother and himself to the point that eventually the mother decided to get him out of there and send him back to Hawaii.  These kinds of experiences can run very deep in your psyche; and can produce the kinds of socio-pathological behavior that we’ve seen.  The case of the bombing of the hospital in Afghanistan, which we’ll take up a bit later, is but one example of this.

So, we’re faced with a degenerate culture; we’re faced with a Wall Street that is thoroughly and completely bankrupt; and must be put through bankruptcy elimination.  It’s got to be completely shut down.  And we’ve got the problem, that, on the Republican Party side, you have a sick spectacle of candidates running for office.  And on the Democratic Party side, while you have individuals who have certain credibility and talent — Martin O’Malley quite clearly is aware of the immediate urgency of Glass-Steagall and the need to put Wall Street in its place; but there is an enormous gap — Mr. LaRouche emphasized this, that there is no one candidate who can be counted on to actually do the job.  To present a comprehensive solution to the gravest crises, that this nation and the world have faced in memory.  And therefore, what you need is an array of candidates who bring a certain kind of view and talent to the table; so that we can establish a Presidency under very grave circumstances that assembles the kind of necessary talent to be able to do the job.

Now in fact, certain things must happen immediately; and cannot wait for the Presidential primary elections, the conventions, and the elections in November of 2016.  What we need immediately — right now — as preemptively action before Wall Street blows out; we need to reinstate Glass-Steagall. Glass-Steagall is by no means the total solution; but it is the indispensable first step.  Glass-Steagall reinstated; full and complete bank separation will accomplish two things immediately. It will wipe out Wall Street, because once you separate out legitimate commercial banking activity from all of the gambling activity, and make it clear gambling debts will no longer be bailed out by taxpayers; at that moment, that entire Wall Street gambling bubble will evaporate.  It’ll be clear that nobody is going to bail it out; that it could never, ever be bailed out. It would be an act of moral horror to bail it out; and therefore, it will just disappear.  And under those circumstances, it will almost certainly mean the immediate demise of Obama.  Either Obama signs Glass-Steagall into law, which is highly unlikely; or his effort to block it on behalf of a Wall Street that’s already dead, will mean that he will be drummed out of office.  He will cause such an enormous backlash, that’s been building and building and building for so long already; that he’ll be gone. So, Glass-Steagall as a first step towards adopting the entire array of Franklin Roosevelt American System solutions to this crisis, is absolutely indispensable in the short term.

And the mood in the country is shifting, particularly among certain patriotic institutions.  The Pentagon is well aware that President Obama represents an horrific danger of war confrontation with Russia.  And now the center of gravity of that danger has shifted from eastern Ukraine to Syria; but the danger remains the same.  Secretary of State Kerry is trying to do certain things with the Russians to maintain a certain war prevention, war avoidance dynamic.  And he has institutional backing for those actions; otherwise, I doubt he would be simply taking them on his own.  But all of these measures, as useful as they are, are simply holding back the tide.  Wall Street must be put out of its misery; Obama must be removed from office.  The 25th Amendment, which provides for the means to remove a President who is no longer mentally fit to serve, is the most efficient means to carry this out.

But we are talking about events and actions that are going to have to be taken right away; immediately in the coming days ahead.  Because if those measures are not taken, and if the holding line actions being taken by people like Angela Merkel, with all of her flaws and weaknesses, in Germany; if there were to be a pushback against what President Putin is doing in Syria right now, then we’d go over the edge. And the driving factor in all of this, again, is that Wall Street is finished; it’s bankrupt, it’s doomed, it can never be put back together again. And either Wall Street is put out of its misery, or we’re headed for a moment of total and absolute chaos.  You had, for example, in Thursday’s Washington Post, an article by none other than Larry Summers — who was the architect of the end of Glass-Steagall; and he has an article called “The Global Economy in Peril”.  In the article, he says that the whole policy of QE [quantitative easing] can’t be done again; interest rates are at zero, the Fed has no ability to do anything.  The only option is to begin investing in capital investment in the real economy. Now, Larry Summers is a numbskull; and the idea that he’s even acknowledging the desperation of the present situation, tells you where things really stand right now.  So, we need Glass-Steagall immediately; that will bring about the end of the Obama tyranny, the Obama Presidency.  And nothing short of those measures is going to even remotely come close to solving the problems that are staring us right in the face.

ROSS:  Well, let’s take up the bombing of the hospital in Afghanistan.  As I’m sure everyone is aware, on Saturday, the U.S. military struck a hospital that was run by Doctors without Borders; commonly known by its French acronym MSF (Medecins sans Frontieres), in Kunduz, Afghanistan.  Destroying part of it, killing 10 staff members, 10 patients, including 3 children, and injuring 37.  This is a hospital that the coordinates of it had been communicated by MSF repeatedly to the U.S. military, Afghanistan, NATO — including only a short period before the attack.  After the bombing started, MSF tried to alert the U.S. military and yet the bombing continued for another 30 minutes.  So, I wanted to read some portions of a speech that was given by Dr. Joanne Liu, the President of Doctors without Borders, and ask Jeff to comment; put this into context for us.  So, Dr. Liu said:

“On Saturday morning, MSF patients and staff killed in Kunduz joined the countless number of people who have been killed around the world in conflict zones and referred to as ‘collateral damage’ or as an ‘inevitable consequence of war’. International humanitarian law is not about ‘mistakes’. It is about intention, facts and why.

“The U.S. attack on the MSF hospital in Kunduz was the biggest loss of life for our organization in an airstrike. Tens of thousands of people in Kunduz can no longer receive medical care now when they need it most. Today we say: Enough.  Even war has rules.”

Dr. Liu said, “This was not just an attack on our hospital — it was an attack on the Geneva Conventions. This cannot be tolerated. These Conventions govern the rules of war and were established to protect civilians in conflicts — including patients, medical workers, and facilities. They bring some humanity into what is otherwise an inhumane situation.”

She said, “It is precisely because attacking hospitals in war zones is prohibited that we expected to be protected. And yet, 10 patients including 3 children, and 12 MSF staff were killed in the aerial raids.

“The facts and circumstances of this attack must be investigated independently and impartially, particularly given the inconsistencies in the U.S. and Afghan accounts of what happened over recent days. We cannot rely on only internal military investigations by the U.S., NATO, and Afghan forces.”

She said, “Today we announce that we are seeking an investigation into the Kunduz attack by the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission. This Commission was established in the Additional Protocols of the Geneva Conventions and is the only permanent body set up specifically to investigate violations of international humanitarian law.”

So, I’d like to ask Jeff to put this into context, and let us know how to think about this.

STEINBERG:  First of all, Mr. LaRouche completely endorses the need for the kind of investigation that will presumably be carried out by this body under the Geneva Convention; because it would be a terrible tragic mistake to carry out an investigation that works from the bottom up.  This was a policy action, and ultimately it was a policy action of the Obama administration; and as Mr. LaRouche put it, it is characteristic of the state of mind of the President himself.  I don’t have to remind regular viewers of this broadcast about the Tuesday kill list sessions; or about the fact that at least four American citizens have been willfully put on those kill lists and murdered without any due process whatsoever.  These are crimes against the U.S. Constitution, crimes against humanity.

So, that’s the character of what we’re dealing with. Remember the decision that was consciously made by President Obama, Prime Minister Cameron, and former French President Sarkozy, when they had Muammar Qaddafi actually ready to be detained; and the decision instead was made to kill him.  To have him murdered in cold blood in order to accelerate the kind of chaos that ensued; and particularly the targeting of Russia and China that followed off of that.  So, these are important contextual factors to take into account, that cry for a full-scale actual independent investigation.

Now, one that I think must be factored in, as this serious investigation goes forward, is that there’s a recent prehistory of relations between President Obama and Doctors without Borders. Back six months ago, during an earlier phase of the negotiations around the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), Doctors without Borders put out a policy statement in which they said that unless the entire TPP agenda relating to pharmaceuticals was changed, they would campaign aggressively against it; because the agreements that were under discussion — some of which were leaked by Wikileaks, and that’s about the only transparent public revelation about what this treaty actually says — but in the section relating to pharmaceutical patents, effectively they shut out the ability of generic drug manufacturers to actually do their job.  And the Doctors without Borders estimate was that one-half billion people would be shut out of access to vital, lifesaving generic drugs under the terms of TPP.  To my knowledge, there’s been no change in that aspect of the treaty, which the Obama administration rammed through earlier in the week. So, you’ve got a context here, where what happened with Doctors without Borders, issuing a clarion call to defeat one of President Obama’s signature legacy efforts cannot be ignored when you have to deal with taking into account the psychology of this President.

Now, I think it’s also very important to once again look at the events that are going on, the backdrop — the psychological context — for understanding this brutal attack in Kunduz. Because look, the initial comments coming out of the administration; they made no attempt whatsoever to deny what happened.  They just simply tried to issue a blanket statement that the Taliban took over Kunduz, and therefore, everyone living in that city could be presumed to be a terrorist.  Now, I mean, that kind of madness is, again, unfortunately typical of the kinds of squirming logic that are used by this White House, this President to justify actions that do belong before the International Court of Justice for War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity.

So, then in contrast to that, you’ve got the actions that the Russians have taken in Syria.  They’ve been invited in officially by the Syrian government; they have formed a treaty agreement, in effect; a Memorandum of Understanding among Syria, Russia, Iran, and Iraq, to decisively go after and wipe out the Islamic State, the Army of Conquest, the al-Nusra Front — all of the groups that share a radical Salafist, jihadist commitment. And so, whereas the United States and the so-called coalition of 60 countries has been playing both sides of the fence; carrying out minor little incidental attacks against the Islamic State, supporting the Kurds here a little bit, doing certain other things.  Those same countries have been instrumental in actually going after and supporting the Islamic State, because as President Bush said way back in the summer of 2011, “Assad must go.”  The Saudis are behind the Army of Conquest; they created it, they’ve poured money and weapons into it.  They’re part of the so-called coalition against the Islamic State; but the core of the Army of Conquest — backed by the Saudis — is the al-Nusra Front, which is al-Qaeda.  So, in other words, the United States is part of a coalition which has absolutely no intention whatsoever of eliminating the threat to humanity posed by the Islamic State.

You have members of Congress — most recently Tulsi Gabbard — who said, look you might not like everything that Russia does, but back in World War II, there was an agreement that the threat to mankind represented by Hitler and the Axis powers was so great, that the only viable option was to work with the Soviet Union, to work with Stalin, to defeat Hitler and defeat the Nazi cause.  And as Mr. LaRouche emphasized, it was in fact the Soviet involvement that was decisive in defeating Hitler.  If it were not for the suffering of the Russian people — 22 million killed, for starters — and if it were not for the kinds of actions at places like Stalingrad, the outcome of World War II would probably have been very different; even despite Roosevelt’s Arsenal of Democracy.

So, now you’ve got Russia moving into Syria.  And very clearly, if you study the 2nd Chechen war, which took place soon after Putin became President, if you look at the 2008 Georgia war, you know that the Russians aren’t going in there to fight to a stalemate.  They are going in there for a total victory; whereas the United States has not even entertained the concept of total victory in the period following the death of Franklin Roosevelt.  We had a total victory concept in World War II; we abandoned it.  Vietnam was the new Rand Corporation conflict resolution, systems analysis mode of warfare; where mathematics are the dominant factor.  Never a concept of victory.  The real crisis going on right now between the United States and Russia in Syria has nothing to do with no-fly zones, or areas of operation, or anything like that.  The difference is that Russia is going in for absolute, decisive victory over the terrorists; and as Lavrov said pointblank in his discussions with Secretary of State Kerry very recently, he said, “If it walks like a terrorist, if it quacks like a terrorist, then it is a terrorist; and we’re going to treat it that way.”  So, these shades of gray differences between al-Nusra, the Army of Conquest, and ISIS, are outside the Russian concept of war.

So, Putin is going in for the kill.  Over the last 48 hours, Russia — in conjunction with Syrian military, as well as Iraq and Iran — has launched an air-land-sea total offensive against the terrorist infrastructure in Syria.  It’s changed the rules decisively; it’s changed the likely outcome of the entire situation.  And since the Obama administration and President Obama personally never abandoned the idea that the first priority is to get rid of President Assad and worry later about the consequences, what the Russians have done has stolen the moment completely.  In warfare, victory is very often measured by the ability to anticipate and know what the other command is thinking and doing; and to move on a flanking basis way out ahead of them and catch them by surprise.  That’s what happened this week.  The fact that the Russians have launched cruise missile strikes on terrorist targets inside Syria from 900 miles away, from four ships in the middle of the Caspian Sea accessing Iranian and Iraqi airspace en route into Syria, indicates that there is a serious military operation here.  Yesterday, the New York Times finally acknowledged that the Russian war plan in Syria has been mapped out in partnership with Iran and Iraq and Syria, and probably with Hezbollah, for at least the past four to six months.  The United States was blindsided by and large to these developments, because President Obama — in his supreme arrogance — presumed that the “coalition” was the only game in town.

So, now the Russians have stolen the march, and are committed to a dynamically different policy; and there is a very strong possibility that the Russians will succeed, because they’re committed to victory.  Whereas, the policies coming from the Obama administration and the Bush administration before that, were simply a commitment to perpetual wars; wars that ultimately get measured in the body count.  How many people are killed?  How long is the war sustained?  How much infrastructure and economic capacity can be permanently destroyed?  Already, much of the middle class of Syria, which was a modern secular large middle class country, have been driven out.  So that the brain drain on Syria is in itself another major kind of crisis.  These are the kinds of calculations that have dominated the thinking of the 20th Century:  population wars; Malthusian methods of reducing population in absolute terms; breaking down any prospects for genuine scientific and technological progress and advancement; no increase — in fact a net collapse — of real productivity. That’s been going on pretty much nonstop since the death of Roosevelt.

So, Obama is carrying out a policy that’s doomed to fail; and could very well bring the world to the very brink of thermonuclear war.  The Russians are carrying out a strategic and military flanking operation with a large element of diplomacy thrown in as well.  Turkey has already worked out de-confliction agreements with Russia; and the acting Prime Minister of Turkey, Davutoglu, said yesterday that Russian/Turkish relations are perfectly fine.  Syria will not interfere with the Russian and Turkish neighborly cooperation.  There was a high-level military delegation from Russia in Israel, talking about the fact that Israel no longer has carte blanche to carry out bombing attacks inside Syrian territory against Hezbollah targets.  So, you’ve got Iraq now saying that they want Russia to come in as the primary ally in the war against the Islamic State.

The former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency [DIA], Gen. Michael Flynn — whom we’ve talked about on a number of our recent shows — who came out and blew the whistle on the fact that Obama supported the growth of al-Qaeda in Iraq, and ultimately the Islamic State, and refused to take DIA warnings seriously because it interfered with his plans of overthrowing Assad; even if it meant being in bed with the very people who did the 9/11 attacks in 2001, and then did the Benghazi.  So, General Flynn was interviewed several days ago on Russia Today; and he said pointblank “We must be working with Russia.  Russia has more strategic interests in defeating the Islamic State in Syria than the United States does by far.”  There are thousands — an estimate of 2500 to 5000 — Chechen and other Russian Muslims who’ve been recruited into the Islamic State, the al-Nusra Front, and are now fighting in Iraq and Syria.  And if they are not defeated right there in the Middle East, they will go back to Russia; and Russia will be facing an absolute hellish situation. So Putin, whose parents suffered greatly during the 2nd World War, as almost all Russians did; Putin, who lost a brother in the 2nd World War, has that kind of sense of morality to be willing to wage a total war to defeat an enemy that is clearly the enemy of humanity.

So, if you put all of those elements together, and then go back to the question of the investigation, and the need for an investigation, into the hospital bombing in Kunduz; I think it’s very clear that the findings of that investigation, if they are allowed to consider the full top-down implications, will be extremely important and will be extremely bad news for President Obama.

OGDEN:  Well, with that said, I want to bring a conclusion to this evening’s broadcast.  I want to thank both Jeff and Jason for joining me here in the studio.  And I think we can proceed with a substantial amount of clarity as to the dramatic nature of the current situation, and how important the intervention that LaRouche PAC and the LaRouche movement nationally have at this present time.  So, the mobilization that we initiated this week I think will continue into this following week; and if you haven’t yet, please take the statement that I read at the beginning of the broadcast tonight — the Urgent Message to Congressmen and Other National Leaders — and circulate it as widely as you can. We need to continue to spread this as widely as is possible; and take the proceedings of also the Fireside Chat that Mr. LaRouche continues to do on Thursday nights and his discussion with the group up in Manhattan on Saturdays.  And make sure that you are getting as many people as you can to study this in dept and to join our mobilization.

So, with that, I’d like to thank you all for listening; and stay tuned to larouchepac.com.  Good night.

 




LPAC Fredags-webcast 2. OKTOBER 2015:
Verden er et bedre og tryggere sted uden Wall Street

Helga Zepp-LaRouche-pressekonference i Kina: “Den Nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen” udgivet på kinesisk. Wall Street er dømt til snarlig undergang, færdig; Indfør omgående Glass-Steagall, forebyggende! LaRouche om koalitionen mod ISIS: Gør det!  Der er en global, strategisk alliance: En Geneve III-politisk løsning på krisen i Syrien vil nu være mulig. Engelsk udskift.

LaRouche PAC Webcast, October 2, 2015
        [proofed against the audio]

The World Is a Better and Safer Place Without Wall Street:
Dump Wall Street, Get Glass-Steagall, Bring Back Hamilton

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening. It’s October 2, 2015. My name is
Matthew Ogden, and you’re joining us for our weekly webcast here
from larouchepac.com. We are recording here a few hours before
live show time, just to let you know, in case anything drastic
changes, but we are fresh from a discussion which we had with Mr.
LaRouche earlier today. I’m joined in the studio by Jeffrey
Steinberg from {Executive Intelligence Review}, and Benjamin
Deniston from the LaRouche PAC Scientific Team.
Obviously, we’re convening here at a very momentous time in
history. This is a week which began with the events at the United
Nations General Assembly meeting, most significantly, the
speeches on Monday by both Vladimir Putin and President Xi
Jinping of China. Now that was happening on the inside of the
United Nations building. On the outside, and in the entire
general area of Manhattan, the LaRouche movement was making a
very significant intervention which had a significant impact on
the proceedings of the United Nations, and the discussions around
that. And those of you who listened to, or had the opportunity to
listen to the 20th Fireside Chat with Mr. LaRouche that occurred
last night, Thursday night, you heard a short report by one of
the LaRouchePAC activists about what those interventions have
been. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imkd4v0hiiY]
Now, simultaneous with the United Nations General Assembly
meeting in New York City, another significant leader of the
LaRouche movement, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, was in China. She was
participating in a series of meetings, and very significantly,
got to participate in a press conference announcing the
publication of the {Executive Intelligence Review} Special
Report, “The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge,” which
was now published in Chinese, and is available in the Chinese
language, and we can be sure is already beginning to circulate
widely in China.
[https://larouchepac.com/20150930/eirs-silk-road-report-chinese-
presented-beijing-press-conference]
In the days subsequent to the beginning of this week, we’ve
seen a very significant, dramatic shift in world events, and I
know this is something which will be elaborated a little bit
later in our broadcast. But obviously we’ve seen the Russian air
strikes against ISIS in Syria, and this has created really a
chasm, a schism, inside the United States, where Obama himself is
finding himself completely edged out, and isolated, whereas
significant leadership inside the senior leadership of the United
States, including John Kerry and others, and also other members
of Obama’s own Democratic Party–Congressman Tulsi Gabbard is one
significant example of this–have distanced themselves, and
distinguished themselves, from Obama, and have said, this is a
necessary action on the part of Vladimir Putin, and one that
should be supported.
Mr. LaRouche was also clear to point out that Europe is
beginning to realign itself as well vis-à-vis these actions by
Russia.
Now, the primary point that Mr. LaRouche wanted us to begin
tonight’s broadcast with, was the implosion of the Wall
Street-based financial system. And this is what I’m going to ask
Jeffrey Steinberg to elaborate on, to begin our broadcast here
tonight.
Let me just paraphrase a little bit of what Mr. LaRouche had
to say in our meeting earlier, before I ask Jeff to come to the
podium. What Mr. LaRouche emphatically stated was that this
financial system is on the verge of a total implosion. It’s not
just a crash, but the entire thing is about to cease to exist.
And that means the entire system must be changed. What do we say?
Dump Wall Street! We need a total reorganization of this entire
bankrupt system, because we’re experiencing a general breakdown
of both the U.S. and the European financial systems. Therefore,
action must be taken to shut this thing down. Nothing can be done
to save it, he said.
The United States, as a nation, isn’t bankrupt, but Wall
Street is, and there’s no solution within the current form of
this financial system. The entire system must be put into
receivership. He said, either way, Wall Street is finished.
Either finished on its own accord, or finished because of a
decisive action that’s taken by patriots within the United States
government. It’s intrinsically bankrupt, according to any
rational physical economic standard of measurement, and all you
have to do is look at the facts. It’s happening now, and that’s
not a bad thing. It’s actually good, and we should make the point
that Wall Street disappearing is good for the future of the
American people.  It should have happened a long time ago; it
just needs to be cleaned up. The garbage has to be taken out, so
that we can get our people back to productive work.
So that was a short paraphrase of what Mr. LaRouche had to
say. I’m going to ask Jeff to come to the podium, elaborate a
little bit more on the context of this, to begin our broadcast
here tonight.

JEFF STEINBERG:   Last week a number of leading figures in
both Wall Street and the City of London were bracing themselves,
waiting to see whether the Federal Open Market Committee at the
Fed was going to begin the process of normalizing interest rates,
by raising them for the first time in seven or eight years by
one-quarter of 1%. There was {absolute} panic and pandemonium
over the prospect of that taking place, and statements were
issued from the City of London, the IMF Managing Director
Christine Lagarde, saying that if the Fed raises rates, it may
very well trigger a blowout of the entire system, and then the
Fed will be holding the bag, taking the blame for a financial
blowout.
Well, the simple fact of the matter is that the Wall Street
system is bankrupt, and by Wall Street system, I mean the
extended system of gambling that exists on Wall Street, that
dominates the City of London. You would got around the globe.
You’ve got Frankfurt. You’ve got Paris. You’ve got Dubai in the
Middle East. You’ve got Macao and Hong Kong in the Pacific region.
These are all centers in which there is virtually no connection
any more between the activities in the real economy, and the
gambling and churning of gambling money that’s going on in the
financial sector.
So there is nothing that can be done to avoid the fact that
at some point very soon, there will be a trigger incident. It
could be virtually anything. And it could be the beginning of a
very rapid, total evaporation of this entire mountain of debt,
and what Mr. LaRouche has also been emphasizing, is that the
danger in this situation is that if there is not immediate
pre-emptive action,  before that blowout occurs, then what you’re
likely to see is a period of total chaos, in which the bankruptcy
of the financial bubble creates a system of chaos in the real
economy, where you wind up with very destructive developments,
with social chaos, in which the real people of the United States
and other parts of the world become once again, but on a much
more dangerous scale, the victims of this kind of chaos.
So the point is very simple. There’s got to be pre-emptive
action now to put Wall Street in its entirety out of its misery.
And the simple first step to be taken in that direction is to
reinstate Glass-Steagall. By reinstating Glass-Steagall, and
making it clear, that this mountain of gambling debt will never
again be bailed out by taxpayers’ funds.
The simple fact of stating that means, that the entire Wall
Street system will immediately blow out.  Someone is going to
panic; someone is going to make a margin call, because so much of
this gambling debt, is built on borrowed money that the whole
thing will evaporate.  But the crucial thing is that you’ve got
to first create a clean and total separation between commercial
banking, which does impact on the real economy and this gambling
debt; this mountain of gambling debt that’s sitting there as a
parasite on the real economy.  If you make that separation by
passing Glass-Steagall in the United States, this will be the
basis for immediate action in other parts of the world.   So in
effect, by acting here in the United States, we will create the
conditions for a global Glass-Steagall separation, and then all
of this gambling debt can just evaporate.
Now, an illustrative case of this:  Back in 1998, when you
had the beginnings of a whole sequence of debt blow-outs, in
Japan, you had a large number of Japanese banks that were
basically bankrupt and were going to have to be put through
bankruptcy reorganization.  Under those conditions, those banks
posed a systemic risk, not just in Japan, but globally.  There
were some people in the Japanese Finance Ministry who understood,
and still had a memory of the difference between productive
investment, legitimate commercial banking activity, and the
gambling activities that had infected the whole international
banking system.
And so, those banks were basically audited, and all of the
derivative contracts, all of the international gambling
contracts that those banks had were simply cancelled. The
counterparties were contacted and given the option, of netting
out those contracts; or facing the consequences of losing those
funds, those gambling debts that nobody had sufficient funds to
be able to even remotely cover.  So, in the case of Japan, the
gambling debts were cancelled, and then the banks were put
through reorganization; there was no systemic risk.
At the same time, in the Summer of 1998, Alan Greenspan —
who was in the final phases of the elimination of Glass-Steagall
as the chairman of the Federal Reserve, and formerly a senior
partner at JP Morgan when the plan was hatched in the mid-’80s to
wipe out Glass-Steagall.  Instead what Greenspan did was, he
called in all of the counterparties of Long Term Capital
Management [LTCM], a relatively small, offshore hedge fund
located in the Dutch Antilles.  But they had derivative contracts
tied to the Russian debt, which the Russians defaulted on, the
famous GKO scandal of 1998.
And so, LCTM, rather than being put through an orderly
reorganization by netting out those derivatives contracts;
Greenspan called in all of the counterparties, and wouldn’t let
them leave the room until they bailed out LTCM.  So, on the one
hand, you had a cancellation of the derivatives; on the other
hand, you had a hyperinflationary bail-out.  Really just the
beginning of a hyperinflationary process that went off the charts
a year later, when Glass-Steagall was repealed.  And then it was
really off to the races; with everything invested in gambling
and virtually nothing going into the real economy.
So now here we are, it’s October of 2015.  We had a
shake-out of the bubble in 2008, and now it’s back once again
with a vengeance, because there was no change in policy.  The
Dodd-Frank bill with the Volcker Rule was a sick joke; it did
nothing to change anything.  So now, the too-big-to-fail banks
have accrued a greater amount of gambling debt than they
previously had.  That debt cannot and will not ever be paid.
So, by any scientific measurement, all of Wall Street is
hopelessly bankrupt; and so long as you remain in the trap of the
current system, nothing can be done about that.  And we’re headed
very soon — perhaps in a matter of days or weeks or months — to
a point where the entire system blows out; the entire
trans-Atlantic system evaporates, literally overnight.  And then
you’ve got social chaos on a very, very broad and dangerous
scale.
So, there is no money. Your money, your personal
investments in mutual funds or Wall Street stocks, or anything
like that; there’s nothing there to protect.  It can’t be
protected; and in fact, what’s going on right now on the eve of
the annual Autumn meeting of the IMF, scheduled to take place in
the next few weeks in Peru, are calls all over the place for a
new surge of hyperinflationary quantitative easing.  You’ve got
the European Central Bank about to extend its QE program towards
the end of 2018; in other words, a massive hyperinflationary
bail-out that will further erode the real economy.
So, Wall Street is dead; the funeral should have already
taken place long ago.  And now we’re at a point where that system
must be completely shut down.  Cancel out all the derivatives;
separate the banks under Glass-Steagall, into commercial banks
and let everything fall off the edge of the cliff.  Because it’s
unpayable, it’s illegal, it’s commingled with massive amounts of
criminal money; it serves no purpose whatsoever.  The world is a
better and safer place without those Wall Street activities;
without the City of London, without the activities in Frankfurt
and Paris and these other parasitical financial capitals.
Glass-Steagall right now, immediately.  And we’ve got a
political context in which President Obama, although he is not
down all together, is greatly weakened.  And you can put a {fait
accompli} on his desk and force the signing of Glass-Steagall.
If he refuses to do that, then he’s out under the 25th Amendment;
because to not do it, in the face of this imminent blow-out of
Wall Street, would be an act of criminal insanity that warrants
his removal from office.
So, that’s the story.  Wall Street is doomed.  If you listen
to idiots like Christine Lagarde, or Ambrose Evans-Pritchard over
at the London {Daily Telegraph}, they’re saying, “Gee, we’re not
sure if this is a systemic crisis, or some minor cyclical problem
that we can just weather by printing a bit more money.”  They’re
either idiots, or criminal liars, or both.
The fact of the matter is, Wall Street is dead; it’s dead in
the water.  Nothing can be done to save it.  And the question is,
do you want that doom to spread to the real economy; to the real
population that’s already suffering enough?  Or, are you prepared
to fight to insure that the right preemptive measures are taken
now?  Because a week from now may be too late; we don’t know how
close we are to the edge.  Well-informed insiders from London and
Wall Street thought that we were about to blow out a week and a
half ago, had the Fed gone through the small step of simply
raising interest rates and shifting the directionality.  There’s
a million and one potential small triggers out there, but the
triggers are not the real issue.  The real issue is that the
entire system is doomed; and we’ve got to take the right remedial
action before the doom spreads into the real world of real
people, and then it’s too late.
Franklin Roosevelt had an understanding of the kinds of
measures that have to be taken.  On the one hand, the
Glass-Steagall Act and other measures that secured depositors
funds in the commercial banks; shut out the gambling debt.  But
then Franklin Roosevelt also moved on for massive credit
emissions into the real economy.  He did the TVA; he created a
massive number of jobs through various public works programs,
much of which became the kind of infrastructure-building
projects,  major dam projects, municipal buildings, roads; all
the kinds of things that were the necessary preparations and
foundations for what became the “arsenal of democracy,”  the
enormous economic surge that occurred, when the United States was
on the verge of entering into war, against Nazi Germany and
Japan.  So, Roosevelt had the formula.
The situation today is far more dangerous, far more severe,
than it was at the time of Roosevelt. But the principles, the
American System principles, that Roosevelt understood and acted
on, are the recipe for success today. But the starting point is
to simply face the reality and act preemptively on the fact that
Wall Street’s dead. Give it a decent funeral, but pay no respect
whatsoever to this quadrillions of dollars, of strictly gambling
debt that have been built up since the repeal of Glass-Steagall
in particular.
What Mr. LaRouche has emphasized, is that this process goes
back–really the beginning of the decline in actual productivity
in the U.S. economy, started with the death of Franklin
Roosevelt. It accelerated tremendously after the assassination of

John Kennedy, and particularly after Nixon took the world off the
Bretton Woods fixed- exchange-rate system. That was the era when
people like George H.W. Bush and his underlings began to come in
and greatly accelerated the process of take-down of the real
economy.
So, we’re at the point now: Wall Street’s doomed; it’s
finished. So, let’s do the right thing.

BENJAMIN DENISTON:  Thanks, Jeff. Now for the second element
of our show today, I’m going to shift to the dramatic and ongoing
change in the world strategic framework, specifically with the
situation in and around Syria, as the major focal point for this
shift.
Now, this is the subject of the institutional question which
has been posed to Mr. LaRouche this week. But before posing that
question and asking Jeff to deliver Mr. LaRouche’s response, I’d
like to add just a little bit of background.
Over the recent few weeks, we have been seeing the
development of a very clear and decisive break with Barack Obama.
This has been coming from, really, around the entire world,
coming from Russia, coming from China, coming from Europe, and as
Matthew mentioned in the opening, as well as from within
institutions of the United States. And I think it’s important to
recall, that it was just a few months ago, in late July, that the
former director of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, Gen.
Michael Flynn, in an interview with Al Jazeera, had said that for
years President Obama has been willfully ignoring the DIA’s
warnings about the growing threat of radical jihadist-terrorist
networks in Iraq and Syria, the forces which have subsequently
become what we now call ISIS. General Flynn made it absolutely
clear that this was not just negligence or a failure, but this
has been the conscious policy of the Obama White House, in effect
protecting and supporting the growth and the solidification of
ISIS.
Now, at the same time, in this recent period, there’s been
an increasing recognition that this massive surge of refugees
fleeing into Europe, are actually running from the effect of
Obama’s policies; that Obama’s policies have been responsible for
driving this refugee crisis.
In this context, just this past Wednesday at the United
Nations Security Council, there was a meeting to discuss how to
combat the growing threat of terrorism. And both the Chinese and
Russian foreign ministers have made very clear, that in this
fight against terrorism–what’s happening in the Middle East–the
sovereignty of the Syrian nation must be respected, obviously in
direct contradiction and conflict with Obama’s calls for regime
change in Syria, and the removal of the government there.
Also this week, we saw more signs of support of this shift,
also coming from Europe, with the Swiss foreign minister saying
that the Syrian government needs to be included in a broad
dialogue to settle the conflict there, and the president of the
European Parliament calling for the inclusion of Russia and Iran
in an international coalition to resolve the conflict in Syria.
Perhaps most dramatic, as, again, Matthew referenced in the
beginning, and as I’m sure all of you have seen, Russia has now
initiated a series of coordinated air campaigns and strategic
bombings against ISIS and other terrorist elements which have
been otherwise, frankly, operating under the protection of
Obama’s policies.
So, in this context of a whole array of moves indicating a
shift in the world situation, around this pivot in Syria, the
following institutional question was posed to Mr. LaRouche:
“At the special UN Security Council session on terrorism
this week, China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi called for the
convening of a Geneva III conference on Syria, with no
preconditions, and with participation of all interested parties.
What are your thoughts on China’s proposal at the UN Security
Council?”
I’d like to invite Jeff to deliver Mr. LaRouche’s response
to this question.

STEINBERG:  The short answer that Mr. LaRouche gave to the
question, was two simple words: “Do it!” I’ll elaborate a bit.
You’ve had a policy, as Ben just indicated, of tolerance for
the growth and expansion of the Islamic State, of the Nusra
Front, of other similar jihadist-Salafist organizations; you’ve
got the so-called Army of Conquest, of which Nusra is now a
part–all of them operating inside Iraq and inside Syria. Despite
the fact that there’s a supposed coalition of 60 countries waging
combat against these organizations, they seem to miraculously
continue to expand their territorial holds. Despite the fact that
they’re under attack and under surveillance and scrutiny, they
keep managing, somehow or other, to get new recruits slipping
across the international borders, into Syria, into Iraq, to the
point, that several months back, the CIA estimated that the
Islamic State had 15,000 fighters total; and just in the last
several weeks, they’ve revised that number up to at least 25,000,
perhaps 30,000.
In other words, if you factor in the fact that some of them
are being killed, through the bombings, through combat
operations, —  particularly the Kurds have been quite effective
against ISIS–they’ve obviously been swelling their ranks, with
very little to stand in the way.
Now, here you have a coalition. Some of the leading players
in the, quote, “U.S.-led coalition,” are Turkey, Saudi Arabia,
Qatar, Kuwait; and it’s well-known, that the major entrée point
for foreign fighters coming into Syria, is across the border from
Turkey. There’s a very lucrative black-market smuggling route,
that runs between Turkey and Raqqa , which is the capital city of
the ISIS area in northern Syria. The Turkish government, the
ruling party, the AKP, and particularly, the immediate circles
around President Erdogan, are making money hands-over-fist
through these black-market dealings with the Nusra Front, with
the Islamic State, and with these other Salafist terrorist
networks.
So, a simple question is: What coalition against ISIS? It
doesn’t exist! It’s been a fraud from the beginning.
So now the Russians have stepped in, and they’ve done it
within the framework of international law. There was a formal
authorization for the use of military force, that the Russian
Federation Council voted up unanimously to President Putin. So,
in other words, unlike President Obama, who never went to
Congress, the Russian state structures have given authorization.
The Syrian government of Bashar Assad formally invited Russia to
participate. Russia has established an information-sharing center
that will be up and functioning within a matter of days or weeks
in Bagdad, with Syria, Iran, Iraq, and Russia participating. So,
in other words, all the elements are being put in place for an
actual serious assault against this terrorist infrastructure. And
last night overnight, Russian bombers carried out 18 sorties
against Raqqa, which is the province and the capital city of the
entire ISIS-controlled area inside northern Syria and Iraq.
So, in other words, you’re seeing a serious military
operation for the first time. And the Syrian armed forces have
been depleted dramatically by four years, four and a half years,
of combat against a force that’s been continuously beefed up,
armed, supplied with new recruits, from an entire jihadist
apparatus from around the world.
And the Russians know, by the way, that there are now an
estimated 5,000 Chechen fighters in the ranks of the Islamic
State, fighting inside Iraq and Syria. And so this poses an
immediate serious, really grave security threat to Russia.
So Russia is not sitting back, is not running a phony war.
Russia is in there. They’re serious, and this is a strategic
game-changer.
The reason that the White House is hysterical over this is
that there is this so-called coalition. The United States is
protecting Saudi Arabia, and by extension, protecting the
British-Saudi Arabian dirty deals that have created this jihadist
problem in the first place. Qatar, Turkey, all supposed members
of the Obama-led coalition, are all on the other side. They’re
all actively supporting the spreading of the Islamic State and
the Nusra Front.
General David Petraeus, the so-called hero of the surge, who
is now an official adviser to the Obama White House and the
National Security Council, has called for the United States to
openly support the Nusra Front. That’s to say, openly support
al-Qaeda, the same al-Qaeda that did 9/11; the same al-Qaeda that
in 2012 killed the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, and three other
American diplomats. But fortunately, that noise, that policy from
the Obama White House, has been substantially suppressed.
There are other elements in the U.S. military that are
prepared very much to work with the Russians. Secretary of State
John Kerry has become the point person for a different U.S.
policy, a policy that he’s been working out for months in
coordination with the Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, and back
during his meeting in the spring in Sochi, directly with
President Putin. So Kerry in a CNN interview several days ago,
made it clear: He said, there is a new policy. And the new policy
is, we are not insisting on instantaneous regime change. We’re
not going to go there. We’re not going to do a Saddam Hussein.
We’re not going to do a Muammar Qaddafi. There’s going to be a
transition. The governing institutions are going to be preserved.
We’re going to be patient. We’re not going to allow Syria to fall
into chaos, and we’ll work with the Russians militarily.
So the Russians are making it clear. They’re carrying out
real combat operations, and they are out for blood. They’re going
to wipe out the Islamic State, and increasingly, China, India,
Germany, France, many of the countries in Europe that are now
overwhelmed by the refugee flow from ISIS, from Nusra, they’re
onboard.
So you have a global strategic realignment, which means,
yes, the prospects of a Geneva III political solution to the
Syria crisis is now viable, and feasible. You’ve got China,
Russia, India, Germany, France somewhat more reluctantly, all
ready to go on this, and you’re got Iran, Syria, and elements
within the United States who have basically sidelined, but not
yet eliminated the Obama presidency, who are ready to go with
this.
Again, as Mr. LaRouche said very simply, “Do it!”

OGDEN: Thank you very much, Jeff.  So with those two
elements of the current strategic picture presented to you here,
before I conclude this webcast, I just want to go back and
re-emphasize what Mr. LaRouche asked us to open this broadcast
with. And I want to do so by reading a short passage from what
Mr. LaRouche had to say last night on the National Activists’
telephone call, the so-called Thursday night Fireside Chat. And
this is what Mr. LaRouche said about Wall Street:
“The United States economy is about to collapse, and it’s a
real collapse. All of Wall Street is bankrupt, and worthless. If
the United States were to try and go along, and try to do
business with Wall Street, and Wall Street institutions, that
would be a disaster. Because Wall Street would itself collapse,
since it’s already in a rate of collapse. If we let Wall Street
go ahead, and do its own collapsing, the result would be a
disaster for most of the people of the United States on a very
large scale.
“So we have to get rid of Wall Street, immediately. We have
to junk it. Point out the fact that it’s worthless, that it’s
only a complete fraud. It has no economic value whatsoever,
except that of trash. And so therefore, we’re going to have to
get a radical change in the organization of the financial system
of the United States for two reasons: first of all, to maintain
an economy that will function for the United States population;
second of all, to protect the United States {against} the
influence of Wall Street. Because if Wall Street goes on its own,
and takes the dive that it will take, automatically, under those
circumstances the people of the United States may be starving all
over the place. Because if the United States collapses, then the
U.S. economy will itself be in a disastrous condition. That is,
the financial system will collapse.
“And therefore, we have to get rid of the Wall Street
system, and {we} have to collapse it in a controlled way. And
then use that method of controlled action against Wall Street, in
order to make the kind of re-organization that Franklin Roosevelt
did in dealing with Wall Street in an earlier period. And that’s
what has to happen.”
So, with that said, I’d like to encourage everybody, if you
haven’t heard it yet, go back and listen to this discussion with
Mr. LaRouche last night. This is the 20th Fireside Chat. Mr.
LaRouche will also be engaging in his weekly discussion with
activists in New York City tomorrow, and the intervention of the
LaRouche movement on the streets of Manhattan is continuing, as
we come out of this week, and into the following.
So, I’d like to thank you for joining us here tonight, and
please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.




LPAC Fredags-Webcast, 25. september 2015:
Hvad er Lyndon LaRouches råd til præsidenterne Obama og
Putin forud for deres møde på tomandshånd i New York?

Mandag i denne uge markerede den officielle begyndelse af FN’s Generalforsamlings sammentræde i New York City, hvor en stor del af verdens ledere vil være samlet for de næste to uger, midt i en meget usikker, og også meget farlig og omskiftelig, global strategisk situation. Som Helga Zepp-LaRouche sagde i en erklæring, hun udstedte for et par uger siden »En hasteappel til FN’s Generalforsamling«, så kunne dette være menneskehedens sidste chance for at droppe systemet med geopolitik og indvarsle et nyt paradigme, der bygger på menneskehedens fælles mål. I erklæringen siger hun: »Kun på denne måde vil vi overleve som art. Og efter denne standard vil statsoverhovederne på Manhattan blive målt.«

Af denne grund vil der være meget fokus på de første dage i næste uge, hvor statsoverhovederne vil samles på Manhattan for at holde taler og mødes; disse statsoverhoveder inkluderer Kinas Xi Jinping, Ruslands Vladimir Putin og USA’s Barack Obama.

Engelsk udskrift.

We’re coming to you LIVE tonight! We have plenty to update you on, so tune in LIVE at 8pm Eastern.

Transcript

MEGAN BEETS:

It’s Friday evening September 25, and I’d like to welcome you all to our regular weekly webcast. My name is Megan Beets, and I’m joined tonight in the studio by Jeffrey Steinberg of Executive Intelligence Review, and Jason Ross and Ben Deniston of the LaRouche PAC science team.

Monday of this week marked the official start of the United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York City, where much of the leadership of the world has convened for the next two, in the midst of a very precarious, and also a very dangerous and rapidly transforming global strategic situation. As was said by Helga Zepp-LaRouche in a statement that she released a couple of weeks ago, “An Urgent Appeal to the United Nations General Assembly,” this could be mankind’s last chance to dump the system of geopolitics, and to usher in a new paradigm built around the common aims of mankind. She says in the statement: “Only in that way will we survive as a species. And by that standard will the heads of state in Manhattan be measured.”

Now for that reason, much attention is focused on the early days of next week, when the heads of state will be gathering in Manhattan to speak, and to meet, heads of state including Xi Jinping of China, Vladimir Putin of Russia, and Barack Obama. Now, this brings us to the subject of tonight’s institutional question which reads as follows: Mr. LaRouche, President Obama is set to have a one-on-one meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin next week at the United Nations General Assembly in New York.  According to a senior administration official:  “Given the situation in Ukraine and Syria, despite our profound differences with Moscow, the President believes that it would be irresponsible not to test whether we can make progress through high-level engagement with the Russians.  In particular, our European partners have underscored the importance of a unified message about the necessity of fully implementing the Minsk agreements.  President Obama will take advantage of this meeting to discuss Ukraine, and he will be focused on ensuring Moscow lives up to the Minsk commitments.  This will be the core message of this bilateral engagement.” What is your advice to presidents Obama and Putin?

So with that, I’d like to invite Jeffrey Steinberg to the podium to deliver Mr. LaRouche’s response to that question, and also his views on the more general strategic situation.

 

JEFF STEINBERG: Thanks, Megan.

We had a lengthy discussion this afternoon with Mr. LaRouche, and we discussed this; and for the sake of precision, I want to briefly read you the pretty much exact comments that Mr. LaRouche made, and then I’ll give some elaboration and set some context for what he had to say.

He said: Putin will handle the meeting with Obama fine. Let Obama get stuck. After nearly two terms, it is clear you cannot deal with him. You can only denounce him. He is no good, and never was. Only half-wits support him. Look at what he is. His step-father was the prototype. In essence, he is a nasty. Putin is fine. Obama is dangerous, after his step-father.

Now, I think it’s important to realize that the statement, that was included in the institutional question from a White House senior spokesperson, is typical of what you get from Washington, D.C. today. This is true from the first day of the Obama presidency, and it was true throughout the presidency of George W. Bush, with Dick Cheney looking over his shoulder. There’s nothing that is said in Washington that can be presumed to be truthful. There’s nothing that is said in Washington that can be relied on as an accurate account of what’s actually going on.

The fact of the matter is that the only reason that President Obama, at the very last moment, agreed to this meeting with President Putin, is that he was boxed in to an absolute corner, and in fact, the proposal from Moscow for there to be just such a face-to-face meeting, was made over a month ago, and it took the White House just until the last 24 hours, to make the decision that they could not weasel their way out of this face-to-face meeting. So, when you get this high-falutin’ language about, it would be irresponsible not to sit down with Russia, despite these tremendous differences, and the attempt on the part of Obama to turn the entire issue of the discussion around the situation in Ukraine, and to completely ignore what the Russians have done in Syria — and the opportunity that represents for actually defeating the Islamic State and these other Salafist jihadis — is sheer folly.

Mr. LaRouche’s view is that if President Obama attempts to turn the discussion in that private meeting around Ukraine, his simple advice to Mr. Putin is to just say to Obama, “Mr. President, you made the decision, beginning in November of 2013, to support an outright neo-Nazi coup against a legitimately elected government because that government refused to sign on to a rotten deal that would have wrecked Ukraine, and would have led to the kind of crisis between Ukraine and Russia that we’re seeing right now.” And in fact, that’s the simple truth of the matter. President Obama is committed to the idea of war with Russia. That commitment has been there from literally the very beginning of the Obama presidency, and in November [I think it’s October—ed.] of 2011, when there was a decision made between President Obama, British Prime Minister David Cameron, and then-French President Sarkozy to summarily execute Libyan leader Qaddafi, rather than capture him and put him on trial, and go through the prolonged process with all that would have come out during the course of that trial, Mr. LaRouche said, this is vectored against Russia and China.

Now in the last days, just preceding the events now beginning to take place in New York City, the German national television network, ZDF, aired a news magazine — kind of their equivalent of 60 Minutes — which went through a detailed exposé of the danger behind the fact that the United States is in the process of deploying a new generation of tactical nuclear weapons into Western Europe, and in fact, the B61-12, this new generation, is in fact an intermediate-range weapon which is a clear violation of both the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Force INF Treaty that was signed in 1988.  These weapons, in fact, blur the lines of distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons.  They are no longer simply deterrence against the old Cold War fears that the Soviet Army would come rushing through the Fulda Gap and would basically occupy half of Western Europe before anybody could do anything about it.  The situation right now is that these new generation weapons are far more accurate, will carry a much-reduced payload, and can be fired from combat stealth fighters that will reach deep into Russian territory.  The fact that the German national television network, a week before all these UN events, chose to put a very prominent documentary exposé of the danger behind this Obama decision, is indicative of the fact that it’s not that there’s unity between the US and our European allies over the situation in Ukraine.

There’s been a decisive break led by Germany, now also including France; because they have come to the realization that Obama is a dangerous lunatic when it comes to Russia, and is jeopardizing the real possibility of a nuclear war on European soil.  So, the Europeans have broken with Obama in a very demonstrable way.  Germany, then France, then other European countries, have also come out fully supportive of the Russian military deployments into Syria; and have called for a much broader diplomatic initiative that does not exclude Russia, that does not exclude Assad in Syria, and does not exclude Iran.  So the idea that there’s unity within the western nations is an absolute fraud.  Obama has created the conditions where Europe, in many critical areas of security, is breaking with the United States and is moving — at least by natural impulse — towards seeking cooperation and an alliance with Russia.

So remember, when Russian President Putin a month ago began the deployment of significant military equipment into Syria, this was a strategic game-changer.  The United States was in the advanced stages of reaching a rotten deal with Turkey and Saudi Arabia and Qatar and Kuwait, to establish a no-fly zone in the northern part of Syria that was to ostensibly be a safe haven against ISIS; but was in fact to be a zone where the jihadists could operate freely, because the Syrian air force was completely denied access to that.  Now, you’ve got two squadrons of Russian advanced MiG fighter planes at a base just south of Latakia in northern Syria on the Mediterranean coast.  This week, several thousand Russian engineers arrived in the port of Tartus to expand and modernize that port to be able to receive larger Russian battleships and supply ships.  So the game has been dramatically changed in the Middle East, and it was not on the basis of President Putin seeking out a compromise with President Obama.  It was based on taking a very clear political military calculation that by hitting Obama on this strategic flank in Syria, it would completely destabilize the White House; and it would create the conditions where Obama would make a series of significant political mistakes.  If he mishandles the summit meeting next week on Monday with President Putin, this will be another indication of Obama walking into the kind of trap that has been set for him; first by his own behavior, and by his commitment on behalf of London and Wall Street to fomenting war against Russia.

And we’ve seen the same things in the case of China. President Xi Jinping arrived in Seattle, Washington earlier this week; and had three days of meetings out there.  And now, has been here in Washington last night and today for a summit meeting with President Obama.  Preceding that summitry in Washington, the President sent Penny Pritzker, part of the Chicago mafia apparatus that put Obama in office; that created his political career.  She’s now Secretary of Commerce, and she was the finance chair of Obama’s two Presidential campaigns.  She was sent out to Seattle as a kind of a minder to sit in on all of the meetings that took place between top American business leaders and President Xi Jinping; to make sure that they toed the White House line of making accusations about China unfair business practices in dealing with American companies.  So that kind of crazy behavior on the eve of a heads of state summit is another typical indication of how this President has tended to do business.  So, again as Mr. LaRouche said, “Putin will handle the meeting with Obama fine; let Obama get stuck.  After nearly two terms, it’s clear you cannot deal with him; you can only denounce him.”  So that is, in all likelihood, the kind of approach with velvet gloves, that President Putin will take; and that certainly is Mr. LaRouche’s recommendation of what he should expect out of this meeting with President Obama.

Now, I should say that there are elements within the US military — high-level people — who favor the idea of US-Russian military cooperation to genuinely go after and crush the Islamic State and the Nusra front.  Their view is that: 1) there must be negotiations on what’s called “de-confliction”; the US and Russia are going to be operating in the same theatres of activity over Syria, and it’s very important that there be a level of coordination to avoid an accidental incident that could get out of control.  There are those in the Pentagon and in the US intelligence community who wish to see direct intelligence sharing and ultimately coordinated operations against the Islamic State, involving the United States and Russia.  There is a line of communication between President Putin through Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, into Secretary of State Kerry; and it’s very clear that there is both a diplomatic and a military initiative coming out of President Putin.  And he’s expected to present that in considerable detail Monday morning when he addresses the UN General Assembly.  That’ll be just several hours before his Monday afternoon meeting with President Obama.

So, the Russians have taken a number of bold and critical initiatives.  They’ve created a series of strategic faites accomplis; that’s why President Obama authorized Defense Secretary Ash Carter to engage in phone discussion with Russian Defense Minister Shoigu last Friday.  There will be a working group at the Pentagon chaired by Carter, but with representation from the Joint Chiefs and CENTCOM [Central Command—ed.] that will be negotiating and talking on an ongoing basis with Russian counterparts.  This didn’t come from negotiating and compromising with Obama; it came from forcing his hand and creating a series of unavoidable options.  So, Obama is shaken; he’s furious at what’s happened around the Syria situation.  He’s furious that the efforts to create a blockade of Russian air links into Syria failed miserably; they couldn’t even get Iraq to go along with banning Russian over flights over Iraqi airspace.  So, the corridor from Russia through Iran and Iraq into Syria has been wide open; and that’s the basis on which the Russians have carried out a very rapid and very significant military build-up inside Syria.

So, that’s the backdrop to what’s going to be happening in New York beginning this weekend and extending into next week.

Now, I think that there’s an over-arching message that my colleagues will be addressing throughout the duration of this webcast, but I just want to put it clearly on the table right now, which is that there has been so much compromise, so much “practical decisions” that have been made over such a long time. This long pre-dates Obama, long pre-dates Bush-Cheney, really goes back decades, that the kinds of compromises on core principle have an erosive effect that is a grave danger.  In fact, it’s the single gravest danger to the survival of mankind, that there is a willingness to make compromises on fundamental issues of scientific truth.  We’ve seen that with the Pope’s compromise in the encyclical, that gave ground to outright British genocidalists on this concept of global warming and climate change.  So these kinds of compromises, which are considered to be in good taste, or to be expected of honorable gentlemen and -women, is a flaw, a deep pragmatic flaw that right now has created the conditions for the crisis that the world is facing.  So, in the case of the Putin-Obama meeting coming up on Monday: no compromise.  Truth.  And on that basis we can get through this crisis, and avoid the kind of thermonuclear war that President Obama is toying around with.

 

BEETS:  Thank you, Jeff.

Now, as Jeff just referred to, leading into the heads-of-state meeting that is to begin Monday in New York, events at the U.N. this weekend have been co-opted by the attempt to shape the ongoing discussion in a major way around the rotten agenda, the fraud, of so-called sustainable development.  Now, a major part of that was kicked off this morning by the speech of Pope Francis in front of the plenary session, where he again, very unfortunately, pushed the doctrine coming from the British, that man is destroying the Earth, and must shift to a mode of stewardship and living harmoniously with Mother Earth, and to face the threat of climate change.  So this began a weekend full of meetings of the U.N. Sustainability Summit around their 2030 agenda for sustainable development, which was, as Jeff said, in terms of a real tragic concession, voted up unanimously by the session shortly after the Pope’s speech.

Now, as we’ve documented thoroughly in these webcasts, and also as is covered in great detail in the newly-released EIR Special Report, “Global Warming Scare Is Population Reduction, Not Science”, the entire program of so-called sustainability is nothing new, and it’s a fraud which has been pushed time and again throughout the twentieth and now the twenty-first centuries by the leading factions of the British Empire.  So what I’d like to do now is invite first Ben Deniston, followed by Jason Ross, to come to the podium to address, number one, what is the fraud of the policy of sustainable development, and number two, what would a real policy for human progress look like?

 

BEN DENISTON:  Thanks, Megan.

I think I just want to start by referring to Mr. LaRouche’s very clear and concise assessment of the situation around the Pope.  You know, he’s, I think, put this question in some terms that have important precision.  The question we have, is, what convinced this Pope of all people to go along with this policy which is a genocide program.  We may not know every aspect of why he’s going along with this, for his personal motivations.  Mr. LaRouche has made that clear a number of times, including in a discussion last night, his so-called Fireside Chat discussion, which is available on the LaRouche PAC website, but he’s made that point a number of times.  We may not know all of the motivation behind the Pope himself, but the facts are what they are, and we know that he’s going along with the policy, which is a genocide policy, and we know exactly what forces have moved in on this Pope, and what they’re characteristics are.

First and foremost, what we’ve identified and we’ve discussed on these shows, and we’ve discussed on the LaRouche PAC website, and one of the key individuals is this guy John Schellnhuber, who has been for many years a leading operative and collaborator of the British Royal Family, very specifically in their genocidal population-reduction program.  He shares the view of Prince Philip, of the Queen, of this degenerate oligarchical faction, that the world is well beyond its carrying-capacity and needs — and world population must be reduced to around a few billion people.  This is the view of Philip, and the other British Royals.  This is the view of Schellnhuber.  He’s the one who’s become a key advisor to the Pope on these environmental issues, on the so-called climate issue, including playing a leading role in this encyclical that the Pope released a couple of months back.

Now, you know, just to make this clear and put this on the table, just look at the guy’s profile.  In 2004, Schellnhuber was deployed along with Tony Blair’s top science advisor at the time, Sir David King, together to go over to the United States to try and strong-arm the Bush Administration into going along with this climate change fraud policy.  And apparently they were so egregious in their attempt to strong-arm the Bush Administration, that the Bush Administration issued a formal complaint to Tony Blair, complaining about the trip of Schellnhuber and the way he acted on it.  It was later that same year, that Schellnhuber was named an official Honorary Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, by Queen Elizabeth, and it’s been said that he very much is offended if you do not call him by his official title given by the British Royals.  In 2005, he worked with Tony Blair to organize a conference for the G-8 Summit in Scotland at the time, on the issue of this climate change fraud. Schellnhüber edited the proceedings of that conference, and the introduction to the whole thing was written by Tony Blair.  Since then, he became the key advisor to Angela Merkel in Germany, presiding over the, really, dismantling of the German economy, with their nuclear-exit program, their insane carbon-reduction policy, and their suicidal green energy program.  2009, in the buildup to the Copenhagen Climate Summit, Schellnhuber worked closely with Prince Charles to try and build support for this summit, including making another trip to the United States to meet with then Obama as the President, to make sure the Obama Administration was in line with this whole program.  So, you know, he’s got a clear, very high-level track record of trying to recruit and strong-arm leading officials to go along with this population-reduction program of the British.  Now, he is the guy who has moved in on the Pope, bringing this entire program into the Vatican.  As Megan referenced, just earlier today in his address to the United Nations, the Pope clearly asked for support from the world population, from the leaders represented there at the U.N. Summit, to support the upcoming Climate Summit in Paris this December, where they’re trying to get nations to agree to really a suicidal commitment to reduce carbon emissions in the name of this fraud of a so-called climate-change scare.  This is a killer policy, but the point is, that’s the intention.  This is being pushed by these radical de-population fanatics.  They don’t care about the facts, they don’t care about the climate, they don’t care about the reality of the science between CO2 and the climate — their objective is this population-reduction program.  You know, what are that facts we actually know on CO2 and climate?  Well, number one: there’s been no warming of the Earth’s temperature on average, for the past nearly 20 years, now, despite the fact we’ve been putting CO2 in the atmosphere at a faster rate than ever. So there’s no evidence that the climate is highly sensitive, or highly responsive, to CO2, and there’s no evidence to show that mankind is going to have some catastrophic effect. It’s just getting ridiculous.

There’s been no increase in extreme weather, despite what you hear. There’s no evidence that CO2 can be tied to any increase in sea level rise, according to the most accurate measurements we have available. And, as an added irony to the whole thing, we know that the planet is actually getting greener, because CO2 is a plant food; it’s not a pollutant, despite the insane proclamation of the EPA. It’s a vital component to the biosphere, and the higher levels of CO2 have actually led to a greener planet overall.

But, the point is, these guys don’t care about these facts. They don’t care about the scientific arguments, because they’re starting from their program of a Malthusian population reduction policy, not any scientific argument. And Schellnhüber is a leading example of this.

Now, Mr. LaRouche has also emphasized the importance of highlighting the role of another figure, another situation, expressing this exact same fight, which is Jerry Brown, over in California, the governor of California. Where yes, he’s also pushing this insane idea for a murderous reduction in CO2 emissions, but that agenda is really no different than his water policy, or maybe better said, his no water policy. The facts are clear; the reality is clear. There’s plenty of water for California. Jerry Brown doesn’t want new water for California. He doesn’t want to develop new resources. He wants to kill off sections of the population; he wants to reduce the population of California.

There’s no shortage of water supplies for the state. They’re being denied to the population by the policies of that governor. As we’ve covered on these shows, on this site, we can get all the water we need for California, and we can actually get it in new ways. We can get it more quickly. We can get it more efficiently than ever before, if we decide to actually act human, and move to higher levels, by understanding how our galactic system operates.

You can ask the question: How do specifically the atmospheric components of our Earth’s water system operate? How does the atmospheric aspect of the Earth’s water cycle operate? Well, you can’t actually understand that unless you understand how the Solar System as a whole is actually subsumed by the higher order system of the Galaxy as a whole. If you understand that, if we understand that, and we act on that; if we act on a galactic level, on a Galactic principle, then we can manage the world’s water supplies in a completely new way. We can bring water to where it’s needed, by managing the atmospheric characteristics of the water system, in a way we haven’t been able to do before.

But people like Jerry Brown — they don’t want that. It’s not that that’s not an option; it’s not that we don’t have that available. They don’t want that policy. The British Royal Family does not want that policy, because it’s contrary to their Zeusian view of mankind. Because this shows us that mankind can go to qualitatively higher levels. We can create new resources. We’re not limited by any finite amount of resources. We’re limited by the boundaries of our knowledge at any given state, but what we can do as mankind is transcend to a higher state; go to a higher level of discovery, fundamentally transforming what the nature of the human species is in the Universe. Just like this galactic perspective is a clear demonstration of that, and that’s what these people hate.

They want their Green program. They want a program of so-called sustainability. Not progress, not creation, not really truly human action, but sustainability, sustaining some prior earlier state of mankind as a fixed animal-like species.

So, this is the fundamental fight going on right now. And this is what’s happening at the United States, with the so-called move to adopt some idea of a “sustainable” policy.

If you go to the fundamental principle of the matter, and Mr. LaRouche was very emphatic on this earlier today when we were meeting with him, sustainability is a Satanic policy. This is a scientifically defined Satanic outlook. Because this goes to a deeper issue, something quite frankly that the Pope should understand, but apparently he either doesn’t understand it, or refuses to discuss. But the issue of what is the true nature of mankind. And Mr. LaRouche said this very clearly earlier today. He said: Sustainability is death. There is no such thing as sustainability. Without progress, mankind will cease to exist. Because the issue is that mankind as a unique species on this planet, is uniquely characterized by a type of creative action, which does not exist in the domain of the animal world. Something that distinguishes our species as fundamentally unique. That this is what should be discussed at the United Nations right now. This should be the fundamental principle on which we discuss a new era of relations among nations, a truthful scientific insight and understanding of what mankind is as a creative species. Not a green program, not a sustainability program.

If you’re starting from a green program, you’re starting from a Satanic conception of mankind. Despite what the Pope said earlier today, despite what these crazy fanatics say, mankind is not a product of the natural biosphere, so to speak. We’re not a product of animal life. We do not exist in any steady balance with nature that we have to maintain. It’s not true.

Mankind, the existence of society today, is purely a product of mankind. We exist at the present state we’re at right now, because of the creative contributions of prior generations that have created the current state of existence of our species. And that is what we need to focus on. That is what we need to understand.

We have to ask these questions: how is it that mankind uniquely creates his own future? And it’s not just something that happened once, and then we’ve achieved that state and that’s it. This is the substance of what makes us human: continual and unending progress.  And I think the issue is that we have to treat — if we’re going to treat individuals as truly human, we must recognize every individual’s fundamental inherent right to participate in this process.

It’s not just about biological life. It’s not just about a lifespan per se. Sure, we need better living conditions. Much of the world needs better living conditions. We need longer lifespans, we need better health care, we need better infrastructure. That’s all true. But, for what purpose? Do those lives actually get a chance to mean anything? They can live out their live, you can live and you can die, without even having the chance to make a fundamental human contribution to the progress of society, without having the chance to really be truly human, and actually participate in a creative process to move society forward.

So, that’s the principal issue. That is why a green program, a program focussed on sustainability, sustaining some magical, fanatical idea of balance with nature, some inherent balance that we should just maintain, is a Satanic conception. There’s nothing truly human in it. There’s no actual creation. And so this whole green program — it’s not just evil because it kills people. That is evil; it’s evil to kill people. But it’s evil because it denies people access to their real nature as mankind as a unique species.  It denies people access the right and the ability to contribute something unique and something meaningful to the progress of society.  So, this is the issue that Mr. LaRouche was emphatic that needs to be put on the table; the actual principle of what mankind is.  What is the basis on which we need to move the world forward on a positive conception of true human nature? But even this Green program that we’re talking about here today, Mr. LaRouche emphasized, is only a recent expression of a longer standing fight; a longer standing issue.  Today’s Green policy is not really unique; it may have new clothes, it may have a more recent expression.  But it’s a much longer standing policy, longer standing fight.  And I think Jason has some more to elaborate here on the deeper roots of this issue.

 

JASON ROSS:  I do.

One of the other things that the Pope had brought up at the United Nations was, that in this speech he says that as human beings, we have to follow certain laws of physics and chemistry and biology, because we have bodies.  We need to talk about what it is that makes us human.  And I’m going to do that tonight in two aspects.  One is from the standpoint of the scientist Vernadsky; and the other is from the standpoint of Zeus or Bertrand Russell against the Promethean outlook of man, and talk about what a real human identity must be and what we need to hold on to today.

So, is it true what the Pope said, that we have to follow the laws of nature and biology and chemistry and physics because we have physical bodies?  Well, ask yourself this:  Are there any unique things about us as a species?  Do we apply laws of morality to animals?  Do we say that a lion is being immoral when it’s catching, hunting down some animal and then only eating half of it; wasting the leftovers?  Are there any rosebushes or orange trees that are going to be attending the Pope’s mass on Sunday? I doubt it.  The difference between human beings and animals is an obvious thing to everybody in the sense that it’s not hard to tell if you see something in front of you; is this a human being, or is this an animal?  It’s not hard to figure that out.  Just as in the study of biology or physics, it’s not difficult to know whether something that you’re seeing is part of a living process or not.  Some people might say, “Well, viruses are an unusual case.”

So, what does Vernadsky have to do with this?  Vernadsky, the Russian-Ukrainian biogeochemist who regular viewers of our website will have heard about I think a fair amount, he looked at life as a phenomenon.  He looked at human life as a phenomenon; and rather than focussing on the actions of individual organisms the way a biologist would, his focus was more on life as a whole. The impact of life, the inter-relationship between life and the non-living material around it, and the reshaping of the originally non-living material around life by the process of the biosphere over billions of years.  As a result of this process, we’re going to compare life with non-life, and then look at the human.  Because imagine if someone had said, “Well, life has to follow the laws of physics and chemistry.”  Imagine if you had gone back to the dawning of life on Earth, and said, “Wait a minute!  Life, you’re going to destroy the planet; you’re going to alter everything.  You’re going to reshape the soils; you’re going to change the atmosphere.  Look at all that pollution you’re making.”  This happened in life; the initial life on this planet lived off of chemical energy, such as deep sea vents, things in the crust, that sort of thing — chemical energy.  The breakthrough invention in life of photosynthesis, where the light of the Sun became the fuel and power source for life; that was tremendous transformation [that] totally changed life’s relationship to the rest of the planet.  It also led to the production of a very dangerous chemical.  Unlike carbon dioxide, which isn’t going to hurt anything, oxygen is actually is toxic; you might have said life was polluting the planet.  And indeed, the kind of life had to change to be able to live in an environment that had oxygen.  New kinds of metabolic pathways were developed that used oxygen as part of metabolism; like we do, as animals.

So, there’s been a dramatic change in life’s presence on this planet.  This is seen in the biogenic migration of atoms; of the flow of material from living organisms to the non-living — but almost undoubtedly shaped by life — surroundings.  The flow back and forth between life and non-life.  The development and growth of an increasing amount of biogeochemical energy. Vernadsky says that life increases its free energy; it colonizes the non-living.  At this point, the whole crust of the Earth down to a certain depth, the atmosphere; it’s all been shaped by life. Vernadsky points to other differences.  Take, for example, evolution.  Now, evolution has a direction to it.  I’d mentioned earlier the transition from chemical energy only to having photosynthesis, to developing higher forms of life — animals, warm-blooded animals.  The process of cephalization, meaning moving towards the head, where in animal life, more and more of the senses, the neural systems developed into the head.  That’s a process that took place over time; making it possible for there to be human beings.  Life doesn’t respond the way chemical elements do in other respects.  Life treats isotopes differently than can be explained by chemical or physical processes.  It treats left- and right-handed isomers differently in a way that purely chemical processes don’t.

So, there’s plenty that distinguishes life from non-life. In a similar way, there’s plenty that distinguishes human beings from life.  Despite what you may have heard about lawsuits about chimpanzees or other such animals having human rights; they’re not human.  And this used to be an obvious thing.  Let me read a section now from Vernadsky.  This is from his paper “Problems of Biogeochemistry Two“, and it’s available in a Vernadsky anthology that we put together. (Anthology Book I Here)  Vernadsky says:

“From the standpoint of the biosphere, the individual living organism is usually lost from view; in first place comes the aggregate of organisms — living matter. In biogeochemistry, however — in some strictly defined cases — at times it is necessary to pay attention to the discrete organism, to its individuality. It is indispensable to do this in those cases, where the activity of Man appears as a geological factor, as we see happening now, and the individual personality sometimes becomes vividly apparent and is reflected in large-scale phenomena of a planetary character. The human personality changes, accelerates, and causes geological processes of enormous significance, through its presence in the biosphere.”

With human beings, individuals actually matter on a planetary scale; no individual animal matters on a planetary scale, no individual plant matters on a planetary scale, no fungus.  With human beings, it’s different; how is that?  He said:

“We are living in a brand new, bright geological epoch. Man, through his labor — and his conscious relationship to life — is transforming the envelope of the Earth — the geological region of life, the biosphere. Man is shifting it into a new geological state: Through his labor and his consciousness, the biosphere is in a process of transition to the noosphere.  [From the root noeses, or thinking.]  Man is creating new biogeochemical processes, which never existed before. The biogeochemical history of the chemical elements — a planetary phenomenon — is drastically changing. Enormous masses of new, free metals and their alloys are being created on Earth, for example, ones which never existed here before, such as aluminum, magnesium, and calcium.”

“Plant and animal life are being changed and disturbed in the most drastic manner. New species and races are being created. The face of the Earth is changing profoundly.  The stage of the noosphere is being created. Within the Earth’s biosphere, an intense blossoming is in process, the further history of which will be grandiose, it seems….”

Human beings aren’t animals.  Bio-behavior, by looking at human existence over time as a phenomenon; just looking at it a scientist, looking at it as something that occurred.  We do things that animals have never done and never will.  We transform biogeochemical processes; we create new states of existence in the universe on the Earth.  We make new things happen that would not have happened by any means that was purely biological, physical, or chemical; we create.

Now this is a way of understanding the idea of human beings as being made in the image of God, for example.  The distinction between human beings and animals used to be, this wasn’t really much of a question.  Religions that look to Genesis and the notion that human beings are made in the image of God; that’s a clear distinction.  Squirrels are not said to be so made.  We see it in the indications that Vernadsky gives of the kinds of transformations we’ve made; so let’s talk about how that happens. And what that means about our identity, and what it means about how we have to approach the future.  I want to read a response that Lyndon LaRouche gave last night on a call of activists that we have every Thursday evening.  I’ll read the question, too. The question was:

“How do you deal with strengthening the spiritual ability for mankind, or the person to deal with the problem of the world? You mentioned people are becoming disheartened of the fact that the crisis is becoming unbearable for some.  But how do you strengthen the quality in defending mankind?”

LaRouche in his answer, said:

“We have the means, mankind has the means to understand mankind.  And what I said in an earlier remark this evening, that at a certain point, we are able to understand mankind, how?  We understand that, because we are all human, and we all know that we are going to die, sooner or later. And we know that the question is, what’s the meaning of our life?  And many people have a big problem, because they have never been able to resolve what has been and what will be, ‘the meaning of my life.’

“So you start with what has been the meaning of your life; then you go to the really tougher question, and you say, what is the meaning of your future of your life?  And that means you have think, now, of what you are, and shape what you are going to be, in such a way that you do not feel shame about having lived. That means that you devote your life to making contributions which lead mankind to improve mankind!  That is to improve people, living people.   And rather than simply taking care of your own greed, and so forth, you’ve got to think about what you can do to influence people, to make the next generation, a better generation than the one you’re living in.”

He says, “That is a short way of saying it; but I think it’s an adequately effective one.”

Now, on this subject, LaRouche — when we spoke to him this afternoon — was very emphatic about drawing the contrast between that outlook that he expressed and the outlook of mankind expressed by Zeus, or by Bertrand Russell, or by John Schellnhuber — sorry, I forgot your title there, John.  You do it by not being practical.  Now the story of Zeus and Prometheus is one of tyranny.  Zeus the tyrant said that human beings were of a lower class than he; he was a god, human beings were these mere mortals.  And that the power of fire was something reserved for him alone; it wasn’t for human beings to have.  If Zeus had his way, he’d exterminate the human race, as a matter of fact. Prometheus enters the story as the fire-bringer; as defying Zeus and bringing the power of fire to mankind, and in fact, creating mankind.  Listen to this; you can understand the creation of the human species as a non-biological, non-animal — we’re not animals.  Here’s Prometheus.  He says:  “Listen to the miseries that beset mankind.  How they were witless before I made them have sense, and endowed them with Reason.  First of all, although they had eyes to see, they saw to no avail.  They had ears; but they did not understand.”  Your cat, as much as you love it, probably doesn’t understand a whole lot.  “But just as shapes and dreams throughout their length of days, without purpose, they wrought all things in confusion.”  He says, human beings didn’t know how to build houses; didn’t know how to use wood; didn’t understand the seasons; didn’t know when to plant crops; didn’t know how to navigate using the stars; didn’t have numbers; didn’t have poetry; didn’t have writing; didn’t use animals to do their chores for them; and didn’t have sailing.  And didn’t have metallurgy; he goes on.  Prometheus, yes; the fire-bringer.  The power of fire which no animal species uses; and creativity itself as a whole, defining the human race.

Now, against that idea of the human race, stood Zeus then and, in our time over the past century, has loomed very large — Bertrand Russell.  I’m not going to say a lot about Bertrand Russell; we’ve got a lot of material, we’ve gone through this a good deal in the past.  But to give a short reminder, I suppose you could call it, in 1900, Bertrand Russell took up a task that was put down by David Hilbert about, in effect, killing science. The specific idea was about turning mathematics into a branch of logic; but what the whole pursuit meant to Russell was eliminating creativity.  To turn science — instead of being something creative where new things could occur, where new discoveries happen; Russell sought to destroy it, and say, “We’ve really got it all figured out; and everything in the future can be derived from the past.  We can take the model of Euclid; you derive from what you’ve already got, and that’s all that we’re going to have in the future.”  And that really has taken over science; modelling, curve-fitting, throwing in more parameters to explain anomalies in the way that Ptolemy or Copernicus did by adding in extra epicycles.  Approaching things mathematically, rather than as a scientist in the tradition of Mendeleyev, Kepler, Cusa, Fermat, Leibniz, or a great musician.

So, I’d like to actually at this point get to a short idea about this from Percy Shelley.  Now, Percy Shelley wrote a poem, Prometheus Unbound.  Aeschylus’ play Prometheus Bound is only the first of a trilogy, and the other two plays have been lost; we don’t have them.  But let me read an epilogue to Shelley’s poem, Prometheus Unbound.  He’s writing this to Prometheus.  He says that

“To suffer woes which hope thinks infinite; to forgive wrongs darker than death or night; to defy power which seems omnipotent; to love and bear; to hope ’til hope creates from its own wreck a thing it contemplates.  Neither to change, nor falter, nor repent.  This, like thy glory, Titan, is to be good, great, and joyous; beautiful and free.  This is alone life, joy, empire, and victory.” 

That the greatest power that we have lies in our minds; lies in the power to do new things; lies in the power to — as we understand it today through LaRouche’s economics — to live our lives in such a way that not only can we feel good about ourselves, but that we can have access to a necessity.  In other words, it’s possible to live a life in such a way that you will have been necessary to the future.

And as Ben said, just as we must prevent people from being killed — murder is wrong; we can’t have a SPCA approach to human beings.  To develop the Third World like adopting a poor puppy from the pound, or something like that.  That’s not a human approach to our fellow human beings.  The development that we need is one in which people are elevated to being able to play a role in that development process itself; and to be truly human. To know what means, to have an idea of what future must be; and as in that quote from LaRouche, to shape yourself, and live your life in shaping yourself to be able to bring that about.  That is the highest form of freedom for an individual.  And by bringing that to society as a whole, we can achieve the true highest sort of freedom; which is not only a freedom from want, oppression, tyranny; but it’s freedom to express intelligence, a freedom to know.  It’s a very developed sense of freedom; the highest sense of freedom.  And to make that something that people are able to participate in, is truly the highest work for us today.

 

BEETS:  Thank you very much, Jason.

With that, I’m going to bring a close to tonight’s broadcast.  I’d like to thank Ben, Jason, and Jeff for joining me tonight; and I would like to thank all of you for watching.

Please stay tuned to larouchepac.com. Good night.

 




LPAC Fredags-webcast 18. september 2015:
Wall Street er død; Glass-Steagall og konkursbehandling nu
ISIS kan ikke bekæmpes uden hjælp fra Rusland
v/Jeffrey Steinberg

Wall Street er død, og USA’s regering må gøre en ende på dets lidelser og sætte det under konkursbehandling under Glass-Steagall. Hvad sker der så? Hvordan ville en “New Deal” for det 21. århundrede se ud? Dette og mere diskuteres på aftenens webcast. Engelsk udskrift. 

Wall Street is dead and the federal government needs to put it out of its misery beginning with a Glass-Steagall banking reorganization. What follows? What would a 21st century New Deal look like today? This and more discussed in tonight’s webcast. This webcast was prerecorded.

LaRouche on Bankrutcy of the Fed, the Total FDR Approach
Federal Reserve Makes an Error Based on a Lie

 Transcript- JASON ROSS: Good evening. This is the LaRouche PAC webcast for September 18, 2015. My name is Jason Ross, and joining me in the studio tonight are Jeff Steinberg from Executive Intelligence Review, and Benjamin Deniston from LaRouche PAC. As a note to our viewers, we are pre-recording this event on September 17.

So, to jump right in to our first topic, which is the economy and Wall Street. LaRouche’s assessment is that Wall Street is breaking down; that we need Glass-Steagall, but that this can’t be seen as one bill in isolation, but rather as part of an entire FDR approach to the economy. One in which value is placed on something real, rather than simply money. So, I’d like to ask Jeff Steinberg to come up and tell us what is going on in the economy; and what do we do?

 

JEFFREY STEINBERG: Thanks, Jason. Well, just in the last several hours, the Federal Open Market Committee announced that they will not raise interest rates. This comes in a context in which virtually everyone who has a view of what’s been going on inside the trans-Atlantic system is convinced that we are on the edge of a massive blow-out; something that goes way beyond what happened in 2007 and 2008 with the blow-out of the real estate bubble in the United States, which spread to the entire banking and insurance sector of the US. And then, over a period of time, spread into Europe. Nothing fundamental was done to change the nature of the situation; in fact, in the aftermath of the trillions of dollars of bail-out of Wall Street — in the range minimally of $15-20 trillion in direct taxpayer bail-out of hopelessly bankrupt financial institutions, those institutions took the message very clearly. Continue with the same reckless, irresponsible gambling behavior, and once again, taxpayers will be looted to bail out the bubble.

So, here we are in 2015, seven years this month virtually this week, since the Lehman Brothers debacle, and the too-big-to-fail banks are bigger by both capitalization, by derivatives exposure, and by percentage of the US banking sector that they have a vise-grip control over; and they’ve continued with the same exact behavior. Dodd-Frank was a pathetic, sick joke; the Volcker Rule was never even intended to be implemented. All it was, was a diversion to prevent the only viable starting point for a meaningful solution; and that’s the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall exactly as it was done in 1933 by Franklin Roosevelt, when Glass-Steagall was simply the obvious and necessary first step to launching a major economic recovery based on wiping out Wall Street’s bubble, and moving toward state credit directed at job creation and real economic recovery. That same solution is required today; Wall Street is far bigger, is far more bankrupt than it was at the time of the 1929 Crash and the follow-on crashes that were inherited by Franklin Roosevelt when he was elected President.

The global derivatives alone, is in the range of $1.5-2 quadrillion; and you’ve had a net decline in the actual global GDP by any kind of measurement of real physical economy. The GDP numbers, of course, are completely hoked up; and are virtually useless because they reflect so much activity that is purely parasitical and has nothing to do with the needs of the real world population or the requirements of a real economic recovery. So, we are at the very edge of a blow-out of the entire global financial system. Centered in the trans-Atlantic region, you’ve got Wall Street, which is now the epicenter of this financial bubble that can never be paid, that is thoroughly worthless; and is a reflection of the extreme to which we’ve gotten into a money system in which everything is measured by money, and there is no concern whatsoever for real, physical economic measurements of wealth. Mr. LaRouche, as many of you undoubtedly know, has been the author of critical writings on the subject of how to measure real economic value. And he’s developed several unique concepts; concepts of energy flux density, potential relative population density, that measure the actual physical capacity of the planet to sustain an expanded population.

Ultimately, the issue comes down to the fact that human beings are not animals. That human beings can conceptualize the future; can make decisions about the nature of the future that will inform policy decisions today. The greatest recent memory example of that kind of policy approach was the actions taken by President Franklin Roosevelt; and particularly in the first 100 days of his Presidency, where the Wall Street bubble was wiped out. The original Glass-Steagall Act of June 1933, completely broke up the Wall Street too-big-to-fail banks of that period; and established an absolute iron-clad separation between traditional commercial banks and investment banks and insurance companies and other institutions that engaged in wild speculative activity leading to the blow-out. And Roosevelt established the FDIC that insured citizens’ deposits in the banks, to prevent future bank runs. That system worked effectively; we had no systemic crises from 1933 until 1999, when, under impeachment threat and under the cloud of other scandals, President Bill Clinton capitulated to the like of Larry Summers, and signed into law the bill that repealed Glass-Steagall. There was no reason and no excuse for President Clinton to have done that at the time.

As a consequence of that action and other deregulation acts that followed after that, you had in a very short period of time, a build-up of the largest financial bubble in recorded history; which blew out in 2007-2008. It was bailed out — out of the hides of taxpayers — and then proceeded to build up once again to an even greater level. The Richmond Federal Reserve issued a report several months ago that basically said that were there to be a “new bail-out” of the banks in the event of a new banking crisis, the taxpayers would be obliged to more than they were obliged to in 2008, when the total bail-out fund made available to the banks was $23.7 trillion. That is according to Senate testimony by Leo [neil] Barofsky, who was the Inspector General of the TARP program at the time. Now the Richmond Fed estimate is that the immediate figure of bail-out would be $26.5 trillion; but that’s just a drop in the bucket. The entirety of Wall Street is hopelessly, irreversibly bankrupt, and the only viable course of action, for starters, is to reinstate Glass-Steagall.

By doing that, you immediately begin an audit of all of the US banks; and you separate out legitimate commercial banking activity from all of the gambling, all of the derivatives, all of the activities that should never have come under the umbrella of the FDIC under a Glass-Steagall system. The moment that that gambling debt is separated out, and is no longer subject to taxpayers’ bail-out, you will immediately have a blow-out of that entire system. Wall Street will vaporize, because some wise guy right off the bat will make a margin call; and in one fell swoop, the entire derivatives bubble, all of the insurance and gambling activities, the credit default swaps, all of those things will be gone. And basic message of Mr. LaRouche is “Good riddance!” This is a parasite that has been destroying the real economy, the real conditions of life for the overwhelming majority of Americans and citizens around the world. So, we don’t need it! Wall Street can basically disappear; it’s already dead, and the fact that it hasn’t yet been buried, simply means that there is a terrible stench over southern Manhattan.

So, this is the reality of the situation. I can just say, anecdotally, that in the last 48 hours, I’ve had discussions with two very prominent international bankers — one in London, one who commutes back and forth between London and New York — and they both said very bluntly, “The game is up. The system is hopelessly bankrupt. The mountain of debt that has been built up, the quantitative easing policies of the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan, and until recently the US Federal Reserve, have created such a massive debt bubble that it is unpayable; and all it’s doing is choking the life out of the real economy.”

So, what do we need to do? We need: 1. Glass-Steagall immediately; and this should be done preemptively, because we don’t know whether we’re going to wake up tomorrow morning to find out that we’ve had a blow-out of the whole system. Now, one of the reasons to be sure, that the Federal Open Market Committee did not go with the quarter-point interest rate increase today is because there were hysterical warnings. Reports this week by the Bank for International Settlements, the World Bank; absolute hysteria coming from people like Ambrose Evans-Pritchard — one of the leading mouthpieces for the City of London — writing in the Daily Telegraph, warning that there must be a massive new quantitative easing. No interest rate hike can be tolerated; the bubble has to be bailed out one more time. Otherwise, the sky will fall in, and we’re all doomed.

Well, the reality is, the sky will not fall in if Glass-Steagall is followed by an orderly process of emission of credit through the existing commercial banks for viable projects, capital investment in critically-needed infrastructure projects, job creation projects, and emphasis on those programs which represent the kind of science-driver policy that Franklin Roosevelt enacted particularly with the launching of the Tennessee Valley Authority. So, there is no magic here. Wall Street is gone; it’s finished. There is nothing that can be done to salvage it. And the more that it’s kept from being buried, the more the pain will be inflicted. We need a series of emergency steps; we need directed Federal credit to inject capital into the legitimate commercial banks, because those banks will be greatly under-capitalized because they’ve been looted in the post-Glass-Steagall period. So, we need not only Glass-Steagall in the United States, but we need it internationally. And I am confident, based on some of the recent developments in Europe — particularly some of the dramatic shifts that we’ve seen in Germany in the past several weeks — that a Glass-Steagall action by the US Congress will be rapidly followed in Europe and in other critical parts of the world.

But then the critical thing is the full FDR agenda. Roosevelt used the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, which had been created by Herbert Hoover, as a quasi-national bank structure through which to provide credit for job creation. Both jobs that fulfilled an urgent emergency need because of the massive rates of unemployment; and secondly investment in capital-intensive programs, again, typified by the TVA. So that by the time we reached the late 1930s, when war had already erupted in Europe and President Roosevelt knew it was inevitable that the United States would be brought into the war, we had built up productive capacity in this country; through modernization of infrastructure, through revival of manufacturing and particularly the machine tool sector, through the kind of innovative scientific and technological work being done already through projects like the TVA. And it was those programs that made it possible for the United States to carry out the biggest military mobilization in human recorded history, to defeat fascism both in Europe and Asia.

So, in the current context, we want to avoid war at all costs, because war means thermonuclear war of extinction. But in all other modes, the lessons and the policies that were adopted by Franklin Roosevelt are exactly what must inform the policies that are carried out right now. That means, by the way, that Glass-Steagall must be immediately enacted preemptively in order to create the foundation of a functioning, effective commercial banking system with Wall Street buried and long gone. And actions along those lines will also have the further beneficial effect of ending the Obama Presidency; because he’s been nothing but a tool of those Wall Street and London interests that will be basically vaporized by the kind of policy initiatives that Mr. LaRouche has been spelling out.

So, we’re in a moment of crisis. As I say, people whom I spoke to in London and New York are absolutely crystal clear on the fact that the system is doomed and it’s a matter of days and hours, and perhaps weeks and not much longer than that before some incident, some factor will trigger the detonation of the entire system.

 

ROSS: Moving over to the strategic situation involving Syria and Russia, this is the institutional question for this week. It says:

 

“Mr. LaRouche, Secretary of State John Kerry called his counterpart Sergei Lavrov and re-affirmed the US commitment to fight ISIL terrorist groups in Syria with a coalition of more than 60 countries — of which Assad could never be a credible member, according to Kerry — and emphasized that the US would welcome a constructive Russian role in the anti-ISIL efforts. The Russian Foreign Ministry said that during the call, Mr. Lavrov again stressed the need to form a united front to fight terrorist groups in Syria. In your view, can there be a collaborative process leading to the inclusion of Russia in the counter-ISIL efforts?”

 

STEINBERG: In a moment, I want to go to the notes that I took during that discussion with Mr. LaRouche, because I want to present his formulations very precisely. But let me start by saying that some elements of the question I think have to be commented on. The idea that there is actually a coalition of 60 countries fighting against ISIL today is in and of itself a fraud. How can you have a coalition that’s fighting against ISIL, when it includes Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey, and Qatar, who are the four leading countries in the region who have promoted and facilitated the rise of ISIS? In fact, you’d have to go all the way back to the late 1970s and ’80s when we were labelling what became al-Qaeda as mujahideen freedom fighters, because they were terrorists who were financed and recruited by the United States, Britain, France, Israel, Saudi Arabia and others, to go into Afghanistan and wage warfare against the Soviet Red Army. When the Soviets left Afghanistan, those networks remained intact and turned their sights against the West, against the United States, as anybody with a brain would have anticipated and forecasted. So, the United States bears responsibility, along with the Saudis, along with the British, along with other Gulf countries, for creating this terrorist fiasco in the first place. Jihadist terrorism as it exists today, would not be the global threat that it is today, were it not for the actions that were undertaken to create these organizations that were ostensibly put together to fight against the Soviets.

So, there’s a real irony here. To this day, Saudi Arabia is widely known to be the largest financier and overall promoter of the spread of Salafist Wahabi terrorism around the globe. The Saudis have not taken in any of the refugees from the wars that are Obama’s wars in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan; but very cutely, they offered to build 200 Wahabi mosques in Germany alone, in order to provide religious training to the 800,000 Syrian and other Middle East and North African refugees that Germany will be taking in this year. In other words, the Saudis are saying, “We’ll come in there, and we’ll create another generation or two generations of new recruits to Salafist terrorism.” So, with that in mind on Saudi Arabia, with the fact that Obama’s wars in Libya, in Syria, in Iraq, have been responsible for the emergence of the Islamic State. The fact that Turkey has been making billions of dollars in black market profits for President Erdogan’s AKP Party as part of the support for the Islamic State and for the Nusra Front, simply tells you that this idea that there is a coalition of nations fighting against the Islamic State and Syria, is an absolute preposterous fraud. It’s untrue; it never happened, and it hasn’t happened.

What has happened is, as we’ve been discussing over several weeks now on this Friday night broadcast, is that Russian President Putin instituted a brilliant flanking move, by sending Russian military equipment, Russian military personnel, into Syria at a point that the onslaught from these Saudi- and US- an British-backed Salafist terrorists had reached the point where the survival of the Assad government was in jeopardy. So, Russia has stepped in, and Russia is now building up the military force capabilities; they’re establishing an air base south of the Syrian town of Latakia on the north Mediterranean coast of Syria. They’re building up a new naval facility. They’ve already airlifted and boatlifted into Syria significant military equipment — tanks, artillery pieces, and other capabilities including fighter planes. So that within a very short period of time, and this is fully at the invitation of the Syrian government through established treaty agreements between Russia and Syria that go back a long time, that in some cases predated Russia, and went back to the Soviet period.

So, what the Russians are doing in Syria is legal under international law, and under bilateral treaty agreement between Syria and Russia. And so therefore, the Russians are on the verge of launching conventional military operations — ground and air operations — against the Islamic State. We don’t know for certain whether that will happen; we don’t know for certain how many Russian troops will be sent in to Syria. But what we do know is that the mere fact that the Russians made this move, has fundamentally altered the strategic surface in the Middle East as a whole, and more broadly, on a global scale. So, this was a crucial flanking initiative by Putin, and were there to be an agreement between Russia and the United States to cooperate in a genuine campaign against the Islamic State, and against the Nusra Front, and against the Army of Conquest, which is the latest name for another element of the Saudi-bankrolled Salafist terrorist apparatus. Under those circumstances, so long as Putin was in the driver’s seat and Russia was playing a leading role and President Obama was sidelined all together, this could work.

What Mr. LaRouche said is,

 

“Without Russian participation, any such effort would be doomed to complete failure. And by inclination, President Obama will wish to see that process fail. So therefore, any effective military operation combined with a diplomatic initiative, has to begin by removing President Obama’s influence, which is one of the main blockages towards an effective operation. Obama has to be induced to back down, or he will make a mess of everything. Obama is an ugly loser; and nothing should be done to encourage Obama. And so, action is needed, surely; and that action must be taken under the Putin leadership.”

 

And Obama can, of course, be included; he can play a token role. He can even take credit to an extent; but under no circumstances can he actually have a real say in how such an operation is going to be conducted.

Now, President Putin has made three proposals, very specifically. He will be giving a major address at the UN General Assembly at the end of this month, and in that speech, we already know his intention is to call for a creation of a genuine, serious committed coalition to wipe out the scourge of terrorism. Secondly, he has made it clear that he would like very much to have a face-to-face, sit-down meeting with President Obama on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York. They’ll both be in town at the same time. Perfectly normal for such a discussion to take place, and the White House is terrified over the prospect of such a meeting. Why? Because they don’t understand what Putin is doing. They don’t understand how his mind works. And they’re afraid that any such meeting would be impossible for Obama, because you could never bring in a teleprompter that anticipates in advance everything that the President would be saying in his discussion with Putin.

So, yes, there is a possibility, but, as Mr. LaRouche said, you’ve got to humiliate Obama into a corner. Now, you’ve had a dramatic shift just in the last several weeks, in which Europe, the leading countries in Europe, namely Germany, first, and now France along with that, have realigned in a fundamental way. The Europeans wereterrified, even before the Putin initiative in Syria. They were terrified that Europe was headed for another world war to be fought on European soil, but this time, centered around the Ukraine situation. This would be a thermonuclear war, perhaps beginning as an exchange of tactical nuclear weapons, because both sides are building up large arsenals of modernized tactical nuclear weapons, right in the center of Europe.

But the Europeans were terrified of the war danger.

President Putin, as part of the Normandy Four discussions, and as part of the Minsk agreements, has clearly made a move to ensure that the ceasefire that began September 1st, is being fully enforced by the Russian minorities in the Donbass region in Eastern Ukraine. And so, the Russians have taken definitive steps to de-escalate the danger of a war of that sort in Europe.

Leading European statesmen, people associated with the European Leadership Network, former defense ministers, former heads of state, former foreign secretaries, have come out and said, we must take actions to de-escalate, to reduce the danger of thermonuclear war, general war, in Europe. And as a part of that concern, that real existential fear about that war danger, the Germans first, and now joined by the French, have said that they would fully support President Putin’s initiative in Syria, and would welcome the idea of sitting down in an inclusive collaborative way with Russia, to solve the Syria problem, just as the Normandy Group has been making progress in de-escalating the danger of war over Ukraine.

The German population opened their arms and their hearts to the refugees from the Middle East, from North Africa, and this also has changed the character of the German leadership in Europe. Instead of taking the lead in pushing for murderous austerity, the Germans have now taken the lead in showing genuine compassion, and a willingness to go out of their way to basically save the lives of these hundreds of thousands, millions, of refugees fleeing into Europe from these Obama wars in North Africa and the Middle East.

So, that’s a fundamental break in the situation, and now, between Russia and the Europeans, you have a situation in which you don’t have to go to Obama for Obama’s approval. With European backing, with a new Russian fact on the ground — Russian forces now actively engaged on the ground in Syria, through airlifts and boatlifts that have been ongoing for weeks —you now have a different situation.

Mr. LaRouche concluded by saying, Obama is almost stymied. He’s been weakened. He’s been cornered. And the next step is to invoke the 25th Amendment, and remove him from office altogether. The crisis around the death of Wall Street, and the need for a fundamental revolution in policy, a return to FDR, and the need to remove Obama to be absolutely certain that the danger of a thermonuclear war of extinction is eliminated — these two situations now converge, and there is nothing more important, now that Obama has been weakened and marginalized, than to have him removed from office by Constitutional means, so that we can actually move on to genuinely solve these crises — whether it’s Syria, with a critical role by Russia; or whether it’s wiping out Wall Street, and replacing it with a Glass-Steagall-FDR system.

In both cases, Obama’s the blockage. The crisis is here and now. So, let’s use the Constitution to solve the problem.

 

JASON ROSS: For a final topic today, we’re going to talk about the discussions that have been taking place among Russia, South Korea, and China shaping up towards the creation of a North Asia Development Bank that would include the Koreas, Russia, China, and Japan. This comes in the context of the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok, held directly after the Victory Day celebrations in China at the beginning of this month, where Russian President Putin and Korean President Park were very prominent guests of President Xi.

Lyndon LaRouche responded to the development around the possibility of this North Asian Development Bank by stressing the necessity for completing, building, the Kra Canal, a project whose recent planning goes back to the 1980s, to build a canal across the Isthmus of Kra in Thailand, relieving the overburdened Straits of Malacca, providing new transportation route, development for the region, especially today, as seen in the context of the New Silk Road.

I’d like to ask Benjamin Deniston, who has some remarks on this topic, to tell us about the Kra Canal.

 

BEN DENISTON: Thanks, Jason. Just to open up, I think this is an excellent counterpoint to what we just discussed with the insanity of Wall Street, and the Wall Street system. The Wall Street idea of money, this money system that is now blowing out, where there’s this religious belief in the value of money per se, and this insanity around trying to defend this bubble, which is full of financial assets which don’t actually mean anything.

Now you contrast that with what was just referenced, with what China is doing in collaboration with Russia, the BRICS nations, their other allies, other nations they’re working with around the world, in this completely new orientation, where they’re created institutions, new financial institutions — some might say new monetary institutions: like the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (the AIIB); or as Jason just mentioned, the discussion of a prospective North Asian Development Bank.

So, new financial institutions, new financial structures, to deal with what some people might call money. I think what Mr. LaRouche would define, more rigorously, as credit, as distinct from simply a monetary policy. Institutions to provide credit, specifically for projects like the Kra Canal.

Now, if we can get the first graphic up on the screen: (Figure 1). Now, we’re particularly talking about a region in Southeast Asia, and currently all shipping that goes from East Asia — from China, from South Korea, from Japan, from this entire region, which has a substantial amount of economic activity — any of the shipping from this region that goes to India, to the Mediterranean, up into Europe, goes through [the Straits of Malacca] — and including the discussion on China’s work on the New Maritime Silk Road, which is the maritime aspect of their Silk Road project, cover this exact same territory as well.

The shipping goes through a very congested bottleneck, which you can see displayed here, the Malacca Straits. Here you have a very narrow canal, a very narrow region, which currently is something on the order of one-fifth of the entire world’s trade. Not just for this region. But if you take the entire world trade, something on the order of one-fifth goes through these narrow straits.

If you bring up the second graphic (Figure 2), you can get a sense of the scale of this. This was from a 2013 video production by the LaRouche PAC, which you can find linked to the video description here. It’s entitled “The Kra Canal and the Development of Southeast Asia, produced in 2013.” But in this graphic from that video, you can see that through these Straits of Malacca, which we just saw in the previous map, in 2012, for a representative year, you had something like 90,000 ships travelling through those straits, which was around three times the combined number of ships that travelled through the Panama Canal and the Suez Canal.

So the Panama and Suez Canal combined, times three, is the number of ships passing through the Straits of Malacca. And at the time of our production of this video, it was estimated that the traffic through the Malacca Straits was going to be increasing by about 20% each year, putting on a direction to rather soon reach just a maximum capacity. You can only fit so many ships through this region. And it’s also relatively shallow, making it difficult for larger ships to even be able to get through this region at all.

So, it has been long known that this particular point in Southeast Asia, these Straits of Malacca, is a critical bottleneck for world trade, and world development. If you’re going from East Asia to India, you’ve got to pass through this region. If you’re going from East Asia into the Mediterranean, you have to pass through this region. If you want to go from East Asia into Europe, to the Atlantic in this route, you have to pass through particular region.

There’s been a long-standing proposal to develop a new shipping route, a new canal through Thailand, through the Kra Isthmus, and you can see this on the third graphic (Figure 3) here displayed. Again, a screen shot from our video, which presents this entire project, and its history in greater detail. Now you can see the path running through this rather narrow isthmus, through Thailand, through the Kra Isthmus. And here we have the proposal to make this canal, which would cut out the need to got through these Straits of Malacca. This would cut off something like 1000 miles from the trip, from the South China Sea into the Indian Ocean — not a huge, a modest reduction in the actual distance travelled. Not the biggest in the world, but something certainly significant.

But probably more important than the distance, is this would be a keystone project in just alleviating this bottleneck for this whole region, and being able to rapidly expand trade, and facilitate the continued expansion of trade through the Maritime Silk Road, from the developments in Asia, East Asia, in particular, again over to India, and as you can see in the fourth graphic (Figure 4) here, if you pair this with the recent incredible developments with Egypt’s development of the New Suez Canal, and we pair that with this prospect for a Kra Canal, you have a completely new potential for economic linking between the Pacific Ocean, between China, Russia’s eastern borders, South Korea, Japan, this entire region, through the Kra Canal to India, to the entire Indian Ocean, up through the New Suez Canal into the Mediterranean, into Southern Europe, and then into the Atlantic.

So we have a new picture of linking, as LaRouche was saying earlier today, the entire Pacific, the Atlantic, in a completely new way.

Again, I’d like to direct people to the feature video that we produced in 2013 on this subject, The Kra Canal and the Development of Southeast Asia. You can see this in graphic 5 (Figure 5), just an advertisement for the video.

As we discussed there, this project has a long and important history, designs going back to the 70s, and earlier, and in particular, Mr. LaRouche’s important role directly in the early ’80s, with his Fusion Energy Foundation, and his Executive Intelligence Review magazine sponsoring, in collaboration with the government of Thailand, collaborators from Japan, in sponsoring a series of conferences dedicated to the development of Southeast Asia, to the building of the Kra Canal, which Mr. LaRouche himself attended in the early ’80s on this subject.

And so it’s only appropriate now, given the shifting world economic dynamic towards China, towards the BRICS, that we’re seeing come back up and being put back on the table, as a perspective development project now.

I’d just like to conclude by looking at — again, I think this is an excellent case study in the type of shift in thinking that we need in the United States now. The difference between this insanity of Wall Street, where people are panicked about defending money that doesn’t mean anything. Money that has no actual existence in terms of any actual physical activity in the real economy. A completely worthless speculative bubble.

Versus what we’re seeing with things like the prospect for the Kra Canal, the construction of the Suez Canal. You have new financial institutions being developed, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), the North Asian Development Bank, the New Silk Road Development Bank. We have new financial institutions ready to create the credit to invest in these types of actual development projects. Projects that actually physically transform the physical economic potential of — as the case of the Kra Canal. Not even of this entire region, but really of the whole world economy. You’re talking about a region which currently — around one-fifth of the entire global trade goes through this region.

So, if you’re going to reduce the time of trade through this region, if you’re going to lower the physical costs, you’re having a net physical impact on the entire world economy. You’re lowering the physical costs of the goods, and in effect, you’re raising the physical value provided to the entire world economy by those goods, by investing in these types of projects which can facilitate this whole process more efficiently.

It’s a useful case in the use of actual credit, a real credit system, to invest in real physical development, which actually has a measurable, understandable increase in the productive powers of the world economy. As measurable increase in the physical wealth, the lowering of the physical costs, increasing the physical wealth of the productive process of the entire world economy.

So I think this is one among many of a critical lesson for what the United States needs to start doing, and thinking towards, in a post-Wall Street era. And this should remind us of what we used to do, we did under Franklin Roosevelt, of the types of real physical investment policies which contribute to creating a higher order future for our country, for the coming generations. And this is absolutely what we need today.

I think that Mr. LaRouche’s remarks about emphasizing the Kra Canal is an incredibly important and exciting keystone development for this entire perspective, and it shows us, again, another resounding clear message of where the rest of the world is going, where the rest of the world is going in creating a new economy, a new economic stage, a new higher-order future for their societies. And this is just another message for the United States to get away from the control of Wall Street, and get serious and participate in this type of development, these types of projects.

 

JASON ROSS: Thank you, gentlemen. That will conclude the webcast for this evening, so thank you for joining us, thank you for your support, past, present, and future — and we will see you again.

Friday, September 18, 2015

 

 




LPAC Webcast 11. sept. 2015, dansk udskrift:
Uden Glass-Steagall fører Wall Streets bankerot til 3. Verdenskrig.

»De samvittighedsløse pengevekselerers handlemåde står anklaget ved den offentlige menings domstol, og menneskers hjerte og sind har forkastet dem. …  De har ingen vision, og hvor der ikke er nogen vision, går folket til grunde.« 

FDR, 1933.

 

Download (PDF, Unknown)




LPAC webcast 4. sept. 2015:
“Vores fremtid hænger i den tyndeste tråd”
Dansk udskrift

Verden er i en tilstand af generel krig, selv om generel krig endnu ikke er brudt ud, og muligheden for en strategisk faktor, der kan ændre spillet – en intervention fra den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin, der især vedrører den aktuelle situation i Syrien – kunne forandre alt i den aktuelle, strategiske verdenssituation.

Download (PDF, Unknown)




LPAC webcast 28. aug 2015:
Verden vågner op til faren for udslettelse.
Dansk udskrift

“Hr. LaRouche sagde, at, selvfølgelig er der en mulighed for at løse denne forfærdelige krise, denne krig, der nu er blevet ført mod Syrien i næsten fire år. Og selvfølgelig er USA og Rusland det afgørende omdrejningspunkt for enhver form for løsning”

Download (PDF, Unknown)




Jeffrey Steinberg, en af EIR’s redaktører med speciale i efterretninger:
Den anglo-saudiske baggrund for den aktuelle, internationale terrorisme:
Frigiv sandheden, og lad os lukke imperiemagternes topstyrede terrorapparat ned,
én gang for alle!

Webcast 9. januar 2015: Jeffrey Steinberg: … det spørgsmål, vi har fået fra institutionelt hold, og som fokuserer på de seneste dages begivenheder i Frankrig. Men jeg tror, at pointen nu burde stå klart for Dem alle, at det er umuligt blot at påbegynde en diskussion af disse begivenheder, uden som et minimum at gå tilbage til begivenhederne den 11. september, samt den brutale mørklægning, der fulgte efter.

Webcast 9. januar 2015: Jeffrey Steinberg: Jeg mener, at senator Graham virkelig satte rammerne for at besvare det spørgsmål, vi har fået fra institutionelt hold, og som fokuserer på de seneste dages begivenheder i Frankrig. Men jeg tror, at pointen nu burde stå klart for Dem alle, at det er umuligt blot at påbegynde en diskussion af disse begivenheder, uden som et minimum at gå tilbage til begivenhederne den 11. september, samt den brutale mørklægning, der fulgte efter.

I andre afsnit af pressekonferencen onsdag pointerede senator Graham, og også kongresmedlem Lynch, mener jeg, at når dokumenter fra regeringen underkastes undersøgelse med henblik på klassificering (hemmeligstempling), før de frigives til offentligheden, så er der meget ofte bortredigeringer. Disse udgør navne, der ikke nævnes, måske undertiden landenavne, der ikke nævnes, fordi man er bekymret for, hvad det kunne afsløre. Men der har aldrig været et dokument af samme vigtighed som Den fælles Kongresundersøgelse, hvor et helt kapitel, med praktisk talt hvert ord i kapitlet spærret og erklæret klassificeret. Og alle de kongresmedlemmer, der for nylig har læst disse 28 sider, hvilket i sig selv var en kamp, har sagt, at der ikke er noget, der kommer op i den standard, hvor man kan være bekymret for den nationale sikkerhed.

(Dansk udskrift af hele senator Bob Grahams pressekonference, samt selve pressekonferencen, kan ses her)

Det, som siderne afslører, og der er vigtige dele af disse 28 sider, som vi kender til, de afslører for det første, at der rent faktisk var et udbredt støttenetværk, der i hvert fald i to af hovedflykaprernes tilfælde opererede, det vil sige de to første 11. september-flykaprere, der ankom til USA mere end et år før angrebene 11. september. De blev modtaget af to mænd i Los Angeles lufthavn, der blev identificeret som agenter i den saudiarabiske efterretningstjeneste; disse to saudiske agenter sørgede for indkvartering, andre former for logistiske behov, gav dem penge og fik dem rent faktisk ind i den oprindelige pilotuddannelse.

I hele denne periode modtog disse to saudiske efterretningsofficerer jævnligt penge for at finansiere disse aktiviteter. Nogle af pengene kom via et selskab, der var en eksklusiv, såkaldt privat, facade for Det saudiske Ministerium for Forsvar og Flyvning, og den ene af disse to saudiske efterretningsofficerer var en spøgelsesmedarbejder, der modtog ikke blot en betydelig løn, men også dyr finansiering af udgifter, i den periode, hvor 11. september-flykaprerne blev guidet rundt og beskyttet og finansieret. Der kom mindst 50.000 dollar, sandsynligvis nærmere 70.000 dollar, direkte til disse saudiske efterretningsagenter i tiden op til 11. september-angrebene fra den saudiarabiske ambassadør til USA, Prins Bandar bin Sultans personlige bankkonto.

Prins Bandar bin Sultan har været et fast element i USA i årtier; mange mennesker refererede til ham som »Bandar Bush«, fordi han havde sådan et ekstraordinært tæt forhold til både Bush 41 og Bush 43. Bandars hustru, Prinsesse Haifa, var søster til Prins Turki bin Faisal, som var chef for saudisk efterretningsvæsen i over ti år, og som trak sig tilbage fra denne post to uger før angrebene 11. september. Prins Turki var en af de afgørende spillere, der forhandlede direkte med Osama bin Laden og åbnede sluserne for saudisk finansiering, der tilflød al-Qaeda i perioden umiddelbart forud for bombningerne af afrikanske ambassader, angrebet på USS Cole og dernæst angrebene 11. september.

Jeg tror, at senator Graham var meget bevidst om sammenstillingen af sine bemærkninger om Saudi Arabien, monarkiet i Saudi Arabien, og hans referencer til det britiske monarkis forræderi under Borgerkrigen. For i dag er det i realiteten umuligt at skelne mellem det britiske og det saudiske monarki: De repræsenterer en enkelt kraft, og havde det ikke været for den aktive og bevidste involvering af det britiske monarki og britiske efterretningstjenester, havde saudierne ikke kunnet spille den form for rolle, de spillede, hvor de ydede afgørende støtte til 11. september-flykaprerne, og mange, mange andre lignende aktiviteter.

Der er faktisk et veldokumenteret billede af overensstemmelse mellem britiske og saudiske monarkiske operationer, der har direkte forbindelse til 11. september. Fra og med 1985 var Prins Bandar bin Sultan, selv om han var ambassadøren her i Washington, D.C., det personlige mellemled til daværende premierminister Margaret Thatcher i en meget unik aftale om en byttehandel mellem briterne og saudierne, hvor briterne gennem våbenindustriselskabet BAE Systems leverede diverse former for våben til en værdi af 40 milliarder dollar til Det saudiske Forsvarsministerium. Til gengæld betalte saudierne for dette militærudstyr, og et par meget store bestikkelser, der gik til ledende regeringsfolk i Det saudiske Forsvarsministerium og blev uddelt blandt flere andre saudiske prinser, ved at levere 600.000 tønder olie dagligt, fra 1985, og dette program eksisterer faktisk endnu i dag.

I EIR arbejdede vi lidt med at analysere tallene, og vi fik dernæst en vis afgørende, bekræftende information af Prins Bandar selv. Hvis man ser på den mængde penge, som briterne brugte til at levere disse våbensystemer, og dernæst sammenligner det med de indtægter, der blev genereret af salget af bogstavelig talt en supertanker olie om dagen på spotmarkederne i en periode fra 1985 og fortsættende frem til i dag, vil man finde, at efter at have taget alle disse kendsgerninger i betragtning, var der stadig en del mere end 100 milliarder dollar i finansiering til overs.

I en nylig, sanktioneret biografi pralede Prins Bandar af den kendsgerning, at det særlige forhold mellem det saudiske og det britiske monarki muliggjorde oprettelsen af en række offshore-fonde – sorte fonde, sandsynligvis den største pulje af penge til hemmelige operationer, der nogen sinde er samlet på en gang. Og disse britisk-saudiske fonde, der blev administreret i fællesskab, gik, som Bandar selv pralede med, til (citat) »krigen mod kommunisme«, hvorved han mente finansieringen af Mujaheddin i Afghanistan, som var en af ynglepladserne for al-Qaeda og alle de andre grupper, som vi nu ser optræde på verdensscenen.

Og i den periode, hvor Bandar og hans hustru således leverede finansiering til de saudiske efterretningsofficerer, der guidede to af hovedflykaprerne i 11. september rundt, modtog Bandar jævnligt bankoverførsler fra Bank of England, i form af hans »mæglersalær« for olie-for-våben-aftalen mellem briterne og saudierne – den hed al Yamamah; de kaldte det »The Dove«, oversat til engelsk fra arabisk. Så Bandars del af dette arrangement var som et minimum 2 mia. dollar i mæglersalær, der kom ind på hans bankkonti i Riggs National Bank. Det var disse penge, der blev sendt af sted for at hjælpe med at finansiere 11. september-flykaprerne.

Dette er alt sammen en del af det, der står i de 28 sider. Vi ved det ikke, fordi vi sneg os ned i kælderen i Capitol-bygningen og læste dem; vi ved det, fordi der har været andre redegørelser. For eksempel skrev senator Graham en bog i 2004 med titlen Efterretningsanliggender, og denne bog fortalte om hans oplevelse som formand for Den fælles Kongreskomite til undersøgelse af 11. september, og han fortalte som anekdoter om en del af de afgørende resultater, som dengang fandtes i de 28 sider, som blev bortredigeret af præsident Bush og vicepræsident Cheney, og som fortsat holdes tilsløret af præsident Obama på trods af den kendsgerning, at han, ved mindst to lejligheder lovede familiemedlemmerne, 11. september familiemedlemmerne, ansigt-til-ansigt, at han ville sørge for, at disse sider blev afklassificeret.

Jeg er sikker på, at der er mange andre faktorer inkluderet i disse 28 sider, der drejede sig om spørgsmålet om der var, eller ikke var, netværk, der var involveret i at støtte terroristerne, og hvor pengene til operationerne den 11. september kom fra. Navnet Saudi Arabien, navne på specifikke, højtplacerede personer i det saudiske monarki og den saudiske regering, står overalt på de 28 sider. Jeg havde, under pressekonferencen onsdag, lejlighed til at bede senator Graham om at give en kort redegørelse af et andet element af 11. september-historien: På baggrund af resultater af undersøgelsen af cellen i San Diego, Californien, hvor de saudiske efterretningsofficerer direkte fremmede flykaprernes aktiviteter og forberedelser, stillede senator Graham spørgsmålet, om der var, eller ikke var, etableret lignende støtteoperationer andre afgørende steder, hvor flykaprerne lavede det forberedende arbejde. Det omfatter steder som Sarasota, Florida, hvor Mohammed Atta og det ene team var under uddannelse og opererede; det omfattede Herndon, Virginia; det omfattede Paterson, New Jersey; og der var andre steder. Men disse fire steder, San Diego, Sarasota, Herndon og Paterson, var afgørende centre for alle forberedelserne og iscenesættelsen af 11. september-operationen.

Senator Graham kommer fra Florida. Han spurgte FBI, på det tidspunkt, hvor han var formand for Den fælles Kongresundersøgelse af alle filer med relation til de undersøgelser, der blev foretaget i Florida, om der var nogen indikation på, at et lignende støtteapparat opererede i dette område. FBI svarede tilbage, gentagne gange, at der ikke var nogen optegnelser, ingen beviser på noget sådant. Mange år senere, grundlæggende set inden for de seneste to år, blev det, gennem arbejde udført af undersøgende journalister, og gennem registreringen af en retssag, anlagt med baggrund i Loven om Informationsfrihed, med nogen forsinkelse opdaget, at jo, der havde faktisk været endnu en støttecelle, denne gang ledet af en meget prominent, saudisk forretningsmand, der var ansat af den saudiske kongefamilie, og hvis hjem ofte blev besøgt af Mohammed Atta og de andre flykaprere. Og minsandten, om ikke FBI sluttelig indrømmede, at de havde over 80.000 siders dokumentation! Denne dokumentation blev tilbageholdt for Den fælles Kongresundersøgelse, blev undertrykt og mørklagt i et dusin år; og nu, for første gang, undersøger en føderal dommer dette materiale. Dette kaster nu et langt stærkere lys på ikke alene det saudiske, men det anglo-saudiske element af hele 11. september-processen.

Og igen, hvis denne information var kommet ud til offentligheden – kongresmedlemmerne Jones, Lynch og Thomas Massie, der er den tredje medsponsor af lovforslaget for afklassificeringen af de 28 sider, har alle sammen sagt, at efter at have læst de 28 sider – og de har været meget forsigtige med ikke at sige et ord om, hvad de ved om indholdet af disse 28 sider, men de har ret til at komme med deres mening; og i alle tilfælde sagde de, at hele deres syn på de seneste 15 års historie, og endnu længere, var fundamentalt forandret og rystet af det, de havde læst i disse 28 sider.

Nu står vi så her, i begyndelsen af 2015. Vi har netop set det forfærdelige angreb, der fandt sted i Paris, Frankrig, onsdag morgen i denne uge. USA er nu angiveligt i en alliance med Saudi Arabien, Storbritannien og andre lande i Golfstaternes Samarbejdsråd i Den persiske Golf, sunni-lande, for det meste monarkier, der angiveligt fører krig mod Islamisk Stat, ISIS. Men bevismaterialet i disse 28 sider indikerer, at dette anglo-saudiske apparat er kildeudspringet til hele den internationale terrorisme, som vi er blevet konfronteret med i løbet af det seneste dusin år. I stedet for at afsløre den intense og dybe saudiske involvering i 11. september, var alle saudiere, der befandt sig i USA, inklusive medlemmer af bin Laden-familien, de første, der fik lov at gå ombord i kommercielle fly efter angrebet 11. september. I dagene efter 11. september blev hvert eneste af disse mennesker samlet og, ikke sat i fængsel, eller udleveret, men sat på kommercielle fly og bragt tilbage til Saudi Arabien, i sikkerhed for USA’s retshåndhævelse.

Så mørklægningen har været vedholdende, og, som senator Graham netop sagde på pressekonferencen, som et resultat af dette var der et klart budskab: I kan fortsætte ustraffet, for USA vil mørklægge denne britisk-saudiske faktor.

Hændelserne i Paris for et par dage siden er stadig ved at blive undersøgt. Det ville være for tidligt at erklære historien for klappet og klar og hævde, at der er et klart billede af, hvad der stod bag denne operation. Men der er allerede kommet flere ting frem, der er blevet bekræftet og står klart: For det første var de to brødre, der var involveret som attentatmænd på Charlie Hebdos kontor, og som dræbte et dusin mennesker, en del af et netværk, et rekrutterende netværk, et jihadist-netværk, der meget længe har opereret under det britiske monarkis beskyttende paraply. Der er moskéer i London, inklusive Finsbury Park-moskéen, hvor de, der rekrutterede disse to Kouachi-brødre, var baseret og i årtier beskyttet af den britiske krone og britisk efterretningsvæsen.

En af lederne af denne moské, Abu Hamza, blev for nylig, inden for de seneste par år, udleveret til USA og retsforfulgt for sin rolle i visse terroraktiviteter og rekruttering af terrorister, og hovedelementet i hans forsvar ved en amerikansk domstol er, at, mens han var i USA for at rekruttere til al-Qaeda og andre jihadist-grupper, arbejdede han også i hemmelighed for MI5, deres modstykke til FBI. Og der er grund til at tro, at disse påstande har betydelig troværdighed.

På den ene eller anden måde, så har vi her at gøre med et topstyret, anglo-saudisk apparat, der er kildeudspringet til finansieringen, uddannelsen og beskyttelsen af international terrorisme, og så længe, sandheden forbliver skjult for det amerikanske folk, og for hele verden, er der ingen måde, hvorpå vi kan stoppe denne terrorisme; denne terrorisme vil fortsætte, uafbrudt, og dog kan vi, ved simpelt hen at afsløre sandheden, og starte med frigivelen af de 28 sider, begynde at løse dette problem på den rigtige måde.

Jeg bør tilføje en fodnote: For, flere måneder før angrebene 11. september, præsenterede Executive Intelligence Review et dossier for daværende udenrigsminister Madeleine Albright. Og dossieret opfordrede grundlæggende set Udenrigsministeriet til at overveje, om Storbritanniens regering burde sættes på listen over stater, der sponsorerer terrorisme. [EIR, Vol. 27, nr. 3, 21. jan. 2000; »Put Britain on the List of State Sponsoring Terrorism«; http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2000/eirv27n03-20000121/

eirv27n03-20000121_052-put_britain_on_the_list_of_state.pdf].

Dette dossier, der kan ses på EIR’s websides hjemmeside, var udelukkende baseret på regeringsdokumentation, formelle diplomatiske henvendelser, der var registreret hos British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, fra regeringer så forskellige som den egyptiske, russiske, peruvianske, colombianske, indiske – og i hvert enkelt tilfælde lød klagen på det samme. At terrornetværk, der var aktive i alle disse lande, fik beskyttelse på et sikkert sted, logistisk støtte og finansiering af den britiske regering.

I Ruslands tilfælde var der moskéer over hele Det forenede Kongerige, der var brændpunkter for rekruttering for at sende fanatiske jihadist-rekrutter til først at blive uddannet i Afghanistan og Pakistan, og dernæst sendt til Kaukasus-området for at tilslutte sig de tjetjenske netværk, der udførte en blodig terrorkampagne mod Rusland. I Egyptens tilfælde blev den Islamiske Jihad-gruppe, der udførte massakren på turister på de historiske steder i Luxor i Øvre Egypten, kørt fra London af netværk, der blev finansieret og beskyttet af den britiske regering.

Så det spørgsmål, vi har for os med de 28 sider, går videre end til Saudi Arabien. Det går direkte til kernen af karakteren af de imperiemagter, der stadig eksisterer på denne planet. Og vi har derfor, ved at frigive disse 28 sider, og ved at frigive et element af sandheden, ikke alene en enestående mulighed for at opnå retfærdighed for familierne, for amerikanerne og for alle ofrene for terrorisme i hele verden; men vi lægger også grunden til at få lukket dette apparat ned, én gang for alle. For terrorisme er ikke et »sociologisk fænomen«, det er ikke noget, der styres fra bunden og opefter. Ligesom den internationale narkohandel, så styres det ovenfra og nedefter, og alle veje fører sluttelig tilbage til det, som selv den britiske presse refererer til som »Londonistan«.