LaRouchePAC Internationale Fredags-Webcast 4. marts 2016:
Vi må udvikle rumprogrammet for hele menneskeheden.
Engelsk udskrift

Megan Beets fra LPAC Videnskabsteam rapporterer fra en begivenhed med Kesha Rogers i Texas om rumprogrammets betydning for USA og hele menneskeheden; Jeffrey Steinberg fremlægger en analyse af begivenhederne omkring Libyen, som Hillary Clinton var en del af, med afsættelsen og mordet på Gaddafi, og hele operationens konsekvenser for den aktuelle situation i Nordafrika og Mellemøsten, der kan føre til generel atomkrig; og Jeff Steinberg fremlægger hr. LaRouches tanker om en genrejsning af USA’s økonomi, med en genoplivning af rumprogrammet som spydspids. Engelsk udskrift.        

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening. It’s March 4th, 2016. My name
is Matthew Ogden and you are joining us for our weekly broadcast
here on Friday evenings for the LaRouche PAC webcast, at
larouchepac.com. I’m joined in the studio this evening by Jeffrey
Steinberg from {Executive Intelligence Review}, and Megan Beets
from the LaRouche Pac Science Team. And Megan Beets just returned
from a trip to Houston, Texas where she was involved in a very
significant event and other meetings with Kesha Rogers. Many of
you might have seen the recording of this event, which was also
live-streamed on this website last Saturday. It featured Tom
Wysmueller, and Kesha Rogers, as well as Megan Beets.
We’re going to begin our broadcast this evening with some
remarks from Megan Beets, coming off the discussion that we had
with Mr. LaRouche this morning. As many of you know, Mr. LaRouche
has placed a premium on Kesha Rogers’ role as a champion, a
unique champion, of the resurgence of the United States space
program. Kesha Rogers very aggressively campaigned for this cause
in her three campaigns for Federal office that she has run so far
— 2010, 2012, and 2014, in which she was the Democratic nominee
two elections in a row, in the 22nd District of Texas, for the
United States House of Representatives, and also ran an
internationally profiled Senate campaign in 2014.
So, without further adieu, I would like to ask Megan Beets
to come to the podium to deliver a few opening remarks, and then
after that, we’ll feature some more discussion coming off of the
meeting we had with Mr. LaRouche this morning, with Jeffrey
Steinberg filling in some of those details.

MEGAN BEETS: Thanks, Matt. I can tell you from my visit to
Texas that at this moment, when the breakdown of the
trans-Atlantic system is undeniable — we’re witnessing the
complete malfunctioning and shutdown of this old system — we’re
also see the reopening of the space program down in Texas.
Now the event that I was privileged to participate in with
Kesha and Tom Wysmueller down in Texas, represents a real
beginning of a change of direction of the United States, a
rebirth, so to speak, of the United States as a nation. Now, the
requirement today is that the United States dump our commitment,
our addiction, to this dead, dying trans-Atlantic system, and
decide once again to take up a mission in the sense of purpose
and contribution to mankind.
Now, you look around today. You look around at our citizens.
You look at the heroin epidemic. You look at the death, the
self-induced deaths from drugs, from suicide, from alcoholism,
and so forth. You look at the breakdown in cities like Flint,
Michigan, the breakdown in places like certain counties of West
Virginia that were once booming coal towns. There’s no reflection
in the United States of reality.
Now, what’s reality? Look at the leadership coming from
Asia, particularly from China. Look at the kinds of optimistic
developments, the progress for humanity, that’s coming from the
leadership of China and their space program; and in their
commitment to development projects which are beginning to take
hold and take place all across Eurasia. That’s reality. There’s
no reflection of this yet inside the United States. And so when
we look around, it’s not just that the U. S. economy has
disappeared. The United States has disappeared. There’s no sense
of a unified purpose. There’s no sense of a unified mission for
the existence of the United States as a nation, and there’s no
sense within our people of what {we}, as a nation, will organize
ourselves to contribute to the purposes of mankind.
Now you contrast that with the U.S. sense of purpose and
mission as under John F. Kennedy and his Presidency, and his
leadership within the United States, and his dedication to the
space program. Now, as anyone who truthfully remembers — and
most especially, those people who were directly involved — can
tell you, this wasn’t just a mission for the United States. This
was a real mission for all of mankind. And this was reflected in
some anecdotes in the event last Saturday from some of the
attendees, who themselves were engineers or otherwise employed in
NASA during the Apollo missions.
One anecdote that was told by someone saying that he
disagreed with Werner von Braun that we should be sharing some of
our technology with the Russians, and his mind was changed by von
Braun. There was another former NASA employee who said that at
first in the 1990s, he disagreed with President Clinton’s sharing
of U.S. space technology with the former Soviet Union — with
Russia. And he said once he started working with Russian
engineers, he realized that our mission is mankind; it’s unified;
it’s the same. And this was reflected throughout the entire
event: the sense that our work during the space program was
contributing fundamental developments and contributions, not to
the progress of the United States, but to the progress of man as
a whole.
Now, why? What is the space program? What happened during
the space program in the United States?
Well, not only was the common, the general citizen,
transformed. Not only were there innumerable and immeasurable
benefits from the economic spin-offs. But most importantly, the
people were transformed. The astronauts were fundamentally
transformed. The engineers working in a space program were
fundamentally transformed, as we confronted problems in space,
problems that forced us to overturn our assumptions about the
principles which govern and control the Universe that we lived
in. And each of these problems that we confronted, we were to
conquer. And you see that in the accounts of the people who were
involved during that time in the space program: that we were able
to pull together around a common mission, thousands and thousands
of people across the country to confront these challenges in our
knowledge about the Universe, and to conquer them.
And in that way, in a very short period of time, man began
to rapidly transform and change into a more powerful species. We
began to progress into a species with more power and control over
the processes in the Universe, so much to the point that we were
able to land people on the surface of the Moon, which
fundamentally transformed our ideas and our knowledge of what the
Moon itself is, of what potential the Moon holds for a new
platform of development for man, which was completely unknown
until the accomplishments of Apollo.
Now this is what the Chinese are doing today with their
space program. In 2018, just two years from now, the Chinese plan
to land on the far side of the Moon. This has never been done
before. The far side of the Moon has been imaged with satellites,
it’s been seen by human eyes in the American astronauts who
travelled there. But nobody has ever landed on the far side of
the Moon.
Now, people may say, “Well, we know what the Moon is; we’ve
looked at it. We’ve taken pictures.” But the fact is, the far
side of the Moon is a completely unknown quantity to us. When we
land there, for example, what do we think the far side can teach
us? When we land there, we’ll have a chance to confront our
fundamental notions about the formation of the Moon, the
formation of the Earth, and possibly other planets in the Solar
System with the unique geological investigations that we’ll be
able to perform there.
When we land there, and when we’re able to set up
astronomical observatories in the very low radio frequency range,
which is a band of the electromagnetic spectrum which is
impossible to look at the Solar System in from anywhere
attainable to us besides the far side of the Moon; when we are
able to look at the Solar System in this new range, we’re very
likely going to discover that the planets, the interstellar
medium, distant galaxies, different stars, could exhibit
processes to us which were completely invisible before.
It’s this kind of potential for mankind to transform our
powers, to transform our relationship to the Solar System itself,
that’s being offered by the Chinese actions today. And it’s this
sense of meaning, this sense of mobilization and commitment to
progress for all of mankind, which is what we, down in Texas, are
reminding people of. What Kesha is reminding people of — even
people who participated in these great accomplishments 40 or 50
years ago, and who might have encountered now a sense of
demoralization with the actions since that time. We’re drawing
people back out to a commitment of this mission. And Kesha is
showing once again that the United States can, and must, commit
itself to this kind of purpose for all of mankind.
So I can just conclude by reporting that the beginnings of
these developments that we’re seeing coming out of Texas, is that
people down there still associate themselves with reality, and
are now playing a leading role, with Kesha, in being moved toward
recognizing that this is the viable option for the United States.

OGDEN: Thank you very much, Megan. And like I said, if you
haven’t gotten a chance to see the recording of the event that
occurred down in Texas last Saturday, it is archived on the
larouchepac youtube channel, and I would encourage you to watch
it. It was a very uplifting event, and we can expect to hear
much, much more from Kesha Rogers, obviously.
Now, the second item on our agenda tonight is something
which you may have heard Mr. LaRouche emphasize during the
discussion with the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee this past
Monday. Towards the end of that show, you might have caught Mr.
LaRouche’s reference to a series of very significant articles
that were published in the {New York Times} over the weekend.
They were titled: “Hillary Clinton, Smart Power, and a Dictator’s
Fall: The Role of Hillary Clinton in the ouster and killing of
Colonel Muammar Qaddafi That Left Libya a Failed State and a
Terrorist Haven.” This article, or series of articles, which were
based on a number of interviews from people who were right on the
inside of the entire decision-making process that led into the
decision to overthrow Qaddafi, and to ultimately have him
killing, very vividly paints the picture of the months leading up
into that decision, and Hillary Clinton’s central role in making
that decision on the inside of the Obama White House.
And this, despite dire warnings from intelligence experts,
and military experts, as to what the aftermath of that decision
would be, and also even overtures of peace that were coming from
Libya itself, and the Libyan government — overtures for a
peaceful transition, which were directly and decisively ignored
by the Clinton State Department and the Obama White House.
These actions, this regime-change operation in Libya, as we
know now very well, directly led to Libya becoming a failed
state, and creating the vacuum in which Libya could be the
staging ground for what has now come to be called ISIS today —
these radical jihadist terrorist who in many parts are using the
weapons that were channeled into Libya at that time by the
Hillary Clinton-Obama operation, in order to overthrow Qaddafi.
They are now using those weapons to take over large swaths of
territory in Northern Africa, and in the Middle East. Obviously,
this is the context for the tragic events that unfolded on Sept.
11 in Benghazi in which Ambassador Stevens and three other
Americans were killed. However, I think this point to the more
important discussion that should be being had: What was Hillary
Clinton’s role? What was Barack Obama’s role in the decision for
regime change in Libya, and what will be the outcome if we allow
this same regime-change operation to continue to take place in
Syria and in many other countries?
One note I would say just before inviting Jeff up to the
podium to discuss this more in detail, is the importance of the
coincidence of the publication of these series of articles in the
{New York Times} with Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard’s surprise
announcement that she was resigning as vice-chair of the DNC in
order to more aggressively campaign against Hillary Clinton,
explicitly because of Hillary Clinton’s identity as a strong and
vocal advocate of the policy of regime change  what Tulsi Gabbard
has said she personally witnessed the tragic and disastrous
consequences of on the ground in Iraq, after the decision to have
regime change against Saddam Hussein. Tulsi Gabbard was active
service military. And we saw the decision again in the case of
Libya, and now we are confronting directly head-on whether or not
that decision will be made in Syria.
This also obviously has a lot to do with the context of
Secretary of State John Kerry’s efforts to create the framework
for a ceasefire, along with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in
Syria.
Now, what I would like to ask Jeff to discuss at the podium
is what Mr. LaRouche’s take has been on the significance of these
articles, and also the very precise timing of these articles
being published right now, during this Presidential campaign
season, and what the implications of this should be seen in terms
of the ongoing fight behind the scenes continuing to this day in
the Obama Administration.

JEFFREY STEINBERG: Thanks, Matt. Well, the two-part series,
lengthy articles that were published late last week, early this
week, in the New York Times bring back into stark relief and
memory, the fact that the decision to overthrow and execute
Qaddafi was not only a turning point in recent history. It
unleashed a flood of instability. Massive amounts of weapons
flooded out of Libya. All across Africa a structure was set up
for laundering those weapons into Syria, where they ultimately
wound up in the hands of both the al-Qaeda, and later the Islamic
State forces. This has been a source of mass death, grave
instability, throughout the entire Africa and Middle East region,
and beyond.
Now, what the {New York Times} articles make clear is
something that was well-known to us and which Mr. LaRouche
commented on exhaustively as these events were playing out. But
from the standpoint of the current elections and things related
to the ongoing war danger, now at the threshold of the danger of
a general war, a nuclear war, it’s very important to reflect back
on this.
Effectively, as the result of Hillary Clinton joining the
White House, joining President Obama, joining Samantha Power,
joining Susan Rice and Valerie Jarrett, in pressing for the
violent overthrow of the Qaddafi government, the assassination of
Qaddafi, and effectively the installation of the Muslim
Brotherhood and al-Qaeda into power in Libya, this meant that
Hillary Clinton had completely capitulated to Obama. Prior to
that point, during the Obama administration, despite the fact
that it was a grave political mistake on the part of Hillary
Clinton to have become a part of the Obama Administration in the
first place, the fact is that she had generally aligned herself
with Defense Secretary Gates, with General Dempsey, chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and had been a barrier to the worst
kinds of British policies coming out of Obama, Jarrett, Rice,
Power, and the others grouped around this President.
Obama is a British agent, plain and simple, and that was one
of the first points that Mr. LaRouche emphasized in our
discussion earlier today. And he said, Look, Hillary Clinton was
terrified into playing the role that she played in Libya. She was
not the only person pushing for regime change; she was, in the
words of Roberts Gates, “the tilt factor”. The decisive vote in a
very close 51-49 vote, where Gates himself, the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, were opposed to launching the no-fly zone.  Launching what
was being mislabelled a humanitarian intervention, when from the
very outset it was always about regime change.  You’ve got to
remember that the characteristic of the Obama Presidency is to be
found in those Tuesday kill sessions; where the President sits
down with a group of national security advisors, Cabinet members,
representatives of the military and intelligence community, and
makes life-or-death arbitrary decisions to add people’s names to
the kill lists.  In some cases — we know in at least four
instances — people were put on that kill list who were American
citizens; who were deprived of any day in court, any due process,
and were summarily assassinated.  Whether by special forces,
whether by drone attacks, or combinations of both.
So, that’s the character of the Obama administration.  And
with the 2011 decision to overthrow Qaddafi, Hillary Clinton —
out of absolute fear — remember, you’re dealing with a President
who relishes the idea of coming up with weekly lists of targets
for assassination.  With that Libya decision, with Clinton’s
decision to side with her own worst enemies, going all the way
back to the 2008 campaign when she campaigned against Barack
Obama; when Samantha Power publicly went out on the stump calling
her a witch.  When she capitulated and sided with those British
forces in the Libya operation, she not only participated in the
unleashing of absolute Hell across much of Africa and the Middle
East region; but she caved in to people who, at an earlier point,
she knew were absolutely despicable and were her avowed enemies.
That capitulation is something that she will live with forever.
Now, recently, in the course of reviewing the Africa events,
the Libya events, some additional information has come out that
even puts a further punctuation point on the fact that there was
a top-down decision in which Secretary Clinton participated,
along with President Obama, to overthrow Qaddafi; no questions
asked, no second thoughts.  There’s a very precise timeline that
has been provided by a retired US Navy Rear Admiral named Charles
Kubic, who was retired from the Navy and was a business man
working in Libya — also a trained engineer.  And when the United
Nations Security Council passed the resolution to establish a
no-fly zone and a “humanitarian corridor” around Benghazi — this
was on March 19, 2011 — on that very day, Rear Admiral Kubic was
contacted by people in the inner circle of Qaddafi; and they
said, “Let’s talk.”  Let’s not go with diplomatic formulations.
Let’s immediately convene a battlefield 72-hour truce.  And
during that time, let’s discuss an orderly procedure for standing
down the Libyan forces that were moving on Benghazi, and on an
orderly transition of power.  Qaddafi was prepared to leave
Libya, to go into exile; to arrange a negotiated government to
follow from him, and to basically stand down the Libyan forces
that were, in fact, battling al-Qaeda and other jihadist networks
in the area around Benghazi and Misurata inside Libya.  Admiral
Kubic conveyed immediately the approach that he had gotten from
the head of Qaddafi’s personal security.  He conveyed it to
Stuttgart, Germany; it was reported to General Carter Ham, the
head of the Africa Command, and General Ham responded favorably.
Details were being worked out the very next day to convene
exactly this kind of battlefield truce and negotiating process;
either in Tripoli, or right off the shores of Libya on a
designated US military ship.  And in fact, there was a halt on
the part of Qaddafi of the military movement toward Benghazi and
Misurata.  So, in other words, everything was there within the
first 24 hours of when the bombing began of Libya, for the
conflict to stop right there; for Qaddafi’s departure; for none
of the death and destruction that followed to actually take
place.  On the evening of March 20, 2011, General Carter Ham
issued a statement saying that the United States had no interest
in targetting Qaddafi.  That was the return signal that the
Libyans were looking for, coming from AFRICOM, that the
negotiations could begin perhaps as early as the next morning.
However that entire situation was cancelled; Admiral Kubic was
ordered to stand down, to drop the contact.  AFRICOM was ordered
to stand down and abandon any plans for any such negotiation for
Qaddafi’s departure.  Because the decision had been made “higher
up in the administration” that there would be no turning back;
that this was a regime change operation, and in fact, a part of
that was the fact that the British — who had agents inside the
inner circle of Qaddafi’s own personal security detail — were
the ones who fingered his location and set up his assassination
later that year.
So, in other words, the destruction of Libya, the
destruction of Africa, that came in part as a measure of Hillary
Clinton’s capitulation to President Obama, and above all else, to
the British; could have been at least short-circuited and the
worst damage prevented.  The death of Ambassador Stephens and the
three other American officials a year and later probably could
have been averted.  But none of that happened, because there was
a willful decision; undoubtedly the decision was made in London,
was passed in through Obama.  And rather than fighting against
that, Hillary Clinton capitulated; and it was out of a fear of
Obama, out of a fear that this was a killer President.  There
were a number of opportunities where she had the possibility to
resign and put the spotlight where it properly belonged; but none
of those things happened.
And as the result of that, all of the African continent is
now one extended battle zone.  As the result of that, we have the
existence of the Islamic State; because Turkey, Saudi Arabia,
Qatar flooded Syria and Iraq with the kinds of weapons that had
been derived from what was at one point a secured Qaddafi arsenal
of all kinds of weapons.  And those weapons have now spread
chaos, death, and destruction across that entire swath of North
Africa and the Middle East.  That’s the legacy, that’s the
consequence of the fact that, as Secretary of State, Hillary
Clinton failed to uphold her responsibilities; capitulated to her
own worst avowed enemies in the Obama administration, and
unfortunately, the rest is history.
Mr. LaRouche, at the time, pointedly said, from the moment
that he heard that Qaddafi had been assassinated, that the real
targets were Russia and China; and that these events in 2011 were
the beginning of a process that would now accelerate towards the
general warfare — potentially thermonuclear warfare — involving
the United States, Russia, and China.  So, look back with a
certain degree of hindsight, and understand the consequences of
what happened in that critical moment of March of 2011; and see
how all of the events that have followed from that, and why we
are on the verge of a potential thermonuclear war of annihilation
of mankind.  Understand how critical decisions in critical
moments, shape events for long periods of time to come.

OGDEN:  Thank you very much, Jeff.  Now, in the context of
what Jeff just said about the overarching policy that has
emanated from this Obama administration against Russia and
against China, you’ve seen obvious economic warfare also that’s
taken place from the United States against both of those
countries.  The next question pertains to one of those aspects;
and I know that it will also give Jeff an opportunity to discuss
a little bit about what Mr. LaRouche’s views are on the necessity
of a massive mobilization inside the United States to rebuild our
economy, spearheaded by Kesha Rogers’ efforts in Texas to revive
the legacy of the NASA space program.
So, the question reads as follows:  “Mr. LaRouche, the US
Department of Commerce has imposed a 265% tariff on Chinese
cold-rolled steel.  The Department of Commerce stated that the
tariffs are meant to punish China for dumping cold-rolled steel
onto the market; which is used to make auto parts, appliances,
and shipping containers.  In your view, will these imposed
tariffs help the US steel industry?  And if not, what measures do
you recommend to revitalize our steel industry?”

STEINBERG:  Well, the first thing that Mr. LaRouche said
was, if you want to revitalize the US economy, then you’ve got to
start out by shutting down Wall Street; because Wall Street right
now is about the only steel sector left in the United States —
they steal everything that’s available to be stolen.
Now, I think that this move by the Commerce Department came
as the result of pressure from a number of members of Congress;
most of whom are simply desperate and misguided and are not even
among the worst people in the US Congress.  The idea that somehow
or other, putting prohibitive tariffs on the importing of Chinese
steel at this stage of the game, when the entire real economy of
the United States is in a state of absolute collapse, is the
ultimate folly.  Now, let’s just look at some of the basic facts
of what’s been going on inside the US economy; and particularly,
let’s look at the steel sector.  We don’t have the data for all
of 2015, but we know that between 2014 and 2015 there was
actually a 26% decline in the amount of steel imported from
China.  And the reason for that is because there was an even
greater decline in the overall steel utilization inside the US
economy; because the US economy is in a state of physical,
economic collapse.  One of the areas where you had substantial
use of steel, not on a gigantic scale, but on a significant
scale, was in the shale oil and gas sector; which we know is in a
state of collapse right now.  And the fact that it was that
sector that was a major source of steel use in the US economy,
just tells you how far down the scale of real economic
development that we have fallen.
Now, the fact of the matter is, that on a global scale
centered in the trans-Atlantic region, you have a significant
collapse in physical economic output.  Real production in the
United States has collapsed; we’ve gone through 15 consecutive
months of a decline in industrial output.  The shale oil and gas
sector collapse is a small piece at the tail end of a 40-year
process of economic collapse, disintegration, out-sourcing of
what little real economic activity was going on.  So the idea
that a tariff, at this point, is going to protect a domestic
industry that collapsed over the past 40 years, is an act of
desperation; when in fact, we need real creative thinking.
Now, {Executive Intelligence Review} has recently — we’ve
talked about it on this show before — produced a supplement to
the World Land-Bridge report, called “The United States Must Join
the World Land-Bridge”; and it lays out a clear game plan for a
genuine economic revival of the United States.  It starts by
shutting down Wall Street; they’re hopelessly bankrupt.  And the
bankruptcy of Wall Street is now in the process of advancing the
disintegration of the real economy of the United States; and the
real economy of the United States means the American people.
When we were discussing earlier today with Mr. LaRouche, he said,
“Look, what’s the most chilling indication of the real rate of
collapse of the US economy?  It’s the exponential increase in the
number of people dying of heroin overdoses; it’s the number of
people, the exponential rise in the number of people committing
suicide in other ways, as well.  It’s the desperation and
demoralization of a population that was once inspired, that was
once the most productive population in the world; and is now
fallen into a state of complete collapse.”  In 2005, we saw the
takedown of the auto sector; and what that meant was the machine
tool design sector associated with the US auto sector was wiped
out.  Under President Obama, there has been a conscious and
systematic policy of shutting down our space program; and it’s
only through that space exploration, as Megan just emphasized,
that you have any prospect of a genuine future for mankind.
The good news is that the report coming out of Texas is that
some of the leading circles historically associated with NASA,
current and former NASA employees, have reached the point where
they realize: 1) that it’s all over for the United States if
there’s not a real fight to revive the space program.  They see
certain glimmers of reflection of what was once a driving force
in the growth of real productivity in the American economy;
namely, the space program, centered in NASA Houston.  You had the
return to Earth of Scott Kelly, who spent a year up in space; an
exciting development, it’s a glimmer.  It’s a sort of smell or
fragrance of the fact that NASA can be revived; that we can have
a resurgence of the kind of optimism that we had during the
Kennedy Presidency, before he was assassinated.  Where the Apollo
program was the centerpiece for the whole development of the real
US economy.  You’ve got NASA people now beginning to say, “Yes,
we’re ready for a real fight.”  The fight is on; and you’ve got
reflections of that that you’ll see emerging as a tendency in
other parts of the country.  Southern California used to be a
major center of our space program; you had the Jet Propulsion Lab
in the Los Angeles area, a crucial component.  And you, of
course, had the Lawrence Livermore Lab up in the Bay area.  These
are centers that can be revived; but only if we get a core
revival of that NASA mission.  The mission to join with China,
with Russia, with India, with other nations, in exploring and
developing the universe as part of man’s extraterrestrial
mission.
So, if you think about the steel issue again, from that
standpoint, how much steel would be required for the kind of
nationwide high-speed rail system that is part of the “US joins
the World Land-Bridge”?  How much steel will be required for a
proliferation of nuclear power plants throughout the United
States?  The modernization of the existing plants, and they’re
replacement where appropriate, by fourth generation nuclear power
plants.  What would be the requirements once we’ve actually
completed the process of successfully commercializing fusion?
These are the issues for the future; but these fights have to won
today.  And if you want to understand the biggest mass kill
factor with President Obama, it has been his killing of the NASA
space program; because that is a mass execution of the future.
And so, these issues are all very much inextricably tied
together.  Unless we get a revolutionary change in policy, which
means a return to the kind of Hamiltonian principles that we last
saw on display in the Franklin Roosevelt Presidency overall, and
in the Kennedy Apollo program in particular.  These ideas are
there; and we’re getting now, coming from the Houston vicinity,
from the NASA center there, a rumbling.  The start of a real
fight to basically bring the United States back into space; as
part of a collaborative mission for all of mankind.  And as I
say, once that happens, the issue of steel, the issue of dumping;
all of this becomes meaningless.  Because the actual physical
requirements will be so enormous, the return to optimism and the
benefits of that — particularly for a lost generation of young
people, who represent a high percentage of those who are going
off as heroin addicts, who are committing suicide, who have no
sense of future.  We’ve got to restore the future; and that
starts with a fight to revive NASA.  And the good news is that
that fight is now beginning; it’s in its early moments, but it’s
a fight that is winnable.  And the future of the United States
hangs in the balance.

OGDEN:  Thank you very much.  Because Jeff mentioned it, I
would just encourage our viewers to revisit the pamphlet; which
is both available in print form, and in digital form:  “The
United States Must Join the New Silk Road; A Hamiltonian Vision
for an Economic Renaissance”; which features much of what Jeff
just discussed in terms of a national high-speed rail program, a
Bering Straits tunnel or bridge project to connect us to Eurasia.
To the phenomenal developments that are happening now in China;
but it also has an entire section on a science-driver development
mission, which includes much of the cutting edge work that needs
to be done with a revived space program — not just in the United
States, but also collaboration that we must begin to cooperate
with China’s and Russia’s space programs.  And have what Mr.
LaRouche has so aptly termed the common aims of mankind; that is
the truest form of a war avoidance program for a durable piece.
So, with that said, I would like to thank Jeff; and I would
also like to thank Megan Beets for joining us here this evening.
And I would encourage you to stay tuned to larouchepac.com.
Thank you very much.