Vi kan ændre historiens gang:
Handling nu for at gennemtvinge Glass-Steagall.
LaRouchePAC Internationale Fredags-webcast, 2. sept. 2016

Matthew Ogden: Vi havde en diskussion med Lyndon og Helga LaRouche for et par timer siden. Det er helt klart, at vi står ved et punkt, hvor tre, meget afgørende initiativer, som LaRouche-bevægelsen har stået i centrum for i flere år, nu kulminerer. For det første står vi umiddelbart foran G20-topmødet; topmødet i Vladivostok er i gang; og to uger efter disse begivenheder træder FN’s Generalforsamling sammen. Det er helt åbenlyst, at man tager initiativerne til at skabe en ny, finansiel arkitektur for planeten omkring udviklingen af den Nye Silkevej. Jeg vil blot nævnte ganske kort, at, hvis man ikke har set den endnu, så har vi en fremragende, ny, 20 minutter lang video (på larouchepac.com – se den danske hjemmeside, inkl. udskrift: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=14429) »Den Nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen«. Den går i dybden med meget af indholdet i EIR’s rapport af samme navn. Den må I bestemt se, hvis I ikke allerede har.

Engelsk udskrift.

You Can Change History: Act Now to Force a Vote on Glass-Steagall        

"A REPUBLIC, IF YOU CAN KEEP IT."

International LaRouche PAC webcast, Saturday, September 3, 2016   

        MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening; it's September 2, 2016. My name
is Matthew Ogden, and you're joining us for our weekly webcast
here on Friday evening with larouchepac.com. I'm joined in the
studio tonight by Jeffrey Steinberg from {Executive Intelligence
Review}, and via video by two members of the LaRouche PAC Policy
Committee. We have Dave Christie joining us from Seattle,
Washington; welcome, Dave. And we have Diane Sare joining us from
the greater New York City area.
        I'll just say to start off, we did have a discussion with
Lyndon and Helga LaRouche just a few hours ago. It's very clear
that we are at the intersection point of the culmination of three
very crucial initiatives that the LaRouche Movement has been
right in the center of leading for several years. Number one,
we're on the eve of the G20 summit; we have the Vladivostok
summit which is occurring; and in two weeks following that, we
have the United Nations General Assembly. It's very apparent that
the initiatives are being taken to create a new financial
architecture for the planet, around the development of the New
Silk Road. I'll just say very quickly here, if you haven't seen
it yet, there's an excellent new 20-minute video feature on the
larouchepac.com website which is about "The New Silk Road Becomes
the World Land-Bridge". It elaborates a lot of the {Executive
Intelligence Review} publication by that same title. I would say
to definitely watch that if you haven't yet.
        On the domestic front, we have a very intense campaign which
is now being escalated to reinstate Glass-Steagall; and
marshalling the forces to force that to a vote before the
Presidential elections take place. Then we have the push to
reopen a full investigation into the attacks on 9/11; with the
declassification of the 28 pages that happened, you have to
further that with the pursuit of the tens of thousands of more
pages which continue to be withheld. On that front, we are one
week away from the 15th anniversary of those horrific attacks on
9/11; and we will be seeing a series of concerts which will take
place in New York City — Diane can tell us a lot more about that
— of Mozart's {Requiem} that will be performed in the cathedral
in Brooklyn, a major church in Manhattan and elsewhere to
commemorate the victims of those attacks and to bring justice.
This is happening in conjunction with a strategic seminar which
is being sponsored in New York City on the same subject. And at
the same time, there's a powerful push to force a vote in the
House of Representatives — hopefully next week, before the
anniversary happens — on the JASTA bill (Justice against State
Sponsors of Terrorism Act). Congress is returning next week.
        As part of that push, former Senator Bob Graham was in
Washington DC the day before yesterday, at a major press
conference which he held at the National Press Club. Both Jeff
and I had the opportunity to attend that conference, and we will
be featuring some excerpts from that press conference as part of
our broadcast tonight.
        But before I get to that, I do want to start with the
discussion that we had with Mr. LaRouche just a few hours ago;
particularly on the necessity of launching an immediate
mobilization around the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall. So, in
order to introduce that subject, I'm going to read the
institutional question which we received today, which was
presented to Mr. LaRouche. I'm going to ask Jeff to elaborate a
bit on what Mr. LaRouche's comments were in response to this
question. It reads: "Mr. LaRouche, you have warned that unless
the United States Congress acts — and now in September — to
reinstate Glass-Steagall as the first step in a much larger
overhaul in economic and monetary policy, then the entire
trans-Atlantic system is headed for blow-out. Would you please
elaborate on the importance of the passage of Glass-Steagall in
the next session of Congress immediately after Labor Day?"

        JEFFREY STEINBERG: Mr. LaRouche was very blunt; he said, "If
you don't implement Glass-Steagall as the starting point for such
a total overhaul of the entire US financial and monetary system,"
and extending that obviously into Europe as well; "then an
enormous number of people are going to die. It comes down to
that." The major European banks, which are completely co-mingled
with the big Wall Street banks, are carrying trillions — perhaps
hundreds of trillions — of dollars in derivatives and
non-performing debt of all other kinds as well. They're
hopelessly bankrupt, and unless you implement Glass-Steagall and
separate out and just simply write off all of that derivatives
and other gambling debt, you have no chance whatsoever for any
kind of turnaround in the situation that we have in the US
economy right now; and similarly in Europe. Namely, that there is
a collapse of productivity; don't believe the numbers about job
creation, because the reality is that 93.5 million eligible,
working age Americans have no work. Because they've given up
trying to find a job, or they've never found a job; and therefore
have never been counted in the working force to begin with. On
top of that, a growing percentage of people are finding
themselves relegated to working part-time; sometimes a few hours
a day on several different jobs, because there are no full-time
productive jobs available in the economy. You've got a lot of
parasitic jobs; you've got a lot of other jobs that in a healthy,
growing economy would be necessary and useful. But when you've
got a collapse of production as we have in the United States and
Europe, and you put on top of that a kind of massive banking
crisis — financial bubble bigger than 2008; then you've got a
perfect storm for something that will result in mass deaths.
        Now, Glass-Steagall is the first step; it's by no means the
totality of what must be done. Mr. LaRouche has laid out the four
cardinal laws, four major initiatives that must be taken to
restore productivity; to create genuinely productive jobs. But
the starting point has to be to break up and separate out the
legitimate commercial banking functions from the speculative
activities that have completely looted the depositor base of
commercial banks since the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Both
political parties, in their platforms, have endorsed reinstating
Glass-Steagall; and this was not just simply a perfunctory thing.
There was a fight at the Republican convention among the Platform
Committee people; there was an aggressive push to force
Glass-Steagall's adoption. The same thing happened on the
Democratic side. Hillary Clinton has not publicly called for
reinstating Glass-Steagall. So, you've got both parties poised.
You have bills in both houses of Congress and a vote can and must
be taken; not after the elections, not during the lame duck
session, but during this next 2-3 week period starting Tuesday,
the 6th of September, when Congress returns that evening.
Wednesday will be the first full day that Congress is in session.
This must be one of the very first acts of this Congress during
this interim session; and it's not going to happen unless there
is a full-blown mobilization of the American people. There are
major institutions from the AFL-CIO to various civil rights
groups that are with us on this question of Glass-Steagall. But
what's required, is an absolutely focussed and tough and
laser-like intervention. And I think nothing sums that up more
clearly than what Mr. LaRouche has said repeatedly over the last
few days: Namely, if you don't pass Glass-Steagall; if you don't
intervene to make sure that Congress does it, then you may die as
a result of that.

        OGDEN: Well, I want to use as an example of the kind of
strategic leverage that is going to be required to force through
this passage of Glass-Steagall, I want to use as an example what
the LaRouche Movement was able to do by marshalling forces across
the country to force the declassification of the 28 pages.
Because it's a very similar example of the kind of widespread
upsurge in activism across the country led with this kind of
laser focus, that's going to be required right now in the coming
weeks to force the Glass-Steagall vote. So, on that note, I'd
like to introduce a short 7-minute video clip which is excerpts
from the blockbuster press conference that former Senator Bob
Graham held at the National Press Club this past Wednesday. We
can invite you to watch the full press conference, which is
available on the LaRouche PAC YouTube channel. For right now, I'd
like to introduce that, and then use that to open up a broader
discussion here.

FORMER SEN. BOB GRAHAM: Thank you very much, Mr. Burr; and thank
you for the opportunity to come back to the National Press Club.
        As has been said, on July 15th, after some 14 years, the
chapter of 28 pages from the final Report of the Congressional
Joint Inquiry into 9/11 was released. This was removing the cork
from the bottle; but there is a significant amount of information
which, like the 28 pages, has been withheld. It was necessary to
get this first block of material to the public in order to build
the support that will be necessary for the balance of the
material to flowâ¦.
        Now that the bottle is open, what is likely to pour forth?
        I think there are three tasks in which the liquid will flow.
One is, the 28 pages were written in the Fall of 2002, but were
not — in a number of instances — completed. We were under a
mandate to submit our final report before the end of that session
of Congress; which meant by the end of December of 2002. There
were some issues that have not been taken fully to ground. As an
example, the role of Prince Bandar, the long Saudi ambassador to
the United States. In the 28 pages, it is disclosed that in the
book of Abu Zabadeh[ph], one of Osama bin Laden's closest
operatives, were the telephone numbers — which were otherwise
unavailable — to Bandar's mansion in Aspen, and to his bodyguard
here in Washington. There was also information about the fact
that both he and his wife had been involved in money transfers
which appeared to go to the mentors and protectors of the three
hijackers in San Diego. Was that where that money flow ended; or
did it end up supporting the hijackers? That's the kind of
questions which were raised in the 28 pages; but I hope that we
will now get information to close those loopsâ¦.

        ??: Senator Graham, thanks and congratulations for what
you're doing in insisting that the facts on 9/11 come out. As you
pointed out, and as the media pointed out, the 28 pages and
credible media reporting that there were meetings, there were
facts here; not just myths and wonderings, but facts. In San
Diego, the meetings by the Saudi Director of Religious Affairs
with at least three of the hijackers; and 15 of the 19 hijackers
were from Saudi Arabia. There was money paid from Prince Bandar's
account. Those are the facts; but it just seems that the American
policy is to hide and to obfuscate. Why? Is it a matter of
Democrats and Republicans alike just want to pander to Saudi
Arabia? What I don't understand is the reason why we don't just
take the facts and move from there; because these are the facts.

        GRAHAM: No, this is not a partisan issue. In fact, in the
House, the effort to pass this JASTA legislation that will modify
the sovereign immunity defense, and prior to that, a resolution
urging the President to release the 28 pages, was led by a
Republican, Walter Jones from North Carolina, and a Democrat,
Stephen Lynch from Massachusetts. This has had strong bipartisan
support. If anything, it's more of an Executive Branch versus the
people of America; it's been the Executive Branch through not
only Justice and State, but Treasury and the intelligence
agencies, that have largely been the barrier to allowing this
information to be known by the American people. And let the
American people then form a judgment. What do they think we ought
to be doing in this relationship with Saudi Arabia?

        STEINBERG: Jeff Steinberg; {Executive Intelligence Review}.
Senator, former Navy Secretary John Lehman, who was a
commissioner on the 9/11 Commission, told "60 Minutes" back in
April that there really never was a complete investigation by the
9/11 Commission; and you've already said that the Joint Inquiry
was limited by time and resources. Now, 15 years later, we have
the 28 pages. As you just indicated, there's lots of facts in
there. There was a 47-page report written at the beginning of the
9/11 Commission by the two people on your staff who were
following up on the Saudi leads. They listed 22 Saudi officials
who had direct contacts with just the San Diego hijackers. What
do you envision as the next step? Can there be a new
investigation without the time restrictions and other problems?
Do you support that? How would you envision moving forward from
here in addition to the lawsuit which we do hope will be
reinstated against the Saudis for discovery?

        GRAHAM: In addition to the request to the National Archives,
who are the custodians of the 9/11 papers, to release those
sections of its report which have been withheld which relate to
following up to the leads which are in the 28 pages. So, we could
ask, in those pages, is there a chapter about Prince Bandar that
pursues the leads that were outlined in the 28 pages? Second,
will have to be more Freedom of Information Act with the FBI and
the CIA. Another thing would be the President; I can understand
why George Bush acted the way he did. I cannot understand why
Barack Obama is acting the way he has. This information is going
to be known; whether it's in 2016, or 2026, or '36, or '46, it
will — like the Pentagon Papers and all these other old scandals
— eventually it's going to come out. I think the legacy of
Barack Obama is going to be stained when the people recognize how
much information was under his control, that he made the
executive decision to continue to restrict from the American
people. So, those are, I think, the principal levers; they all
eventually come to the American people. The American people care
about knowing what their government did in this particularly
egregious action; and if so, will they put enough political
pressure? The most immediate thing is to contact your member of
Congress and urge he or she to vote for JASTA. That bill has had
a roller coaster existence over the last four or five years; it
seems to be closer to reaching its destination today than at any
time during that long period. The key is going to be, will the
House take it up? That's where the pressure needs to be until
that important task is accomplishedâ¦.
        What I think are the most likely three directions after the
28 pages are: One, following up on the leads that were in the 28
pages; such as the role of the then-Saudi Ambassador to the
United States, Prince Bandar. Second, there's been information
developed since the 28 pages were written in the Fall of 2002;
such as the existence of this relationship between a prominent
Saudi family, Mohammed Atta and two of his compatriots in
Sarasota, Florida. Then third, the litigation that is being
frustrated by the sovereign immunity defense; which the Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia has been raising. Those are, I think, the three
major channels in which we will get additional information on the
relationship between Saudi Arabia and the 19 hijackers. The
report, I think, made a case that an investigator reading what
Prince Bandar had done, would say, "I want to pursue this
further." The question is, were those leads pursued? And if so,
to what end? I hope what we'll find is that yes, they were
pursued; and here are investigative reports that carry this case
to its conclusion.

        OGDEN: So, as you could see, yours truly Jeff Steinberg was
on hand to ask Senator Graham a question; and Senator Graham's
emphasis, which he repeatedly came back to, was to open up the
file on Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador. So Jeff, maybe you
want to elaborate a little bit more on where this investigation
needs to go.

        STEINBERG: Well, I think Senator Graham was very clear that
there are 80,000 pages of documents that the FBI has acknowledged
belatedly and begrudgingly exist in Sarasota, Florida. I'm sure
that that was a small fraction of the documents down there, as
Senator Graham said, 13 of the 19 hijackers, at one point or
another, were based in Florida before the attack. Paterson, New
Jersey was another center where the hijackers were living and
training for a period of time. Falls Church, Virginia was both a
place where a number of them were present for a while, but it was
a convergence point; a kind of a staging area. There was a
confirmed report that a high-ranking Saudi minister was at the
same hotel in Falls Church, Virginia as a group of the hijackers
the night before the hijacking. So, there are many leads.
Undoubtedly, between the FBI, the CIA, the National Security
Agency, there's an alphabet soup of 16 intelligence agencies that
undoubtedly have millions and millions of pages of undisclosed
material.
        I think one of the most crucial things — and again, Senator
Graham was very clear on this — the most aggressive and
effective form of forcing out new information on what really
happened is by having the Saudi monarchy reinstated in the
lawsuit. Meaning that the JASTA bill has to pass the House; it
has to pass by a veto-proof majority. Once again, we're back to
the same question: Are you, the American people, going to stand
up and fight for something that's urgently needed? Or, are you
going to treat democracy as a spectator sport? If you choose the
latter, then the consequences are going to be more of the same
and worse. I think that the fact that Senator Graham focussed on
further disclosure — as he said, the bottle is uncorked; but the
contents have been barely trickled out. There's an enormous
amount more that has to be done; and of course, next weekend is
the 15th anniversary of the initial 9/11 attacks. Let's not
forget, it's the fourth anniversary of the second 9/11 attack in
Benghazi in 2012. That's not only a very relevant issue in terms
of the consequences of the original cover-up of the Saudi
involvement, but it's a very immediate and intensive issue
related to the Presidential elections in the US. We've got to be
fairly blunt about that. The cover-up of Benghazi is part of the
continuation of the cover-up of the Saudi role in the original
9/11 attack.

OGDEN: Well, Diane, you're right in the middle obviously of
putting together the commemorative anniversary celebrations and
the seminar, and just leading the activism there in New York
City. So, maybe you can just pick up from here.

        DIANE SARE: Well, I'd like to actually take a step back;
because one of the things that Senator Graham brought up about
why this was so important. He said there were three reasons: One
is the question of justice for the family members of the people
who were killed; Two, a somewhat obvious question, which is the
question of security. If we don't root out these networks,
they're there to be used repeatedly. And three, which I think is
really important and cannot be overstated, which is the question
of whether people trust their government. Because once the
population of the United States no longer trusts the government,
which is almost where we are right now, then you lose the
republic. Our republic, going back to the conception of Nicholas
of Cusa and {Concordantia Catholica}, depends on this question of
the consent of the governed. If you don't trust your government,
you will not consent to have it representing you. What Mr.
LaRouche said in the last days, is what we've seen between the
breakthrough that was driven by our work, and then Congressmen
Jones and Lynch virtually threatening — not exactly in those
words — but saying we know that we are immune if we read this
into the record; and what's moving on Glass-Steagall in terms of
the party platforms, is that these Congressmen are beginning to
be forced to represent their populations.
        I would put this in an international context, because what
you have coming up with the Vladivostok meetings going on right
now, and the G20; the trans-Atlantic system is completely
bankrupt. There is nothing Obama and the current configuration,
the European Central Bank, what are they offering to the world?
Negative interest rates? Keep your money with us, and we'll make
you pay! In other words, there is nothing that they can do; but
what you have with Russia and China. China's work — which people
who are following our website will have seen the show on
Wednesday; the New Paradigm show on the question of the far side
of the Moon, or the talk Thursday night. There is an entire
universe — we'll start with the Solar System — which is opening
up, which this collaboration in Asia has to offer. What the
Chinese have done is, they're hosting the G20 meeting, and
they're making President Putin the guest of honor. Then they're
having President al-Sisi as another honored figure at this
meeting. What is Obama's response? He thinks he's going to go
there and somehow push the Trans-Pacific Partnership; which is
bound to be a complete flop, a non-starter. The Russians made
very clear in an interview in Xinhua going into this meeting,
that Moscow and Beijing need Washington as a partner. I found
that somewhat — it made me happy as an American, because I think
the US should be a partner in this. Also, paradoxical. Then the
person who was interviewed, said Washington can be a complex and
unpredictable partner.
        So, I would say that our job as Americans — in a sense —
we've been given a mission that other very important leaders are
saying that the United States is wanted as a valued partner in
this New Paradigm. It is for us to deliver that by straightening
out this criminal regime that we have. Part of what we saw with
9/11 is that the cover-up has gone on through two
administrations; that Obama has been not only complicit in this,
but with his policies in the region, has contributed to the
growth of ISIS, the growth of al-Qaeda, their ability to recruit.
We've lost over these last years, almost 4500 soldiers in Iraq,
which is now known to be a complete lie and a fraud; that's what
came out of the Chilcot Inquiry. The question of 9/11, therefore,
becomes will we get justice? And justice doesn't mean revenge or
retribution; it means will we restore our nation to something
which someone would want to give their consent to be governed by
this government?
        I think when you look at the question of Mozart, which is
the {Requiem} which will be performed, which our chorus is
participating in and working on; Mozart's commitment was that. He
was a supporter of the American Revolution; he was a supporter of
the ideas of creating a republic, and he was murdered. His work
was eliminated; his contribution, what he could have done had he
lived longer. The piece has lived on because it has a quality
which is immortal; which actually embodies the question of human
creativity. What we're seeing here in response is that the people
who are engaged in this are developing a certain kind of passion
which probably was always in them. But because they have a chance
to participate in something which is going to be so profound and
so beautiful, and it has a mission in the real world, they are
becoming passionate again; which is I think is something that's
been very lacking. Everyone can think of conversations that
you've had with your friends and neighbors about the upcoming
election or almost anything; and the population has become
passionless, which is why people don't act when they should or
when they can.
        So, I have a sense that we really are on the brink of a
major breakthrough that the United States will be a part of; even
if many people in the United States don't fully appreciate why it
is here and how they came to be involved in it.

        OGDEN: Absolutely! I would just echo exactly what you just
said, Diane. In his speech at the Press Club, Senator Graham
quoted the often-quoted anecdote from Ben Franklin at the
Philadelphia Constitutional Convention; when the woman asked,
"What have you given us?" And he said, "A republic, if you can
keep it." The passion that Senator Graham has exhibited around
this, sustaining his role and his fight for 15 years for the
declassification of these documents; where does this passion come
from? Even though the FBI tried to intimidate him personally, and
told him to back down; basically "Get a life!" they said. Senator
Graham has refused to back down, because he sees this — as well
it should be seen — as an existential question for the survival
of the American republic. Not only from justice and the
standpoint of national security, but the very survival of our
nation as a republican form of government. I would assert that
we're looking at exactly the same kind of existential question
when it comes to the restoration of Glass-Steagall. The magnitude
of the implosion of the trans-Atlantic system that we are about
to see — if this thing came down without the necessary
leadership in place around the restoration of Glass-Steagall and
otherwise, to protect the American people from the fall-out from
that kind of financial crisis — this republic would not survive.
        The opportunity is there at our fingertips to join the new
financial architecture and to create the kinds of productive
surges in growth that this nation has never before seen; that
would surpass even what we achieved during FDR's New Deal, if we
were to join the New Silk Road which is being led right now by
China and others. So, it's that same kind of passion which needs
to be applied to that question as well.

DAVE CHRISTIE: Just to add, because I think the other side of
this is what Mr. LaRouche has identified that we're at a point
now where the old concept of sovereignty from the standpoint of
geopolitics; that the moves that are being made in the world by
the leadership of Russia, China, and India, are obviously the
echo of what Mr. LaRouche and his wife Helga have put on the
table for over a 40-year period. The discussion of the new
financial architecture really began when Mr. LaRouche proposed
the International Development Bank; his proposals for a New
Bretton Woods conference, starting in the '90s. That was picked
up by Nestor Kirchner of Argentina. Putin was actually discussing
this concept as well, of the new financial architecture, in the
early 2000s. So clearly, the role of the LaRouches is at the
forefront of this New Paradigm and the potential for that to come
into existence. What Mr. LaRouche has stressed is that we're
going to move beyond the old nation-state system. That doesn't
mean we're going to cease to have nations; but rather, the first
and foremost thought will be of mankind viewing itself from the
common aims of mankind. That humanity will be thought of first. I
think that's what we're seeing with the implications of the New
Silk Road policy and the new financial architecture; it is just
simply to facilitate the expansion of this concept.
        In that light, I think it's important that {The Hindu} just
had an interview with Helga Zepp-LaRouche; and in the coverage of
that article, they cite the question of the Bering Strait, which
is the tunnel underneath the Bering Strait to link Eurasia with
North America. I think that's relevant to the ongoing discussion
in Vladivostok; because clearly the ability for Japan, for Korea,
for China and Russia to come together in this part of the world,
represents an amazing potential. Just think of the scientific and
technological potentials of those nations: China's space program;
Russia's space capabilities; the high-tech capabilities of Japan
and Korea. It really represents a very profound potential; and
when you begin discussing the development of the Siberia region,
the Far East region, you're building up that economic potential
right up to the doorstep of the Bering Strait. So, I think that's
obviously reflected in this {Hindu} article which interviews
Helga Zepp-LaRouche and her call to make the New Silk Road become
the World Land-Bridge; which is actually the title of that
article.
        So, I think the importance of what Diane referenced — this
idea of the consent of the governed — in a sense, these
discussions that are going on this weekend with the Vladivostok
conference, the G20 conference, that is what is actually being
discussed. As the Europeans are complaining about Obama, they're
trying to ram the TTIP and the TPP down the throats of the
Europeans; where prominent leadership of Germany and France are
saying, "Wait a second. Aren't we going to be involved in any
kind of discussion about this? Is this a democratic process?" But
of course, for Obama and the imperial interests that control him,
there's no discussion; no democratic process. I think that's
actually what is on the table. Just to come back to it, there's
no other place than space, which is perhaps the greatest
reflection of the end of the idea of the old system of
nation-state. There are no nation-states in space.
        We were discussing earlier the fact that this SpaceX rocket
just blew up; the great privatized space program that we're now
going to have after Obama dismantled NASA. It turns out that its
payload was a satellite launched by Facebook to run broad band in
Africa. This is the level of technology that we have in the
United States, or that we're concerned about. Whereas, if you
look at what China's doing with the far side of the Moon, look at
this collaborative effort; that can be the way to bring Asians on
this planet together to actually realize the common aims of
mankind.

        OGDEN: If you go back to the inaugural speech that John F
Kennedy made in 1961, when he was elected President; that was
obviously the focus of a previous generation of this country. He
said, we must move beyond the age of war; because all-out war is
not conceivable anymore in the age of nuclear weapons. This would
lead to the extermination of not just one country or another, but
the entirety of the human race. Instead, what we must do, is move
beyond the age of war to an age where nations are collaborating
to achieve the common aims of mankind. He said, our mission must
be to explore the stars, to conquer the deserts, to cure poverty
and disease, and to bring an end to the age of war itself.
        When you look back one year at the speeches that Vladimir
Putin and Xi Jinping made at the United Nations General Assembly
meeting in New York, that was exactly what the subject matter
was. It was the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II, and
the framework that was put together by Franklin Roosevelt after
that war before he died, was intended to be a framework of
international relations based on bringing the New Deal, bringing
the awesome achievements that the United States had accomplished
under the American System to the rest of the world. And, bringing
an end to imperialism and colonialism once and for all. So, they
harkened back to that framework in which the United Nations was
originally conceived, and said this must be the foundation of the
paradigm going forward. Immediately after those speeches at the
United Nations General Assembly, Helga LaRouche issued a call for
a new security architecture for the planet. If you look at how
much has changed just over the past one year, in terms of what
now exists in actuality in those terms; that new security
architecture, the new economic architecture, this new
international order has now begun to coalesce.
        As Diane was saying, it's incumbent on the American people
to impress upon yourself how rapidly the situation in this
country could change, if the necessary steps are taken in order
to bring the United States into that new framework. If you bring
yourself outwards by a couple of months or one year from the
present date, and look at how much has changed since that
previous United Nations General Assembly meeting; you can see how
rapidly things could change for the better. I know that's been
Helga's assertion over and over again. The future is so close;
it's at your fingertips. It would be so easy to achieve. But
there are bold actions that must be taken in the United States;
and absolutely that starts in the month of September with the
convening of an immediate vote on Glass-Steagall, and ramming
that through the United States Congress.

        STEINBERG: I think that Mr. LaRouche has emphasized
repeatedly that winning this fight in the United States,
basically restoring the United States to its historical tradition
— which was an anti-colonial, anti-imperial, specifically
anti-British Empire nation that came into existence through a
struggle against all those principles of empire that have been
gradually more and more adopted by the last two administrations;
by the Bush 43 administration and equally so if not even more so
by Obama. The fact of the matter is, that we can at this point —
as the 28 pages fight indicated, as the momentum for
Glass-Steagall indicates — we can win this fight in the United
States; but it's got to be done now, and it's got to be done in a
timely fashion where people realize that there are critical
flanking battles that must be fought. Many other things are
merely irrelevant or distractions; and should just be ignored. We
win the fight on Glass-Steagall; we win the fight on the full
exposure of the Saudi 9/11, because that is really a
British-Saudi story that goes deep into our own national security
structures. So, these are the things that are going to be
measured in the next immediate days and weeks ahead. It has
virtually nothing to do with the election show that's going to be
more and more of a dominant factor.
        We've got to win this fight for Glass-Steagall; we've got to
win the JASTA fight. Those things can be won in the Congress in
the immediate several weeks ahead of us. That's going to take an
enormous mobilization, a focussed mobilization of the American
people. It means a lot of institutions that can be dragged in
many different directions, have to have the same kind of laser
focus that Mr. LaRouche is calling for and demanding of our own
forces. AFL-CIO actively involved in Glass-Steagall. Now is the
moment to pull out all of the stops and force the issue; because
Glass-Steagall is merely the starting point. It begs the issue of
a national system of credit; of national banking; of establishing
priority projects. Including, first and foremost, reviving NASA;
reviving our government-backed space program. Because these are
the things that are the only way that you're going to revive real
productivity in the US economy, given how far down it's sunk
already.

OGDEN: I would just say one thing. Those two subjects — the
forcing of the reopening of the 9/11 investigation and the
immediate mobilization around Glass-Steagall — these are
featured in this week's edition of {The Hamiltonian}; which is
hitting the streets today. That is a direct focus in terms of
activism that everybody needs to be involved in, is the
saturation of New York City, specifically with this weekly
publication that is now coming out — {The Hamiltonian}. So,
maybe before we conclude this broadcast, Diane, you can give us a
quick update on how that's changing the situation on the ground
in New York; and what people have to do between now and next
weekend in order to maximize the effect of the events that are
coming up in a week.

        SARE: I would say that people should certainly contact the
Manhattan Project office about coming to our meeting tomorrow in
Manhattan; where people can pick up copies of {The Hamiltonian}
and can join us on the distributions. We've been getting them out
all over the city and in the neighboring boroughs, and getting a
very favorable response. It's amazing; this one we're printing
now is only the fourth issue, but we already clearly have a
following of people saying, "Do you have the next one?" I think
it's also shaping the perception of what people are willing to
say. It may have been a coincidence, I don't know, that we ran
our first issue on Hillary Clinton as a stooge for Obama's wars
and Wall Street; and that week, Maureen Dowd came out with her
column on Hillary Clinton as the pro-war perfect replacement for
Dick Cheney was the idea. As we've seen in the past, there are
certain things that we take the point on, and we change what
people are allowed to discuss. Like when Mr. LaRouche, years ago
during Cheney and Bush, talked about Leo Strauss; and we produced
a series of reports — ultimately a book — on this policy of
lying and ramming it down people's throats as a way of
terrorizing the population to go along with fascism. The next
things you knew, the {New York Times} was running this big
article about Leo Strauss, who I'm sure most people had never
heard of until we did this.
        If you go back to what happened with the 28 pages, Obama had
absolutely no intention to ever release those pages. We created a
situation where he could not not release them; he had to do it.
Therefore, people should take heart in a certain way, that what
you used to consider as the powers that be, or the things that
are unmovable, or what can't be changed; that is no longer the
case. Now is really the moment to pick up — Jeff said it clearly
— the American Constitution, Alexander Hamilton; what our nation
is actually supposed to represent in the world. Now is the moment
for Americans to find their guts and stand up on their hind legs
and demand that nothing lower than that standard is going to be
tolerated by us at this point.

        OGDEN: Absolutely. So, I would encourage everybody to please
contact the New York office if you're in the area, or if you can
travel there. There's going to be a series of events that you can
participate in over the next week; and it's very significant. If
you have not yet, please subscribe to our YouTube channel, but
also, watch the two latest features that have been posted on the
LaRouche PAC YouTube channel and the LaRouche PAC website. As I
mentioned, the full press conference that Bob Graham delivered at
the National Press Club is available; the short address of that
is lpac.co/graham-press-club. We'll put that in the description
of this video here today. Also, the 20-minute video called "The
New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge: a Tour"; which is
very well-composed overview of exactly what the New Paradigm and
the new economic architecture looks like. Again, we'll put the
URL of that video in the description as well.
        So, thank you very much for joining us here today. I think
this was a very important discussion. Please stay tuned to
larouchepac.com. Thank you very much; good night.