Alexander Hamiltons vision & LaRouches Fire Love
– afgørende redskaber til at redde USA.
LaRouchePAC Internationale Webcast, 28. oktober, 2016

»Jeg tror, vi kan sige, at vi befinder os ved et meget dramatisk vendepunkt i verdenshistorien, og ved et meget dramatisk vendepunkt for vores nation. I løbet af de seneste uger, som I har kunnet følge på LaRouchePAC’s webside, har vi mobiliseret en national mobilisering for at sætte hr. Lyndon LaRouches økonomiske program på dagsordenen, under betegnelsen ’De Fire Hovedlove; de Fire Nye Love til USA’s økonomiske genrejsning’, og disse love er baseret på Alexander Hamiltons fundamentale principper og hans arbejde med at etablere en videnskab om økonomi, der opbyggede USA. Vi har lanceret en kampagneside for mobilisering, og jeg vil direkte fremhæve, at det er vores dagsorden at bringe det amerikanske folk ind i denne mobilisering for at gøre jeres forståelse af, hvad det er for økonomiske principper, som Hamilton skabte, dybere; og hvad det er, som hr. LaRouche har inkorporeret i disse Fire Love.«

Engelsk udskrift:

Friday LaRouche PAC Webcast October 28, 2016


        MATTHEW OGDEN:  Good evening, it's October 28, 2016.  My
name is Matthew Ogden, and you're joining us here for our Friday
evening webcast from  I'm joined in the studio
tonight by Jeffrey Steinberg from {Executive Intelligence
Review}, and we have via video, Kesha Rogers, a member of the
LaRouche PAC Policy Committee, former candidate for the United
States Congress and United States Senate, joining us from
Houston, Texas.
        I think it can be said that we are at a very dramatic
turning point in world history and a very dramatic turning point
for our nation.  Over the last several weeks, as you've been
following the LaRouche PAC website, we have mobilized a national
mobilization to put on the agenda Mr. Lyndon LaRouche's economic
program; this is under the name of "The Four Cardinal Laws; the
Four New Laws for the Economic Recovery of the United States",
and it's grounded in the fundamental principles of Alexander
Hamilton and his work establishing a science of economics which
built the United States.  We have launched a mobilization page,
and I'll say right up front that our agenda is to bring the
American people into this mobilization to deepen your
understanding of what the economic principles are that Hamilton
created; and what Mr. LaRouche has embodied in these Four Laws.
        This is not something which is only important for the
national stage; but this is shaping a paradigm shift which is
currently ongoing on the international stage.  We saw two weeks
ago the dramatic shift, the realignment of the Philippines with
President Duterte's trip to China; saying that he is realigning
his country with the ideological flow of the Eurasian allied
countries that are now creating a new economic paradigm.  And we
saw this expressed very clearly in a speech that Russian
President Vladimir Putin gave at the 2016 annual Valdai
international discussion club proceedings.  We'll get into some
of the details of that, but Putin's emphases are very clear, and
I think they include some of the subjects that we will be
discussing here tonight.  Number one, the danger of the
NATO/Obama posture which has now brought us perilously close to
the outbreak of World War III; a war that nobody is seeking on
the Russian side, as Putin made very clear.  And also, the urgent
necessity of an entirely new economic paradigm to bridge the gap
between a small number of very wealthy Wall Street speculators
and a very large number of poverty-stricken, not only people, but
also nations; and to bring technological progress to all, and to
have that be the paradigm for relations among nations.
        So, we'll get into those subjects, but I think first and
foremost, the issue of Glass-Steagall; the necessity of shutting
down what is now clearly the bankrupt Wall Street regime, and
what has to necessarily follow after that.  The Hamiltonian Four
Laws that Mr. LaRouche has specified, I think is now very clearly
on the agenda.  So, I'm going to ask Jeff to just start with a
quick briefing of some of the matters that we've discussed with
Mr. LaRouche over the last 24 hours, and then we can proceed with
a discussion of the implications of these developments.

        JEFFREY STEINBERG:  Thanks, Matt.  I think that there are
four or five things that I would really highlight in terms of
significant new developments just in the time since last Friday's
broadcast.  Number one, as Matt indicated, President Putin
delivered a very powerful speech at the closing session of the
Valdai conference that took place this week in Sochi, Russia.
There were representatives there from all over the world,
including at least a number of people there from China.  I think
what President Putin did was not so much break new ground, but
make very clear that Russia and he himself are fully committed to
moving ahead with the collaboration with China, with the other
BRICS countries on bringing about a new paradigm of relations
among nation-states; based on a policy of clear war avoidance
built around cooperative economic investments in great projects
— including major advances in science, including the advancement
of man's mastery over space.  So, Putin in a certain sense,
reinforced what we saw at the G20 meeting in Hangzhou in China;
what we saw at the BRICS heads of state summit meeting more
recently in Goa, India.  So, Russia is all-in on that, and he
made the point very clearly, that the collapse of the Western
financial system is the principal factor driving the world
towards an extraordinarily dangerous situation, where you could
have an outbreak of world war — even thermonuclear world war —
as the result of provocative actions born of desperation.  I
think that whole picture is one element of what's really changed
in this last week.
        Now, I spent the last 48 hours — Wednesday and Thursday of
this week — attending an annual conference in Washington, DC of
the National Council on US-Arab Relations.  There were about 1000
people there, and it was widely attended by the diplomatic
community, particularly the Arab diplomatic community; by the US
business sector that deals with the Gulf States.  At the very
closing of the conference, Thursday evening, there was a
concluding keynote presentation by General David Petraeus —
formerly the head of the Central Command, formerly the Director
of the CIA.  He made a very bold set of proposals that
unfortunately dovetailed very precisely with the kinds of things
that have been coming out of Hillary Clinton and the Clinton
campaign throughout this Presidential election.  What General
Petraeus called for was both the creation of safe zones inside
Syrian sovereign territory, the creation of a no-fly zone over a
large portion of Syrian territory, and he called for the United
States to use both sea-based and air-based cruise missiles to
knock out the Syrian air force.  Now, he very cavalierly said of
course this brings on the danger of a war with Russia; but he
brushed that aside, saying, Vladimir Putin responds to power, and
responds to serious threats to use power.  Therefore, in the face
of these kinds of actions, Putin will back down.
        Now, we're talking about American and Russian air assets
engaging in a very limited theater of action, where we've so far
avoided a major incident that could have led to general war
because of a deconfliction agreement that fortunately still
remains in force between the US-led coalition on the one side,
and Russia on the other.  But what's being proposed here is a
complete overturning of that policy.  We know that this is
exactly what Hillary Clinton is calling for in her own
Presidential campaign speeches.  There have been recent studies
presented on behalf of the Clinton campaign by the Center for a
New American Security and the Center for American Progress, that
go almost as extremist as General Petraeus' statements.
Basically, the war danger cannot in the least underestimated; and
the fact is that President Putin — in his Valdai speech — was
very clear about that danger.
        Now, on the larger issue of the immediacy of the blow-out of
the financial system of the trans-Atlantic region, everybody is
really on the edge of their chairs over the fact that the US
Department of Justice and Deutsche Bank are still parrying around
back and forth and have not reached a decision yet on a proposed
14 billion euro fine for Deutsche Bank's criminal activity during
the mortgage-backed securities crisis leading into the 2008
blow-out.  Deutsche Bank is on the edge of collapse; it's widely
acknowledged.  The major German financial press, led by
{Handelsblatt}, writes about this virtually every day.  We know
that the Italian banking system is also on the verge of a
blow-out with 360 billion euro in non-performing debt on the
books of the larger Italian banks.  So, it is absolutely true
that we're on the precipice of a potential financial blow-out far
worse than Lehman Brothers in 2008.
        It's in that context, that I think it's very important to
take note of the fact that earlier this week, Donald Trump
delivered a speech in Charlotte, North Carolina, in which he
explicitly called for the implementation of a 21st Century
Glass-Steagall.  He also warned that if Hillary Clinton is
elected President, the chances grow enormously that we will be
facing World War III at some point very soon; and he cited the
Syria events that I've already talked about as a kind of a key
element of that situation.  Many people are scratching their
heads and saying, where did this from in terms of Trump suddenly
coming out for Glass-Steagall?  It's only 12 days before the
Presidential election that this speech came out.
        I had the opportunity to someone who's been involved in
Washington politics as a kind of insider for a very long time;
and his view was that he was expecting something like this to
come out of the Trump campaign, out of Donald Trump.  It could
have been more effective if it had happened in September, but
whether he's being opportunistic or whether he genuinely means
it, the fact is that the Glass-Steagall issue has now been
basically re-infused into the Presidential elections at a
critical kind of countdown moment before November 8th.  And
there's really no downside to that.  Whatever the outcome of the
election, Glass-Steagall is an essential policy issue that must
be implemented immediately.  It's the first step of Mr.
LaRouche's Four Cardinal Laws for how to carry out an economic
recovery; and Mr. LaRouche's Four Cardinal Laws on based
explicitly on the four key reports to Congress by Alexander
Hamilton when he was Secretary of the Treasury.  So, we're
reaching back for policies that have a long-time proven track
record of success.  Donald Trump didn't just simply blurt out
"Let's have Glass-Steagall."  By accounts of people who closely
watched that speech down in Charlotte, this was the most
thoroughly composed and well organized speech of his entire
Presidential campaign.  The next morning, in a TV interview with
Fox, Wilbur Ross, who is one of a group of "billionaires" who are
key economic policy advisors to Trump, basically reinforced the
point that Trump had made the day before in Charlotte.  This is a
bit of an exchange between Fox News' Maria Bartolino and Wilbur
        BARTOLINO:  Donald Trump yesterday called for a 21st Century
version of the 1933 Glass-Steagall law that requires the
separation of commercial and investment banking.  Talk to us
about this, because we all know what Dodd-Frank has done to the
financial services sector; and lending has become tougher.
That's become one of the issues for this economy.  Tell me about
the 21st Century version of Glass-Steagall.

        Ross was absolutely clear and familiar with what Trump was
referring to the night before.  He said:
        ROSS:  Well, the banks.  It isn't so much that they're too
big; it's that they're too complex.  Too complex and too
complicated internally.  Think about how much the big banks —
you have to know every geography in the world; you have to know
every kind of obscure kind of product in the derivatives market.
That's an awful big menu for anybody to absorb.  We think it
might be better for the banks to stick to lending, and instead of
making more restrictions on lending, make it easier for them to
make loans.  Think about it.  When you were suing banks every day
for the loans that they've made the day before, it's not the way
to encourage them to make new loans.  They're making banks

        And she asks, "Are you saying there should be more

        ROSS:  I think the more important thing is sensible
regulation rather than just regulation for the sake of
regulation.  When you think about it, with all these fines over
sub-prime lending, can you name a single person who was ever
dispossessed from a house that didn't actually have a mortgage,
wasn't delinquent on it and deserved to be foreclosed?  There
isn't one case where that's been proven, so it's punitive
regulation, it's punitive law enforcement rather than anything
very sensible.

        This was clearly not just simply a stab in the dark. We
don't know whether this is a serious commitment to the policy.
But we do know that there is mass popular support for
Glass-Steagall. That's why it wound up in the platforms of both
the Democratic and Republican Parties. We know there was a fight
inside the Hillary Clinton campaign, in which a number of her key
advisors urged her to also come out and support Glass-Steagall,
which she refused to do. The Bernie Sanders supporters, the
Elizabeth Warren supporters, those who are mainstay voters for
the Democratic Party, are as adamant about the need for
Glass-Steagall as some on the Republican side.
        So, the issue is that this now squarely on the table. It's
the final ten days before the Presidential elections, and so
therefore, now is the moment for this issue to be driven home,
forcefully, and for Congress to take this up as their first order
of business when the return after the November 8th elections,
regardless of the outcome. The mandate is there. It's now a
fundamental issue in the Presidential debate in these closing
days. Again, whether Trump is serious about this, or this was a
political stunt, nevertheless, the issue has been injected very
substantially into the final moments of this Presidential
campaign, and there's no downside to that having happened.

        OGDEN: Mr. LaRouche's ideas are very powerful, and they
stand on their own. Mr. LaRouche has not responded to the change
of the time. He has been very, very clear for years, on the
{urgent} necessity of Glass-Steagall, and has forecast that we
would in fact reach this point again. Deutsche Bank is blowing
out. It's worse than Lehman 2008. The fact that Glass-Steagall
was not reinstated, as Mr. LaRouche called for, immediately
following the 2008 crash, is what has brought us to this point.
Kesha was involved in a high-profile Senate campaign, several
high-profile House campaigns. Other members of the LaRouche PAC
Policy Committee also ran for federal office four, six years ago,
on a Glass-Steagall platform, and made that the definitive
national issue. To the extent that there's been any serious
discussion in this Presidential campaign, it has been around the
question of Glass-Steagall. This was brought up in the Democratic
debates by two candidates — Martin O'Malley, Bernie Sanders also
brought it up; Hillary Clinton said, "No!"
        This is now the {defining} question. And as you said, Jeff,
what this shows is that there is {overwhelming} popular support:
both Party platforms. Now you have a situation in which the
reinstatement of Glass-Steagall is virtually hegemonic. It would
be tragic were the Congress not to take the immediate action to
reinstate this — do not wait for the inauguration — immediately
after returning to Washington. Glass-Steagall has got to be
reinstated, because if we wait, and Deutsche Bank or one of these
other banks blows out, I guarantee you, we are in a far worse
situation that we were, even in the Crash of 2008.
        So I think the defining question is there. The necessity for
the depth of the Hamiltonian principles — which Mr. LaRouche has
made very clear — stand on their own. It's not a question of has
somebody validated Lyndon LaRouche; the question is Lyndon
LaRouche's ideas stand on their own, and have been the defining
questions, and have now reached the point where it's undeniably
hegemonic, and the point of no return is coming very soon, unless
these ideas are acted on.

        STEINBERG: Let me throw something else in on this. I think
there's an important lesson to be learned from the
just-concluded, successful fight over the summer into September,
around first, the release of the 28 pages from the original Joint
Congressional Inquiry into 9/11; and then what followed after
that, with the overwhelming House and Senate override of
President Obama's veto of the JASTA Bill, the Justice Against
Sponsors of Terrorism Act. As was the case for some time with
JASTA, the issue is that once it was going to come to a vote,
there was no question that there was overwhelming support for it.
There was a political mobilization. LaRouche PAC led that fight,
along with the families and survivors of 9/11, and others as
well, to make sure it was actually brought to a vote. The same is
true of Glass-Steagall right now. There's got to be a groundswell
of pressure on the leadership of the House and Senate, to bring
it to a vote.
        I have no doubt whatsoever that given all of the factors
that we've been discussing, that if a vote were allowed to be
taken, say on November 14-15, whatever it is the day that the
House and Senate return to Washington for the beginning of the
"lame duck" session, that should be on the table. It should be
brought to the full floor of the Senate and the House. The bills
exist in both Houses. The language is compatible. This could be
done in a very short period of time. If you look at the way that
the JASTA vote proceeded just before the recess, the whole thing
took place in the course of {one day}. There was a morning vote
and debate in the House. It went immediately to the Senate in the
afternoon; because the leadership recognized that the American
people {demanded} that this happen. There was a mobilization.
There was a sense of timing. And there is no reason in the world
that the same thing can't happen before the middle of next month
with respect to Glass-Steagall.
        As Matt just said, and as Thomas Hoenig, [vice chairman of
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation] has been arguing for
years, Glass-Steagall has to be put in place {before} the
blow-out, because once you get that blow-out, Congress will be
stampeded by Wall Street and London into another bail-out, and
you're going to be off to the races. It's going to be a disaster.
        This is something where the will of the American people has
to be heard. That's the context in which we're looking at the
fact that Trump chose at the last moment to inject Glass-Steagall
into his campaign rhetoric for the final countdown days before
the election.

        KESHA ROGERS: Yes. I think it's important to understand that
LaRouche "drew the line in the sand" a long time ago. He set the
standard of the Glass-Steagall representing the first step to
bringing down Wall Street, this financial speculation, and the
continued protection and defense of Wall Street, of this British
imperial system of the City of London, meant the death of the
nation and society as a whole, because we're seeing what this is
doing to impact the United States through the continued economic
collapse that's devastating the entire nation, the rate of
increase in poverty. This has all been a product of Wall Street's
total destruction of our nation.
        And so, this fight for Glass-Steagall — LaRouche has led it
in the highest terms possible, because it represents a saving of
the American people. It's the identity of what has to shape the
future for this nation. I think it's really important that, as
we've continued to have discussions with Mr. LaRouche — the
Policy Committee and others — he defined very clearly that the
issue at hand is, what is going to be necessary and the standard
set for creating a standard by which credit is defined. And this
is what he has gone back to, with implementing the Hamiltonian
standard for the United States and for the world with his Four
Laws. Representing the context by which we can instill in the
American people a standard of economic value which is not based
on money, not based on the idea that you can just pump money into
small infrastructure projects here and there. But he made very
clear that you have to have an international program based on the
principle of a credit policy as Alexander Hamilton understood —
and this is why he has been very emphatic; that the American
people have to read, master and understand the works of Hamilton
today as never before. This is what Franklin Roosevelt
understood. People are adopting and taking up the policy for
restoring Glass-Steagall which LaRouche has made a household
name. Franklin Roosevelt really understood the enemy. He
understood that this house of cards of Wall Street was crumbling,
it had to be brought down; just as LaRouche understands today.
Many people who've put their name on the docket for
Glass-Steagall have been called by Wall Street "Public Enemy
Number One," and so forth.
        How do we really look at this, from the standpoint of what
we're dealing with a population that has lost a sense — and Mr.
LaRouche really captured this today, very profoundly — of their
own mind; the ability of their own mind to actually know how to
fight this enemy and know how to create the future which they so
desperately desire and need? What you really see right now is
that they're being given an opportunity to participate in
something very profound and unique. If we look at what's being
presented by LaRouche's policies being adopted throughout the
world right now, the standard that's been set in China. The
standard for the future that's been set in Russia to defy and to
deny this policy of thermonuclear war and destruction. Of going
after the future and the youth of the nation, that the
international standard that's being set right now for a program
based on these Hamiltonian principles, can {clearly} be seen by
what China is doing and actually representing for a total
revolution, total renaissance for generations to come, in the
standards they're setting with their space program.
        Because when Mr. LaRouche said you have to have an
international program that defines an economic standard of value,
of credit, in this nation and across the planet, that's the first
thing to look at. The fact that China just launched a new
initiative, a total breakthrough putting them front and center
stage in the development of their space program; when Obama has
continued to kill the space program with the egregious budget
cuts, with the turning over our space program to the private
sector in the United States. The policy to continue to bail out
Wall Street financial speculation instead of actually giving a
national mission, as Kennedy understood was absolutely important,
is something that can no longer be tolerated.
        The inspiration is the crucial key at hand right now. People
have lost faith and confidence and inspiration in this nation, in
the system of this nation, because it has become a system of
gambling, of debt, and it has gone away from the principles which
were defined by our US Constitution. So when you look at the
inspiration you're seeing from China, with the just launching of
their spacecraft with two tyconauts from China, the Shenzhou-11
to dock with the Tiangong-2 space lab, what we have now seen
China do is to actually create an international process of
collaboration and development. Just as they've offered for the
United States to cooperate, in a win-win strategy for the Silk
Road, which nations around the world are taking up. This is
defining a new standard of value and wealth.
        Now, what's the standard in the United States? Jeff can say
more on this, because he just did a presentation that I would
encourage people to look at on the website. It's death. The drug
overdoses.  If you don't have a policy of inspiration for your
youth and for the nation, what are people going to turn to?  What
is going to be the standard and value and the understanding of
the creativity, the creative potential of their own minds?  I'll
just say, before I got on this discussion, I was speaking to a
lady 40 years old; she has a 23-year old son who she's paying
thousands of dollars to get him off of drug overdoses from
prescription medicines and pills.  Three of his friends who she
knows very closely just died within the last year of drug
overdoses from heroin.  First starting with painkillers, then
finding this heroin, just as you said, Jeff.  Because people have
been denied a future that they can have a sense of their truly
human identity; that they have a purpose and reason to live.
Wall Street can and must be brought down, because the fight that
was won with JASTA was just the beginning.  If we don't finish
off this policy of the British Empire and the Saudis funding of
terrorism and funding of drug epidemics in the United States
coming from Afghanistan, the drug trafficking, everything we've
been seeing as the destruction of this nation, then we won't have
a nation.  We're seeing that very rapidly take place; this dark
age has to be stopped.
        I think a lot of people are understanding that LaRouche is
giving them an opportunity for life and for determining and
fighting for a future.

        OGDEN:  Yeah, I do want Jeff to say more about that
interview, that short statement that he posted on the website.
Let me just underscore what you just said; I think it's
extraordinarily important.  People lack the confidence in their
own mind; they lack the confidence in their own ability to
positively imagine and create and define a future.  What comes in
the void of that?  It's anger, it's fear, it's demoralization.
Our job is to give people their dignity back.  We have to give
them the confidence in themselves as meaningful human beings.  I
think that was very clearly demonstrated with what we
accomplished — the Schiller Institute along with the Foundation
for the Revival of Classical Culture — with this extraordinary
series of concerts over the weekend of the 15th anniversary of
September 11th in New York City.  This was a presentation of
Mozart's {Requiem} and four African-American spirituals at four
different venues across New York City and New Jersey.  The
confidence and the dignity that gave to people, including people
who were engaged as you said, Jeff, in the fight, the victorious
fight to declassify the 28 pages and to pass the JASTA bill and
override the White House's veto, I think speaks directly to that
        Coincidentally, there's one very short passage in this
speech that Putin gave at the Valdai discussion which says almost
exactly what you just said, Kesha.  He said, "It is very clear
that there is a lack of strategy and a lack of ideas for the
future.  This creates a climate of uncertainty that has a direct
impact on the public mood.  Sociological studies conducted around
the world show that people in different countries and on
different continents tend to see the future as murky and bleak.
This is sad.  The future does not entice them, but rather,
frightens them."
        So, our job is to create a potential for a future which
entices the creative dignity of people and allows them to escape
this — as you eloquently said — dark age of drug overdoses,
death, and depression.

        STEINBERG:  I think it's important to also take note of the
fact that just in the past two weeks, millions of American
households have received word that their Obamacare health
insurance premiums are going up by 20%, 30%, 50%, in some cases I
know of directly, 70-80%.  The administration was facing a
torrent of news coverage admitting that Obamacare was finished.
Insurance companies are pulling out of the pools, and Obama came
out with this completely vacuous, lying statement claiming he'll
create some kind of a federal pool so that people can get
reasonably-priced health insurance.  The fact of the matter is,
at the very outset of this whole business, Obama shut the door on
expanding Medicare for all; shut the door on any other
formulation of a single-payer plan.  The cutbacks in the amount
of money being spent on health care has meant that by Hill-Burton
standards — in other words, the physical requirements; how many
hospital beds, how many doctors, how many nurses, what kinds of
specialty care have to be made available — the physical
infrastructure of health care has collapsed under Obama, as
people are finding their rates skyrocketing through the ceiling.
Obama personally came out with another lie to cover for the
reality of what he created; namely claiming that the premium
increases for most people will be covered by increases in
taxpayer subsidies.  But what he failed to say was that the only
people who qualify for those subsidies are people who are living
at or below one and a half times the poverty rate.  So, anybody
in the middle class, anybody even barely above that 1.5 times the
poverty rate is out of luck; and they're being confronted with a
choice — health care vs. housing; health care vs. food; in many,
many cases health care vs. whether you can get your kids a
college education.  So, you've got that phenomenon that's staring
the American people in the face; it's the collapse and
disintegration of Obamacare, which is what Lyndon LaRouche warned
about and forecast all the way back in 2009 when this thing was
first started.
        Then you've got the second phenomenon.  Remember that
President Obama, during his initial campaign for office back in
2008, basically distanced himself from the Bush-Cheney Iraq war,
but took full ownership of the Afghanistan war; which he called a
war of necessity as opposed to a war of choice.  Well, we're now
eight more years into it, and the United Nations Office on Drugs
and Crime last week came out with a report that Afghanistan —
under US and NATO occupation — has produced a bumper crop of
opium; up 43% to 4800 tons of pure opium produced this year.  We
know the consequences of that; cheap heroin is flooding onto the
streets of the United States in every community, not just
inner-city ghetto areas, but middle-class suburbs, rural areas.
There is not a county in the United States that is not
experiencing an opioid epidemic; and that's not our words, those
are the words of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention —
        You've had a major increase every year under Obama of deaths
by opioid overdoses.  It goes hand-in-glove with the shutdown of
the health system, the flooding of the country with illegal
drugs, the refusal of the Obama administration, number one, to
crack down on HSBC — the British Opium War bank that was caught
by the United States Senate as the number one drug-money
launderer for the Latin American drug cartels.  Nothing was done;
a slap on the wrist.  They've even violated the deferred
prosecution agreement, but we hear nothing about the
consequences.  Secondly, the big pharmaceutical companies and the
major drug distribution companies are flooding the black market
with oxycontin and other opioids.  This is also being done under
the watchful eye of the Department of Justice that has refused to
prosecute big Pharma and these big drug distribution companies
for the same argument that they make why they won't prosecute and
criminally jail major bankers; they're too big to jail.  The
too-big-to-fail banks, the giant pharmaceutical companies that
are pumping out these opioids; they are above the law, at least
under the policies of the Obama administration.
        So, you've got a track record of death, destruction, and
despair emanating from the policies of the White House for the
past eight years.  Now we are at a crisis point, a social and
economic crisis, a crisis of the morale of the population; yet
there are clear and obvious solutions to all of these problems.
It doesn't take brain surgery to figure out that Glass-Steagall
and the other core principles put forward by Mr. LaRouche, which
are a revised version of the core ideas on which this economy of
this great nation was built in the first place, under the
leadership of Alexander Hamilton.  So, these things {can} be
done.  One of the biggest obstacles is the fact that the collapse
of the health care system, the mass opioid addiction that's been
basically allowed to occur as an Opium War against the American
population, has reached the point where it's created a morale
crisis.  And that's got to be reversed.
        Matt just referenced the impact of the concerts
commemorating the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks that took
place in the greater New York City area the weekend of September
11th.  Those kinds of things can be replicated everywhere.  We
can turn the situation around very quickly.  We can end the
scourge of Wall Street and the City of London; we can end these
wars.  You've got with Russia, with China, with India, with the
other countries in Asia — Japan, Southeast Asia; they're all
coming together around a new economic paradigm that's built on
cooperation among nations for great projects across a vast area.
The United States desperately needs to get in on this; and
President Xi Jinping's standing invitation, delivered to
President Bush face-to-face, still stands.  The United States
should join in and become part of this World Land-Bridge process;
and if you do that, then the folly of these continuing wars and
this confrontation with Putin and Russia become very obvious.
It's completely ludicrous.  We can move on and participate in
this alternative paradigm which is right there; it's not a
theoretical, it's not something in abstraction.  It's going on
every day of the week across all of Eurasia down into Africa.
China is building a trans-continental railroad across South
America.  The plans for that railroad were in place in the 1870s,
when American rail engineers who worked on the transcontinental
railroad in the United States, went down to Peru, and went down
to Brazil, and were working on those projects.  The time is long
overdue for the United States to get on board on something that
we, as a nation, forged as key concepts back during a better
period in our history.

        ROGERS:  And what you're dealing with is a cultural
transformation.  I just wanted to add that this is not something
that is up to people "Oh, this is a problem I'm having in my
family.  The drug overdose or something that I have to deal
with."  You have people who have health care premiums that are
going up to $1500-2000 per month, and then they're spending
thousands of dollars to get their kids and loved ones off of
these drugs, and you have no help from society because the
society is completely degenerating.  It's only going to be
through a cultural transformation based on the beauty that was
exemplified and continues to be exemplified by what we're
representing with these {Requiem} concerts in New York; with a
commitment towards a revival of truly Classical culture.  One
person I was talking to, who was going through such a crisis, was
saying it would just be so beautiful and so important if you can
come into my area to sing; because these people desperately need
beauty.  It's not going to just take each individual; but as
Putin recognized, you have to have a total transformation of the
culture.  I was just thinking at the very end, that Matt you
brought up a few quotes earlier of this speech, and I don't want
to read long quotes; but I think this captures what we were just
discussing very well.  At the very end of Putin's speech at
Valdai in Sochi, he said: "In short, we should build the
foundation for the future world today by investing in all
priority areas of human development.  And of course, it is
necessary to continue a broad-based discussion of our common
future, so that all sensible and promising initiatives are
        This is absolutely what has to be the standard of the United
States right now; shaping that future that must be brought into

        OGDEN:  Yeah, I would recommend people read some more
extensive excerpts of this speech; it's very all-encompassing.
But at the same place where he said what you just cited, he
called for a Marshall Plan to rebuild the war-torn areas —
especially in the Middle East and North Africa; but a Marshall
Plan type of approach.  He called for a New International
Economic Order, which would make the fruit of economic growth and
technological progress accessible to all.  He celebrated the
joining together of the Eurasian Economic Union with the New Silk
Road, the One Belt, One Road policy of China, to create an
integrated Eurasian space where these kinds of massive
development projects can take place, as Jeff just cited.  He said
that the major question, the principle, has got to be how do you
develop human potential?  He said, "An important task of ours is
to develop human potential.  Only a world with ample
opportunities for all, with highly-skilled workers, with access
to knowledge, and a great variety of ways to realize their
potential, can be considered truly free.  Only a world where
people from different countries do not struggle to survive, but
lead full lives, can be stable."
        I would recommend going back and reading some of the
excerpts from Alexander Hamilton's "Report on Manufactures",
because he makes exactly the same point.  He says it's only a
world where the diverse talents of the various of your society
can be developed to their fullest potential through the
application of technology, and the availability of this on the
widest possible scale, that you can create the future potential
for the creative labor, not just the manual labor, but the
creative labor of your labor force, of your workforce, of your
citizenry, which increases the potential population density of
your nation; increases the productive powers of that labor force,
and improves the quality of the lives of all.  And only a society
like that can be defined as truly free.  In Hamilton's time, it
was the fight against slavery; it was the fight against the
manual, bestial labor of the African slaves imported to the
southern states of the United States.  In our time, it's the
fight for a Hamiltonian policy in the present period; and I think
we just keep coming back to the point.  This is the Four New Laws
of LaRouche; this is the principle of Alexander Hamilton.  It is
happening on the international stage, as Jeff said.  The One
Belt, One Road policy from China; this new economic paradigm;
these are taking place every single day.
        The defining question is:  Will the United States join that
New Paradigm?

        STEINBERG:  It's ironic that one of the cornerstones, in
light of what's going on in the real guttural side of this
Presidential campaign, one of the cornerstones of Hamilton's
concept in the "Report on Manufactures" was immigration; mass
immigration.  His policy was, bring 'em in; we'll educate them;
we'll make productive American citizens out of them, no matter
where they come from.  That idea that there's always a shortage
of precious creative labor.  I think it's another point very much
worth reflecting on; rather than thinking about walls and things
like that.  He just said, we've got to bring more people in here;
because we've got productive work for them to do to build a

        OGDEN:  Right; apropos.  I just want to read the one section
from the Putin speech where he says this specifically.  He says,
"We cannot achieve global stability unless we guarantee global
economic progress.  It is essential to provide conditions for
'creative labor' and economic growth at a pace that would put an
end to the division of the world into permanent winners and
permanent losers."
        On that note, I want to just announce to people that
{Executive Intelligence Review} is putting out a republication of
the four economic reports of Hamilton.  These will be available
in book form, hopefully coming up the beginning next week.  It's
titled, {Alexander Hamilton's Vision}, and it's a republication
of these four central economic reports; the "Report on Public
Credit", the "Report on Manufactures", the "Report on National
Banking", and Hamilton's argument "On the Constitutionality of
the National Bank".  As an appendix to that book, we also include
the full text of Mr. LaRouche's new economic laws.  That is also
the headline of a special double edition of the {Hamiltonian}
which came out at the beginning of this week — "The Four New
Laws to Save the USA Now!"  This is edition 10 of the
{Hamiltonian}, and included in this is also an elaboration of
some of the principles of the "Report on Manufactures", which I
wrote up; "The LaRouche-Hamilton Science of Physical Economy",
and there's also an article on the background of Alexander
Hamilton's fight against slavery and his establishment of a new
political order for the United States through the founding of
this science of economics.  There's also a very entertaining
cartoon which was drawn by a member of the LaRouche PAC Policy
Committee, Dave Christie, called "Obamandias" based on
"Ozymandias" which was a famous sonnet by Percy Bysshe Shelley.
So that's available on the LaRouche PAC website.
        So, I think we have definitely defined the fact that we are
at a turning point in the history of this country and the history
of the world.  This is certainly not business as usual; and the
hegemony of the principles that Mr. LaRouche has put on the table
as the urgent steps to create an economic recovery for this
country now, has certainly been demonstrated very clearly.  It's
our job to continue to draw people towards the mobilization page
on the LaRouche PAC Action Center; this is laws.  You can sign up directly
on that website; you will receive an email, you will become part
of our national network of activists.  You can participate in the
weekly activists calls that we hold every Thursday night — our
Fireside Chats.  You can submit reports of activities that you've
engaged in.  You can have all of the background material
available there — Hamilton's four economic reports are linked on
that page — and you can become part of this movement which is
clearly defining world history.
        So, thank you very much, and I'd like to thank both Jeff and
Kesha for joining us here today.  Please stay tuned to  Thank you and good night.