Den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinpings besøg i Storbritannien fandt sted på et tidspunkt, hvor den britiske økonomi er totalt kollapset, de britiske banker totalt bankerotte, det britiske monarki i en tilstand af opløsning og hele det globale, anglo-hollandske system på randen af total disintegration. Kineserne er udmærket klar over alle disse kendsgerninger, og handler i overensstemmelse hermed.

Ud fra Vestens standpunkt er tiden inde til en grundig hovedrengøring, før de britisk-ejede desperadoer, såsom præsident Obama, starter den verdenskrig, som de har prøvet på at fremprovokere, siden afsættelsen og mordet på Libyens Gaddafi i slutningen af 2011. Drivkraften bag deres fremstød for krig er deres bankerotte tilstand og deres umiddelbart forestående tab af magten. Det afgørende spørgsmål er nu, om verden, med begyndelse i den transatlantiske sektor, vil styrte ud i kaos, eller om der i tide kan ske en reguleret afslutning på det britiske system gennem en genoplivning, med begyndelse i USA, af Hamiltons økonomiske principper.

Den amerikanske Kongres er dysfunktionel, som det er blevet bevist af den kendsgerning, at Kongressen ikke har foretaget sig noget for at imødegå Obamas politik med Dronedrab, selv uger efter, at The Intercept har udgivet »Drone-papirerne« (den tyske Forbundsdag har allerede afholdt høringer med whistleblowers, der er fhv. amerikanske dronepiloter). Kongressen er gennemgribende korrupt, især republikanerne, med ganske få undtagelser. Wall Streets blotte eksistens sikrer fortsættelsen af denne korruption. Udslet Wall Street, der allerede er håbløst bankerot, og så vil Kongressen kunne føres tilbage til sit forfatningsmæssige mandat. Udslet Wall Street, og Obama er væk.

I Europa er den tyske finansminister Wolfgang Schäuble hovedpersonen bag promoveringen af nedskæringspolitikken, der fører til folkemord, og som i Tyskland går under betegnelsen »det sorte nul«. Tysklands næststørste tabloidavis, Welt am Sonntag, kom i sin søndagsudgave med et åbent krav om, at den tyske kansler Angela Merkel skulle dumpes pga. sin bløde holdning til flygtningepolitikken og i stedet erstattes med Schäuble. Hvis Europa skal overleve, må Schäuble, ligesom Obama, omgående afsættes.

Selve USA’s økonomi er, efter 15 år med britisk-ejede præsidenter, i en tilstand af fysisk-økonomisk sammenbrud. Sammenbruddet i den amerikanske, produktive økonomi accelererer enormt, som det ses af de seneste rapporter om den voksende fattigdom, samt af ti måneders konsekutiv nedgang i den industrielle produktion. Vitale sektorer, som boliger, konstruktion, transport og maskinværktøj følger en accelererende, nedadgående kurve. Dette har Obama ansvaret for. Han ødelagde med overlæg den amerikanske økonomi på vegne af Wall Street og London – og med størstedelen af Kongressen som medskyldig. Kongressen bør modtage en betinget opsigelse: Før I dumper Obama og nedlukker Wall Street, få I ingen løn. I fortjener ingen løn. Find jer en produktiv beskæftigelse andetsteds, eller, hvad der er bedre, gør jeres arbejde ved at afsætte Obama og gøre en ende på Wall Streets elendighed, gennem vedtagelse af Glass-Steagall og en genoplivning af statskredit i traditionen efter Alexander Hamilton (Det unge USA’s første finansminister, -red.), for en genoplivning af arbejdskraftens produktive evne, gennem investeringer i infrastruktur og programmer, der drives frem af nye videnskabelige opdagelser.

Foto: Den tyske finansminister, Wolfgang ‘det sorte nul’ Schäuble 

27. oktober 2015 – EIR  leverede et nødvendigt chok til Washington, D.C. i dag på National Press Club, under titlen: »En afslutning på permanent krig og finansiel panik: Glass-Steagall og den Globale Silkevej«. Blandt mange andre gæster hørte og debatterede 35 personer fra ambassadestabe fra lande i hele verden præsentationer ved Schiller Instituttets stifter Helga Zepp-LaRouche og fhv. senator til den amerikanske Kongres Mike Gravel fra delstaten Alaska.

Missionen var at præsentere det umiddelbart tilgængelige, håndgribelige alternativ til krisen i den transatlantiske verden med økonomisk forfald og endeløse krige. Dette i en amerikansk hovedstad, der lider under økonomisk nedtrykthed og krigslede, og som skal vedtage nedskæringer af pensions- og sundhedsydelser samtidig med, at beskatningen af en befolkning, der er ved at gå under økonomisk, skal øges. Zepp-LaRouche og senator Gravel gjorde det klart, at, med genindførelsen af Glass-Steagall i den transatlantiske sektor, sammen med en opkobling til den udviklingspolitik, som repræsenteres af Den nye Silkevej, samt en afslutning af Barack Obamas katastrofale rolle som præsident, kan krisen i USA og Europa vendes til en økonomisk genrejsning.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche er hovedperson bag og forfatter til EIR’s udførlige specialrapport, »Den Nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen«,  der har fået opbakning fra mange økonomiske institutioner i Kina og nu er udgivet som kinesisk bog, der nyder bred cirkulation i Kina. 

Mike Gravel var den senator, der brød Washington-reglen, da han i 1971 i Kongressen oplæste de såkaldte »Pentagon-papirer« om Vietnamkrigen (og således sikrede, at disse oplysninger blev optaget i Senatets journal, -red.), og som i 2007, under en præsidentkandidatdebat, udfordrede Barack Obama ved, med stor forudseenhed, at kalde denne for en kandidat for krig, inklusive atomkrig.

Gravel udfordrer sine kolleger i den aktuelle søvngænger-Kongres til at åbne op for Obamas hemmelige dronekrige, hans uautoriserede, evindelige krige i Mellemøsten og Nordafrika, samt krigskonfrontationer rettet mod Rusland og Kina. Han sagde til forsamlingen, at han samarbejder med Lyndon og Helga LaRouche, fordi han støtter konceptet med Silkevejens globale infrastrukturudvikling og den måde, hvorpå LaRouche-parret organiserer til fordel for dette. Han sagde:

»Vi befinder os i en ’Augusts Kanoner’-situation: Vi må have en fremgangsmåde over for Den nye Silkevej, som med en Marshall-plan.«

Med en beskrivelse af den forværrende flygtningekrise i Europa, som er skabt af Obama som det direkte resultat af hans krige, kaldte Helga Zepp-LaRouche dette for »de brændende skjorters tid«,[1] hvor ledernes skjorter brænder pga. krise, og hvor »en ny æra for menneskehedens fælles mål« kan initieres.

Under den timelange diskussion og debat fik gæsterne EIR-specialrapporter og tegnede abonnementer på EIR Alert-service. Zepp-LaRouche, Gravel samt Lyndon LaRouche blev interviewet af amerikanske og udenlandske medier.

I en senere diskussion efter forummets afslutning fokuserede Lyndon LaRouche på forummets centrale betydning som værende missionsorienteret. Han sagde:

»Hvad gør du for at skabe et højere udviklingsniveau for de levende og for dem, der følger efter? – Det er målestokken for din moralitet.«

»Wall Street er i færd med at ødelægge USA’s befolkning. Det påtvinger den amerikanske befolkning mere og mere fattigdom – ikke blot år for år, og sæson efter sæson! Det er en gift; skaf jer af med det. Obama er en morder af uskyldige civile, en krigsmager og en tyv. Hvad vil du gøre for at redde menneskeheden fra disse udyr?«

»Forsøm ikke, af mangel på lidenskab, at bringe i orden, hvad du burde have bragt i orden i din levetid.«

[1] Fra gr. Mytologi; den forgiftede skjorte, der brændte Herakles og fik ham til at kaste sig på ligbålet; en ’destruktiv kraft eller sonings-indflydelse’.

Her følger det engelske udskrift af hovedtaler v/ Helga Zepp-LaRouche og Mike Gravel: (en dansk oversættelse af Helgas tale kommer snarest):

Download (PDF, Unknown)

En nyligt deklassificeret rapport fra 1990, der blev udfærdiget af Præsidentens Efterretnings-Råd (eng.: PFIAB) viste, at truslen om en atomkrig i 1983, ud fra et sovjetisk perspektiv, var blevet drastisk undervurderet af den amerikanske efterretningstjeneste, hvilket skabte en meget reel fare for atomkrig på daværende tidspunkt. Lyndon LaRouche henviste til denne rapport som værende en afgørende markør for det amerikanske lederskabs forfald efter dette tidspunkt, baseret på LaRouches eget kendskab til den situation, som rapporten omhandler – selv om der ikke blev henvist til disse kendsgerninger i selve PFIAB-rapporten.

Kendsgerningen er, at daværende præsident Ronald Reagan den 23. marts 1983 havde vedtaget det forslag, som LaRouche havde udarbejdet, om et fælles udviklingsprojekt mellem USA og Sovjetunionen om at bygge et rumbaseret, anti-missilsystem, baseret på nye, videnskabelige principper (partikelstråle- og laserstrålesystemer), som ville have gjort en ende på den ekstreme fare, der hidrørte fra politikken med »Gensidigt Garanteret Ødelæggelse« (Mutually Assured Destruction, MAD), en politik, der er baseret på at fastholde verden opdelt i Øst og Vest, og hvor begge sider retter massive arsenaler af atomvåben, der kan udløses ved mindste varsel, mod hinanden.

Mordforsøget på Ronald Reagan, der blev udført af en bekendt af Bush-familien kort tid efter Reagans indsættelse, havde nær afsluttet dette historiske samarbejde mellem Reagan og LaRouche, men Reagan overlevede og annoncerede programmet under navnet Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) (Strategisk Forsvarsinitiativ). Men britiske interesser i både USSR og USA saboterede indsatsen – en proces, der reflekteres i PFIAB’s indrømmelse af efterretningsfiaskoen fra 1983 vedr. truslen om atomkrig.

Siden denne sabotage af SDI og Reagans erstatning med den forræderiske Bush-familie i tre embedsperioder og Obama i to perioder, har der i USA været et udtalt forfald ned i økonomisk og strategisk vanvid, der har muliggjort Wall Streets og City of Londons bankinteressers dominans over regeringen, og som har lanceret den ene krig efter den anden i kolonialistisk stil over hele planeten og drevet den vestlige verden ud i kaos, som det nu reflekteres i flygtningekatastrofen i Sydvestasien og Europa.

SE »den fulde historie om SDI« 

Med skabelsen af BRIKS og dettes nye finansinstitutioner, der er helliget international infrastrukturudvikling, samt præsident Putins fremragende flankeoperation i Syrien, er verden nu i en position, hvor Det britiske Imperium langt om længe kan blive stedt til hvile. Obama, og Hillary Clinton (der underkastede sig Obamas ondskab), er blevet afsløret som støtter af terrorisme med det formål at opnå »regimeskift« over for nationer, der nægter at underkaste sig, og som beskyttere af de morderiske finansfyrster på Wall Street ved at afvise den nødvendige genindførelse af Glass-Steagall, der skal underkaste Wall Street en konkursbehandling.

De interventioner, som talsfolk fra LaRouchePAC i løbet af de seneste uger på Manhattan og andre steder i hele USA har gennemført, har fået repræsentanter fra Imperiet til at søge dækning med den voksende bevidsthed om sandheden af deres forbrydelser, der er blevet offentligt udtalt og har ødelagt deres evne til at hjernevaske og tvinge godtroende amerikanere. Tiden er inde til at lukke Wall Street ned, fjerne Obama og til, at solen endeligt må gå ned over Det britiske Imperium.

Se: En kort gennemgang af historien om LaRouches Strategiske Forsvarsinitiativ, fra LPAC (Jeff Steinberg)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOpVhtVdS7A

22. oktober 2015 – Emnet for dette års konference i Valdai Debatklubben i Sotji, Rusland, hvis hovedtale blev holdt af Putin, er »Samfund mellem krig of fred: At overvinde konfliktens logik i morgendagens verden«.

På podiet sammen med Putin var Reagans ambassadør til Moskva, Jack Matlock, fhv. tjekkisk præsident Vaclav Klaus og formand for det iranske Majlis, Ali Larijani. De talte hver især til forsamlingen, men deres bemærkninger er endnu ikke tilgængelige.

Deres tilstedeværelse forbinder Valdai-begivenheden med mødet i Wien i dag mellem udenrigsministrene fra USA, Rusland, Tyrkiet og Saudi Arabien. EIR’s kilder siger, at Kerry og Lavrov havde været tilbøjelige til at invitere Iran til mødet, men besluttede ikke at gøre det, indtil visse interne uenigheder med Iran er løst. De drøftede også at invitere Jordan og Egypten, der er ledende sunni-magter – som også Tyrkiet er det – men som støtter den russiske mission imod terrorisme i Syrien. Egyptens støtte til missionen har været åben og udtrykkelig lige fra første færd. Jordans støtte er stiltiende, men velkendt.

Putins åbningstale er kun delvist blevet offentliggjort på engelsk. I de indledende afsnit advarede han imod »konceptet om det såkaldte afvæbnende førsteangreb« og sagde, at der sikkert var nogen, der led under

»den illusion, at den ene parts sejr i en global konflikt igen var mulig – uden uafvendelige, uacceptable, som eksperterne siger det, konsekvenser for vinderen, hvis der da er én … Tærsklen for anvendelse af magt er blevet mærkbart lavere.«

Senere spurgte han,

»Hvorfor er det, at indsatsen fra lad os sige vore amerikanske partnere og deres allierede i deres kamp mod Islamisk Stat ikke har produceret nogen mærkbare resultater? Dette er tydeligvis ikke et spørgsmål om mangel på militærudstyr eller potentiale. USA har tydeligvis et enormt potentiale, det største, militære potentiale i verden, men at snyde er aldrig let. Man erklærer krig mod terrorister og prøver samtidigt at bruge nogle af dem til at arrangere brikkerne på det mellemøstlige bræt i sin egen interesse, som man har lyst til.«   

Med næstformand Michelle Rasmussen

Leder, 19. oktober 2015: USA: Obama kan og skal afsættes i denne uge

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

LPAC Fredags-webcast 23. oktober 2015

Link til the Drone Papers(på engelsk)

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

LaRouche PAC Webcast, October 16, 2015:

Take the Opportunity of Catalyzing an Urgently Needed Revolt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OGDEN: Well, thank you very much, Jeff.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14. oktober 2015 – Moskva er »kategorisk uenig« i den hollandske havarirapport om MH17, sagde Oleg Storchevoy, vicechef for Rosaviatsiya, Ruslands nationale tilsyn for civil lufttrafik, i går, og karakteriserede kommissionens konklusioner som »fundamentalt forkerte«. DSB, den officielle hollandske organisation, der fik ordre til at undersøge flyulykken den 17. juli 2014, udsendte sin slutrapport i går.

For det første sagde Rosaviatsiya, at det »støtter den hollandske havarikommissions konklusion om, at den ukrainske side har det fulde ansvar for ikke at lukke luftrummet midt i militæraktiviteterne, der kunne udgøre en potentiel fare for den civile flytrafik«. DSB, den hollandske organisation, der fik opgaven at undersøge ulykken, rapporterede, at flyet syntes at være blevet ramt af et jord-til-luft-missil og erklærede, at mindst 16 militærfly og -helikoptere var blevet skudt ned i det østlige Ukraine i månederne forud for MH17-ulykken.

For det andet rapporterede Rosaviatsiya-tilsynsmyndigheden, at »ukrainske myndigheder ikke sikrede koordinering mellem militære myndigheder og myndigheden for flytrafik for at sikre sikker flyvning.

For det tredje anklagede Rosaviatsiya, at, ved det første møde hævdedes det, uden beviser, at MH17 var blevet ramt af en BUK-1 missiltype, der var affyret fra byen Snizhne. Beviset var angiveligt et bueformet element, der skulle være blevet fundet. Dette var en forud aftalt version af begivenhederne, sagde Storchevoy. Det pågældende element var sandsynligvis plantet, anklagede Rosaviatsiya og bemærkede, at de virkelige kemiske stoffer, som en eksplosion af et BUK-missil efterlader, slet ikke stemmer overens med de data, som den hollandske rapport fremlægger.

Iflg. den hollandske havarikommissions rapport styrtede MH17 ned som følge af et 9N314M-model sprænghoved, båret af et missil i serien 9M38, der blev affyret et sted inden for et areal på 320 km2 i Østukraine; rapporten specificerede ikke, hvem, der var ansvarlig for affyringen.

Den russiske producent af forsvarssystemer Almaz-Antey fremlagde også sine egne undersøgelsesresultater, der fandt, at det missil, der nedskød MH17, kun kunne have været en model af missilerne i 9M38-serien, der blev taget ud af tjeneste i den russiske hær i 2011; de konkluderede også, at missilet blev lanceret fra regionen Zaroshchenske, der dengang var under Kijevs kontrol.

Rusland vil bruge sin ret til at indlede en fornyet undersøgelse af MH17-ulykken, sagde Storchevoy i dag til reportere. Rusland inviterede alle andre lande, ’der ikke finder det ligegyldigt at finde den sande årsag til tragedien’, til at vurdere Ruslands undersøgelsesresultater.

Washington har nægtet at modtage en russisk militærdelegation i USA om militær koordinering, eller at sende en delegation til Rusland, siger russiske udenrigsminister Lavrov til Duma

13. oktober 2015 – Washington har nægtet at modtage en foreslået, russisk militærdelegation, ledet af premierminister Dmitri Medvedev, for at drøfte koordineret handling i kampen mod terrorisme i Syrien, rapporterede RT i går.

Udenrigsminister Lavrov sagde til den russiske Duma i går: »Vi har foreslået amerikanerne det, som præsident Vladimir Putin informerede offentligheden om i går, nemlig, at sende en delegation af militære eksperter til Moskva for at aftale en serie af fælles skridt, [og] bagefter vil vi være rede til at sende en delegation på højt niveau, ledet af premierminister Medvedev, til Washington.«

RT rapporterede: »I dag har vi fået at vide, at de [amerikanerne] ikke vil være i stand til at sende en delegation til Moskva. Samtidig kan de ikke modtage vores delegation i Washington«, tilføjede han.

Lavrov rapporterede, at Moskva »inviterede vore andre partnere til at deltage i Bagdad-informationscentrets aktiviteter, så alle kan se det fulde billede; så alle kigger på det samme blad, og for at undgå misforståelser; besvarelsen var ikke konstruktiv. De sagde, ’Hvorfor i Irak? Det er ikke sikkert der.’ Vi forklarede, at, iflg. vores vurdering kan Bagdad Center operere under meget favorable betingelser. Men hvis der foreligger et ønske om at koordinere handlinger et andet sted, så er vi parat til dette«, sagde Lavrov.

»Aftalen om de militær-tekniske forholdsregler for at undgå hændelser i luften, som i praksis er udført, vil være operative fra i dag, håber jeg. I dag vil de sidste detaljer blive udført for at koordinere alle aftalens punkter«, sagde Lavrov til statsdumaen.

»Og så er vi parat til at sætte os og drøfte tingene, med alle kortene på hånden: hvor DE mener, terroristerne er, hvor VI mener, de kunne være … Jeg er sikker på, at hvis vi arbejder ærligt, så vil disse evalueringer være sammenfaldende. [fremhævelse original] Vi bør alle begynde med at lægge vore kort frem, både i direkte og indirekte betydning«, understregede ministeren … »Jeg kan ikke se nogen grund til, at vi ikke skulle sætte os og drøfte [disse] ting. Måske mener Vesten, at Islamisk Stat og Assad simpelt hen skal reducere hinanden«, sagde han. »Men jeg vil helst ikke tro, at vore vestlige kolleger ledes af en sådan ’forenklet’ logik.«

13. oktober 2015 – NATO påbegynder en atomvåbenøvelse i dag, der fortsætter frem til 16. okt., og udgår fra luftbasen i Büchel, Tyskland. Med navnet »Steadfast Noon« øves der i nedkastning af atomvåben fra bombefly, inklusive tyske Tornado jetfly. Luftrummet over Büchel vil blive afspærret for al civil flytrafik frem til 16. okt. Sammen med atommagten USA vil otte andre NATO-medlemsstater, der ikke er atommagter, deltage med deres luftstyrker i øvelsen: Tyskland, Italien, Holland, Belgien, Polen Tjekkiet, Grækenland og Tyrkiet.

I mellemtiden rapporterer Sputnik, at den britiske forsvarsminister Michael Fallon og Storbritanniens udsending til NATO, Sir Adam Thomson, i respons til en imaginær, russisk trussel, ønsker, sammen med deres NATO-allierede, at afholde massive øvelser, der skulle inkludere Storbritanniens ubåde, der medfører Trident atomvåben. Faktisk ville et missil blive prøveaffyret for første gang siden 2012.

Sputnik skriver: »Storbritannien anvender den samme strategi med at skabe overdrevent ståhej over en ikkeeksisterende, russisk trussel for at presse atomvåbenøvelserne igennem.«

Storbritannien kontrollerer fire Vanguard-klasse ubåde, udstationeret på Clyde flådebasen i Skotland, og som medfører 16 Trident II-missiler.

Dernæst citerer Sputnik en rapport fra februar 2015 af Henry Jackson Selskabet, der hævdede, at russisk efterretningstjeneste søger at finde den »akustiske signatur«, som ubådene af Vanguard-klassen udsender, med det formål at kunne neutralisere dem. Hvis Rusland kunne få fat i en optagelse af ’signaturen’, ville det få alvorlige følger for Storbritanniens atomafskrækkelse – Rusland ville blive i stand til at spore Vanguard-ubåde og potentielt sænke dem, før de kunne lancere deres missiler», lyder det i dokumentet.

Der er ikke desto mindre en betydelig opposition i Storbritannien, inklusive i højtplacerede militære lag, til eksistensen af den såkaldte atomafskrækkelse i det hele taget, og det på et tidspunkt, hvor Trident er ved at nå enden af sin livscyklus, og hvor dets efterfølgende program stadig skal godkendes.

En britisk ekspert i ikke-spredning af atomvåben sagde til EIR, at, hvis Storbritannien skulle træde ud af Den europæiske Union efter en folkeafstemning, udskrevet af premierminister David Cameron, vil fortalere for uafhængighed i Skotland, hvor ubådene er baseret, sandsynligvis kræve en ny folkeafstemning om Skotlands brud med Det forenede Kongerige, som meget vel kunne gå igennem. Det Skotske Nationalparti (SNP), der ville regere et uafhængigt Skotland, er forpligtet over for en atomvåbenfri politik. SNP er imod fornyelse af Trident.

Storbritanniens leder af Labour-partiet Jeremy Corbyn er også modstander af Trident. Men selv folk inden for det militære establishment er modstander af Trident, inkl. gen. major Patrick Anthony; gen. major Patrick Cordingley, tidl. øverstbefalende for 7. Panserbrigade (’Ørkenrotterne’) i Golfkrigen i 1991; pensionerede general Lord Ramsbotham; pensionerede general Sir William Gerald Hugh Beach: og pensionerede feltmarskal Lord Bramall, der skrev et brev den 16. jan. 2009 til The Times, hvor han argumenterede: »Atomvåben har vist sig at være komplet ubrugelige som en afskrækkelse mod de trusler og det niveau af vold, som vi aktuelt står overfor, eller sandsynligvis vil møde – især international terrorisme; og jo mere, man analyserer dem, desto mere ubrugelige synes de at være.«

11. oktober 2015 – »Der er ingen tvivl om dette«, udtalte Lyndon LaRouche lørdag; bombningen af hospitalet under Læger uden Grænser i Kunduz, Afghanistan, den 3. oktober,

»var et mord fra Obamas side, som var besluttet og fremført af ham, som følge af had til Putin. Han gjorde det med overlæg. Og han gjorde det i to faser. Først kom det første angreb. Så kom budskabet ud om, hvad man gjorde ved hospitalet, det berømte hospital på stedet. Og de fortsatte! Og Obama lod det fortsætte.«

LaRouche kom med denne anklage i den bredere sammenhæng med diskussion med deltagere ved hans dialog med Manhattan-projektet den 10. okt. om »den nye tilstand af organisering«, som den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin har skabt i selve USA gennem sin flankemanøvre i Syrien. Putins handlinger har efterladt Obama og slige folk uden muligheder, og Obama, der i sig selv er en satanisk personlighed, »er gået amok«, sagde LaRouche.

»Obama lancerede dette angreb på hospitalet og myrdede folk! Slet og ret myrdede dem.«

Læger uden Grænsers internationale præsident Joanne Lius krav fra 7. okt. om, at den Internationale Kommission til Undersøgelse af Kendsgerninger (IHFFC) skal undersøge denne krigsforbrydelse, blev publiceret i går som en kronik i Sunday Independant i Sydafrika, bakket op af data, der forklarede kendsgerningerne i det 80 minutter lange angreb, der ikke alene dræbte 22 mennesker, læger såvel som børn, men som også delvis ødelagde det eneste akuthospital i det nordøstlige Afghanistan, der var i stand til at yde behandling på højt niveau til akut redning af liv og lemmer; hospitalet er nu ikke længere operationelt.

IHFFC blev oprettet under artikel 90 i et første protokoltillæg til Genevekonventionen og udstak procedurer til sikring af respekten for, og ærlig implementering af, international humanitær lov.

I et eksklusivt interview med Tysklands Deutsche Welle, der skal sendes i sin helhed den 14. okt., sagde NATO’s øverstkommanderende og firestjernet amerikanske general i Luftvåbnet, general Philip Breedlove, at han støtter den undersøgelse, som Læger uden Grænser kræver gennemført af IHFFC. Det er »deres absolutte ret at kræve denne undersøgelse«, sagde Breedlove, og »vi vil støtte det«.

Og hvad er Obama-teamet kommet frem med for at lægge en dæmper på sagen, for denne krigsforbrydelse? Det vil få Pentagon til at tilbyde penge (»kompenserende betalinger«) til ofrene for dets luftangreb, inklusive mod Læger uden Grænser, og hjælpe med at reparere det ødelagte hospital.

Foto: Læger uden Grænser kræver en uafhængig, international kommissionsundersøgelse af den dødbringende, amerikanske bombning af deres hospital i Kunduz, Afghanistan. Formand Joanne Liu ses i midten.

11. oktober 2015 – En artikel af Romil Patel i International Business Times fra 11. okt. rapporterer, at britiske

»piloter fra Royal Air Force (RAF) har fået grønt lys til at nedskyde russiske militære kampfly, når de flyver missioner over Syrien og Irak, hvis de er i fare for dem.«

Patel citerer en artikel i Londons Sunday Times, der citerer en unavngiven kilde fra Det forenede Kongeriges Permanente Fælles Hovedkvarter (PJHQ), som beskrev den nye kampordre:

»Det første, en britisk pilot vil gøre, er at forsøge at undgå en situation, hvor et angreb i luften kunne tænkes at finde sted … man undgår et område, hvis der er russisk aktivitet. Men, hvis en pilot bliver anskudt, eller mener, at han vil blive det, må han forsvare sig. Vi har nu en situation, hvor en enkelt pilot, uanset nationalitet, kan få strategisk indvirkning på fremtidige begivenheder«  

[fremhævelse tilføjet].

For at muliggøre en sådan potentiel hændelse vil RAF Tornadofly nu blive bevæbnet med varmesøgende luft-til-luft-missiler, der kan flyve ved Mach-3. Dette, skriver Patel, ville »gøre det muligt for RAF-piloter at nedskyde fjendefly uden selv at blive mål.«

Endnu en britisk militærkilde sagde til Sunday Times:

»Vi tager et skridt nærmere til krig. Kun ét enkelt fly behøver blive nedskudt i en luftkamp, og hele landskabet vil ændres.«  

’Vi tager et skridt nærmere til krig …’ The Sunday Times.

Det folkemorderiske Britiske Imperium er, både i USA og internationalt, kommet til undsætning i forsøg på at redde deres marionet Barack Obama, der er blevet totalt udmanøvreret og overlistet af den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin og har således anbragt selve det britiske systems eksistens på huggeblokken.

Mest spektakulært kom Bernie Sanders, der er demokratisk præsidentiel prækandidat, og som medierne har kørt frem som »den førende oppositionsfigur« til den aktuelle Washingtonregering, ud med en helhjertet støtte til Obama på nationalt fjernsyn søndag – umiddelbart forud for næste tirsdags debat mellem de demokratiske kandidater, der sendes på Tv. Sanders, der således viser sig som et totalt britisk aktiv, udtalte, at han har

»en enorm respekt for Barack Obama … han hjalp mig med at blive valgt, og jeg arbejder sammen med ham omkring mange, mange spørgsmål … det er kun meget partiske folk, der nægter at erkende den virkelighed, at vores økonomi i dag er ikke så lidt bedre end den var, da George W. Bush gik af.«

Dette, mens det brændende spørgsmål, som landet konfronteres med, er en tilbagevenden til Glass-Steagall og udslettelsen af Wall Street og alt, hvad Bush- og Obamaregeringerne repræsenterer. Det bør ikke overraske nogen, at, iflg. velplacerede Washingtonkilder og nogle medieberetninger, en stor del af Sanders’ fundraising-organisation blev overdraget ham af Barack Obama.

I går beskrev Lyndon LaRouche Sanders-udviklingen som »virkelig grimme, dårlige nyheder«, der reflekterer, at der er et skift i gang fra briterne globalt. Han advarede om, at vi bør forvente yderligere »djævelske« handlinger fra Obama og hans britiske sponsorer, inklusive mord på ledende personer fra lande, der arbejder sammen med den russiske præsident Putin. »Briterne har intet tilbage ud over sådanne handlinger«, understregede LaRouche. Det britiske Imperium står for at miste sin elementære eksistens, så hold øje med enhver tænkelig form for beskidte affærer, der kommer fra de kanter, der ellers ikke har været synligt aktive et stykke tid.

Når Obama har problemer, vender han sig mod briterne, udtalte LaRouche, så forvent beskidte handlinger, inklusive direkte britiske deployeringer i USA for at forsøge at forstærke Obamas ustabile psykologi.

Bemærkelsesværdig i denne henseende er også rapporten i denne weekend i Londons Sunday Times om, at den britiske regering har udstedt instrukser til sine piloter, der flyver missioner i Syrien, der giver dem tilladelse til at nedskyde russiske fly under visse betingelser:

»Hvis en pilot bliver beskudt, eller mener, at han vil blive beskudt, må han forsvare sig«

[fremhævelse tilføjet]. Det Russiske Forsvarsministerium anså rapporten i pressen for at være alvorlig nok til, at han udbad sig den britiske forsvarsattache i Moskvas fremmøde for at aflægge forklaring.

»Glem ikke, hvem Obama er«, advarede LaRouche. Han er en løgnagtig, morderisk, satanisk person. Hans journal er kendt. »Obama må knuses«, erklærede LaRouche i dag. Den eneste måde, hvorpå faren for Tredje Verdenskrig kan fjernes, er ved at fjerne Obama fra Det Hvide Hus.

Supplerende dokumentation:

Britiske piloter får tilladelse til at nedskyde russiske fly over Syrien

11. oktober 2015 – En artikel af Romil Patel i International Business Times fra 11. okt. rapporterer, at britiske

»piloter fra Royal Air Force (RAF) har fået grønt lys til at nedskyde russiske militære kampfly, når de flyver missioner over Syrien og Irak, hvis de er i fare for dem.«

Patel citerer en artikel i Londons Sunday Times, der citerer en unavngiven kilde fra Det forenede Kongeriges Permanente Fælles Hovedkvarter (PJHQ), som beskrev den nye kampordre:

»Det første, en britisk pilot vil gøre, er at forsøge at undgå en situation, hvor et angreb i luften kunne tænkes at finde sted … man undgår et område, hvis der er russisk aktivitet. Men, hvis en pilot bliver anskudt, eller mener, at han vil blive det, må han forsvare sig. Vi har nu en situation, hvor en enkelt pilot, uanset nationalitet, kan få strategisk indvirkning på fremtidige begivenheder« 

[fremhævelse tilføjet].

For at muliggøre en sådan potentiel hændelse vil RAF Tornadofly nu blive bevæbnet med varmesøgende luft-til-luft-missiler, der kan flyve ved Mach-3. Dette, skriver Patel, ville »gøre det muligt for RAF-piloter at nedskyde fjendefly uden selv at blive mål.«

Endnu en britisk militærkilde sagde til Sunday Times:

»Vi tager et skridt nærmere til krig. Kun ét enkelt fly behøver blive nedskudt i en luftkamp, og hele landskabet vil ændres.« 

LaRouche anklager, at Obama med overlæg 

bombede Læger uden Grænser-hospital

11. oktober 2015 – »Der er ingen tvivl om dette«, udtalte Lyndon LaRouche lørdag; bombningen af hospitalet under Læger uden Grænser i Kunduz, Afghanistan, den 3. oktober,

»var et mord fra Obamas side, som var besluttet og fremført af ham, som følge af had til Putin. Han gjorde det med overlæg. Og han gjorde det i to faser. Først kom det første angreb. Så kom budskabet ud om, hvad man gjorde ved hospitalet, det berømte hospital på stedet. Og de fortsatte! Og Obama lod det fortsætte.«

LaRouche kom med denne anklage i den bredere sammenhæng med diskussion med deltagere ved hans dialog med Manhattan-projektet den 10. okt. om »den nye tilstand af organisering«, som den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin har skabt i selve USA gennem sin flankemanøvre i Syrien. Putins handlinger har efterladt Obama og slige folk uden muligheder, og Obama, der i sig selv er en satanisk personlighed, »er gået amok«, sagde LaRouche.

»Obama lancerede dette angreb på hospitalet og myrdede folk! Slet og ret myrdede dem.«

Læger uden Grænsers internationale præsident Joanne Lius krav fra 7. okt. om, at den Internationale Kommission til Undersøgelse af Kendsgerninger (IHFFC) skal undersøge denne krigsforbrydelse, blev publiceret i går som en kronik i Sunday Independant i Sydafrika, bakket op af data, der forklarede kendsgerningerne i det 80 minutter lange angreb, der ikke alene dræbte 22 mennesker, læger såvel som børn, men som også delvis ødelagde det eneste akuthospital i det nordøstlige Afghanistan, der var i stand til at yde behandling på højt niveau til akut redning af liv og lemmer; hospitalet er nu ikke længere operationelt.

IHFFC blev oprettet under artikel 90 i et første protokoltillæg til Genevekonventionen og udstak procedurer til sikring af respekten for, og ærlig implementering af, international humanitær lov.

I et eksklusivt interview med Tysklands Deutsche Welle, der skal sendes i sin helhed den 14. okt., sagde NATO’s øverstkommanderende og firestjernet amerikanske general i Luftvåbnet, general Philip Breedlove, at han støtter den undersøgelse, som Læger uden Grænser kræver gennemført af IHFFC. Det er »deres absolutte ret at kræve denne undersøgelse«, sagde Breedlove, og »vi vil støtte det«.

Og hvad er Obama-teamet kommet frem med for at lægge en dæmper på sagen, for denne krigsforbrydelse? Det vil få Pentagon til at tilbyde penge (»kompenserende betalinger«) til ofrene for dets luftangreb, inklusive mod Læger uden Grænser, og hjælpe med at reparere det ødelagte hospital.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

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

TAKE PRE-EMPTIVE ACTION NOW:

GLASS STEAGALL IN, OBAMA OUT

TRANSCRIPT

MATT OGDEN: Good evening.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JEFFREY STEINBERG: Thanks, Matt.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. oktober 2015 – I et interview med Washington Post fordømte Rand Paul kravet om en flyveforbudszone i Syrien som værende »en rædselsfuld idé«, der kunne »føre til Tredje Verdenskrig«, hvis der var nogen, der var dum nok til at gøre det. Flere af de republikanske kandidater (‘GOP’, ‘Grand Old Party’, -red.), såvel som også Hillary Clinton, har krævet en flyveforbudszone.

»Det er at trække en rød streg i luften«, sagde Paul. »Når man først trækker en rød streg, og folk overskrider den, hvad sker der så? Vi taler nu om en hændelse, der kunne føre til Tredje Verdenskrig. Vi klarede os i 70 år med åbne kommunikationskanaler med russerne i et forsøg på at undgå, at den ene side skød modpartens fly ned. Jeg mener, at de personer, der kræver en flyveforbudszone, er naive. I øjeblikket er Rusland faktisk blevet inviteret af to af nabolandene, af Irak og Syrien. Vi vil så sige, at vi vil forhindre Rusland i at overflyve området, når to af de lande, der bliver overfløjet, har inviteret Rusland til at gøre det? Dette stiller spørgsmålet, om vi ønsker at isolere os diplomatisk, eller om vi ønsker at engagere os diplomatisk.«

WP rapporterede, at Paul fortsatte med at angribe galskaben med at fremprovokere krig med Rusland i et interview med Fox News: »Vil I drive Rusland ud af Syrien?« spurgte han intervieweren. »Vil I have en landkrig med Rusland? Der findes ikke noget scenario, hvor Amerika kan stille sig op og sige: Forsvind, Rusland!«

»Russerne er her for at vinde krigen; dette ved alle.« Ali Hashem, chefnyhedskorrespondent for Al Mayadeen News Network, skrev disse ord den 7. oktober i Al-Monitor, idet han citerede en af sine libanesiske kilder. Jo, det er absolut sandt, og det ved enhver, der har nogen bevidsthed om dette. Efter måneders planlægning er Putin gået ind i krigen for at vinde. Dette finder amerikanere endnu umuligt at tro på, for vores land har været i krig i de fleste år, siden Anden Verdenskrig – men ikke for at vinde. Aldrig for at vinde. Faktisk det stik modsatte – de krige, som Det britiske Imperium har kastet os ud i, som f.eks. via Barack Obama, har været evindelige krige, hvis formål var at skabe kaos, befolkningsreduktion og De forenede Staters ødelæggelse. Ingen sejrs-krige. Men ikke desto mindre, så gik Putin faktisk ind i krigen for at vinde; det er hans plan at vinde.

I dag er Dag 2 i en »storslået offensiv«, som den Syriske Hær udtrykker det, hvor russiske flystyrker for første gang direkte har leveret støtte til syriske tropper i kamp.

Og det drejer sig ikke engang blot om krigen som sådan. Hvad vigtigere er, så har denne alliance fuldstændig givet Syrien nyt liv.

Nej, intet er som før. Alt har ændret sig.

Det, der nu sker i Syrien, og i realiteten meget mere bredt, er nøjagtigt, hvad LaRouche sagde, måtte ske. Alle andre sagde, »Jeg er enig i, at det skal til, men det kan ikke ske«. LaRouche havde ret. Nu siger de, »Ja, Wall Street må lukkes ned – jeg er enig i, at det skal til – men det kan ikke ske«. Hvem vil, til slut, vise sig at have haft ret?

Det vil Lyndon LaRouche. Under et møde med medarbejdere anvendte han i store træk følgende vendinger.

Obamas flippen ud fortsætter med at spinde ud af kontrol; alt, hvad han gør, sprænges i stykker. Der er panik i Det Hvide Hus: man kan forvente selvpåførte skader og afstraffelser. Obama må bringes til fald! Luk Wall Street ned, og man lukker samtidig Obama ned.

Som helhed er USA’s lederskab afskyeligt. Sammenlign det med den moralske stemning, der er vokset frem i Tyskland som svar på flygtningekrisen. Havde det ikke været for Putin, ville vi alle have været døde. Ved roden til problemet med USA finder vi det faktum, at det er et forbryderisk, råddent samfund. Men samtidig er der nogle amerikanere, såsom nogle af vore militære kommandoofficerer, der har en ophøjet ansvarsfølelse, som undertiden går langt ud over deres formelle ansvar. Som for eksempel, at gå imod Obama.

Kan man fortælle Obama sandheden? Nej. Merkel er mere lydhør, men det ligger på falderebet, om hun kan bevare magten, eller om hun vil blive erstattet af kræfter, der er langt værre end selv finansminister Wolfgang Schäuble.

Problemet er, at det tyvende århundredes ideologi ikke virker. Det tyvende århundrede har erstattet moralitet med matematik.

Obamas indflydelse over Hillary Clinton er ved at kollapse, og hun er ved at forlade ham. Han bliver afvist af demokrater og andre; der er ingen, der forsvarer ham. Når vi siger til dem, at han må fjernes, så, i stedet for at sige »Nej«, som de gjorde før, siger de nu, at de er enige og spørger, hvordan det kan gøres.

Alt dette lå bare og ventede på at ske, frem til det øjeblik, hvor det hele blev udløst af Putins dristige handling. Det, Putin har gjort, er tydeligt – se blot på hans familiebaggrund i Anden Verdenskrig, med den måde, han ser tingene på. Dette er generelt atypisk for Europa. Han er en mand, der har en følelse af et moralsk formål og en mission, og som ikke kan afledes eller køres ud på et sidespor. Putin gør i Syrien det, som LaRouche forventede, han ville gøre.

I mellemtiden er der, i den amerikanske, præsidentielle udvælgelsesproces, ingen enkelt kandidat, der træder frem som en person, der er klar til at gøre, hvad der er nødvendigt. Vi må have en proces, der involverer flere kandidater, der kan bidrage hertil. Vi må opbygge et forenet, præsidentielt team omkring en mission, snarere end omkring en bestemt person.

Kerry er i stand til at handle i modstrid med Obamas sindssyge politik, fordi han ved, at han har støtte til det, og at Obama er blevet vraget. Vi må nu bringe dette videre til næste trin.

7. oktober 2015 – Rostislav Ishchenko, en ukrainsk, strategisk analytiker, der nu er i Moskva, skrev en advarsel i den russiske publikation MIA Rossiya Segodnya, om, at den russiske præsident Putins nylige diplomatiske gennembrud kunne drive Obama til at forsøge nye provokationer mod Rusland. Ishchenko nævnte tre nylige, diplomatiske kup udført af Putin: Hans tale til FN’s Generalforsamling, hans flankemanøvre i Syrien og hans topmøder efter Normandiet-formatet, hvor han opnåede tysk og fransk støtte til Minsk-aftalerne.

Ishchenko skrev, at »hvis Minsk-aftalerne krænkes under betingelser, hvor Paris og Berlin har nægtet at skyde skylden på Rusland, så kan Kiev hurtigt besejres i det sydlige Ukraine; hvis våbenstilstanden er væk, genoptages krigen, men Kiev er i øjeblikket ikke i stand til at føre krig. Desuden står Kiev over for betalingsstandsning (statsbankerot), hvilket fører til yderligere, dyb forarmelse af befolkningen, såvel som også en manglende mulighed for at få yderligere kredit fra Vesten.«

Forfatteren fortsatte med at sætte fokus på fire brændpunkter, ud over det østlige Ukraine, som kunne detoneres af Obama imod Rusland, begyndende med situationerne i Moldova og Transnistrien, hvor der er en trussel om en Maidan-revolte, og hvor Sektor Højre truer med en blokade af forsyninger til de russiske fredsbevarende styrker i Transnistrien. »Det eneste, USA behøver gøre, er at udløse de moldoviske og ukrainske radikale elementer, og så vil der være en ny konfliktzone, der ikke dækkes af Minsk-aftalerne, og som Rusland ubønhørligt vil blive trukket ind i.« Ishchenko konkluderede, at »Moskva sandsynligvis ville arrangere en luftbro til Transnistrien, og dette ville samtidig sætte scenen for, at Ukraine forsøger at lukke sit luftrum, nedskyder russiske fly osv.«

I Kaukasus-regionen advarede Ishchenko om en genopblussen af Karabak-konflikten, indebyrden af hundreder af tjetjenske kæmpere i ISIS og muligheden af ustabilitet i Armenien, hvor der allerede er protester over elektricitet.

Centralasien er et andet brændpunkt, efter at Taliban har taget initiativ til at kontrollere områder af Afghanistan på grænsen mod Tadsjikistan, hvor Rusland har militære kontingenter. Der er lignende trusler imod Kasakhstan fra jihadister, der passerer igennem Afghanistan ind i Centralasien.

Ishchenko nævnte også valgene den 11. oktober i Belarus, som kunne udgøre en udløsermekanisme for endnu et forsøg på at gennemføre en ’farvet revolution’, på trods af præsident Lukasjenkos tilsyneladende stærke position.

Artiklen sluttede med en advarsel: »Efter at Obama har opgjort Putins sejre på alle fronter i oktober, må vi således forvente et snarligt forsøg fra Obamas side på at genvinde det tabte land … Jeg forventer en optrapning af IS’ brutalitet i Syrien, aggressive handlinger fra Kiev-regimets side og aktivering af amerikanske agenter omkring alle følsomme punkter for Rusland i det postsovjetiske område.«

Den voksende europæiske flygtningekrise havde fundet vej til statsminister Lars Løkke-Rasmussens åbningstale til Folketinget den 6. oktober, men ellers var den totalt forandrede internationale situation, der er afgørende for Danmarks fremtid, ikke på dagsordenen: Wall Street og verdens finansmarkeder er bankerot, og spekulanterne kræver en hjælpepakke, der er endnu større end i 2008, for at overleve.

En sådan hjælpepakke vil dræbe det, der er tilbage af realøkonomien og befolkningens levestandard i USA og mange andre steder. Derfor skal der omgående gennemføres en lang række økonomiske tiltag, begyndende med en genindførelse af en Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling og en ordnet afvikling af Wall Street og den globale finansspekulation.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Rusland har nu lanceret en dynamisk luft-, land- og vandoffensiv i Syrien, sammen med den Syriske Hær, og med opbakning fra Hezbollah og IRGC-styrker (Den iranske Revolutionshær). De primære mål er Islamisk Stat og Erobringshæren, der er en saudisk skabelse domineret af al-Qaeda (Nusra Front). I går mødtes præsident Putin med forsvarsminister Shoigu, og deres møde blev delvist vist i fjernsynet. Shoigu meddelte, at den Russiske Flåde havde sluttet sig til kampen mod ISIS, med fire, russiske flådefartøjer i det Kaspiske Hav, der affyrede 26 krydsermissiler på en afstand af 900 mil mod ISIS-mål i det nordlige Syrien.

Irak har indikeret, at det vil bede Rusland om at påbegynde bombeoperationer imod ISIS inde på irakisk jord. Tyrkiet har, i modstrid med NATO’s og Obamaregeringens højtravende snak, meddelt, at relationerne med Rusland er fine, og at man har etableret en militær kanal for at sikre, at der ikke opstår nogen hændelser mellem russiske og tyrkiske fly i området langs den syriske grænse. Fungerende premierminister Davutoglu sagde til reportere onsdag, at russisk-tyrkiske relationer er venskabelige og udviser godt naboskab, og at der ikke vil komme nogen tyrkisk-russisk konflikt ud af situationen i Syrien.

Obama er blevet grundigt udmanøvreret og trængt op i en krog af de russiske handlinger, der har udløst et betydningsfuldt brud væk fra Obama af traditionelle amerikanske nøgleallierede i Europa og Mellemøsten. For at føje spot til skade, så kom fhv. udenrigsminister Hillary Clinton, under sin valgkampagne i Iowa, i onsdags med en udtalelse om, at hun var imod Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Det betyder, at alle de tre, vigtigste, demokratiske præsidentkandidater har brudt med Obama over TPP.

Obama er blevet overgivet af alle sine »gamle venner«, med saudierne som eneste undtagelse.

Alt imens Obama fejrede TPP-aftalen i weekenden, så bliver det mere og mere sandsynligt, at det vil slå tilbage mod ham som en boomerang og kunne katalysere alle hans fjender til en enkelt styrke, der slår ham ned over TPP.

Lyndon LaRouche har understreget, at det er tydeligt, at Obama nu overgives af alle sine tidligere venner, inklusive Hillary Clinton. Han kan, og må, fjernes fra embedet, i dette øjeblik, hvor spørgsmålet om krig of fred ligger på vippen. Fra Rusland lyder der advarsler om, at Obama totalt kunne flippe ud over Putins diplomatiske successer i de seneste uger og kunne forsøge at starte nye krigsprovokationer med ’farvede revolutioner’ imod Rusland. Disse provokationer kunne komme i det østlige Ukraine, i Moldova, i enklaven Transnistrien, eller i det armensk-aserbajdsjanske område omkring det Kaspiske Hav.

Obama sidder i kviksand op til navlen, men han er stadig en trussel, og intet mindre end hans fjernelse fra embedet vil fuldt ud løse krisen.

Timing er af afgørende betydning. Wall Street og London er irreversibelt bankerot, og en hvilken som helst udløser, kunne detonere hele systemets nedsmeltning. Glass-Steagall må vedtages, før denne nedsmeltning. Federal Reserve står magtesløs og hænger på en regnskabsopgørelse på 5,2 billioner dollars, takket være bailout (bankredning) via kvantitativ lempelse og en nulrentepolitik, der yderligere har næret boblen.

Obamas fjernelse, gerne under det 25. forfatningstillæg, samtidig med vedtagelse af en lovgivning, der genindfører Glass-Steagall, repræsenterer den eneste, fornuftige mulighed. Putins flankeoperationer i Syrien har skabt den nødvendige åbning for at bringe hele dette Obama-rod til fald. Gå ikke glip af denne historiske chance. Den kommer måske ikke igen.

1. oktober 2015 – På FN’s Sikkerhedsråds særlige møde om terrorisme den 30. september foreslog Kinas udenrigsminister Wang Yi at indkalde til en Geneve-3 konference om Syrien, uden forhåndsbetingelser og med deltagelse af alle interesserede parter. Indkaldelsen af en tredje Geneve-fredskonference, på et passende tidspunkt, ”bør overvejes, og betingelser, der virker befordrende for en sådan konference, bør aktivt skabes forudgående”, tilføjede Wang Yi, ifølge Xinhua i går.
Ifølge en erklæring fra Udenrigsministeriet sagde Wang Yi til mødet i Sikkerhedsrådet, at ”krisen i Syrien nu havde stået på i fem år. Det internationale samfund kan ikke blot se til uden at løfte en finger, men bør samtidig ikke involvere sig vilkårligt. En politisk løsning på krisen i Syrien er grundlæggende vejen til en løsning”. Xinhua rapporterer også, at den kinesiske udenrigsminister mødtes med sin syriske kollega, Walid al-Moallem, og sagde til ham, at verden bør respektere Syriens suverænitet, uafhængighed og territoriale integritet.
FN’s særlige repræsentant i Syrien, Steffan de Mistura, meddelte forud for mødet i FN’s Sikkerhedsråd, at Geneve-3-arbejdsgrupper ville påbegynde arbejdet i oktober og ville fokusere på sikkerhed og kampen mod terrorisme, politiske og forfatningsmæssige reformer, den humanitære krise og økonomisk genopbygning.
Ligeledes den 30. sept. sagde den schweiziske udenrigsminister Didier Burkhalter til FN’s generalforsamling, at den syriske regering bør inkluderes i en bred dialog for at nå frem til en afgørelse på den syriske konflikt. Han opfordrede til en snarlig skabelse af en international kontaktgruppe, der skal lede arbejdet. I dag opfordrede EU-parlamentets præsident, Martin Schulz, til skabelse af en koalition, inklusive Rusland og Iran, for at løse konflikten i Syrien. ”Vi er nødt til at tale med Rusland og opbygge en form for fælles strategi. Vi må have en international koalition, der må dannes på internationalt plan. En sådan koalition har afgjort brug for Iran og Rusland”.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. oktober 2015 – Ruslands udenrigsminister Sergei Lavrov begyndte i går ved FN’s sikkerhedsråds møde at sende et udkast rundt til en resolution, der er baseret på Ruslands tidligere resolution i FN’s sikkerhedsråd for bekæmpelse af terrorisme, som USA har afvist.
​Lavrov understregede, at krisen i Syrien kan løses gennem en koordineret indsats mod ISIS ved at understøtte Staffan de Mistura, Ban Ki-moons FN-udsending, og ved at involvere andre nationer i bestræbelserne, inklusiv Saudi-Arabien, Rusland, Jordan, Katar, Kina og USA. Syriens udenrigsminister Walid al-Moallem sagde til sikkerhedsrådet, at koalitionen anført af USA havde fejlet i at dæmme op for ISIS i Syrien, og at deres indsats var i strid med international lovgivning, eftersom de trænger ind i syrisk territorium uden regeringens godkendelse. Dette rapporterede avisen Newsday i dag.
​Under mødet advarede Lavrov om, at Islamisk Stat er i besiddelse af dele til masseødelæggelsesvåben, og opfordrede til, at ISIS blev inkluderet som et selvstændigt emne på FN’s liste over sanktioner mod terrorisme. »Indenfor store områder af Irak og Syrien har Islamisk Stat faktisk skabt en ekstremistisk semi-stat, som råder over et effektivt, undertrykkende styre, stabile indkomstkilder, en veludrustet hær og dele til masseødelæggelsesvåben,« sagde han ifølge RT. Lavrov understregede, at situationen i området er blevet forværret i løbet af det sidste år, og tilføjede, at »ophobningen af krisepotentiale er kommet tæt på det punkt, hvor vi kan tale om ødelæggelsen af det politiske kort i området.«
​Den russiske leder sagde til forsamlingen: »Jeg præsenterer i dag medlemmerne af sikkerhedsrådet for et udkast til en resolution. Den er baseret på dokumenter, der tidligere er blevet godkendt af rådet, og lægger vægt på konsekvente handlinger mod terrorisme baseret på normer og principper, der følger international lovgivning.« Ifølge en kopi af udkastet, som Associated Press er i besiddelse af, opfordrer det landende til at »koordinere deres aktiviteter med tilladelse fra de stater, på hvis territorier disse aktiviteter finder sted.« Lavrov sagde med henvisning til flygtningestrømmene ind i Europa, at krisen ikke kan løses uden at lave »en fast barriere mod Islamisk Stats bestræbelser på at underlægge området et middelalderligt diktatur. Det er ikke flygtningene, som skal stoppes, men terroristerne, krigene og konflikterne, som afføder dem.«

30. september 2015 – I et interview med CNN, hvoraf første del blev sendt tirsdag og anden del i dag, gjorde udenrigsminister John Kerry det klart, at USA og den USA-ledede koalition har ændret politik og ikke længere kræver Assads omgående afsættelse. Kerry indrømmede, at Obama-regeringen »dengang, for længe siden« udtalte, at Assads afsættelse måtte være første skridt. Dette er ikke længere politikken. Nu er USA kommet frem til, at det er nødvendigt at forhandle sig frem til en glidende overgang for at undgå »et vakuum eller et kollaps«, som det skete i Irak, efter USA invaderede landet og væltede Saddam Hussein.
»Vi har brug for en ordnet overgang, en organiseret overgang, så man ikke behøver at frygte oprør, mistede liv, hævn,« sagde Kerry og tilskyndede til en ændring af lederskabet over en »rimelig tidsperiode.«
Kerry gjorde det i interviewet klart, at han ser Ruslands indgriben i Syrien som en »chance« så længe, at russerne erkender, at sunni-muslimske kræfter i området skal have del i overgangen.
I tirsdags gjorde Kerry klart i et interview til MSNBC, at han forestiller sig, at Syrien i fremtiden skal være en samlet og sekulær stat. Kerry udtalte, idet han refererede til USA og Ruslands fælles indsats for at nå til en overgang i Syrien, »så jo, omkring de mest grundlæggende principper, som vi kunne blive enige om, burde vi være i stand til at finde frem til noget.«
New York Times bemærkede i dag i en profilering af Kerrys diplomatiske indsats omkring Syrien, at Kerry altid har bibeholdt en dialog med Ruslands udenrigsminister Sergei Lavrov, selv mens præsident Obama aldeles havde afbrudt kontakten med Ruslands præsident Putin. New York Times rapporterede, at Kerry ofte ville tale flere timer med Lavrov, nogle gange flere gange om dagen.
Kilder fra den amerikanske efterretningstjeneste noterede sig i denne uge, at mødet mellem Obama og Putin ansigt til ansigt i mandags i New York var frugten af Kerrys og Lavrovs vedholdende indsats, der nåede et nyt niveau efter Kerrys besøg i foråret til Sotji, hvor han mødtes med Putin og Lavrov. Putin lavede i juni et telefonopkald til Obama, som yderligere åbnede mulighederne og førte direkte til mødet i New York, og til, at diplomatiske og militære kanaler er blevet genåbnet mellem de to lande.

Torsdag den 1. oktober, 2015 – Lavrov og Kerry, der holdt deres fjerde møde torsdag på sidelinjen af FN, må holde momentet ved lige gennem uophørlig kontakt, sagde Lyndon LaRouche i dag. Der er nu en udvikling i gang, og det må tilskyndes gennem deres fortsatte dialog og arbejde. Meningsdannere må fastholde et uophørligt fokus på amerikansk-russisk samarbejde, mens Obama må holdes ude af billedet så meget som muligt. Hold det russisk-amerikanske samarbejde i gang, og bloker Obamas muligheder for at indlede indirekte handlinger imod det. Obama gør stadig sit beskidte arbejde, selv om han nu er tvunget til at gøre det fra bag scenen; se nøje på, hvad Obama indirekte gør. Han er gået i skjul, men han fortsætter med at operere, som under forklædning. Obama er blevet slået tilbage, men han er ikke helt færdig endnu. Presset på Obama må ikke lempes et eneste øjeblik. Forøg presset på Obama.

Alt imens fokus på det amerikansk-russiske samarbejde er vigtigt, så må der være presserende nødvendig opmærksomhed på det sårbare svælg, som er økonomien. Lige siden Franklin Roosevelts død har der foreligget et forbud mod enhver stigning i den amerikanske produktivitet. Dette udgør stadig en dødbringende trussel. Låget blev især lagt på, efter Reagan blev skudt den 30. marts 1981, 69 dage inde i hans præsidentembede. Derefter optrappede George H.W. Bush som vicepræsident, og dernæst som præsident, nedturen. Men der var allerede en dyb fordærvelse i begyndelsen af 1970’erne, som det reflekteredes i reaktionen på Lyns sejr over Abba Lerner i den berømte debat på Queens College i december 1971. Bagefter leverede Sidney Hook truslen mod LaRouche. Ikke alene sagde han, »du vandt, men vi vil aldrig igen lade dig deltage i en offentlig debat«. Han sagde, at de ville gå til modangreb, og det gjorde de. LaRouche blev aldrig tilgivet for det, han havde gjort. Alle må forstå implikationerne af dette fra 1971 og fremefter.

Vi må lancere en generel kampagne omgående, med højeste prioritet, og gøre nedlukningen af Wall Street til en integreret del af alt, hvad vi gør. Obama er blevet slået tilbage – presset på ham må ikke lettes. Vi må nedlukke Wall Street, ellers får vi en katastrofe for USA og andre nationer. Vi må have en energisk og aggressiv fremgangsmåde. Wall Street er død og må begraves, for stanken er overvældende.

FDR havde øje for problemet, men situationen går langt, langt ud over noget, han var konfronteret med i 1930’erne. Wall Street må nedlukkes, så en effektiv fysisk-økonomisk genrejsning af USA kan lanceres.