Opgør med Obama over JASTA-loven og Glass-Steagall.
LaRouchePAC Internationale Fredags-webcast, 16. sept. 2016

Med indgangen til denne weekend har vi set en dramatisk række udviklinger, inklusive det faktum, at netop på tærsklen til 15-års dagen for 11. september, vedtog Repræsentanternes Hus JASTA-loven, Loven om retsforfølgelse af sponsorer af terrorisme. Dette sker kort tid efter, at Senatet ligeledes vedtog loven for et par måneder siden. Men det blev fra Obamas Hvide Hus gjort meget klart, at han agtede at nedlægge veto imod loven. I sammenhæng med denne dramatiske optrapning af kampen, deltog Schiller Instituttet i en række meget, meget historiske koncerter, sponsoreret af Fonden for Genoplivelse af Klassisk Kultur i New York City-området og New Jersey: Fire koncertopførelser efter hinanden af Mozarts Rekviem – koncerter med stor deltagelse af publikum, inklusive en koncert, der fandt sted i sammenhæng med en messe, som biskop [Nicholas] DiMarzio fra Brooklyn-bispesædet holdt i fælleskatedralen St. Joseph i søndags, den 11. september.

Engelsk udskrift.

Showdown with Obama over JASTA & Glass-Steagall


LaRouche PAC International Webcast
September 16, 2016

        MATTHEW OGDEN: Hello! Today is September 16th, 2016. My name
is Matthew Ogden, and you're joining us for our weekly broadcast
here on Friday evening with the LaRouche PAC webcast. I'm joined
in the studio today by Jeff Steinberg, from {Executive
Intelligence Review}; and via video, by Diane Sare, member of the
LaRouche PAC Policy Committee, and coordinator of activities up
in New York City.
        We're meeting here in the immediate aftermath — really in
the midst — of the further developments that came out of this
past weekend. Going into this weekend we had a dramatic series of
developments, including the fact that right on the eve of the
15th Anniversary of 9/11, the House of Representatives
unanimously passed the JASTA Bill, the Justice Against Sponsors
of Terrorism Act. This is on the heels of the Senate doing the
same thing a few months ago. But it was made very clear from the
Obama White House that he was going to veto this Bill. In the
context of that dramatic escalation on this battle, the Schiller
Institute participated in a series of very, very historic
concerts sponsored by the Foundation for the Revival for
Classical Culture in the New York City area and in New Jersey:
four concerts in a row of the Mozart Requiem — very, very
well-attended concerts, including one that happened in the
context of a mass celebrated by Bishop [Nicholas] DiMarzio of the
Brooklyn Diocese at the Co-Cathedral of St. Joseph on Sunday,
September 11th.
        We're going to begin our broadcast tonight with a very short
set of remarks that were delivered Terry Strada, the widow of Tom
Strada, and leader of the 9/11 Families Against State Sponsors of
Terrorism, who attended the concert in Morristown, New Jersey on
Monday, September 12th, at which she endorsed the concert and was
invited to the stage to express her views about the crime of
9/11. You'll see what Terry Strada had to say, which was
delivered before the music began, during that Monday concert. I'd
like to just begin with a quick excerpt of Terry Strada's

        LYN YEN (pre-recorded): At this point I would like to
introduce somebody very special to all of you. Many of you
probably know of her. Her name is Terry Strada. She is the
national chairwoman of the 9/11 Families United for Justice
Against Terrorism. She and her organization were instrumental in
the release of the 28 pages of the congressional report on 9/11.
Without further ado, I'm going to turn the mic over to her.

        TERRY STRADA (pre-recorded): Thank you! Thank you very much!
My name is Terry Strada, and I lost my husband on September 11th,
2001. Tom was 41 years old when he went to work that day, and
never came home again. We have three children. At the time, they
were 7 years old, 4 years old, and our youngest was only 4 days
        On September 12th, 2001 I woke up — well, I probably didn't
sleep that night — so when the sun came up, the questions were,
"Who did this? Why would they do this?", and "How could they
possibly do this? How could they attack our country like this,
and how could they kill so many innocent people in one day?"
        Because I wanted to know the answers, I started to ask the
questions more and more. And so did more and more 9/11 families.
United to Bankrupt Terrorism was our first title, and now we're
United Together for Justice Against Terrorism. Of course it was
the 28 pages that we focused on in the beginning that needed to
be released. And when they were released, there were two key
things that we learned. One is that Saudi Arabia has never been
fully investigated for the role that they played in 9/11; and
two, that it is indisputable that the Saudis played a very
important role in 9/11.
        The second piece of legislation that I've been working on
for over four years now is called the Justice Against Sponsors
of Terrorism Act. This bill is intended to fix a minor problem in
our current Foreign Sovereignty Immunity Act of 1976. So, it's a
40-year-old law that has stood for 40 years, until we looked
further into the Saudi's role in 9/11, found the evidence, and
tried to hold them accountable.
        What happened next was that the courts decided to
misinterpret the law and dismiss them on sovereign immunity. Make
no mistake. No country, no entity, no individual is entitled to
immunity — sovereign immunity, any type of immunity — in the
case of a terrorist act. This bill is intended to hold {any
nation} accountable for a terrorist attack on U.S. soil that
kills United States citizens.
        We've chosen this path because it's a peaceful way to fight
terrorism. We don't want to see more bloodshed; we don't ever
want to see more people die over 9/11. And we also want to
protect our borders; we want to protect our country; we want to
protect {you}; I want to protect my children. And the way that we
do this, is by holding the nations accountable that fund known
terrorist organizations, like al-Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram.
        People say, "You can't fight the lone wolf." I say, "Yes, we
can!" If we cut off the funding, and we destroy their
capabilities to recruit and incite, and bring on more terror and
to brainwash people, we can eliminate ISIS. And that is our
long-term goal. The short-term goal, right now, is to get Saudi
Arabia off of this crazy [situation] that they're not held
        In May, the Senate passed unanimously this Bill, and on
Friday, September 9th, it went to the U.S. House of
Representatives. I was in the gallery and was honored and proud
to see each and every one of our 435 Members in the House vote
"Yes" for JASTA. [applause] Thank you, thank you. I don't really
know how many times this has ever happened on our history, that
we have both Chambers of Congress voting "Yes" unanimously. What
this means for the President: as of 4:00 today, he was still
threatening to veto the Bill. The Bill will be sent over to his
office for signature later on tonight, at the latest tomorrow.
We're doing everything we can to convince him to not do this.
        You probably hear things in the news — and I'll kind of
wrap this up, because I want to hear the music as badly as you do
— but you may hear in the news, things about the Bill. They're
simply not true, if they're coming from the Administration.
Unfortunately, they are the mouthpiece for the Saudis at this
point. We just need to point out to them how important this is,
to hold them accountable — any nation, going forward — would be
held accountable, and how important it is for our country to have
that type of security net.
        If the President does decide to veto this Bill, it will be
our last hurdle; it may be our biggest. But we plan to overcome
it, and override the veto. Hopefully the Senate and the House
will fall into line and do that for us.
        If there's anything that you'd like to do to help, going
forward, it's passtjasta.org. That's our website. It's updated as
often as I can get to a computer and update it. There are usually
just simple instructions of how you can reach out to the White
House, your Representative, or a co-sponsor of the bill. This is
very important legislation. I thank you very much for taking the
time to listen to me, and now I'm so honored to have these
wonderful musicians. I have heard them practice. You are in for a
treat. This is going to be a very wonderful time now for us to
just transcend ourselves from the evil, to a higher place — to a
place where Good is. I believe Good will win, and I thank you for
coming. [applause]

        OGDEN: So, as you can see, we're right in the midst of a
{very} active battle on the JASTA front, as Terry Strada had to
say, right there. It's all dependent on action that is taken in
the next coming days and hours, in order to create the conditions
where Obama is boxed in, and to create the kind of upsurge that
is necessary around this. I know there are actions being planned
to be taken in Washington, D.C. in the coming days. I'll let Jeff
talk about some of that, and also mention some of the activities
that {you} were involved in, Jeff, up in New York City, at the
same time, this past weekend, as these events were taking place.

JEFFREY STEINBERG: Yes, there will be a series of demonstrations
on Tuesday in Washington, D.C., which is when the House and the
Senate will be back in town. There'll be a demonstration in front
of the White House. And then, also, another demonstration, I
believe, on the Senate side of the Capitol grounds.
        The point is very obvious. I think Mr. LaRouche put it
succinctly: everything that Obama has done as President has been
a reflection of the fact that he's an agent of the British
System, the British Monarchy. Therefore, it should be presumed
that, even though he will make himself an avowed enemy of the
American people — and especially the 9/11 families — if he does
go ahead with this veto, we should assume that that's exactly
what he will do, because that's what the British want him to do.
They don't care about justice for the 2,997 people who perished
on 9/11, or the perhaps-by-now tens of thousands of people —
first responders, others who were at the scene at the World Trade
towers, at the Pentagon, in Pennsylvania — who suffered
tremendously, and have developed diseases, illnesses related to
9/11. There's one estimate that 40,000 people have been afflicted
with serious illnesses because of their heroic actions
immediately following the 9/11 attacks.
        Obama is on the other side. These are impeachable crimes.
Being an agent of a foreign power, while serving in the Executive
Branch of the U.S. government — I mean, that is treachery. The
fact of the matter is that Obama can be forced by an enormous
amount of public mobilization, to go forward and actually sign
the Bill into law, or simply let it pass into law without his
signature. But that's going to be only on the basis that he is
convinced that there will be an overwhelming, bipartisan,
near-unanimous voice vote, if he attempts to veto the Bill.
        This is an existential issue, not just for the Saudis, but
for the British as well. Remember, a month or so back, at the
height of the mobilization after the Senate unanimously passed
JASTA, a British Tory Member of Parliament wrote in the {Daily
Telegraph} that if the Saudis can be sued by the families, then
the British can be sued also. Now, he claimed it was because of
failure to crack down on the jihadist networks that were given
safe haven in Britain, but we know that the reality is, that
Prince Bandar was the central figure organizing the support for
the 9/11 hijackers. We know it through the 28 pages, and that
barely scratches the surface of the evidence. Bandar's another
British agent. Bandar and Margaret Thatcher, in 1985, created the
Al-Yamamah program, and it was funds from that Al-Yamamah program
that were probably going into the hands of the 9/11 hijackers.
        So this is a {very big deal}. And it's going to come down to
a head-to-head political battle. Everyone listening to this
broadcast should contact your senators, contact your
representatives. Deliver a very blunt message to the White House,
that this will be considered an act of treachery, perhaps an act
of treason, on the part of President Obama, if he fails to sign
JASTA into law and allow the 9/11 families, at last, their day in
court. No matter where the evidence goes, no matter what's proven
or not proven, they have every right under our Constitutional
system to take appropriate legal action in a court against the
Saudis, and the JASTA Bill removes what in this case was an
illegitimate sovereign immunity.
        So, I think that's where we stand.
        This past weekend of 9/11 in New York, the Schiller
Institute had an extraordinary event. And the full video of that
is up on this website; and I would urge everybody to watch it.
There was another event that took place at the historic Cooper
Union campus in lower Manhattan; and I was honored to speak on a
panel on the 28 pages at that conference. There were a number of
other speakers: Judge Imposimato from Italy, who was the judge
who went after the Gladio apparatus around the strategy of
tension attempted coups in Italy in the 1970s and '80s, the Moro
assassination. He was one of the keynote speakers. Dan Sheehan,
the lawyer who broke open the Iran/Contra affair spoke. But
everybody was laser focused on the implications of the 28 pages
and JASTA; and the importance now of making sure — as Senator
Bob Graham said at a recent event in Washington, DC, the release
of the 28 pages just simply pops the cork. Now we go after the
full content of the bottle. There are millions of pages of
classified material that are yet to come out that deal with
Sarasota, Florida, San Diego, California, Paterson, New Jersey,
Herndon, Virginia, and other locations unknown. And of course in
Europe, Hamburg, Germany. The point I made both at the Schiller
Institute event and at the Cooper Union event, is that there is
no statute of limitation on the truth; and we've got to drive
that point forward.

        OGDEN: At the Schiller Institute event in New York on
Saturday, September 10th, not only did Jeff speak, not only did
Virginia State Senator Dick Black deliver a very dramatic and
sharp speech. But also, the Ambassador from Syria to the United
Nations was the featured guest, and delivered a very strong
speech in which he denounced the Obama administration and the
Bush administration campaign of regime change that has taken
place in the region over the course of the last 15 years since
9/11. Starting with Saddam Hussein, then with Qaddafi, and then
with the attempted regime change against Assad in Syria. I think
that the developments of this week, with the lower house of the
UK Parliament where they delivered a very strong rebuke to David
Cameron in terms of the grounds on which the Libyan invasion was
launched; which led to Cameron's resignation. This also applies
just as much to the case of Obama; and this is something which
Obama is continuing to push during his time in office. So, I
think all of these are coming together in the context of Obama's
rejection on his trip to Asia, during the ASEAN and G20 summits.
He is being boxed in; and his true colors are very clear as he
sides with the Saudis against the American people. I don't think
it can be taken for granted that the conjunction of all of these
events up in New York City over the weekend has set up the most
dramatic political showdown of Obama's entire career, as we go
into the coming days here in Washington.
        So Diane, you probably want to give a little bit more of a
context to that.

        DIANE SARE: I think what we're talking about is a certain
profound question of justice; not retribution, but the ability
for mankind to actually move forward. What distinguishes Asia and
Russia under Vladimir Putin from the United States and the
trans-Atlantic system is that these nations are actually
committed to a world in which the future is brighter than the
present or the past. That is, the leaders of these nations are
saying, my children, my grandchildren, my great-grandchildren are
going to live in a world in which their standard of living is
higher, their educational level is superior, the number of
diseases they're subjected to is fewer; the way that Americans
used to think not so long ago. Part of the significance of the
work of the chorus, which is here directed by John Sigerson and
myself, is to remind the American people what is actually a human
standard; as opposed to a bestial standard. I have to say in that
regard, I found Senator Richard Black's comments and particularly
his passion and his anguish when he was describing what was being
done in Syria by these so-called "moderate" Syrian rebels who the
US is funding; the people we are funding who are beheading
children that they're kidnapping out of hospitals, or the rebels
we are funding who are carting women around in cages. Where our
own State Department spokesman says, "Well, how can we stop
funding them? We're not going to judge what they do on one single
incident of beheading. Other than the fact that they behead
children, they might be wonderful." It is so evil! And the idea
that Americans have lost the capacity to feel outrage when you
are confronted with this kind of evil; where it's all kind of
numb, and people say, "Well, there's nothing you can do."
        I think the process of the election of Hillary Clinton, who
may be suffering some serious illness, we don't know; who was
destroyed by her capitulation to Barack Obama. And Donald Trump,
who's just a pure FBI thug lunatic. What's happening is that the
population is putting up a kind of teflon veneer where they are
trying not to think about anything. Of course, that's death; we
have to think. What you have in the rest of the world is a
break-out of the human spirit, of this quality of creativity.
        So, what happened this weekend, the involvement of our
chorus in this series of concerts sponsored by the Foundation for
the Revival of Classical Culture, is that you got a glimmer of
the power — I think both the fact that JASTA had passed the
Senate and then the House on that Friday going into the weekend;
and then what we were presenting musically from the
African-American spirituals to the Mozart to the Handel, in terms
of what it actually means for us to be human. And a certain
quality of human life which we hold sacred; and which is not in
our physical being. And perhaps this was most powerfully sensed
at the Catholic mass which was dedicated to the firefighters and
those who had died on September 11th. The Bishop made the point
that these are people who are giving their lives not simply for
their brothers or for their friends, but for complete strangers.
At the end of the Mass, it's not typical that people applaud and
give standing ovations; but when the Mass closed, the standing
ovation of the crowd — it was very clear it was not simply for
the musicians; but it really was in deep and profound
appreciation of what these people had done.
        I have a sense that we really are in a moment in the United
States like Germany in 1989. Maybe we're in May of '89 and not
October yet; but there's a kind of awakening of the better spirit
of the American population. People are not prepared to sit back
and tolerate criminal injustice. If we will act with courage,
since about two-thirds of the world is already on the other side
of this; and China, for example, the idea of talking about
legalizing drugs? They would think you are completely insane;
being addicted to drugs, distributing drugs is not tolerated.
There's certainly a harsh crackdown on drug trafficking in the
Philippines which we're seeing now; and I don't think Duterte
appreciates Obama's accusations of human rights violations for
someone who's trying to shut down the drug trade. In other words,
there's a whole different standard in the world which, when we
find our courage and stand up, is going to resonate. There's no
reason for people to believe that what happens in this country is
going to be determined by the fraud of what's call the elections.
I would just say that what Jeff, you were saying earlier about
Obama; we have to really stick to this. There's no point in
talking about the candidates unless Obama, who is the evil who is
occupying the seat of leadership of this country right now, is
removed from office and prosecuted in a criminal court.

STEINBERG: I just wanted to add something; a footnote on what
Matt mentioned earlier, about the actions by the British House of
Commons this week. The Foreign Affairs Committee produced a
report, which was a damning indictment of Cameron, Sarkozy, and
Obama over the disastrous consequences of the overthrow and
assassination of Qaddafi in Libya. On a certain level, the
British House of Commons — with everything that we know; with
all the caveats about the power of the British monarchy and all
of that — the House of Commons puts the US Congress to shame.
They forced Cameron out of office; they forced his resignation
from the House of Commons on the grounds of his role in the Libya
disaster. Above all else, the United States, Britain, and France
lied to the world — they also lied directly to Russia and China
— when they promised at the outset that there would be no regime
change in Libya; but it was strictly a humanitarian intervention.
Well, it turns out that the House of Commons report is, if
anything, an even more stunning indictment of Obama than of
Cameron. The report makes very clear that Cameron and Sarkozy
were the drivers behind the need to intervene to prevent the
humanitarian disaster in Benghazi. In fact, they were protecting
British-created terrorist networks that were back in Libya from
having fought the wars in Afghanistan; the same wars that created
al-Qaeda. But what was made clear is that it was President Obama
who insisted that a no-fly zone was insufficient; a no-fly zone
failed in Iraq, it failed in Bosnia, and it would fail in Libya.
Therefore, the UN resolution had to have much more teeth; it had
to be a "no-drive" zone. It had to give a carte blanche to defend
the so-called victims of Qaddafi forces by all out military
        On the one hand, everybody swore up and down to Russia and
China that it was not about regime change. As a result, Russia
and China abstained from the vote when the Security Council
resolution was passed to create the no-fly zone and the no-drive
zone; and to use all forms of military force that were deemed
necessary to "save" the civilization population of Benghazi.
Well, the report makes clear that after the first 24 hours, they
were safe; there was no threat to them anymore. From that moment
on, the whole exercise was all about regime change. There was one
exchange where one of the ministers in the Cameron government at
the time, Liam Fox, lied and said no, this was never about regime
change; we didn't have any agenda. The questioner pointed out
that on April 14, 2011, the New York Times published a signed
op-ed by Barack Obama, David Cameron, and Sarkozy; in which the
three of them said, "Qaddafi must go, and go for good." So, they
were lying openly; and if anything, Obama did more heavy lifting
to create this disaster than either Sarkozy or Cameron. It
included a conscious decision to assassinate a foreign leader.
        So, the British House of Commons has delivered a new bill of
impeachment against President Obama; and I hope that Congress
will take that seriously. Needless to say, the US media has
blacked out the story totally up to this point.

        OGDEN: In a very real way, this is like a Chilcot Report 2.0
in the case of Libya and Obama's role in that. Honestly, that's
exactly what you called for, Diane, in the petition that you were
circulating about a month or a month and a half ago. Look at
what's developed since the publication of that petition: We've
won the fight on the release of the 28 pages; although there are
tens of thousands of other pages that need to be released. JASTA
has gone through — this was your point, too — JASTA has gone
through both the Senate and the House; and despite the fact that
Obama is still threatening to veto, as it stands, it could be
overridden in the first veto override of the Obama
administration. Although he's trying to delay it, and deploying
Saudi agents crawling Capitol Hill right now. We have reports
that the Saudi Foreign Minister is personally going to Capitol
Hill and meeting with members of the Senate; threatening that you
have to withdraw your support for this JASTA bill. But that is a
fight which is active; this Chilcot Report type of approach, as
you called for in your petition, Diane, this is what we now see
coming out of the UK House of Commons. Also, the overarching
question of cooperation between the United States and Russia to
actually defeat terrorism worldwide.
        I thought it was very important that this was one of the
themes around these concerts with the image of the 9/11 Teardrop
Memorial in Bayonne, New Jersey; which was contributed by Russia
in support of the world's struggle against terrorism after 9/11.
And also, during this Schiller Institute seminar in New York City
on Saturday, Senator Dick Black pointed out that we're right in
the midst of this ceasefire negotiation between Kerry and Lavrov.
And according to reports, Kerry has really isolated himself from
the Obama administration; or at least there's a faction which is
trying to actively undermine these efforts to work with Lavrov.
So, these are ongoing battles; and it's all around the question
of the type of leadership that was exhibited in that petition
that you put out about a month and a half ago, Diane. Obviously,
we're now preparing for the convening of the United Nations
General Assembly this week and next week in New York City. I
think these events that were happening at the Schiller Institute
conference with the Syrian ambassador and so forth, should be
seen as preparing the way for what will be the defining questions
— hopefully — put on the table at the UN General Assembly. Both
that and the question of the new international financial
architecture, coming out of the G20 meetings; we have a big
responsibility on that as it comes to the question of
Glass-Steagall, which is something that I'd like to get to in a
        But maybe, Diane, you want to say a little bit more about
the events leading up to this UN General Assembly meeting.

        SARE: Sure. Actually, I'm thinking, I don't know what the
conspiracy is this time. Last year, as followers of our website
know, President Putin had gone to China for the V-J Day parade
and then come to the UN and proposed his coalition to wipe out
ISIS; and created that to great effectiveness. Now, the UN
General Assembly comes in the wake of the G20 meeting, the ASEAN
meeting, the Vladivostok conference, where all of these nations
which have been represented, signed more and more agreements with
each other on various economic projects and so on. And, I think
it's significant that, going into the G20, Xinhua ran that
interview with the Russian representative; who said that Beijing
and Moscow must work with Washington. We have to bring Washington
in on this; and Washington is a complex and unpredictable

partner, I think were the words that were used. So, clearly, I'm
sure that they're not coming into this General Assembly with no
plans. I don't know what plans they have; I think it'll be very
interesting as it unfolds. I think it's very important for
Americans to do our part to make the United States less full of
complexes; I'll put it that way, and less unpredictable by
addressing this Obama criminality problem. I think what Jeff said
about Cameron — it really is something. Tony Blair first with
the Chilcot Inquiry; now you have this whole report on Libya. Any
American, any member of Congress can get their hands on this; and
it is absolutely damning in terms of Obama's role. I think that
would be an important contribution for the United States, because
the truth of the matter is, we should be part of the Belt and
Road; we should be part of the New Paradigm. The American people
are suffering horrifically, horrendously with this economic
collapse; and I guess that brings us to the point that you were
talking about, which is the Glass-Steagall moment.

OGDEN: Right; exactly. On that subject, let me just read the text
of the institutional question we got for this week. I know Mr.
LaRouche had a direct response to this. It reads: "Mr. LaRouche,
Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren is marking the 8th
anniversary of Lehman Brothers' bankruptcy with a new push to
investigate and potentially jail more than two dozen individuals
and corporations who were referred to the Justice Department for
criminal prosecution in 2011 by the Financial Crisis Inquiry
Commission, a government-appointed group that investigated the
roots of the 2008 financial crisis. None was ever prosecuted. In
a letter to the Justice Department's Inspector General, Warren
calls the lack of prosecutions 'outrageous and baffling', and
asks the Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, to investigate why
no charges were brought. 'The DoJ record of action on these
individuals nearly six years after DoJ received the referrals, is
abysmal,' she writes.
        "In your view, is Senator Elizabeth Warren's new push to
investigate and potentially jail nearly two dozen individuals and
corporations who were referred to the Justice Department for
possible criminal prosecution a step in the right direction; and
will it help the prospects of Glass-Steagall's passage?"
        So, Jeff, maybe you want to say what Mr. LaRouche's response
was on this.

        STEINBERG: I think the point is, again, we're looking at the
irresponsible behavior of leading government elected officials.
The fact is, that in 1933, you had the Pecora Commission, which
was a Senate investigation into the crimes of the too-big-to-fail
banks of the Depression era; and bankers did go to jail. They
were called to testify under oath before Congress; they were
forced to produce their tax records; and there was a climate that
was created through that process that led to the passage of
Glass-Steagall and a number of other critical legislative
initiatives in the first 100 days of the FDR Presidency. Where we
are today is in the midst of a financial crisis that's much
larger, that's much more global in its scope than what we were
dealing with in 1933. Yet, there's been virtually no significant
action by either the Justice Department or by Congress against
these criminal swindlers who are CEOs of major banks. Just an
illustration: The woman who was the head of the division of Wells
Fargo that was caught basically creating phony accounts for their
own customers in order to charge fees so that employees of the
bank could get special bonuses; that person resigned from the
bank, but received a $125 million golden parachute on her way out
the door. It's night and day. So, Mr. LaRouche's comment on
Glass-Steagall was, {"Do it!} It's needed right now; we can't
wait another minute."
        Today, Deutsche Bank was given a $14 billion fine by the
Justice Department for their involvement in mortgage-backed
securities fraud in the run-up to 2008 and beyond. Yet, no
official of Deutsche Bank has gone to jail. In fact, Deutsche
Bank's $14 billion fine virtually bankrupts it; the entire bank
capitalization, market capitalization of the bank is $19 billion.
Were they to pay the fine out of their own deposits, they'd be
out of business tomorrow morning. So, we're at a moment where
this is all deadly serious. Yes, of course, these bankers should
be put in jail; but why is Elizabeth Warren not doing more to
push Glass-Steagall? Why is Elizabeth Warren instead tiptoeing
around the issue because she's basically been anointed by Hillary
Clinton as the attack dog against Donald Trump? Again, hold it up
to the gold standard of Franklin Roosevelt, the Pecora
Commission, and you'll see that once again — as we just
discussed with the British House of Commons actions compared to
the complete inaction on impeaching Obama or taking other
measures to deal with these problems — it's shameful; and it's
all part of a recurring pattern.
        As Diane just said, there may only be four or five months
left in the Obama Presidency, but every day that he remains in
office is a threat to the survival of this country and the
survival of humanity. Libya was all about starting the process of
war provocations against Russia and China. Lyndon LaRouche warned
about that the day that Qaddafi was assassinated back in 2011;
and we're still in that trajectory towards war. So, yes, we
urgently need Glass-Steagall; it should be taken up immediately.
There are bills in both Houses. Yes, the Justice Department
should reverse its policy of no jail time for too-big-to-fail
bankers; throw them all in the slammer — they all deserve it.
All of the top executives of all of the big eight US commercial
banks — they're all involved in multiple crimes, whether it's
mortgage-backed securities fraud, LIBOR fraud; the crimes are
manifest and the actions have been pathetic.

        OGDEN: As you referred to, there is a major problem with the
Democrats right now being compromised because of their defense of
Obama and Hillary; both of whom are avowed — as it stands right
now — opponents of the restoration of Glass-Steagall. As Terry
Strada said, right now the Obama White House is a spokesman for
the Saudi regime; but in the exact same way, it's a spokesman for
Wall Street. You have Glass-Steagall in both party platforms; you
have the biggest mobilization in years from some of the trade
union movements — the AFL-CIO — other activist layers around
Glass-Steagall. Getting this to a vote — preferably {before} the
elections take place, if not sooner — but the problem is, you
have an intention from the top to suppress this from within the
ranks of the Obama faction of the Democratic Party, which Hillary
Clinton finds herself in right now.
        I would say that there is also a broader, a little bit of a
deeper agenda here; and this came up in the discussion we had
yesterday with Lyn and Helga. Helga pointed out that there's a
recent report that has now been put out by the Club of Rome,
which has been around for 40 years now — an avowedly
neo-Malthusian movement to reduce population; that's been their
agenda — and the title of the report in German is "One Percent
Is Enough"; explicitly saying that the kind of dramatic growth
percentages that you see year on year on year, coming out of
China and other countries that are now part of this New Silk Road
dynamic, is somehow dangerous to the planet. And that we must
enforce a zero-growth or at least very low growth agenda; which
is what is coming out of the British monarchy and is coming out
of a lot of these trans-Atlantic circles. That is really the
foundation around which this fight between the new international
economic order, this New Paradigm that you see coming out of
China, the BRICS, and the Silk Road countries, versus the Obama,
trans-Atlantic regime that's taking place. It's a longstanding,
deeply rooted, ideological opposition to the idea of the no
limits to growth, perpetual increases in productivity kind of
idea of mankind; which Mr. LaRouche has made a career out of
defending and deepening with his approach to physical economics.
So, you have this as a deeper agenda which, again, Obama has
found himself as a spokesman for, and has made it very explicit
on multiple occasions. Remember his trip to Africa, where he said
you guys aren't allowed to have access to modern technology such
as electricity; because if you do, the planet will boil over. And
on other occasions, he said, we don't need any fancy stuff like
fusion power or anything like that.
        So again, I think it comes down to this much deeper idea of
what is your conception of man; and what is your scientific idea
of this perpetual progress; or the conception that there is no
limit to creative discovery, there are no limits to growth.
That's the deeper agenda that we now see also bubbling to the

        STEINBERG: These guys are genocidal lunatics; they've been
that way for 40 years. The LaRouche Movement was in a certain
sense, launched as a war against the Club of Rome when they came
out with their 1972 report, "Limits to Growth". The whole history
has been a battle between those led by Mr. LaRouche and Mrs.
LaRouche, who represent the principle of real human creativity;
versus people who work for an oligarchical system that is
consciously out to suppress it. You've got Prince Philip, the
British royal consort, calling for the population reduction of
this planet by 80%. If the Club of Rome report, 1% cap on growth,
were to be put into effect, this would represent mass genocide on
an unprecedented scale in human history; and it would happen
right away.

OGDEN: Right. As was made very clear in these concerts over the
weekend, there's an element of inspiration which, when it is
unleashed in the American population, it is overwhelming. The
kind of turn-out that we saw at these concerts in New York —
full to capacity audiences in almost every single venue;
including downtown Manhattan, the cathedral in Brooklyn, a
concert that happened in Morristown, one that happened in Lehman
College in the Bronx; there's an undercurrent of desire for this
kind of beautiful celebration of the nature of mankind. I thought
it was really significant to place Mozart's Requiem, which is
an incredibly profound and has a resonance which goes deep in the
American population; including the fact that the last time it was
celebrated as part of a Mass was 50 years ago at the request of
Jackie Kennedy, at a memorial service for the slain President,
John F Kennedy, at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross in Boston.
That was the last time this was presented in the context of the
mass itself. But the conjunction of that, together with these
four African-American spirituals, which is this call for justice,
for freedom, and for the dignity of the human being; putting
these together in the counterpoint between the two, it really did
awaken something very profound and very deeply rooted in the
people who participated in this community chorus which is growing
in an exponential way, but also in the people who participated as
members of the audience. So Diane was the conductor of the first
part of these concerts, of the African-American spirituals, and I
would personally say, I think you were channeling the spirit of
Sylvia Olden Lee and her collaborators. It was very moving, and I
think it's part of something that we're going to see continue to
grow; in not just the desire for justice, but the desire for
human dignity and creativity among the American people.
        So, maybe you want to say a little bit about what the plans
are for the community chorus in that context, Diane.

        SARE: I hope it's going to grow, and there are a lot of
plans. But my parting words to our audience would be: One, that
people should join the actions in front of the White House on
Tuesday in support of the JASTA bill and against Obama's veto;
and a challenge to the American people and the members of the US
Congress. Which is, are you more cowardly and gutless than the
British House of Commons? If they can throw out Cameron and
expose the crimes against humanity that he has participated in,
and if they are already naming Obama; what is holding you back?

        OGDEN: Good. Well, those events in front of the White House
are scheduled currently for 12:30pm on Tuesday, and apparently
there may be another rally in front of the Senate at 2pm the same
afternoon. So, if you are in the area, or you can make it into
DC, that's something to participate in. There will probably be
more information on the passJASTA.org website that Terry Strada
mentioned at the beginning of this broadcast in her remarks at
that Morristown concert. And please, circulate tonight's webcast
as widely as you can so that Terry Strada's very emphatic
statement that she made at that concert can be heard more widely.
I think this is something that needs to be heard by the American
people; and that's something that you have a responsibility to
assist in.
        So, I'd like to thank both Diane and Jeff for joining me
here today. Please stay tuned to larouchepac.com; we will have
coverage of this rally next Tuesday, and you can join us for our
regularly programming as well. So thank you very much, and good

Obama er en britisk agent, og han vil
handle i overensstemmelse hermed,
indtil han sparkes ud af embedet

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 15. sept. 2016 – Præsident Barack Obamas fortsatte trussel om at nedlægge veto mod JASTA-lovforslaget er en klar påmindelse om, at USA’s præsident i realiteten er en agent for det britiske system, og han vil gøre præcis, hvad den britiske krone giver ham besked på – og give pokker i det amerikanske folk. Lyndon LaRouche advarede i dag om, at ingen bør forvente, at Obama vil gøre det rigtige ved at underskrive JASTA-lovforslaget og dermed gøre det til lov og lade retsvæsenet tage sig af det saudiske monarki, der muliggjorde angrebene den 11. sept., 2001.

»Obama vil vride sig og lave undvigemanøvrer om spørgsmålet, lige til det sidste – og så vil han nedlægge veto mod JASTA – med mindre der kommer en sådan udladning af pres fra det amerikanske folk, at han ikke har andet valg«, erklærede LaRouche. »Til syvende og sidste er Obama en britisk agent, og han vil handle i overensstemmelse hermed.«

LaRouche tilføjede, »Obama er et falsum og skal ryges ud«. Obama holdes kunstigt oppe ved hjælp af en række Store Løgne, der faldbydes af de amerikanske mainstreammedier, der gentager regeringens løgne, inklusive den sindssyge påstand om, at den amerikanske økonomi er forbedret, lønningerne på vej op, arbejdsløsheden på et lavpunkt, osv. Dette er løgn alt sammen, som enhver ærlig amerikaner, der kommer fra den 90 % store, laveste indkomstgruppe, ved. Henved 93,5 mio. amerikanere i den arbejdsføre alder er ikke engang medregnet i arbejdsstyrken. Den Store Løgne-kampagne, der holder Obama kunstigt oppe, kan smadres. USA er blevet et land med ubegrænset statistisk forfalskning.

Lige så vel som, at JASTA-lovforslaget må vedtages nu, hvad enten det sker ved at tvinge Obamas hånd, eller det sker gennem en overvældende vedtagelse i Senatet og Repræsentanternes Hus, der gør et veto fra Obama ugyldigt, således må også Glass-Steagall omgående vedtages som lov – inden den totale disintegration af det transatlantiske finanssystem finder sted, hvilket kan ske når som helst. Forlad jer ikke på Elizabeth Warren (demokratisk senator) til at føre an i denne kamp – hun er for kompromitteret af sine partiske ønsker om at forsvare Obama og Hillary Clinton. »Få det bare igennem!«, sagde LaRouche igen i dag.

De handlinger, som det britiske Underhus (House of Commons) traf beslutning om i denne uge, hvor de smed David Cameron ud af dennes plads i parlamentet pga. hans rolle i krigen i Libyen, baseret på løgne, er et signal om at vågne op og foretage en lignende handling, som den amerikanske Kongres skal gennemføre over for Barack Obama. Han skal sparkes ud af embedet nu.

Blandt Obamas mange forbrydelser er den brutale måde, hvorpå han terroriserede og dernæst brugte Hillary Clinton, især omkring invasionen i Libyen og mordet på Gaddafi. Denne handling, hvor Hillary Clinton fuldstændigt gav efter for Obama og herefter ikke mere blev den samme, var begyndelsen til Obamas krigsfremstød mod Rusland og Kina. LaRouche forudsagde dette, dengang Gaddafi blev myrdet, og alt, hvad der siden er sket efter disse begivenheder i 2011, har bevist, at han havde ret. Faren for en krig med Rusland og Kina har nu nået et punkt, hvor hele menneskeheden er i fare, hver eneste dag, hvor Obama fortsat sidder ved magten og kan starte en atomar verdenskrig. Og som begivenhederne i den seneste uge klart har demonstreret for offentligheden, så er Hillary Clinton nedbrudt, og hun må trække sig.

Det amerikanske folk har desperat brug for hjælp og for, at man tager i betragtning, hvilken dårlig forfatning, det befinder sig i. I stedet er Romklubben atter dukket frem med krav om et globalt folkemord, tilsløret af dens påstand om, at »en procents vækst« er alt, hvad verden behøver, og at det Ny Silkevejsprogram bør skrottes. Romklubben er stadig det samme redskab for folkemord, der lancerede den oprindelige Malthus-kampagne med Grænser for Vækst tilbage i 1972. Dengang førte Lyndon LaRouche og LaRouche-bevægelsen an i afsløringen af Romklubben som en bande morderiske løgnere, hvis sande dagsorden var at slå milliarder af mennesker ihjel – den præcis samme dagsorden som det britiske monarkis, og som klarest er blevet udtrykt af den royale gemal, Prins Philip.

Denne politik må nu endelig lægges i graven.

Foto: Kong Salman af Saudi-Arabien byder præsident Barack Obama farvel, Saudi-Arabien, den 27. januar, 2015. (Foto: Det Hvide Hus)

Anbefalet læsning (dansk):

»Skræmmekampagne om global opvarmning er befolkningsreduktion – ikke videnskab!« (EIR-rapport i forbindelse med COP 2015, Paris) 

»Det britiske Imperiums politik, der drejer sig om befolkningsreduktion … for at reducere verdens befolkning med milliarder af mennesker«, EIR-hovedartikel. 



Det britiske parlament stiller Cameron
under anklage for krig og terrorisme:
Hvorfor sidder Obama stadig i embedet?

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 14. sept. 2016 – Barack Obama bør ikke forblive i præsidentembedet, så han kan nedlægge veto mod Loven om retsforfølgelse af sponsorer af terror, JASTA, nu, hvor David Cameron er stillet under anklage af det britiske parlament.

De to begik sammen forbrydelserne i forbindelse med krigen i Libyen, dens spredning til krigen i Syrien og genoptagelsen af Bushs’ krig i Irak, samt med at bevæbne og muliggøre Saudi-Arabiens folkemorderiske krig mod Yemen – alt sammen, mens Cameron var britisk premierminister og Obama præsident. 

De to har mørklagt den saudiske sponsorering af terrorisme, herunder angrebene d. 11. september, og nægtet ofrene for disse angreb og deres familier retfærdighed. 

Det britiske underhus holder, i en rapport, der er brutalt klar, og som blev udgivet d. 13. september af Udenrigsudvalgets Komité, Cameron »direkte ansvarlig« for spredningen af ​​kaos og terrorisme i den disintegrerede stat Libyen. Han og Obama gik i spidsen for fjernelsen af, og mordet på, Muammar Gaddafi, hvis følgevirkninger slap ISIS løs over verden og genoplivede al-Qaeda.

Underhuset har tvunget Cameron til omgående at træde tilbage fra Parlamentet, dagen før rapporten udkom. Dette er kun retfærdigt; og det er blevet gennemført af et parlament, hvis flertal udgøres af Camerons eget parti. Der vil nu sandsynligvis blive gjort en ende på Storbritanniens uanstændige våbensalg til Saudi-Arabien, til brug for dettes invasion af Yemen. 

Hvordan undslipper Obama for de samme forbrydelser, foretager de samme uanstændige våbensalg og nedlægger veto mod loven for juridisk retsforfølgelse for ofrene og overlevende fra 11. september, som Kongressen ellers enstemmigt har vedtaget? 

Kongressen har ansvaret for at stille ham for en rigsret, selv nu, hvor han forsøger at bruge valgkampen til en panisk ophidselse af amerikanerne til fordel for en krigskonfrontation med Rusland og Kina. Amerikanere, der ønsker at stoppe denne »evindelige krig« og terrorismen, bør handle for at tvinge Kongressen til at leve op til dette ansvar. 

Deres andet ansvar er at vedtage Glass/Steagall-lovforslaget, for langt om længe at gennemtvinge, at retfærdigheden over for Wall Street sker fyldest, samt udstede en »kreditkanal« til produktive investeringer og produktiv beskæftigelse.

G20-topmødet under kinesisk værtsskab tidligere i denne måned afviste Obamas fremstød for en konfrontation i det Sydkinesiske Hav og en ny Wall Street »handelsaftale«. Han er blevet isoleret i sit fortsatte fremstød for krig. 

I stedet blev nationerne ved mødet enige om Kinas forslag om at skabe en ny finansiel arkitektur og gensidigt bygge kontinentale korridorer med ny infrastruktur – den »Nye Silkevej« og »Verdenslandbroen«. 

Dette nye paradigme for en produktiv, økonomisk genrejsning står vidt åben for USA; Obama har isoleret landet fra det. Han synes endda underhånden at modsætte sig sin egen udenrigsministers forhandling af en fred i Syrien med Rusland. 

Vi må rydde huset, for Obama og Wall Street, og vi må gøre det nu. Det er kun retfærdigt.

Foto: Præsident Barack Obama og den britiske premierminister David Cameron forlader nr. 10, Downing Street, mens krigen i Libyen raser; 24. maj, 2011. [flickr/whitehouse]

Obama er til grin for hele verden – Dump ham nu!

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 13. sept., 2016 – Den filippinske præsident Rodrigo Duterte føjede spot til skade for Barack Obama, da han tirsdag meddelte, at han har annulleret de fælles amerikansk-filippinske patruljer i det Sydkinesiske Hav, idet han kaldte dem unødvendige provokationer. Hvad mere er, så har han meddelt, at han sender sin forsvarsminister til Moskva og Beijing for at indlede drøftelser om våbenkøb fra disse to nationer.

Præsident Dutertes handlinger, der kommer 24 timer efter hans meddelelse om, at han sparker de amerikanske specialstyrker ud af Mindanao, bør tjene som et stærkt budskab til præsident Barack Obama: Du kan ikke spytte i ansigtet på verdens ledere og forvente, at de i al evighed finder sig i det.

Præsident Obama kom tilbage fra sin netop afsluttede Asien-rundrejse til et skybrud af kritik for sin skandaløse opførsel, hvor han optrappede provokationerne mod både Rusland og Kina og herved bringer USA tættere på fuldstændigt økonomisk kollaps og en atombevæbnet konfrontation med Rusland. Obamas handlinger i Hangzhou blev tirsdag perfekt indfanget af Martin Sieff i en historie i United Press International: »Svage mænd buldrer og bluffer, og forestiller sig, de er stærke … Det var, hvad Obama gjorde ved G20-mødet … Obama hævdede sig – i sin egen fantasi – over for Rusland og Kina. I virkeligheden brasede han bare fremefter på en kurs mod USA’s økonomiske sammenbrud gennem endeløse sammenstød med Kina. Hvad værre er, så tog han endnu et skridt på vejen mod en atomar konfrontation og verdenskrig med Rusland … Det kaster USA og det amerikanske folk længere frem på vejen mod global krig og eksistentiel krise.«
Den tidligere amerikanske ambassadør Chas Freeman sekunderede denne advarsel, da han i et interview med Sputnik News bemærkede, at Obamas politik med drone-drab har »spredt anti-vestlig terrorisme i global udstrækning til nye hjørner af kloden«.

Ikke så snart var han vendt tilbage til Washington, før Obama demonstrerede, at han er parat til at sætte sit forhold til det anglo-saudiske imperium over ethvert hensyn til det amerikanske folk, ved at love at nedlægge veto mod JASTA-lovforslaget, ifølge hvilket familierne og overlevende fra angrebene d. 11. september har mulighed for at sagsøge den saudiske kongefamilie for dens støtte til flykaprerne bag historiens værste terror-grusomhed på amerikansk jord.

Obama har vist sig som en isoleret og foragtet figur, til dels, fordi verden hastigt er på vej væk fra den britiske, imperialistiske geopolitik med permanent krigsførelse og folkedrab i Malthus’ ånd, og som har været kendetegnende for de seneste to amerikanske præsidentskabers politik. Ikke alene har Filippinerne brudt med Obama. Den nye premierminister i Vietnam var i Beijing for at holde møder med kinesiske topledere, herunder præsident Xi Jinping, og de to lande lovede at sætte deres fælles interesser over spørgsmål, hvori de er uenige, og at bilægge spørgsmålet om det Sydkinesiske Hav gennem bilateralt diplomati. Rusland og Kina har bebudet nye, store investeringer i energiinfrastruktur i Indien, Pakistan og Tyrkiet, og BRIKS’ Nye Udviklingsbank har annonceret udstedelse af statsobligationer i rubel, til infrastrukturinvesteringer i Rusland. Denne form for initiativer bliver annonceret næsten hver dag, og de repræsenterer kumulativt en realisering af ​​det nye paradigme for relationer mellem verdens nationer.

De fire koncerter, der blev opført af Schiller Instituttets Kor i New York-New Jersey-området til minde om 15-års dagen for angrebene d. 11. september 2001, blev overværet af i alt 4.000 mennesker, og virkningen vil give genlyd i den kommende tid. Det nye paradigme med »win-win«-samarbejde mellem nationer kan kun ske med en genoplivning af klassisk kultur, som udgør grundlaget for videnskabelige opdagelser og en fejring af menneskelig kreativitet.

Obama er en fjende af menneskeheden, og hans fjernelse fra embedet er absolut passende, selv nu, hvor der kun er fire måneder tilbage af hans præsidentskab. Er du rede til at udsætte menneskeheden for fare i så meget som én dag mere, ved at tolerere, at Obama forbliver i embedet?

Verden er forandret – Alt kan nu ske, men Obama må afsættes

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 12. sept. 2016 – Spektakulære begivenheder fandt sted i Asien i sidste weekend, hvor det overvældende flertal af verdens nationer forenede sig bag et nyt paradigme i verden, centreret omkring programmer for »storstilet udvikling«, ved hjælp af den Nye Silkevej og de nye finansinstitutioner, der er skabt af Kina, BRIKS og andre.

Denne samme ånd befandt sig over New York i den forgangne weekend, med Schiller Instituttets »Levende Mindesmærke« for ofrene for terrorangrebene den 11. september, 2001, og for ofrene for den politik for ’evindelige krige’, der siden da er blevet udløst af regeringerne Bush og Obama. Skønheden i Mozarts Rekviem, med deltagelse af flere end 3000 mennesker i de fire Schiller Institut-koncerter i flere bydele i New York City, skabte den samme frihedens ånd som det Nye Paradigme, der skabtes i Asien.

Begivenhederne demonstrerer i sandhed Friedrich Schillers indsigt i, at vejen til frihed går gennem skønhed.

Men stanken af ondskab og hæslighed hænger stadig over USA, med krigene, der fortsætter, den økonomiske degeneration, der accelererer, narkotika, der kræver hidtil uhørte ofre, og med pessimismen, der er fremherskende – især med en valgkampagne, hvor befolkningen foragter begge kandidater, og med god grund. Der er ingen duelig kandidat præcis, fordi det amerikanske borgersamfund har forsømt at fordømme den siddende præsident som den massemorder, han er – og som han faktisk er stolt af at være.

Men verden er ændret i de seneste dage. Lyndon LaRouche sagde i dag, at absolut hvad som helst er muligt i dette øjeblik med faseskifte i menneskehedens historie. Idet han tager de voksende beviser for Hillary Clintons alvorlige helbredsproblemer i betragtning, sagde LaRouche, at verden må undersøge problemet lidt mere i dybden:

Hillarys helbred begyndte at gå ned ad bakke, da hun kapitulerede over for Obama under og efter valget i 2008, hvor hun på tåbelig vis gik med til at tjene som hans udenrigsminister. Det onde, hun gjorde i denne stilling, blev induceret af Obama, dræberen, der lærte at tage drab til sig fra sin morderiske stedfar i Indonesien. Hendes fejltagelser og fiaskoer kan alle henføres til Obama. Det er Obama, som det drejer sig om. Han ødelagde hende. Hendes karakter ændrede sig. Hun degenererede til at blive et redskab for Obama. Bagved Obama spores skylden tilbage til det britiske monarki, som han elsker og adlyder, samt til dets saudiske skabelse for folkedrab, der tilsammen har skabt menneskehedens nuværende lidelser.

Obama må fjernes nu – der findes ingen anden mulig løsning. Hillary ville gå ned sammen med ham, og valgprocessen ville blive ændret, med nye kandidater, der måtte udpeges.

Ikke praktisk? Revolutioner skabes ikke gennem praktiske (pragmatiske) trin, men gennem kreative opdagelser og nyskabelser i den historiske kurs, som med den Nye Silkevej, og som det skete med Amerikas Grundlæggende Fædre, og som det reflekteres i Franklin Roosevelts og Jack Kennedys livsværk. Der kræves noget nyt og bedre i dag; i modsat fald vil civilisationens kollaps og atomkrig blive resultatet. Alternativet består ikke længere i en idé, der skal kaperes rent intellektuelt, men består i, at denne idé nu er under reel opbygning i Asien, og i de usædvanlige begivenheder i New York City denne forgange weekend.

De udviklinger, der vil finde sted i månederne september og oktober, er uforudsigelige, men der vil med sikkerhed finde betydningsfulde, dramatiske ændringer sted. Vi må være forud for udviklingskurven og handle, før kaos sænker sig over os. Der er pustet nyt liv i Kongressen gennem dennes handling imod saudierne, med den enstemmige vedtagelse af JASTA-lovforslaget, som Obama har lovet at nedlægge veto mod – men et veto, der kan tilsidesættes. Kongressen må ligeledes tvinges til at handle modigt og hurtigt, med vedtagelse af de Glass/Steagall-lovforslag, der nu er fremsat i begge Kongressens huse, med det formål at lukke Wall Street ned, før dets ukontrollerede kollaps tager nationen og hele verden med sig i faldet. Tiden er nu til optimisme og handling.

Foto: Mindeplade opsat på stedet, der skuer over Ground Zero på den anden side Hudsonfloden, og hvor mindesmærket for ofrene for 11. september, det 10 etager høje »Tåremonument«, en gave fra Rusland, senere blev rejst (skete 11. september, 2006). Teksten på mindepladen, på engelsk og russisk, lyder:

»Fra det russiske folk – præsident Vladimir Putin. Dette sted vil blive hjemsted for monumentet for kampen mod global terrorisme. Kunstner Zurab Tsereteli.«

Obama er i gulvet, men ikke dømt ude: Forøg presset

7. september 2016 (Leder) – De amerikanske mainstreammedier, med New York Times i spidsen, er blevet tvunget til at erkende, hvad verdensledere på denne uges topmøder i Asien allerede ved: USA’s præsident Barack Obama var sat udenfor i Hangzhou og Laos, med betydningsfulde nationer fra Eurasien og andre dele af verden, der lægger sig på linje med det Nye Paradigme, som tydeligst repræsenteres af Kinas program for eurasisk udvikling, ’Ét bælte, én vej’.

Onsdag mødtes statslederne fra de 10 ASEAN-lande med kinesiske ledere til det 25. ASEAN-Kina jubilæums-topmøde. Mødet var intet mindre end en total afvisning af Obamaregeringens forsøg på at udnytte den ulovlige afgørelse fra den Permanente Voldgiftsret i Haag om det Sydkinesiske Hav og drive en kile ind mellem Kina og dets naboer. ASEAN-lederne tilsluttede sig Kina og aflagde løfte om at udvikle reglerne for operationer for det Sydkinesiske Hav, og for fremme af programmerne for den Nye Silkevej og den Maritime Silkevej, der allerede har beriget utallige borgeres liv i området. Selv Forbes måtte indrømme, at Kinas investeringer i områdets infrastruktur har overtrumfet alle Obamaregeringens bravader.

Mellem friktionerne med de kinesiske myndigheder, der var vært for G20-topmødet i Hangzhou, og Obamas skænderi med den filippinske præsident Duterte over Obamas selvretfærdige planer om at presse den filippinske leder til at opgive at slå hårdt ned på narkohandlere og terrorister, har Obamas præsidentskabs endegyldigt sidste besøg i Stillehavsområdet sandeligt vist sig at være en absolut katastrofe.

På samme måde indikerer rapporter fra Mellemøsten, at den syriske regering med støtte fra Rusland og Iran har genoprettet belejringen af det sydøstlige Aleppo og afskåret oprørsstyrker fra verden udenfor. Den totale genindtagelse af Aleppo vil fundamentalt ændre kursen i den fem år lange krig og vil tvinge Obama til endnu engang at vende sig mod den russiske præsident Putin for at finde en udvej af den diplomatiske/militære fiasko.

Obama er tydeligvis slået i gulvet. Men han er endnu ikke dømt ude, og Lyndon LaRouche advarede i dag om, at Obama må holdes under uophørligt pres for at forhindre yderligere handlinger, såsom destabiliseringen af Brasilien, der var en pil, som sigtede på BRIKS’ hjerte.

Obama står over for endnu et umiddelbart forestående nederlag, der vil give resonans hele vejen til Riyadh og London. Formand for Repræsentanternes Hus Paul Ryan meddelte onsdag, under enormt, tværpolitisk pres, at JASTA-lovforslaget vil komme til afstemning fredag.

Loven om retsforfølgelse af sponsorerne af terrorisme (JASTA) vil gøre det muligt for ofre og pårørende, der mistede familiemedlemmer i terrorangrebene 11. september (2001), at retsforfølge det saudiske monarki. Som Daily Telegraph har rapporteret i sommerens løb, så vil, hvis JASTA vedtages, det britiske monarki også kunne retsforfølges for 11. september og andre handlinger, hvor briterne har beskyttet og sponsoreret international terrorisme. Præsident Obama har svoret at nedlægge veto imod JASTA, hvis det når frem til hans skrivebord – og det kunne meget vel ske på 15-års dagen for 11. september, hvor alles øjne er rettet mod New York City, hvor der vil blive en weekend med historiske mindebegivenheder, centreret omkring Schiller Instituttets kors deltagelse i fire mindekoncerter i New York og New Jersey, til ære for dem, der døde i angrebene 11. september og under de redningsaktioner, der fulgte.

Efter CDU’s slående nederlag i kansler Angela Merkels egen hjemstat i Tyskland, (Mecklenburg-Vorpommern), hænger Merkel-regeringen også ude i tovene. Det er afgørende, at der vedtages en stor ændring i økonomisk politik i Tyskland, og det kan kun ske i en post-Merkel, post-Schäuble situation. Krisen i Deutsche Bank bliver mere og mere åbenbar, med paralleller, der fremkommer i Thestreet.com og andre finansielle udgivelser, mellem Deutsche Bank og Lehman Brothers på tærsklen til bankerotten.

Vi er kommet til et virkeligt historisk øjeblik. Ledere, der repræsenterer et flertal af verdens befolkning samles omkring et nyt, fremtidsorienteret paradigme med samarbejde, og rækken af topmøder, der startede i Vladivostok og forsatte i Hangzhou og Laos har fremmet denne sag over al forventning.

Foto: Den filippinske præsident Rodrigo Roa Duterte tager erhvervsledere i hånden, under ASEAN Erhvervs- og Investerings-topmøde i Vientiane, Laos, den 6. september. [foto: KING RODRIGUEZ/PPD]

OBAMA ER EN FIASKO – Verden har brug for en ny finansiel arkitektur nu!

26. august, 2016 (Leder) – Uanset hvor meget tid, han har tilbage, må Obama afsættes, hvis der skal komme noget som helst fungerende nyt præsidentskab i USA i den kommende periode. Hans præsidentskab har været en fiasko, og én, der skaber ravage, død og kaos i USA og i verden gennem ulovlige krige, finansielle redningspakker (bailout), droneangreb, ødelæggelse af sundhedssektoren, narkotikarelaterede dødsfald, arbejdsløshed samt Obamas personlige psykotiske patologi. Samtidig med, at Eurasiens nationer under ledelse af præsident Putin konstruerer et nyt, strategisk og økonomisk system, må Obama fordømmes for det, han er: en ynkelig fiasko og en tjener for det døende, britiske monarki.

Det er det igangværende samarbejde mellem Rusland og Kinas lederskab om et nyt økonomisk system, samt presserende strukturelle ændringer i det globale finansielle system, der er af yderste betydning. Dette er den afgørende flanke for at undgå en atomar verdenskrig og finansielt kaos – resultaterne af Obamas mislykkede præsidentskab – og dette er også det toneangivende diskussionsemne blandt verdens ledere ved de mange internationale topmøder, der skal finde sted i løbet september og oktober måned.

Kinas præsident Xi Jinping har til hensigt at sætte det afgørende spørgsmål om et nyt, globalt, økonomisk og finansielt system på dagsordenen for det kommende G20-topmøde i Hangzhou, Kina. De officielle kinesiske medier, fulgt af russiske top-analytikere, har gjort det klart, at ethvert sådant nyt og funktionsdygtigt system må omfatte USA – hvilket betyder, at USA må opgive sine illusioner om at regere en unipolær verden, der ikke længere eksisterer, og begynde at samarbejde med store nationer om et nyt og retfærdigt, økonomisk system.

Dette blev d. 24. august fremhævet i et telegram fra Kinas officielle nyhedsbureau Xinhua, med titlen »Interview: Rusland og Kina bør samarbejde i G20-regi om at tackle udfordringer.« Andrey Kortunov, generaldirektør for det Russiske Råd for Internationale Anliggender, som står i tæt forbindelse med det Russiske Udenrigsministerium, sagde: »Jo længere, disse reformer udskydes, desto højere risiko er der for nye kriser og ustabilitet i verdensøkonomien.« Han tilføjede senere, »Hvis Beijing og Moskva i dag tilbyder deres koncept for stabilitet til det internationale samfund, er det ikke bare tomme ord, men forslag baseret på mange succesfulde erfaringer.« Han bemærkede, at USA kunne være »en kompleks og undertiden uforudsigelig partner«, men ikke desto mindre »bør både Rusland og Kina konsekvent søge fælles fodslag med Washington og undgå kriser, uden at gøre indrømmelser på principielle spørgsmål«.

En reportage i Xinhua på samme dag, også vedrørende G20, angreb »over-afhængighed af pengepolitikken« og fokus på »markeder« i modsætning til »nationer« – på bekostning af en politik, der sigter mod reel, fysisk-økonomisk vækst og er baseret på teknologisk innovation. »Kina vil bruge konferencen til at anspore til dialog mellem udviklede lande og udviklingslande omkring potentialet for at skabe vækst gennem reformer og innovation.«

Wall Street Journal har antydet, at det var på anmodning af Kina, at den Internationale Betalingsbank (BIS) i en nyligt udsendt rapport advarer om, at der på nuværende tidspunkt ikke er nogen mekanismer på plads, der kan forhindre en eksplosion af den globale, finansielle derivatboble på mere end $600 billioner, hvis nogen større spiller skulle gå i betalingsstandsning. I noget, der kun kan betegnes som en smertelig underdrivelse, blev Business Insider tvunget til at indrømme, at resultaterne af denne undersøgelse »er lettere skræmmende«, for, hvis det ikke lykkes for derivat-handelshuse at håndtere en krise, så bliver derivater til »u-eksploderede atombomber, der putter sig dybt i det finansielle system«. Wall Street Journal fortsætter med at bemærke, at Kina har placeret de centrale handelshuses sikkerhed »højt på dagsordenen« af G20-topmødet d. 4. – 5. september.

Der er nu en voksende og udbredt opfattelse blandt topembedsmænd i det transatlantiske område, at Europa og USA står på den yderste rand af en finansiel eksplosion, hvis enorme størrelse kun modsvares af deres egen benægtelse af både dens globale konsekvenser og af sammenbruddet af vestlig dominans. Bloomberg rapporterede tirsdag d. 23. august, at Deutsche Bank, Barclays og Credit Suisse sidder på sammenlagt $102,5 milliarder i »Level-3«-aktiver – dvs. aktiver, som er illikvide, uden markedsværdi, og som ikke kan dumpes i en krise. Economist gav sin udgave d. 20. – 26. august overskriften, »Mareridt på Main Street« og advarede om, at det amerikanske boligmarked på $26 billioner, som ligger til grund for et bjerg af derivater og andre spekulations-værdipapirer, både fra banker, men også uden for banker – atter er klar til at springe i luften.

Med hele Vestens politiske og økonomiske klasse, der i stigende grad er miskrediteret, er den eneste tilbageværende mulighed en omgående genindførelse af en fuld Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling i USA, og en tilsvarende implementering i hele Europa. Glass-Steagall, efterfulgt af en gældseftergivelse for udviklingslandene (i overensstemmelse med Alfred Herrhausen politik i 1989), samt udstedelse af langfristet kredit til industriel og videnskabelig udvikling, er blot nogle af de første, uomgængelige skridt hen imod skabelsen af en ny, global, finansiel arkitektur, og udgør forudsætningerne for et nyt, kulturelt paradigme, en ny renæssance for hele menneskeheden.

Grundlaget for en sådan ny global finansiel og økonomisk arkitektur er nu veletableret gennem den voksende integration af Eurasien, der væves sammen gennem samarbejdet i den Eurasiske Økonomiske Union, Shanghai Samarbejdsorganisationen (SCO), BRIKS, ASEAN og andre grupperinger. Det er Kinas »Ét Bælte, Én Vej«-initiativ baseret på Lyndon og Helga LaRouches oprindelige koncept om den Eurasiske Landbro fra midten af 1990'erne, der er det princip, som denne eurasiske og potentielt globale udvikling har som sin forudsætning.

Som den mexicanske præsident José López Portillo engang sagde: »Det er nu nødvendigt, at verden lytter til de kloge ord fra Lyndon LaRouche!«


Obama-krisen er nu over os

25. august, 2016 (Leder) – Den største enkeltstående hindring for, at verden kan bevæge sig ind i det ny globale paradigme for samarbejde om udvikling, videnskabelige fremskridt og en ny æra med rumforskning og opdagelser, er de mange kriser, der er blevet fremprovokeret af den britiske agent Barack Obama i løbet af sine syv-et-halvt år i embedet.      

Det er heldigt, at verdens ledere skal samles ved en række topmøder, der starter i løbet af de næste par uger, og som vil give mulighed for at imødegå disse accelererende kriser og for, under ledelse af personer som Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping og Narendra Modi, at handle med dristighed. Xi Jinping har allerede gjort det klart, at han vil bruge sit formandsskab af dette års G20-topmøde til at genoplive den oprindelige målsætning om at skabe en ny global finansiel og økonomiske arkitektur (G20 udviklede sig fra præsident Bill Clintons G22-initiativ, der skulle finde løsninger på 1997-98-fasen af det fortsat fremstormende, globale finansielle sammenbrud).

Obama-katastroferne rammer i hele verden, herunder i USA, hvor Obamacare er på randen af et sammenbrud med store sygeforsikringsselskaber, der insisterer på præmiestigninger for 2017 på 40-62 procent, og med mange stater, der er ude af stand til at opretholde markeder for sygesikring, som Obama ellers hævdede ville reducere forsikringssatserne og udvide dækningen.

Obamas forfejlede politik i Mellemøsten og Nordafrika fortsætter med at være en hårfin udløser for en større krig med Rusland. Embedsmænd i Pentagon har udstedt direkte trusler om at nedskyde russiske og syriske fly, hvis de truer amerikanske specialstyrker, der opererer med syriske oprørsgrupper inde i syrisk territorium – en åbenlys krænkelse af syrisk suverænitet.  I går nåede den tåbelige Obama-politik et absolut lavpunkt, med amerikanske styrker, der yder støtte til en tyrkisk-ledet invasion af det nordlige Syrien til bekæmpelse af bade ISIS og kurdiske krigere – som også er støttet af amerikansk militærpersonel. Den russiske udenrigsminister Sergei Lavrov, som skal mødes med den amerikanske udenrigsminister John Kerry i Geneve på fredag og lørdag, har gjort det klart, at der ikke kan blive nogen fælles amerikansk-russisk krig mod Islamisk Stat, med mindre USA gør det klart, at Washington ikke støtter Al Qaeda-Nusra Front, der for nyligt ændrede navn og hævder at have droppet sine bånd til Al Qaeda.

I det asiatiske Stillehavsområde har indsættelsen af det amerikanske THAAD missilforsvarssystem i Sydkorea øget risikoen for krig i dette omskiftelige område. USA og Sydkorea udfører nu fælles øvelser ud for den koreanske kyst, øvelser, der har foranlediget Nordkorea til at udføre en prøveaffyring af et ubådsbaseret missil, der landede i Japans ADIZ i det Østkinesiske Hav (Air Defense Identification Zone; luftforsvars-identifikationszone).

På trods af klare beviser for, at saudierne i deres krig mod Yemen begår folkemord, så fortsætter USA med at levere afgørende støtte til den saudiske krigskoalition og fortsætter med at sælge for hundreder af milliarder dollars våben til kongeriget – selv efter udgivelsen af de 28 sider af den oprindelige Fælles Kongresundersøgelsesrapport om 11. september, der dokumenterede omfattende støtte fra det saudiske regime til de terrorister, der angreb World Trade Center og Pentagon.

Alt, hvad præsident Obama har rørt ved, siden han tiltrådte embedet, har vist sig at være katastrofalt, og den kumulative effekt af hans krigspolitik og hans monetære og økonomiske politik har bragt verden på randen af katastrofe.

På samme tid har Ruslands, Kinas, Indiens og andre eurasiske landes indsats skabt nye muligheder for økonomisk vækst gennem projekter, der er godt i gang, under Kinas program for Ét bælte, Én vej, som nu også er vedtaget af den Eurasiske Økonomiske Union, og som ASEAN-nationerne og andre nu også i stigende grad tilslutter sig.
Tiden for at dumpe Obama er for længst overskredet, og sammen med ham også hans britisk-dikterede politik.

Foto: Et nyt paradigme er inden for menneskehedens rækkevidde, hvis Obama endelig fjernes fra embedet før valget. [Officielt Hvide Hus-foto af Pete Souza]

Obama bakker åbent op om al-Qaedas overtagelse af Syrien

7. august, 2016 (Leder) – I den afgørende kamp om Aleppo er det blevet klart og offentligt, at Barack Obamas Hvide Hus, Forsvarsministerium og Udenrigsministerium – og FN ambassadør – støtter al-Qaedas overtagelse af Syriens største by, den sandsynlige »platform« for, at al-Qaeda kan ødelægge Syriens regering og overtage magten. Obama kræver, at den syriske regering ophæver belejringen af al-Nusra/al-Qaeda i det østlige Aleppo, en belejring, der ellers rent faktisk kunne gøre en ende på truslen om et »terrorist-Kalifat« i hele Mellemøsten. Obama og Hillary Clintons støtter i pressekorpset kalder regeringens omringning af al-Qaeda for et angreb på Aleppos civilbefolkning og opmuntrer til, at jihadisterne bryder den. Obamas FN-ambassadør Samantha Power forlanger offentligt, at civile ikke benytter lejligheden til at forlade det østlige Aleppo, men i stedet bliver der med deres »forsvarere« al-Qaeda, mens USA kræver, at Rusland indvilger i at få belejringen ophævet.

Endnu engang er Obama og Hillarys »anti-terror«-politik et bedrageri med henblik på at skabe mere krig. Deres krigspolitik udklækker og støtter endog mere terrorisme, og bakker deres »allierede« Saudi-Arabien og »Londonistan« op i sponsorering af terrorisme. FN-ambassadør Power er en fuldstændig miskrediteret fortaler for Obamas ret til at vælte enhver regering i verden gennem krig, for hans egne »humanitære« formåls skyld.

Obamas egentlige »humanitære formål« er, at konfrontere og provokere Putins Rusland, og Kina, endog så langt som til global krig. Hele Obamas præsidentskab er et bedrageri. Og Hillary Clinton burde skamme sig over, hvad hun er blevet til, mens hun har arbejdet for Obama.

Obamas Hvide Hus tager dette seneste, totalt foragtelige og potentielt fatale skridt, mens det transatlantiske finansielle system endnu engang er ved at krakke. Tysklands enorme Deutsche Bank er blot den bank, der er nærmest bunden i en malstrøm af kollapsende spekulativ gæld, der trækker alle Europas og USA’s store banker ned. Mere pengetrykning og »lempelser« fra centralbankernes side på dette tidspunkt, vil blot accelerere malstrømmen.

Det må ikke ske, at den eneste »løsning« er at lade Eurasiens magter idømmes global krig som straf for fortsat at vokse og øge deres produktivitet.

Vi behøver et nyt paradigme, gennem hvilket nationer samarbejder om vækst, arbejdsstyrkens produktivitet og videnskabeligt fremskridt for menneskeheden. Vi behøver et nyt præsidentskab i USA, der forpligter sig til et sådant paradigme.

Helga Zepp-LaRouches Schiller Institut, der har arrangeret snesevis af konferencer i hele verden for dette nye paradigme, udgiver i dag som brochure, sin »Nyt Paradigme«-konference fra 25. – 26. juni i Berlin.

Cirkulér omgående denne brochure i bredest muligt omfang. Som Zepp-LaRouche bemærkede søndag, i forbindelse med en førende, tysk økonoms opfordring til nød-nationalisering af Deutsche Bank: »Dette system går sin undergang i møde. Lad være med at føle selvtilfredshed over det. For tidsrammen er virkelig ’hvad øjeblik, det skal være’.«

Foto: Før-og-efter-fotos af den Store Moske i Aleppo, Syrien. Foto venligst tilladt af Olympia Restaurants Før-og-Efter-fotoalbum. [facebook.com/Olympia.Rest/photos/?tab=album&album_id=770898579647858]

Det Britiske Imperium står for fald
– Obama skal væk først

31. juli 2016 (Leder) – Det Britiske Imperiums oligarker, både dem i London og dem i Washington og på Wall Street, er i panik. Obama begynder at smuldre, alt imens forsøget på at skabe et præsidentvalg i USA ud af lort har skabt en sådan stank, at hele partisystemet er ved at falde fra hinanden. På den anden side har Vladimir Putin bevist, at han er en sand leder for mennesker og nationer, og som er i stand til at handle på en måde, som den store tyske digter Friedrich Schiller, der engang var kendt i Amerika som »Frihedens Poet«, identificerede som, at vi på én og samme tid må være patrioter for vores nation og verdensborgere.

Obama, så vel som Bush, Cheney og Tony Blair, er blevet afsløret som krigsforbrydere og kolleger til det britisk/saudiske terrorapparat, gennem en kombination af Chilcot-kommissionens rapport i Storbritannien og offentliggørelsen af det hidtil hemmeligholdte, 28-sider lange kapitel af den Fælles Kongres-efterretningsrapport om terrorangrebet i USA den 11. september [2001].

I dag sagde Lyndon LaRouche, at »vindersiden allerede er blevet afgjort – ikke fuldstændigt, men i det væsentlige – under Putins ledelse. Putin har udført den opgave, han havde forpligtet sig til at udføre, og nu, hvor et voksende antal andre personer, især i Tyskland, støtter ham, er sejren bogstavelig talt for hånden. Putin har fortjent den«.

Ikke sådan, at Obama-klonerne ikke gør deres bedste for at starte en atomkrig. Tidligere forsvarsminister i Obamas regering og chef for CIA, Leon Panetta, sagde i sidste uge til det Demokratiske Konvent, at Putin var en »diktator«, som Hillary Clinton vil vide at håndtere. Panettas stabschef i både CIA og DOD, Jeremy Bash, en toprådgiver til Hillary Clinton, gik direkte til selveste ’Babylons Hore’, i et eksklusivt interview med Londonavisen The Telegraph, hvor han grundlæggende set erklærede krig mod det i stigende grad succesfulde samarbejde mellem Ruslands præsident Putin, den russiske udenrigsminister Sergei Lavrov og USA’s udenrigsminister John Kerry om at besejre terrorisme i Syrien og på globalt plan, og således yderligere demonstrerer den totale splittelse i Obamaregeringen. Bash sagde, at Clinton vil arbejde for at tvinge præsident Bashar al-Assad »ud derfra«, og at en præsident Hillary Clinton som første punkt på sin dagsorden ville gennemføre en total »revidering af politikken over for Syrien«. Planen er her at sabotere Kerry-Lavrov-initiativet nu og her, ikke engang i fremtiden i løbet af den næste regering, ligesom også den nuværende forsvarsminister Ashton Carter i sidste uge modarbejdede Kerrys indsats sammen med Lavrov og med bestemthed erklærede, at en fjernelse af Assad er hans (Carters) første prioritet, og at han først derefter vil bekymre sig om ISIS, al-Nusra eller andre terroristgrupper.

Men dette er alt sammen et svindelnummer, understregede LaRouche i dag. Hillary Clinton-krigsholdet har slet ikke den nødvendige kapacitet til at gøre det – som kun lige undlader at indlede Tredje Verdenskrig – som de truer med at gøre. Deres plan er simpelt hen at ødelægge alle skridt henimod et nederlag for de saudiskkontrollerede terrorister, samtidig med, at de desperat prøver at ødelægge det nye paradigme, centreret omkring det kinesisk-russiske partnerskab og den Nye Silkevejsproces med global udvikling. Det transatlantiske banksystem, der blev underkastet falske »stresstests« kl. 22 om aftenen sidste fredag, for at gøre det muligt hen over weekenden at sammenklistre en facade, bestående af en ny bail-out, står over for en eksplosion mandag morgen, eller snarest derefter. Imperiet stoltserer rundt i den bare skjorte.

De er ved at gå bankerot. I Kina i den forgangne weekend ko-sponsorerede flere førende institutioner, som forberedelse til G20 stats- og regeringschef-topmødet, der skal afholdes den 4. – 5. september i Kina, et T20 (Think-20) Forum, med 500 akademiske eksperter fra 25 lande, omkring temaet om »at opbygge nye, globale relationer – nye dynamikker, ny vitalitet og nye udsigter«. Blandt talerne var Helga Zepp-LaRouche, der talte om det presserende nødvendige i at »Opbygge nye, globale relationer« på basis af den Nye Silkevejs perspektiv om en »win-win«-udvikling for alle nationer, som det nødvendige grundlag for at afslutte den fremstormende trussel om global krig og i stedet implementere en ny æra med ægte fred og udvikling internationalt.

Lyndon LaRouche fremførte i dag med bestemthed, at vi må inspirere folk til at forstå deres eget intellekts kapacitet til at skabe en vision om fremtiden, til at se, hvor betydningsfulde deres liv er for menneskeheden mht. at opnå det, som vi ellers måske ikke vil opnå. »Vi er nu meget tæt på at vinde krigen imod det Britiske Imperium«, sagde han.

Han bemærkede også, at folk må opgive denne dødbringende mentalitet med at »være praktisk« (pragmatisk) i dette øjeblik, hvor civilisationen er i krise. LaRouche vil ikke stille op som præsidentkandidat, men han vil gøre alt, hvad der står i hans magt, for i den kommende periode at udforme en regeringspolitik.

Foto: »POTUS møder Rembrandt. Præsidenten kigger på ’Rembrandts selvportræt som apostlen Paulus’ under en rundvisning i Æresgalleriet på Rijksmusæet i Amsterdam, Holland.« 24. marts, 2014 (Officielt foto fra Det Hvide Hus af Pete Souza)

(POTUS = Præsident Of The United States)



Lyndon LaRouche stiller spørgsmålet:
Er amerikanerne parate til at komme
sammen igen for at genoverveje
deres skæbne?

9. juli 2016 – Diane Sare, medlem af LaRouchePAC’s Komite for Politisk Strategi, indledte lørdag mødet ’Dialog med Manhattan-projektet’ med følgende indlæg (uddrag):

Diane Sare: Jeg gentager lige: Folk, der har fulgt os på websiden, har set dette i morgenens rapport og hørt det med LaRouches egne ord i går aftes på webcastet (Fredags-webcast).

Men i en diskussion torsdag med medlemmer af Policy Committee og nogle af vore folk i efterretningsteamet, som forberedelse til webcastet, sagde han: »Manhattan-systemet er parat til at blive anvendt. Det må bruges og må igangsætte en bølgebevægelse i hele USA. Det kan vi sandsynligvis gøre.« Han sagde, at det spørgsmål, der lå på bordet, er, »Vil Obama bombe verden, eller vil han opgive, eller noget andet midt imellem?«

Dette skal delvis ses i sammenhæng med Chilcot-kommissionens rapport om Tony Blair, som folk måske er bekendt med, hvor det grundlæggende set nu er kommet frem, at Blair var skyldig i at have lanceret og organiseret en aggressionskrig; en aggressionsskrig er en forbrydelse under Nürnberg-charteret. Det er i strid med FN’s resolutioner; det er en overtrædelse af international lov. Krig må kun bruges som den absolut sidste udvej, og Chilcot-kommissionen fandt, at det ikke var tilfældet; med andre ord, at krigen var unødvendig. Tony Blair er de facto destrueret, og avisen The London Guardian havde en artikel torsdag med hovedoverskriften, »Krigen i Irak var ikke en bommert eller en fejltagelse, den var en forbrydelse«. Første linje lyder, »Tony Blair er fordømt. Vi har set hvidvaskning af etablissementet i fortiden. Fra Blodige Søndag til Hillsborough har autoriteterne konspireret for at kvæle sandheden i de magtfuldes interesse, men ikke denne gang. Chilcot-undersøgelsen var ved at få en satirisk bibetydning for en farce, hvor det tog lang tid at udføre en opgave, men Sir John vil med sikkerhed gå over i historien som den mand, der leverede den mest omfattende ødelæggende dom over nogen moderne premierminister.« Og artiklen fortsætter med at diskutere alle de ulykker, menneskeheden har været udsat for som resultat af denne unødvendige, illegale aggressionskrig, inklusive de 60 millioner flygtninge.

Så Blair er færdig. Og spørgsmålet er så, er Obama færdig? Det er i denne sammenhæng, at LaRouche stillede spørgsmålet, »Vil Obama lancere en atomkrig, vil han opgive, eller vil han gøre noget midt imellem?« Og han sagde, »vi må lukke dette ned, vi må lukke dette politiske fremstød for krig ned, vi må lukke det ned nu, og vi må sætte hårdt ind«. Han sagde, »vi har en forpligtelse til at skabe et nyt økonomisk system, der bidrager til de behov, som findes i den amerikanske befolkning og andetsteds.« Og så spurgte han, »er det amerikanske folk parat til at komme sammen igen for at genoverveje sin skæbne?«

Jeg mener, dette virkelig er det spørgsmål, vi bør stille os selv, for, hvad er vores skæbne, vores bestemmelse? Hvad mener I, at jeres skæbne er? Hvorfor skulle I tage det op til genovervejelse? Jeg sagde i går aftes på webcastet, at det slog mig, at Alexander Hamilton (USA’s første finansminister, –red.) voksede op i en koloni, britisk, hollandsk sukkerplantage, en slavekoloni i Caribien; han kommer til USA, og USA er en koloni, ikke, at der ikke er folk her, ekstremt betydningsfulde personer som Benjamin Franklin og Mathers og andre med grundlæggende ideer, men en nation er ikke blevet skabt. Og Alexander Hamilton har allerede i sit hoved en idé om, hvad fremtiden bør være, og hvad tanken om en republik bør være, og som er baseret på et grundlæggende begreb om, hvad det vil sige at være et menneskeligt væsen. Spørgsmålet om menneskets værdighed.

Se hele webcastet, ’The Manhattan Project’ fra 9. juli.    

Se feature-video: ’The Two Massachussetts’ med en historisk gennemgang af udviklingen fra Amerika som en koloni og til en republik, 18. min. Forord af Lyndon LaRouche.

Følg med i den løbende oversættelse af Phil Rubinsteins foredrag på vores kontor i København, om Chilcot-rapporten og kreativitetens nødvendighed, God søndag!


Tiden er inde til at sætte hårdt ind for at lukke Obamas krig ned.
LaRouchePAC Internationale fredags-webcast, 8. juli 2016

Lyndon LaRouche (lydklip): »Vil Obama bombe verden, eller vil Obama opgive? Eller vil han gøre noget andet, midt imellem? Pointen er, når man ser på kendsgerningerne, på de samme personer, så ville jeg sige, at spørgsmålet her er: Luk det her ned! Luk denne krig ned! Luk krigen, og alt, hvad den repræsenterer, ned, nu! Vi har denne ting fra Storbritannien, vi har andre ting i Europa, og ting i andre dele af verden. Jeg tror, at tiden er kommet til at sætte hårdt ind, og effektivt, for at lukke denne krig ned! Luk denne form for krigsførelse, luk det ned!

Hvilket betyder, at vi må skabe et økonomisk system, der vil bidrage til befolkningens behov, både i USA og andetsteds. Spørgsmålet er derfor ikke krig; spørgsmålet er: Er befolkningen i USA parate til at samle sig og genoverveje deres skæbne? Er de villige til at skabe et system, hvor mennesker skaber rigdom, og sørge for, at dette bliver svaret, alternativet til det, der f.eks. finder sted i USA – alle de mennesker, der er ved at uddø eller lider, osv., som de gør nu?

Derfor, vil vi finde alternativet til denne og lignende former for nonsens? Det er spørgsmålet. Jeg mener, at vi virkelig må være meget hårde med dette og få en virkelig solid fremgangsmåde og sige, at, nu gør vi det her for at redde civilisationen, på basis af, hvad Manhattan (projektet) kan tilbyde.

Vi har USA. USA kan vendes omkring, noget langsomt nu, men vi har evnen til at vende tingene rundt, med vores teknologi, der også er i en forfærdelig forfatning. Men vi har nok til at stille uret tilbage, til at gøre en ende på denne evindelige frygt og ondskab. Vi må forsvare USA, dvs. befolkningen i USA, ved at genoprette den form for system i USA, som behøves omgående, for folk i hele USA, og vi må tilskynde andre nationer til at acceptere det samme valg. Jeg mener, det kan gøres.«     


LaRouche PAC Friday Webcast, July 8, 2016

        MATTHEW OGDEN:  Good evening! It's July 8th, 2016. My name
is Matthew Ogden, and you're joining us for our weekly Friday
evening webcast with larouchepac.com. I'm joined in the studio
today by Megan Beets, from the LaRouche PAC Science Team; and I'm
joined via video by two members of our Policy Committee, Diane
Sare, from the New York City Manhattan Project; and Kesha Rogers,
from Houston, TX.
        We're going to begin our webcast tonight with a very
hard-hitting and important clip from a discussion that we had
with Mr. LaRouche yesterday. This is an audio recording of some
remarks that Mr. LaRouche had, and I think this is going to
inform the discussion that we'll be having here tonight.

        LYNDON LAROUCHE (audio clip): Is Obama going to bomb the
world, or is Obama going to give up? Or is going to do something
else, in the middle? The point is, I would say that the issue
here, when you look at the facts, the same people, the question
would be: shut this thing down! Shut this war down! Shut down the
war and what it represents, now! You've got the thing from
Britain, you've got things in Europe otherwise, you've got the
things in other parts of the world. I think the time has come to
{push hard}, and effectively, to shut this war down! Shut this
kind of warfare, shut it down!
        Which means there's an obligation to create an economic
system which will contribute to the needs of the population, both
in the United States and elsewhere. Therefore the question is not
war; the question is: Are the people of the United States
prepared to reassemble themselves, and reconsider their destiny?
Are they willing to create a system of creation of wealth by
people, and have that thing become the answer, the alternative,
to what's happening, for instance, in the United States–all the
people who are dying out or suffering, and so forth, as now?
        Therefore, are we going to find the alternative to that kind
of nonsense, and similar kinds of nonsense? That's the question.
I think we've really got to go hard on this thing, and get a real
solid approach to say we are now going to do the thing to save
civilization, on the basis of what Manhattan has to offer.
        We've got the United States. The United States can be turned
around, somewhat slowly now, but we've got the ability to turn,
with our technology, which is also in terrible shape. But we've
got enough to {turn the clock around}, to end this perpetual fear
and evil. We've got to defend the United States, in the sense of
the people of the United States, by restoring the kind of system,
{in the United States}, which is needed for the people
{immediately} throughout the United States, and to encourage
other nations to accept the same option. {I think it can be

        OGDEN:  Wonderful! Thank you very much for playing that
clip. We also have a few other very significant things that
happened this week. Obviously, Mr. LaRouche just responded, in
the remarks that you heard, to the developments that are
occurring in Britain. There's a rejection of the entire status
quo, which can be seen very clearly from the Brexit, and then the
{unpredictable} fallout that's happening around that. But also
you have the release of the Chilcot Inquiry Report, which really
just confirms that [former British Prime Minister] Tony Blair is,
in fact, a war criminal, and everybody else who went to war in
Iraq based on false premises, deserves to be prosecuted along
those lines.
        Elsewhere in that discussion, Mr. LaRouche laid out a very
clear continuity of the process, beginning with the Al-Yamamah
deal, the decision by [Saudi] Prince Bandar and [then British
Prime Minister] Margaret Thatcher and George Bush, Sr., at that
time, to initiate this irregular warfare operation. In that case,
it was against Russia, proceeding through to the September 11th
attacks, the cover-up of those attacks, (which is what the 28
pages is concerning), and then the entire process of
"regime-change warfare" that was premised on that lie: Tony
Blair's Iraq War operation; Obama's overthrow of the government
of Libya; and then the attempted overthrow of the government in
Syria. That is the next phase in that process. The Bush/Cheney
phase, the Tony Blair phase, the Obama phase; and now you have
the escalation to the point of the danger of World War III — the
doubling down by Obama this week on his aggressive warfare
operation against Russia, in terms of the build-up of the NATO
troop presence in Europe, and also the confrontations in the
South China Sea, which risk the outbreak of World War III in that
region of the world as well.
        There was another very significant event that occurred in
Washington, DC this week. Very unique, in the "belly of the
beast," which was sponsored by a Chinese organization, the
Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies and the National
Institute of the South China Sea Studies. It also included very
significant, prominent participation, by Bill Jones, the
Washington Bureau Chief for {Executive Intelligence Review}, who
was on the speaking panel. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the founder of
the Schiller Institute, was also present, and made a very crucial
        We would also like to play a very short video clip from that
event, to give you a little bit more of a sense of the context
for our upcoming discussion.

        HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE (video clip):  My name is Helga
Zepp-LaRouche. I'm the President of the Schiller Institute. I
have two questions. One I would like to ask [U.S. Naval Academy]
Professor [Brian] Mulvaney. The United States itself has
recognized the historical rights of China in the past. For
example, there's several State Department memorandums, from 1943
and 1944, which clearly say that the United States and the
Philippines have no claims to the islands, and, basically, that
they were China's historical territory — a position that was
then reversed at the [1951] San Francisco Peace Conference. But
that is clearly the source of all this trouble. Why is the United
States not recognizing the historical rights of China? That's my
first question.
        My second question is more general. There are many military
experts internationally who are warning that the situation today
is more dangerous than during the height of the Cold War.
Furthermore, we are about to experience another financial crash
worse than 2008. I think the terrorist activities, especially of
the last two weeks, in Bangladesh, Turkey, Indonesia, European
countries, clearly shows terrorism is out of control. Actually
with the Brexit, the European Union is in a process of
disintegration, very rapidly.
        My question is: Can mankind not rise to a higher level of
cooperation and go for a new paradigm, where geopolitics is
overcome, and replaced by the common aims of mankind? The world
is in dire need for the United States and China to work together,
because I think without the two countries joining hands, the
world is in trouble. So, the question is: Can the world move to a
new paradigm of peaceful cooperation for the future tasks of all

PROF. BRIAN MULVANEY:  I totally disagree. I don't think we are
anywhere near large-scale conflict. This is not the Cold War.
This is not the Cuban Missile Crisis. China and the United States
are not about to go to war. At the absolute very worst, there may
be some sort of crisis that erupts, and it's contained, in the
South China Sea. It will be small, if at all. I think it will be
completely, it is completely, avoidable, and I personally
believe it will be avoided, and that, hopefully, cooler heads
will prevail. So, I disagree with the premise of the fact that
this is a more dangerous time than we've seen in a long time.
        As far as humanity goes, I am hopeful. Hopefully, Truth,
Liberty, and Democracy can brave throughout the world, and
everyone can come together in great harmony. Unfortunately, the
history of mankind doesn't seem to bear that out, but we do keep
getting better, and, probably not in my lifetime, but perhaps
down the road.

        BILL JONES:  When they talk about the "rule of law," you
have to ask, "Whose law, and who sets it?" The United States
sends the thing, as President Obama said it, with regard to the
TPP [Trans-Pacific Partnership Treaty], "We've got to make the
rules!" But the world is much different now. There are many
different countries. Other countries also have a say in making
the rules. As long as, I think, the idea is, what is for the good
of the people, this is what should determine the rule of law. I
think China is completely consistent with that in their
attitude, if they reject this arbitration.
        Let me also say something on that. It's very important that
these dialogues occur, because it's the only way that each side
can really understand what the other is talking about. It doesn't
necessarily change people, but over the long term, I think it has
a positive effect. Here in the United States, the mainstream, I
would agree; that is, I would consider it somewhat "hard line."
The mainstream is influenced by the mass-media, by the press. You
read the {New York Times}. Look, I read the {New York Times}
every day. I have not yet found, over the last ten years, an
article in the {New York Times} which was positive towards China.
[laughter] Of course, almost every day, there are articles on
China. [Responding to the audience laughter] I read it pretty
closely. I don't think I have missed any article.
        So, that a lot of what goes on between the discussion of
experts, is not effective, because of what I said, that the media
really distorts China's actual view. But, I'll also say, in the
United States, there has generally, throughout the years, been
positive attitudes towards China, among the general population.
The United States was not a colonial power. We had the
Philippines, and Franklin Roosevelt gave them their independence.
We were an anti-colonial power. This is why we were, over 200
years, very good friends with China. And it's only recently, I
would say in the post-Cold War period in particular, where the
United States remained the major military power; that a new
attitude was adopted, away from Franklin Roosevelt's Dialogue of
Nations, which he tried to create in the last days of his life
and didn't quite succeed because he died so early; and that it
had become more and more like what I call a British Imperial
attitude: we are the Lords of the Seas, and therefore we control
it, because we've got the guns and the boats and everything else.
        That has affected I would say the "think-tank class," or the
"intellectual class," [which] is permeated with this; whereas the
general population is not. So, I think what has to be done is
there has to be more of this "meeting of dialogues," not at an
experts' level so much, but at the people-to-people level, so
that people here in the U.S. who are reading the {New York Times}
can go to China and say, "Boy, the {New York Times} really has a
wrong foot, entirely! They don't get it!" And they would see it.
I think also what China's doing with the Belt and Road, if it
were done here, if we would agree, if they would build high-speed
rail here, people would have a different attitude toward China.

        OGDEN:  I think that provides a very good foundation for a
productive discussion. The very first point that Mr. LaRouche
made in the beginning was, "Are the citizens of the United States
willing to re-assess themselves, re-assemble themselves, and
re-consider their destiny? Are we going to allow this war to
happen, or are we going to shut it down? Are we going to save
civilization?" I think that's the question on the table.

        DIANE SARE:  Well, he did put a particular — as we heard —
very strong emphasis on Manhattan; and I think there are a number
of aspects to that.  One, perhaps the biggest, is the question of
Alexander Hamilton. And I was just reflecting as we heard these
comments from these people, this character from the US Naval War
College, who was somewhat hostile in the way he pounced on Mrs.
LaRouche's question; and then you hear his view of mankind.  It
indicates a lack of ability to think of the future or to be
creative, because if you think about Einstein or you think about
Kepler, or you think about Hamilton, for example.  What does
Hamilton come from?  He was on a British-colonized,
Dutch-colonized plantation place in the Caribbean, where he saw
the real evils of slavery and usury firsthand.  He comes to the
United States, which is a colony of the British Empire, and
nonetheless, has a very clear vision of how mankind {should} live
without ever having actually experienced it himself.  And that is
really unique.
        And if we think about Einstein and the question of
gravitational waves, similarly he was able to think through,
without the measuring instruments that we've had only recently,
but in his mind he said, no, this must be the principle of
ordering of the universe; and similarly Kepler's thinking.  And
it's not different from the question of human economics and the
development of mankind as a species that it is the natural state
that we become better, more intelligent, live longer, healthier,
and you have more of us with a higher standard of living; that is
actually the natural state of human affairs.  Many people today
have trouble thinking of this because the entire system has been
geared against creativity, and has been set up to crush the
ability to actually think of unthought-of thoughts; to think of
something new.  Instead, people go with a Bertrand Russell
algebraic approach that everything has to follow in a sequence of
what it's been doing.  And I would say it's that outlook that has
led us to have a record number of suicides, a record number of
heroin overdoses, and a collapse; and people seemingly lacking
the vision to actually solve it.  And I think it's just so
crucial that people take note of what just occurred at this
conference organized by Mrs. LaRouche, that she and her husband
were at in Berlin.  They actually don't operate in the way that
you may have been thinking that they do for most of your life.

MEGAN BEETS:  Well, I had a similar thought, Diane, listening to
the counterpoint between Helga's question and the answer by the
gentleman on the podium there.  The question raised — maybe not
in these words — but the question before us all now is, is
mankind capable of rising to the level of reason?  Is society
capable of assuming a state of existence as we're seeing and
calling for in this New Paradigm which has never happened before.
If you look back in history, people like Friedrich Schiller was
facing the same question with the failure of the potential and
the opportunity of the French Revolution which failed.  And he's
looking at the question of can mankind actually educate itself to
be rid of the characteristic of barbarism within society for
good.  Can there actually be a perpetual renaissance?  And two
other people who obviously contemplated this and had a certain
optimistic vision of this, are Helga Zepp-LaRouche herself, and
also Krafft Ehricke, who had a completely optimistic view of the
future of mankind in space; and knew that it would only come
about through an aesthetical education of society.  I think it is
a very challenging view for people today to contemplate the
notion that it is possible to move beyond this childishness of
mankind into a state where warfare and geopolitics are things of
the past, and are no longer part of human society.  I think that
does require exactly what you said: the tapping into the
creativity of the population, as Hamilton recognized was the
basis of economics, and what LaRouche has based his economic
discoveries on — the human mind's ability to create that which
never existed before.

        KESHA ROGERS:  I think it's important to look at what Mr.
LaRouche laid out a few  years ago in June of 2014, as the
alternative and the only option for saving the United States and
the survival of mankind.  Which now really has to be looked at in
an even greater context in terms of the role of the United States
in cooperation with nations such as Russia and China, around
meeting the common aims of mankind as Mrs. LaRouche indicated.
Mr. LaRouche has laid out four fundamental principles — really
scientific principles and  Constitutional principles as he named
them — which are governed by our US Constitution and were
reflected in the policies of people such as President Franklin
Roosevelt, John F Kennedy, and President Lincoln before; and
really were centered around the foundation of our Constitution as
Diane said, with the Hamiltonian conception of a credit system.
        More importantly, it gets to the question of what is your
conception of the nature of human beings.  Do you think that
human beings are just animals or beasts; or do you see human
beings as superior and having mental capacity over lower forms of
life?  When he put these four laws out, which state — I'll just
go through them; and I think we should have a further discussion
about it. The first law was that we must re-enact Glass Steagall
in the precise form that Franklin Roosevelt put into effect.  2.
Return to a system of national banking, as Alexander Hamilton had
intended, and was described under Abraham Lincoln's greenback
system.  3. Institute a Federal credit system to generate
high-productivity improvements in employment. 4. Adopt a fusion
driver crash program.
        Now, on this fourth point, it was encompassing of the entire
program that Mr. LaRouche put forward; because it wasn't just
about nuclear power or building nuclear power plants and so
forth.  It really got to this conception of what is our human
destiny; how do we view the nature of mankind as acting to remove
any limitations that are put on human progress?  It reminded me
that these four laws were very in tune to the laws of Krafft
Ehricke in his three laws of astronautics, that he put out in
1957; because when you think about this, the fourth law of Mr.
LaRouche's fusion crash driver program was very much in line with
what Kennedy had intended when he made his address on May 25,
1961, calling for landing a man on the Moon and returning him
safely to Earth.  This program was actually exemplified by this
very question of what is mankind's mission in participating in
the creative process.
        What Krafft Ehricke brings up is just that; it is the
question of the moral law of human beings that they are actually
doing away with this conception that mankind is nothing more than
beasts.  It was interesting listening to this comment — as Diane
said it was pretty hostile.  It was hostile because this
gentleman has a very low conception of what the nature is of
human beings.  He has already made the determination that you can
only allow something to happen that has already been determined
and decided for you.  As he was making the point, "Well, I would
like to have a nation where we live in peace and harmony; but
unfortunately that's not the world we live in."  Well, the
question is, how are we going to make the determination that we
must create that world and bring that world about.  That was the
basis, and continues to be the basis of Mr. LaRouche's economics
and what he means by the conception of these four laws.  And what
was defined also by Krafft Ehricke's laws of astronautics; that
are not just the basis of how you go about into space travel, but
more so the principle of what mankind must overcome to be able to
create these breakthroughs which are necessary to define a future
progress and a future human destiny.  The idea, as we've stated
on many occasions, that nobody and nothing under the natural laws
of the Universe impose any limitations on man except man himself;
that's something that really had to be defined in this discussion
that was had at the Chinese press conference there.
        But the key thing right now, as Mr. LaRouche said, is are
people going to prepare themselves to reconsider their destiny?
And reconsidering their destiny means we have to get rid of these
limitations; we have to now move immediately to shut down this
war drive of Obama, and everything that he represents in terms of
this culture of death.  Right now, we are seeing the escalation
towards all-out war, and we'll speak more on this in just a few
moments.  But the fact that, as we speak right now, the NATO
summit in Warsaw, Poland is happening; Obama is there, pushing
more provocations against Russia.  It is very clear that
Americans do have to make the decision that we want to
collaborate as human beings with other nations for the betterment
of mankind.  We have to stop this killing and this war threat and
actually move toward a new conception of human nature.
        So, I wanted to start with that, and then I'll come back
with more.

OGDEN:  I think that is very significant, because the whole
threat that Obama is making — and this is what Mr. LaRouche said
last week — this is a very empty threat.  This entire system
which Obama represents is completely bankrupt.  Look at what's
happening in Europe; the entire European system is splintering
apart.  Nobody has any idea how the consequences of the Brexit
vote are going to pan out; the leadership of all the parties is
collapsing, it's crumbling, it's imploding.  Then you have Obama
making these boastful threats.
        The point is, Europe is bankrupt; you have an emerging New
Paradigm; you have China and Russia; the Eurasian system could
encompass all of Europe.  You could have, finally, an integration
of this entire continent around a New Paradigm; a new system of
relations among nations, as Helga said at her intervention at
that event in DC.  This is a completely new concept of the
relationship between nations.  And yes, people within the think
tank class — as I think Bill Jones rightly called it, the pundit
class — are extremely pessimistic people; they don't have
vision, they don't have imagination.  That's why you have
leadership like Helga at that event.  Then, what happened?  You
had this Berlin conference which was incredibly good timing; two
days after the Brexit vote.  So, one thing on that subject,
because I think it ties together the question of the bankruptcy
of this trans-Atlantic system.  What both Diane and you, Kesha,
brought up about what's the new system?  This is Hamilton;
Hamilton is back.  We have the solution; the Four Laws are
self-explanatory, they're on the table.  They could be enacted
overnight; and this really is, in effect, the United States
joining the New Paradigm.  So, this is I think an important
comment by Mr. LaRouche; it came out of a discussion he had with
Jeffrey Steinberg earlier today.  Jeff presented him with the
institutional question that we got this week from contacts within
DC.  The question was:  "In your view, Mr. LaRouche, can the
European member countries post-Brexit chart a constructive and
viable economic course?  And how can they reverse their economic
decline?"  And I think Mr. LaRouche's remarks are very apropos.
He said, "The European Union must consent to end the system of
trash nations."  And by trash nations, he said [he meant]
"nations in the EU like Italy, that are treated like trash.
Other nations — Greece; that's obviously treated like trash.
This is resulting in the destruction of the nations of Europe."
Mr. LaRouche said, "You are going to have to depend on
cooperation between Putin and the right people in Germany; who
are in a minority, but are tied to the real, productive economy.
You're going to have to rely on that cooperation between Russia
and Germany to make the needed shift.  You have to return to
principles of physical economy, or all of Europe will collapse
very soon.  The anchor is the Russia-Germany collaboration."
        So, in reality, this is the path forward.  And for all of
Obama's threats in Warsaw, and all of the bluster from NATO; yes,
this is a very dangerous situation.  As Helga said, it is far
more dangerous than at any moment during the Cold War.  But, this
is the face of a collapsing system; and the only solution here is
the return to Hamilton.  And I think the leverage is very clear,
Diane; we've got the leverage to do this in Manhattan, in New
York City.  With the necessary escalation that could be enacted
now, we have the leverage to lead the United States from our
center in Manhattan, around the principles of Hamilton.  And I
think the other thing that we're going to get into, is in the
months leading up the 15th anniversary of the attack on September
11th; we're going to get to the truth of who lied, who was behind
these attacks, and who is covering up the truth about these
attacks and for what reason.

        ROGERS:  When you brought up this question of the principles
of physical economy, I think it's very important that we
understand that this is the principle of the human mind.  Mr.
LaRouche's {Science of Physical Economy} gets at this question of
how do you actually more creative and productive citizens in your
society.  When you think about these Four Laws, this is what we
have to actually bring about; the adoption of these Four Laws is
going to be done under the context that you are moving the
population toward building a more productive society that's going
to be able to create something better for their future and for
the future of those not yet born.  I think that we've lost sight
of that in our society.  Most people right now are — it's a
dying culture, a dying — as you said, Matt — financial system
that people are trying to hang onto.  We cannot do that; we have
to have a total reversal of the direction that this nation has
been going in.  And that reversal is really being led by China
and Russia taking up this principle of what the embodiment of
Hamilton represents; or the embodiment of what our American
System has truly represented.  I know Diane will say more on how
the mission of the United States is going to come from — as
we've stated — Manhattan to carry out that mission here in the
United States.

SARE:  Well, I'll just say that when Mrs. LaRouche spoke at the
conference in Berlin, she made this point of the question of
justice.  That when Tony Blair launched his fake campaign about
the alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and he launched
what has now been admitted to have been a war of aggression —
which is a crime under the Nuremburg Statutes.  She said that
justice will be done in this case; sometimes it's not immediate.
The Universe will ensure justice is done; however it is better if
mankind can act on behalf of justice.  Because if we let things
go too far, justice of the Universe may end up being the
annihilation of ourselves.  If we don't stop thermonuclear war,
if we don't stop our society from going down that path.
Similarly what we've had in the United States in the wake of
these attacks on September 11th, is we've had two murderous
regimes.  We've had the Bush/Cheney administration, who were
fully happy to collaborate with Tony Blair and his lies to enter
the war with Iraq.  We've had Obama, who has been probably the
most murderous President we've ever had in history.  And I think
it's important to say this here, because I know many people are
very upset about the recent killings in Minnesota, New Orleans,
and then Dallas.  I find it tragic.  We've heard of lone
assassins before from Dallas.  We've also heard of what happened
in Orlando by supposedly one person.  I think Americans are
growing increasingly skeptical of these stories.  What we see in
the case of 9/11, which I think gives us the ability to break the
whole thing open and end this train of abuses, is, for example,
the role of the FBI in covering up and hiding evidence; the role
of the Bush and Obama administrations in refusing to release the
28 pages.  I haven't read them, of course, but from what I
understand, they deal with how the hijackers were supported when
they came into the  United States.  Obama said he would do
various things, and did not; and there has now recently been an
escalation coming from the US Congress.  We have a clip which
people should watch of a press conference given this week by
Congressman Walter Jones, Stephen Lynch, and Massey, who are the
co-sponsors of a new bill on the 28 pages; which addresses the
fact that these 28 pages are actually the property of the
Congress.  I won't say more, I'll let them speak for this; but
this is a very important flank.  It's very important in Manhattan
in particular, because thousands, millions of people in this area
were very directly impacted by this; and they're not in a mood on
the 15th anniversary of this to just let it go another year
without the truth coming out.  People had a very feisty response
when the Saudis were threatening financial warfare in response to
any legislation in the Congress against Saudi Arabia.  I think
this is something which could break this open and fundamentally
change the United States, and emphatically destroy Obama's
ability to wage the kind of war and destruction that he wants to
now.  So, if you have that there, I think it would be useful to
show that clip of this press conference.

        CONG. LYNCH:  There is precedent; and the thing is, that if
the President — and I hope he will keep his word to the people.
But if not, we wanted this.  And that's the reason we introduced
this, so it would go to the Intel Committee; because again, Kevin
Nunez says yes, he thinks it ought to be declassified, and so did
Adam Schiff, the ranking member.  So we want to give them an
opportunity, if the President does not keep his word.  And I hope
that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump, when they make their acceptance
speech, that they will call on the President to keep his word.
But if not, then we're going to be pushing this when we come back
in September; and hopefully get a hearing and get the families
back down here to listen to the justification for declassifying
this information.  There is precedent.
        And on a finer point, if you look back during the Pentagon
Papers, the Church Commission generated a report.  While the
White House refused to allow that report to be publicized,
Congressman Gravel went to the well of the House and read the
Pentagon Papers; and was protected — the Supreme Court ruled —
was protected by the Speech and Debate Clause of the United
States Constitution.  So, even though they tried to prosecute him
for reading that, the Supreme Court said that the Separation of
Powers gives Congress the right to speak and debate on issues
that affect the American people.  That Separation of Powers and
the Speech and Debate Clause protected that member of Congress,
who went to the Floor and actually read those papers.  So, we
believe we're protected.  It may come to that; it may come to a
point that myself and Walter and Mr. Massey go to the well of the
House and read the text of the 28 pages, if we can get it
released to us.  That's the key; because when we go down to the
Intel Committee room and read the 28 pages, they have people sit
there in front of you.  They take your phone away; no
electronics; you're not allowed to take notes.  You're allowed to
read it and read it under the observation of either Intel
Committee staff or other folks that are there for security
purposes.  So, we don't have the 28 pages.  We can sit there as
long as we want and try to memorize it and read it, and go over
and over it.  We have done that, each of us; but in order to
release it, you have to have custody of it.

        OGDEN:  This is available on the LaRouche PAC website.  It's
very significant to watch that press conference in full.  There
were remarks from both Congressmen Walter Jones and Walter Massey
in addition to what Congressman Lynch said.  Also, Terry Strada
and her daughter, Kaitlyn Strada, had extremely powerful
statements making the point that the White House had promised to
get back to them with the declassification review on June 17th;
and that date has come and gone, and they have still to hear one
peep out of the White House.  They are not returning the calls of
the 9/11 families, they are not returning the calls of the
members of Congress. They are not returning the calls of Senator
Bob Graham; who is the one who wrote, or who oversaw the writing,
of the 28 pages.  So, there is a stonewalling by the White House.
The press corps should be asking these questions during the press
briefings.  Terry Strada said you've got Josh Earnest and Jim
Clapper basically reading right out of the Saudi Arabian talking
points; the talking points of the government of Saudi Arabia.
Whereas, the people who wrote the 28 pages are contradicting
every single thing that the Administration says.  So, it's hugely
significant that House Resolution 779 has been introduced;
because it says,  we are bypassing President Obama.  We are going
to go right to the floor; this is the property of the United
States Congress.  And it's doubly significant what you just heard
from Congressman Stephen Lynch.  He said, it may well come to the
three of us going to the floor of the House and having a Senator
Gravel moment.  We may very well read these papers into the
public record; which would be absolutely historic and
groundbreaking.  So, I really encourage everybody to watch the
press conference in full.  There's been some coverage, but not
enough.  And to circulate this very widely.
        Obviously, this is also feeding into some of the work that
we're going to be doing in Manhattan in the coming months;
especially around the commemoration of the 15th anniversary of
these attacks.  So Diane, maybe you want to say more about that.

SARE:  Well, I can say on that point, because it gets at what I
was thinking about, which is LaRouche's question of whether
Americans will re-assemble themselves.  I think the most
important thing for Americans right now, is to not allow
ourselves to be divided; which is clearly the intent of these
operations and the news media coverage of them in such a way over
these last days, and the intent of our President, who perhaps
wants us all to start shooting each other while he launches a
nuclear war against Russia and we don't notice.  What is planned
around New York City is a series of performances of the Mozart
{Requiem}; and we have a number of choruses of the Schiller
Institute in now Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, and New Jersey.
We'll be doing a series of performances of the Mozart {Requiem}
on and around September 11th.  The response to this is very deep;
people — as I said earlier — were profoundly affected.  And
what people in New York want is not revenge; people don't want to
go blow up some country like Saudi Arabia.  What people want is
justice; and they should be able to rest assured that such crimes
will never be allowed to occur again.  That, in turn, would give
profound meaning and immortality to the lives of all of those
people who have died in 9/11 and in the wake of 9/11.
        So, I think this question before us about whether the
American will re-assemble ourselves and reconsider our destiny is
the pressing question of the moment.  Not simply from the
standpoint of abolishing evil; but from the standpoint of
actually creating the good.

        ROGERS:  That brings to mind the very question and the
important point that was made by President Franklin Roosevelt,
because I think to accomplish this destiny, the question is also
whether or not people will allow themselves, or continue to allow
themselves to live in fear.  When Franklin Roosevelt made his
first inaugural address, and people recite these famous words all
the time, of his call that "We have nothing to fear but fear
itself.  Nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which
paralyzes needed efforts to turn retreat into advance."  The
problem right now is that we have a culture that has numbed
people to the point where the advance which is necessary, and the
fear which must be overcome to actually demand justice now, is
very dominant.  And I think this what we have to overcome.  The
destiny that we have to create for ourselves requires that we're
not just talking about implementing the 28 pages; but we're
talking about doing away with this evil which creates this type
of fear and this type of injustice that actually paralyzes
people.  To actually do away with that fear, and to be able to
bring that destiny about.  So, when you're thinking about —
Diane, you had your discussion yesterday — you have to deal with
this a lot, just in terms of the fear that people were
expressing.  And I think that right now, we've been given a very
unique and important opportunity that we don't have to live in
fear.  That — as was already stated — this Empire, their stooge
Obama, this whole financial system has no power; it's
disintegrating, it's collapsing right before their ugly faces.
So now we have the power to finish that off and create something
better for mankind.

        OGDEN:  I think one of the sources of the fear is that our
fellow citizens are victim of a concerted propaganda war.  The
number of lies that Americans are told on a daily basis, the
continuing lie of what was actually the truth of who financed and
organized 9/11, which has been the overshadowing lie for the last
15 years.  Then the lies in succession:  Tony Blair's lies;
George Bush's lies.  The lies justifying these so-called
regime-change wars, these regime-change operations.  And now the
lies that are being told to people about Russia, about China.
Look at what China is doing:  uplifting hundreds of millions of
people out of poverty; developing technologies that have not been
developed before; bringing access to the modern world to the
entire interior of the continent of Eurasia; exploring the dark
side of the Moon.  Is this what you're told about in the pages of
the {New York Times}?  No!  People are victims of a propaganda
war.  One other item we've provided for our viewers this week on
the LaRouche PAC website, is an extraordinary interview with a
state senator from Virginia, Richard Black, and another citizen
of the US, who travelled to Syria and actually saw what the
situation was on the ground in Syria.  Met with President Assad,
incredibly.  The title of the video, I think is apropos — it's
called "Breaking the Propaganda War Vis-à-vis Syria".  This is a
huge responsibility.  People have to realize they have a
responsibility to figure out what is true; and to then act on
that basis.
        And I think the re-assembling of American citizens, as Mr.
LaRouche said, and the decision that we are going to change our
destiny; and we are not going to allow Obama to carry us, in our
name, into a Third World War, is a decision that has to be made
by the American people.  Again, the leverage to lead the rest of
the nation comes from what is happening in Manhattan.
        OK; well, I might give myself the final word.  On that note,
we've referenced and shown you little bits and pieces of several
items that you can now immediately go and watch on the LaRouche
PAC YouTube channel.  You will subscribe to the YouTube channel
and receive notifications every time we post a new item, such as
that.  So, I would ask you to subscribe to the YouTube channel
and to circulate all of that material as widely as you can.  If
you haven't yet, please subscribe to the LaRouche PAC daily email
update; you will get the news as it really is happening, to your
inbox every single day.
        Thank you for tuning in, and please stay tuned to
larouchepac.com.  Good night.

USA: Borgmesterkonference fordømmer Obamas atomkrigsprovokationer

3. juli 2016 (Leder) – Den årlige borgmesterkonference i Indianapolis, USA, fra 24. – 27. juni, udstedte en sønderlemmende kritik af Obamaregeringen, som direkte angreb de massive NATO-øvelser, der nu finder sted på Ruslands grænser, Obamas 1 billion dollar store modernisering af atomvåben, det faktum, at han ikke har taget initiativ til at reducere atomvåbnene, hans krigsgale politik over for Rusland og Kina, og hans negligering af det drastiske kollaps, der kendetegner USA’s basale infrastruktur og befolkningens almene vel. Det er værd at bemærke, at end ikke én eneste af de større amerikanske aviser så meget som har rapporteret om denne aktion.

Borgmesterkonferencen fandt sted samtidig med den historiske Schiller Institut-konference i Berlin, hvor Helga Zepp-Larouche indledte sin tale med at sige, at

vi oplever en systemisk og eksistentiel civilisationskrise, der er absolut uden fortilfælde. Vi har sammenfaldet af en fare for krig, hvor NATO konfronterer Rusland på en meget, meget aggressiv facon – hvilket kan føre til en tredje verdenskrig. Vi har en amerikansk konfrontation mod Kina i det Sydkinesiske Hav. Der er risikoen for en ny finanskrise af samme type som i 2008, og som kan sprænge det finansielle system.

Borgmestrenes resolution erklærer dernæst, alt imens den kommer med en svag ros for Obamas besøg i Hiroshima og hans indgåelse af en aftale med Iran:

Samtidig har Obamaregeringen reduceret USA’s lager af atomvåben mindre, end noget præsidentskab efter den Kolde Krig, og den har lagt fundamentet til, at USA skal bruge en billion dollars hen over de næste tre årtier for at vedligeholde og modernisere sine atombomber og sprænghoveder, produktionsfabrikker, affyringssystemer og kommando og kontrol, og de øvrige atombevæbnede stater følger trop … De atombevæbnede lande kommer stadigt nærmere til randen af en direkte militær konfrontation i konfliktzoner i hele verden, og det største NATO-krigsspil i årtier, der involverer 14.000 amerikanske tropper samt aktivering af amerikanske missilforsvarssystemer i Østeuropa, bærer ved til bålet af voksende spændinger mellem atombevæbnede giganter, og iflg. tidligere forsvarsminister William Perry: ’Sandsynligheden for en atomar katastrofe er større i dag, mener jeg, end den var under den Kolde Krig.’

Denne fare og dette enorme spild af ressourcer står i direkte kontrast til den kollapsende, amerikanske økonomi:

»Den stadigt mere forværrede infrastruktur udgør en fare for befolkningens sikkerhed og livskvalitet, og den voksende ulige fordeling af rigdom tvinger folk til at forlade Amerikas byer, og vore lokalsamfund har et desperat behov for statslig investering til opførelse af billige boliger, jobskabelse til lønninger, man kan leve af, forbedring af offentlig transport og udvikling af bæredygtige energikilder«. Resolutionen kræver en omfordeling af de midler, der bruges på atomoprustningen, for at »løse vore byers presserende behov og genopbygge vor nations smuldrende infrastruktur.«

Resolution fremkommer ikke med det krav (der turde være åbenlyst), at denne præsident omgående må fjernes for den beskrevne forbrydelse – dvs., for at skabe en umiddelbar eksistentiel trussel mod menneskeheden gennem atomkrig. I stedet kræver den, at »den næste præsident« må gribe til handling. Ikke desto mindre kræver den, at »der tages nye, diplomatiske initiativer, som en hastesag, for at nedbringe spændingerne med Rusland og Kina.«

Det, som mangler, er selvfølgelig løsningen, og heri ligger den afgørende forskel mellem Borgmesterkonferencen og Schiller Instituttets konference i Berlin. Zepp-LaRouche sagde til tilhørerne i Berlin:

Denne konference har ét emne, eller ét underliggende emne, og det er at definere løsninger på disse kriser: at diskutere, hvad det nye paradigme skal være, og hvorvidt menneskeslægten er i stand til at løse en sådan eksistentiel krise. Vi har fremtrædende talere fra fire kontinenter og fra mange lande, og dette er selvsagt mennesker, eller repræsentanter for mennesker, der er fast besluttet på, at en løsning skal findes.

Og næsten hver eneste af talerne talte vitterligt om, at det hastede med at gennemføre de løsninger, der længe har været knyttet til Lyndon og Helga LaRouche – nemlig reorganiseringen af det bankerotte, vestlige finansielle system gennem vedtagelse af en Glass/Steagall-lov i USA og Europa, samt udvidelsen af Kinas projekt for Den Nye Silkevej til at omfatte hele verden, et projekt, der vil gøre en ende på geopolitik til fordel for udviklingsprojekter, der imødekommer menneskehedens fælles mål.

Det mod, der udvistes på USA’s Borgmesterkonference, en upartisk institution, der repræsenterer alle byer i USA med flere end 30.000 indbyggere, og hvor den igangværende trussel om en global atomkrig blev identificeret, pålægger alle amerikanere et endnu større ansvar – for at mobilisere disse borgmestre og deres vælgere til at gennemføre LaRouches program, før Obama kan trykke på knappen.

Foto: Præsident Barack Obama holder sin første, større tale, hvori han erklærer sit forpligtende engagement over for at søge at opnå fred og sikkerhed i en verden uden atomvåben, foran tusinder af tilhørere i Prag i den Tjekkiske Republik, 5. april 2009. [flickr/whitehouse]  

Det er Putin, der bestemmer, hvad der
skal ske med ’Planen om Stor-Eurasien’

20. juni 2016 (Leder) – Den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin brugte Skt. Petersborg Internationale Økonomiske Forum den 16.-18. juni som anledning til at fremlægge det eksistentielle spørgsmål, som nu konfronterer menneskeheden: Gå enten med i det, han kalder ’Planen om Stor-Eurasien’ for økonomisk udvikling og sikkerhed, eller også, stå over for den umiddelbart overhængende fare for det transatlantiske systems kollaps og en meningsløs global krig, som kunne udvikle sig til en udslettelseskrig.

Under en to timer lang dialog, der blev præsideret af CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, med deltagere, annoncerede Putin, at den Eurasiske Økonomiske Union (EAEU) nu vil indlede forhandlinger i denne måned med Kina om fuld integration i ’Ét bælte, én vej’-projektet, og han understregede, at 40 lande søger handelsforbindelser med EAEU, og at Rusland hilser Vesteuropas fulde deltagelse i dette ambitiøse program velkomment.

I den samme dialog talte han åbenhjertigt om USA’s og NATO’s »blodige kup« i Ukraine, samt indsatsen af nyere dato for at inddæmme Rusland med NATO-styrker.

Putins handlinger, samt det vanvittige, anglo-amerikanske krigsfremstød mod både Rusland og Kina, har udløst et voksende oprør blandt vesteuropæere, der ser krigsfaren mere og mere klart. Ikke alene deltog flere europæiske ledere i Skt. Petersborg-forummet, imod Obamas og Londons udtrykkelige krav. Den tidligere franske præsident, Nicolas Sarkozy krævede en afslutning af sanktionerne mod Rusland og opfordrede Putin, som, sagde han, befinder sig i en stærkere position, til ensidigt at afslutte de russiske gengældelses-sanktioner mod Europa. Putin responderede positivt til Sarkozys krav, så vel som også til udtalelser, som den italienske premierminister Matteo Renzi kom med, men han advarede om, at Rusland ikke er indstillet på igen at lade sig bedrage.

Den tyske udenrigsminister Frank-Walter Steinmeier gav et interview til det meget læste Bild am Sonntag, hvor han angreb de netop afsluttede NATO-øvelser langs den russiske grænse for at være en krigsprovokation, og han krævede et stop for de »krigshyl«, der kommer fra NATO. Steinmeiers handlinger har udløst et totalt skænderi mellem grupperinger i den tyske, politiske klasse, lige så vel som, at Sarkozys tale i Skt. Petersborg har udløst en seriøs debat i Frankrig. Steinmeiers intervention er blevet støttet af den ledende militæranalytiker fra CDU, Michael Stürmers nylige angreb på NATO’s provokationer, samt af udtalelser i denne uge fra tidligere tyske kansler Gerhard Schröder, der også har fordømt tendensen hen imod et nyt våbenkapløb og en Kold Krig med Rusland.

Alle disse fundamentale skift i det politiske landskab kommer blot få dage før Brexit-afstemningen i Storbritannien den 23. juni, og blot få uger, før topmødet mellem NATO’s stats- og regeringsledere finder sted i Warszawa i begyndelsen af juli, hvor NATO’s deployeringer ind i De baltiske Stater og Polen efter planen skal ratificeres. Sunday Telegraph, en flagskibs-publikation fra Tory-grupperingen i Storbritannien, havde en barsk formuleret lederartikel til fordel for britisk exit af den Europæiske Union. Lederartiklen konstaterede åbenlyst, at EU er død.

Vi er nået til et punctum saliens-øjeblik, hvor menneskeheden enten går fremefter med det nye paradigme, som bedst kommer til udtryk i ideen om Verdenslandbroen, eller også styrter den ud i en udslettelseskrig. Der er ingen steder at gemme sig, for menneskehedens fremtid ligger i vægtskålene. Putin har totalt fod på dette opgør, og man kan forvente, at han vil gøre det, der er uventet, i de kommende dage og uger, for at vinde kampen om menneskehedens fremtid.

Her i USA består den største fare i, at disse voksende kræfter, der klart ser faren for en atomkrig, vil holde sig tilbage fra at bringe Obamas præsidentskab til fald – før han starter en krig. Ledende røster i den Amerikanske Komite for Øst-Vest-aftaler, inklusive dr. Stephen Cohen og Gilbert Doctorow, er noget forsinket ved at indse, at Obama ikke er en person, man »overtaler« til at gøre det rigtige. Han har begået forbrydelser, der klart berettiger til en rigsretssag, inklusive hans afvisning af at arbejde sammen med Rusland for at knuse Islamisk Stat, al-Nusra og andre anglo-saudisk sponsorerede, jihadistiske bander. Hvor mange uskyldige liv er gået tabt, fordi Obama nægtede at samarbejde med Putin og de russiske tjenester – der ved, hvordan man fører en kontra-terrorist-operation?

I takt med, at denne kamp når nye dimensioner i Europa, fortsætter den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping sin turne i Central- og Østeuropa, hvor han indgår betydningsfulde aftaler med Serbien, der er et afgørende omdrejningspunkt for den Eurasiske Landbro.

Frem for alt andet pålagde Lyndon LaRouche sine kolleger i søndags, nøje at overvåge Putins træk. Han vil tage skridt til flankeoperationer, baseret på hans opfattelse af hele den globale situation. Han stoler ikke på andre, i særdeleshed ikke Obama og briterne. Han vil handle på overraskende måder, som på bedste måde vil reflektere virkeligheden i dette øjeblik med et globalt opgør. Han er, understregede LaRouche, det bedste referencepunkt for handling.    

Foto: Den russiske præsident Putin under et møde med lederne af verdens førende nyhedsagenturer, på sidelinjen af det 20. Internationale Økonomiske Forum i Skt. Petersborg (SPIEF 2016), Rusland, 17. juni 2016. Mikhail Metzel/TASS

Supplerende materiale:

Putin langer ud efter sanktioner, NATO’s udvidelsespolitik og driften mod kold krig

20. juni 2016 – Den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin talte i flere timer på den sidste dag af Skt. Petersborg Internationale Økonomiske Forum. Han konfronterede direkte realiteterne omkring den nuværende strategiske krise, der bliver smidt efter det nye paradigme, som er under skabelse af Rusland og de andre BRIKS-nationer. I et interview med Fareed Zakaria efter topmødet, vred han sig behændigt ud af udtalelser om, at han støttede Donald Trump, ved at påpege, at han var blevet fejlciteret af journalister såsom Zakaria, der ikke er analytikere, og idet han understregede, at vi ”er rede til at arbejde med USA,” uanset, hvem der vælges til ny leder. Han påpegede, at ”Trump har udtalt, at han er parat til at genoprette det fulde format af russisk-amerikanske relationer … det hilser vi alle velkommen.”

I sin udtalelse på topmødets sidste dag sagde Putin, at USA kunne være til gavn for verden, inklusiv Rusland, så længe USA ikke blander sig i andre landes anliggender:

”Vi behøver [USA]. Men vi har ikke brug for, at de konstant blander sig i vore anliggender, fortæller os, hvordan vi skal leve, og hindrer Europa i at opbygge relationer med os.”

Putin påpegede, at Obama-administrationen gav sine europæiske partnere besked på at tåle sanktioner mod Rusland, sanktioner, der havde ødelæggende konsekvenser for Europa, men ikke for USA.

Putin sagde, at europæiske erhvervskredse i Frankrig, Tyskland og andre steder har udtrykt villighed til at samarbejde med Rusland, og nu er det op til politikerne ”at udvise visdom, forudseenhed og fleksibilitet.”

”Vi bærer ikke nag og er rede til at møde vore europæiske partnere på halvvejen,” sagde Putin til forummet. Han pegede på, at det ikke var Rusland, der begyndte det nuværende ”nedbrud” i relationer mellem Europa og Rusland, forårsaget af sanktionerne. ”Alle vore handlinger har været, og forbliver, alene gengældelse.”

Putin fortsatte, ”Vore seneste møder med repræsentanter for tyske og franske erhvervskredse har vist, at europæisk erhvervsliv er villigt og parat til at samarbejde med vort land. Der er behov for, at politikere møder forretningsfolk på halvvejen, og udviser visdom, forudseenhed og fleksibilitet. Vi har brug for at styrke tilliden i russisk-europæiske relationer og genetablere niveauet af interaktioner.

Putin tog, hvad angår NATO’s udvidelsespolitik, ligeledes tyren ved hornene og sagde, at det ikke giver mening: “Sovjetunionen er der ikke mere, Warszawapagten [mellem Sovjetunionen og de østeuropæiske lande] er ophørt med at eksistere, så hvorfor behøver NATO konstant at udbrede sin infrastruktur og bevæge sig mod Ruslands grænser? Nu tager de Montenegro ind. Hvem har truet Montenegro?” spurgte Putin, leende over absurditeten i det.

Han hævdede, at NATO har ”en absolut ligegyldig og tankeløs attitude i forhold til vores position på alle områder,” og noterede, at det var USA, der ensidigt afsluttede missilforsvars-traktaten, der til at begynde med var underskrevet for at ”bringe strategisk balance ind i verden.” Putin fortsatte med at berolige verdenssamfundet med, at han ikke ønsker at gå videre til en ny kold krig, som ”ingen ønsker”. ”Uanset, hvor dramatisk tankegangen i udviklingen af internationale relationer måtte se ud udefra, er det ikke en global konfrontations-tankegang.”

Putin udtalte, at det amerikanske missilskjold i Østeuropa udgør en trussel mod magtbalancen. ”Vi vil perfektionere vores kapacitet for missilangreb for at opretholde balancen, alene på grund af det.”

Putin påpegede, at problemer i verden kun kan håndteres, som det i øjeblikket sker i Syrien. I det tilfælde, sagde han, arbejder nationer i verden, inklusiv Rusland og USA, sammen om at hjælpe med at løse krisen i Syrien. Han konfronterede regimeskifte-politikken, idet han insisterede på, at Syriens integritet må opretholdes som topprioritet. Putin sagde ligeud, at disintegrationen af Syrien ville blive en ”destabiliserende faktor, ikke kun for regionen, men for hele Verden”.

Han udtalte, at fred i Syrien kun kan nås ved en politisk proces: “Hvis vi ønsker at fremme princippet om demokrati, så lad os gøre det med demokratiske instrumenter,” sagde han til forummet.

Han anførte, at den ukrainske krise blev skabt med overlæg af Obama-administration, for at tilvejebringe en grund til NATO’s eksistens, og at det ikke er sådan, at situationer i den internationale arena burde håndteres: ”Efter det Arabiske Forår sneg [USA] sig op til vore grænser. Hvorfor havde de behov for at støtte et kup i Ukraine? Det er sandsynligt, at oppositionen, der er ved magten nu, kunne have opnået det ved demokratiske valg, og vi ville have arbejdet med dem, netop på samme måde, som vi arbejdede med dem, der var ved magten før præsident Janukovitj … Men nej,” fortsatte Putin, ”de skulle nødvendigvis føre det til et blodigt kup med ofre, skulle absolut forårsage borgerkrig.”

Putin sagde, at den udvikling “arrede” Ukraines russisk-talende befolkning i det sydøstlige Ukraine og på Krim, og ikke gav Rusland andet alternativ end at tage forholdsregler ”for at beskytte visse grupper af folk.”

Grunden, sagde han, er, at: NATO ”har brug for en fremmed fjende, hvad skulle grunden ellers være til eksistensen af en sådan organisation?” Putin sagde, at hele konflikten blev påtvunget Ukraine ”for at underbygge selve eksistensen af den nordatlantiske alliance.

USA: Senator Feinstein og kongresmedlem Tauscher langer ud efter planerne for nye atomvåben

20. juni 2016 – Senator Dianne Feinstein og tidligere kongreskvinde og viceudenrigsminister for våbenkontrol og international sikkerhed, Ellen Tauscher har sammen skrevet en ledende artikel, der blev bragt i New York Times d. 18. juni, og hvori de krævede et stop for den planlagte produktion og indsættelse af det nye ’Long-Range Standoff Weapon’ (LRSW), en ny generation af kernevåben, der stærkt øger faren for termonuklear krig. Forfatterne advarede:

”Luftvåbnet er bestemt for, til næste år, at accelerere udviklingen af dette nye nukleare krydsermissil. Det vil fremføre et opgraderet W-80 atomsprænghoved, og være i stand til at penetrere verdens mest avancerede luftforsvarssystemer … fremstilling af nye kernevåben som dette kan imidlertid være unødvendigt, kostbart og farligt.”

Feinstein og Tauscher citerede tidligere forsvarsminister Bill Perry, som for et år siden advarede om, at deployeringen af LRSW-våbensystemet ville øge risikoen for atomkrig ved at udviske linjen mellem konventionelle våben og kernevåben (LRSW kan bruge både nukleare og konventionelle sprænghoveder). De to forfattere af New York Times-artiklen forlangte, at forsvarsminister Ashton Carter frembringer en detaljeret offentlig redegørelse for planerne om LRSW, inklusiv, hvorvidt det ville blive betragtet som et potentielt offensivt våben, snarere end en tilføjelse af et element til den amerikanske atom-afskrækkelse. De citerede estimater fra Føderationen af Atomvidenskabsfolk (FAS) er, at det nye våbensystem vil koste $30 milliarder:

“På et tidspunkt, hvor Forsvarsministeriet har besluttet at modernisere hvert ‘ben’ af den nukleare triade (strategiske bombefly, interkontinentale ballistiske missiler og ballistiske missiler fra undervandsbåde, -red.), er det uansvarligt at investere $30 milliarder i et unødvendigt og farligt nyt atomvåben.”

De understregede også, at

”Vi ønsker at eliminere enhver uklarhed om, hvorvidt dette nye missil er et offensivt våben.”

Forfatterne bemærkede, at revurderingen ’holdningen til atomvåben’ i 2010 (2010 Nuclear Posture Review) opfordrede til en reduktion af det amerikanske atomarsenal og en øget afhængighed af konventionelle systemer, som luftvåbnets ’Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile’ og flådens Tomahawk-krydsermissil, der ikke indebærer risiko for nuklear optrapning.






STOP 3. Verdenskrig: International terror.
»Efter ‘De 28 sider’ – 11. september: Ti år senere«.
Video, engelsk.

Følgende præsentation indeholder arkivoptagelser af angrebene på World Trade Center og Pentagon, den 11. september 2001.  

Lyndon LaRouche, juni 2007: »Verden har levet under et system, som er 11. september-systemet – der allerede eksisterede, som jeg advarede om, i begyndelsen af 2001. FØR præsident George W. Bush blev indsat første gang, og hvor jeg sagde, ’Verdens system har nået et punkt, hvor et fremstormende kollaps af systemet nu er i gang. Og jeg sagde dengang, at faren består i, at noget lignende dette vil indtræffe, under de nuværende tendenser i USA, og det indtraf! Og det hed ’9/11’ – 11. september.’«

Se også: USA: I har nøglerne til at standse terrorbølgen. Brug dem!

Se også: »Den anglo-saudiske baggrund for den aktuelle, internationale terrorisme: Frigiv sandheden, og lad os lukke imperiemagternes topstyrede terrorapparat ned, én gang for alle!«



Leder: USA: I har nøglerne til at standse terrorbølgen: Brug dem!
– Samt en kort gennemgang af det britiske og saudiske monarkis rolle i international
terror gennem de seneste 30 år, inkl. video:
‘Beyond the 28 Pages – 9/11, Ten Years Later’

13. juni 2016 (Leder) – Det massemorderiske voldsorgie i Orlando, Florida, angiveligt begået af en tilhænger af Islamisk Stat, Omar Mateen, er blot det seneste i en række af forfærdelige terrorangreb, der alle udspringer af den tredive år gamle »olieaftale« mellem det britiske og det saudiske monarki. Denne aftale har givet dem stor magt og store, skjulte ressourcer til at skabe nutidens globale jihadistiske organisation for angreb imod nationer.

Med mindre, og før, denne anglo-saudiske organisation afsløres – som vi kan gøre det med afsløringen af de dokumenter om 11. september, der er blevet hemmeligholdt i 15 år – og opløses, vil verden konstant stå over for blinde terrorangreb, over alt og til enhver tid.

Præsident Obama blev en overlagt og villig agent for briterne og saudierne i sine evindelige krige, der har spredt kaos i hele Mellemøsten og Nordafrika, og terror i hele verden.

Hvilket »sammentræf«, at Obama skal mødes med den saudiske kronprins Salman i Washington, mens hans CIA-direktør, John Brennan, gør sit yderste for at »frikende« Saudi-Arabien for sin rolle i at arrangere angrebene den 11. september og drabene på 3.000 amerikanere. Både Obama og Prins Salman mødes med blodige hænder.

EIR’s stiftende radaktør Lyndon LaRouche bemærkede i dag, at han har været klar over denne britisk-saudiske magt for ondskab i årtier; og at dette bidrog til, at han den 2. januar, 2001, fremkom med en særdeles offentlig og publiceret advarsel om, at der forelå en trussel om et større terrorangreb mod USA, der ville finde sted i efteråret 2001.

»Det er stadig det samme, det drejer sig om, selv i gårsdagens massemord i Orlando«, sagde LaRouche.

Den unge Orlando-drabsmand var rejst til Saudi-Arabien i 2011 og 2012, mens han var ansat i det britiske, internationale sikkerhedsfirma G4S; og han kom tilbage som en tilsyneladende meget forandret person.

LaRouche understregede, at, fordi Obamas krige nu umiddelbart fører til en konfrontation med Rusland, og truer med at blive til Tredje Verdenskrig, er det af afgørende betydning at afsløre de saudisk/britiske hænder bag – begyndende med 11. september – og at tvinge Obama ud.


’Aftalen’, der lancerede 1000 angreb

I 1985 indgik Prins Bandar bin-Sultan, daværende saudisk ambassadør til USA, et langvarigt partnerskab med den britiske regering under daværende premierminister Margaret Thatcher. Under dække af en olie-for-våben-aftale ved navn Al Yamamah (arabisk for »duen«), etablerede de britiske og saudiske monarkier en offshore-fond, der voksede til enorme proportioner og er blevet brugt til at føre global terrorisme imod udpegede nationer.

I løbet af de mere end 30 år, siden Al Yamamah blev lanceret, har de britiske og saudiske monarkier ophobet langt over $100 mia. i en kæde af hemmelige offshore-fonde, til finansiering af terrorisme, politiske mord, kupplaner og andre forbrydelser som den aktuelle saudisk/britisk/amerikanske invasion og bombning af Yemen.

Under Al Yamamah sendte den britiske våbenproducent BAE Systems for anslået $40 mia. våben til det Saudiske Forsvars- og Luftvåbenministerium, og for anslået yderligere $20 mia. i bestikkelser til saudiske prinser og regeringsfolk inden for forsvaret. Til gengæld sendte saudierne 600.000 tønder olie pr. dag til briterne. Gennem de anglo-hollandske oliegiganter British Petroleum og Royal Dutch Shell blev olien solgt på de internationale spotmarkeder og skabte profitter for hundreder af milliarder af dollars. En EIR-undersøgelse fra 2007 anslog, at, som et minimum, blev $100 mia. i overskud ophobet og deponeret i hemmelige offshore bankkonti, til brug for hemmelige, fælles anglo-saudiske operationer.

I en officiel biografi pralede Prins Bandar med at bruge disse hemmelige midler og med den særlige natur af Al Yamamah-aftalen, som kun kunne have været gennemført mellem to absolutte monarkier, der kunne agere over loven og udviske skellet mellem offentlige og private handlinger.

ISIS har, med andre ord, absolut IKKE været verdens rigeste, islamistiske terroroperation.

I 2007, da de britiske medier gennemførte en begrænset afsløring af Al Yamamah-bestikkelsesskandalen, lukkede den britiske premierminister Tony Blair den britiske Afdeling for Alvorligt Bedrageris (SFO) efterforskning, med den begrundelse, at det anglo-saudiske partnerskab var af afgørende betydning for den britiske nationale sikkerhed. Ordren til at lukke efterforskningen kom få timer efter, at den schweiziske regering havde besluttet at give SFO adgang til de hemmelige bankkonti, tilhørende Wafiq Said, en stråmand for Al Yamamah-midlerne.

Al Yamamah-aftalen var en lukrativ transaktion for Prins Bandar, som fik en kommission for sin rolle i lanceringen af programmet på mindst $2 mia. (amerikanske efterretningskilder anslår, at Bandar fik mere end $10 mia. for aftalen).


Spørgsmålet om 3.000 dræbte amerikanere

Bandar er direkte indblandet i angrebene den 11. september på World Trade Center og Pentagon. Penge fra den personlige bankkonto tilhørende Bandar og hans hustru, prinsesse Haifa (søster til den mangeårige direktør for saudisk efterretning, Prins Turki-al-Faisal), blev videregivet til to af de oprindelige flykaprere fra 11. september, Khalid al-Mihdhar og Nawaf al-Hazmi, via de saudiske efterretningsofficerer Omar al-Bayoumi og Osama Basnan. Penge overførtes fra Bank of Englands konti fra det Britiske Forsvarsministeriums Støttekontor til Forsvarseksport (DESO) til Bandars konto i Riggs National Banks. Desuden modtog al-Bayoumi og Basnan penge gennem en ’skygge’-ansættelse i et saudisk forsvarsfirma, Dalah Aviation, der var eneste entrepriseindehaver for det Saudiske Forsvarsministerium.

En føderal dommmer (dvs. udpeget af præsidenten) i Sarasota, Florida, gennemgår nu flere end 80.000 sider af tilbageholdte FBI-dokumenter, der drejer sig om en celle bestående af flykaprerne den 11. september, og dennes forbindelser til en prominent, rig, saudisk forretningsmand med stærke bånd til det saudiske monarki. Nogle uger før angrebene den 11. september, forlod den saudiske familie, der opholdt sig i et indhegnet bosted i Sarasota, meget pludseligt landet. De efterlod sig ejendele, der indikerede, at de brød op med meget kort varsel. FBI gennemførte en uddybende undersøgelse af familien, fordi de husede tre af flykaprerne fra 11. september, inkl. ringlederen Mohammed Atta i mange tilfælde, iflg. sikkerhedslogs og videooptagelser, der viser Atta og de andre gå ind og ud af ejendommen.

FBI hemmeligholdt dokumenterne og det faktum, at de foretog en undersøgelse, for den Fælles Kongresundersøgelse og 11. september-kommissionen. Tidligere senator Bob Graham, der var med-formand i den Fælles Kongresundersøgelse, hævder nu, at eksistensen af forbindelsen mellem de saudiske royale og Sarasota-cellen, når dette ses i sammenhæng med beviset for den saudiske regerings støtte til San Diego-cellen, nu rejser yderligere spørgsmål om angrebene 11. september. Hvad med Herndon, staten Virginia, og Paterson, staten New Jersey, har senator Graham offentligt spurgt?

Et 47 sider langt dokument, skrevet af de to stabsmedlemmer af 11. september-kommissionen, der tidligere havde arbejdet for den Fælles Kongresunderundersøgelse, og som havde skrevet det 28 sider lange, undertrykte kapitel, identificerede i alt 20 saudiske regeringsfolk med beviselige bånd til de 19 flykaprere forud for angrebene 11. september.

Disse forbindelser gik fra det sydlige Californien til den Saudiske Ambassade i Washington og til den Saudiske Ambassade i Berlin, Tyskland. Tidligere flådeminister John Lehman, medlem af 11. sept.-kommissionen, sagde til ’60 Minutes’, at kommissionen ikke førte en uddybende undersøgelse af de ledetråde, der burde have været forfulgt, og som relaterede til det saudiske monarki og det saudiske regimes støtte til flykaprerne. Lehman, blandt andre kommissionsmedlemmer, har krævet en tilbundsgående, fra øverst til nederst, ny undersøgelse af 11. sept. – en undersøgelse, hvor alle de undertrykte ledetråde og åbne spor til de saudiske royale fuldt ud forfølges.

I løbet af denne trediveårige periode med Al Yamamah-programmet er der flydt penge fra disse hemmelige offshore-konti, så vel som også gennem saudiske velgørenhedsorganisationer, til finansiering af et globalt netværk af moskeer og madrasser (skoler), der har rekrutteret flere generationer til det ekstreme wahhabi/salafist-apparat, som udgør rekrutteringspuljen til sunni jihadistisk terror over hele verden.


Hvad der skal gøres

De beviser, der indeholdes i det stadigt hemmeligstemplede, 28 sider lange kapitel af den oprindelige Fælles Kongresundersøgelse af 11. sept., åbner døren til en optrevling af hele det anglo-saudiske terrorapparat. Uden en forståelse af den rolle, som det britiske monarki og de britiske efterretningstjenester har spillet i det jihadistiske apparat, er det umuligt at lukke dets evne til at operere ned.

CIA-direktøren fremførte i et interview søndag, at amerikanere »ikke burde tro på« dette 28-siders kapitel, som han nu frygter, vil blive tvunget til at blive frigivet, med en ophævelse af hemmeligstemplingen. Men et republikansk medlem af Kongressen rapporterede i et tweet, »CIA-direktøren må referere til nogle andre 28 sider end dem, jeg har læst. Frigiv dem, og lad det amerikanske folk træffe afgørelsen.« I har i jeres hænder midlerne til at gå til modangreb mod denne britisk/saudiske operation. Brug dem. Fremtving en offentliggørelse af de saudiske beviser. Fremtving Obamas afgang. »Dette må gøres hurtigt«, sagde LaRouche i dag, »for at forhindre yderligere international ødelæggelse.«

Video: 'Beyond the 28-pages – 9/11: Ten Years Later' – Otte måneder før angrebene 11. september, 2001, forudsagde Lyndon LaRouche, at USA havde en høj risiko for en begivenhed à la ’Rigsdagsbranden’, en begivenhed, der ville gøre det muligt for dem, der var ved magten, gennem diktatoriske midler at styre en økonomisk og samfundsmæssig krise, som de i modsat fald ikke var kompetente til at håndtere. Vi lever nu i det ubrudte kølvand af dette stykke historie.

Titelbillede: Obama og Kong Salman bin Abdulaziz under et af præsidentens mange besøg i Saudi-Arabien samtidig med, at han opretholdt mørklægningen af 11. september. [flickr/whitehouse]



POLITISK ORIENTERING den 26. maj 2016:
Asien vil samarbejde med Kina og Rusland,
trods trusler fra Obama
Se også 2. del

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Video 2. del: (5 min.)


Rusland og Kina reagerer på krigs-krisen ved navn Obama

D. 3. maj – Kina og Rusland gjorde det i dag officielt, at de udfører fælles anti-ballistisk missil forsvarsøvelser som direkte respons på, at ABM systemer bliver etableret rundt om deres grænser af Obama administrationen. Dette er en ekstraordinær handling. Det er blot det mest synlige tegn på, at de eurasiske magter tager strategiske skridt imod de eskalerende militære og økonomiske krigstrusler, rettet imod dem af den britisk kontrollerede Obama.
Vi er i forstadiet af en verdenskrig. Truslen er Obamas samtidige pivoter, bestående i at omringe og konfrontere både Rusland og Kina militært, samtidigt med offentligt at forlange, at USA’s allierede tilslutter sig en handelskrig, for at forkrøble Kina økonomisk.
Denne arrogante krigspræsident tror, at han offentligt kan udstede ordrer til Kina vedrørende dets økonomiske relationer, knuse den russiske økonomi med sanktioner, presse regionale nationer ind i alliancer for militære aktioner til konfrontation af de eurasiske magter.

Dette alt imens Kinas og Indiens økonomier vokser med 7 % om året, USA og Europas med nul.
De bankerotte finansielle magter centreret i City of London og Wall Street udhuler og konsumerer deres egne økonomier, alt imens de bruger Obama som deres instrument til at udnytte det amerikanske militære og termonukleare magt imod et nyt økonomisk paradigme.
Reaktionen hos de eurasiske magter på den trussel om verdenskrig, som Obama repræsenterer, er primært økonomisk – idet de gennemfører et nyt paradigme for verdensomspændende udvikling af produktiv infrastruktur, videnskabeligt samarbejde, rumforskning.
Tilbageslaget i Europa imod Obamas anti-kinesiske handelskrigsvåben viser, at de trusler, som han udsteder mod dette nye paradigme ikke virker.

Men hans intention om at omringe og provokere Rusland og Kina, sågar til et punkt på nippet af en total krig, vil fortsat være til stede, med mindre amerikanere tvinger ham ud af embedet ved rigsretssag eller fratrædelse.
Grundlaget er der. Obama er, trods alt, medskyldig i, sammen med saudi-britisk efterretningsvirk­somhed, at dække over drabene på 3000 amerikanere d. 11. september, og siden da, at lancere endeløse krige.
Handling er, hvad der behøves. Så vil det nye paradigme være åbent for at genoplive den kollapsede amerikanske økonomi.


Kina og Rusland i samarbejde om missilforsvar

D. 4. maj, 2016 Kina og Rusland har besluttet at holde en fælles computeraktiveret anti-missil forsvarsøvelse i maj, skrev Peoples Liberation Army’s avis {Liberation Daily} i onsdags.
Kommando- og personeløvelsen med kodenavnet “Aerospace Security-2016” vil blive holdt på det de Russiske Luftforsvarsstyrkers videnskabelige forskningscenter. Det er den første øvelse af sin slags afholdt i fællesskab af de to lande.
Det russiske forsvarsministerium udtalte, “Hovedformålet med øvelsen er – ved at holde sådanne øvelser med fælles luftforsvar og anti-missil forsvarsoperationer, – at forbedre de to landes evne til at håndtere en situation med tilfældige og provokerende angreb med ballistiske- og krydsermissiler på de to landes territorium.”
Det sker som respons på det amerikanske forsøg på at basere et THAAD antimissil system på Sydkoreansk territorium, hvilket begge lande ser som en trussel imod dem.
Den kinesiske udenrigsminister Wang Yi sagde, at evt. etablering af THAAD-systemet overskrider de relevante landes behov for forsvar. Hvis det gennemføres, vil det direkte indvirke på Kinas og Ruslands strategiske sikkerhed, ” rapporterede {Liberation Daily}.
Den russiske forsvarsminister annoncere også i fredags, at de to lande vil øge det samlede antal af deres fælles militærøvelser i 2016.

Den britiske faktor i 11. september og al efterfølgende global terror

Mens verdens medier fokuserer opmærksomheden på Saudi Arabiens hånd bag angrebene d. 11. september – og al efterfølgende jihad-terror jorden rundt – og præsident Barack Obamas dække over disse forbrydelser, skal de egentlige ophavsmænd til dette massedrabs-program ikke findes i Riyadh eller det Hvide Hus, men i London. Det er aldeles passende og korrekt, at den britiske agent, og nøglefigur i at dække over 11. september Barack Obama, styrer direkte fra Riyadh til London senere i denne uge for, endnu engang, at hylde den britiske Dronning.

Saudi-Arabien har altid været den britiske Krones ejendom, tilbage til Lawrence af Arabiens tid, og den oprindelige generation af Huset Saud og Wahhabi-gejstligheden. Faktisk daterer britisk kontrol over de Persiske Golfemirater sig tilbage til det britiske Østindiske Kompagnis velmagtsdage i det attende og nittende århundrede. Men dette britiskkontrollerede partnerskab med de saudiske kongelige blev sat på langt mere formel og aktiv fod i 1985, da Prins Bandar bin-Sultan, en selverklæret britisk agent, sluttede Al-Yamamah handlen med Margaret Thatcher, og derved etablerede olie-for-våben tuskhandels-systemet, under hvilket hundreder af milliarder af dollars blev afsondret til britiske offshore finansielle fristeder – til finansiering af terrorisme, kup og snigmord jorden over.

Det er denne del af 11. september, der indtil nu har manglet fra den, nu på høje tid, offentlige opstand over hemmeligholdelsen af de 28 sider fra den originale fælles Kongresundersøgelse af 11. september. Hvor fik den saudiske USA-ambassadør prins ”Bandar Bush” pengene fra til at finansiere de to ledende 11. september flykaprere i San Diego? Fra Al Yamamah kontoen i Bank of England, der gik til hans personlige bankkonto i Riggs National Bank i Washington. Det var hans del af Al Yamamah-rovet, minimum $2 milliarder.

Uden beskyttelse fra Londonistan ville der ikke være et Saudisk kongedømme, ingen infrastruktur til jihad-terrorisme, ingen global stof-epidemi og ingen trussel om global udryddelseskrig.

Helt tilbage fra før de faktiske 11. september angreb, som Lyndon LaRouche overværede på live-TV mens han gav et interview til den populære radiovært fra Utah Jack Stockwell, advarede LaRouche om en truende Rigsdagsbrand, iscenesat under Bush-Cheney administrationen for at drive USA hen imod en diktaturstat. I december 2000 havde Executive Intelligence Review formelt begæret, at det amerikanske State Department satte Storbritannien på listen over statssponsorer af terrorisme. Dokumentet angav detaljeret snesevis af formelle klager fra regeringer rundt om i verden imod Londons husly til, og finansiering af, terrorister og voldelige separatister.

Der var rigeligt med lejlighed til at stoppe masse-blodsudgydelserne inklusiv 11. september ved at tage fat på menneskehedens virkelige fjende – det britiske Imperium. Undladelsen af at gøre dette i den nylige fortid har bragt os i det graverende øjeblik af krise, hvor et desperate og bankerot britisk Imperium er parat til at sprænge verden i luften, hellere end at afstå dets magt. Nu er øjeblikket inde til at slå den saudiske terrormaskine, sammen med det britiske Imperium, der i virkeligheden kører showet, ud. Bryd dækket over 11. september, og tag Obama ned sammen med anglo-saudierne. Det er muligvis menneskehedens sidste og bedste chance for overlevelse.

LaRouchePAC-fredagswebcast den 22. april 2016:
Om de britiske og saudi-arabiske forbindelser bag terrorangrebet den 11. september 2001

I takt med at presset fortsat vokser på Obama for at frigive de 28 sider om d. 11. september, inklusiv at tidligere senator Bob Graham i denne uge har skrevet en ledende artikel, hvori han undsiger det "aggressive bedrag", som to på hinanden følgende administrationer har forøvet mod det amerikanske folk, begynder vi i aften kl. 8 pm. (eastern time) vores webudsendelse med en særlig video-erklæring fra Lyndon LaRouche personligt. Han hævder en afgørende britisk skyld i komplottet, hvorefter Jeffrey Steinberg indtager podiet for i detaljer at udlægge sine eksklusive undersøgelser i disse britisk-saudiske forbindelser. Jeff Steinberg diskuterer også implikationerne af det nyligt frigivne 47-siders dokument forfattet af undersøgerne i 11. september Kommissionen, i hvilken de forslog en efterforskning af den rolle, som agenturer indenfor den amerikanske regering spillede i at dække over den saudiske rolle i angrebene, men som de blev blokeret i at foretage.

Engelsk udskrift.

As the pressure continues to increase on Obama to release the 28 pages on 9/11, including former Senator Bob Graham authoring an editorial this week in which he denounces the "aggressive deception" which two consecutive administrations have perpetrated against the American people, we begin our webcast tonight at 8 pm eastern witha special video statement from Lyndon LaRouche personally in which he asserts the British culpability in the plot, after which Jeffrey Steinberg takes the podium to lay out in detail his exclusive research into these British-Saudi connections. Jeff Steinberg also discusses the implications of a newly released 47-page document authored by researchers on the 9/11 Commission in which they proposed to investigate the role that agencies within the US government played in covering up for the Saudi role in the attacks, but were blocked from doing so.

'JASTA' Act Passed in 2012, and Obama Signed It — Against Iran


MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening, my name is Matthew Ogden, and I would like to welcome all of you to our weekly broadcast here from larouchepac.com. You're watching the Friday evening webcast for April 22nd, 2016. I'm joined in the studio tonight by Jeffrey Steinberg, from Executive Intelligence Review. And the two of us had a meeting with both Lyndon and Helga LaRouche, and I think that the presentation that Jeff gives tonight will be a very significant presentation, elaborating on some remarks that Mr. LaRouche had to say just yesterday on the question of the story behind and beyondthe 28 pages.

Now, as those of you who are watching this broadcast tonight probably know, we are living in a truly momentous period of history. Over the last two weeks, since the "60 Minutes" episode which elaborated the story of the so-called "28 pages," the redacted chapter of the 9/11 Joint Congressional Inquiry report into 9/11, that has been classified by both the Bush and the Obama administrations; since that broadcast, there has been an unrelenting stream of media coverage of this story, in almost all of the major national press in the United States, and also internationally, in Europe and elsewhere. There has also been a relentless attack, directly, on Obama, by name, for his refusal to declassify these 28 pages, despite the promises that he has given to the 9/11 families; and also for his open and explicit opposition to the lawsuit that families have waged against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, as well as the bill that they have introduced into the United States Senate, the Justice Against State Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), which would allow those victims to sue the state-sponsors of the 9/11 attacks.

Now, as you know, on the LaRouche PAC website, we have been covering this story for years, very closely. We've been following the efforts of Congressman Walter Jones (R-NC), Congressman Stephen Lynch (D-MA), and Congressman Thomas Massie (R-KY) in the House of Representatives, who have introduced a bill, now over two years ago, House Resolution 14 (H.R.14), which was previously House Resolution 428, calling on Obama to declassify the 28 pages; and they've worked very closely with former Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL). Bob Graham was the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time of the 9/11 attacks, and was co-chairman of the 9/11 Joint Congressional Inquiry report.

Bob Graham has been very vocal, for years, in calling for the 28 pages to be released. I had the pleasure of interviewing him at an event in Florida in November of 2014, and at that time, he was very clear that if the 28 pages had not been classified and suppressed, you would not be seeing the threat of terrorism that we're facing today from al-Qaeda and from ISIS, both of which have received direct funding from individuals connected with the Saudi regime.

Bob Graham wrote a very clear and very blunt op-ed that was published in the Florida newspaper TCPalm, which was titled, "28 Pages: How Our Government Has Used Deceit To Withhold Truth From the American People." This op-ed was published on Wednesday, to be timed directly in coincidence with President Obama's landing in Riyadh, to hold a joint bilateral summit with King Salman of Saudi Arabia. In this op-ed, Senator Graham is perhaps more explicit than he has ever been. He said, "This was not just a cover-up." The suppression of the 28 pages and other evidence linking the Saudis to 9/11 was the result of what he calls "an aggressive deception." He says, "Your government has purposely used deceit to withhold the truth." The reason for this deceit, he says, "is to protect the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia from its complicity in the murder of 2,977 Americans. On April 15, the New York Timesreported: 'Saudi Arabia has told the Obama administration and members of Congress that it will sell off hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of American assets held by the kingdom if Congress passes a bill that would allow the Saudi government to be held responsible for any role in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.'" That is obviously a blackmail threat against the United States, and that's what they said publicly; one can only wonder what the Saudis were threatening behind closed doors.

What Senator Graham goes on to say in this op-ed is: "If that is not sufficient to get your blood boiling, read on: [the New York Timeswrites] 'The Obama administration has lobbied Congress to block the bill's passage.'"

Now, Senator Graham elaborates that there have been multiple forms of what he calls this "aggressive deceit"; not only the suppression of the 28 pages. He said the 28 pages would disclose the sources of funding for the attack on 9/11; this has been under review for declassification for three years, which was three times the amount of time that it took to research, author and publish, the original Congressional Inquiry report which was 838 pages long! He said, secondly, "The 28 pages are the most iconic, but not the only, evidence to be withheld from the report of the congressional inquiry. The report is pocked by hundreds of specific redactions."

And then he says, thirdly, "Investigations at locales where the hijackers lived and plotted prior to the attacks also have been classified. One of those involves Mohamed Atta, the leader of the hijackers, and two of his henchmen who are alleged to have collaborated with a prominent Saudi family who lived in Sarasota for six years before abruptly departing for Saudi Arabia two weeks before 9/11."

Senator Graham says, "The FBI publicly described its Sarasota investigation as complete, and said it found no connection between the hijackers and the family. Later, responding to a Freedom of Information lawsuit, the FBI released an investigative report that said the family had 'many connections' to individuals tied to the terrorist attacks. The FBI for two years has aggressively resisted releasing that report," Graham says. [emphasis added] And this is part of a much bigger story, that goes beyond just the 28 pages per se.

Now, Senator Graham concludes that op-ed by saying there are three reasons why the 28 pages must be released: One is justice for the families; two is national security, and he said: The fact that Saudis, and their "blatant attempts to avoid liability as co-conspirators in the crime of 9/11, and the U.S. government's acquiescence by refusing to release information (and opposition to reforming laws that would hold collaborators in murder to account) has been a clear signal to the Kingdom that it is immune from U.S. sanctions. With that impunity," Senator Graham says, "it continues to finance terrorists and fund mosques and schools used to indoctrinate the next generation of terrorists in intolerance and jihad."

And then finally, he said, this is an issue of democracy. "The American government is founded on the consent of the governed. To give that consent, the people must know what the government is doing in its name. Distrust in government is reflected in the speeches of today's presidential candidates" he said. "The public's sometimes angry response is fueled by a sense of betrayal and deceit."

Now, Mr. LaRouche was asked a question from our institutional source this week, this is our regular institutional question, and it's very brief, but it's obviously directly on this subject-matter. The question reads as follows: "Mr. LaRouche, there has been an overwhelming enthusiasm to release the 28 pages lately. What is your advice to the Obama administration, in regards to the 28 pages?"

Now, we produced a short video which includes the audio of Mr. LaRouche's remarks on this subject. We're going to play that video for you now; it's about five minutes in length, and then immediately after that video, I'm going to ask Jeff Steinberg to come to the podium to elaborate some of the points that Mr. LaRouche asserts in this statement.

LYNDON LAROUCHE: [via audio file] I was watching those two planes which were carrying the victims, and carried them to death. I was an eyewitness to the press. We knew that they were being carried, as victims, inside the planes, in the two planes in succession, and obviously the passengers all died.

But that operation, on that occasion, which I witnessed from beginning to end in my first contact with it, defines the actual issue which has to be addressed.

Now of course, I also knew what the background was. The way this thing was set into motion was with the Bush family. Now, the Bush family was actually a key part, of setting this thing into motion; they may not have intended to do that, because they're too stupid to know what they're doing. See, the Bush family was involved in its own little warfare operation, so there was a spillover from the Bush administration as such, into this particular operation. The whole operation was twofold: One, was British-Saudi operation. Now the person who was directing the thing from inside the United States, had been trained by the British system. Bandar was a key figure operating inside the United States. Bandar was directly overseeing the launching of this operation.

And what they were doing, was they were shipping petroleum as a real money-making operation, just with the oil trade, by the British, shared with the Saudis; and this thing was done for harmful purposes in many ways, and was a key part of control of what the United States was doing in petroleum; because the thing was a fraud — a fraud committed by Her Majesty. Her Majesty was guilty: period. Queen Elizabeth was the author of this operation. She was the only person who was qualified to authorize this operation.

The attack on Manhattan was done under the cover of the British system. And the Saudis were a subordinate aspect of the British system as a whole. Her Majesty was the author, of this monster. And the Saudis were simply stooges. The Saudis have been stooges from the beginning of the 20th century. That's the essential story. Everything has to be focused on that: The fact that is was thedeliberate mass murder of American citizens. And not only that, but adirect attack on the United States!

The key thing is that the British and the Saudis are the same thing, since that time. And all these facts are really known, on the record. The Saudis are guilty and the British are guilty, because the Saudis and the British are part of the same agency. What the Saudis do, what the British do, won't be the same thing. The fact is that the Saudi Kingdom is not a real government — it's an empire; it's an imperial institution. It has no formal responsibility to anything except the Kingdom of the Saudis, and the British! They are the same thing!

OGDEN: Now, as you can see displayed on the screen, we have a short advertisement for a much longer feature documentary that was published, actually several years back by LaRouche PAC Television, which was called "Beyond the 28 Pages: 9/11 Ten Years Later,".

Jeffrey Steinberg was interviewed as part of that production, and obviously has been very intimately familiar with many of the facts that are presented in that documentary and which were alluded to by Mr. LaRouche in the statement that you just heard. So I'm going to invite Jeff Steinberg to come to the podium to elaborate this, in a little bit more detail.

JEFFREY STEINBERG:  Thank you, Matt.  Well I think it's important to recognize that the fundamental point that Mr. LaRouche just made in answering the institutional question for this week, is that the story of 9/11 is incomplete if we simply stop with the now obvious, transparently evident role that high-ranking figures within the Saudi royal family and within the Saudi government played in the 9/11 attacks. Both before the attacks, as the attacks were happening, and in the cover-up that followed. What's crucial to understand is that the Saudis do nothing without full support and approval coming from the highest levels of the British monarchy; all the way up to the Queen herself, and to the Royal Consort, Prince Philip.  The fact of the matter is that, going back centuries, back to the time of the heyday of the British East India Company, the entire Persian Gulf region was a British colony, a British Protectorate. For centuries, every one of the so-called nations — really tribal collections — along the Persian Gulf, whether it was Bahrain, or the UAE, or Qatar, or Oman, or Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait; all of those countries existed in name only. All of them had treaty agreements where their foreign and defense policy was run out of London. It was a vital feature for the functioning of the British East India Company to have a way station en route to India and on to China. So, at the beginning of the 20th Century, when people like Lawrence of Arabia forged the establishment of the House of Saud as a marriage between a tribal family and the Wahabi fundamentalist clergy of that area; it's always been a British game, it's always been tightly under the thumb of the British.  And that carries through even more so in the present modern period.

Mr. LaRouche mentioned Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who for years was the Saudi ambassador here in the United States; before that, he was the Saudi military attaché in Washington. And he was widely referred to as "Prince Bandar Bush", because of his close relationship with the Bush family — starting with father George HW Bush, and continuing even more so under George W Bush — was notoriously close. But above all else, Prince Bandar was a British agent. He was trained at British military schools; his official, authorized biography was written by one of his school chums from British military school. And in 1985, Bandar negotiated what came to be a critical feature of the Anglo-Saudi arrangement — the Al-Yamamah deal; this was ostensibly a barter arrangement in which the Saudis paid in oil for British military equipment — fighter planes, radar systems, training, supplies, all of that.

And in carefully investigating that program, what we discovered was that the amount of oil that the Saudis delivered to the British in payment for about $40 billion of military hardware, was orders of magnitude greater.  The oil for the Saudis was cheap; it was under $5 a barrel to pull it out of the ground and load it onto a supertanker. But once British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell took control over that oil, they sold it on the spot market at phenomenal mark-ups. From 1985 until the scandal first broke in 2007, more than $100 billion in excess funds were accrued after paying for the British military equipment and after generous bribes to many British and Saudi officials. Hundreds of billions of dollars were sequestered in offshore bank accounts; and those funds represented the biggest slush fund in the world for carrying out destabilizations of governments, terrorist activities, and assassinations. Prince Bandar, not being the brightest guy on the planet, openly boasted about this special relationship, and said that while Al-Yamamah was a traditional barter arrangement — oil for weapons — it was in fact something much more. It was a reflection of the marriage of the British and Saudi monarchies; and the fact that these monarchies could operate outside of any parliamentary or Congressional scrutiny; and could carry out black operations anywhere in the world that they chose to do it.

Now, officially, Prince Bandar received a $2 billion commission for arranging the Al-Yamamah deal; and those funds have been traced.  They went from accounts of the Bank of England, accounts from the British Ministry of Defense that oversaw the Al-Yamamah arrangement; and they went from there into the bank accounts in Riggs National Bank in Washington DC, the private accounts of Prince Bandar bin Sultan.  Among the documentation contained in the 28 pages that Presidents Bush and Obama have kept from the American people, is evidence, paper trails of funds that were sent directly from Bandar's and his wife's personal bank account into the hands of two Saudi intelligence agents who were the handlers of the original two 9/11 hijackers who arrived in the United States at the beginning of the year 2000.

So, the British hand in 9/11 is unmistakable. If those 28 pages were to be opened up, it would not only confirm that the British and the Saudi royal families were together engaged in setting up and financing the 9/11 attacks; but would open up an array of other questions about follow-on terrorist operations that have occurred on a global scale. All told, hundreds of billions of dollars laundered offshore —probably in places like Panama, as well as the Cayman Islands, the Isles of Jersey off the coast of England — have gone into countless operations like the 9/11 attacks themselves.

So, while many people are quite clear on why it is that President George W Bush would order the suppression of the 28 pages, because of his notorious close relationship with Prince Bandar and the Saudis; many people scratch their heads and say, "Well, why would President Obama — particularly after he promised the families that he would declassify the 28 pages; why would President Obama continue with the cover-up?" It's not for Obama a matter of the Saudis; for Obama it goes to the next higher level in this whole story, which is namely, the British. Obama, from the beginning of his political career, has been sponsored by the British. It's not surprising that this week President Obama made a trip to Saudi Arabia; he was there Wednesday and Thursday. He met with King Salman of Saudi Arabia; and on Thursday, he met with all of the leaders of the Gulf Cooperation Council countries. From there, he has now flown on to London, where he will be holding a private audience with the Queen. Obama has been a slavish loyalist of the British Empire, of the British monarchy, since the moment he came into office as President. So, Obama's hand in the cover-up, the shameless continuing cover-up of what happened on 9/11, is all about protecting the British side of this story. Were those 28 pages to be opened up, the minute that one began looking at the role of Prince Bandar, it would become absolutely obvious that there is a major British side to this story.

Now of course, when you talk about the British monarchy, if you roll the clock back just a few years before the September 11, 2001 attacks; remember that there was an intensive investigation over a number of years into the fact that the British monarchy was unquestionably behind the murder of Princess Diana. It was a revenge killing because she represented forces that were completely disgusted with the way that the House of Windsor, Queen Elizabeth, Prince Philip, Prince Charles operated. So, you have a British monarchy that has blood on its hands going back a very long time; and most recently with the top-down ordered assassination of Princess Diana. It should come as no surprise that that same British apparatus is up to its eyeballs on global terrorism.

Now in point of fact, in late 2000, Executive Intelligence Review filed a formal request with the US State Department that they consider placing Great Britain on the list of state sponsors of terrorism. People may remember at that time, there was a wave of terrorism going on around the globe. In 1997, you had the Egyptian Islamic Jihad group carry out an attack against a group of Japanese tourists at Luxor; and the Egyptian government at that time, provided detailed evidence that the terror plot had been organized, financed, and controlled by Egyptian terrorist networks that were living in Britain under the protection of the British monarchy.

Several years later, the Russian government filed a series of formal diplomatic demarches because they had evidence that the British government was facilitating the recruitment of Chechen terrorists who would be allowed to travel to Afghanistan from Britain to be trained by al-Qaeda and then safely routed into Chechnya to become part of the separatist terrorist networks that were fighting against the Russian government. There was detailed evidence that was included in that EIR profile; and unfortunately needless to say, the State Department sat on it, did nothing; and so, we had 2001. And we had many subsequent terrorist events that followed from that.

So, the bottom line here, is that now that there is intensive momentum demanding the declassification of those 28 pages, what is really required is a complete, de novo, top-down investigation into the 9/11 actions; and into all of the subsequent terrorist actions that have followed and have been the work of the same Anglo-Saudi apparatus. Once those 28 pages are made public, once the American people — led by the families of those 2,997 people killed by 9/11 — have the chance to thoroughly read through and digest the content of those pages; then the whole can of worms, the whole British-Saudi empire structure has to be brought down. Has to be subject to the kind of rigorous criminal prosecution that is warranted; and that means as well, that both President Bush and President Obama have to be brought to criminal task for their role in both facilitating and covering this up.

As Mr. LaRouche said in his brief comments to colleagues yesterday, that you just saw in that 5-minute video, he was on the scene; he was giving a live interview to Utah radio broadcaster Jack Stockwell. He had the TV on in his study; and he saw in real-time, the planes crashing into the two World Trade Center towers. He was one of the few people — perhaps the only person outside of those who committed the crime — on Earth who understood the full strategic implications of it the moment that the attack occurred. LaRouche had warned at the beginning of 2001, once he saw the character of the Bush/Cheney administration, that this was the kind of regime that would look for the first opportunity to carry out a Reichstag fire in order to go for dictatorship. And he understood that it was the Anglo-Saudi apparatus that represented the capability for carrying out just such a heinous crime with those particular intentions. He made very clear in that real-time interview with Jack Stockwell, that the entire blame was going to immediately be placed on al-Qaeda; but he said to the extent that al-Qaeda had anything to do with it, it's a bit part. It's a minor element of something much bigger that goes much higher; and goes up to the British-Saudi apparatus that we've been discussing here.

So, members of Congress who have read those 28 pages — and by now, there's well over 100 members who have done that; they've all come away with the same conclusion. That these documents must be made public; and furthermore, that they completely alter how you understand the history of the last several decades. So, take that as just a glimmer of an indication of what the implications are. Regardless of what's contained in the 28 pages per se, it's the implications of the findings in those 28 pages; and the can of worms that's opened up that leads all the way up to the British monarchy.  And you realize that the fight to get these 28 pages released to the public is a fight for the very survival of mankind going forward from this day. The British Empire today is bankrupt; they're desperate. They're not just desperate to cover up the 28 pages and the whole 9/11 story and the Al-Yamamah story; they're desperate because they're on the edge of losing their power. And they will, if the opportunity presents itself, create the conditions using these kinds of capabilities, to start a world war. So, the stakes are enormous; and the answer is very straightforward. Release the 28 pages; and on the basis of that, re-open from the top down a complete and thorough investigation. Starting with the British and Saudi monarchies and working down from there. We owe it to the families that suffered through 9/11; we owe it to the American people; and we owe it to mankind.

OGDEN: Thank you very much, Jeff. One thing I would just mention in relation with some of what Jeff just went through in detail, is that some of these connections are not unknown to people who are familiar with this investigation. In fact, Senator Bob Graham himself, while denied from including this in his nonfiction book, Intelligence Matters; in his fiction book — which he said himself he had to publish, because it was the only way he could get the truth in written form. In his fiction book, his novel Keys to the Kingdom, Senator Bob Graham includes a lot of references to exactly the kinds of things that Jeff just went through. The role of BAE; the Al-Yamamah deal; the offshore tax havens; the Cayman Islands; the fact that Tony Blair intervened to shut down the investigation into the connection between the British BAE Systems and the Saudis. So, in fact, these are the lines of inquiry that anybody who is serious — and the people who are familiar with this case — wish would be pursued; because they know exactly how big this can of worms really is.

Now, the 28 pages may not have been declassified yet; however, one very important document that was declassified recently — and has only now begun to receive media attention, starting with an exclusive report and analysis by Brian McGlinchey, who is the editor of the very important website 28pages.org. This is a document which was a 47-page draft document which was written by two researchers who were working on the 9/11 Commission; this was the independent blue-ribbon panel their own extensive report into 9/11. But these two researchers, who are named Dana Lesemann and Michael Jacobson, had both been formerly employed by the Congressional Joint Inquiry Committee. And in this 47-page document, they lay out what was going to be their own working plans for their follow-up research on the spcific lines of research which they had been engaged in during their role in the Congressional investigation. One of the items which they cite in this document — and Jeff will elaborate this more — is the fact that an alleged al-Qaeda operative, a person named Ghassan al-Sharbi who had trained for flight lessons in Arizona prior to 9/11, and who was captured in Pakistan subsequently; was discovered to have buried a cache of documents near to his person at the location where he was hiding, which included al-Sharbi's US pilot certificate which was inside of an envelope from the Saudi embassy in Washington DC.

Senator Bob Graham, who was not informed of this fact during the time that this investigation was going on, but later learned about it after this declassification; said in response, "That's very interesting.  That's a very intriguing and close connection to the Saudi embassy."  The second item which is of extraordinary interest in this 47-page research document, are the two questions which these two researchers intended to pursue.  The first question was:  How aggressively has the US government investigated possible ties between the Saudi government and/or royal family and the September 11 attacks?  And number two:  To what extent have the US government's efforts to investigate possible between the Saudi government and/or royal family and the September 11 attacks been affected by political, economic, or other considerations?

Now, what's very telling is that when Dana Lesemann attempted to go back and access the 28 pages which she herself was instrumental in researching and writing, first she was denied and blocked access to them; and then when she circumvented those denials, she was fired.  She was dismissed from the 9/11 Commission investigation.  So, I think that just demonstrates in a very illustrative way just one example of what Bob Graham described as the "aggressive deception" that has been undertaken in this case; that's what he said in the op-ed which I cited at the beginning of this broadcast tonight.  He said, "Your government has purposely used deceit to withhold the truth."  And that is not the only case.

One thing I would like to Jeff to just elaborate a little bit more on, is the entire story of the Sarasota cell, and the very significant work that investigative journalist Dan Christianson has done of theFlorida Bulldog, in tracking down 80,000 pages of FBI documents that linked Mohammed Atta and other members of the Sarasota cell to people connected with the Saudi royal family and the Saudi government. Documents which the FBI withheld from Bob Graham at the time of the Congressional investigation; did not tell him existed. They impeded that investigation and stonewalled on, until an FOIA lawsuit forced them to at least hand them over to a judge. And the review of those documents still has not been completed.

So, I would like to ask Jeff to come to the podium and elaborate a little bit more on the further implications of this "aggressive deception" — not just a cover-up — that has been committed by the US government in this regard.

STEINBERG: The 28 pages are a critical piece of this story, because that was the final product; it was the work product after a year of investigation by the Joint Congressional Inquiry. And that 28-page chapter that took up the question of foreign support and funding for the 9/11 hijackers, represented the most solid and corroborated evidence that the investigators were able to compile in the face of massive obstruction. It's not just simply that President Bush, when he reviewed the final 800-page report of the Joint Congressional Inquiry, simply ordered the suppression of the 28-page chapter. Every step along the way, during both the period of the investigation by the Joint Congressional Commission and the later 9/11 Commission, was impeded top down from the White House; and particularly from the highest levels of the FBI. This is not mere speculation. In the recent period — just over the course of the last year — many of the documents that were work-products of the Joint Committee and the 9/11 Commission which were classified, have now been reviewed and declassified.

For those of you who don't know some of the inner workings of Washington, there is a board which is located at the National Archive, called the Interagency Security Clearance Appeals Panel — referred to as ISCAP. And they are the final authority; they're kind of a Supreme Court with respect to questions about what documents should be declassified. And they've been in the process of reviewing and declassifying some of the important staff documents of the two investigative bodies. Last July, they declassified about 29 documents that were work-products from the 9/11 Commission; and one in particular written by Dana Lesemann and Jacobson, is very revealing. It was a work-product document; it was classified for the last decades as being "Secret", but what they laid out was their plans for pursuing the investigation over the period of the next several months. What's very clear is that they had many, many more leads on many more officials of the Saudi government — in southern California, in Washington, in Saudi Arabia — who were deeply implicated with the 9/11 hijackers. One section of Document 17, this 47-page paper that was declassified last July, is headlined "A Brief Overview of Possible Saudi Government Connections to the September 11 Attacks"; and it goes through the names of 18 Saudi officials who were in southern California, in Washington, and back in Saudi Arabia, who had direct contact and facilitated the efforts of the hijackers.

Now, the FBI was a continuous obstacle from the top down. During the "60 Minutes" broadcast several weeks ago, Commission Member John Lehman said that the order to block the publication of the 28 pages came directly from Robert Muller, who was the director of the FBI at the time. Now, it happens, and again it's repeated throughout this 47-page working document from the 9/11 Commission staff, that the two 9/11 hijackers, al-Hazmi and al-Midhar, who were living in the San Diego area; for the better part of a year were living in the home of a man who was an FBI informant, who was being paid $3000 a month by the FBI to keep tabs on possible radicals inside the Muslim community — particularly the Saudi-Muslim community in the southern California area. The staff from the 9/11 Commission and earlier the staff from the Joint Congressional Inquiry, repeatedly asked to interview the informant; they were blocked at every turn. The informant was put in the Federal Witness Protection Program under a change of identity; the FBI Special Agents who were the handlers of this informant, were also blocked from being interviewed by the Committee. So, in other words, one branch of the Executive Branch of the Federal government was working overtime to prevent the investigation from going forward.

Now, going all the way back to the days of J Edgar Hoover, it was notorious that the FBI was completely in bed with the British. During World War II, it was an open collaboration between the FBI and the British Special Operations Executive, with their headquarters at Rockefeller Center in New York City. But this relationship continued. Wall Street is an important intermediary between the FBI and the British. And so, the FBI role in the cover-up, both in San Diego and in other parts of the country, is absolutely stunning; and is something that in and of itself must be thoroughly investigated and exposed.

In the case of Sarasota, the FBI conducted an exhaustive investigation into a wealthy Saudi family that were intimately tied through business with the Saudi royals, who were in regular contact with Mohammed Atta and two other of the 9/11 hijackers. They lived in a gated community in the Sarasota, Florida area. Mohammed Atta and the others would frequently visit that home; and two weeks before the 9/11 attacks, that family on very short notice, picked up and left the country. First flew back to London; and from London back on to Saudi Arabia. The FBI compiled 86,000 pages of documentation following up those leads; because the connections between this leading Saudi family and the 9/11 hijackers was unmistakable. Those documents were withheld from the Joint Congressional Inquiry, despite the fact that the FBI was subpoenaed all over the country to turn over any records relevant to the investigation into 9/11.

So, you've got — as Senator Graham said — "willful deception" at the highest levels of government. Now, we know about San Diego; we know about Sarasota. We know also that Herndon and Falls Church, Virginia was another sort of center of activity of some of the hijackers and some of the leading Saudi clerics who were part of the overall structure of support for those 9/11 terrorists. Paterson, New Jersey was another center of this. Senator Graham has said at press conferences on Capitol Hill, that we've barely scratched the surface; because the government — to protect the British and protect the Saudis — have put up a wall of deception. They've blocked lines of inquiry; they've concealed documents; they've committed fraud and perjury. All because the power of the British and the power of the British/Saudi alliance is so dominant over politics in Washington that the FBI, in effect, is sworn to defend that relationship; even if it means that the American people are denied justice.

So, once again in conclusion, there is much more to this story than merely the events of September 11, 2001; as horrific and as dramatic as they were. The 9/11 Families deserve nothing less than the full and complete truth; no matter where it leads. But the problem runs much deeper. If we don't purge this Anglo-Saudi problem, if we don't get to some of the questions that were posed by the 9/11 Commission staffers; such as "Did the FBI intentionally withhold from the Joint Inquiry, information about the informant's relationship with the hijackers; and subsequently attempt to obstruct the Joint Inquiry's investigation of the matter? If the FBI did withhold information and obstruct the Joint Inquiry's investigation, were the FBI's actions indicative of a larger pattern of an FBI non-compliance with Congressional oversight; and what should be done about it?"

So, this is a can of worms that must be opened; and must be systematically investigated. Because our very future may depend on getting to the bottom of this.

OGDEN: And we are truly seeing a very momentous shift around this while Obama is in Riyadh and then flying directly to London. This has become the subject of almost all of the media coverage in the United States. And it's an extraordinary opportunity to pull this thread to unravel this empire. However, this is just yet one of many threads that can and must be pulled. There are other threads: What came out two years ago in the Senator Levin report on HSBC. This has a major aspect of it; and of course, this is becoming relevant again in the Panama Papers. And Helga LaRouche thought it was very significant that Jacques Attali, a prominent French economist, wrote an article this week saying, don't call them the Panama Papers; call them the London Papers. Because what this is really all about is the entire system of British offshore tax havens and Crown Protectorates that create the safe haven for this dark underworld of narco-terrorism, drug money laundering, and terrorism financing. And you can be guaranteed that if you follow the money, some of those threads lead directly back to these offshore tax havens.

So, as we're seeing right now, a lot of the work that has been done over years if not decades by the LaRouche Movement, by Executive Intelligence Review, by associates of Jeff Steinberg. And by Mr. LaRouche going back to his book, Dope, Inc. and also the very important film that he put out at the end of the 1990s, "Storm Over Asia", which described exactly how these irregular warfare operations are run to destabilize countries. And then the appearance he had on the Jack Stockwell show on the day that September 11 was occurring; that is featured in this "9/11 Ten Years Later" feature documentary that we showed little excerpts from, during the statement that you heard from Mr. LaRouche earlier this evening.

So, if you have a chance and you haven't watched it, or you haven't watched it lately; we would encourage you to go back and view that documentary. It's available on larouchepac.com/28pages; it's also available on our youTube channel. And I think you can be ready for much, much more that will be coming from LaRouche PAC TV on this subject and the broader implications of it. So, please stay tuned to larouchepac.com; please subscribe to our YouTube channel if you haven't already. Please explore all the content that we have published on this subject in the past; and please share it as widely as you can with your friends and your associates.

So, I'd like to thank Jeff Steinberg for joining us here this evening; and I would like to thank you for watching our broadcast. Please stay tuned to larouchepac.com. Thank you and good night.


RADIO SCHILLER den 25. april 2016:
Barack Obama er en britisk agent

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Obama og det anglo-saudiske imperium på huggeblokken

Søndag aftens ’60 Minutter’ – eksposé af den saudiske rolle i de originale 11. september angreb og Bush- og Obama-administrationernes dække over de 28 sider, har forårsaget total panik i det Hvide Hus, i Riyadh og i London. Med krav fra både tidligere formand for Repræsentanternes Hus Nancy Pelosi og senator Kristen Gillebrand (D-NY) om, at Obama omgående af-klassificerer de 28 sider, har presset på Obama og det anglo-saudiske apparatur, som han og Bush har beskyttet i de sidste 15 år, nået en tærskel.
Obamas medskyld i at dække over det saudiske monarkis forbrydelser mere end overstiger målet for omgående rigsretssag og afsættelse. ’60 Minutter’–udsendelsen har været parat til at gå i luften i månedsvis, og det faktum, at showet blev sendt ti dage før Obamas planlagte besøg i Saudi Arabien for at mødes med GCC ledere, er en indikation af, at voksende magtfaktorer har erkendt, hvad Lyndon LaRouche erklærede så tidligt som i april 2009: At Obama er et redskab for det britiske monarki og deres saudiske slagtere, og at selve USA’s overlevelse er i fare for hver dag han forbliver i embedet.
’60 Minutter’-dokumentaren inddrog et antal veletablerede nationale sikkerheds-veteraner fra forhenværende flådesekretær John Lehman til tidligere CIA direktør Porter Goss og forhenværende senator Bob Graham, der alle forlangte en øjeblikkelig frigivelse af de 28 sider. Medlem af kongressens fælles undersøgelsesudvalg Tim Roemer pegede på tidligere FBI direktør Robert Mueller, som en af nøglefigurerne bag tilsløringen af den saudiske rolle.
’60 Minutter’-afsløringen gik I luften blot en uge efter frigivelsen af ’Panama-papirerne, ‘ der afslørede det virkeligt beskidte ømme punkt i det britiske imperium: ‘offshore’ penge-centrene, der hvidvasker narko- og andre former for sorte penge samt styrer skatteunddragelse og anden kriminalitet. Som Lyndon LaRouche har gjort det klart igennem årtier, er det britiske imperium et kriminelt oligarki opsat på befolkningsmord. Nu findes der 11 millioner sider med beviser imod det London-centrerede kriminelle og morderiske imperium.
Dette ‘et-to stød’ til hjertet af oligarkiet kommer endvidere på et tidspunkt, hvor briterne er desperate for at starte en verdenskrig imod Rusland og Kina, som en respons på det faktum, at deres system er håbløst og uigenkaldeligt bankerot. Obama er deres ynkelige instrument i denne stræben efter krig, og hans fjernelse fra embedet er på nuværende tidspunkt den eneste ægte løsningsmodel for at undgå krig.

Kampen om de 28 sider er nu nået til et punkt, hvor den kan bringe Obama og hele det rådne anglo-saudiske system til fald. Det er på tide!

Kampagnen for frigivelse af de 28 siger får nu også prominent dækning i Europa, som for eksempel på det velkendte franske sikkerhed- og forsvars website Dedefensa.org, der er baseret i Belgien. Dets omfattende dækning begynder med en rapport om ”60 minutter” exposéen: ”I søndags steg det politiske og folkelige pres for en af-klassificering af de famøse 28 sider fra den oprindelige amerikanske regeringsrapport om 11. september skarpt. Det skete med udsendelsen af et TV-program, for første gang med et stort nationalt publikum – ’60 Minutter’ med CS’s Steven Kroft som vært, et program, der helt og holdent var helliget spørgsmålet om 11. september. Det er en vigtig sejr for en offentligt lanceret bevægelse, udenfor politiske netværk……”

Link til udsendelsen på dansk TV:


Lyndon LaRouche advarer om atomkrigstrussel

LAROUCHE: Jeg vil sige, at lige nu gennemgår vi – ikke en simpel version af hvad vi tidligere har haft – men vi går ind i en krisesituation, der er meget dybt rodfæstet, ikke bare i USA, men på meget af planeten. Vi er på kanten af truslen om en lancering af krig imod Kina, og implicit også Putin, men Kina i særdeleshed – og truslerne er ved at blive meget alvorlige.

HONG LEI (talsmand for det kinesiske udenrigsministerium): Installationen af THAAD systemet har strakt sig langt ud over forsvarsbehovene i forhold til Nordkorea, og vil direkte skade Kinas strategiske og sikkerhedsmæssige interesser, såvel som den regionale balance.

LAROUCHE: Hvis disse trusler blev ført ud i livet, ville den umiddelbare effekt være generel verdensomspændende termonuklear krig. Det er kendsgerningerne. For hvis Putin blev slået ud, og hvis Kina, efter Obamas direktiver, blev ramt direkte, ville man have den værste generelle krigsførelse på planeten Jorden, der nogensinde er forekommet og som vi nogensinde har erfaret. Det er der vi er.

GEN. PHILIP BREEDLOV (øverstkommanderende for NATO): Om nødvendigt er vi er parate til at kæmpe og vinde….vores fokus vil ekspandere fra sikkerhed til afskrækkelse, inklusiv forholdsregler, der forøger vort samlede beredskab enormt. Mod øst og nord står vi over for et fornyet og aggressivt Rusland, der fortsat, som vi har været vidne til igennem de sidste to år, søger at udvide dets indflydelse på dets periferi og derudover.

LAROUCHE: Hvis vi ikke griber ind med det samme, og Obama agerer som han lige nu har til hensigt – vil han sætte en generel verdensomspændende termonuklear krig i bevægelse. Hvorvidt det vil lykkes ham at gøre det eller ej, er et andet spørgsmål, men kendsgerningen er, at han har til hensigt at gøre det. Og han sætter militære styrker ind på det -mange militærstyrker.

SERGEI GLAZYEV (Økonom og rådgiver til præsident Putin): Som det altid sker i en verdensøkonomisk orden under forandring, prøver det land, der er ved at taber sit lederskab, at slippe en verdenskrig løs for at få kontrol over periferien …… . State Department og det Hvide Hus fortsætter med at se verden gennem prismet af både den Kolde Krig og britiske konfrontationer med Rusland og Tyskland i det nittende århundrede. Og USA er i gang med at slippe en ny krig løs.

LAROUCHE: For indeværende er planetens transatlantiske samfund en katastrofe. Alt hvad vi havde på forhånd er netop krakket. Vi mister det hele. Så vi har to ting at gøre:
Få Obama ud med det samme. (Med det samme!) Forlad ham, han går efter en termonuklear krig! Så I er nødt til at få ham ud.
Når dette skridt er taget, er I nødt til at tage foranstaltninger til genopbygning, og de foranstaltninger er mulige, de lader sig gennem­føre. Der skal foretages en reorganisering af Kongressens politiske struktur og så videre. Og I må gå ud og finde folk, der er villige til at stå frem, som er i stand til at se på de ting vi kunne gøre, eller skulle have gjort. Det vil indebære, at gennemføre et program i lighed med det program, der gennemføres i Kina! Det Kina, som Obama har til hensigt at ødelægge.
Så det vi ønsker at gøre, er simpelthen at tage de samme ting i brug, som vi havde i forbindelse med rumprogrammet, at genoplive rumprogrammet, for vi skal have gjort en masse rumligt opdagelsesarbejde – rumarbejde. Og det vil blive meget vigtigt og meget rigt, og uden at gøre netop det, og uden at bruge det, klarer I det ikke.
Så I har intet alternativ til denne situation. Men hvis et sådant foretagende har det engagement, der skal til, og man er parate til at udfolde det, ville jeg sige: “Pris dem. Vi behøver dem!”
Og bak dem så op.

Økonomisk kollaps = Fascistiske stemmer i Europa og USA;

14. marts 2016 (Leder fra LaRouchePAC) – Den kinesiske avis Global Times udgav i dag et indsigtsfuldt synspunkt på afstand i det truende kollaps af visse amerikanske institutioner og udbruddet af massestøtte til en præsidentkandidat à la Mussolini – som, bemærker avisen, bryder frem som følge af økonomisk nedgang.

»Trumps tilhængere består for det meste af hvide fra den lavere klasse, og de mistede meget efter finanskrakket i 2008«, skrev avisen. »USA plejede at have den største og mest stabile middelklasse i den vestlige verden, men mange har oplevet en nedtur. Så var det, at Trump dukkede op. Stor i munden, antitraditionel, direkte med indslag af overgreb, er han den perfekte populist, der havde let ved at provokere offentligheden … han er endda blevet kaldt en ny Benito Mussolini eller Adolf Hitler af nogle vestlige medier … USA konfronteres med udsigten til fiasko for de etablerede institutioner, der meget vel kunne blive udløst af en voksende mængde problemer i det virkelige liv.«

Det samme sker i hele Europa, hvor et mønster, der spreder sig, med stemmer til den ekstreme højrefløj, som vi atter så det i denne weekend, hvor partiet AfD, Alternativ for Tyskland, skød frem med 15-20 % af stemmerne i valget i nogle af forbundsstaterne, efter at partiets leder truede med at skyde immigranter på stedet. AfD’s stemmeprocent svarede i bogstavelig forstand til arbejdsløshedsprocenten i den ene stat efter den anden.

Vi befinder os i realiteten i en tilstand med institutionernes sammenbrud i USA og Europa. Det kommer efter 15 år med økonomisk stagnation, massearbejdsløshed og indkomsttab, samt en hel stribe af frygtelige krige, som blev startet af Bush og Obama, samt af disse let bevæbnede, men rasende krigere, Storbritanniens Cameron og Frankrigs Hollande. Der har været så mange af disse massemordskrige, at den seneste, med Obama, Cameron og Hollande, der hjælper Saudi-Arabien med at ødelægge Yemen, knap nok omtales i de fleste medier.

Obama kan stilles for en rigsret alene pga. disse forfatningsstridige krige.

Men, hvad der er værre en tabet af respekt for nogen institution, så blev USA’s og dets borgeres mission – på den fremskudte grænse af teknologisk fremskridt – dræbt af Obama, da han afsluttede NASA’s planer for udforskningen af Månen og rummet.

En genopbygning af NASA’s programmer – der mobiliserer amerikanernes kreativitet i en genoplivning af USA’s rumudforskningsfremtid – er den centrale kraft, der kan vende dette kollaps omkring.

De økonomiske midler hertil er dem, der stod deres prøve under præsident Franklin Roosevelt, for at løse problemet med Wall Street og skabe statskredit til en økonomisk genrejsning. Men, det større mål er atter at have denne mission, menneskehedens fremtid i rummet.

Anfører af denne missions genrejsning er den demokratiske LaRouche-leder Kesha Rogers fra Texas, der identificerer dette som den enkelte, sikre vej til at vende det økonomiske kollaps, som Kinas Global Times ser. Og hun kræver, at dette gøres i samarbejde med især Kina, som nu er den nation, der hurtigst går frem i rummet og i opbygning af infrastruktur på Jorden.



Nancy Reagans død betegner ’Afslutningen af en bestemt æra’

7. marts 2016 (Leder fra LaRouchePAC) – Det transatlantiske systems kollaps er en dødbringende situation – fra det fysiske, økonomiske sammenbrud, til den finansielle nedsmeltnings kaos, til faren for krig og den rædselsvækkende virkning af det rådne opbud af kandidater til det amerikanske valg og dettes forløb. Det, der kræves under disse irrationelle omstændigheder, er en rationel respons. Der findes løsninger. Netop en sådan rationel respons er i gang i form af det fremstød, der kommer fra Ruslands og Kinas ledere, for samarbejde om rummet, videnskab, økonomisk udvikling i Eurasien og hele verden, og om fred. I sidste uge blev det under nationale møder i Beijing fastslået, at rumforskning nu vil blive en integreret del af Kinas økonomiske innovationsprogram. I USA leder LaRouchePAC’s Kesha Rogers det politiske fremstød for at genrejse netop samme anskuelse, der oprindeligt var et varemærke for det Amerikanske System, og som NASA legemliggjorde.

I dag satte Lyndon LaRouche spørgsmålet om lederskab ind i et umiddelbart, historisk perspektiv med reference til Nancy Reagans død i søndags. Han sagde, at, hvis man tager perioden fra Ronald Reagans valg til præsidentskabet i 1980, i frem til Nancys død, så er det et tegn på, at »en ganske bestemt æra netop er afsluttet«. Reagan legemliggjorde en kvalitetsstandard for lederskab. Han var en meget dygtig person. LaRouche talte om sin forbindelse med ham, og nu om mindet om hans hustru.

I den ny æra, der nu er i gang, handler krisen ikke kun om fraværet af lederskabskvalitet, men om den udbredte fjendtlighed over for en sådan kvalitet. Folk i det transatlantiske område – Vesten – bliver mere og mere vanvittige. Men vi kan ikke desto mindre, hvis vi intervenerer med rationalitet for at levere lederskabet, komme til undsætning og have held med vores forehavende.

Fjendens deployering er intens, med fremstød imod BRIKS og mod krig. Ingen anden end selveste den britiske krones tjener Ambrose Evans Pritchard er på scenen i Sao Paulo, hvor han udgiver en artikel fra 7. marts om, at »BRIKS-fantasien« nu er forbi, og at »BRIKS-konceptet er blevet meningsløst …« Han hævder, at »Brasilien er den første af BRIKS-kvintetten, der bryder sammen på så mange fronter på samme tid«, og at Sydafrika, Rusland og Kina alle er plaget af problemer. Han hævder, at kun Indien stadig har »vind i sejlene« – hvilket i realiteten refererer til beskidte, angloamerikanske tricks for at forsøge at få Indien til at blive ’den sidste, stående BRIK’.

Med hensyn til den relaterede, forrykte militære oprustningsfront, så er de største militære øvelser nogen sinde – kaldet Key Resolve – nu i gang mellem USA og Sydkorea. Med et opbud af 17.000 amerikanske styrker og 300.000 stk. sydkoreansk personel vil øvelserne vare i otte uger. Dette finder sted på et tidspunkt, hvor der er skarpe spændinger med Nordkorea, i betragtning af den kumulative virkning af årevis med geopolitik.

I LaRouchePAC’s ugentlige TV Policy Committee-udsendelse i dag formanede Lyndon LaRouche, »Det er slutningen på det gamle system. Det må erstattes af et andet. Det kan gøres.«

Det er farligt. Bliv ikke bange.