Webcast Questions and Answers
This is a transcript of the question-and-answer period which followed Lyndon LaRouche's main address at his Nov. 9, 2004 webcast.
Debra Freeman: Now, the first question that we have is a question that was submitted by a friend of Lyn's and an old fighter. He was a presidential candidate back during the Days of Rage. He also served as a U.S. Senator. The question is from Senator Eugene McCarthy, and he says, "Lyn, I went looking for W's mandate in my Bestiary. The varieties of mandates are generally divided into greater mandates and lesser mandates. Mandates are a pretty endangered species, you know, and W's may vanish entirely because if the Roves and the Wishers pass the same-sex marriage amendment, you'll never have a date between men again. There are many colors of mandates, and some mandates are more visible than others. Some are black, some are mainly white. W's is a pale mandate that came riding in on the proverbial pale horse.
"In certain circumstances, even a greater mandate may disappear altogether. In November of 1972, you may recall, an overwhelming mandate was found—that was the election of Richard Nixon; but by the early summer of 1974, this curious creature became a disappearing mandate, and by mid-August, it was gone. I understand that Lyn has joined my Bestiary project, and has already sighted a rare specimen in the White House." I think we all sighted it lurching around here a little bit earlier. I don't know where it is. Senator McCarthy's question to Lyn is the following. He says, "Lyn, do you think somebody used your rare specimen to steal our mandate?"
Lyndon LaRouche: Well, I think Gene wants me to say that we have the mandate still, the mandate of heaven. (applause) The mandate is sometimes one's moral responsibility. I use the case of Jeanne d'Arc, I use the case of Martin Luther King, as examples of persons because, many of you may recall Martin's last public address, in which he saw—he's been to the mountaintop, and therefore he was expending his life as a mandate for a purpose. Unfortunately, people who should have supported that mandate, were found wanting down the line, but he did. And also, modern civilization, to the extent we have one, is indebted deeply to Jeanne d'Arc, who had followed her mandate. The mandate we have, most importantly, is the one that's within us, the mandate to use our life in a way which serves mankind. And of course, in my peculiar position, I have a bigger mandate than all the rest of them put together.
Q (State Rep. Perry Clark of Kentucky): Lyn, good to be with you. Always a pleasure and a thrill to listen to you tell the truth to the American people, I so enjoy that. It's something you don't get much. Let me say one thing about a positive message. These are wonderful, these animations that you have and the tracking of it was absolutely fabulous. But I think at some point, for the selling point, it was either drop back to some of the principles of Franklin Roosevelt and Henry Clay from Kentucky, and show what happened when they put these monetary and fiscal policies into place. And then you would have a graph of the opposite animations. You will have an increase, and you will see what the infrastructure development in the Franklin Roosevelt projects did to the country, did to the nation, did to the working class people in the nation. So I think maybe we need to do our animations on the positive side also, and not just on the negative side, because you really do, not just you, we collectively really have the answers and they have been done before.
Another thing, too, with the deregulation, the maniacal deregulation that is going on for the past several years, especially in the utility industries, and the massive rape of profits that was going on through that and taking all the people's money and so on, what is the state of the utilities in the nation currently? Was it last year, or the year before, that you had the big blackout on the Northeast quadrant, basically because of deferred maintenance where the bottom line was? So, I just would kind of like to know where we are on our electrical, where we are on our utilities, and what kind of maintenance we need to catch up on those, to get us where we need to be.
LaRouche: What we have programmed, we have purchased packages which will enable us to put together, as rapidly as we can do it, the economic history of the United States along these lines, from about 1926 to the present. It's a matter of assembling the data which exists and putting it in this format, as a baseline. And the Roosevelt period, of course, is part of that. But the reason we picked 1926, it was the high point of the expansion of the railroad development in the United States, which began the process of takedown—that is, the 1925 farm crisis, the end of the railroad building in 1926, was the beginning of the takedown of the U.S. economy, leading into what Roosevelt faced. So we picked '26 to the present, in order to get a fair starting point, a running start, on the economic history, of the ups and downs of U.S. economy over the past period. And the Roosevelt period is a key part of this.
The problem is that we have a massive job to do, and the point is to, at all these stages, build the ground base for the animations, and then do the animations, the lapsed-time pedagogies on these kinds of aspects.
On the question of utilities, the basic problem is, you have two things. First of all, the 1971-72 change in U.S. international monetary policy. We were operating under Roosevelt, with a development of regulation which continued into the end of the war. Then, we continued many of the features of that regulation in the post-war period. But since 1964, we've been tearing it down, and it was done largely from, oh, 66-67, with the shutting down of the first phase of aerospace. We made the Moon shot, but we shut down many of the industries which had been indispensable for making the Moon shot. Then, with '71-72, we destroyed the stability of the international monetary system, and by destroying that stability, we undermined the possibility of maintaining utilities. Then, with 1975 on, especially in 1977-81, with the introduction of the Volcker measures in 1979, we destroyed, under Brzezinski, we destroyed the life structure of the U.S. economy, as a Trilateral Commission program which is called "Project 1980s," the key feature of which was called the destruction of the U.S. economy. The destruction of the economy. And the leader in this was Paul Volcker, who was one of the key figures there, who on being appointed as Federal Reserve chairman, unleashed a wave of inflation going up to 21, 22, 23 percent, which wiped out the savings and loan industry and set the structure of destroying everything.
Look, how many airlines that we had, which were major airlines in 1975, that exist today? What happened to Pan Am? What happened to TWA? What happened to Eastern Airlines? And so forth and so on. What happened to all our airlines? They're all going bankrupt! Why? Because of deregulation. How did we destroy our electrical power system? Deregulation! Enron phenomenon is the end result. So, what we've changed, the international monetary policy to a floating-exchange-rate system, combined with globalization, combined with deregulation, combined with Bush madness, has destroyed the United States economy.
So, in dealing with utilities, you first of all have to have two things. Federal enabling legislation to restore the constitutional policy of regulation, and which is in effect to empower the states under Federal cooperation, to establish state systems of regulation. This means that the states should, in general, be the creators and regulators of state public utilities of all kinds. This should be in coordination with and backed by the Federal government. We should have interstate commerce, trade agreements, interstate agreements which reinforce this utility structure. So what we need is actually Roosevelt-style immediate general legislation, both Federal legislation and enabling legislation matching that on the state side, which you can easily fix up in the Congress. So simply restore the kind of system that we had, which worked.
And my approach is, at the first stage, as much as possible, we should do, as anti-depression measures, restore things that should not have been taken down, because we have a clear precedent, a clear record, we have structures, we have laws on the books, we have experience on the books, with these kinds of problems. So simply cancel the HMO legislation. Why not? Restore Hill-Burton. Support Hill-Burton restoration, with a national legislation on capital formation in rebuilding our medical system, to what it was supposed to be under Hill-Burton. That means restoring hospitals, restoring the whole support system. It means taking the question of immunization out of the private sector, and putting it with the Federal government, where it belongs. You don't give the U.S. Army to the private sector! You don't give the defense apparatus to the private sector. You don't give the medical defense apparatus to the private sector. The public sector is responsible. The government is responsible, primarily the Federal government, and the Federal government must then take enabling action to assist the states and localities in private facilities in setting up the systems to do the job. And make sure that the banking system has the credit facilities available to local institutions, private ones, to do it.
So, that's the way we have to approach it. It's simply, go back to the precedents we had, from the successes of the past. Restore things that shouldn't have been broken. Use that as the stepping stone, with Federal enabling legislation—which makes it Federal. You bring the states in, largely with the help of members of Congress, especially the Senate. It's the most efficient way to do it. So you are able to coordinate national legislation, which enables the states to go back in the utilities business, and which take over bankrupt non-functional remnants of utilities and put them back in the form of utilities, which people can safely put savings into, without fear.
Q (Democratic consultant who was involved in the strategy of the last phase of the Kerry campaign): Mr. LaRouche, there's no question that this last week has surely been a frustrating one, and it's understandable that a certain amount of reflection is going to occur among we Democrats. As I think you know, two distinct views have emerged. Some people say that the mistake that was made in this presidential campaign is that it was not the economy, stupid, and that we didn't sufficiently address the moral issues. I actually happen to agree that we didn't sufficiently address the moral issues, but I think that the moral issues don't lie in same-sex marriage and abortion, but rather in the larger assertion that it is indeed immoral to allow a child to be hungry, without health care or without an education. I think it's immoral when a working man or woman isn't afforded a salary sufficient to support their family. So I think we should pose that moral question, and that moral issue. But many of my colleagues today are arguing that we have to give people what they want, if Democrats wish to be elected to office.
My view is that we're right and they're wrong. I really don't see any reason to cooperate with wrong policies or delusions. I don't think we have sufficient votes in the House or in the Senate, to win on many issues, but we sure as hell can gum up the works. Do you think that this is an irresponsible approach?
LaRouche: I think it is an exquisitely warm sentiment. What we have to do is this. Let me talk about what I'm going to do. I'm going to talk to every circle in the Democratic Party which is worth talking to, whether they agree with me or not. Because the first thing we have to have in this process is dialogue. Now, you know, being a scientist in one respect myself, I know the way you make progress is you start by dealing with people who are all wrong. The secret of success is to recognize that everybody else is wrong. And that's what all the great scientists have done.
Now, obviously, the Democratic Party is a mess because the Democratic Party has not been thinking clearly or sanely for a long time, and we got into this because people bought into things they had fought for, that weren't worth fighting for. It's like the man who was competing for marriage to a plastic dummy. It's not worth the effort. The satisfaction you think you're going to get is not there, unless you have unusual tastes. What you have to do is, you start with dialogue. A dialogue always starts with disagreement.
The essence of science is disagreement, but you have people who simply yell and scream, "We disagree!" and you have people who have the brains to discuss what the issues are, who say, "Okay, what are your assumptions?" What are your assumptions? The assumption that you have to be democratic. Well, what do you mean by that? We have to listen to what the majority say, and do it. But what if they're crazy? Like the captain of the ship, who ran the ship on the reefs. Why'd you do it? "Well, it was the wrong thing to do, I knew that, but I had to be democratic." And that's what the nature of the Democratic Party is. It's a ship which is run on the reefs, because it tried to be democratic in the wrong way.
Now, I don't like the word democracy. Never did, because the Democratic party of Greece was among the first fascist governments in known European history. And democracy is often fascism, because it means mobocracy. Just think of what the vote was for Adolf Hitler's confirmation as dictator in 1934! That's democracy in action for you! Eh? You have to have a commitment to principle. A commitment to principles which are finally asserted in the U.S. Federal Constitution, in the Preamble. The government is bound, implicitly, to make no law which destroys the sovereignty, or impairs the sovereignty of this nation, which does not defend the general welfare of all the people of this nation, which does not defend the sovereignty and welfare of the nation for posterity. Any law, I don't care how democratically urged, is a travesty in morality, which I will never support.
Therefore, we have to talk about principle, we have to talk about respect for the individual human being as a human being. We have to talk about spirituality. We have to talk about rights to education. We have to talk about fair treatment, that sort of thing. So therefore, what we want to do is to have a government by consent of the people, not democracy. Consent of the people means not taking a poll, not an opinion poll. Consent of the people means going out and arguing with the people, fighting with them over ideas, questioning their morals, questioning everything, in order to come at an understanding of what the truth is.
See, the problem is, in modern times, especially since that fascist association called the Congress of Cultural Freedom, which I've better named the Sexual Congress of Cultural Fascism—the idea of truth has been ripped out of United States institutions, in favor of popular opinion, in favor of what is called democracy. This idea of freedom. This is the idea of the German existentialists, who came to the United States and were Jewish fascists, because their birth certificates did not qualify them to join the Nazi party, such as Hannah Arendt and her friends. They were Jewish and they were Nazis. They wanted to join the Nazi party, but somebody warned them that their birth certificates were against their successful application. They brought these ideas here from Europe, and they called it freedom and democracy. And they said there is no truth. And they said, in their books, that a person who insists on truth is an authoritarian personality. And therefore, they took truth out of the system.
Now, this is the same thing that destroyed the great civilization of ancient Greece. It's called sophistry. And anyone who wants sophistry and says we're going to have that kind of democracy, I say you're a fascist. "What do you mean I'm a fascist?" "Well, you maybe think you're a democrat today, but you'll be a fascist tomorrow morning." Those who voted for Bush were fascists. They don't know it, but they were. That's what they voted for. I don't care what they thought they were voting for. I don't care what that plastic dummy was, that's not a woman. Your intentions were misguided. You were probably corrupted by the plastics industry.
The point here is, to deal with this problem, we have to go back to the question of truth. Now, the problem of truth is complicated today because, and I think Bob Rubin would agree with me, anybody under the age of 63 doesn't know what the truth is, at least in economics. That's the problem. Because we no longer believe in long-term capital formation. We no longer understand that the improvement of life today depends upon a utility which may have a 40-50 year capital life cycle, and if you don't have that utility and you don't have regulation around that utility, you're not going to get power. We are about to face a world in which power costs $100 a barrel for oil. When that price comes down, how are you going to live? How are you going to heat your home? Where are you going to get many of the things that come from manufacturing those by-products of petroleum? With our electrical industry collapsing, where are you going to drive the car? Where's the car? Where'd you park it when it ran out of gas?
So the question of truth, which in economics involves long-term capital formation. If you want a child of a certain skill, a scientist 25 years from now, you've got to train that child now, not 25 years later! Therefore, you have to have a commitment, what kind of an educational system will produce the child who is the scientist you need 25 years from now? Where's the educational system?
So, these kinds of criteria in government are crucial. That's what we depend upon. Truth! Truth.
People will say, "Well, my opinion is—." Your opinion is crap! I say it often to people. They don't like it, but it's true! They've got to stop talking about the authority of their opinion, and start talking about truth. And truth means measuring what you're proposing by its determinable, rationally determinable consequences. And therefore, this involves truth and education are one and the same thing.
So, the great thing we require in the Democratic Party is to go back to a mass-based Democratic Party, not a middle party. (You know what I mean by a middle party.) To a mass-based party, a clubhouse party in which all of the constituencies of the people, as with Roosevelt's reform, are able to express their voice in dialogue, within a structure of discussion, of ongoing discussion, where expertise is brought into play for the purposes of determining the truth. Not what your prejudices like or don't like, but what is the truth? And a strong leader is one who tells people, "Now come on, tell the truth." "Well, I don't like that. You're talking down to me." "I'm asking you to tell the truth." "Well, I have my opinion." "I'm not asking what your opinion is, I'm asking you to consider what the truth is. Because, you know, a general in warfare, and you guys are all for warfare these days. You voted for Bush, didn't you? And you're going to get all the warfare you wanted. We're going to lose them all, but that's all right, you're going to get the warfare you wanted anyway!"
The question of a general, or anybody else going to war, as our professional generals did, retired generals in particular, said that Bush is crazy. He's insane with his war. They said, on what grounds? What grounds are they use it on? They don't like war? No, they didn't say that! They said, you're going to lose it! You're going to make a mess of it! You have no exit strategy. You have no reason to go to war. You said I want to kill Saddam Hussein. Well, that is not a reason to take the United States to war. "But you've got to get rid of Saddam Hussein!" Our business is not to go running around the world, setting up governments as puppets that we like and killing the ones we don't like.
The question is, when you get into this business of chief executive, from a policy-making position of power, your responsibility is your accountability for the consequences of what you knowingly go along with. And these poor fools in Ohio, who allowed themselves to be hog-tied—.
Now, what was the Democratic Party's fault in this case? What was Kerry's fault?
Well, first of all, the Democratic Party excluded me from the primary debate process. That's the time the Democratic Party lost the election. They really started to lose the election in California when they wouldn't fight Schwarzenegger. That was the beginning. Then, when it came to the primaries in New Hampshire, they excluded me all the way through. And what did the candidates say? Well, Kerry said some nice things, but not one of those people in the campaign that I heard, said anything of any relevance to the American people's future! None of them! (applause) So, what did the Democratic Party do, because some people like Lieberman and so forth didn't like me, and some bankers didn't like me for fear I was going to defend the people against them, didn't want my voice to appear on the debates. As the result of the lack of my voice, the American people heard nothing intelligent about the economy from any of the candidates!
Now you've got the Ohio voters, who are not simply nuts out there. These were people who were swindled by Issue Number 1, and other things. Because the Democratic Party has gotten itself in a minestrone of phony issues, which are not Federal issues, and we're fighting about all kinds of this and that, single issues, instead of sticking to business. Nobody was discussing the economy. Kerry was talking about the economy eventually, and he came around under the influence of Clinton to talking about FDR, which is good. Edwards ran a good campaign as a vice presidential candidate, no doubt about that. But, the economy was never presented to the American people as an issue. And it's the economy that's going to kill us now. And Senator Kennedy was flat wrong, and played a very destructive role, in saying it's not the economy. It is precisely the economy, and it was over the issue of not addressing the economy that we lost in Ohio.
If I had been in the campaign very the beginning of the primary campaign, if I had been in the debates from the beginning, from which I was excluded, the economic issue which would have won the Democratic Party, would have been on the table. And whether I won the nomination or not would have been irrelevant, because I had put the thing on the table. And none of the other candidates I was running against as rivals, were competent to put the economic issues on the table, as I would have done, and I did. That's why we lost.
So therefore what we need is a dialogue process, which means cut that kind of crap out! Excluding me means you want to lose. And I guarantee you will lose much more than merely an election. You'll lose your life, you'll lose everything. You'll lose your future. You've got to stop this nonsense. So, we're right, and those of us who are right, that the issues of principle, the issues of consequence, on which the future of this nation and its people depend, the future of the peace of the world depend, those are the issues. And anybody who wants to discuss anything else, should go someplace else. Those of us who want to discuss seriously, will discuss those issues, and my contribution is crucial.
You cannot have a viable Democratic Party now without me as a key figure. You can't do it. There's nothing in it to put it together. It doesn't exist. Either we're going to have a discussion in the Democratic Party on that basis, on consequences, on future, on dealing with real problems which most people in the United States have no comprehension of whatsoever. Reading the press won't help them much. Going to university won't help them much. They don't understand what an economy is! I think almost nobody under 63 knows what an economy is, as the result of a change that was made to a post-industrial utopia, when people took their clothes off on entering universities in 1964. When they took off their clothes, raped a tree, drank who knows what, and since that time, long-term thinking has not been a characteristic of people in top layers of government or business.
So the key thing: He's right. He's absolutely correct. We stick to it stubbornly, because if we lose, to them, we'll lose; if we try to win, for us, we might win, if they'll go along. If they won't be educated, the situation is hopeless. Then, they'll write that on their tombstone: "They may have killed themselves off, but at least, they were democratic."
Freeman: You know, if anybody has any doubt about what Lyn is saying, let me just give you an example of something that occurred in Ohio. Sixty percent of the people in Ohio who voted, believe that the economy was in good shape. Now a very significant number of those people voted for John Kerry! They voted for Kerry, because they were against the war, or they liked him better, or they resented the fact that the President of the United States was an imbecile. But they still thought that the economy of the United States was okay. And just to underline the point: If Lyn had been a participant in the debates; if Lyn's voice had not been—if they had not attempted to silence Lyn's voice, 60% of the people would not have thought that. There were other Democrats, including at a certain point Kerry and certainly John Edwards and President Clinton, who did talk about the state of the economy. They talked about the collapse of the physical economy at various points, they talked about the inavailability of health care, but none of them told the truth. None of them talked about the fact that we were facing a global financial crisis, and that this was the end of an epoch. Nobody talked about that. Nobody talked about the need to reorganize the global financial system. Now, some of them didn't talk about it because they didn't think that it was a good thing to discuss, and some of them didn't talk about it because they don't believe it.
And it is perhaps the case that a lot of people out there among our fellow citizens would not have wanted to hear that. But the fact is, they need to hear it, and if Lyn had been a participant in the dialogue, I guarantee you that when people went to the polls in Ohio, 60% of them would not have thought that the economy was good.
Now, Lyn, I have to tell you we have an overwhelming number of questions, far more than are going to be asked. I'm trying to group some of them together. Probably the most are coming in directly from Ohio—some from the press in Ohio, some from activists in Ohio—all concerning the question of the viability of the vote. Carl Gordon, who is the editor of The Reporter in Akron, Ohio, says, "after listening to hundreds of voters, I just don't believe the closeness of the results. After looking at the actual numbers, they seem to have been pre-determined. I expected some counties to be 80%-20%, but across the board, all the results are the same. They're all 49% to 51%."
Henry Raines from American AM radio says, Mr. LaRouche, will your organization take a leadership role in challenging the alleged fraud in the Nov. 2 election? Will you join the call for full multi-state investigations into the irregularities and exit poll discrepancies? Many so-called public interest groups seem content to just roll over. Jerry Nadler, John Conyers, and some of the other ranking Democrats, and also Rep. Wexler from Florida, have submitted a letter to the Judiciary Committee saying that review of the vote is necessary. Finally, Michael Cox from Votescam asks simply, did the Republicans steal the vote? Lyn, everybody wants to know what you have to say about this, and want some direction as to how to proceed?
LaRouche: Well, there's no question that there was a combination of operations, which were implicitly totally unconstitutional—that is, the intent of the Constitution—which did determine a favorable tilt in the vote for Bush, and which was nourished by the fact that the Democratic Party has for a number of years behaved like a bunch of bums on the technicalities of conducting national and state elections. They paid no attention, like this thing in Florida in 2000. The reason that the Bush crowd was able to get "finality" as James Baker III demanded it then, was because the Democrats had done a sloppy job in preparing for the contingencies of the 2000 vote, and therefore left openings which the Republican machine had carefully crafted itself to go through, to manipulate that vote.
The Democratic Party has behaved like a bunch of slobs, and part of this is the fact that the Democratic Party has turned away from being a mass-based constituency party, into being an upper-20% party, based on the British Liberal Imperialist doctrine of Blair, of the so-called "middle." Of going for the suburban vote, and therefore counting that the usual—the Democrats were actually preaching, going for, they set themselves up for the Republicans. They were actually going for a fall, by advertising a commitment to their usual voters, of the three out of the past four federal elections, from suburbia primarily. And they were looking for a 50% plus one vote, as a policy of the Democratic Party from early in the year, and even earlier, going into the entire election.
And it was only in the late stage that somebody got the idea, and I said, you're up against a major fraud, and the only way to overwhelm it is by creating a landslide turnout, from among youth and from among the lower 80% of family income brackets. It's the only chance we have, and by getting the turnout, it doesn't merely mean telling them to turn out, it means organizing them! You don't get the voters to the polls by telling them to go. You get the voters to the polls by organizing them! Every Democrat knows that! So you have an organizing machine to get them to the polls on Election Day! That's how you get the vote.
But you have to have the organization to do it, you have to have the willingness and the program to do it, and the Democratic party had gone with this crazy "middle" thing, which is imported from the British, and from this fascist Samuel P. Huntington, with his famous paper—this sidekick of Brzezinski—the Crisis in Democracy, which became "Project Democracy." We have a dictatorship in the United States called "Project Democracy," which is run by the leaders of the Republican and Democratic Party. They sit there in Washington, adjacent to the Congress, and they run the party system. And the party people let it run that way.
I've run into a lot of trouble with that. But we've been going for the upper 20% of the vote as the core vote, and trying to run elections on that basis, and policies addressed to that. That's our mistake. Now, what this did is two things. First of all, we did succeed, particularly once Kerry agreed with Clinton to change the mode of the election. We did get a better election process, but we had a poor base to start with. We did not have an organized electoral program base, consistent with what Kerry and Clinton agreed upon in terms of reforming the campaign. And it was much too late, though we tried to do the best we could.
What we did succeed in doing, with the youth and with other constituencies, not only my associates but others we were working and cooperating with, was an excellent job in turning out an increase in the vote. We did not have the machine we needed, to ensure that the vote was delivered to the polls, but we did stimulate a lot of vote, in the right direction. But meanwhile, the Republican machine, sitting there, knowing that the Democratic Party is called the sitting duck party. It is totally unprepared to deal with the kinds of things which transparently the Republican Party machine was planning. Now, from a constitutional law standpoint, what was made was a not-so-cold coup d'etat against the United States Constitution.
One fact alone is outstanding. Voter suppression action, as cited by the NAACP, and as the Republicans went after the NAACP on that issue, typifies the issue. The very fact of voter suppression action is a violation of the Voting Rights Act. Therefore, my view is, let's start from the criminality of the criminal, and find out secondary crimes he committed. The criminality of the Republican Party—they had this guy, this so-called African-American, standing out with his big fat face hanging out, saying he's in charge of the vote suppression program! I mean, this is an admission of a crime! It's a violation of federal law, and I would go after that because a coup was run against the American people and the Constitution, by violation of that law.
Start from there. Okay, you guys are crooks. Now, what other little crimes did you commit? You want to confess, you want to cut a deal, a plea-bargain? The point is, the moral authority that we have is what we have to begin with. We have great moral authority in saying this election was a fraud. The moral authority for saying that statement, there's sufficient evidence for that statement, is the evidence of the voter suppression campaign, as we know it from Louisiana, as we know it from Florida, as we know it from elsewhere. As we know it also in the state of Ohio.
Voter suppression is subversion, and a party that engages in voter suppression, the officials of that party who engage in that and those who knowingly cooperate in that program, are guilty of a crime, of violation of the Voters Rights Act, and they should be imprisoned for the relevant period of time, and they should be squeezed for all its worth. What we have to do is take the high position, the high position of moral authority. Not kiss the butt of Bush, which many Democrats are prepared to do. I don't know what their tastes are, but that's what they propose to do. And what we have to do is take the moral high ground of authority, and say, well, you guys committed a crime. You allowed a crime to go on, called vote suppression. You were trying every pretext in the world to suppress the votes of people, known groups of people, and you were targeting on a racialist and similar basis. It's a crime. And I would say to these, let's start from the strong point that we have. We have a lot of evidence of irregularities, a lot of evidence of corruption. Things that could not have happened by accident. And therefore, let's start with what we've got the goods on these guys for. They engaged in a systemic voter suppression action. That had an effect on the vote. Therefore, you guys are guilty of a crime! Say, good morning, judge.
Asa Gordon: My name is Asa Gordon, I'm executive director of the Douglass School of Government. I filed a civil action over the 2000 election. The Congressional Research Service has come out with a survey over all the suits that were filed at the 1000 election. Gordon vs. Gore, the suit that I filed, is highlighted over all of the civil actions that were filed by the NAACP and the ACLU. None of the civil rights organizations, classic civil rights organizations, none of the litigation that is going on now, would address the question I addressed.
Lyndon LaRouche, you said that there was voter suppression. There is a remedy for that in the second section of the 14th Amendment. Everyone go back and look, not at the first section, which is the equal protection, but the right to vote in the second section. You know what it says? That Congress must reduce its representation in Congress predicated on the proportion of the disenfranchised citizens. That's in the Constitution! It's never been enforced, and you can understand why.
Now the reason for this is, those beautiful white abolitionists, during Reconstruction, without an NAACP, without an ACLU, but based on what they thought was fair, knew that the Confederate states are going to disenfranchise the recently freed blacks, and this is what we're going to set up. You can only have representatives, predicated on the population that actually exercises the right to vote. You cannot count your whole population for determining how many representatives you can have in Congress, and then deny a portion, you know, to vote. So, if you did that, what would that mean?
If you disenfranchise your black population, you can have only representatives predicated on the white population. Ladies and gentlemen, that's in the Constitution! They would not enforce it. Go back, read it. Think for yourself. It doesn't take rocket scientists—and I'm a rocket scientist. I was a scientist, an astrodynamicist for NASA, for 20 years—so I understand a little of this.
Now, let me give you one other beautiful thing that's out there. And I know you're going to get your Democratic friends to do this.
There are 23 states, ladies and gentlemen, in which you have a winner take all, in which we, robotlike, adhere to the winner take all—the candidate that wins the popular vote is accorded all the Presidential electors. Guess what? There's no statute on the books that requires that. You just do it, by tradition.
You know why you do it? In order to keep the hegemony of the two party system. Let's be clear.
In those states, you can go to those Presidential electors who are Democratic, like in Georgia. Georgia is a state where there's no statute on the books that says that the candidate that wins the popular vote, is accorded all of the 15 electoral votes from Georgia. Democrats consistently get 40% of the votes in virtually every one of the Southern states, that are written off. Tennessee does not have a statute that requires that. Louisiana does not have a statute that requires that. So the Democrats in Tennessee, Louisiana, Georgia should walk up, when the Electoral College comes to vote: I represent 40% of the people who voted for Kerry, I want to have 40% of the electors here, to vote. And they say you cannot vote, predicated on what? I don't care about your tradition. I'm here to enforce, to represent the people who voted for me.
You can create chaos, before this next election, by states that—you know how many votes are cast, on winner take all, where there's no statute—208 electoral votes are given on a winner-take-all basis, in which you have 40, 30, percent splits, because of your adherence to the mind-numbing blindness of being a robot under this system.
Now, the other thing is, I'm going to have to be honest here. Kerry won Ohio, Kerry won Florida, and Kerry won New Mexico. Only though, if you count the so-called spoiled votes. Spoiled votes, disproportionately, that is, votes that are thrown out and not counted. The key, ladies and gentlemen, is not only the votes that were counted; it's over the votes that never made it to the count. And those votes, when you add to the provisional votes, disproportionately spoiled votes are from non-white voters. And disproportionately they are Democratic.
If you add the spoiled votes, where you have the clear intent—some people write in, they're so anxious to get their man elected, they punch the name, and they write the name on it also. That becomes a spoiled vote. But if you look at that, it's clear what his intent is. And that's what we should be focussing on, the intent.
Now, if you add in that, you will find that you will have a better match between the exit polls, and the actual polls cast. You can now look back and see CNN retroactively changing their exit polls, so that it will agree now with the results. They're doing that now. But eagle-eyed people who watch on the Internet all the time, have caught them doing this. Exit polls, ladies and gentlemen—don't believe it-they're the most accurate measurement of what an election has been. They do it in Germany. In Germany it takes them weeks to find out who elected their candidates, because, you know, they use paper. And they use a hand checkoff. What is it about this country, we've got to know it in 24 hours? I don't care how long it takes to count. The emphasis should be that the count should be right!
Now, that's part of our culture of instant gratification. I don't want no instant gratification, when I want to know who my leader's going to be. I don't care how long it takes! You know, in our election process, we need to use a little Viagra. Make it last a little longer, so the outcome will be more satisfying.
So, we have the tools there. It's out there now. You can go and challenge when the Electoral College votes, all those Democrats, and quite frankly, all those Republican electors who got representation in their state that is being dismissed because of winner-take-all, they can go.
Last thing, and I'm off.
Let's be honest. The reason why Kerry and Gore backed off, is because if they had counted all the votes, it would have expressed, in the end, a President who represented over 90% of the aspirations of the black vote, over a solid majority of whites who voted for Bush. 60% white males, about 54% white females, was about to be trumped by 90% choice of African-Americans, and so the choice that Kerry made, and I'm glad to say, Edwards, always remember Edwards. Edwards, he wanted to go forward. He's the only white man I know, that was willing to count all the votes, even if it meant that the white aspirations was not realized, but it realized the popular vote of the masses of the people.
Freeman: I'm going to let Lyn answer, but, Asa, LaRouche, he's not black, and he wanted all the votes counted. So, Edwards was not the only white man....
LaRouche: You need more militancy of a certain type in this situation.
The question is, how to win. We won't win on technicalities. You win on having the technicalities to your advantage, but you win because you convince people, in this case, that they made a mistake. And the conviction comes from causes which may not be directly relevant to the issue you're raising.
For example, if the good citizens of Ohio discover they were not only very dumb on the economy, but that they're about to suffer greatly more as a result of their stupidity, they think. Now, you can win them over! So, my view is, that the way you have to handle this thing is political. You have to have the law, the legalities, on your side, but that's not going to work on this crooked government, unless you've got something else going for you.
What you have going for you, is you've got to win people over to the idea they made a mistake.
The way you do that is with a mass-based political movement. And what we need is to get people off their butts, and get into mass-based political motion—about what? About what really is important to them! Even all these poor people that are very small-minded, and we have to recognized how small-minded many of our people are, they want a lot of money! What do you think this faith-based initiative swindle is? How many people have been bought off by faith-based initiative, which I call fascist-based initiative? Corruption! Systemic corruption of people whose—what do people say? We haven't got a chance, we haven't got a chance, we've got to take the money. We have no chance, we might as well take the money. We need the money. Money, money, money, money! Right?
But that's not the issue. Money is not the issue. Survival is the issue. And people who are going to take the money, not to survive? Take the money, like getting a blintz on the way into a concentration camp?
What people are having taken away from them is their right, their ability to have an income, by the destruction of the U.S. economy. They're taking away their freedom. Don't they realize what this Patriot I and II mean? This is Nazism! There's not much difference between that and the Nazi system. How can they vote Republican? How could they?
So, therefore, we have to go at, as a political movement, and convince the people of the United States they made a mistake. We have to use events to our advantage: that this thing is going to crumble. Look, the dollar is collapsing, as we speak. We're losing the war in Iraq, as we speak. It's getting worse and worse. We're losing the world as we speak, and any continuation of George Bush as President, and we lose it all.
Now, if you get that idea across to the American citizen, then he says: How can we fix this mistake I made? Well, brother, here's what we have for you. Here are your pretexts. There's your motive, here's your pretext. Your pretext is: "Well, they violated a law, knowingly. And they did all other kinds of things. You know how it is with organized crime. Now, we'll let them make a plea bargain. But you know what they do it us, we're going to do to them."
And what we have to do in particular, is we have to shame the conscience of institutions which should fight, which haven't fought. Which, in a sense, we say, have sold out.
Now, in these kinds of issues, of course, you referred to the civil rights tradition, and I think of Martin Luther King. And I think of what didn't happen after he died. Here's a man who should have been President of the United States, who put his life on the line for the United States! He didn't put his life on the line as a black protest movement. Yes, he was for civil rights, he fought for them. But he knew there was no chance for anyone unless we restored this republic, and built it to what it's supposed to be. Unless we had a commitment by this republic to a world of that type.
He was a man who should have been President, because he had the vision, and the understanding of the problem, which he dealt with immediately, as that. And so therefore, what we need is a movement. A movement which is premised on the understanding of what the deeper issue is, which then utilizes the fact that there are technicalities of law, which are not mere technicalities, but have substance to them, which are grounds for action. But as we saw, in 2000, we saw leaders of the Black Congressional Caucus and others, standing up in the proceedings, to try to find one, one, one Democratic Senator, who would endorse their declaration, for consideration. Not one!
Now, we have to shame some people, including John Kerry, into not making that mistake, again. But we have to do it politically. We cannot sit back with recipes. We have to get out there and mobilize now, as if we were in an election campaign.
Freeman: Those of you who are listening over the worldwide web, you're listening to an address by Lyndon LaRouche, former Democratic Presidential candidate, and the founder of LaRouche PAC. I'm going to take a question from the audience.
Let me just say this, because we have far more questions than we can possibly get to. The overwhelming majority of the questions are from members of LYM. You guys, if I don't get to you this afternoon, you know that you're going to have another opportunity to ask Lyn questions. So, please keep that in mind.
The next question is from the audience. It's from Councilman Kevin Cornwell from Cleveland, Ohio.
Councilman Conwell: Let me say this, Mr. LaRouche. We could have saved the country billions of dollars; all we had to do is to vote in Ohio, and tell everybody else not to vote. Because here's the reality: It Wasn't just Ohio. It was other states in the nation as well. And you're definitely right, it was the message: He was focused on, Kerry was focused on Iraq with Bush. He let them drive that agenda, instead of focusing on jobs and health care. So, it wasn't just Ohio.
But let me say this also. In my county, Kanaha County, we voted overwhelmingly for John Kerry. And the people are very, very upset and very stressed out, in Kanaha County, because Kerry agreed with the "family," and you know what family I'm talking about. He agreed with Bush, not to push forward with the vote. He conceded too soon. So the deal was cut! And Blackwell was included in there, and they got their marching orders from the "family." And the same thing happened with Gore. Because when the Black Caucus went down, to protest, Gore, as we talked earlier, got on the phone and told the other Senators that he conceded, and no Senator supported because of the family. And you know what family I'm talking about.
Big business really controls the government! Because they get a return on investment! This war in Iraq. When Bush first ran for office, they helped fund Bush's campaign, and Bush had to start a war in Iraq. He sent a few National Guards to Afghanistan, but he had to start a war in Iraq! I am an economist. He had to get a return on his investment, for the "family." And Mr. LaRouche is a very, very intelligent man, with a high IQ; he knows what I'm talking about, the "family."
The family. Because the family is what controls the government. That's why you can't count those Electoral College votes. The popular vote won with Gore, but the "family" said, Bush. The "family." So, we sit here talking about that, and Mr. LaRouche, he knows about the "family."
But I want to say this also, with the Democratic Party. I saw a lot of young kids get out there, and they pushed their heart out. And the Democratic Party, and I'm a Democrat, is guilty for neglecting the young people. We—not in the LaRouche PAC; you guys did a great job, you were up there in Ohio. I saw you in Cleveland pushing. You were in my area, Case Western Reserve, out there pushing, Case Western Reserve University. And I want to say this, Mr. LaRouche: When you talk with the other Democrats, we've got to keep the young kids involved, because we live through our children. We've got to keep them involved, and not to just grab them during election time, and say, "Go out to vote." We've got to get them involved, because we live through our children, and that's what you said earlier.
The other piece I want to say in my conclusion, is that I would have loved to see an interpreter here to bring in the disabled. I started a group, the Legislative Advocacy Committee for people with disabilities, and they never, ever thought they were brought into the process, the election process. And as you know, there's a high number of people when we get older, who become disabled. And it would be great to have them into the Democratic process also. The children, as I said earlier, to keep them in the process. To bring in the disabled, and I mentioned the "family."
And thank you very much, and God bless.
LaRouche: Well, I will say only one thing, because we're pressed with many other questions, I presume.
The thing that I'm committed to on this youth movement. The youth movement is the weapon which I base myself on. What we need is to expand the youth movement.
You saw some action by the youth movement. Fine. Now, what we need to do is, to give youth in this country who are not yet demoralized, who have a keen sense that they might be sold out quickly, to be organized as youth, in the way that we're organizing the youth movement. And to extend that process, because the key thing to me in politics, is, if you get youth like this, their parents cannot help but be inspired by this. And therefore the way to organize society, is with a youth movement.
Now, you try to organize among adolescents, but that's unstable, as you know. But the very fact that an 18 year old in this country can vote, and 18 is the time you become an adult in terms of thinking, identity, and so forth, means that you're a young adult, you now are fighting for your future as a young adult. Therefore, you are ready to kick butt, in order to get the old folks back into line.
And the only way we can win, in the long run, apart from the short term things we have to do right now, the only way we can win in the long run is to rebuild the Democratic Party around a youth movement, and you saw what the composition of the youth movement is. That kind of composition of a youth movement. It works! Because that says, anybody's in, everybody's in. We all work together. We all are learning together. We may have different talents, different specialties that we end up with, but we're working together. And we want the adult population, so-called, the older adults, to come into line, and to get serious about a future for our society. And say, "It's your grandchildren we're talking about, buddy! Because I'm going to be here 25 years from now, when maybe you're gone. And I'm going to be the one, who's going to decide how your grandchildren and great grandchildren live. And you'd better pay attention to me."
Freeman: Senator Neal? Do you want me to read your question? This is from Senator Joe Neal of Nevada. He says, "Lyn, the mass media is now the primary method by which the truth is explained to the public. But the media is now controlled by a few, whose tendency is to control the message that the public receives. How do you propose we get around this control, to reach the Amerian people?"
LaRouche: Well, by being infectious!
Look the mass media are about to be, in large degree — now, there's a lot of small media, it's interesting; you know, we had this business earlier with these questions from some people in Akron, Henry Raines, others, and so forth. We have committees of people in the Congress who are important members of Congress, who are looking into some of these things.
Now, we're in a period where the mass media is being discredited. Now, if you pick up the Washington Post, for example—I pick it up and I read through it more or less every day, looking for news. Looking, looking, looking, looking for news. And it's not there. Some way they're hiding the news! Because there is no news! And you get the New York Times, sometimes have digested news, or predigested news. But generally the CNN has no news. It doesn't tell you anything as a citizen, what's going on in the world.
Now, there is a disparity, however, between what they are portraying as the condition of society—they talk about the condition of society—but they don't tell you what the facts are of the condition of society. The discrepancy between what they'll tell you the condition is and the facts, are becoming increasingly glaring discrepancies. And, therefore the point is, we have to use our Internet operation. And, the largest thing we have to expand is the youth movement, with its own capability to spread and become the information channel—shall we say the new Benjamin Franklin press movement—the information channel where people who do want news can get it. We have the ability to generate good news, and bad news, and to supply it in ample quantities. (laughing) I can tell you a lot of bad news if you want to know it; like what's going to happen to the dollar, what's happened to the U.S. economy, what's happening with your money, what's happening to George Bush's money, these things. We can tell you these things.
Therefore, people need, like these poor Ohio voters, were not misled in one sense, they were not really duped. They were duped by themselves. They were duped by what they chose to support. They were not duped just by what they were told. They were duped because they wished to be duped. And, what we can do is to give them some very disturbing information which will upset their duping. It's the only way you can crack through. The only time you can break a stranglehold—
It was referred to, Victor referred to it also. The system that runs this, I read a great deal about this. I'm not going to go into a lecture about this now because I could and it would take too long. But, we are living under the British-Dutch, Anglo-Dutch liberal system of world government. The United States was created in opposition to both the Hapsburgs kind of thing and the Anglo-Dutch liberals. The Hapsburgs got gobbled up by the Anglo-Dutch liberals, and in the course of a couple of wars. And, so, we are living in a world which is dominated by Anglo-Dutch liberalism, as a tyranny. The United States was created as the only credible opposition to that system after 1763. We, however, through people like Aaron Burr, who was a traitor, and the New York bankers, generally, became an extension of the British East India Company financial system. Roosevelt freed us from that, as Abraham Lincoln did earlier. But, Truman brought that system back in. And, since that time, no American President has been willing, since Roosevelt, to challenge the take-over of the United States by the Anglo-Dutch liberal system. We are, essentially a branch of the British Commonwealth, not by our Constitution, but by our situation. We accept that. We accept the doctrine of a press, a mass media, which is owned by the Anglo-Dutch liberal system.
Now, the Anglo-Dutch liberal system, which owns the world right now, by in large, that Anglo-Dutch liberal system is otherwise the same thing as what we call the Synarchist International. Between the Versailles Treaty and the time that Hitler fell, the Synarchist International, which includes leading bankers like Harriman, and so forth, in this country, as well as Lazard Freres and so forth, these people were the people who gave us Nazism. They gave us the fascist system. The significance of the death of Roosevelt is that this system, which had decided to get the British and decided to ally with Roosevelt to defeat Hitler as a threat who they considered a threat to the British Empire, the minute that Roosevelt was dead, the same people, typified by Churchill's gang, and their stooge Truman, and Harriman, began to bring the same liberal crowd, the Synarchist International, of financier-oligarchical interest, into control of the United States. With the assassination of Kennedy, who did not have the best pedigree in his family when it came to Nazism, because his father was a pro-Nazi, Joe Kennedy was. Joe Kennedy was fired as ambassador to England by President Roosevelt because Joe Kennedy, the friend of Hermann Goering, was in May of 1940 in cahoots in a plot to bring the British into a treaty alliance with Nazi Germany. And, when some American Jews, who were held captive by the Nazis in prison camps, their friends appealed to Kennedy on their behalf, because they were American citizens; and Kennedy said, get the hell out of here. So, the Kennedy family is not entirely clean. The Kennedy family is a part of this system; you talk about "families." (laughter)
So what you are dealing with are wealthy families, a syndicate of wealthy families in the Venetian model, who, as a kind of a slime mold, control the world under the Anglo-Dutch monetary system, the money system.
We are unique as a nation, in that, our Constitution tradition, contrary to our banking interest, is committed to the principle of the Constitution. We are the only nation on this planet, now, which by our Constitution, has the right to put all of the bankers into receivership under law, under the provision of the Preamble of the Constitution. We are a threat, as Americans.
Therefore, the attempt of the Anglo-Dutch liberals, from the beginning, has been to bring the United States under control as a virtual extension of the British Commonwealth, for an Anglo-Dutch Empire to rule the world. The power in our country, the formal power in our country, under normal circumstances apart from crisis, since the death of Roosevelt, has been increasingly in the hands of these liberals. These are the ones who have done it to us. These are people who are Democrats on Sunday and fascists on Monday.
And we are now at that turning point where the attempt is made to go from Sunday to Monday, which happens in any kind of financial crisis. Therefore, when you are looking at the Bush Administration, you are looking at an idiot as President, a criminally inclined idiot, guided by a sociopath, a clinical sociopath, a murder and thief as Vice President, who works for a cabal of bankers—the same cabal of bankers that created Schwarzenegger out of mud—dose up with some steroids and mud, and you've got Schwarzenegger. This gang presently controls the political parties and machinery of the United States and the press.
Our chance to save ourselves is to get our country back. The only way to get our country back is to rely upon the fact that the entire financial system is coming down, and, just as in the new dark age of the Fourteenth Century, the bankruptcy of the bankers, which began in 1339 when the King of England declared repudiation of his debts to the House of Bardi, caused a collapse of the so-called Florentine system, banking system. Only in such periods of crisis has it been possible for the cause of freedom to strike a blow, as in the Renaissance, as in the case of the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, as in the formation of the United States itself, as in the case of Lincoln's leadership, as in the case of Roosevelt's leadership, for us to get our country back. This is the opportunity on our plate now. It's a dangerous opportunity. It's dangerous for me, personally, among other things. But, it's the only chance we've got. And, we have to understand: Don't kiss the butt of these institutions, looking for sympathy from them. They're out to eat you. The only way you can deal with them is by having the political power where they come to you as Churchill came to Roosevelt, begging for help for their own survival. And, that's the only way it's going to work.
And, our people have to climb out and think as I do. Climb out of the foxhole, and think like a commander in chief. Don't think like a Hamlet. Think like Frederick at Leuthen. You're in charge. You're in charge. Your representatives are in charge. We have to win this battle. It is a dangerous battle, but, we can not afford to lose it. Because, if we do lose it, there will be no humanity worth mentioning on this planet for the next generations to come. And, maybe after the population of the world has gone down to less than a half billion people, and most languages spoken in the world today have disappeared, after that, maybe someone will start it all over again. (applause)
Freeman: Lyn, this is the last question of the afternoon. It comes form Karan Kandhari who is an independent film maker. She says, Hey, Lyn, I'm speaking from India here. I'm not an American, but I'm very interested in your work and in the state of the world. So, please answer this: Are you going to run for President again, presuming we survive the dingbat's next run? Watching you from India, Keep rocking, Lyn. Regards, Karen Candari [ph].
LaRouche: Karen, I can make one declaration. I am by a whole process of elimination, I guess, a unique figure on the planet. My concern is a dedication to what I believe the founders of my country intended, certainly what Abraham Lincoln intended, and what Martin Luther King expressed his intent to accomplish. And that is, we must create on this planet at last, at a time when nuclear weapons and other considerations make war extremely dangerous for the existence of the human race. We must get to a time when we do not think of warfare as anything but absolutely necessary strategic defense, in which we abjure the prospect of going to war. We despise and hate those who think warfare is a way of "regime change" of other nations. We abjure and despise those who propose their moral reasons for going in to conduct regime change by military means. We don't do that. There are other ways we can use.
The power we have potentially is an extension of the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648, in which after thirty years of killing each other generously in central Europe, and after over a hundred years of religious warfare orchestrated by the Venetian oligarchy, beginning with 1492 with the Grand Inquisitor, the guy who set the precedent for the persecution of the Jews, and who was the model for the persecution of the Jews and Nazism to the present day. The Grand Inquisitor of Spain was the role model selected by Joseph de Maistre which became Adolf Hitler, as well as Napoleon Bonaparte.
After that period, 1648, the beginning of international law, recognizing that the right of a nation to exist depends upon the moral principle that each nation, each sovereign nation, must consider itself indebted to promote the advantage of other nations. We need an extension of that kind of order on this planet today.
We need a kind of society among nations which is based on the development of the individual mind, because, consent of a stupid people, a people as stupid as animals, is not representative government. It is the development of the individual which can occur only within the culture of a people and its language, and the development of its language, that a people can develop ideas, transmit ideas and extend the richness of ideas to future generations and to the world. Therefore, we must seek no variation from a world of respectively sovereign nation-states. We can see the United States as the first venture of this type, which assumed a constitutional form in 1789. And, a constitutional form which was renewed by Abraham Lincoln and those who made him possible, and by Franklin Roosevelt and those who made him possible. That is what must be our policy, the policy of the United States and the policy of the relation among states.
We must win the people of the world to accept that augmented view of the implications of the Treaty of Westphalia. We must think of a constitution among nations, not as a written constitution, not as a uniform code of law, but as a treaty agreement among nations, modeled upon the Treaty of Westphalia. Now, this planet, and the nations of this planet, should be forever dedicated to the perpetuation of a system of sovereign nation states for this purpose. And, to promote the peace and welfare of us all, by each seeking to give an advantage to all the others. Thank you. (applause) Thank you all. Thank you all. (all sing, Oh Freedom)