Executive Intelligence Review
Subscribe to EIR


To Stop Genocide Against the American Citizens! Name the Crime and Name the Names of the Criminals!

Oct. 15, 2013 (EIRNS)—The following is an edited transcript of a meeting between Lyndon LaRouche and leading associates today. Its release is intended as the kickoff of a major escalation in the campaign to stop the Obama/Wall Street campaign for genocide in the United States.

Lyndon LaRouche: Okay, the news of the day, and we're going to have a lot of news of the day here, on this same subject: The news of the day begins with the "Patients Mired in Costly Credit From Doctors," New York Times this morning, front page. Now the question is, why did this appear, featured in this way? Because the story is out, and some of you in this room have various aspects of the story, but you have to put all the pieces together, and realize that you have a death notice hung on your door.

And that's what really is behind this seemingly modest item from the New York Times.

The plan has been to actually put the entire system of our people, into death. Mass killing. Helga has a pickup on the story, from today; there are other pickups on the same story today. There's also background, which goes together with the story. I mean, various people in the room have been exposed to the background. Now comes the essence: The author of the mass death for our citizens in the United States—and the same thing is intended in Europe—the intention is, is to kill the majority of the people of the United States and other nations. That is a policy which was authored under Obama. That is the intention.

Now the intention has various expressions, and I'm sure that some of you have differentiated kinds of reflections on this, but this is the intention. And there's some things I'm not going to quote, because I know the source, which is highly reliable, — very highly reliable— who can validate the thing entirely. So what I'm telling you is based on validated information. The intention is, to quickly put the people of the United States to death. That's the intention, and that's what the whole economic program of Obama is.

Now, this is also correlated with reasons why people hate Obama, now. Because in various ways they're being threatened, and they know they're being threatened. But they didn't know, that the secret government, working under Obama has this plan for mass death of American citizens. That's what's been planned. And the only way it's going to be stopped, because the members of Congress have no guts on this one—they know it! The economic policy under this President, is genocide against the general population of the United States. And it's intended to begin soon. So you're already under death notice.

Now, various people in the room can speak up of what they know of this problem, but we're going to put it out tonight. It's going out nationally in the form we put it out here. It's the intention, to impose mass death on the population of the United States, at a rapid rate, by a tax, etc. program policy, to strip people of access to any means to live, and starting with the older people first. Or the old and sick, first.

But it means mass death. It means that Queen Elizabeth II's intention has been given a realization for the United States, as for Europe, also, obviously. Genocide is what the agenda is, of the President of the United States. That I can say to you, on the basis of my knowledge, what I've received as knowledge, and the sources I refer to, by not identifying them directly, have concluded, that is the case: That is the policy of the Obama Administration. That it lies in separate stages, that we're going through now. What Obama is doing, with his version of this process, is genocide against the people of the United States, mass genocide.

Now, there's only one way to deal with this, and that is, to spread the good news everywhere. And say, explicitly, because it's true, the President of the United States is currently committed, through his secret government, in bringing about mass death of the people of the United States. That's the fact! There is no contradiction to that fact. And the authorities that I could refer to, are of a nature that's unimpeachable.

And it's also reflected in the policies of the Obama Administration and its practice.

So the point is, you either get rid of this President now, or he gets rid of you. And that's the situation. That's the solemn reality, which you face right now. And in proper ways, we will get to you more specific information on this. But I don't want to engage people who are sources, and who have high rank, shall we say, in this business. I don't want to put their names on the list. But since I know it, and since we know it in various ways here, we know this thing in one sense or another. We know that the policies of Obama are to kill the people of the United States. That you can say: That is his intention.

And that's the intention which was broadcast by the Queen, with a proposal to reduce the population of the planet from 7 billion people to 1. That is not simply a far-reaching, future prospect; that's an immediate prospect, now! We don't know what date it's supposed to begin on, because it's an operation by going through another bit of the Obama program, and he's pushing for this. His intention is now. He's not able yet, to do it, now. But he will be, if you wait much longer.

Now, some of you, I'd say, know something about this, different kinds of information which all converge, when you take a totality, converge on this one matter. That's the problem! That's the enemy! It's the only thing worth discussing! Nothing else is worth discussing, until you get that point out.

You're under death notice, not for tomorrow morning, but for the early future. And the trick is, a new role of taxation, and the new role of taxation will crash in—this thing warns you, this New York Times thing, warns you, it's implicit in there: So the Times was going with the story in this sense, and it's that thing, "Patients Mired in Costly Credit from Doctors," hmm! And that's what you have to look at.

Now, other people in the room know something on the background of this thing, because it's been going on all along, in various expressions. What was missing was a more precise statement of the intention. That precise intention, which was received by people, in official positions, who are aware of this, were discussing it quietly among themselves. And then, they decided on the basis of my information, which I'd given some time ago on the intention of the Obama government, I had warned of this: that what the intention was of Obama was this. And the people would say, "You're over the top, You're over the top, You're over the top."

Now, it's not over the top. What's over the top is the foolish people who denied it. But now, they've come out to spring it in the open. They haven't brought it directly into the open, but they're bringing it to the door, to be opened.

And this is the real issue: This is the only significant issue on the table right now. No other issue is that significant: He plans to kill you! He plans to murder you! That's his policy. He makes Hitler look like a piker.

And, see what you have on the same thing, on these economic policies...


Jeffrey Steinberg: Lyn, let me say something that some things that sort of fill out the content of what you said.

LaRouche: That's what I was looking for.

Steinberg: First of all, this is the second article in about 10 days or two weeks, in the New York Times, basically identifying Obamacare as a willful form of genocide. The first article—I don't remember the exact date, but in the last two weeks — pointed out that under Obamacare, a very large number of people in the category of working poor, will be excluded from access to any of the so-called benefits of Obamacare, and that none of them are going to be able to afford health care. So they're going to be wiped out of the system and basically denied access to any medical care. And largely, it's one-parent households, predominantly female parents, working fulltime, who are in this gap that was created by the insurance industry, when they laid out the parameters of this: So that they're on the scrap-heap with no health care. So this Times article is a follow-on to that.

Now, the larger picture, to go through just some of the content of what sort of bubbled to the surface: What's going on now, with this whole shutdown of the government, the willful chaos, and now, the sort down-to-the-wire on the debt ceiling/default issue, is simply a continuation of a policy that was laid out very clearly by Obama, back three, four years ago, at the time of what we called the "Catfood Commission," the Simpson-Bowles Commission. And remember, the original intent was to have Congress pass a binding law, to where the findings of the commission would be mandatory. Congress balked at that, so Obama turned around, and created a Presidential advisory commission which had no enforcement, but laid down the policy law, and it was done on behalf of Obama, in the name of the President, and it called basically for wiping out the social safety net of the population: slashing Social Security, slashing Medicare, slashing Medicaid.

And so that was the statement of intent, and at the same time, what they realized, was that these policies are so genocidal that you can't get them through any kind of democratically elected body, like the Congress. So, the conclusion was not only, keep the bailout, move to bail-ins, and basically impose it as a policy of genocide on the population, but strip Congress of the authority to have any say-so in the matter, because no member of Congress who's thinking about seeking reelection can get away with this, with the population.

So then you went through the Super-Committee, which was also completely unconstitutional, and was the next phase of this. And again, what happened is, that the conditions of the Super-Committee were so onerous that a number of members of the committee rejected the conclusions and therefore, they were unable to get the approval for the same rerun of the Catfood Commission killer austerity, through Congress. And as the result, you got the automatic implementation of sequestration.

So again, in both cases, Congress surrendered any authority to actually make policy, when it's Congress, not the President, that sets the budget, determines the spending. So Congress completely abrogated responsibility, and one of the contacts that I talked to today, basically said that this is the measure of the cowardice of Congress: They knew the implications and consequences and were happy to surrender the authority so they could avoid direct blame, but they're indirectly guilty as hell.

Now, what you've got is the deal that's being so-called "negotiated," whether it happens or not. The proposal that's being pushed through the Senate, is that you have a continuation of the existing sequestration through to Jan. 15th: In other words, the government restarts, but on Jan. 15th, if there's not an independent austerity budget deal pushed through Congress— which we can expect wouldn't happen—then, automatically, the next phase, the second rung of sequestration occurs, and it's another $25 billion in cuts, almost exclusively from the social safety net program.

So, between Obamacare, and now, the direct move to wipe out or vastly reduce Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, you've got all the elements of the genocide policy. And then, of course, you add in the reduction under sequestration of the food stamp programs and other things, and you can almost do a numerical calibration of how many people are slated to die as a result of these things.

LaRouche: All right, that's the issue. And we have other sources on this, which I said, some of them I'm not going to identify, here. But they represent authoritative sources, who have recognized this, and who had recognized what the policy was before. The difference is, that in the recent period, those sources have now affirmed, that I had been right and they had been wrong.

Steinberg: Yes, the issue was Obama.

LaRouche: Yes.

Steinberg: The issue was your April 2009 webcast, where the reaction was that, "yes, Obama's vulnerable to doing these things, but he's not willful." Now, they've suddenly realized that you were right, that he was absolutely willful all along, and it took them five years to actually reach the point of a full disclosure admission of that.

LaRouche: All right, now: There's only one thing we can do, in terms of reacting to this. Number 1, we have to report it, widely, that that's his intention. That is his intention. We know it's his intention. And secondly, we have to, in a sense, bring the issue out, by saying: Look, do you want to live, or do you want to die? Are you willing to throw Obama out of office now, because this is his intention! His intention makes Hitler look like a piker, on mass murder!

Therefore, we'll treat him as that! We'll identify him as that, now! That's his intention! It's clear! There is no way you can deny that, if you're not some kind of stinking coward! The evidence is there, it will be coming more and more. We're going to push the thing, where people will not be so afraid, because they sense a movement, a mass movement in the population, they will then give up this crap. And we have to say that the members of the Congress are covering up for this thing, and we want them identified! Because we're going to throw them out of office, if they cling to this kind of policy!

That's the only way you can fight this policy! If you don't fight this policy, that way, you're an accomplice! And that's what you will say to people. If they disagree, say, "well, you're an accomplice at mass murder. You, personally!, are an accomplice at mass murder. Because you've got to take the right side, buddy."

That's the only way to deal with it.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: The fact is this is happening already, in Greece, in Cyprus, and people know it. The death rate of children, of poor, of old people has gone up tremendously, and Troika policy is exactly that. And just because it's Greece, people don't react to it, but the reality is that. They have closed down the only hospital for oncology for children in Athens; old people can not —there are 120 life-essential medications which are not available, and you know, what do you do? If you have no money, you can't go abroad; you're condemned to death. It's as simple as that.

And this is the trans-Atlantic policy! The debt brake which has been voted into the constitutions, I think, in every European country by now, is exactly that. So, the way it affects, for example, Germany is maybe not as dramatic yet as southern Europe, but even there, where you have —I mean, for example, if you have rich communes that have large tax revenue, they're doing fine. But you have some communes which, for all social programs depend on the local factories and whatnot, in terms of tax revenue, and if that is not there, the debt brake means they have zero room: They have the debt brake rules, and they can not allocate anything, so they are tied. There is nothing the local community representatives can do.

It's the same technocratic automatism.

LaRouche: And the alternative is —panic. The alternative.

Zepp-LaRouche: And, I mentioned that earlier, what I had reported about the EU Commission talking about their pensions can not be paid and that the age has to be reduced to 66 years—I mentioned this. They have this crazy thing, I think it's Keating said it, that longevity has to be —[crosstalk]

Marcia Baker: Oh, right. The Longevity Index.

Nancy Spannaus: Which Orszag is the main promoter of, so it totally ties in with the whole Obama program...

Baker: And he spent the summer before he worked for Obama, in London, talking about this: Peter Orszag.

Zepp-LaRouche: The only way how you can make these mathematical calculations is to kill people. That's the technocratic...

Default, or Glass-Steagall

Michael Kirsch: That's the point that Harley made this morning: "Financial Stability über alles," and that if the default on the U.S. bonds were to go through, then you'd have Obama seizing dictatorial powers in the course of social chaos, and then setting up dictatorship.

But his main point, that Harley got from one of his high-level, was two main things: One, that if you have a default on the bonds, and meaning that all the existing bonds are not paid. It's not just the holders of the bonds that get screwed, but everything is leveraged 20-30 times. And so all the collateral on those bonds will be called in, like what happened with Bear Stearns.

And so, he said, you look at the overall potential, even a small default threatens the entire banking system, because unfortunately, it really is that the bond market, even as phony as it is, it is used as cash transactions and it's one of the only secure—what this contact was saying, one of the only secure instruments. And so, even if a few things go down, that means that everything that's leveraged on that is going to collapse. That mean that the banks will no longer lend anything, all credit cards will be stopped, all the pension funds; you know, a few people try to cash in on their pension funds, maybe you can do that. But he just made the point, since all the liquidity would immediately dry up, so everybody would lose all the pensions immediately.

And this contact also said that you were right, Lyn, when you said that the pensions were already gone; they're already lost. And he said—I've confirmed this.

But, so it's really a repeat of what Jackson did in 1837. And that gives people a reminder, that they're willing to do that, where all businesses close, everything shuts down.

So it's one of the only remaining aspects of a credit system is the bonds. So if we default on that, that means that everything that's set up—he was saying that pension funds and 401Ks, whatever they seem to have gone up because of the bubble stock market, and they think they have money; but again, if they try to cash in any of this stuff like a run on the bank, like what happened in Cyprus. And then, you have the fact that all these pension funds are tied up with trillions of dollars of hedge funds. So just like in Detroit, the bankruptcy goes through, which is what defaulting on our bonds would mean, then people will lose everything, and everything's going to go up in smoke.

LaRouche: The only alternative legislation is the immediate reenactment of Glass-Steagall. Because if Glass-Steagall comes in beforehand, as pushed beforehand, that can block this. Because the problem now, without Glass-Steagall we have no alternative. No alternative policy, to this. Therefore, that policy, the Glass-Steagall policy, must be pushed, under this title: To stop genocide against the American citizens! That's the only way to do it.

You can talk about it, go out and get shotguns, and start shooting people to object to this business, but it's much more intelligent to use your head, if you have one. [laughter]

And that's what we have to do. That has to be the policy, because there is no survival unless you have this policy. There's no way you can survive, unless you have this policy, and push it. There are no other options: You destroy these guys, what they represent, or you die, horribly!

And we have enough indications on this, that all the evidence is clear, out there, to enough people in the right circles, so there's no real denial of it! And if we get this thing out, they can't deny it. And look at this little thing in this paper, the Times. This little thing, you say, "how do they get such courage, to do just that?" They did, because they knew there were people behind them.

Alicia Cerretani: You know, last week, in the printed edition of the Washington Examiner, the cover was a picture of the Union Jack, and the title said, "Old and Sick," and the subtitle said, "As the U.S. tries to implement Obamacare, Britain's NHS is crumbling." And it was the feature story, and it takes this anecdote of a woman whose mother got sick and went through the health system in Britain and died there. And this woman, spending all this time with her mother, saw how the system worked, and there were horror stories in this thing! It's worse than some of the things that we've put out on it. And it just made the case that this is —it basically brought up that the IPAB, and this system is designed to kill people. It wasn't really pulling any punches, but they obviously know that they've got to pull out the stops now, otherwise this thing's going to go through.

LaRouche: Well, there are some people who are talking about their obligation to realize that I've been right all along, since my first prognosis on this thing, on Obama, on health care. Now, they decided, after all these years, to suddenly realize that I was right, and they were wrong. And that has given us the ability —

Zepp-LaRouche: Well, I mean, you know, I think it's good. But I think if a couple of these people would have the courage to come out and say so, that would immediately take away the possibility of these people to put it through. If somebody would say what they tell us in private, in a public fashion, it would detonate the whole myth! And I think we should encourage some of these people very heavily to do so.

Spannaus: Well, that's part of the reason they deep-sixed Ezekiel Emanuel, I think, because he was so upfront, that what we're going to do is get rid of those people who we don't think have quality life years left.

LaRouche: Yes.

Spannaus: I.e., the old, the sick, the handicapped. And it's been, I think, a big mistake...

LaRouche: I think Obama does not have any quality life years, and he never did! [laughter]

Spannaus: I think another big mistake is to sit back and wait for IPAB (Independent Payment Advisory Board), because I think the whole program has been going into effect without IPAB. They've been—they decided immediately after Obamacare went through, which supposedly gave you preventive care, they started saying, "you don't need that preventive care, you don't need prostate tests, you don't need mammograms, you don't need this..." They cut the hospitals, the hospitals are shutting down at a massive rate! And now, they're going into the next phase, that they enforce things financially as well.

LaRouche: Well, this is the British policy, the Queen's policy, exactly!

Kirsch: Also, they didn't need IPAB, once they set up the Super Committee. They lost IPAB, then right away, they set up the Super Committee, which was the same unconstitutional small group.

LaRouche: Yes. And that's the only way you can defeat it, because you have to make that thing so damned unpopular, by exposing it, that they can't put it through. Because otherwise, — and they are not the government! They are not the government!

Spannaus: Right.

LaRouche: They're not the government!

John Hoeffle: Yes, this is the systematic implementation of Mussolini/Hitler style corporatism, as a replacement for elected government, because you can't do what they want to do, if you have a functioning government. And this is why you have this police-state relentlessly being put into place. It's a statement of intent of what they intend to do.

LaRouche: Well, this is exactly what they're doing now. That's what Obama's doing right now, he's already doing that. And the only thing you can do, is to expose him. And just put it out there, and publicize directly, what this guy is doing! What he intends to do, and what he's already doing! He's going to murder you and your children!

Get him out of office now. Throw him out of office, now. Don't get him out of office, throw him out! You want to give him a view of the Empire State Building: If he has that request, okay!

Creighton Jones: Well, the other side of this, Lyn, I think this also even puts a greater emphasis on what we're putting out with the fusion and NAWAPA program, because it shows without a doubt that a limits to growth argument which is what's often used to justify all this stuff, is absolutely unjustifiable. And we can demonstrate that there is an alternative.

LaRouche: You have to go right at it—you have to go right at it! You! You son-of-a-bitch, you're guilty! You don't argue with them, you tell them: You son-of-a-bitch, you're guilty as hell, and you're not going to get by with this! That's the only way to deal with it. Don't try to argue with them, they don't care about arguments, they don't honor anything in terms of truth or anything else. They just do it! And therefore, you just have to just do it to them —our way! Strip everything about them, make them hated, getting them running through the streets, to find a place of refuge.

Otherwise, you're going to get general genocide, one way or the other. You'll get chaos, mass chaos, which means mass death. The only way you can do this, you've got to get them out, and name the names, right up top! And the name the crime, and name the name of the criminals! That's the only way to deal with this, and on a mass basis.

Don't try to come up with a clever argument. They're guilty as hell and we know it; we're going to put them out of business. How? By exposing them. And then let them try to run some place from our angry population.

Because they're already killing people en masse.

You've got to defeat these people. You've got to defeat them up front! Not by coming around and annoying them. You've got to identify as the criminals, that they are the criminals, that they are guilty, their intention is clear. The evidence of their intention is clear: They're guilty of the crime, already!

When people in government say they're determined to do something, you can't stop them by arguing with them. You have to create a force which is stronger than they, and the only force that really works, is the people. And the people who try to say, "No-o-oo! It couldn't be this, they wouldn't do that, they wouldn't consider that. You must be wrong!" I've been through that. I've been through that for more than four years on this case. I was right, and they were wrong, and the people who argued against me were wrong. The people who say you need to argue this case, I say, you're crazy. You don't need to argue this case! The evidence is there! They're guilty as hell! They presented the evidence of their guilt, publicly! It didn't dissuade them one bit; it just encouraged them, because you weren't out there to destroy them!

The only way you deal with these, you're out to destroy their influence. You're out to destroy their ability to organize society. You make them hated on the streets, for what they intend to do. That's the only option you have, if you really want to do something.

The argument time is past. Frankly, you have no government! The government is controlled by a fascist of the worst type, called Obama! Who is a British agent, of a Queen who has the same policy for the world. You have to eliminate all trace of any official power of such creatures! Strip them of all capability of influencing anything! Make them hunted on the streets, for what they're doing.

Ben Deniston: Well, now's the time to do it. I mean, we're picking up these reports on the population, I mean this could spread like wildfire, at this point. People are fed up with everything. If we go in with that—that tone—this is what's happening, just straight, and which we've been having success with in the field in these reports, and this can just take off, right away. We're at the point for a real shift in the United States population, that's there.

LaRouche: It just has to be that way, it's the only way you can stop it. The only way you can avoid a bloody struggle, mass killing —that kind of thing. You want a civil war? Or do you want to get these guys, running away to hide some place, because they have no friends to protect them.

Dennis Small: Let me just summarize for people, what this New York Times article says. I haven't read it thoroughly but this is really quite stunning: The article is front page, and as Lyn said, the headline is "Patients Mired in Costly Credit from Doctors." It's a long article, we'll have to go through it more fully before we slug it for the briefing tonight, but what it lays out is the now rising situation where patients, both dental, and medical patients, go to their doctor; they find that their insurance does not cover—either because they don't have insurance, or because the insurance just "happens" to not cover this particular requirement—some life-saving procedure or something, or just plain old necessary; they don't have the money to cover it, and what then happens, is that the care provider, the doctor's office, markets them on the spot, a medical credit card! And on the spot, gets them to sign on the dotted line, for a line of credit...

Paul Gallagher: Provided by a bank.

Small: Provided by a bank, Wells Fargo... all the bankrupt banks, which people sign onto which usually seems attractive at first, because for the 6-18 months, carries no or low interest rate (where have you heard this before? Talk about mortgages, right?) And then, 6-18 months into it, jumps up to a 25-30% interest rate! And people are hooked and bankrupted for life! That's what this thing goes through here. And it says, sort of matter-of-factly, "while medical cards resemble other credit cards, there is a crucial difference. They're usually marketed by care-givers to patients, often at vulnerable times, such as when those patients are in pain, or when the provider have recommended care they can not readily afford."

So this is clearly a national pattern that they're talking about. They say it's very difficult to quantify, but this is like the criminal mortgage procedure that was done, except on an even more vulnerable area, which is people's health, their immediate ability to live under these conditions, and it's undoubtedly been conceived of and packaged as a single piece with Obama's entire health-care plan! Which is, you deny people the insurance that they actually require, and then you come in and have the Grim Reaper saying, "Oh, have I got a deal for you. I have a credit card." And you're hooked and bankrupted.

So that's the gist of what I could tell, just by reading this thing, right now.

Steinberg: They started out doing it for veterinary hospitals. And you got literally instant credit, it's called CareCredit. And the leading bank involved in it, is HSBC; GE Capital is another major player in this market. And the other fine print thing is that the minute you come in late on a single payment, you automatically get boosted up to a penalty rate, which is minimally 33% interest.

Kirsch: Maybe the drug cartels that HSBC works with is united the pharmaceutical agencies.

Baker: Where did they start these, with animal hospitals?

Steinberg: Sure, yeah! Yeah! 'Cause there's no health insurance. No pet insurance. [laughter, crosstalk]

LaRouche: They can't talk back.

Tony Pappert: The sequester is not per se the problem. I mean, just to say, the sequester doesn't affect mandated spending, which is most of the social safety net. The sequester was dreamed up by Obama, to push the exact purpose that's being done right now: The sequester was created by Obama, as has been proven, and the reason for its creation—you see it at the beginning and you see it now—the reason for the creation of the sequester, is to force, in effect, a Super Committee which will chop to bits the social safety net. You see that right now. Because that's what the situation Obama has set up, that as of Jan. 15th, the sequester will vastly increase unless, unless, unless... Congress does what it's so far refused, or been unable to do, which is to get through the Genocide Super Committee by the 15th of January, which is the deadline set by Obama, by this scheme.

Steinberg: Remember that the original sequester idea, as you said, came from the White House; if I'm not mistaken, it was Orszag, specifically...

Baker: Yes.

Steinberg: And it was based on the model of Gramm-Rudman! That was the original prototype for all of this stuff, which goes back to the very beginning of this whole genocide drive, back in the early '80s.

I think the other thing is, that looking at the continuity that you've identified, Lyn, from the G.W. Bush Presidency, through Obama. If you didn't have two wars after 9/11, that were financed by massive debt, because there were massive tax cuts while we were going to war, —I mean, a big percentage of the debt was created, completely artificially. Never in history has anybody been so psychotic, as to basically have massive tax cuts at the point that you're bringing the country into two simultaneous wars!

Gallagher: It was actually, the Times has actually run three articles [on the health care atocity-ed.]...

Steinberg: There's a third?

Gallagher: Yeah, the two that you mentioned, and they ran one this past Sunday morning, about the fact that the performance, or whatever you want to call it, of the websites, is so bad, that it's not glitches, but rather large numbers of people will be unable to sign up. That's the bottom line—will be unable to sign up at all, because of the way these... And [the article is] full of reminders that the White House was warned of this, quote/unquote, that they had every reason to know in advance that these people would not be able to go through this system in order to sign up, but went ahead with it.

Steinberg: Apparently, the systems were set up under a no-bid contract, I think. There's interesting details to smoke out on this, in terms of how this whole thing was run.

Dennis Mason: I think also one more element, just to not lose sight of, is, Lyn, what you said, right after the meeting of the bankers with Obama, is that they're going to go for bail-in immediately. And just this week, we've seen that come up. Which not only is the loss of deposits over the FDIC, but that's a violation of sovereignty of the United States, as part of the international financial establishment. And even today, when we have meetings in the Congress, there's still —the best way to put it, I guess, is lack of clarity over the fact that this is embedded in Dodd-Frank, and what that actually means in terms of going after the sovereignty of the United States.

LaRouche: It is. Yes, it is Dodd-Frank.

Mason: So, that's another element of this whole thing.

Steinberg: It's notable that the head of Deutsche Bank and the head of Barclays were both there at the White House meeting with Obama, one week ago Wednesday. Why? Because the QE policy, the hyperinflationary policy of the Fed, is a backstop to the ECB on the whole European bank situation, which is set to blow up right now.

LaRouche: Putting this out, in the United States and into Europe, will cause a ruckus in Asia.

LaRouche: The Chinese are already completely freaked out.

LaRouche: Well that's good! They should be.

Steinberg: Why do we have a dollar system, when what's going on in the United States is willful self-destruction and chaos? How can the dollar be the world reserve currency, when you've got this lunacy going on?

LaRouche: Well, this is not unusual: This is what happened in the siege of Troy, the same policy.

Steinberg: I thought it was also interesting that Bloomberg yesterday—we had a brief reference to it this morning in the briefing—but they said the last time that there was a conscious "fuck you" default on sovereign debt, was by Hitler, in May of 1933. [laughter]

LaRouche: Well that's the reality of the situation. There's a lot more to discuss, but that is the reality, the essential reality. ...

Rose: And we want the Congress to be on record on this one: We want to pin them down.

LaRouche: That's it exactly. We want the Congress to pay attention. Members of the Congress must not do this, because that would be a crime against humanity.

Rose: Right.

Baker: Yes, this thing that Paul mentions about the New York Times on Sunday, pointing out that people can't sign up; hospitals now are announcing in different states—speaking of the Congress—where they have to shut down or pull back, because they accepted, and their Congressional delegations accepted, that since they're going to have so many people insured that have been signed up under Obamacare, they'll get far less money from the Federal government to defray charity care. So that means they get less money altogether. So, they're adjusting by saying, "this is how much we're going to scale back and shut down." X hospitals in Tennessee...

So all this Congressional posturing, "golly, geewhiz, we didn't know," and laughing about how many people aren't being able to sign up! The intent of the inter-contingencies, which result in death, lack of facilities, let alone lack of a plastic card that doesn't mean anything, or even drugs, right now. We don't need the NICE, or the IPAB, like they have in England. If you get TB, a first-line TB drug now is scarce—"Oh, we didn't know." That's built in! It's just built in, that there'll be no arrangements, so the medications aren't available.

And there are many others like this. Hospitals know about it. The Congressional delegations know about it.

LaRouche: A lot of blackmail of the medical profession, too, is involved in this.

Baker: Yes, a lot of them quit, or they work for the big-timers...

Spannaus: Yes, they go to work for the genocidal...

Baker: ...new partnerships, or they quit, or in the new partnerships, if they want to stay there, they put their heads down.

LaRouche: Well, they've had 40 years to do this. So they waited till the old doctors died out.

Baker: That's right! And it's been swift!

Spannaus: Right, from the HMO time of 1974, the corporate takeover. That's your secret government, right? It's that, it's not just Wall Street, because you needed to have an Obama and a Bush and a so forth....

Rose: Which is absolutely true, what she's saying about the older doctors. We knew them. They're the ones who'd come up when we had these paradigm shift conferences, and detail....

Baker: Like Mark Shelley from Pennsylvania.

Rose: But not just Shelley. I mean Dr. McNay, all our old guys, they were just driven out. Every single one of the decent doctors, were bankrupted or driven out. 'Cause they would give care, and they said "Screw that, we're not going to pay for it. We're not even going to give you a shot at it." And then they left.

MALE: That's what happened to my dad.

LaRouche: So you've got a fair summary of what the situation is. There's a lot more to be said on it. But, that's it. And we, tonight, are not alone on this.

Steinberg: Right.

LaRouche: You just have to spark the process of the revolt against this kind of crime, as a crime against humanity, and there's no law in the books that allows this to happen.

Spannaus: People just sit and listen, like to that bastard ABA guy, standing up there and saying, "we have to have a Longevity Index." These guys know what that is. They know insurance! They know that this means that you're going to be cutting off life-sustaining sustenance. And no one said a goddamned thing! They just sat there! Elizabeth Warren, you know, acting so sweet.

LaRouche: Well, "where's your swastika, buster!" [laughter]

Baker: Right! You should wear it if you're going to say those things.

Steinberg: Well, I think the profile of Keating is very useful, since he was one of the people who signed off on the frameup.

Spannaus: He was the highest-level guy, to sign for the case in Alexandria. The final one. He's not a banker. He's not a banker: He's a thug!

Steinberg: I mean, it personifies something that you wrote about long ago, about how the FBI's the private police force for Wall Street.

LaRouche: Yeah, of course it is. They wanted to get rid of Roosevelt! And they took the occasion of Roosevelt's death to do this.

Spannaus: To take over. And it's what Cornelius Gallagher ran into, really. I mean, Dulles, the whole operation.

LaRouche: Yes.

So, we've discussed the case that has to be dealt with. That's a summary, but you get the idea of what it is.

Steinberg: Mm-hmm. I think we should just get a clean transcript right away, and release it.

LaRouche: Exactly! So, let's get a transcript and utter it immediately.

Steinberg: Good, good.

LaRouche: That'll be sufficient to stir things up.