Lyndon LaRouche January 25 Webcast:
Federal Court Has Issued ‘Greatest Indictment of an Incumbent President’
Feb. 12, 2013 (EIRNS)—Since Lyndon LaRouche's Jan. 25, 2013 LaRouche PAC webcast has since gone viral on youtube, we provide here the written transcript.
Dennis Mason: Good evening. Thank you for joining us. You're watching the continuing series of Friday webcasts featuring Mr. LaRouche. Tonight we'll follow the usual format. We'll have an opening statement by Lyn, and then a question period. The questions tonight will be conducted by Leandra Bernstein and Jason Ross. So, without any further delay, I'm proud to bring you Mr. Lyndon LaRouche.
Lyndon LaRouche: Well, there was some very interesting news that was given to me today, earlier, and that is that I never have seen in my life such a parade of implicit indictments of a President of the United States as was reported to me today. I'm not going to comment on the details of this report [see the text of the D.C. Federal Court of Appeals decision], but I simply say that it comes as a blessed sign from Heaven, or something like that, and it should be greeted as such. What is obvious, without going into the details which were better stated by relevant legal and judicial authorities than by me, but I can say that what I've heard today—and I do understand what I've heard—that this is probably the greatest indictment of an incumbent President of the United States that I've ever heard. If there's one that occurred more ominous than this one, I don't know what it was! And I think I know the history of the United States pretty well. But that comes not as a finality of anything, because this situation is subject to all kinds of reversals back and forth, but the fact that such a counter to the President's behavior has been stated, publicly, by a Federal court, is in itself a very important development, even without trying to interpret what has been said.
But the implications, as any plain-language view would say, is this man has been slapped down back and forward repeatedly through the whole reading of these charges. And that does mean there is a qualitative shift in the political situation inside the United States, which the reading of these charges—conclusions I presume—have been delivered. I don't think any President could withstand what has been read against them with such precision, in the history of the United States. Some people may have hated someone more than they hated this fellow, but they certainly have placed the charges, and I don't think that without the equivalent of some kind of coup d'état in support of the President, that he can withstand this. If these charges are presented and concluded, and if the consequences follow, this man is probably on the way out of office, barely since the time he was re-installed in it. So, that's probably a double whammy in this case.
What this does show, with conclusion, which I can speak to on that account, is that after these charges have been placed and reported by the Federal court, that this President is in deep trouble. And that much is clear. Now, what it means for the rest of us is, that the situation was so bad, in terms of the Congress, that the Congress should have delivered precisely these kinds of charges beforehand. And undoubtedly, there were people inside the Congress, particularly the Senate, who would have proceeded on these charges, if encouraged to do so. And I think that has to be considered a factor: that all the ideas that somehow Obama has come off clean on the basis of his re-installation as President, that that is in doubt now. I don't believe that any President, unless he has the powers to conduct a coup d'Ã©tat, could remain in office under the continuation of the list of charges which have been presented as conclusions by the Federal court.
So, this is a new situation, and it means also a new situation for us, in terms of things like troubles, as much as anything we might find pleasant in this whole proceeding. The United States is in deep trouble. Our economy is in the process of disintegrating. We are about at the point that an actual breakdown of the Congress could occur, and of the courts. And therefore, Bernanke: What's going to happen to Bernanke? The courts are against him, and probably that will be effective. It's not a guarantee, but it probably will be effective. And the citizens of the United States are going to have to wake up; and that's quite possible that they will. Because the usual way that people talk about Presidential institutions, Congress, and so forth, is nonsense. There actually has been usually not more than 5% of the voting population which has had the guts to do anything serious—actually do it. Many members of the Congress, for example, will gripe privately behind the scenes, but they won't do anything. And generally, it's between 5% and 10% of the total membership of the Congress which is likely to take on an issue such as this one. Perhaps the implication is—and I say perhaps—is that the presentation of these charges brought by the court, will give some courage to a lot of people who have otherwise scampered as cowardly heroes shall we say, before.
But the point is, on the other hand, you take the British monarchy, and certain elements of the U.S. government and population, and they are going to fight back. They're going to fight back hard, and they would even try coups d'état and things of that nature. So, we must be aware of the fact that there is, without doubt, apart from what the Federal court has decided on the case of Obama, is that there is going to be a big kickback from forces in certain parts of Europe. The British monarchy in particular, will be enraged by this. Other parts in France will be enraged; some people in Germany will be enraged. You will have a certain factor of rage from the bad side in Italy. You will have also the anger in Spain and Portugal, and other places. This means a sudden turn in the strategic situation and role of Russia in this period. All these things have been made open by this decision, the rendering of this decision by the Federal court. And this is something new which did not exist for me two days ago, and probably did not exist for a lot of other people. But it shows that in the system, the Federal court has acted in a way which portends the opportunity for getting out of the mess we've been digging into for so long. This is a new opportunity, and it is a time for the citizens of the United States to rally to the cause of our nation, and prepare to support the actions of the Federal court. And with that, I will leave it to you for a moment.
Leandra Bernstein: Well, thank you for those opening remarks. You've anticipated a number of our questions here, but I would like to get some more clarity because of the importance of what has taken place, and I'm going to hold the question on the recent ruling until Jason Ross asks it. But I would like to get you on the record here in response to what took place earlier this week with the Senate and House Foreign Relations Committee hearings, featuring Hillary Clinton—outgoing Secretary of State Clinton. And your initial remarks on it were to call the hearings a "perfunctory performance, irrelevant to the facts of the case." You said there was "no discussion of the crucial facts of relevance," and you indicated that the members of Congress were told to shut up, that what they intended to raise as questions they never asked.
Now, that is given certain knowledge that we had in the organizing that the LaRouche Political Action Committee has been doing on Capitol Hill. And also an indication given by Hillary Clinton herself that the day of, or the day prior to the hearings, the FBI had decided to take the opportunity to finally brief these committees.
So, just to go through some of the highlights of these hearings, the most notable was Hillary Clinton's enraged response to a series of questions coming from Republican Senator Ron Johnson from Wisconsin, who insisted that you have deceived—not you, but the American people have been deceived as to the facts around the second 9/11 attacks. And she responded saying, "What difference does it make? We're dealing with four dead Americans. What difference does it make if they were killed by somebody walking down the street who decided to kill Americans?" And then this statement was then backed up by Obama's press secretary Jay Carney the following day at a press conference. The first question at the press conference, where he basically said Secretary Clinton was correct. What difference does it make? What difference does it make if the President of the United States deceives the American people? So, and then the statement of intention: What difference does it make, so long as we bring those who are responsible for the act to justice?
And it was interesting, because just recently after the hostage taking in Algeria, there were a number of press reports—one from the New York Times referring to a senior Algerian official, who said that the individuals who laid siege to the Algerian gas complex had also taken part in the deadly attack on the United States mission in Libya in September. And then another report from the Tripoli Post, which was entitled "Terrorists Who Attacked Algerian Gas Complex May Have Been Trained in Libya." So, as long as those who are responsible for the attack are brought to justice.
So, since we have you in this format, I would like to get you on the record: your response to what took place this week with the hearings, and the overall situation.
LaRouche: Well, clearly in fact, what Hillary Clinton said was entirely untrue—simple fact.
Now the other side of that, is the speculation on why she said what she said. For about two years, I have watched a fundamental change in attitude respecting the President by Hillary Clinton. In other words, half of her term, approximately, has happened under conditions which can be explained by the fact that she was terrified: that she confronted him; she changed her attitude after this occasion. After that point, she was humiliated in every sense of the word by Obama. And she caved in. And her husband, the former President, caved in massively.
Which means that there was something very ugly, very, very, very ugly about the Presidency of Obama after the midterm of his first term. So, that's the first thing to take into account. I would conclude that she was terrified, because there was such a sudden change in behavior on her part, considering that her husband had been a two-term President of the United States, that this man would dare to attempt to intimidate her. And he did intimidate her, there's no question of that.
So, this, of course, must be in the minds of people like members of the D.C. Federal District Court, who must be aware of this gross, and so obviously gross monstrosity as that behavior by him. And the question is then posed: What's wrong with the Congress? Well, we know what's wrong with the Congress. More than half of them are cowards and opportunists, and therefore the Congress was not able to do the job that had to be done. And under those conditions, it was up to the D.C. Federal District Court to see that the job was done, or the basis for having the job done was presented by a higher authority. And the particular list of things that I heard all go to that point.
So, we're now presented, because higher authorities have realized, as I have, that this President Obama is a whore. He's a whore-or story. And the members of the Congress didn't have the collective guts to do anything about it. They've swallowed every indecency imposed upon them as a Congress, both in the Senate and in the House. Now, we know, as I know, for example, that you've had between 5% and 15% approximately of the members of the Congress have the guts to do anything. And therefore, the fact that the majority of the members of the Congress are by disposition, they tend to be opportunists. They see which way the wind blows, and they blow with it.
So that therefore, we had reached the situation where the United States was going to be destroyed by this President. And he was even sworn in for a second term, but the fact remains, as in the Nixon case, that this is an extreme version of the old Nixon case, the old Nixon impeachment. When in this case, some authority other than the Congress was required to initiate the action which was required. And what I heard, from the reading of the conditions of the charges of the conclusions of the court, those conclusions were all in correspondence to the requirements. And I go into his first term, the President's first term in office, and also to the second. So, there was every reason that reason they would demand that this President should be impeached under those circumstances. The impeachment as a form has not been realized; the impeachment in terms of the indictment has. And that's the conclusion we have to draw.
Now, that does not mean— Now, you're going to have the British Empire, as represented by the Queen, is going to be very angry about this. Because her whole role, her intention, is on the edge. She cannot continue to do this if the United States continues to defy her. And the Federal courts have implicitly defied her. Something deeper inside our system of government has acted to attempt to defend the United States against the travesties and crimes committed by this President. And therefore, that's the conclusion to be drawn. We now stand at a point where we're on the edge. The court has done pretty much what it should have done, and maybe a bit more in this case. That's good! That restores the confidence in the institutions of our government, contrary to this President. At the very minimum, the intention of the court has to be to recognize that what it has said is an honest and fair conclusion, set of conclusions, and these conclusions lead to but one further conclusion: That this guy must be impeached now! And that will probably occur.
But there are other factors in the thing, there are always coup d'état possibilities and things like that. So we don't know this has any finality to it, but it comes so damn close to it, that you almost have to say it is.
Jason Ross: All right. Well, it's a happy duty to get to report, and ask you a question about what the court's ruling was. Let me start by reading part of Article II, Section 2 of a very important document, the Constitution. This is about what the President does. It says:
"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint, Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States. The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."
So today, he said this is almost like a gift from heaven, and you might think that the U.S. District Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. is an unlikely source for a gift from heaven, but that's how it happened this time. They had a 47-page ruling that came out today around a lawsuit that originally came from the operation of the National Labor Relations Board. It's a five-person board, and one of the rulings it made was being challenged, because three members of the board—a majority—had been appointed as recess appointments by Obama on January 4th, when the Senate wasn't actually in recess.
I want to read you some quotes from this court ruling, it's very important. They note that their ruling is very important. They say, "while the posture of the petition is routine as it developed, our review is not." They point out that what Obama is doing, is extending the power of the Executive Branch far beyond what is allowed in the Constitution, and that this is oppressive to the rights of not just the legislature, but the American people. They rejected Obama's Office of Legal Counsel, which said that "The President has the discretion to conclude that the Senate is unavailable to perform its advise and consent function, and to exercise his power to make recess appointments."
The Court said, no, the President doesn't get to decide when the Senate's in recess, the Senate does! If the President can decide, then when they leave for the weekend, or when they go to lunch, he could say, "Well, they're in recess, they're unavailable, I'm going to appoint five new members of the Cabinet." So, very importantly, they refer back to Marbury v. Madison, which established the precedent of judicial review. That although obviously the Constitution applies to all branches of government, it is the courts that determine the meaning of that document—that's their job. They wrote, that "while we recognize that all branches of government must, of necessity, exercise their understanding of the Constitution, in order to perform their duties faithfully thereto, ultimately, it is our role to discern the authoritative meaning of the supreme law."
A little bit more: They said that "The Administration's claim that if they had to wait for the confirmations, it would have made the government less efficient," they said, "well, too bad!" "The convenience and the efficiency are not the primary objectives, or the hallmark, of our government." So, it's a very interesting rebuke. They point out that the recess of the Senate means the Recess, when they really go home, not when they're gone for a few days.
So, as you said, this is an impeachment, implicitly. It's not a conviction yet, that's up to the Senate. But what's laid out in the court ruling, very aggressively makes the case, that Obama has violated the Constitution, blatantly, in this action of his. So, you've already said a lot about this in your opening, but I guess I'd like to ask you to comment further, and then talk about where does this go now, what does this open up for us?
LaRouche: If you take the whole thing— I had heard that specifically, earlier today. But the key thing here is, what has been said, by the court's statements as a whole—not only this issue, but other issues also—is a challenge to the Presidency. It's a challenge to the occupation of the Presidency by this President. Because he is the one who has taken the open responsibility for asserting this authority, above the courts. Therefore, his very action is impeachable by nature. That much I will say is for what I am, and let the courts say what it wants to say about this. But that's what I say, as a citizen. That this is the situation.
Now, I also base my judgment on my knowledge of the crimes which have been committed by this President—he's a criminal, as far as I'm concerned. He's said things and done things which are criminal in their nature. He's also practiced intimidation, which is in his nature, but not in the nature of our government. Their is nothing that he has done of this nature—
For example, his violation of the war powers of the President, his violation of the restrictions on those war powers. First of all, he was not entitled to put troops into action in Libya—not entitled to do that. That's a violation. And to go into armed conflict in Libya, is a violation of the Constitution. He had no authorization to do that. He acted as a dictator. And that's a violation of our Constitution.
Now, the fact that our Congress was cowardly, and didn't do anything about it, and that one Senator [John Kerry] got by with supporting this crime of this President, doesn't alleviate the responsibility of anyone. You know, the President should have been impeached for doing that. That was an impeachable offense. He should be impeached. Otherwise, the politer term common to most people's knowledge is, he should have been thrown out of office, promptly and immediately on the first time he did that. He should have been slapped in the face first, and if it continued, he should have been slapped out of office. It's the obvious fact! So, the problem here, is the fact of a cowardice shown by the Congress. The Congress permitted, to one Senator, permitted a violation of the Constitution, in terms of the War Powers Act. And therefore, that Senator should have been impeached, too, because he was complicit in a violation of the Constitution. He's not fit to be appointed to a more significant position. Maybe a rebuke, an official rebuke for what he had done, would be sufficient. But he should not be promoted to an office with higher powers than he's enjoyed heretofore.
This is the kind, the nature of the situation. And fortunately, the Federal courts exist. And the Federal court, with the series of actual indictments of this President—and there are a series of them, as you know. This man is no longer fit for the office. Nixon was a mild offender, compared to this President! And on these charges alone, to certify it. The problem is, somebody's going to try to reverse this, on some kind of appeal.
On the case of the Hillary case, it's just the same problem. She's intimidated, she was abused—intimidated, that much I know. Her husband was thrown into a tizzy, a former President—thrown into a tizzy, by what his wife had gone through—made terrible decisions, in terms of mistakes, which were terrible decisions on his part. But his wife was in danger—in danger from this President.
And on the basis of one moment in her record as, in State, that that was a case, visibly, of pure intimidation. And the President of the United States— I mean, she should have resigned: Actually, her only option was to resign the office! And then go back to the Senate, body of the Senate, and run a campaign against this President! That was her moral duty. It was a mistake for anyone to push her into taking that position under that President. Because they shared—at least Bill did—Bill Clinton shared the knowledge of what my view was: that she should not have capitulated, to taking the position, considering the monstrous nature of the character of this person, this President. She should have gone outside, and said what she said, and denounced him up and down. Because she had been the only legitimate Presidential candidate on the Democratic side. He was not. And she should have gone outside, and rejected that, in the first place, and stayed in the Senate. That's what she should have done. She had colleagues when she was a Senator, in the Senate, who could fight this issue better than she could from inside the position she took. So, that's the kind of situation we face.
So, that's the way we have to react to this. And we have to this. We all have, especially someone in my position. I'm supposed to have guts to deal with things like this, and I always will as long as I'm alive. I've a lot of experience with this sort of thing, with the history of our nation, and I would back up anyone, including her and Bill, on this issue.
He should not have ever been appointed President! I do not consider him honestly elected as President, on the basis of what I know. Foreign powers were using the proceeds of drug distributions, illicit drug distributions, in order to finance him to become the President of the United States! I would say, this man himself is now purely a drug on the market, and he should be removed from office immediately. Because I know, I know on personal knowledge, where this present situation is going under this President. And anyone who's a true patriot, with the guts and knowledge to be a patriot, would support me, in saying, he must be thrown out of office now!
Bernstein: Now, I would like to follow up Jason's question, with another potential gift from the D.C. Circuit Court. And that is coming at the beginning of February, Feb. 7th, where there's going to be a hearing in a lower court in D.C. Circuit, to hear the Department of Justice's motion to dismiss the case by the House of Representatives against the stonewalling by the Eric Holder's Justice Department on revealing facts on the "Fast and Furious" case. That's something that's also in the background of this decision.
And it's very interesting that this case is going to be heard: the use of Executive privilege announced by the Obama Administration through Eric Holder, to withhold evidence subpoenaed by the House of Representatives. There's some discussion that this is also at the root of the sudden, announced resignation of the Deputy Attorney General Lanny Breuer, who just in the past 24 hours, I believe it was, announced that he was going to be leaving the Justice Department, and he's someone who has been implicated in the coverup of the "Fast and Furious" documents. And he's also the subject of a recently released PBS Frontline special, titled "The Untouchables," which documents the failure of the United States government, of leading officials, to prosecute any of the guilty parties, provably guilty of fraud, massive fraud, in the financial crisis of 2008, and on, but especially 2010 and onward, after the Angelides Commission Report.
And I think it's interesting, because at a certain point in this documentary, the interviewer for Frontline asks Breuer, "You gave a speech before the New York Bar Association, talking about your use of non-prosecution and deferred prosecution agreements," so, the slap on the wrist. And in that speech you made a reference to "losing sleep at night" over worry about what a lawsuit might result in at a large financial institution. Is that really the job of a prosecutor, to worry about anything other than simply pursuing justice?
And the Deputy Attorney General, Lanny Breuer responded that if I bring a case against Institution A, and as a result of bringing that case there's some huge economic effect, it affects the economy, so that employees who had nothing to do with the wrongdoing of the company are affected. If it creates a ripple effect, so that suddenly, counterparties and other financial institutions or other companies that had nothing to do with it, are affected badly, it's a factor we need to understand.
Now, this also being released in the wake of the $1.9 billion slap on the wrist a little over a month about to HSBC, who—if there were any kind of honest investigation, they were culpable of massive fraud, massive money laundering, the most horrible money laundering imaginable, and it was Lanny Breuer who announced this $1.9 billion fine.
So, I just wanted to point this out in background, as a continuation off of your previous question, but to really get to the point, a number of institutional contacts have been dying to ask you the question over the past weeks of development around the push to reinstate Glass-Steagall. So, if you could address this situation as well as the recent statements in support of Glass-Steagall, please do.
LaRouche: Quite gladly. The key issue here of the Obama Administration, the crucial issue apart from his violations of the law, and his intent to violate the law, as in the War Powers Act, and things of that sort, is the fact that the U.S. economy is about to disintegrate. One of the factors in this action by the Federal courts, is the fact that the United States government is hopelessly bankrupt. There's no possibility of a survival of the U.S. government, under a continuation of this Presidency. Because the rate of hyperinflation, now, is such that we're on the brink of a trans-Atlantic, general breakdown crisis of the entire world system! As long as this Bernanke idiot is in a powered position to continue what he's done, with the backing of Obama, there's no likelihood of the survival of the United States as a nation.
So therefore, you have a concrete crime, which is very specific to the question of the survival or collapse of this nation. And the collapse of this nation in that form would be mean mass death, among the population of the United States, as we see already in the food supply question, and the measures by this Administration, which will increase the death rate, massively, as in the farm district and elsewhere of the United States! So, the ouster of this President is, itself, a cause for removal of the President, of the urgent removal of this President.
Now, we have in this connection, we have observations from sections of the Federal courts and the Federal agencies which are concerned with this matter. And you have leading members of the department, who actually share that, and express that concern: It's necessary to shut down Bernanke! Now, there's only one successful way you can do that: You can shut down Bernanke, that's one action, but you've got to do more than that. What you've got to do is essentially put through Glass-Steagall immediately. And the existence of the United States, as a nation, now depends among other things, but specifically, once thing: You must shut down Bernanke! And you must have, at the same time, you must install Glass-Steagall.
Now, Glass-Steagall means three principal things. Number 1, you must do it, you must enact the law as a law, in that thing, you must put Glass-Steagall into practical immediately, without any change from what the proposed act is now. No modifications, no going around maneuvering things, no compromises: Slam it down now, put Glass-Steagall, as proposed, into action immediately.
That will stop the crisis in one sense, but that's not enough. You also have to establish a credit system. We haven't seen one of those for a long time. We need a credit system, under which the Federal government gains the power, to create an institution which is a credit institution, which gives credit for things which are warranted under that policy. In other words, going back to a credit system, of the type which existed under the first Presidency of the United States! The first and second term of the United States, under the first President Washington, set up a credit system! That credit system was then taken down by the successor Presidents. It has to be restored.
Under a credit system, the United States, organized with backing of the Federal government, on credit for useful projects which will rebuild the U.S. economy. In other words, we put into effect Glass-Steagall. That means the Federal government no longer owes any money on that kind of banking system, which has ruined us. Those banks are put on their own. Those private banks are on their own; if they survive on their own, they can survive. If they can not survive on their own, we're going to be rid of them, and a lot of debts!
So, we're going to cut the debt of the United States, from its present form, down to a minimal, its new form. Instead, since we can not increase production much, simply by Glass-Steagall, you have to do something else under Glass-Steagall! You have to create a credit system authority, under which Federal credit is used to finance promissory notes for large-scale investments over fixed terms of time. In other words, it may be one year for this kind of help, it may be five years for that; it may be Glass-Steagall comes in and is used for a NAWAPA project. A NAWAPA project would be at least 20 to 25 years' duration. And believe me, that would really change the direction of the United States, and the conditions of the people of the United States!
And there are other things that can be done as well, in addition to that. So these measures, which can be taken under a revision, could mean an immediate turnabout in direction! Now we have lost a lot of skills in the United States over these years, because of this — especially since the cancellation of Glass-Steagall. We have lost tremendously. We're almost bankrupted as a result of the cancellation of Glass-Steagall. So that becomes the issue.
Now, you have the same thing is true in Europe. Europe cannot function; continental Europe is about to break down, to disintegrate.
So, these are the kinds of conditions which we have to take into account. We must move immediately, to shut down everything that Bernanke and the current President of the United States represent: There's no redeemable quality in either place. We must strip ourselves of obligations we should never have undertaken, by going back to Glass-Steagall. But we must supplement Glass-Steagall with other measures, such as the creation of a credit system and also the development of public credit through projects like NAWAPA.
And these things will be sufficient to cause a survival of the United States, and a movement toward recovery. Because we're going to have to train a lot of people. Remember, we have several generations that have really not had the opportunities of experiencing the glories of progress. So therefore, we need that. And that's the way you have to look at it.
You can not simply say there, "Don't, don't, don't, don't!" You have to do more. You have to say what you're going to do, that will put the United States back in the direction of recovery. And we've reached the point, that without that program, there's no chance the United States can survive. So, therefore our obligation goes accordingly.
Bernstein: Now, since we have you here, we are going to have to keep you for a few more questions that we'd like to fire your way. And I just want to follow up on the Glass-Steagall, because what our organization has been doing, has given us certain knowledge where we have a pulse on meters of the United States, in economy, in government. So, you have a certain insight into where the progress on Glass-Steagall is going, and you've stated at the opening of this webcast, where the potential breaks on the Obama front. But I think the individuals from institutions who wanted to know your reading, where you do see the tide going? Because we had the statements from FDIC vice chair Thomas Hoenig, we had the proposal from the current Dallas Fed President Fisher on bank separation. And we've had the alignment of the Tea Party and the more liberal MoveOn crowd, the alignment of them on the policy of Glass-Steagall.
So, there is this wave of support, but where do you see it going? Because you've just stated what must happen. But would you give your assessment of what you see currently happening?
LaRouche: Yeah. Well, I wouldn't say what's currently happening, but I say what can be currently happening. There's a difference.
We are at a point, where we no longer think in terms of trends, as such. In other words, the question is not whether there's a trend in a possible direction or not. The question is whether there's the will to force the creation of a new trend, and that's our only hope. We have to force the change in direction, from the present trend, to an entirely reversed trend. And that's the only way this nation will survive.
Now, that depends upon moving the intention of the emotions of the American people, away from what they believe now, to what they believe is possible.
Now, this depends upon something that has to be understood, and it's in the nature of the history of humanity, as far as we know that history. We have intimations of things, you know, like we had things that were going on in the area of Mexico, for example, in ancient times, which are far better than they've been in modern times, generally! We have reversals of trends: Mexico, for example, under a former President who was a personal friend of mine, had adopted measures and was instituting measures which the United States and Britain crushed! And the entire destruction of Mexico which has been going on since then, is a result of the crushing of my friend, that Mexican President [JosÃ© LÃ³pez Portillo], who had guts.
We had also people in Argentina, who have guts and had guts, and they were crushed, too. We had possibilities in Brazil, of improvements in the Brazilian problem, and that was crushed in effect—not crushed openly, but crushed in effect, in terms of the economic effects of what was going on there.
So, often it's the case, it is not trends which bring you better news. Often, when you get better news, it's because you reversed the trends! And now, the question is: Are we willing to reverse the trend? That means: Is the Federal government going to recognize this problem, and is the Federal government going to take actions under law, which cause a reversal of those trends? In other words, we're under a trend now, which, if continued, will destroy the people of the United States, essentially. Have we got the guts, to take the measures which will reverse that trend? And that's the crucial thing.
See, the problem here is really a scientific one. Most people do not know what humanity is. They have ideas, and experience which they call humanity, but most people do not understand that, don't understand it at all. And that's where the shortfalls come. In a great crisis, it comes by a sudden reversal of trends. It does not mean a sudden return to glory, it means reversing a bad trend by moving upward, and that's where we have to go now.
We have to promote the things, as Franklin Roosevelt did. See, Franklin Roosevelt was a real hero in this respect, not only because of what he did, but because of the precedent he set. What he did, is he took a United States that was about to be chopped to pieces, about to come under a fascist rule, like that of Hitler, and it was an attempted coup, against President Franklin Roosevelt under these circumstances. And Roosevelt found allies who crushed the would-be crushers. And that was part of the whole program which saved the United States. Otherwise, the United States would have gone quickly into the same trend as Adolf Hitler. And Franklin Roosevelt's actions prevented that from occurring.
And so, similarly now, our job, and the job of the President—or the future President, shall we say?—is to immediately do the same thing: Is to take all those laws and trends and tendencies and opinions, which have moved us in the direction of self-destruction, and say, "We are a sovereign people. We have the power of Reason, and the power of Reason may show us, that we have to adopt certain resolutions which completely reverse the present trend!"
And we must do that—because we are about losing our population. We've gone through several generations, since I came out of military service, and during those periods, and after the assassination of President Kennedy, the United States has gone consistently in the direction of self-destruction. The time has come to reverse that tendency, by understanding what that effect on Kennedy was, what that meant, the killing of Kennedy—what that meant. And it was coverup of the real cause of the assassination, of John F. Kennedy, which sent us into a long war. And from there into Hell itself for most of our people! We're going to have to reverse that! And that's the thing that counts: Do you have the guts, not to try to find a way of riding a trend, like riding some kind of big fish on the ocean, but reversing the trend, rather than to try to ride one? And that's what has to be considered.
Ross: Well, there's just a lot of things coming in. You don't mind taking two more, do you?
Ross: Okay. Well, first one, then, on a military aspect of things, regarding the conflicts that are spreading in Africa right now. It refers back to— You were discussing the impeachable acts of Obama, including the violation of the War Powers Act. Now, sometimes, he's defending this, from the standpoint of "Oh, I didn't put any troops directly at risk, therefore I didn't violate this aspect of the Constitution." As though, when you look at the powers of the Senate, in that part that I'd read earlier, including the declaration of war by the Congress, this isn't just about putting troops in harm's way! It's like treaties, it's a part of foreign policy! Even if you're not making American troops possibly in danger of losing their lives, you're still using violence as a means of politics, and that requires the Congress in our country.
Interestingly, the War Powers Act of 1973: You'd mentioned Nixon, he vetoed it, and that was overridden by the House and Senate, to be made into law.
I want to ask you about what's going on in Mali and other places right now. As you've pointed out, Obama had effectively allied with al-Qaeda in Libya. What we've then been seeing in Syria, where an opposition movement which maybe at first had some potential to go somewhere, as just an honest popular uprising has now become increasingly dominated, if it wasn't from the beginning, by Islamist forces, al-Qaeda forces. You know, people remember the people saying, "We're all al-Nusra." Then we've had the attacks in Algeria, the hostage-takings; we've got what's going on in Mali now, where France is intervening to help clean up some of this.
And Russia had made the interesting point that said, well, what you're doing in Mali, it sounds good to take care of terrorists, but—you know, that's who you're supporting in Syria, don't you?
So, I wanted to get your thoughts on this. Is this just something that's unintentionally spreading out of control? Is there something more sinister at work here? And how is this conflict being used on purpose, if it is?
LaRouche: Okay. Well, this goes into a longer and deeper question. The question of the British Empire.
Now, contrary to popular suspicions, the British Empire is not the empire of the British Isles. It is a world empire. It became established as a world empire through a war, and this war, which defeated France and other countries, established an empire, and the key empire it established, was that over India! So that even before the British Empire had taken over England, as such, Great Britain as such, the empire had already established itself in place such as North America, Canada, for example, and in terms of India, and other locations, and throughout Africa! And to the present day, the majority control in Africa, is by the British Empire. While the Indian government itself resists, to a great degree, the degree of control which the British Empire had over it, then, it still has an indirect influence over India. It has a very strong influence over Pakistan, it has a strong influence throughout Asia, and so forth.
We have Mexico is controlled by the British, by the British drug runners right now! It's almost unsafe to live in Mexico, because of the British drug-runners! Which also include, of course, the Obama Administration, which is one of the biggest drug-runners in the whole operation, is part of it! That's what that "Fast and Furious" was all about!
And you have, also, in South America, you have British influence. The United States has been controlled by British financial influences, since Andrew Jackson! And while that was set back a bit by President Lincoln and others, nonetheless, in the course of the 20th Century, the British influence had a lion's share of control, over the United States, in terms of U.S. finances! Morgan, for example, what the heck do you think the House of Morgan is! The House of Morgan is nothing but a branch of the British Empire! And most of this Wall Street crowd, it's nothing but the British Empire, which controls most of Europe, as well as in the United States, in that respect.
What do you think this operation is that we're fighting against, now, for freeing the United States of this gambling money? What do you think Bernanke is, but an agent of British influence? He's printing money for nothing! Bankrupting the United States with debts, which the United States really does not owe! This crooked business!
So, therefore, we have to understand that we are faced with a British domination of the planet, since the victory of Britain in establishing its empire. That empire still exists. It's not an empire of the people of the United Kingdom, though people of that kingdom are included. The Queen herself, of course, is the epitome of that particular relationship. But that does not mean that the British citizens, or subjects, actually are benefitting from this process; most of them are in terrible condition. Their living conditions are not good. Their opportunities are not good. They've been crushed as much as anybody else. Britain, at one point, had a greater role as an industrial power, by far, than its economy represents today! And what's happening now, under British influence, as in the control of the United States, by a whole series of Presidents who were also more British than they were anything else, in terms of money factors, or Wall Street, or Boston, the Boston bankers, are British agents; the New York bankers, largely British agents. The whole system is one of British agents.
So, the thing we have to do, is recognize that our country, our nation has been betrayed in this way, and in other ways. And that the nations of Europe are victims of the British Empire! What do you think the euro system is? You have a whole group of nations; they were individually, sovereign nations. But all of the nations of this region no longer have sovereignty! They're controlled by the euro system! And this is killing them! It's killing, literally, the people of Greece! It's killing the people of Spain, it's killing the people of Portugal! It's starving people. Italy's about to go under the same kind of garbage unless it resists!
So, the problem is this problem: We are still dominated by a system which has an imperialist basis. Its basis was the same basis that was established in the Roman Empire. After Rome collapsed, we had a new empire. Then after that empire collapsed, we had the first Venetian empire. And then after that, we had the New Venetian Empire, which was started as the British Empire.
So, you have a continuity of imperialism, over this extended period of history, and it's that imperialism which adapts itself to different disguises and different kinds of pretensions and appearances and so forth. This is the problem. What we must understand, is we must end this system of empire! Not for one-world nonsense! One-world is nonsense, because the basis of society is people have their own cultures. The cultures may converge in terms of things they do, in laws they adopt and so forth, but the important thing, since the people of this empire, so-called, have their own culture, their own language culture, their own history, that the way to run the world is to have a confederation, of respectively sovereign nation-states, and to bring the whole system into a system of governance, in accord with the famous Westphalian Treaty. Go back to the Westphalian Treaty.
You have the British situation and the policy of this current President of ours, are both British! The President of the United States is nothing but a stooge for the British Queen! And that's a hard fact!
Ross: Thanks! So, here's the last question for you. The Greenies view is that the past was better—that moving forward is only done in a good way if you're actually moving backwards. There's also this idea now that progress actually makes people unhappy!—maybe if the idea of progress is McDonald's and suburbia, and alienation, etc.—so, they say, well, things used to be better, things used to be better.
I want to ask you to comment on the conclusion of the paper you just wrote today, "An End to Reductionism." You wrote that
"... the human species, has the inherent right to defend itself by any required means necessary ... to defend mankind from any intrusion on mankind's unique right to defend its position against threats presented against it. The right of unbounded expansion of the power of the human species must be recognized as a natural law inherent in the unique nature of our human species."
Could you say more?
LaRouche: Yes, yes, I could give you a very specific example, which will make it simpler that way: We are now faced with a growing threat to life on Earth. It's increasing, it's nasty, but what do you expect? That in the course of the universe, you imagine that universe has fixed characteristics? Do you not understand that the universe is changing, that the Solar System in particularly, has always been changing? It has never been in an unchanging manner! The manner is also directed—that is, it is impulsely, inherently projected. That's been its history.
Now, we come to a period in which it is estimated by the relevant people who are scientists, that we're now going into a period of increased risk, and this has been understood since especially the 1970s, a period of increased from various objects floating around inside the Solar System and beyond. So, therefore, we now have a problem, that if we're going to maintain humanity on Earth, and not have some barrage of objects battering us, and probably causing in some cases, the cessation of human life on Earth! We're in that kind of a period!
Exactly how it's going to work out, why, and so forth, that's not certain. But it is now a problem: Therefore, the defense of Earth against these kinds of problems, these threats, is a crucial factor for all mankind.
Now, it is possible, feasible, in conception, to organize defense of Earth in such a way that we might be able to secure life within the Solar System, or large parts of the Solar System would in net effect on Earth. Now, this will mean, undoubtedly, that we're going to have to have capabilities based on Mars, but under the direction of us on Earth. Just as we've sent a few things to Mars, a few objects and processes to Mars, we're going to have put more up there! Because we have a very poor ability to control the threats from meteorites and asteroids, from within the Solar System, and beyond. So, therefore, it's necessary for us to take steps to build up a defense. Some of this defense will have to be based on objects, functioning objects on Mars itself. I don't think we can say at this point, we're ready to put human beings as colonists on Mars. But we can put devices as colonists on Mars, as human representatives are controlled devices on Mars, and these devices can be very useful, even indispensable, in our ability to try to control all these asteroids running around loose in that space.
So, therefore, mankind must see itself as a factor in the Solar System! We're not just managing ourselves on Earth; we have to defend ourselves against the known types of threats, which threaten mankind from within the Solar System itself. And the obvious place to put our foot, is first of all, directly on the Moon. If you want to control the processes we have to control in respect to Mars, we've got to do it on the Moon first. We've got to get our tunnels on the Moon going! It means, we're going to have to go to thermonuclear fusion, as a power driver, so you have make trip from the Moon to Mars, in probably 30 days, or less.
So these are the kinds of things we have to think about and begin to do, if we're going to protect the possibility of a continuation of human life on Earth. And therefore, this is normal for us; it's normal for us as human beings. Our direction, whenever we're civilized, is to increase the power of humanity to manage and defend itself, and to develop itself in its powers and prowesses.
That doesn't mean we're going to go to Mars right away. I don't recommend any of my friends going to Mars right now, except on emergency visit! But we can put things on Mars, which are operating functions, like Curiosity, but on a much larger scale than Curiosity, with more advanced purposes. We can begin to explore this area between Mars and Earth, for example, and explore that, and do something about the problems. We'll plant things, just like Curiosity, we'll plant things on large asteroids, and things like that, and start to map this process, and try to get some kind of control over the whole thing.
And this is the direction which we have been doing, since the end of the 1970s. And there's no reason it should not be continued and accelerated now. In fact, it probably is necessary. It probably is indispensable.
But we can not accept the idea that there may be no risk. If there's a possibility of risk, we must act! We must act on behalf of humanity: And that's the way to look at it. If we accept that responsibility, that mankind on Earth must take control, of threats to mankind of Earth within the immediate areas of the Solar System, accept that, that gives us a motivation, a direction in policymaking, which is appropriate to our desire, for a continuity of the existence of humanity. And that's the way to look at things.
If you adopt that standpoint, then you're on the right track in thinking! Don't worry about the exact details about the program: If you're doing that, you're doing the right thing! And mankind has often acted that way. Mankind has often acted, on the basis of knowing, we should be doing the right thing! And we should not be not doing the right thing! And that's where we should stand.
Mason: Well, that brings this broadcast to a close. I'd like to thank you for joining us tonight, and invite you to stay tuned to LaRouche PAC's site, and also to join us in this fight, and become a member of the LaRouche Political Action Committee. You can do that via the site, or also through your local organizer.
Again, thank you very much, and good night.