OPENING REMARKS:

Stuart Rosenblatt: My name is Stuart Rosenblatt. I'm here from Mr. LaRouche's national campaign, Leesburg, Virginia. We're going to be holding a press conference with Mr. LaRouche in a few minutes. We'll have two speakers at the press conference, and I'll introduce one in just a second.

I'd like to welcome everybody here: Lyndon LaRouche, native son and Rochester-born and New Hampshire resident, is back in New Hampshire to answer the big question facing voters both in New Hampshire and around the country. They keep saying, "an unnamed Democrat is capable of defeating George Bush." And, we're going to answer that question, here this afternoon.

We're going to have two speakers. One will be Rep. Barbara Richardson, and she'll be followed by Mr. LaRouche. At this point, it's my honor to introduce Representative Richardson, who is from Richmond. She represents five cities in the lower part of the state. She is a 12-year veteran of the state legislature, and is actually the only Democrat, who clerks one of the committees. So, with that, I'd like to introduce Representative Richardson.

Rep. Barbara Richardson: Thank you very much. As Stu said, Lyndon LaRouche is a native of this state. He was born and raised in Rochester, New Hampshire. He's a Democratic Presidential candidate, but he has been denied access to the candidates' debates. Nationally, he is second in individual contributions to his campaign; sixth in the total money raised, nationally and in New Hampshire, and fourth in individual contributions raised in New Hampshire.

LaRouche has some excellent information and ideas. I believe it is important to listen to him, and consider his views for solutions to our faltering economy, and to the disaster we face in Iraq. He fought hard to keep the Washington, D.C. public hospital open; he also worked in California, to defeat the Recall of Governor Davis.

Nearly half a century ago, I attended the Bretton Woods Conference as a college student reporter. LaRouche is promoting a similar conference, to deal with the many problems facing our country. I believe we will benefit from hearing his information and ideas

Rosenblatt: Thank you, Representative Richardson. It is now my distinguished pleasure and honor, to introduce to all of you, Lyndon LaRouche.

Lyndon LaRouche: Essentially three topics, which I will just summarize here, at this time: First of all, the first issue facing the nation, prominent in the minds of most people, is the spreading war, now peaking in Iraq. We face not only that war, but we face the threatened spread of that, and similar wars, around the world. Were this process to continue, under the Cheney doctrine of preventive nuclear warfare, we could be assured that, in the coming Presidency, we would probably face a spread of wars, of nuclear-armed warfare among nations--major nations; of asymmetric warfare, of a type, which the present ongoing Iraq War, like the Indo-China War earlier, represent.

At the same time, we have a second issue: the economy. The present world financial-monetary system is in the process of disintegration. We're during the last phases of a disintegration. Now, in such matters, you can not predict the exact time something will happen, because governments may print money, even at risk of hyperinflation, in order to try to postpone a financial collapse, for political reasons. We're already in that. The present administration has given a new meaning, in its financial expectations, to what is called "a Snow job"--Tony Snow, our Secretary of the Treasury.

In the meantime, 47, at least, of the Federal states of the United States, are in effect bankrupt. That is, they could not raise tax revenues, sufficient to maintain the essential functions of government, without causing a negative effect, on the population and the economy of the state itself.

Therefore, we must face this threat of financial crisis, using the precedent of what Franklin Roosevelt did, in facing the effects of the Coolidge and Hoover legacy, to bring the nation out of this financial crisis.

On the issue of the war and the crisis itself, my personal experience and involvement overseas, permits me to say, that we are at the verge where a President of the United States, approaching the problems today, as Roosevelt did in 1932-33, could bring about a general agreement on monetary and financial reorganization among major nations and others of the world. Therefore, the problem is intrinsically manageable. If we are willing to launch the kind building program, and rebuilding program, which Roosevelt undertook--maybe not the same way, the same details--but, for example, in dealing with the shortage of generation and distribution of energy supplies, power supplies; the management of water systems; the collapse of our general transportation system, our public transportation system; rebuilding our health-care system, especially hospitals and clinics, which we're in short supply of; rebuilding our educational institutions, to adapt our population, coming out of the schools, to be qualified for the kinds of employment we should be creating. These measures will succeed, and could stimulate the economy in general.

There's another problem, the problem of a generation gap. Some of you recall, that we went through the Eisenhower years with a certain sense of security. The horror of nuclear war had been put behind us, with Eisenhower's election. Eisenhower was opposed to these kinds of mad adventures; but then, he retired. And, a young President Kennedy, very bright, but not with enough of the right connections, was not able to do what Eisenhower had done: Eisenhower had the authority, as a commanding general in the previous war; he had other authorities and other influences, especially in the military; and could hold some of those things that he called, once, "the military-industrial complex" in check.

Once Eisenhower left office, what he called "the military-industrial complex" went rampant.

The first effect was international: The Missile Crisis of 1962, when people throughout this country sweated for days, in anticipation that they might be extinguished, by a general thermonuclear warfare, any day, at that point. This went on for a period of days. People almost lost their souls, in terror. Other bad things happened in this period. And then, Kennedy was shot, and the mystery of his assassination was never properly addressed.

Then came the Indo-China War. And, with that, the country was terrified, especially people who had been born at the end of World War II, or about that time or later; they were terrified. And we had, in the middle of the 1960s, a cultural paradigm-shift emerging around campus youth, university campus youth. This gave us a shift, toward what was called a "post-industrial society," which meant, in effect, that in the course of the 1970s, we ceased to be the world's leading producer nation, and we became a consumer society, increasingly depending upon the cheap labor of other parts of the world, to provide the things that we used to produce for ourselves.

So, we have degenerated, into a pleasure-seeking society. In the meantime, the lower 80% of the family-income brackets of the United States, since 1977, have been in an accelerating decline, in their physical standard of income, not only in household income as such, but also in public services, basic economic infrastructure.

We are now a bankrupt society, living on virtual slave-labor rates of work in China and other parts of the world. We have destroyed Mexico as an independent nation, but we use its cheap labor: We use it up, both inside the United States and outside the United States.

So, we've changed our character. We're in a period where, as many of you know, the generation that I deal with now, most actively, between 18-25-year age-group, is faced with a horrible situation: Ritalin, Prozac, a general drug culture, and the things that go with it. These young people, they come from all kinds of backgrounds, but of that age-group, share common problems. And, when they're mobilized--they don't trust the older generation; they don't trust their parents' generation--but, they will trust a good discussion, a frank discussion, of the issues. And they will respond to it.

The best chance for this nation, is that people of that age-group, 18-25 age-group, be organized in the proper way, as the way I've been trying to organize it, for the past several years: to give a kick in the pants to their parents' generation, to get some morality back in this country, and some confidence. We can face the crisis of war. We can stop the wars. We can deal with the financial crisis, there are measures. The older generation, those who entered universities, for example, in the middle of the 1960s, haven't got the gumption to do it by themselves. But their children's generation, faced with the prospect of no future for this society, and thinking about their future, thinking about the problems of drug culture, thinking about the problems of poverty, insecurity, are capable of inspiring their parents' generation to come back to life, and to mobilize and join them, in changing the character of politics in the United States today.

And that's what has to change.

The problem, as I see it, finally, is that, I saw these so-called debates, among the so-called candidates: I was disgusted. Because they're not discussing anything. When you consider the problems that are faced by the people in this country, especially the lower 80% of family-income brackets, when you look at the bankruptcy of 47 or so of the Federal states of the United States, and no solutions for this in sight, under present terms, somebody ought to be talking about it. Candidates ought to be speaking among themselves before the public, on these questions. Not with the shibboleths, with these simple slogans, and fads. The question of war: The war danger is serious, it's real. You can't say, "Be nice to Cheney." You can't say, "Let's be careful what we say in the presence of the President." We have to tell the truth.

And these young people will not believe any politician, who does not tell the truth. Any politician who tries to give out the guff, that I've seen from these candidates, in these public debates, will not gain the confidence of the American people.

The question, as I see it--looking at my Republican and Democratic competition--is not, who is going to win the next election, but which of these guys is going to lose it. Because one is as bad as the other, in terms of their present performance.

And, I think, perhaps, that by my kicking things--I think I should be the next President. I don't think anybody else is qualified, at the time, for the particular kind of job that has to be done. But certainly, I can't run the country alone. I would have to run it, with a government, which is capable of doing the job: As Roosevelt did, I would need teams. I would need good Democrats, with experience. I would need specialists. I would need some good Republicans, too. In order to put together, in the Executive Branch of government, the kind of team, that, when the President makes a decision, with their advice taken into account, that that decision will be carried out effectively. And that the major problems that we have to deal with, will be dealt with, as Roosevelt dealt, in the first hundred days of his Administration.

That's what we face.

And therefore, even though I think I should be President--I don't think anybody else is qualified, at the time, for the job, as it's defined now--nonetheless, we do need the kind of discussion, among candidates and people, which says, "Cut off the guff. Talk straight. No more slogans. No more party lines. We have well-defined problems. The American people want to hear politicians running for office, discussing what they really think, about solutions to these problems in front of them."

And, I hope that we do some of that, today, here.

Thank you.

DISCUSSION PERIOD:

Question: I'm Kate, with the Associated Press. The Democratic Party says you're ineligible to run, because you're not a registered voter. You can't make it [to a delegation--inaud], so you couldn't become President, technically, as a Democrat. Why not switch parties?

LaRouche: Well, they're not thinking clearly. First of all, none of them are going to make it, the way it's going now. They're all going to lose to even George Bush, who's a born loser.

And, first of all, they're wrong. The Constitution of the United States is absolutely clear: The United States was founded by a bunch of felons. Every leader of the United States was a felon. George III would have strung us all up! Right? So, when our Constitution was formed, with our experience, under British occupation, the British colonies and so forth--and looking at Europe--we decided to leave it to the people of the United States and their electors, to decide who is qualified to be President or not. And, who is qualified to stand as a Presidential candidate.

Now, a bunch of wise-guys, who have connections I know, such as former Democratic Party leader Don Fowler, who is one of the instigators of this whole thing--a South Carolina racist; I mean, he is not exactly qualified to speak to the state of New Hampshire about their choice of candidates.

We're going to run.

Now, what do you think--in terms of popular financial support--now what do you think, of a political party, which is in desperate straits, and does not recognize the existence of the number-two candidate of a pack of nine? And having debates that don't mean anything, and nobody's discussing anything of importance? Is that kind of side-show, supposed to be the election process?

That's why the polls indicated, that all of the above-mentioned candidates, not including me, would lose to Bush. But, an unknown candidate would win! And, the advantage of being unknown to these guys--they're going to have to sort it out, before it's over.

Look, the DLC, which is my main enemy, the Democratic Leadership Council, has disintegrated. The Democratic National Committee leadership, after what they did in California, on the Recall vote, which gave only bad advice and the worst possible advice to Gray Davis. And Gray Davis lost for only one reason: Because he was under Democratic Party leadership pressure, including many of the candidates who were out there, visiting, and told him, "Take it soft! Take it soft! Don't fight." Well, we fought! And, we fought the fight for California in Los Angeles County: We turned a 60-to-40 losing position, to a 51-to-49 winning position. We did a better job in the Bay Area. In the other areas, we weren't there--and they lost!

We went into Philadelphia, where Mayor Street wanted our help. And we had what was considered a tough election--we had a landslide victory!

So, how can someone, given this bunch of losers, exclude somebody who has the quality of a winner? Would you put a cripple on the football field, as a quarterback? They're crippled.

So, obviously, it's a bunch of foolishness. I know you get the stories that have been put out--but it's just foolishness. It doesn't make any sense, from the history of the United States.

Question: [followup] Do you think the voters should look past your record, as a convicted felon?

LaRouche: That's a badge of honor, when you know the circumstances! Being framed up by George Bush and his friends? The former George Bush--who probably now is less unfriendly to me, since he's seen the mess his son has gotten into, as President.

That's a badge of honor. They went to great work, and even a couple of times, officially, the U.S. government--three times on record--planned to have me assassinated. And one time, it was done in concert with the Soviet government. Well, that's not exactly a normal kind of situation! So, they were afraid of me; and they tried to get me out of business. And they didn't.

Question: Thank you.

Question: You're talking about how you're number two in the money raising, but in the literature you're passing out, it looks like you're behind Dean, Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, and Lieberman.

LaRouche: No, no, no, not behind Lieberman.

Rosenblatt: What it is, is that he's number two in total contributions, nationwide; and he's number six in total money raised. But, in terms of popularity--that is, contributors--Mr. LaRouche is number two, by the FEC statistics.

Question: I've seen numbers from $3.7 million to $5 million that you've raised.

Rosenblatt: $5.7 million.

LaRouche: That's the last FEC report.

Question: How much of your own money have you donated to the campaign?

LaRouche: None.

Question: How old are you, and what number campaign is this for you?

LaRouche: Oh, I'm 81 years of age, and in fairly good condition. Better condition than my rivals! George Bush lifts weights, but he doesn't think! [laughter] I don't lift weights. And I think it's a bad idea anyway. Anyone over 70, should not be pushing weights above their shoulders. It's bad for the cardiovascular system. Bad idea. So, George is going to have to cut that out, pretty soon.

Question: Can you paint us a picture of the average person who's giving money to the LaRouche campaign?

LaRouche: There is no real average. What I tap into, is what you'd expect, if you think about the voting pattern. My support comes largely from people who have deserted the Democratic Party at the polls, because they're disgusted with it.

The Democratic Party, under the DLC leadership, especially over the last ten years approximately, shifted from a party of the people, to a party of the so-called suburbanites. That left about 80% of the family-income brackets of the United States in neglect. The party, in recent years, has no longer responded--.

Look at the situation with health care. Let's take Dean. Now, Howard Dean will say--for comparison purposes; he's not the only culprit in this--Howard Dean would say, he was part of a Vermont thing that raised some health care for children. But, children above infancy, have the lowest risk factor of any part of the population. You get to people over 50--now you're talking serious health problems: 45 to 50, they begin to onset, and they become more expensive.

So, what the problem is, he supports HMO! Now, HMO, which was enacted by the Republicans in 1973--it was a disaster.

We had, under the Hill-Burton Act, enacted in the immediate post-war period, we had a system of cooperation among state, Federal, local, and private institutions--hospitals, clinics, and so forth--which worked as a team in each county of the United States, to plan the capabilities of the county, for dealing with the anticipated health-care challenges of the coming year. They would look at the money that was coming in, from various funds, including private contributions, so forth--that is, paid-in contributions--and also would have these fundraising drives for the health program, which would try to fill up the gap. In some cases, in poor states, the Federal government would step in. In many areas, the state government would step in, at the county level, to assist the county in meeting these standards. When somebody fell on the street, under the Hill-Burton system, in any of these counties, somebody said, "Call a cop!" The police came, the person was taken to the emergency room, the so-called trauma unit. They were treated. If they required further treatment beyond the emergency treatment, they were bedded and put under observation. And, maybe a day or two later, somebody would come around and talk to the patient about money. But, whether they had money or not, they would be treated, and they would be treated with indifference to the amount of money they had.

It worked. It was a lot cheaper than the HMO system. Because, under that system, we didn't pay off stockholders who bought stock yesterday, in a financial company, to squeeze the victims--the patients--of their health care, in order to ensure profits for the stockholder, who bought in yesterday.

We're doing a similar thing with Social Security: We are looting the Social Security Fund, and then saying, there's not enough money to meet the pension requirements.

The philosophy is wrong. And Dean, who, of course, leads me, actually, in the number of contributors; but, Dean, who's a doctor by profession, supports the HMO system. And we will never have a decent health-care system for this country, again, until we repeal the HMO system, and everything that goes with it. That's why it's one of the first acts I intend to implement as a message to the Congress, on becoming President.

So, these are the kinds of problems.

Or, take another one, a shocker--not as vicious in New Hampshire, as it in some other parts of the country: This country is based largely on a big swindle called a real-estate bubble. The real-estate bubble means, that you get a shack, which is set up with shrink-wrap. You stick some plastic exterior on it, call it "housing." It looks like brick (one-sixteenth of an inch thick brick), pasted on the outside. These shacks are going in various parts of the country, at mortgages of $400,000 to $600,000 and higher. What are they worth?

Now, this thing is based on a bubble: It's called a mortgage-based securities bubble, which is funded largely by the Federal Reserve System, through Alan Greenspan--that great genius. We're on the edge, in which the crisis in the so-called financial derivatives, of the insurance and related categories--a crisis in that area, triggered by a rise in interest rates in international markets--could readily trigger a chain-reaction collapse of the real-estate bubble. Which would mean that some of these shacks that were listed at $400,000 or $600,000, will be down a value of $200,000 or less very quickly.

And, the people in them, will be turned from homeowners, into squatters, because nobody will want to kick them out of the houses. It'll be worse kicking them out, than letting them stay there.

That's the kind of situation we face. That's the kind of reality which hits the poor of this country. And the poor of the United States, are now actually, the lower 80% of family-income brackets. You have 20% are really in destitution. And the others are hard.

Look what people are doing, commuting--and, what kind of jobs are they getting? How many hours do they work? How many hours do they commute? What kind of family life do they have? What kind of situation do we have for the children, that are being raised by these families? These are the issues of the general welfare. Our system of republic is based on a dedication of government to efficiently serve the interests and promotion of the general welfare, as well as the sovereignty and posterity of our people. And that is neglected.

The Democratic Party, in the Roosevelt tradition--whatever criticism you might want to make of Franklin Roosevelt--Franklin Roosevelt, like Lincoln, was a person truly in the tradition of the general welfare principle. And defended the people, and took the side of the people. And, he was loved because of that.

And he was missed, as soon as he was gone, because of that.

But, in the recent period, since the beginning of the Indo-China war, and especially since the Nixon Administration, we've been going down a dark road. It's a vicious road. We cared less and less for people : This is supposed to be a government for the people, of the people, by the people. The responsibility of government is to do what the people can not do for themselves. To organize them and their resources, so they can defend themselves; to create infrastructure; to make sure that power systems, generation and distribution are built; to make sure that water systems are maintained; to make sure that sanitation is maintained; to make sure that everybody gets an education; to ensure that health care is available, by making it possible for those who provide health care to do so.

That should be our commitment. A commitment to the people. And therefore, as a result of the fact that the people have been turned against , by their government and by the leadership of the Democratic Party--and the people know it! The people sense they have no power, so they sit and cherry-pick on issues, or don't vote at all. They no longer have any sense of the party's loyalty to them , or of themselves to the party. They cherry-pick, when they vote; they don't vote out of passion, commitment for their party.

So, the party is sitting there, as a minority--a minority of the potential Democratic voters. They actually represent almost no one ! They depend upon sharks like Murdoch and his Fox TV, to subsidize Democratic Presidential candidates! Controlled by one of the worst right-wingers in the world! And, that's called Democratic.

They have trouble; the Democratic National Committee's bankrupt: They go to George Soros! One of the centers of the international drug traffic! A major security threat to the United States. And they get their funding from him. Who's loyal to whom?

The American people, especially the youth, know the Democratic Party leadership, at present, is not loyal to them; nor, is the Republican Party leadership. And therefore, that's why they vote for me the way they do. Because they know where I stand--they can smell it! And they know it! They've a lot of funny ideas; they need a lot of discussion, to clarify a lot of questions. But, they are the American people. And, they are the people that any candidate has to deal with.

A big change is coming. It's coming on fast. You should see the way our youth movement functions, the way it functioned in California, in Los Angeles County, in the Bay Area, in Philadelphia: We make the difference. And everybody who's smart in the Democratic Party knows it. We make the difference. My candidacy makes the difference. We're going to change the party's character.

Question: Can you write a fourth edition to the "Children of Satan"?

LaRouche: I couldn't hear you.

Rosenblatt: Are you going to write a fourth edition to the "Children of Satan" pamphlet?

LaRouche: I wouldn't be surprised. You asked the question, and I hadn't planned to take it, but I probably should respond this way:

The essential nature of government, or what government should be, is to liberate mankind from a long tradition of humanity in society, in which a few people treated most people as human cattle. They either hunted them down, for sport, as the Spartans did, and the Romans often did; or, they herded them and culled them, as cattle . They treated them nice--they put 'em the barn, they put 'em in the field, and then when they didn't produce, they culled them, to save on medical expenses, because they weren't productive.

The system of government, of modern government, in modern European history, is based on the assumption that the government is responsible to the people: What's the difference between a man and an animal? How many people know the difference? The difference lies in the human mind, the difference between the quality of man and the beast. And when you have ideas like those of Hobbes, or Locke, which does not distinguish between man and the beast, what do you get? Men treat men as beasts. And become beasts, themselves.

So, the key problem here, is twofold: First of all, the task of government, the task of leadership, is to make the people aware of the nature of man as made in the likeness of the Creator. That man is not an animal. Therefore, man partakes of the divine. And secondly, is to create those conditions which are suitable, to a person of that nature. We don't want a dumb beast working in the field, like a cow! We want a human being, developing--developing ideas, transmitting those ideas to coming generations; human beings who have a sense of immortality; a sense of mission in life: not just a sense of obligation to do a job, but a sense that they are getting something from their previous generations; they're passing on something enriched to coming generations. That they come and they go. You live and you die, but in the time you're alive, you do something . You adopt a mission in life, or have one thrust upon you. And you do it for the benefit of future generations. And you can smile at death, if you can do that.

That's been taken away from us.

People who take that away from people, people who destroy young people, with drugs, with these kinds of things: They are Satanic! Why? What do I mean, by Satanic? They are taking away, the sense of humanity, from the individual; and they're taking away the regard for the other person, as human, as in the image of the Creator.

And, that's what's wrong with us. If we had this kind of love, of human beings for human beings, which is described by Plato in his second book of The Republic , as agape ; which is the same thing as in the I Corinthians 13, the same idea, this idea of love of mankind: That, if you were devoted to that, as your fundamental interest in life, that service of that, government will work. And therefore, it's important to make that distinction, it's important for politicians to finally get the guts to make that distinction: It is wrong to do things, that correspond to looking at a fellow human being, as some kind of human cattle, or worse.

And therefore, I am writing more on it. And another piece is coming out, very soon!

Question: In running for President, what have you learned in your different campaigns? And, how has the Democratic Party changed, since you started--?

LaRouche: Oh! The Democratic Party has gone to pot! It was much better, a long time ago. You know, Clinton was a nice guy, and that fooled a lot of people abut the Democratic Party. He didn't always perform very well, but he was capable of expressing nice intentions, and he was a very intelligent President. He had some shortcomings, but they weren't in lack of intelligence.

What's happened to the Democratic Party, is the Democratic Party accepted the change. The Democratic Party was never a party of principle. It was pretty much a piece of garbage for much of its history, until Franklin Roosevelt came along, and he changed it. And the Democratic Party rose at the time that the Republican Party was really in its deepest decline. So, it was a change in the character of the Democratic Party. So, when you talk about the "Democratic Party," when you say, "What do you like about the Democratic Party, historically?" you say, "Franklin Roosevelt." Not that he's the beginning and ending of it, but that typifies, in our history, a Democratic Party as it should be.

When the cultural change occurred, in the middle of the 1960s, corresponding to the Indo-China War, Johnson's terror at thinking of what it meant to see his President shot--and that terrified Johnson, greatly. But, from that time on, we went downhill, morally. We no longer were the same people. And, it got worse and worse.

Now, history doesn't work, in four-year cycles. It works in generations. It's been 40 years, approximately, since this change took over the United States. The Democratic Party has degenerated, as most of the political institutions, and other institutions, have degenerated over those 40 years.

I'm probably the world's best economic forecaster, at least on the record, in terms of what I've forecast and what has happened, and I've seen this coming. I saw the changes. I saw how they were going to occur. And I decided I had to do something about it. And, then, when I saw what was happening, with Brzezinski coming in with his Trilateral Commission, to take over the Democratic Party in 1976, I decided I had to do something. So, I got into politics at that point, for that reason: to stop what Brzezinski represented. It would be the death of the Democratic Party, and the death of the nation, if it continued.

And, the things that I've warned against, have all happened.

Now, in the cycle of history, people develop bad habits. A cultural degeneration, such as the present one, develops as a bad habit. People pick up bad habits. And, they begin to say, "Well, these habits are the lessons of experience. Experience has taught us this. Experience has given us the following values." But, they're the wrong values! But, if the world doesn't come crashing down, because you accept the wrong values within three or four years, people say, "It's all right! It's all right! Cultural change, fine!" Then, you come along to something like a cyclical depression, as we saw back in 1928 through 1933. You should think about--remember, some people are old enough to remember, how people behaved--in New Hampshire, for example--in the 1920s. I remember. They behaved terribly! They were decadent! Terribly decadent--then, boom! 1928-29. You should see the shock, that people went through, from '28 through '33--the shock! You should see it in the state of New Hampshire--I saw in '28 to '32, in particular. The shock! People you know! They changed! They were terrified; they were frightened; they were despondent.

Then, Roosevelt came along, and people were willing to shuck the values of Coolidge and Hoover, the Flapper Era. They were willing to make changes--reluctantly, but they made changes. And, we survived! We developed a new paradigm.

But then, at the end of the war, we began to develop a contrary paradigm, and anti-Roosevelt paradigm. And we began to go down. We went back into the war business again! We went into thermonuclear and nuclear war. Went into these crazy adventures, that Eisenhower, in his own way, tried to stop. And, then Kennedy was killed; the Missile Crisis happened. And they were terrified again: So, people said, "Let's run from reality. Let's go into a post-industrial society. Let's get away from this technology--it frightens us! It frightens us!" We accepted new values, that we could do something else, apart from producing product. We would now make our money , or make our living, in some other way. And, we went along with it.

And so, now, 40 years later, the price has to be paid. And, history is often--if you look at the history of the Peloponnesian War, for example, which is often studied by scholars; look at the history of the religious wars from 1511 to 1648, in Europe; look at many of these phenomena, these long cycles, cycles of more than a generation, which are characteristic of human society. And, humanity, in general, has progressed. The human species has progressed, in net effect, over time, despite all these things.

But, the reason we survive, is because, when a time of crisis comes, when bad habits have come to the end of their skein, then if people step forward, and provide the new ideas that are needed, then, maybe, the people in general will begin to accept those ideas. A person in politics, as I am, has to function that way: You function to win, because you're functioning to win a change. You're not functioning on the basis of running a popularity contest, though popularity is not irrelevant. You're running, to bring about a change. You're on a mission , to change the way things are going. And, you have to be patient. You have to wait, till the people are ready to make that change with you. And, that's what I've been doing, this past quarter-century.

Question: I've heard from your secretary that you've been in Africa many times. And I, myself, am African.

I'd like to ask you, how do you see yourself improving life for vulnerable people, such as Africa and somewhere else?

LaRouche: Well, Africa--sub-Saharan Africa in particular--has been a target, since the 1971-72 period, of genocide. The turning point was 1976: I sponsored, with others, an effort at the Colombo, Sri Lanka conference of the Non-Aligned nations, for a just new world economic order; my chief collaborator in that was Fred Wills, who was the Foreign Minister of Guyana, who was an activist in Africa, and had been very much involved in that.

But, since that time, especially since '75-'76, there has been in Africa, deliberate genocide , promoted by policies such as Henry Kissinger's NSSM-200. Which distinctly says: The Africans have too much in terms of mineral resources, which we want for our future. Therefore, we must now allow their population to grow. We must make it shrink. And above all, we must not let them enjoy technology, because they'll use up more of these mineral resources, that we want for our future.

So, genocide has been Anglo-American policy, toward Africa, since that time. And what you're seeing is the orchestration, in the usual, customary ways, of genocide, against Africa.

So, how do we do it? Well, you go back to what Roosevelt proposed in 1942-43, in the context of the invasion of Africa, by the U.S. forces, where he had this meeting with Churchill on these issues. He laid out to Churchill, and the others there, a map, of what U.S. policy toward Africa would be, especially North Africa, in the post-war period--that is, the northern part of Africa. He laid out grand projects, of rail development, water development, engineering developments, to give Africans the basic, large-scale infrastructure, which would enable them--in a de-colonized world--to build economies. Now, that still is what has to be done today.

The point is a question of power: Where is the power going to come--first of all, to free the African, from this genocide , which is coming down on them, every day, increasingly right now? Secondly, where do we get the means? My view is that, if we organize--if the United States will work with Europe and Eurasian countries, in the direction which Eurasia is already going in, to solve the problem of the crisis in Eurasia: that Eurasia, and the United States, together, will be sufficiently strong to provide the assistance to Africa, to:

Number one, eliminate this genocide process; that is, eliminate the elements of genocide, such as Museveni, for example, in Uganda; who's an Anglo-American agent, who is committing genocide against the people of his own country, and other countries. To eliminate that factor, of support for genocide.

And secondly, we should go in, with large-scale projects of infrastructure-building. We should do it, by sponsoring African corporations, which will take the development, and will own the development. We will go in, on a technology-transfer method, of putting our forces, our abilities in there, to assist them in getting started, and will continue to support them. It's the only chance.

Now, we have also, in Africa, we have another problem: Disease. These conditions produce disease, and they produce diseases which are dangerous to all humanity. The HIV case is only an example of this; it's only one of many. Therefore, we have to help Africa to deal with this tropical disease factor. I mean, if you're sleeping on a mat, if children are sleeping on a mat, in a tropical region of Africa, every disease-carrying bug in the world gets through that mat, and bites them : And, they get the diseases. So therefore, we have an epidemic problem that we have to control.

We have to have, now, a policy toward Africa, which is not one we need be ashamed of.

Question: Can you speak, considering, when you become President, about your relationship to what kind of Supreme Court, what your relationship to the Federal courts [is]? We have a problem, where we can't [put] judges into judgeships--there's a backup, this way. And, just could you tell us your views about jurisprudence?

LaRouche: Well, we got a problem in the Supreme Court, typified by Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, whom I do not consider fully human. And, you have five judges are on the so-called conservative side--that doesn't mean that the four judges who are on the non-conservative side, are perfect. But, there has been, obviously, a deterioration in the quality of the Supreme Court, since the middle of the 1970s. Which I think we're all aware of. When Rehnquist got in there, things began to get bad. Here is a man, a racist from Arizona, an open racist--and you put in an open racist in there, then promote him to Chief Justice--that's not good. But, he's not so smart. Scalia is a real slime-ball--really nasty. I don't think he's fully human.

But, so yes, we have a system of Constitutional government, where if two branches of government--the Executive and the Congress--can come into an agreement, we can control the problem of the Supreme Court. Our Constitution provides for that kind of structure, that interrelationship. There's a fourth branch of government, of course, not just the states. The fourth branch of government is the people. And, the people, if the people form a movement, and say, "We are going to have this change," that change will occur. As long as at least two of the three Federal branches agree.

If an election, a President of the United States, a successful candidate for the Presidency, can carry the majority of the House of Representatives, and can shift the Senate--we're that close--a successful Democratic candidate, will carry the Congress and will carry the Senate. And therefore, we will have two sections of government, which can deal with the problem.

Also, the thing that has to be done, is, we have to lay before the American people, the question of the principles of our Constitution. People tend to think of a sort of a Ten Commandments, do's and don'ts. And, our Constitution is not a one of do's and don'ts. Those Constitutions which are based on do's and don'ts, don't survive. Ours is the only Constitution, which has survived, since it was created. Every other government in the world, has undergone radical changes in its Constitutions--or overthrow of its Constitution, since that time.

The durability of our Constitution lies, first of all, in the Preamble of the Constitution, and in the antecedent, of the Declaration of Independence: two documents which were crafted under the direction of Benjamin Franklin, which represented the highest level of thinking from Europe. The Preamble of the Constitution is the essence. Three principles: the sovereignty of the nation, the general welfare, and posterity. And, if we read the rest of the Constitution from that standpoint, those three principles, we know what to do.

The problem is, as with the earlier question, men in this country, do not yet understand fully, the significance of the difference between man and beast, between human and human cattle. That should be the concept, which my campaign is pushing. The concept of what is human. What natural-law principles flow from consideration of the human being as human? What is right and wrong, from that standpoint? The same principles as I Corinthians 13--same principle: that, if people understand the law, as natural law, and understand our Constitution as a reflection of natural law, as a statement of intention, then, if the people are mobilized behind it, and if the Congress and the Presidency understand that's the rule of the game, and if enough people on the Supreme Court join us, we can control these problems.

The judgeship problem is, we are not getting good judges proposed. We're getting bad judges! So, you get a jam-up on bad judges. They're trying to pack the judges, the Federal court! It's bad. There's no principle involved. It's pure thuggery. So, that's our problem.

But, we have to look at it from a strategic standpoint: We must take the Presidency. We must carry the House of Representatives. We must carry a majority in the Senate. If we do that, we can deal with our problems. But, it depends on a conception of natural law , not so-called positive law.

Rosenblatt: We'll take one more, and then I think we're going to wrap up. Go ahead.

Question: This is a little different. It's a question that I get out there, in consideration. I think one of the things, where a lot of the populists have gone toward the conservative type of framework, and what George Bush has come forth with, is this idea that there's too much government; that government regulations on a variety of issues, are stopping the small businessman, the different businessman from doing things; it's stopping the doctors, they have to have extra people working for them--there's all sorts of things like that. But the same point, in this paradox, is, we have sort of, an idea of government against people--it's too much government. And here, we have yourself coming forth as an FDR-type of Democrat, which people think, "Oh my gosh! We can't go with that! We're going to have more government and more enslavement!" I myself see through that paradox, but could you speak to that?

LaRouche: Yes, well, first of all, the problem is, is you can't blame the people, if the government has turned against the people over the past 40 years, increasingly. For example, we had the Missile Crisis. We never got justice, for a President who was assassinated. We never got the truth, about the Indo-China War--and, that's a really ugly story! People don't know how ugly it is! In my travels around the world, and dealing with various circles around the world, I can tell you: It's must uglier, than anyone suspects! How that happened.

So, we turned against the people. Nixon turned against the people. Look--a guy goes down--Nixon--goes down to Mississippi, and meets with the leadership of the Ku Klux Klan, and reorganizes the Republican Party for the 1966-68 Presidential campaign, on the basis of what was called the "Southern Strategy," which was an alliance with the Klan! The change in the country, was, large hordes out of the Democratic Party in the Southern states, began migrating, around the Southern Strategy, from the Democratic Party into the Republican Party. So, the Republican Party became the party of racism! Typified by this man, who should be removed without DeLay, huh?

Then, you had this other phenomenon, the Democratic Party, then, says, "Ah! We're losing Southerners! We can't control the nation! We're losing Southerners! We're not getting money from the big, fat contributors any more. So, we have to become more conservative, too!" That became known as the "suburban tendency," which took off actually under Brzezinski's influence. It became very strong during the 1980s.

So, in effect, the people find their political parties, and their government, is turning against them! Would you want to give more power to your enemy? Therefore, you will say, "Better a weaker government, that we suffer, than have them have too much power." Now, the danger isn't too much power, but it's Cheney is the danger! Cheney's dictatorship is the threat to power. Ashcroft is a threat.

But, we do need government. But, the only way this can function, is when the people have a sense of mission. We need a mission, why? Power! Let's take this whole area--power! Generation and distribution of power. We're doomed in New England, with what's going on, now.

All right, therefore, how're we going to get power? Well, first of all, we have to change some laws. We have to put back what we broke. We have to have a system of state- and government-franchised public utilities. We have to mobilize credit. We're talking about trillions of dollars of credit, nationally--probably $10, $15 trillion, nationally--just for 25-year-term investment, in generation and distribution of power. Our economy depends upon it. We have similar problems in water management--we're losing water management. We're losing forests in part of the world--all these kinds of things.

Therefore, the individual can not do that; the individual businessman, or groups of businessmen, can not solve that problem. So, in these areas, where it's too big, or where it's the general area, then government must step in, and provide the mechanisms by which what is necessary--like public roads, railway systems, whatever--are provided. When that's done, if people are benefitting from that, and understand that as a benefit to them, they will say, "We want the benefit."

But, it's the same problem we have with the youth problem. The difference between the Baby-Boomer generation and the younger generation: There's a cleavage, where the young people will not tell the truth to their parents. It's not lying to their parents. They just won't talk about it to their parents! When I talk to the young guys, they talk to me about the drug problem! In their terms, not some fictitious terms--but what they live through! They're trying to save this guy, save that guy! It's all over the place! They don't talk about these things with their parents' generation; they talk with me, about these things!

And, that's part of the problem: When people have confidence in government--when government has earned confidence, of the people, then the people will fight for government.

Question: I just pulled out a new $20 bill, today. I don't know if you've seen it, but it really looks like funny money. And that's what the person behind the cash register said, who was a postman. And, with the little $20 bills all over the place! But, this is the question: Is the Federal Reserve actually under the people of the United States? Or, is it a private enterprise? And so therefore, the thing that we're really dealing with, is not government per se, but who's controlling government on a different level?

LaRouche: See, our system of government, was established on the idea of national banking. And, national banking meant, that we establish a monopoly on the debt incurred by the United States, particularly foreign debt, and other debt. So that, our government would never be a prey, and our people never a prey, to debt. Therefore, we set the responsibility for that, in the Constitution, for national banking, with a monopoly on the issuance of currency, by the Federal government, with the consent of Congress as to each issue.

We also use the ability of the United States to incur debt, in the form of promises of delivery of future issue of currency, also for international and other debt purposes.

So, we use this idea of public credit, under national banking, as a way of running the whole economy--and controlling it. Because, you have--for example, I've done this Triple Curve thing: If you look at the curve of money, you'll find that monetary aggregate has spun up. You find that the financial aggregate has spun up, less fast, now, than in recent years before. Whereas, the physical, per-capita output of the United States has been collapsing!

So therefore, what has happened is, money has run out of control. One of the functions of government, is not only to issue money, but to regulate it--by taxation, by various kinds of regulation, which prevent this inflationary cheating process from occurring.

That system was taken away from us. It was taken away from us, by the British gold standard, in part. It was taken away by the van Buren-Jackson land-bank operation, a real swindle. It was also taken away by the Federal Reserve System, which was dumped on us by the King of England, through his banker Jacob Schiff, in New York City. So therefore, the Federal Reserve System is a private corporation, chartered by the Federal government, and technically, in part, regulated by the Federal government. But, it functions like a European, independent central banking system.

In the European independent central banking system, the government itself is subject to veto control, by the bankers. We, in the United States, today, are subject to veto control, by the bankers. Everybody admires Alan Greenspan--who should stay in his bathtub, and never come out of there! He is never going to come clean, otherwise.

All right, that's the problem. Yes, we are in the situation. We are going to have to, as an emergency measure, we are going to have to restore national banking. That doesn't mean nationalize the banks: It means, that the banks will be put through receivership, for bankruptcy reorganization, in order to keep them open! But then, the Federal government is going to have to organize the credit, to enable these private banks, or state banks, or other banks, to function. Because we must maintain the level of employment; we must maintain essential services; we must increase employment to the level that we have a breakeven on the state budgets! If you can not balance your requirements of state expenditure, with your income of your population, then you're not going to have a healthy nation. So, the Federal government must set priority, through the states, on getting the states functioning.

And, national banking, as defined by Hamilton, and others--Roosevelt tried to do that with an approximation, with Jesse Jones' crowd. He revised the Reconstruction Finance Corporation to do that. We're going to have to do something like that.

But no, it is not. We are slaves, to the private interests, at this point, and that's the big issue.

Rosenblatt: We're going to bring the press conference to a close. I'd just like to make three very quick remarks:

We would like to thank the state library, Mr. Chaney [ph], Miss Miles [ph], for giving us the facility. We really appreciate it, and hope to add to the lure of New Hampshire history.

Secondly, I just want to let you know, that Mr. LaRouche has issued, today, a one-million-run flier--we have copies in the back--calling for Vice President Cheney to make it easy on all of us, and resign. You're welcome to copies of that. That's going out in bulk on Capitol Hill and elsewhere, today.

And then, finally, I'd just like to close with something Mr. LaRouche said earlier today. He was asked, by the Secretary of State, to sign the book, that all the candidates sign, when they file for the Presidency, and he said, "It's now time, for a New Hampshire native, to be President."

So, I'd to close with that. Thank you, very much.

- 30 -