LaRouche Interview on the Barrie Singer Show
WILK Radio in Allentown, PA
May 17, 2023
 

To send a link to this document to a friend
 

Singer: Today, I have a guest, and my guest is Mr. Lyndon LaRouche. But before I bring Mr. LaRouche on, I want to say a few things to you. Mr. LaRouche will be here till the top of the hour, 10:57, to be precise. He and I are going to talk for a few minutes, at least until the bottom of the hour, the half-hour break, I should say. After that I will open up the talk lines for your questions or comments. Once you have made them--and I'd like them to be concise and direct--I'd like you to hang up, and either listen to Mr. LaRouche's comments or answer to your questions. I have talked to Mr. LaRouche just a few minutes ago, before we came on the air, and I gave him some rules of engagement. Because of his highly attuned skills in verbal gymnastics, I asked him not to go off on a monologue, and to keep his comments and answers concise and to the point.

Mr. LaRouche is a very gifted orator, a highly skilled debater, and he possesses a tremendous command of the English language, and as you all know, I'm just a poor, humble, barefoot boy from northeastern Pennsylvania.

Good morning, Mr. LaRouche.

LaRouche: Good morning [chuckling].

Singer: Sir, you first ran for the roses, or I should say, the Rose Garden, in 1976. From what I was able to ascertain, you formed your own political party, the U.S. Labor Party, to make that run. Since then, you have run seven times as a Democrat, but I know that you have never held--or I haven't seen that you have ever held any elected political office in this country. What makes you think you have qualifications to be the President of the United States?

LaRouche: I'm the most successful long-range economic forecaster in the past 30-40 years. I've never made a mistake....

Singer: What political experience do you have, sir?

LaRouche: What? Oh! That's experience.

Singer: Political experience, actual practical political experience...

LaRouche: Absolutely....

Singer: You ran for Congress in the 10th Congressional District in Virginia, and were unsuccessful. But you've never held any political office, as far as I can ascertain.

LaRouche: Of course. To me that's irrelevant.

Singer: That is irrelevant? Why sir?

LaRouche: Because we're in a crisis, which I've seen coming, and those who have been elected, have not seen coming. I've been right, and they've been wrong. Now the time has come to go back to a Franklin Roosevelt orientation to crisis, as opposed to the drift we've been following for the past 30-odd years.

Singer: Sir, you say you identify yourself in the traditions of Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln, and as you just mentioned, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. I know that Hamilton and Jefferson were in juxtaposition: Hamilton wanted an extremely strong, centralized government; Jeffersonian democracy is what we adopted. Abraham Lincoln, of course, preserved the Union, a strong centralized government; Franklin Delano Roosevelt adopted a very radical, leftist policy in the Social Security system, or the Social Security Act of 1934, which has become a standard today. And also, I heard mentioned that you have an industrial project called the "TVA," which I assume is some outgrowth of what is the WPA, in a much broader sense of the word.

LaRouche: No. It's actually a revival of the same method used by Roosevelt, including the TVA, to revive the economy from the Hoover depression.

Singer: Yes, but the TVA, sir, does not apply for any entrepreneurialship--it is all a government-sponsored operation under [inaud] control.

LaRouche: The way you get the private sector going, out of the crash it's in now, is by getting large-scale, basic economic infrastructure projects which stimulate the private sector. And that's the way Roosevelt worked it, and that's the way it'll work now.

Singer: How do you [plan] to implement that, sir?

LaRouche: Well, first of all, we're in a breakdown of the international financial-monetary system. We're going to have to go through a financial reorganization and bankruptcy of the existing financial system.

Singer: I don't know what you mean by that, sir. Could you clarify that for us?

LaRouche: Well, I think that most of the banks in the world, right now, are bankrupt, in most parts of the world. This system is coming down; it's finished; and the economy is collapsing, even though the monetary aggregates are pushing up the financial market occasionally. So, we're going to have to reorganize the economy. And it's going to have to be done by the methods of bankruptcy reorganization, the same way we've done in the past, and very much the way the Roosevelt approached this in 1933-34.

Singer: Well, explain to me, very succinctly, or as succinctly as possible, how, in your interpretation, Roosevelt made this approach.

LaRouche: Roosevelt was a follower of the Hamiltonian policies, from the beginning. His great-grandfather was in that tradition. He prepared for his Presidency by refreshing his knowledge of his American roots, and approached the failures that had been committed by the Coolidge and Hoover Administrations from that standpoint. They created the Depression. He got us out of it by going back to those methods. That's how he approached the whole problem.

Singer: Okay. Sir, your supporters, again, have said that you are the foremost economic forecaster in the world, and I've gone back and spent some time over the last 10 days, and doing some reading of your writings--I haven't read everything, sir--I don't have the time or the, pardon me, or the inclination to have read everything. And I don't mean to sound brash, but to me, in reading you, sir, they sound like Nostradamian quadrangles, at best, and left up to very, very broad interpretation. And, in essense, sir, you've been saying the same thing since 1976, or '75, when you came into some political prominence in this country.

LaRouche: Well, actually, I've been saying it earlier. I forecast this breakdown--what became the 1971 breakdown--back, during the 1960s. My view was that the way we were going: We were headed for a crisis--and we had a series of monetary crises--

Singer: There's always been a series of monetary crises. There's been crises throughout the world. It is not a perfect system, sir, and it never will be a perfect system, because we're human beings.

LaRouche: I disagree: We were in a very specific shift from a successful producer-model society, toward a consumer-model society, from a regulated international monetary system, which worked, into one that has not worked--the floating exchange-rate system. And that's the issue. This system--

Singer: Are you for protectionism, sir?

LaRouche: What?

Singer: Are you for protectionism, and not a free-market economy?

LaRouche: Absolutely! Well, I'm a traditional American protectionist, of the Whig tradition.

Singer: All right, fine, sir. Sir, we've got about a minute and a half before we're coming up onto break, and I want to go over something: Your campaign coordinator, who called in initially, two weeks ago, and brought you to my attention, again, and it's kind of ironic, because that morning I happened to read a blurb on you in the New York Times, earlier, in which you had collected revenues of about $3.4 million in campaign contributions--. But, before I get to that, what he alluded to, and I'm going to give you this, and give you a pause before we do go to break, so that you can think about this, and we can talk about this momentarily, when we come back from break: Mr. Komm alluded, that President Clinton stated this publicly, that in 1998, President Clinton recognized that the LaRouche economic policies were right. And he instructed his financial advisers to work with LaRouche ideas to create a new financial system. He alluded to this, sir. I can't find any record of him making any--President Clinton making any overture to you, individually, or on paper. Do you have any documentation to prove that?

LaRouche: I never claimed that--

Singer: But your campaign coordinator claimed that, sir, on the air, and I can play--I don't have it with me, but I can provide you with that information, or that tape.

LaRouche: Well, I didn't--. I can tell you, it's true, but the point was, there was a big fight about this question, and the President, in September of that year, made an address to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, in which he indicated he was heading for monetary reform. And he did this in recognition of the significance of what was called the LTCM crisis--

Singer: Sir, I'm going to have to cut you off. We have to go to break. We'll be back....

Mr. LaRouche, I hope you're there again.

LaRouche: I'm still here.

Singer: Thank you. Thank you, sir. Before we went to break, I brought up a collection of $3.4 million in campaign contributions to you, and the reason I bring that up, sir, is because I noticed that you have spent time making speeches in Brazil, in Mexico City, in Moscow, in Germany, but the election, and the primary election of what you're getting campaign contributions for, is taking place in Iowa, and in your birth-state of New Hampshire, sir. Why aren't you campaigning there?

LaRouche: Let me educate you on some things [laughing]--.

Singer: Well, I'd like to be educated, sir.

LaRouche: Okay. The point is, one of the fundamental functions of the President of the United States, especially in present times, is foreign policy. The key issue before the United States today is making a new foreign policy, involving negotiations with other countries, and influential circles in those countries. And--

Singer: Sir, you're always talking to sympathizers in those countries. These are organizations and orchestrated reviews and interviews that you give to sympathizers who agree with your policies.

LaRouche: Not always; this is often at public conferences; this is meeting with officials and representatives in various countries--

Singer: But you're not meeting in official capacity, sir, in any way, shape, or form, of the United States. You're doing it as a private individual.

LaRouche: I'll give you an example.

Singer: Yes, sir.

LaRouche: In Italy, I had a number of meetings with the Italian government, on the Senate side, and the Chamber of Deputies, over a period of time. As a result of this, there was an initiative, at my instigation, for Italy to propose the adoption of my proposal of an international monetary reform, under the title of a New Bretton Woods. That was recently adopted by a majority--

Singer: Sir, that is way over the heads--that is history on Bretton Woods--it has to have--I'm asking your for the relativity of it today.

LaRouche: That's why I give you the relativity. Maybe many people don't understand this, but that is what--that's the way real politics is made. That's the way the government in Washington, from the President's level, should be functioning most of the time.

Singer: That is your interpretation. Sir, I want to get to something else, and it is a matter--I would be remiss if I didn't bring it up. You do not have the right to vote. You were convicted of Federal mail fraud and tax evasion--

LaRouche: I was not convicted of tax evasion--

Singer: Let me finish, sir, and I will give you a chance to answer. You claim it was a conspiracy by the grand jury, the Federal prosecutor, the Federal judge, the FBI, and the banking institutions. But also, sir, your conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court.

LaRouche: Not exactly. This was an operation.

Singer: [interrupts again...]

LaRouche: No, this one requires--you've made a very large number of allegations there....

Singer: No, I didn't make the allegations. You were convicted, sir. You did serve the time.

LaRouche: Of course I was. It was a big fraud. Absolutely. The documentation of the nature of the fraud, and the opinion of international figures in law, and others in this country, is clear. Now, it's a misrepresentation to say simply, "You were convicted. That's it." I was fraudulently convicted. Period. And that--

Singer: Sir, no one is--listen to me, sir, for a moment. You know, there are a lot of liberal news organizations in this country. There are liberal newspapers in this country. And as a matter of fact, in 1972, two Washington Post cub reporters brought down the most powerful Presidency that this country has ever seen. Not one of these have come to your aid, or taken up your cause, sir.

LaRouche: Oh, I don't know. A lot of people have.

Singer: That's a lot of people. But not one reputable newspaper organization has, sir.

LaRouche: Well, I wouldn't say that's true, and it's certainly not true around the world--

Singer: [interrupts again...]

LaRouche: It's not true. You're really stretching it, Barrie, you're stretching it. The record is clear. There's a lot of documentation. If anyone wants to read it, it's available. It's available on my website. They can check it for themselves.

Singer: Sir, in reality, though, isn't this a great country, where you can be, as a convited felon, run for the Presidency of the United States?

LaRouche: That's the way the Constitution was written, because the entire leadership of the United States was a bunch of felons.

Singer: Ah! Okay, sir. I will tell you something: I don't think that this country ever will put a President in jail, because the embarrassment that comes with it--he may resign, and he may be forced to resign, but they will never put him in jail, because of the embarrassment that comes with it, is enough of a punishment.

LaRouche: [tries to respond, but is cut off...]

Singer: Let's go on to something else, sir. You have an organization called the LaRouche Youth Movement, and a member of your executive committee gave this--and I read this on your website--a man by the name of Will Wertz said at the movement's convention in--I think it was Wiesbaden in Germany, where he was addressing your representatives, or youth representatives, and I want to read you a part of what he said, and then I want your comment, and I'm sure you're familiar with them.

"How do we get out of the present movement? How do we move beyond the current dark hour? And are we gathered here at this panel, representatives of the future of what the universe must look like, and what shape society must take? LaRouche says, ‘We have the potential to become the new Renaissance generation,'"

Mr. LaRouche, if I didn't know better, I would have thought I was reading Baldur von Schirach, head of the Hitler Youth.

LaRouche: Well, that's very poor judgment on your part.

Singer: Well, I've made a lot of poor judgments in my life, sir. You can ask my ex-wives.

LaRouche: Okay [laughing], fine. Well, you've made another one.

Singer: But, I liked your explanation of that, sir. That's exactly what is being propounded.

LaRouche: Do you want an explanation? Fine.

Singer: Yes, sir.

LaRouche: Okay, fine. The problem in this country has been, since 1964, after the series of the Missile Crisis, the Kennedy assassination, the entry into the Vietnam War, there was general demoralization among many of our people entering adulthood in that period. This became known by such names as the "rock-drug-sex counterculture," and other things. So there was a change.

We also changed over the period of time, from what had been a producer society to a consumer society.

Singer: Well, what has that got to do with the youth group, and that kind of commentary--

LaRouche: It has everything to do with it. Now we're in the worst depression you can imagine--

Singer: [interrupts] We may be heading towards a slight recession--

LaRouche: We are in one. I can tell you--

Singer: Not in this country, yet, sir--

LaRouche: Oh yeah, we are.

Singer: But it is happening in Germany, because they just had their third quarter, or their third straight month of retraction, and the European, or "Old Europe," as Mr. Rumsfeld likes to say, is in an economic downspin.

LaRouche: Well, but the euro is rising by about 15% above the dollar--

Singer: That will not help the European economy, sir. If anything, it's going to hurt it.

LaRouche: I agree with you on that, but that point is irrelevant to this. It's in a collapse. Now, what--

Singer: [interrupts] I'd like to get back to the relevancy, sir, of the youth group--

LaRouche: That's what I'm saying.

Singer: Why are you developing a youth movement, sir, in terms of, around the world, as opposed to running for the office that you were seeking?

LaRouche: No difference. The point is, around the world, in Europe, as in the United States, and in the Americas, we have the same problem. We have a generation which is called the Now Generation, or Baby Boomer generation, which was conditioned to a different set of values than we have back during the Roosevelt period, or the Eisenhower years, or the Kennedy years.

Singer: But that's 60 years ago, sir. The world changes.... I wrote in my newspaper column, just last week, that Heraclitus, the Greek philosopher, said, "You can never step in the same river twice." That change is constant. It is something like time. It doesn't stand still. People progress. And you want to take them back.

LaRouche: We have progressed downward. What's happened is that the people who are now in leading positions, in most leading positions in the United States, Europe, and so forth, belong to a generation, generally aged between 50 and 60, who were the victims of the crisis that hit youth back during the 1960s. And they show it. It's call the Now generation.

Singer: Of course it's the Now generation. Every new generation is the now generation of its time.

LaRouche: No, this is different. Most previous generations--and this is the thing you're talking about. What Will was referring to in that remark. So you're not referring to what Will was saying.

Singer: I'm not?

LaRouche: No, because what Will's point was, that the Now generation--

Singer: [interrupts] Sir, I heard the same speech about four weeks ago, when I happened to be watching the History Channel, and they were doing a Hitler Youth program. The same basic words, in the translation of the words.

LaRouche: That is bunk. Now, cut it out, please.

Singer: Oh, come on, sir. You can watch it as well. Just call the History Channel, and I'm sure they'll be happy to send you a tape on it.

LaRouche: I don't have to watch anything. I know what Hitler is, and if you want to know what Hitler is, you look at Cheney and Rumsfeld--

Singer: Ah, but that is your interpretation, sir. We will get to that point, sir. We definitely will. We're at the bottom of the half-hour, sir. I have to put you on hold, again, and we're going to take a break.

This is the Barrie Singer show, I'm on with Lyndon LaRouche. When we come back, if you want to make your calls, I will take questions for Mr. LaRouche at that time. The numbers are....

Singer: Mr. LaRouche, good morning, again, sir. Before I take the first call -- we have two callers waiting to talk to you -- I have two simple, or three simple questions, I want to ask you, that would only require very short answers.

Sir, what is your position on the abortion issue? Are you pro-choice, or pro-life? And I'm not asking to defend your position.

LaRouche: I don't believe that that issue should be an issue of politics.

Singer: What is your personal preference, sir?

LaRouche: I said, that should not be an issue of politics.

Singer: All right. What is your position on gun control? Are you for it, or against it?

LaRouche: I think we go sometimes too far on this question. The Second Amendment...

Singer: Are you for it, or against it? I don't care ...

LaRouche: I think the Second Amendment means what it says.

Singer: Okay. And what about campaign finance reform?

LaRouche: I think the last one was a fraud.

Singer: Oh, okay. Thank you, sir. I'm going to put on the talk lines with you, Mike in Bloomsburg, who wants to talk about the future generation. Again, Mike, before I  bring you on the air, ask your question, or make your comment as succinctly as possible.

Good morning, Mike, how are you?

Caller: Mr. LaRouche, quickly. What do you think of the American public educational system, and the relationship between the Democratic Party and the National Educational Association, and teachers' unions?

LaRouche: Well, our education system in the United States has degenerated greatly since the middle of the 1960s. We used to have a semblance of a Classical education for people in the so-called higher tracks, and a somewhat poorer education for those in lower tracks. That has been destroyed. What education today in the United States is largely a travesty. We are rehearsing people in passing multiple-choice questionnaires which are scored by computers, which really have very little to do with people knowing anything. And in the American Educational Association, I think, should look at itself a little more carefully, and I would hope they would support me and my policies for reform of education today.

Singer: Sir, your educational background, as I got it, was two years at Northeastern University in Boston, sir?

LaRouche: That's right.

Singer: That was your formal education, the end of your formal education. I mean, you're a great intellect, sir, because I've read some of your stuff, and you write eloquently, and you're a great intellect and I make no question about that. But, from an educational standpoint, that is your [inaud].

I want to go to Al next. Al, you're on with Mr. LaRouche.

Caller: Oh, yes, Mr. LaRouche, please forgive me, both of you, I'm very hoarse this morning. When I called and listened to this, quite frankly, Mr. LaRouche, I want to thank you for the great stuff that you've taught me. I want to thank you for the wonderful website EIR, from which I've learned amazing stuff -- economics, ...

Singer: Al, Al, this is not a cheerleading campaign. If you have a question, make your question, or a quick comment.

Caller: I just want to thank you for...

Singer: Thank you for thanking him, and I'm sure he will be happy to hear your thanks. Next I'm going to go to Pat, on 2. Pat, good morning. You talked about affirmative action on Phil Donahue, Pat. Go ahead, you're on with Mr. Lyndon LaRouche.

Caller: Good morning, very good morning, Mr. LaRouche. I was wondering about an altercation that you had with Phil Donahue. I believe it was at an airport, back in the '80s. I was wondering what the nature of that was, and also, what

LaRouche: There was no altercation between me and Phil Donahue. Phil Donahue was going to an airport, and a friend of mine, Bill Ferguson, was sitting there, and Phil saw a sign referring to me, and Donahue freaked out, and he continued on his way to Boston. That's the extent of it.

Caller: Okay, and I just wanted to get your view on whether you're a proponent of affirmative action, or not.

Singer: Thank you, Pat, for calling, and I'm going to drop you know, and you can listen to Mr. LaRouche's answer. Go ahead, Mr. LaRouche.

LaRouche: Well, affirmative action, no, I'm for life as such, categorically. I'm against single-issue approaches to life. My wife, for example, organized an international Club of Life. We're for the defense of life, not only when they're in the womb, but after they get out of the womb.

Singer: Sir, sir, this is affirmative action we're talking about. We're talking about diversification. It just came up as part of the New York Times circumstance and situation this week.

LaRouche: What do you mean? There are many affirmative actions around.

Singer: Well, he's talking about affirmative action in terms of jobs, for minority jobs, sir.

LaRouche: Oh, absolutely. We do need a program, which I've dealt with, many times. We do need an expansion of employment. We do need to tend to the fact that the lower 80% of family-income groups has been going through a disaster, since 1977, and the lower 10% is an absolute disaster. We do have to remedy the homeless problem, and we do have to get some jobs going for young people, especially, or people who are unemployed generally. We need programs which are public works programs, which will stimulate useful forms of employment, at decent wages.

Singer: Sir, I want to go back to something you were talking about education, or not. You, in 1979, made the statement, you wanted to eliminate the study of anthropology and sociology from the universities, by cutting their payrolls.

LaRouche: Yeah. As they're presently being taught, I think they're a disaster.

Singer: Oh, you don't like the way it is being taught. It isn't the fact that it's being taught.

LaRouche: No. I think there are moral criteria in education.

Singer: But who is the judge of moral criteria, sir? I mean, you're going to talk about -- I'm just going to bring this up and throw this out -- the Belgians are setting themselves up as the ethical moralists of the world, jurists, ...

LaRouche: No, no. There is a very simple principle, which pertains to all natural law concerning man. Irrespective of religion. And that is, is there a difference between man and the beast? If there is a difference between man and the beast, then law must be based on that understanding. And therefore, those things which teach that man is comparable to a beast, like the Thomas Huxley tradition and so forth, that is wrong, it's morally, and we have other things, like history and many other things which should be taught in universities, not these fake courses, which merely produce people who are confused.

Singer: Well, I agree with you on that. I want to get to something, I want to read to you from your State of the Union address that you gave on Jan. 28 of this year. This is one sentence out of that, that almost constitutes an entire paragraph.

"That great principle called variously agape, the general welfare, or the common good, which Plato's Socrates counter-posed to the doctrines of Glaucon and Thrasymachus, must be recognized by the origin of our founders, as a true republic, a principle of law which has rescued our republic repeatedly, from the sundry follies of parties and elected governments of our nation's past history."

I know, sir, that I'm not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree, but, sir, I'm not the village idiot either. In essence, I don't know what you said, and in relationship to the State of the Union, would you clarify it succinctly for me, sir?

LaRouche: Well, if you want a clarification, read the Preamble of the Constitution.

Singer: Well, I read the whole thing, sir.

LaRouche: The Preamble of the Constitution!

Singer: I picked that because I'd like to understand it.

LaRouche: That is the general welfare principle, the principle of general welfare, and posterity, and sovereignty, which is the fundamental basis for our Constitutional law.

Singer: Well, who is Glaucon and Thrasymachus, sir? Would you please explain that to me? I didn't have the time to go into the library, and look that up?

LaRouche: Well, look. If anyone had had a good education, they would know, they would have studied, among other things, Plato's Republic, which is a standard for good education in any part of the world today, at least in European civilization. In that, there's a famous dialogue, as reported by Plato, a dialogue among Socrates, Thraymachus, and Glaucon. The principle of agape, there, instead of positive law, government must be informed by a concern for the general welfare of present and future generations, and all humanity. And the decisions of law should be based on that. That is our principle of our Constitution, the general welfare principle, which is known in Classical Greek, and in Christian theology, as agape, is otherwise known as the common good.

Singer: Thank you, sir, I want to go to Mike. Mike, you're on with Lyndon LaRouche.

Caller: Yes, hello, Mr. LaRouche. I think you should understand you're being interviewed by a low-level [tape break] talk-show host that only has a program for less than two hours a week, and he writes a so-called column for a low-level small-town newspaper, and I think he has an agenda, more than interviewing you. So, keep that in mind.

Singer: Thank you, Mike, for your comments, and I appreciate them. You're always welcome to call back, and make more.

Mr. LaRouche, I'd like to go on. This week your press secretary was good enough to forward this to me. You made a press release, in which you said, the Democratic Presidential pre-candidate Lyndon LaRouche has issued a short press release to mobilize opposition to the attempts by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, to consolidate the un-Constitutional coup of the Chickenhawks, and I assume Chickenhawks is your word. Rumsfeld is attempting to ram a bill through Congress to give him full control over the uniformed and civilian employees under him, with no Congressional oversight. This would set the stage for removal of flag-ranked officers who oppose the Chickenhawk doctrine of pre-emptive war, in the service of building an American Empire. In hearing this, LaRouche states:

"Such features of the proposed legislation might be grounds to seek impeachment of those who are considered as conspiring to destroy our Constitution, through imitation of Nazi-like emergency powers."

I mean, are you seriously calling Donald Rumsfeld, a Nazi?

LaRouche: Well, I think he qualifies as a near approximation of one. First of all, he's violating the Constitution with his proposal. It's an incendiary and insurrectionary attack on the Constitution itself, on the separation of powers. And it's something I hope the Congress will strike down, at least at the Senate level.

Singer: Sir, I happened to call Washington to get a clarification on this, but we're up against break. When I come back from break, we can go to that in a moment. Or we can take some more callers, sir. I appreciate your staying on the line with me. This is the Barry Singer show...

You are listening to Lyndon LaRouche this morning, who is my guest. We are on... the talks lines are...

Singer: Sir, I know you're back. I'd like to ask you very quickly, about your feelings about the Iraqi war situation.

LaRouche: Well, this is a travesty. If I were President of the United States, right now, I would be responsible for having an adequate number of U.S. corps in there, to take over the entire territory, to ensure the well-being of all of the people in their territory, who are, in a sense, my captives. We are not doing that. We don't have the capability. We don't have the forces. Leading people in the military demanded it, that there be a large enough force to deal with this kind of problem. Rumsfeld opposed heavy divisions. Therefore, we're in there with troops who are trained, with point-and-shoot methods, who are not qualified, or equipped, or buttressed, with supplementary forces, needed to take responsibility for what's becoming an increasing mess.

The thing should go back, actually, to the United Nations, and we should get something going to bring peace and stability to that area.

Singer: Sir, why aren't you campaigning in Iowa right now? There's a major conference this morning, among the Democrats.

LaRouche: I was disinvited there, although I have more money, in the sense of contributions, contributors, from Iowa than Gephardt does. I'm the leading.

Singer: That's not my question, sir.

LaRouche: I'm not there, because I was not invited.

Singer: Yes, but you can go into the state and campaign hard. There's New Hampshire, to campaign in...

LaRouche: We're campaigning -- I have my ways. I'm not stupid, you know. I don't walk in and play by the rules of people who are trying to rig a game. I play by my own rules, and I let my rules be known to people, and I act accordingly. I am campaigning, more than anyone. That's why I have more paid support for my candidacy, in terms of number of people, than any other Democratic candidate. Because I know how to campaign. They apparently don't.

Singer: Sir, if that is the case, how come you have not been successful in your campaigns?

LaRouche: Well, they went to some rather extraordinary methods to prevent that from happening. You look at the record. The website has it all there. It's not a secret. I was considered a danger by some people since my debate with Abba Lerner, back in 1971.

Singer: I saw some of your debate in 1980, I think. I think Ronald Reagan at that time, or I may be wrong in that, but that's...

LaRouche: No, no, no. Reagan and I always got along fairly well.

Singer: Oh, okay. You got along with Mr. Reagan fairly well. I'm surprised you don't get along with George Bush fairly well, sir.

LaRouche: Well, it's this way. George has got his own problem. The old man, who hated my guts, particularly back then, probably would have a slightly different view of me today. He probably would think I might be somewhat useful, though he would say it with great reluctance.

Singer: Sir, if you were to win the nomination, who would be your running mate?

LaRouche: I don't know. Because I'm a frisky fellow, in good shape, but running for President, I would have to think very carefully about a vice-president. And I would have to

Singer: Is this your last run for the roses, sir?

LaRouche: No.

Singer: You're 80 years old. Are you going to continue to run?

LaRouche: Oh, no, no. I'm in this for winning, not for running.

Singer: Sir, you've never even come close. I mean, in listening, and looking at the poll numbers, you're just listed in the "others" as having what kind of vote you have garnered.

LaRouche: If you look in the real record, I'm number one among financial supporters, in the Democratic derby. I'm number one.

Singer: Sir, I'm going to...

LaRouche: You haven't been looking at the polls recently.

Singer: Sir, we're coming down to the end of this, and I'm going to read you something that I wrote, and then I'm going to allow you to make your comments 'til the end of the show.

Sir, in reading your writings, I don't see anything on democracy or the rights of the individual ever taken into consideration. There is only a call for mass uniformity. There's no call to the pioneer or entrepreneurial spirit that has made this country great. You don't write about human rights, or the fact that this country from its origins, has been eclectic. This is a diversified nation, and it's diversified ideas that's made this the land of opportunity for all. In your writings, I see a messianic message, sir, of demagoguery, in the form of a LaRouchian national socialism.

Your turn, sir, and you have two minutes to continue.

LaRouche: Okay, well, national socialism is represented in this country today, by the followrs of Professor Leo Strauss, and his French associate Alexandre Kojeve. These are the people called the Chickenhawks, and they've been called the Chickenhawks by others, because many of them did not serve in Vietnam, when they had the opportunity to do so, but now they're the biggest warmakers we have.

Now this crowd of clowns, around, especially around the vice-president and Rumsfeld, and also the Attorney General as well, this bunch of clowns represent the closest thing to national socialism, fascism, this world has seen since Adolf Hitler. We're trying to stop them. I don't think the Democrats are doing enough. I think many Republicans are getting nervous. We have to stop them. We have to stop them now. Because if this country were to go Nazi, in the way that Cheney's present policies would carry us, and the Chickenhawk policies would carry us, I don't think we'd be having any free speech on radio programs.

Singer: Is there anything else you want to say, sir? You have another 30 seconds.

LaRouche: Well, have fun.

Singer: Well, I thank you very, very much for coming on, sir. I appreciate the time you've given me, and I wish you good luck in the future, with your campaigns. Thank you very much, sir.

LaRouche: Thank you. Have fun.

- 30 -