LaRouche on the Jack Stockwell Show
The First Hundred Days of a LaRouche Presidency
August 28, 2023

To send a link to this document to a friend

Stockwell: Let's say, with what appears to us, here at K-Talk radio, staying away from nominalism, staying away from populism, supposing you were going, you were walking in to the White House today, as the newly elected President of the United States, who would you be bringing with you? What would you be bringing with you? And what could we expect out of you, in the first 100 days of office?

LaRouche: Well, the first 100 days--to take it in reverse order--you could expect a lot, because what we're in is a crisis which is comparable to, but worse than that which Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, faced in entering office, in March of 1933. It requires solutions which, in principle, are based on the same principles which he invoked of our Constitution, and tradition. But the problems are different, and larger.

Now, we do have, as you may have observed--and you observed this in the thing you referred to, about people protesting against the Patriot Act, on the state level, and local level--that's part of a resistance movement, where something more is required. Even though a resistance movement is valuable, someone has got to take the action which removes the problem. Of course, getting Ashcroft out would be a big help, and anybody else who comes from that Leo Strauss variety of fascist background, would also be a great improvement in the situation.

No, what we need to do, essentially, which is my mission, even before considering walking into the White House--it's got to be done before then; it's the key to what my campaign must represent functionally, not as a freak-show, like the Arnie Schwarzenegger freak-show going on in California--but as an effort to mobilize the American people, to recognize they have leadership. Not just me, but a number of people they can recognize as being authoritatively qualified in their respective areas, who are going to come in with me as President, as a team, to do what Roosevelt's team did back in 1933, in the first 100 days.

I don't know who the Vice Presidential candidate will be, at this point. I'm going to have to find out. And I'm not going to be fiddling around with public-relations tricks, but a very serious consideration. After all, I'll be 81 next month. I'll be in excellent condition, probably live to 95, or something like that, those are the biological characteristics I have, the genetic pool, and so forth. But nonetheless, anyone who's going to be President, has to think about a successor, to continue the function of the President, if he were to be taken. And when I look at what the transition from Roosevelt to Truman was, and why many people of my generation thought that a Republican President, that is, people who liked Roosevelt, thought a Republican President, Eisenhower, was a sweet relief from Truman--we're not going to make the same kind of mistake, that was imposed on Roosevelt, of having a Truman, or something like that, lurking in the corridors, if I'm President.

So, that is not yet decided. But I know what direction I'm going in.

A New Financial System

Policies: We're going to have to put the international financial system into bankruptcy reorganization, that is, receivership, by action of governments. I already have knowledge, from abroad, that there are a number of countries which would be prepared immediately to support my initiative on this, if I were to make it as President of the United States. So, that could be done. We could put the international financial system into reorganization. We can reorganize the IMF as such, back to a fixed exchange rate, gold-reserve standard--not a gold standard, but a gold-reserve standard--as Roosevelt did. We can set up a system of protectionist systems, of regulated trade, which promotes the actual investment in industries in the United States, by offering them the protection of fair prices, as opposed to this floating exchange rate things which bankrupts our firms, and put our farmers and others out of business.

We'll take those kinds of measures.

We must launch a large-scale infrastructure program. The 50 million people suddenly without electricity in the Northeast of North America, typifies that. The California mess typifies that--which was done by Cheney's friends, and Enron, and so forth. This typifies it. We need now, for example, an immediate major national program, done largely by states, but with Federal backing, to set up a power-generation and distribution system, integrated again, regulated again, to meet the growing power requirements of our nation, and to make power, once again, affordable to people, and to businesses.

We also need major water projects. Southern California's ground is subsiding, as a result of draining down the water tables. We can do something about it. We have to do it. The famous project, which once, a famous Senator from Utah was pushing, the North American Water and Power and Alliance--that project must go through. It must be done in cooperation with Mexico and Canada. That will change the character of that whole strip which is called the Great American Desert of the United States, and open it up to a great promising development.

These kinds of measures, done now, or done immediately, will stimulate the economy, increase employment, and if you increase employment, you increase business, and you increase income, and you're able to balance your tax bill. So, that's in general what must be done.

At the same time, we need new treaty agreements among nations of the world, which get us out from the danger of what is now, presently, a rapidly accelerating danger of possible nuclear war, of an asymmetric new type, breaking out in the middle of the next Presidency. And that, I know how to fix.

Stockwell: All right, we're back, 17 minutes after the hour of 7 o'clock. It is the 27th day of August, 2023. I have live on the line with me now, Lyndon LaRouche, Democratic candidate for president of the United States, in the next election in 2004, and we're all sitting back with our fingers crossed, that there will in fact be an election.

Mr. LaRouche, you were just describing some of the things that needed to be done immediately, in the sense of empowering some infrastructure and getting people back to work, changing essentially, the economic basis upon which the American dollar operates. You briefly mentioned a couple of things regarding some foreign-policy changes, in the sense that we need to probably back off from our imperialist attitude, and restructure some treaties out there, that might bring togehter a community of nations, maybe back in the tradition of John Quincy Adams, that would work together, as a system of sovereign states; that we could spend an awful lot more time building our own economies, and increasing the general welfare of all of our peoples, rather than sitting here on the brink of a new age of mini-nuclear engagements.

Along with what you already described, might be part of your first 100 day operation, what would be taking place in the Middle East? What would we see over there that's different from what we're seeing now?

LaRouche: What has to be done now, is, the United States has to sit on Israel. That is, particularly the present fascist government of Israel. There are many Israelis who would agree with that, at least in principle, would agree that we must have a solution. The problem is this: that the nuclear/utopian freaks of the world, including France and the United States, and Britain, during the 1950s, decided to make Israel the third principal strategic nuclear power in the world. And they created an Israel which became, in the second-half of the 1970s, when the Likud came into power, that is, the right wing, which is, essentially, followers of the fascist Jabotinsky, when they came into power, we had a situation, a changed situation, in which Israel was transformed from a Labor-Zionist state, as it had been earlier, with all the pluses and minuses that involved, into becoming a virtual strategic hand grenade, a nuclear-strategic hand grenade. Because, once the hand grenade were thrown against its immediate target, which is principally the adjoining world of West Asia, or Southwest Asia, Israel would cease to exist, because of the repercussions of that kind of process. But it would have a strategic effect.

Therefore, these utopian freaks, of the type typified by Cheney, the Vice President now, and the crowd around him, would like to use Sharon, who's sort of the real-life equivalent of “Junior,'' played by Arnie Schwarzenegger, would like to use him--or Netanyahu, who's even nastier--as this kind of instrument.

But, the only power in the world that can actually peacefully induce Israel to behave itself, to bring the fascist element in the government of Israel today, under control, is the United States. And that means essentially the Presidency of the United States.

Obviously, George Bush, who might be inclined to do that, or have advisers who might be incline him to do that, does not have the guts to do it. At least not so far.

Stockwell: Well, if we change the crowd that he was hanging with, would he then have the gumption required to make some major policy changes, if there were somebody different in this immediate crowd, that he hangs with?

LaRouche: Well, the point is. Look, you've got to look at the President.

Stockwell: Does he have the ability to even understand that change needs to be made?

LaRouche: No, he does not. That's the point. He doesn't have it now; he won't have it then. This man is--he may have brains, which he's never used, and probably never will. He has limitations. You've got to be frank about this. We got this guy as President. I'm stuck, as a political figure, with an elected--or not really elected--but a President of the United States, a sitting President, an institution that I must defend, which, he's sitting there. This guy is an absolute idiot! He's a mean-spirited idiot, not a soft-spirited idiot. And he's concerned about his way, his opinion, his ability to exert power, personal power, with no comprehension whatsoever, of the American economy, the American people, or the world at large.

His opinions are largely shaped, like a man watching a fantasy on a television set screen. Whoever paints the fantasy, will control him. Even if it's the truth, to him, it's a fantasy. And therefore, if you get the people who are orchestrating his eyes, ears, and what passes for a mind, which is largely Cheney's crowd, out of there, then the President would be required to go to the other Republicans--that is, the real Republicans, the sane ones, the human ones--and also to the Democrats, and to his own institutions of the Executive Branch, as well as the Congress, to get a perception of what his options are.

So, with a President of these mental limitations, how you define his options for him, will generally tend to determine the way he reacts. So that, if you rid of this thing, we're going to have a change.

On top of that, we have some fundamental changes which are now occurring, which nobody can control at this point.

First of all, we have a general collapse of the present international monetary and financial system. No one can stop that for much longer. The real-estate bubble, the mortgage-backed securities bubble, could blow it out. But it's going to blow, soon. The United State is now isolated in the world. There's virtually no nation in the world which likes the United States, under the present Presidency. They're becoming hostile to it. They fear it. They despise it. They're trying to find out how to control the effect of it. That's the attitude of the world. George Bush has made the United States hated in the world, in a way which had never existed in my memory.

The Uniqueness of the U.S. Constitution

Stockwell: All right, we're back. Twenty-seven minutes after 7 o'clock. You're listening to the Jack Stockwell radio talk-show program, now in its ninth year, here in Salt Lake City. My guest is Lyndon LaRouche, who I try to get on the show quite often, if possible, about every two or three months. And he is in town--well, kind of in town, he's back in the country.

Oh yeah, let me mention that. Lyn, if I may call you Lyn, one criticism I often hear is, you know, this guy spends an awful lot of time out of the country, for running for President of the United States. You know, what do you say about that?

LaRouche: Well, people don't understand the Presidency of the United States. Not remarkable, of course, since the condition of our school system in the past 40-odd years. They don't know anything about American history. They don't know what the United States is. They don't know what the difference is between the U.S. system, and other systems. Our Presidency is a unique institution. Our Constitution is absolutely unique in the world. There's nothing like it. Very few people outside the United States understand our system.

Remember, look, we're going back now, to between 1776 and 1789, from the Declaration of Independence, to the adoption of the Federal Constitution. This was a unique phenomenon in world history, out of which the first true republic, free of control by bankers and so forth, in terms of Constitution, there.

European countries, for example, at their best--with the exception of a brief period of de Gaulle's Presidency in the Fifth Republic--have never had a true republic. They have had something like, at best, the Anglo-Dutch liberal parliamentary system, which is not a good form of government--it's a very weak one--in which, government itself is subject to a cabal of private bankers, which is called an independent central banking system, which can often override, and control the government itself. At least under our Constitution, we have true sovereignty, including in our currency, control of our debt, and so forth. And the Presidency, the Executive Branch of government, is unique. We give great powers to our President, under our Constitution, but the people who formulated our Constitution, under the leadership of Benjamin Franklin, very carefully crafted features of that Constitution, including on the question of the war-making powers of the Presidency, and advice and consent generally, which mean that the Presidency, though a powerful institution, is controlled by its Constitutional obligations. And therefore, no other country has that.

Which means that the American Presidency is unique, among institutions of the world, and most people, who are conditioned to parliamentary government outside the United States, don't understand how our system works. We have not had in this entire period, an overthrow of our Constitution, and there's no government in any other part of the world that can say that.

Stockwell: So, who better than to introduce these kinds of self-governing concepts, emboldened in our Constitution, to foreign nations, than the President himself?

LaRouche: Exactly. That's what I do. I know the U.S. I know other countries, aggregately, in a way that nobody else does. We have many people I know, who are professional diplomats, and so forth, and who I have great respect for; they know things I don't know. But as President, I have the knowledge to be a President, which will make the best use of the talents of such professional people, and others.

LaRouche as the `Exception' to Current U.S. Policy

Stockwell: Well, how would you go about that? What kind of treaties would you put together?

LaRouche: Well, first of all, I am already in a sense, an implicit treaty. Around whole parts of the world, in leading circles in various parts of the world, I am respected as the exception, among what is otherwise seen as the government of the United States. That my being the President, or even the hint that I'm about to become President of the United States, would change the relationship between the United States and the rest of the world, for the better, immediately, with immediate beneficial effects for our nation, from various parts of the world.

Stockwell: Such as?

LaRouche: Oh, Eurasia. I'm integrated into--what I do abroad, for example. I was the initiator, back in the 1980s, of a policy to be implemented, under the conditions of the expected collapse of the Soviet system, and I've followed that policy, and I've built it. We have people around the world who also share that view, which I've been pushing for these more than a decade and a half. And they are ready to move. In China, in Russia, in India, in Europe, and other countries--they're ready to move. They're ready to move on monetary reform. So therefore, I have a position, that even the smell of my getting near the Presidency, in the coming period, would mean a change in the thinking of other countries, around the world, a lot of them, toward the United States.

Stockwell: As opposed to the posture that these foreign nations are taking now, with the current Administration, where a lot of them are probably, maybe anyway, sitting on the edge of their seats, wondering when the first mini-nuke is going to explode.

LaRouche: Well, that started in the middle to latter part of 2023, when it became apparent to the world at large, that George Bush, under the control of Cheney, and people like George Shultz and so forth, behind the scenes, were going toward world war. The kind of world war which Cheney had proposed, as Secretary of Defense, back in 1991-1992, when he was turned down by the first George Bush. They're going to that direction.

Now, the reaction was, in China, in Russia, particularly, other countries, and in Europe, that the United States is headed toward war. So therefore, you had a development, for example, in Russia, a rearmament process. We're now in a situation where the military capabilities, developing, say, six years from now, or four years from now, the military capabilities which will exist in the world, will have created the conditions for an asymmetric warfare, which will render relatively, strategically obsolete, as decisive factors, the so-called nuclear triad of the United States. That is already in progress.

That is in progress, because these countries believe, that as long as the Bush Administration remains in power, with the prospect that it might be re-elected, or that you might get a Democrat like Lieberman, or a combination like a McCain-Kerry ticket as President--

Stockwell: How about Hillary-McCain?

LaRouche: No, I don't think--. Hillary is a special phenomenon, but she is by no means--nobody's going to put her in the Presidency. Or even Vice Presidency. Even though she may have a commitment from her husband to support that, it's never going to work. I mean, her health-care legislation alone is enough evidence, to keep her out of the Presidency.

So, they see, they're ready, are preparing for what they see is a possibly inevitable nuclear war, coming, say, sometime during the middle of the next U.S. Administration. That is now in progress. The technology is developed. The new weapons systems are already being deployed, for an asymmetric kind of nuclear warfare, in which our present nuclear submarine, our present carrier fleets, are obsolete. That is what we're looking at.

Asymmetric Warfare

Stockwell: Okay, now, explain a little more what you mean by an asymmetric nuclear warfare.

LaRouche: Well, we're out there, we're going to fight on this battlefield. We're going to fight on the battlefield defined by the nuclear triad, with mini-nukes thrown in.

Stockwell:; And the nuclear triad is?

LaRouche: The air, and missile, intercontinental missile. Naval, the carrier fleet. And the submarine, large nuclear submarines.

So, this is what we have. We have no real fighting capability, otherwise. Look at what's happening in Iraq. We shouldn't have gone in there in the first place, but we never had the capability to conduct the kind of war which is going on there. And our military, our professional military, the Army generals, the Marine Corps generals, warned the President, warned everybody: Don't do it! But, we're in it.

So, we're relying on the mini-nuclear, preventive nuclear warfare capability, to try to establish a world empire. And everybody in the world knows it. And as long as Cheney remains in there--more than Rumsfeld, Cheney is the key figure, even though he's dumb jock, he's a nasty one, and that's his commitment. But he's stupid, but he's determined. So, as long as that's going on. that's what we have.

So therefore, we're out there, playing with big toys, large-sized nuclear submarines, large carrier capabilities, and so forth, of the nuclear triad--we're going to fight one kind of war. Well, the fellow who's going to fight us, is not going to fight that kind of war. He's going to fight going to fight the kind of war, for which we're not prepared. Which means, mini-submarines, deeper diving, many of them, new methods of launching missiles, which are obvious, new kinds of weapons systems, and so forth, and I know many of them from my work on the SDI, back in the early 1980s.

Stockwell: The new weapons systems that exist in the former Soviet Union.

LaRouche: Yeah, there, a lot of them there.

Stockwell: What you're talking about is that this asymmetric nuclear triad, may end up provoking something that is way beyond the control of the current Administration to control.

LaRouche: You're talking about a kind of war, in whcih nations, such as India, China, and so forth, would expect the loss of hundreds of millions of their population. But they would do it, because they would think that their culture, their nation, would survive, with those tremendous losses. This is what MacArthur warned about, tried to warn the stupid Truman, tried to warn Kennedy about. Do not get involved in a land war in Asia! Don't get involved in it! Because, in Asia, you have a different cultural conception of man, among many cultures. In their culture, what's important to them, is the survival of their culture, and they will give up, and surrender, a massive loss of life, as we saw in Indo-China, to defend what they see as their culture.

Don't get involved in a land war in Asia. Don't start it!

Stockwell: So, where we in the Western civilization would be very, very cautious of provoking anything, for fear of attack on our native land, they couldn't care less.

LaRouche: Oh, they care--

Stockwell: In order to preserve their culture, they'll sacrifice literally hundreds of millions of their own people to do it.

LaRouche: But, it's not a willful decision. It's a cultural decision.

Stockwell: Right. It's not somebody sitting there saying either/or. This is how their culture has developed over thousands of years.

LaRouche: This is how they're going to react. And they are reacting that way now.

A Phase-Change in the U.S.

Stockwell: All right, my guest, Lyndon LaRouche. I want to hold off on the calls until next hour. We'll take calls with Lyn, after the 8 o'clock news break.

This issue that we're talking about now, this issue of the fact that Eurasia can see what the United States is doing, in the Middle East, that the Eurasia and very, very obvious to them, what kind of dynamic is in operation, inside the White House right now, and should--see now, you alluded a few moments ago, Mr. LaRouche, to mid-next Administration, which would be like 2005, 2006, something could take place, should this current Administration actually hold on to its position in the White House, if current foreign policy continues as it is now.

My question is: Is Syria really next? Is Iran really next after that? Are we going to move in on North Korea? And how long then, will China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Japan, sit still for this?

LaRouche: Well, you've got a point of phase-change in U.S. politics now. One phase-change is this freak-show in California, featuring Arnie Schwarzenegger and the Machine. sort of a return of the Frankenstein monster, huh? Then you have, also, a change, coming out of the hard-core of the neo-conservative movement, in which McCain, Senator McCain, is key. Senator McCain has made an offer to Senator Kerry, to which Senator Kerry has responded in an amiable manner, of their cooperation. Now, what that means is this: that the Hudson Institute, which is controlled by Conrad Black, is one of the central organizing institutions for the neo-conservative gang in the United States today, and this is international. You have Conrad Black, is British. He's part of the British establishment. He's also Canadian, along with Murdoch, who is Australian-origin, he's also British, and so forth. All are a product of the Beaverbrook apparatus from the World War II, and an earlier period.

Now, these guys are part of a Synarchist operation, like that which led to World War II--that is, the fascist movements in Europe, which led to World War II. These guys are part of the same apparatus that was behind that then. These are the guys on the British side, who Winston Churchill opposed, and went to Roosevelt for agreement, to prevent the British from becoming part of this greater Nazi system in Europe, at that time.

All right. Now these guys, typified by Bill Kristol, and others, are now pushing, openly, for a McCain ticket, a Bull Moose ticket, to replace both the Democratic and Republican parties, in the next Presidential election, general election.

They have come out. Now, they are also the people who are saying, right now, we've got to spend whatever it takes, put in whatever manpower, military manpower it takes, into Iraq to salvage an otherwise hopeless situation in Iraq. They're telling the President he's going to spend whatever they want him to spend, with an open checkbook, open manpower. These guys are moving, against Bush, on the assumption that he's a failure, and the assumption they have to play a slightly different game.

So, now in this situation, these are the guys, with Cheney, who have Syria, Iran, North Korea, and so forth and so on, on their hit list. And the hit list is a nuclear preventive warfare hit list, not just a warfare hit list. They don't have a manpower for anything else. All they can use, for their imperial design, is an emphasis on the role of preventive nuclear warfare.

Stockwell: So, that's where this asymmetric nuclear triad comes in, where obviously ground forces can't handle the problem in Iraq--how could we possibly put ground forces in Syria, and Iran, so instead, we use this mini-nuke stuff, and nuclearize them into submission.

LaRouche: This is called terrorism, nuclear terrorism, by the United States.

Stockwell: And the larger nuclear powers, who aren't on the immediate hit-list, but have been traditionally nuclear counterparts to American nuclear-arms development, over the last several decades, primarily Russia and China--they're not just sitting around laughing at what's going on. They're aware there's a major policy change inside the United States, that is more threatening to their continued existence--political, social, cultural, otherwise--than has probably existed heretofore. And so, they're posturing now, for possible development, wherein they may have to respond themselves, even before we arrive at the great gates of their own borders.

LaRouche: Also, there's another factor here, which is a very interesting one. The United States is a stupid country, economically. We were transformed from the world's leading productive power, which we were, still, going into the 1960s, and became a pleasure society. We became a post-industrial society, based on consumerism, which meant, in effect--especially after 1971-72, with the change in the monetary system--we were forcing other countries, with poorer people, to substitute for our manufacturing, for our agriculture, on cheap prices, which we enforced, so they were supplying us, who were now losing our jobs, losing our factories, losing our independent farms. They were charging us, at lower prices, for what we had previously produced.

As a result of our anti-technology, anti-technological progress, anti-scientific cultural policies, in the United States and the United Kingdom, and also to a certain degree in continental Europe, we are now nations which are dead in the water, in terms of technological progress. We can't produce it. Whereas, on the other hand, Russia is going through a technological revival. China is the leading nation in terms of rate of technological progress, large-scale infrastructure investments, and so forth, in the world. India is a major power. Japan is tilting on the balance, deciding whether it's going to go with this bankrupt financial system, which we helped them do, or whether they'll go back to becoming an industrial exporting power, in Asia.

So, the rest of the world is moving on a direction, outside of Western Europe, and so forth, where there are still weaknesses, but moving in the direction of scientific and technological progress. We are rewarming old technologies, because we have not educated, we have not employed, but are tending to shut down the machine tool-oriented capacities of the United States. And therefore, we're trying to find, use warfare, with old technologies, whereas the other nations, which are on the target list, some of them, are major leaders in rate of development of technologies, and therefore, they are going in a direction based on new technologies, while we are trying to pull, from the dust, off the shelves, old technologies.

We Must Pull Out of Iraq

Stockwell: Something you said, several minutes ago, before we started getting into the details here, was that if there was a hint of the possibility of your being elected to President in the next election, as soon as that hint of possibility were to reach the sensibilities of the leaders of these nations we've been describing, there would be an immediate policy change on their part.

LaRouche: Absolutely.

Stockwell: Should the leaders of these nations now, who are sitting back with kind of a raised eyebrow, as to what we've been doing for the last two to three years, and how we are fumbling terribly in Iraq--now we have more dead servicemen this side of the war, than we had to begin with. What would you then do? We have about two and a half minutes.

LaRouche: One thing, for example. We've got to pull our forces out of Iraq. That was one of the first things I've been discussing, that's one of the first things I would do, and I'd do it now, as a leading figure of the United States, of course, with the approval of my government, now. And turn the thing over to the United Nations.

The problem here is this. We can put in a couple-hundred thousand, 300,000 troops in Iraq, and not solve the problem; just make it worse. We should realize what we did with Indo-China. This is different, but it's the same. It's different in characteristics, but it's the same in principle.

Now, the main thing is, if we're committed to actually a sound policy, military policy, strategic defense, in Iraq, that is, if we say that the object of warfare is peace, which means to minimize to damage done to the people and resources required for building peace, in a post-war period, then we should approach it that way. If the people of Iraq, know that there's an institution, which is prepared to do that, for Iraq, then the Iraqi people can be mobilized, still at this point, to accept that. They will not accept the present Administration of the United States. So, you've got to get the United States of the situation, because the present President of the United States, the present congress of the United States, has no respect.

Stockwell: Nor credibility.

LaRouche: That's right, no respect. It's like, remember the famous thing, "I ain't got no respect." And, "we ain't got no respect." I do. Not because of any other reason, simply because of the position I've taken historically.

Stockwell: What I wanted you to talk about for a few moments, how, as President of the United States, how in the world would you pay for reconstruction?

LaRouche: First of all, you have to look at what the problem in the United States is. You have to realize that most of the figures that people are playing with are fraudulent, and have been, increasingly, since '66-'67 period. What we're looking at is two basic problems. I mean, this is a highly complex problem, which I understand very well, but you're not going to deal, in 25 words or less, with a problem like this.

But to make it simple, to simplify it greatly, there are two problems. One is, collapse of the economy, with a large hyperinflation actually been going on, especially since the end of the Carter Administration, and at the same time, stealing.

Now, for example, the Federal Reserve Board, since about 1982, has been using the so-called quality adjustment index, or whatever they call it, different names, otherwise known as the hedonic standard. It's completely fake. The United States has gone through, as every American who thinks, and reflects upon their experience, who's been around for, shall we say, 50 or 60 years, knows, that we have been undergoing a great inflation. If they look the cost of living in a house, the cost of education, the cost of the kind of medical care they would get, then, and so forth, they find that the cost of that standard of living today, is way above, the average standard of living back then. That's one part.

Secondly, deregulation, which has two aspects. It's a collapse, a looting of the economy, which causes costs. And it also a source of thievery.

Take the case of California, which is the most prominent state in the United States, which is showing the victimization of this. That Cheney's friends, Enron, and others, looted the state of California, by exploiting the foolishness of the people of California, whose representatives all, unanimously, voted for deregulation. As a result of deregulation. California has been ripped off, the costs of electricity have skyrocketed, the formerly existing system of power production and distribution has collapsed, in a way which we see also in the Northeastern part of North America, with this thing. It's going to collapse all over the country.

So, therefore, what we've got is the stealing of tens and hundreds of billions of dollars, which comes out, as a tax on government, as in the case of California, as a result of this stealing, and also a result of a hyperinflationary collapse of the actual level of physical production, per capita, per square kilometer, in the United States. So, obviously, we're bankrupt, because we spent a lot of money, accumulated a tremendous number of bills, largely through these two kinds of frauds.

So we're the victims of a giant fraud. My view is, okay, we are the United States government. We have, under the Preamble of the Constitution, we have the responsibility of defending the sovereignty, the general welfare, and the interest of posterity. Therefore, the United States government must put this system into bankruptcy reorganization, into receivership. It must put the Federal Reserve system into receivership, because it is, in point of fact, bankrupt--as the real estate mortgage-based securities bubble will remind people fairly soon.

So, therefore, we've got to put the thing into bankruptcy reorganization. We've got to sort out the paper. But in the meantime we've got to make sure that essential functions continue. In the meantime, we've got to do the things that we should have been doing, and government is only efficient in two things, in terms of the economy: one, basic economic infrastructure. That is, all the area, all the people. That's government's responsibility. Secondly, government must promote the growth of private initiative, with the aid of infrastructure projects as a stimulant.

The basic thing we must do, we must raise the actual level of earned income of the population, to the level that we can balance our budget on the state level, and on the family level. And that means we've got to have a massive increase in employment, starting in basic economic infrastructure, and spilling over into the private sector. On that basis, we can make it. And then we can sort out, and reorganize our finances, and get out from under this mess. But we've got to put people back to work, not shuffling paper, not spinning fantasies, but actual honest work, in honest labor, and with technological progress, and we can get out of this mess. But it's going to take us a quarter-century, before we dig ourselves out of the hole which we dug ourselves into, in the past quarter century.

Behind the `Terminator'

Stockwell: So, a quarter-century, 25 years, that's where these long-term low-interest loans come from the government itself, re-establishing a central bank, and getting away from the old Venetian financier style of banking that we've been doing for so long.

LaRouche: Yup. And also stop the stealing. Enron and other companies like that, with Cheney's Halliburton, and prevent them from stealing, and prevent George Shultz and Warren Buffett, and so forth, from stealing. Prevent Arnie Schwarzenegger from stealing. Then we have a fighting chance.

Stockwell: There are those who say, that as California goes, in the month of October, so goes the nation a year later.

LaRouche: Absolutely.

Stockwell: So, if we find Gray Davis holding on to his seat, now that he's coming out and saying "Listen, we really messed up." What he needs to say, is "We've been messing up for the past 30 years."

LaRouche: Well, he's saying that. But he really also is about to say, as others are going to say very soon, the problem in California is not Arnie Schwarzenegger, though his freak-show is a problem. He's not yet qualified to be a Hitler problem, although he potentially might become that, if he were not eliminated from politics fairly soon. But the problem there, is this vast stealing in the name of deregulation, and the role of Dick Cheney--the key, especially Dick Cheney--in organizing the coverup of the stealing that was being done by his friends of the Halliburton/Enron crowd, in California. That is what the real problem is there.

Once the people of California recognize that what Arnie Schwarzenegger is saying--as much as he's saying anything--is a big lie, in which he is the thief, not the policeman.

Stockwell: Well, one of the first things that Warren Buffett did, once there was some interesting response from the California people toward Arnie Schwarzenegger, was to be run him off to Jacob Rothschild, in England, to introduce him to his new boss is!

LaRouche: We've got the picture! We've got it in technicolor.

Stockwell: Well, you'd have to be in the absolute state of utter denial, if you can't see what's being formulated, even further, on a very gullible California republic, I mean, citizenry, who first allowed this nonsense to start taking place, by voting for deregulation. You'd think they'd be completely coming to their senses. But he's actually garnering a very interesting portion of the polls right now.

LaRouche: Well, this is run by the Republican Party machine. And it's run by some of the biggest thieves in the world.

You've got would-be drug-pusher, George Shultz. You've got, in the background somewhere, lurking, you've got George Soros, another big drug-pusher. They call it drug legalization, they don't call it drug pushing. And you've got Warren Buffett, who is what he is. And you've got other people of that type. And we've got fraud up to our ears, in terms of what was done, with the help of the already incumbent Bush Administration, especially through Cheney, was done to rip off California, and Arnie is the freak-show, he's sort of the geek in the Carnival show, that did the stealing. Once the people of California realize: a) they've been ripped off by these guys; b) that Arnie represents nothing but that, and recognize what some of the international interests are, which intend to do more. The President of the United States, when confronted by Gray Davis, said, "The problem with you is, you didn't get enough deregulation!" You've got a state and a nation that already has too much.

Stockwell: This is what the President said to Gray Davis: You didn't get enough deregulation. Yeah, I know there are people out there who are saying, that the deregulation that occurred in California, isn't the real--I hear this from a lot of Libertarians, that the real deregulation that should have occurred, would never have allowed this problem to occur.

LaRouche: They don't know what they're talking about.

Stockwell: As a result, they got a kind of a false deregulation. It was only the price that was deregulated, not the--

LaRouche: Never get a libertarian to repair your car, you might not survive the next drive.

Blame it on Cheney

Stockwell: Well, I have to admit I have a few libertarian sympathies in my heart. But the British free-trade aspect of libertarianism, I have a real hard time with that one, I have to admit.

All right, we've got some people waiting to talk to you. One of our all-time favorites here, Pocatello Bob.

Bob: You know what the world "epar" is, don't you? We've been listening to this thing for the last hour and a half, now, going on--the word "epar" kept going through my mind. Epar is "rape" spelled backwards, all right?

Stockwell: Well, what do you mean by that?

Bob: Well, I think that Mr. LaRouche has brought out many viewpoints--

Stockwell: Are you accusing him of rape?

Bob: No! I would say that his philosophy, and I will get into particulars. I mean, after all, it was the California legislature that deregulated a monopoly, all right? And the whole idea with power regulation was the fact that you had a monopoly, and, of course, if you're going to manipulate supply, to jack the prices up, exactly what happened, this has been ruled by Federal courts in the past, to be illegal.

And a question for Mr. LaRouche: Do you think that the attack on the towers, if you look at Hegelian synthesis and logic, if that was not a provocative move, to essentially bring about war between the U.S. and Islam, being stirred up by the red press across the world?

LaRouche: [laughing] I would say, what Bob is talking about, reminds me of the case of a neighborhood, which has a massive crime problem, and somebody comes in, and says, "I know how to save money on crime-fighting: Shut down the police department.

Bob: Thank you, Mr. LaRouche, but would you answer the question?

LaRouche: I did. So, let's get down to reality. Reality is that you're talking about this issue of financial policy, and the case of deregulation, is a matter of, somebody, as I said, going into a crime-stricken city, and saying you can save money on crime-fighting by shutting down the police department. And that's what happened with deregulation in California. And so, it's happening over the country.

Stockwell: Now relate that analogy that you're talking about there: How is what we're doing with California energy deregulation like fighting crime by shutting down the police department?

LaRouche: The point is that, if you look at the prices of electricity paid by the state of California and its people, before and after deregulation, the case is clear. The state was ripped off to the amount of tens of billions of dollars by a bunch of pirates who are allied with Dick Cheney, George Shultz, etc. This bunch of pirates are the bunch of pirates who put up this recall operation, and who staged the thing of putting this freak-show of Arnie Schwarzenegger up on this recall operation. If that goes through, you're going to have a disaster across the nation, which you're going to have anyway--but the point is, if you destroy the ability of California to function, you're going to have a chain-reaction among 47 states of the United States, which are all now on the point of state bankruptcy, as a result of these and related conditions.

So, in California, the test case is: Can the state stand up on their hind-legs, and force the Federal government to come to its senses on this case of deregulation, at the time we have a crisis in the functioning of energy production and distribution.

Bob: But, deregulation was at the state level, and I might add, it was not only California that got "epared" in that; it was everybody else--. My question to Mr. LaRouche, before the subject was changed, is: Did he feel that the hit on the towers was a provocative mood to draw the United States into war with Islam? And of course, if we yanked out of Iraq, suddenly, without leaving a stable structure, might we not create a power vacuum, which will essentially [inaud] policy of the United States?

LaRouche: It's obvious. You're dealing with a terrorist act, which is covert in character, in the case of what's called 9/ll. Therefore, you don't have to necessarily know who the persons were who did it, but you do have to know what the issue is, and what the effect was.

The effect was, to take Cheney, who was sitting there as a Vice President, with his policies generally ignored, up to that point, at least officially, and suddenly, on the day, the night, after the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, Cheney is now, and his policies, suddenly took over the policies of the United States. And therefore, the effect was, that there was no other visible effect of that terrorist act, apart from the killing of a lot of people--no purpose for it, except what was realized. It accomplished nothing, except put Cheney in the driver's seat. And then, by January of 2023, President Bush himself was totally suckered into this.

Stockwell: So now, we have a situation where we have more soldiers killed, since the end of the war, declared there in May, than we had killed up to the end of the war. We've got the Shia, and other religious groups, calling for people who weren't all that religiously oriented, or sitting on the borders or whatever, to come to the defense of their country.

We have France and Germany and several other European nations, who would not be involved with the attack, because they know how bogus the whole thing was to start with, who are, "We'll give you some aid and support, but we are sending no troops." And so, I don't see any indication in the current Administration, of anybody saying, "Hey, wait a second, here." You know, how much longer are the American people going to put up with this?

Or, "Maybe we've made a mistake, and we need to sit here and re-analyze, and set up a new off-setting strategy, because the one we're on is sinking rapidly." It seems like they're just going to continue doing, what they've been doing. How long can this go on?

LaRouche: It's not going on. Bush's popularity, even by polls that they're getting, is sinking fast. Arnie's popularity in California is sinking fast, similarly. That the reality, the economic reality, and other realities, are hitting the American people, breaking through the barrier of perception.

See, most Americans have no sense of what's going on in the world outside the United States. I do. But most simply don't know. And we don't have any news media much anymore. You have the so-called major news media, apart from a few, which have almsot nothing in them. Most of that is controlled. You have private news media, small news media, which have little reach, which reflect the reaciton of the local, regional population to issues, but they have no conception of what's going on in Europe, in Eurasia, generally, in Africa, in South and Central America, they just don't know what's going on. If they could look at the United States, with the eyes of say, a European, or someone in Asia, and see what is being thought, when they see the United States, then people in the United States would be horrified.

They'd say, "We, are the most hated nation on this planet, because of the stupid policies, of this stupid Presidency? Something's wrong, it's got to change."

What happens then, is the economic crisis hits hard, and it begins to take effect. And people are now saying, the issue is the economy, the issue is the economy, the issue is the economy. And they're going to react very strongly. You're going to get a Roosevelt reflex, of the type that Hoover ran into in 1932, in the U.S. population.    - A LaRouche Administration -

Stockwell: Well, there's a lot of forgotten men running around out there right now, looking for some good leadership, who will come forward, and put these people back to work, in a way that will actually put America back on line.

Another call, Walt?

Walt: You just opened up the door, timely making the right comment to my question. My question to Lyndon is threefold: Number one, I was wondering if you could tell us who have you chosen as a running-mate, and if you haven't got a choice, [what about] Sen. Ron Paul? And if Lyndon could make any changes for his Administratiaon, who would they be, and why?

If you are elected President, what changes would you make for your Administration, and why?

LaRouche: First of all, I have a certain affection for Ron Paul. I don't always agree with him, but I respect him and he's a person I would listen to. But I wouldn't think of him at this point, as a Vice Presidential candidate. He'd be on my horizon, but the door would be open to him on appropriate occasions.

Because I'm putting people through a test now, and I'm looking at people that most people might not know, also, who I know have certain qualifications. And I've got quite an array. But I'm looking at a whole spectrum of people that I know, or know of, who I think are people I would want on my team, in the United States exeuctive branch, with me as President. Imagining myself sitting behind the desk, and having the responsibility, of making executive decisions, which will be carried out by people who know how to do the job. And among that, of course, I would want somebody who would fit the continuity of what I'm starting.

And now I'm going to have to find out how people respond, fully, among the respective list, respond to what I'm doing. I have some experience in life, and I know how to look at these kinds of things, and I know you don't pick somebody on the basis of a beauty contest. You pick them on the basis of doing some work together with them, and finding out how different people think. And then you say, "This guy I trust, because I like the way he thinks, for this job." And if I find somebody who I think is right for the Vice President, that's what I'm going to do."

Stockwell: So you don't have anybody for the moment.

LaRouche: My program, of course, is simply: I'm walking in te footsteps of Franklin Roosevelt, who came in on the sitaution of a catastrophe, which was orchestrated by the policies of Coolidge and Hoover, respectively. Coolidge was totally incompetent. Hoover was competent, technologically, but he had the wrong policy, which was too much like those of Bruning and von Papen in Germany, in his response to the '29 crisis.

So, Roosevelt had a mess. And Roosevelt made changes which are based on his understanding, which Hoover didn't have, of the principles upon which the Republic was founded. Because Roosevelt had an ancestor, Isaac Roosevelt, the founder of the Bank of New York, who was the partner, and collaborator, chief collaborator in New York, of Alexander Hamilton. Roosevelt, all his life, was reared in that tradition. His Harvard graduating papers included this theme. When he was struck with poliomyelitis, he worked through, more deeply, again, this kind of question, going into the Governorship of New York State, and his re-election there. And he went into the Presidency, fully knowledgeable of the depth of the Constitution, of what the principles were to solve the problem.

I'm in a similar situation. The problems have changed somewhat, but in many respects, they're parallel, analagous, and the challenge is about the same. So, that's the way I'm going. And that's what I'm going to do. But people will compare what I will do as President, with what Roosevelt did. They will see the differences, and I think they will understand the differences. Our position in the world now is different than it was when Roosevelt died. At that time, the United States was the only world power, in point of fact. We were able to provide a world monetary system, the post-war Bretton Woods system, because of our power, the power of our economy, which was the greatest in the world. We're not in that situation any more. We have great power, but our power is our history, not our physical power, not our economy. And it's our history that gives the President of the Untied States, the moral authority among nations, to call the nations together, to do something together, which will get us out of this mess. That's the difference.

Stockwell: We were talking about some of the developing technologies in some of our former enemy nations, because we are trying to resurrect old techology in our armed forces. Others are moving ahead. The question was asked in reference to a comment on the Jeff Rense show last night, there was somebody describing this new weapon, that was described as fire, lightning, or laser, or something that was used, to destroy an entire bus, nobody even seeing the origin of the weapon itself. And then also comments to the effect of, these reports coming out of Baghdad, of the C-130 aircraft landing in Iraq, uploading limousines, Republican guards, as soon as the limousines were in the C-130 and had took off, taking off their uniforms and then mixing back up with crowd. All of this kind of stuff floating around out there. Saddam at one time being an asset of the United States intelligence forces, probably still is.

What do you think about all that?

LaRouche: I generally keep away from things that I can't prove myself. If they're possible, if I think they're possible, I will say so. But I won't presume that they're true unless I can prove it myself. And we have enough resources, in terms of what I have accessible to me, in combing around the world for information, that we can generally get the track of something, as to its plausibility.

You know, there is so much paranoia in the U.S. in particular, that I don't like to engage in public speculation, out of my mouth, which might encourage that kind of paranoia. There's too much. Therefore, I try to get the facts out.

But there are problems in these areas. On weapons systems, mysterious weapons systems, this is a question of physics. And the problem is, we don't have people who are competently trained in physics. As I've said repeatedly, recently, on this question of what would happen if someone, say, in Russia, were having a discussion, and saying, "The United States, one guy says, the United States has a perfect military system which we couldn't defeat." And another scientist says, "Do they actually believe that in the United States?" And the first fellow says, "Yes." And the second guy says, "Well, that's how we'll defeat them."

What people try to emphasize, they think have as being the perfect system, is the very system, which, if they rely upon it, can result in their defeat. And we're dealing with areas of research, and areas of development, which are beyond what is generally understood by putatively educated people in the United States.

Stockwell: We're back. We have a couple more minutes here. Dean, real quick?

Dean: Lyn, are you a devotee of Tom Clancy? Do you read his books?

LaRouche: Not much, I took a glance at it, and I don't like it too much.

Dean: I was re-reading Executive Orders, on page 374, where Russia looks at this new Iran-Iraq united Islamic republic, and they're saying, Whoa! All these -istans--Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kazahstan--we're going to lose all our wealth, and we're going to have an enemy on our south. What are we going to do about it?

If we pull out Iraq now, wouldn't we have the same thing? Wouldn't we have what the imams from Iran over there are trying to set up something?

LaRouche: No. That's exactly what I don't think is productive, in terms of speculation, because that's not the way the world works. You have to look at the total environment, rather than trying to take a pairwise analysis of countries as objects. The problem in Iraq is to reconstitue Iraq. Now, nobody in the Middle East, with any brains, is going to take an action which provokes a new dimension of strategic instability in that part of the world. Because they're sitting on a bomb. Iran is going to cooperate, within its own terms. Iran is a complicated country internally. Nobody is going to fool with destabilizing, from the outside, the internal processes of Iran. That would be a very stupid mistake.

What we need to do is simply rise above the situation. We've got to put Iraq back in the box. We can only do it through the United Nations, which means we're going to put in, not 150,000 troops and so forth, to replace the U.S. troops; it means we're going to put in a different kind of force, an engineering force, to assist the Iraqis in pulling themselves back together, to solve the problems, and to cooperate with them in doing. And if it's done by people that the Iraqi population trusts, it will work.

The problem is, the Iraqi population will not accept anything from the Bush Adminitraiton of the United States. Therefore, you've got to get the Bush Administration out of Iraq, and put something else in. I've talked to people around the United Nations about what we should do. There's a willingness to go in that direction, from Europe and others. They will do it. But they will do it only if the United States gets itself out of there.

And the other thing: Iran. These are not problems. These problems exist only to the degree that we are not providing the kind of the alternatives to conflicts which these parts of the world desire, and need. We could do it. My point is: Cut out the crap, and provide these alternatives instead. We really don't need to have another war. There's no way we need to have another war. We do need to maintain strategic defense capabilities, and I would do so. We'd probably put the draft back into motion, actually, as a part of doing it. But, I don't see any objective need for our intending to fight a war down the line. I think every problem which people are worried about, is manageable, if we stop being idiots.

- 30 -