Dr. Jack Stockwell Interview with Lyndon LaRouche
January 14, 2023

Click here to listen to an MP3 archive of this interview.

Lyndon LaRouche was the guest of Dr. Jack Stockwell on his morning drive time talk show on K-TALK in Salt Lake City, UT on January 14, 2023. This is a rough transcript of that interview.

Announcer: And now the consummate voice of sense and sensibility himself, Jack Stockwell.

Stockwell: Good morning everybody, 5-1/2 minutes after the hour of 7 o'clock in the morning, here in the Inter-Mountain West. You're listening to the Jack Stockwell radio talk show program, brought to live, with 25% extra for free.

Starting this morning, and going as long as we possibly can, we will have live, here--he's holding on the line, right now--Presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche. Running on the Democratic ticket. I have a mess of questions to ask him myself. We'll take, as long as he can stay, we'll take calls from the callers, later in the program. I would like him to be able to have a chance here, to establish just what his campaign means, in 2004. And where it is, right now, and what he projects, especially following the Washington, D.C. primary that occurred yesterday.

In the polls, in Washington, that were taken, he was neck and neck with the good Rev. Al Sharpton. I don't know that all the numbers are in yet, but we'll see. Apparently, it didn't make the news that much last night, 'cause I was scouring the news before bed, trying to find some mention of it. And the only real mention I could find, was a continual downplay of its importance-- that is "means nothing." In fact, that's what CNN said last night. "This really means nothing."

And so, we'll be having traffic for you, on a regular basis, about every 10 minutes. By way of announcement, Congressman Ron Paul will be speaking a week from tomorrow night....

Good morning, sir!

LaRouche: Good morning to you.

Stockwell: And welcome back to the program. I have been trying to contact the campaign camps of various Democratic hopefuls. So far, you're the only one who has [laughs] consented to come on my program! They're all busy stumping throughout the rest of the country, trying to, I guess take the attention of the American people away from how desperate things really are. because they don't really seem to dwelling on the issues that matter the most at the moment. In fact, you are about the only one I see, really addressing the reality of what is facing us this year, in the sense of economics, in the sense of social order, in the sense of political order. And that's what I hope we're able to get to, this day.

So. And, before I forget about it, I want to personally invite you to the state of Utah, as my guest! I want to personally invite you out here to the state of Utah. I know, that in doing that, I go on record, and may end up on Vice President Cheney's "bad list" for doing so--and that's, you know, I'll be in good company, but that's probably not the safest list to be on the moment.

But, I personally want to invite you to the state of Utah. There are a lot of people who enjoy you, and some of your spokespeople when they're on the air, and I think we can have some fun.

LaRouche: Oh yes, absolutely.

Stockwell: Okay, so. Here we are, Jan. 14, 2023. We just had the first primary last night. Apparently the former governor of Vermont won. And most of what was going on, on the news last night relative to the 2023 campaign, seemed to be centered on what will happen at the caucus meetings next Monday night, in Iowa. And of course, they bring out all the Hollywood stars. Martin Sheen is "keen for Dean," and all these silly little platitudes we're going to be hearing shortly.

But, your assessment, sir, as to what is going on, in the campaign and where we are right now?

LaRouche: Well, take this Washington, D.C. thing first: We had polls which were run before the day of election, which showed both Sharpton and I running about 20%. He was suddenly getting a boost from the Moonies and so forth, and being played up by the Washington Post. So, he suddenly came out of nothing. He had an office there, with just scrap paper in it, and no sign of him. And then three days before the election, and so forth, he appears with a big boost from that crowd.

Now, at that point, we had a 20%-20% ratio between he and me. Then comes yesterday--I'm down to 1%! And, obviously, something happened. Now, our assessment is, this was not the Democratic National Committee that did it. Though the Democratic National Committee was all over the case. The Democratic National Committee did not do what was done, yesterday. It came from a different source--and there's only one source in the nation, that fits that schedule: that's the Vice President.

Stockwell: Yes.

LaRouche: And the Vice President is very unhappy with me, considers me his number-one enemy--and probably, that's a fact. He's suffering a great deal, especially with his old acquaintance Paul O'Neill turning on him. And you see how he's behaving toward Paul O'Neill. At the minute that Paul speaks up, then suddenly Cheney unleashes with an accusation of stealing secret documents! It didn't bother him, with the case with Valerie Plame--.

Stockwell: And you've seen former Secretary O'Neill's latest response, to the fact that he was stealing documents?

LaRouche: Yeah--

Stockwell: That he said he got 'em from the General Counsel of the Treasury Department himself!

LaRouche: Anyway--

Stockwell: I think I've got some traffic, coming in right now. And we've got some people that are out there in the dark, fumbling around and trying to get to work....

You're still on the air, Lyn. We'll just go right to Bob.... [traffic report]

If you're just tuning in, ladies and gentlemen, Lyndon LaRouche, live here on the air from Leesburg, Virginia. We're just kind of recounting what happened in the Washington primary yesterday.

Lyn, I can just see, into the office of the Vice President right now, in one of its various hidden locations, with your picture on the wall with a bunch of darts on it--

LaRouche: I think, mini-nukes, would be more likely!

Stockwell: Why would the Vice President be so upset with you?

LaRouche: Well, first of all, the Vice President is the nearest approximation we have on this planet to Adolf Hitler, right now. And I don't particularly like Adolf Hitler, or his type.

This crowd, these fellows are getting very active: We have this Spanish- language, French, Italian fascist crowd, who are killers, are being deployed in the Americas, as well as European. It's getting rather nasty. Reminds us of the 1970s, when you were getting right-wing terrorism coming out of Mussolini's old admirers from Bologna. This kind of thing is going on again.

Now, Cheney, in a sense, even though he's a rival of this stuff, is actually a part of the same Synarchist crowd. He's not intelligent. But he's nasty. And he has a lot of powerful connections. And he's tied to people like George Shultz, and Buffett, and George Soros, and so on; people of that type. So, he does have a certain amount of capability. And he has the old "World War III with nuclear weapons crowd," inside the military-industrial complex, as Eisenhower called it. And, he's dangerous.

But, he's also, as O'Neill, Paul O'Neill, the former Treasury Secretary, has put it, he is also, essentially controlling the President. The President is the dummy, who's being controlled.

Now, there's a counter operation, from Cheney's old rival and enemy, from Bush 41: James Baker III. And James Baker III is rather a tough fighter. And, since the two of them are fighting, the fray is going become interesting. It's a question of whether Cheney is going to be the Vice President, again, is up for grabs, and so forth.

So, at this point, Cheney with what he is--he's like the Hermann Goering of the United States. He's dangerous. He's not so bright, but he's dangerous. Goering was probably a little smarter. And he's got a crowd around him, the so-called neo-conservatives, who are a bunch of killers. The danger is, this guy's going to get us into nuclear war.

Stockwell: Well, along with him, is another crowd of people who run with the President, and the one I’m thinking of right now, is Attorney General Ashcroft, who has just announced a new system of identification for air travel, where even American citizens, themselves, are going to be categorized as "red," "yellow," or "green." This was just in the news, this morning: That I, as a native-born American citizen, with no criminal record whatsoever--heck with my Fourth Amendment rights, or the Bill of Rights, for that matter--I'm now going to be categorized with a red, or a yellow, or a green designation, before I can even get on an airplane.

LaRouche: Well, Ashcroft and Cheney are the same thing. They're all part of this Leo Strauss apparatus. Ashcroft is a Chicago University Strauss-circle protégé. He is philosophically a follower of the fellow who was called the "Crown Jurist" of Nazi Germany. That's one of his mentors. He thinks like a Nazi--a crude one. But, I warned against this guy, when they were first putting him in, back in January of 2023. This guy's dangerous.

He is the same thing. He's part of the same process as Cheney. These guys are out to establish a world empire. They're committed to a policy of preventive nuclear war. If we don't get them out of there, we're going to be in nuclear-armed, asymmetric warfare, globally, within a couple years. That's where we're headed.

So, the problem that we have, is that the stupidity of the American people, that they are so cowed by this process, that they won't fight it. Look, none of the Democratic rivals of mine, will take this on. We have the evidence on this guy Cheney. We have impeachable charges against him. And they won't fight! They're a bunch of silly cowards.

Stockwell: My guest is Lyndon LaRouche. We'll be back in just a moment.... [traffic break]

My guest is Lyndon LaRouche, Democratic candidate for the Presidency of the United States.

Lyn, I have to ask you a question here. You were referring to Vice President Cheney as the closest thing to Hermann Goering, the United States has. And, you've used the term "Nazi." Why--I mean, I don't know how you could come up with anything worse, to describe this man, than terminology such as that. What has he done, that would deserve that kind of a moniker.

LaRouche: That's what he is. You know, this has a history: People didn't really understand what happened to us, in the history of this nation. And they don't realize how bad Hitler was, or where Hitler came from. So therefore, there's a lot of "well, maybe he wasn't that bad"; "yes, he was a bad guy, but we got rid of him"; "he did this, he did that." It's not like that--

Stockwell: As though he were some isolated case ,or some aberrant person, who just made it into office.

LaRouche: Yeah. Because, what he represented, and what Cheney represents, is a continuity of an organization which has existed since the 18th Century, which was then known as the Martinist freemasonic association--actually run from London. They ran the French Revolution. They created it, organized it, and so forth.

This crowd later became known as Synarchy, during the course of the 19th Century. And the same crowd, then became known as the Synarchist International, at the beginning of World War II. Now, these are the guys who brought all of the fascist movements in Europe into being: Mussolini in 1992; Hitler, you know, 1933; the same thing, all the way through.

So, these are the guys that got us into World War II. They are the ones who did the crimes against Jews. They did all these things. And we have the same kind of crowd, the same crowd, now with the faces of Cheney, the followers of Leo Strauss, and so forth, is out to do the same thing.

Every time, we get into a situation, in which the present financial system is about to collapse, as it is now--one has to understand, that right now, that is, the floating-exchange-rate system, is on the verge of collapsing. A total collapse. When it will collapse is difficult to say, in terms of short term. But it's coming on soon. It's going to happen. You have, you know, people try to deny this sort of thing, but it's happening.

Stockwell: Well, even Robert Rubin, the other day, said it's on the verge.

LaRouche: Well, Bob Rubin has always been very careful, even though he's agreed that the thing is on the verge of collapse he's been very careful about saying it, because he's considered the effect of his saying it, on the political process.

Stockwell: Right, okay.

LaRouche: So, now, he's saying it, because the thing is so bad, that it's imminent. You know, I just had one of my friends, who challenged Alan Greenspan in Berlin. And Alan wasn't too happy with that! But, the thing is on, right now. We're on the verge of the greatest financial collapse, in the memory of anyone alive today.

Stockwell: Yeah. We're not about the dollar dropping against the euro, another 10 or 15 cents. We're talking major devaluation of the American dollars.

LaRouche: We're talking about a total collapse, that could result in the disintegration of our nation, unless we control it.

It can be controlled. But, the problem is, that there are certain banking influences, or financial influences, which--as in Hitler's time--react to a financial crisis by saying, "We are not going to absorb the costs of getting out of this recession, this depression."

Stockwell: The banks.

LaRouche: "We're going to take it out of the people."

Stockwell: Yeah, not the banks, but the people.

LaRouche: And, this is what's going on. The fight is: Are we going to loot the people in order to make the bankers feel good. That's the general nature of the problem. And--

Stockwell: Is that the thinking then, that is promoting certain interests in the Democratic Party right now? Probably, in the person of Howard Dean, who has been openly in favor of NAFTA, openly in favor of globalism all along? So, that should, by some hair of a chance, he get in the Presidency, rather than the reelection of Bush 43, it would still be the same agenda as we have right now?

LaRouche: I don't know if it's possible that he could get it. He's being used by various people. He's a flake. You may have picked that up by watching him.

Stockwell: Now, why do you use the term "flake"?

LaRouche: Watch him. Watch his behavior. Watch this thing about the Confederate flags on SUVs.

Stockwell: Yeah, or his sudden love affair with Jesus.

LaRouche: Yeah, this guy's a flake. And he can be pulled down easily. They orchestrate him. He can make some big gaffe, and they'll just knock him out of the race.

What he's doing now, he's actually playing a game. He's being used by advisors, to play a game. He's not that significant, actually. But the fact is, the Democratic Party is brain-dead, right at the moment. My nine rivals are virtually brain-dead! Kucinich is an intelligent fellow, but he's not a fighter.

Stockwell: What about Kerry?

LaRouche: Kerry is a mystery. He's acting like a gutless wonder. And he's not saying things he knows are true.

Stockwell: Like things about the Vice President?

LaRouche: Yeah.

Stockwell: All right. Let's get back to that right after the break.... My guest Lyndon LaRouche, live from Leesburg, Va., running as a Democratic candidate for the President of the United States.... [break]

We want to welcome the large, unseen internet audience that's out there. Right now I know the show's been advertised on several websites, for this morning's interview. My guest, Lyndon LaRouche is here this morning, live in the--"live in the studio" I wish! That was my invitation, Lyn. Was to get you out here to Utah, have you live in the studio. And then have a big gathering some night, and so people can come and ask the questions. Because, I keep hearing the same smear. The same questions, coming up all the time. And, you know, dismissals as "anti-Semite," the dismissals as "racist." You know, rather than going after the principles that you teach, rather than going after the concepts, of what you represent, or what is a part of your mindset, rather than going after that, you know, then they do the smear; they try to dismiss somebody with the old "mad dog" routine.

LaRouche: It's orchestrated. It's orchestrated--

Stockwell: Well, yes it is--

LaRouche: I mean, none of these guys are honest. I mean, the point is, a person who is reasonably honest, who used to believe in this--we had even a legal standard of truthfulness, and lying. It was called "reckless disregard for truth."

Stockwell: Yes.

LaRouche: And, what you have is, these guys who mouth off all this stuff about me, they're liars! They're not honest people. They're not people with honest concerns, that they're expressing. They're not somebody who's misinformed, who would like to know what the truth is. These are guys, who try to haunt talk radio and other things, and think that they're having a grand ol' time for themselves. And if you actually found out who they were, what they're part of, you'd understand them.

Stockwell: Yes.

LaRouche: They're not real. They're not real people.

Stockwell: Good for you.

Now, I want to ask a couple more questions, about your assessment of the DNC, and why they're doing what they're doing. George Soros's influence here. What they're trying to achieve. And then, I'd like to turn the conversation to, what you would be actually doing, should you be elected as President of the United States.

So, a question in the area of, Soros has now suddenly come in; he's dumped all this money into the DNC, with the idea of making sure, or at least the banner headline is, "to defeat George Bush in 2004." Where's he coming from? Why's he doing this? And, who is really behind the DNC? Is it the same crowd that is behind the White House?

LaRouche: Well, more or less. It's also organized crime, for example--that is, the so-called whitewashed organized crime, of people who came out of smuggling whisky across the Great Lakes, and became so-called "respectable," but they didn't improve their behavior. They just improved their public relations image.

Look, you'd seen these things like Enron; you see the prosecutions in New York. You see this latest thing on Parmalat, which is a U.S. operation, tied into the Cayman Islands swindle, which has seized upon the Parmalat firm in Italy and is looting it.

Now, what you've got is, you've got two things: First of all, you have-- criminality is the characteristic, at least morally, emotionally, of many people who are the wealthiest people in the United States, today. That is, wealthy in terms of their positions, and their salaries that they're getting from these kinds of, usually, thieving operations.

Then, you have another thing: You have a Baby-Boomer generation. You have people in their fifties, who reacted to the--as a generation--the individuals sometimes differ, but they react to be part of our crowd, our generation. This is the generation, that went through the Missile Crisis, as adolescents; they went through the Kennedy assassination, the launching of the Indo-China War. They became the '68ers, the so-called Baby-Boomers. Now, they were part of a culture, that went from a producer society, characterized by manufacturing and agriculture and so forth, into a Roman imperial-style of bread and circuses society: that is, entertainment society, living parasitically on the rest of the world, because of that system.

Now, these people do not have a sense of reality. They have a sense that they are part of a generation. Each of them has their conception of a "lifestyle." They don't have a sense of a future. And recent studies have shown, as I've found out for myself, is that the younger generation, their children, especially the 18 to 25 college-eligible generation and their parents' generation, have a very serious conflict. The conflict is not based so much on the character of the individual. It's based on "how I look in front of the neighbors." "I've got to get along with the neighbors. I've got go along with the way things are. I've got to `go along to get along.'"

So, the Baby-Boomer generation, as it's called, with this "go along to get along," and especially the upper 20% of family-income brackets, in that generation, these people are in a state of hysterical denial of reality. And the base of the Democratic Party's appeal, is this denial of reality, by this generation.

Then along comes a real parasite: A George Shultz. The Halliburton. Cheney. George Soros, a drug pusher. These guys come along, and they find a market for themselves and their influence, in this Baby-Boomer generation, which is in a state of denial. "We want our lifestyle. Don't threaten our lifestyle. We want our lifestyle. Don't talk about the future. Don't talk about the country. Don't talk about the poor people."

So, that's our problem. And, what I've been doing, of course, is to take a youth movement, which I helped craft, based on an understanding of what we have to do, to get a generation, that can turn the United States back to the best that it used to be. And youth of this type, have show they can do that.

So, we have a big fight. We have a fight, between a Democratic National Committee, which is brain-dead, effectively. They are, as I've described them, currently, they are politically "dead meat." They could not win an election-- any of them, or all of them combined--could not win an election against George Bush, and George Bush's machine.

Stockwell: All of them combined! All of them combined, could not defeat George Bush, Jr. Yeah, George Bush, Jr.'s ratings, last night, still up in the 60s. Approval rating in the low 50s, but people like his leadership. I haven't seen that one before. We'll be right back.... [break]

My guest here, live on the radio this morning, Lyndon LaRouche, Democratic candidate for the President of the United States.

The last thing that we were talking about there, or at least, what I mentioned before the break, was, I noticed the polls there, still pumping him up. But, now CNN was delineated between how many people think he's a good leader, as to how many people approve of what he's doing. And it was something like 67, 68% thought he was still a good leader; but only 53% approved of what he was doing. Sounds a like a little misinformation to me.

LaRouche: No, it's actually correct.

What the figures are really showing, is that the people in general, see the Democratic candidates, my rivals, as bankrupt. And they think that these guys are so bad, that even George Bush is better.

Now, what has tended to help George Bush, among Republicans, in particular, is James Baker III coming back into the situation.

Stockwell: Well, he got him into the Presidency! He had to come back into the picture.

LaRouche: But, the point is, James Baker III is an old enemy of Dick Cheney.

Stockwell: Yes. Yes.

LaRouche: The two of them would kill each other, if they could. And, so, at this point, there is a hope, in the Republican Party main body, that Cheney will be dumped, along the with the neo-cons.

Stockwell: Well, isn't that what this coming out with Secretary O'Neill seems to indicate?

LaRouche: Well, O'Neill is--

Stockwell: That there may be a turning of the tide, here, in the Republican Party?

LaRouche: Oh that's already been in place. That's been in place for some time. The point is, the time that a break point came, somewhere along here, where suddenly James Baker III came into the fore again, that was a signal that something had been happening. And as far as I knew, it's been happening since, essentially, since 2023--late 2023, 2023. There's been extreme discontent, among farm-state Republican leaders, and others, the so-called "normal Republicans"--human beings, even though they're not always so good. But nonetheless, they have a sense that this is rotten. That what Rumsfeld and Cheney represent, what these neo-cons represent, you've got to get rid of it, it's a menace to the nation--.

Look, there are actually Republicans, as well as others, who recognize that the Democratic Party, which used to have a machine, no longer has a machine. The Republican Party has an efficient political machine. It's like a meat-grinder. The Democratic Party may be thuggish, at times, but they don't have a well-organized machine. They don't have a base: Ever since '76-1980, the Democratic Party has been dying. The case of Clinton, that was a fluke. A very special kind of fluke.

So, the Democratic Party is nothing right now. All the Democratic Party has, potentially, is the legacy of the Franklin Roosevelt. And under conditions of depression, it can win. They are determined not to use the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt: They hate Franklin Roosevelt, and they hate his memory! Just as much as John Raskob did, back in 1932. They hate him--

Stockwell: Why?

LaRouche: Because, they represent corrupt money. They hate the lower 80% of the family-income brackets in this country--

Stockwell: The forgotten man that got Roosevelt elected, they hate--

LaRouche: Exactly.

Because, they hate me for that reason. Because, the lower 80%, if you're going to represent the people of the United States, you better represent the interests, at least, of the lower 80% of the population. You better represent the interest of people, who count.

Stockwell: Which Howard Dean does not

LaRouche: No. No, he's on the other side.

Stockwell: Yeah.

LaRouche: The whole problem here, is, Dean is able to be a front-runner, because his eight rivals, on his side of the fence, are so bad! Including Kerry. Kerry can't seem to do anything right. He's a far better man, than Dean. You know, he's a human being. Dean, you sometimes wonder what he is! But--Kucinich is also a human being. He's not the strongest guy in the world.

So, these guys are at their worst, not when their in the Congress, but when their on the hustings. And they are there, because the Democratic Party machine insists upon it. The Democratic Party machine is a bunch of bums; McAuliffe is a bum. He's the Fowler side of the Democratic National Committee.

So, what's happened is, therefore, you have the Republicans have a machine. There's hope in the Republican side, that the James Baker III reappearance means that Cheney's going to be checked and curbed. There are other signs of that internationally.

At the same time, the Democratic Party candidates, that I'm running against, are a hopeless bunch of creeps, as far as the voters can see! They don't say anything! Look at their broadcasts: They don't say anything! They've had all these so-called debates. They've said absolutely nothing about anything of importance. And that is what is building up George Bush. And with this kind of Republican machine, which is a machine, against Democrats like the McAuliffe Democratic National Committee, and his crew of chickens running the show, no matter how bad things get, the Democrats will be worse. And people will think that a George Bush minus Cheney--as dumb and as mean-spirited as George is--is a better choice than this do-nothing capable of doing-nothing bunch of Democrats.

Stockwell: Well, we have an extension of that in this state, when Donald Dunn, who is the chairman of the Democratic Party here in the state, essentially said to some people the other day, who reported it here on the air; and we brought Chairman Dunn on, live here on the radio, that what he does, he does at the behest of McAuliffe.

LaRouche: Yeah, sure.

Stockwell: That's it. There is no independent action on the part of the Democratic Party, in the state of Utah. The Democratic Party, according to the chairman of the Democratic Party, in the state of Utah, will do exactly what the National Committee tells them to do.

LaRouche: And no self-respecting Democrat thinks it's worthwhile supporting such a party.

Stockwell: Yeah! You know, I was raised in Washington, D.C. I was raised in a very strong Democratic Party environment. I waxed a little more conservative when I moved out to the West. But, I can remember influences, back in Washington--you know, I was in eighth grade at the assassination, and I went through the Indo-China War, when I was high school. And I remember a lot of attitudes and feelings within the Democratic Party, back there at that time, of strong, fierce independence. And I don't see anything like that any more in the Democratic Party.

LaRouche: Well, that's what we're concerned about. People I talk to about this--you know, obviously, I'm in that kind of situation--

Stockwell: We are going to take another break.... When we get back, Lyn, I'd like to start moving the conversation in the direction of what you would do, if you not just got the nomination, but you got the Presidency. What would you change? We'll be right back.... [break]

I want to start turning the conversation, as to what you would actually do, should you get in the Presidency. But, I have to ask this: Next week, we have Iowa and New Hampshire. Are you personally going to these states?

LaRouche: Oh, I've been in there. I've had quite a little fun.

Stockwell: I know you've been up in the Northeast. I've seem some reports about that.

LaRouche: Yeah, and we're having a lot of fun. We're putting a lot of media in there, relatively speaking. We're probably little a bit--we're rather experienced at this sort of thing. And I think we're rather profession, in terms of how we approach this. And at the point that I'm now, looking down at the amateurs I'm running against, when it comes to how you use the media to try to get ideas across.

Stockwell: What can we expect out of you, in the first 100 days of your Presidency?

LaRouche: Well, I think would start before that. If on Nov. 2, the election of this year, it were announced that I had won, you would see immediate changes in the world, very important changes--even before I got near the actual Executive Mansion.

That's because I've been around the world; I've been talking to people around the world; I have influence around the world. And I've laid out my policy very clearly around the world. People know exactly where I stand. They're unhappy with the way things are going now, in most parts of the world. And my being elected would be a cause for rejoicing among leading and other circles in most parts of the world. Which means, we could immediately start going to work, on putting together the program which I've already laid out, in terms of general, and it would mean we're going to do it!

It would be something like Franklin Roosevelt. Actually, I'd be much more dramatic than Franklin Roosevelt. We don't have any fascist governments, actually, around the world today--barring what's going on in Spain. Therefore, we don't have any Hitlers to worry about at the moment. We have potential Hitlers to worry about.

But therefore, we have a free shot. As President of the United States, or being elected as President of the United States, I would have support for my Presidency, like nothing any President has had in recent times. We could begin to do things. And obviously, the things I've talked about would happen: We would have an immediate meeting, on setting into motion a new international monetary system. We would take measures, immediately, just by talking, as President-elect: we would take measures immediately, which people would take in other countries, knowing I'm going to be President. And therefore, they would know what policies I represent, and the would begin to take some of these measures. Which would help to control this ongoing depression.

We would take measures--

Stockwell: Go ahead.

LaRouche: So, that's the direction I'd go in.

Now, what I'm aiming at is, this. We have a world which is organized thus: We have the Western Hemisphere. And below our borders it's a mess. Mexico is the only nation, which really has some strength, and they're being weakened. South America, it's a horrible mess. Central America, the Caribbean, a horrible situation. Africa, southern Africa: Genocide. That's the situation. However, Middle East--great danger.

But, the rest of Eurasia, apart from England, for example, we have an excellent situation. We have bankruptcy in Western Europe, but we have industrial potential. We have, in Russia, which is coming back as a power, now; and in the middle of March, when Putin is re-elected, which seems almost certain, you're going to have a change in Russian policy, which will be much more of a great power policy, with an orientation toward the United States, as a prospective major partner; a prospect toward Western Europe, as a major economic partner; and a Eurasian policy, of all of Eurasia being involved with the trade between Western Europe and Eurasia, generally.

So, under these conditions, if the United States is participating in the reorganization of Eurasia, if we're doing what I know we can do, in terms of South America, strengthening Mexico and so forth, we have a good shot.

If we do that, we going to be able to fix the situation in Africa. It's going to be a long haul. But we can turn the tide, and start going in a different direction.

Stockwell: We're talking a generation, or two, here.

LaRouche: We're talking about two generations.

Stockwell: Yeah, at least two generations. But, it's taken two generations to get where we're at.

LaRouche: Yeah, but they did a very good job at getting where we're at--I mean, it's the best job of wrecking you've ever seen in modern history.

Stockwell: We're going to go to the news. We'll be right back. If you've got some questions, we'll certainly entertain them during the next hour.... My guest will continue to be Lyndon LaRouche, who has called us from Leesburg, Va. And, we'll continue as long as he has the strength to do so! [break]

Okay, eight minutes after the hour. My guest, Lyndon LaRouche. Mr. LaRouche, you there?

LaRouche: Yep. Here I am.

Stockwell: Okay. I had a couple of off-air calls during the break. You were talking--I'm going to ask you these questions. Toward the end of the first hour, you were talking about: As soon as the word got out that you were elected, there would be an immediate change in some governmental policies in other nations around the world. One thing you didn't mention, that would expect to see, is maybe a stepping down by Russia, China, and India, from a defensive posture, moving toward an asymmetric warfare defensive position with us--they might start to step down from that; knowing that you wouldn't be quite so aggressive as the crowd that's currently in the White House.

But, a lady wanted to know, as you were explaining how you could create an economic community of nations, to start rebuilding instead of tearing down, she wanted to know, in the sense of emergency action to help us step back from the abyss of this worldwide economic collapse. I think she's looking for the "gold" word in there, but I'm not sure.

Another question was, what would you do about our borders, and these 8 million illegal immigrants coming across?

So, if you wouldn’t mind addressing both of those: First of all, what would you do, in the sense of immediate, emergency posturing to keep us from the abyss of financial collapse?

LaRouche: Well, under the principles which are set forth in the Preamble of our Federal Constitution, I would act to immediately put the system into receivership, for bankruptcy reorganization.

Stockwell: Now, when you say "system" what do you mean by that?

LaRouche: I mean the Federal Reserve System, and all the banks. Look, all these banks are bankrupt. The whole financial system is hopelessly bankrupt. It's being held together by spit--not even glue. And a little twinge, will send the whole thing off.

Now, therefore, since we're a nation, and since we have a Presidency, we have a Constitution, in such a case the duty of the President of the United States, is to take immediate, emergency action, to make sure the doors of banks don't close, simply because the banks are bankrupt; that pensions are paid; that the continuity of the government maintained; and that we begin to grow our way out of the mess.

Now, this means that we have to put the whole system through, like Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization. We also have to put into bankruptcy, the IMF. The International Monetary Fund, in its floating-exchange-rate form is hopelessly bankrupt. Now, if I have cooperation from leading nations around the world, we will act jointly, as sovereign nation-states, to put the IMF into bankruptcy reorganization.

We will then, under those conditions, our immediate perspective is to launch certain recovery programs, physical economic recovery programs, which will emphasize large-scale infrastructure. One of the first things we're going to emphasize is the generation and distribution of power. Our power network is collapsing. We have large-scale water requirements, including what's happening in the Great American Desert area--that's never been touched; it has to be.

We need a national railway system, we don't have it. We're using superhighways, for commuter time parking lots. This is nonsense. Our urban cities are disintegrating. We used to have a society that functioned. It's being destroyed. So, we have many things to in the United States.

We also have, in Asia, one of the greatest opportunities in the world: That is, China, India, other countries of Southeast and East Asia, are moving toward an expansion into Central Asia, in terms of development. Large-scale projects in China, and elsewhere, are in progress. These projects represent the potential for 50 years, of enduring build-up, of markets for large-scale infrastructure development: Transportation systems, technology export systems, that sort of thing.

We have to be in on it. And the United States has to take a leading role, together with the nations of Eurasia, in getting this into works. That means, that the United States and our European and other partners must come to agreement on a nested set of long-term treaty agreements on trade and tariffs, and also financing. These will be 25-year duration to 50-year duration. These will be protectionist modes of programs. The interest rates will be 1-2%, not more. And it'll be long-term credit. The objective is to use infrastructure, as a driver, for building up our agriculture and manufacturing, and related things, again.

Because, if we can get the economy on a level of output, where it's operating on a breakeven level of current account, in the states, in the communities, on the national level, then we can manage. But the thing is, you can not use fiscal conservativism, by cutting things, because when you cut employment, you cut production, you cut the economic base of the economy. You have to go the other direction, as Roosevelt did: You must expand employment. You must use the area in which government is legitimate in economy--large-scale infrastructure--use that as a stimulant and a driver, to get the levels of income, that is, the number of people working, so forth, up above breakeven. Then, you can manage the whole process.

Stockwell: I'm going to ask you a question after the break, that might help clarify that in people's minds a little bit; when you start talking about putting people back to work, large-scale infrastructure projects, I want you to take a moment, and delineate between massive taxation of working people, to put other people to work, as opposed to the issuing of government credit; and moving to a different monetary system inside the United States, that would finance such a thing, without raising people's taxes. I want to talk about that.

But also, if you could address this other fellow's question about immigration.

LaRouche: All right, sure. All right, we don't really have a problem with immigration. We do and we don't. We have a problem with our foreign policy and our domestic policy.

What we have done, is we shut down, beginning 1982, we began to shut down Mexico. We raped it, and shut it down. Then we turned the Mexican population into cheap labor. Now, the cheap labor came into the United States, together with people from Central America and elsewhere, came into the United States to take jobs--

Stockwell: Because we shut down their jobs, in their country.

LaRouche: Well, also the maquiladoras in northern Mexico, we began to grind up people like cord-wood for fire. We brought many into the United States. The Hispanic speaking, or Hispanic origin speaking minority in the United States, is the largest single minority. Larger than people of African origins.

So, this is a key part of our population. These are citizens, or these are legal residents; and these are illegals. Bush has made a step in the right direction, it's a timid step, but it's what we have to do. First of all, we have to regularize this situation. We have to have an agreement between Mexico and the United States, on how we deal with this business of the illegals. We have to regularize it.

Then, we have to have programs which are going to stabilize Mexico, especially northern Mexico. This will mean large-scale water and transportation projects, which will benefit the United States; will run from Alaska, if Canada cooperates, all the way down to the southern part of Mexico. This will stimulate growth there. It will staunch the flow of illegals and other people, desperately seeking work in the United States, from Mexico. Because people would rather live with their families, than live among strangers. It would also solve the problem about settling in, people who are now either legal residents of the United States, or should become that.

So, that's the way to approach it. You don't need to use repressive measures, if you have the right kinds of programs. There is a problem of criminality--I mean drugs. I mean things like that. Yes, these things have to be dealt with that, and there's nobody tougher on this than I am.

But on the question of the illegals as such, in general, this is largely the result of an insane economic policy.

Stockwell: Yeah, and as long as we make it more attractive for them to be here, than in their own country, no matter what you do at the border, they're going to come over here.

LaRouche: Yeah, exactly.

Stockwell: So, we have to make it more attractive for them to stay home. We'll be right back, after the break. Win [ph], on the cell phone, you'll be first....[break]

Win, go ahead, you have a question for Mr. LaRouche?

Question: Good morning gentlemen, yes I do. Pleasure to speak with Mr. LaRouche. Like Jack, I was raised back in the D.C. area. My father was highly placed in government, as I was growing up. And fortunately in the Virginia school system, back then, we had teachers that drummed everything from the Revolutionary War to the Civil War down our throat, and the reasons behind them, and the concept of freedom. I've been studying law, specifically now, for 35 years. And, there's one comment that, I know a lot of conservatives, if they heard you--or patriots, true patriots--would be concerned about.

In 1973, Sen. Frank Church, you'll recall, from Idaho, held a three- or four-day hearing back in Washington, on the War Powers Act. And, he identified from testimony that ensued, from former Supreme Court Justices and many highly placed people, including Secretaries of Treasury, that under the War Powers Act--this is his conclusion, paraphrased--is that the American people, all their lives, have been under the illusion that they were living under a Constitutional government; when in reality, it was the doctrine of emergency, which had set aside the provisions of most of the Bill of Rights.

Now, this situation, with Bush using the Straussians did not come about just with the election of George Bush. And I know that it is under this so- called doctrine of emergency, the application of the War Powers Act, by definition, as to the originating authority for Executive Order, and this type of scenario built up over time, it's the exact same thing that brought Hitler to power, under the emergency of doing something nationally for the country that set aside their civil liberties, their Constitution, and required that they give up their sovereignty interest to this individual that was going save them.

The fact that you mentioned declaring an emergency, I can tell you right now, sent a ripple through every patriot that's listening to you. Could you please clarify your definition of declaring an emergency upon entering the White House.

LaRouche: Well, the emergency under the War Powers Act, and other kinds of emergencies, are quite distinct under our Constitution. In the forming of the Federal Constitution, the great concern was, that in creating a powerful Executive branch, that is a Presidential system, how do we prevent that system being misused, as George III had misused his war-making powers? So therefore, on the question of War Powers, the context of the Constitution, the discussions around this, and the history of it, is rather clear.

Now, when you compare an emergency by the United States and an emergency in Hitler's case, they're not comparable. Because the European systems are Anglo-Dutch Liberal parliamentary governments, and under those you don't really have a Presidential system. You have something that collapses every time there's a major financial crisis, and usually throws up some kind of repressive regime.

We in the United States, despite all the mistakes we've make, have always understood, especially those of us who, as I am, are associated with the circles of the Presidential institution: We've always understood, that when we have to make reforms, we never make a coup against our Constitution. We make a legal coup, among the institutions of the Presidency, but we will never make a coup against the Constitution itself, because we know that our system of government depends upon that Constitution.

So, now, when you're talking about an emergency other than a War Powers Act problem, you're talking about an emergency of the type that Franklin Roosevelt faced--where the nation was faced--. If Franklin Roosevelt had not done what he did, first in winning the election and what he did in the first, famous "hundred days," we would be living under Hitler or his successor, today. You had a group in the United States, who were prepared to make a coup, in the United States, like that which Hermann Goering led in Germany, in February of 1933, with his setting fire to the Reichstag, as a way of bringing about emergency government. By taking the right emergency action, within the intent of the Constitution, that is, within the intent of the Preamble of the Constitution, and not going outside that, we saved the nation, and we saved the world from what could have been a fascist dictatorship of the world.

On the War Powers Act, we have an abuse, today, in the form of Cheney. The way this thing was shoved through on Iraq. That was criminal. It was impeachable! And, under our laws Cheney should be impeached, if he does not consent to go quietly, and take his scamps with him.

But, on the other--

Question: Excuse me. What would you do, concerning this nefarious shoving through of the Patriot I and II Acts, that virtually act upon the emergency doctrines that have, in effect, eliminated civil liberties in the United States.

Stockwell: Win [ph], I'm going to open up that line. I'm going to let Mr. LaRouche answer that, right after a traffic report.... And then, Lyn you can come back and answer that question....

Now, so, can you continue that discussion, Lyn, in the direction of Patriot I and the Security Enhancement Act of 2023, and what that means?

LaRouche: Both of these things are un-Constitutional, they're worse than un- Constitutional--they're abominations. This has no place in U.S. law, in U.S. Constitutional law. Now, I'll admit that Antonin Scalia is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. He shouldn't be. Ashcroft is actually a philosophy of the Carl Schmitt, who was the sponsor of Leo Strauss--his career in the United States--and who was the guy who crafted the policy under which Hitler came into power in Germany. Ashcroft is moving in the same direction, and so is Cheney.

I would say, that anybody who's a patriot--to defend the Constitution sometimes means, you take the risk of getting rid of a danger: And Cheney and Ashcroft typify the worst dangers, from the inside, to the United States, today. In point of fact, they're a great danger to the United States, from the inside, than any nation from the outside. If we allow this to continue, we will no longer have a republic. We will have a dictatorship.

Stockwell: Well, that's exactly what I think Win [ph] was referring to there, when he was describing the impact of Patriot I and Patriot II, that you describe so well as an "abomination."

We'll be right back. Mick, you're next. Want to talk about trade deficits and the value of individual savings; and Gary from Ogden has some questions about the Washington primary. We'll be right back, with Lyndon LaRouche....

My guest, Lyndon LaRouche, Jr. from Leesburg, Va. Let's get Mick on here. Mick, you are on with Mr. LaRouche.

Mick: Good morning. I can certainly see why you're impressed, Jack. There's no rhetoric or silliness. There's just real answers; I love it. My first time to hear.

My quick question: If you remove the over-burden of the debt that we have, the trillions of dollars, that, of course wouldn't touch like savings bonds or people's--you wouldn't break people's lives?

LaRouche: No! No! The principle is the general welfare: You must defend the general welfare of the entire population. And you must not break, what does not need fixing.

Mick: But the trillions of debt would go away, wouldn't it?

LaRouche: We'd have to reorganize it. Look, we're talking about hundreds of trillions of debt. Most of this is in the category of financial derivatives and related kinds of things. This is nothing but gambling debt. That has to be wiped out. We have legitimate debt, which has to be frozen and reorganized, because we just don't have the means to pay it. We have also, the obligation to maintain the continuity of functioning, of pensions, of businesses, and so forth. And the purpose of government, is not to try to foreclose on everybody, and squeeze them out. But, the purpose is to prevent foreclosure, to keep the system going, and growing, and work our way out of it.

Mick: Absolutely, I was not accusing you of anything like that.

Didn't Teddy Roosevelt do that?

LaRouche: No. Teddy Roosevelt was a--he was a Confederate. Really! He was trained that way, and he was actually out--. You know, there were many problems at that time. You have the Democratic Party of New York State, New York City especially, which was really a pestilence, and had not really been Republican, or Democrat, or anything, in the sense of our purpose in the Civil War. So, you had a mess. You had the development, in defense, of what were called the "trusts," which were trying to have a protectionists system which they were creating privately, in lieu of the absence of a public system.

So, Teddy Roosevelt was out to actually give rebirth to the Confederacy. That was his purpose. He was the one who gave us the police-state measures which we have the United States. He was the one who played a key role, together with Woodrow Wilson, in bringing the Federal Reserve System, under which we were looted. He was the guy who, together with Woodrow Wilson, created the income tax system. And so forth. So, he was not exactly a nice guy.

Stockwell: Mick, thanks for your question. All right, let's go to Gary, up in Ogden.

Gary: Hey, excellent show! I got a comment and a question. Comment: We're under martial law--period.

My question is, my local paper, the Ogden Standard-Examiner, which is a syndicate newspaper, part of the AP system, didn't have a word about the Washington, D.C. primary today. Why not?

LaRouche: Well, because, everyone is stunned. And the obvious thing, is, knowing the situation, it was not the Democrats who did the swindle that was done in Washington, D.C. Everyone's stunned by it. Because it was not done by the Democrats, not the Democratic National Committee. It was probably done by Dick Cheney personally. And it was done, because Cheney is afraid of me. Cheney considers me, personally, his greatest enemy. And there's some justification for his feeling that way.

Gary: [laughing] I guess so!

LaRouche: But, we did more to destroy his career than anything else. And, I'm hoping that James Baker III will come through, to clean up the mess a little bit, and help me out there.

But, it's a stunning mess! And nobody has come out of the ether, yet. And they'll begin to talk about it a few days from now.

Gary: Does he have the AP down? I mean, that should be an AP release, shouldn't it--the Washington, D.C. primary?

LaRouche: No--they do have the power to intimidate people into looking the other way, into playing something down, and so forth. They have that power. Everybody is afraid of Dick Cheney. Dick Cheney is a combination of Heinrich Himmler and Hermann Goering. And people in Washington, who know what he is, think of him in those terms.

Gary: That's censorship.

Stockwell: Well, it is. It is censorship. But, that's certainly not the least of their, or the worst of their problems.

Gary: I know, I have to read the USA Today, to even getting a spattering of the news. There are so many things in there, that I never see in my local paper.

Stockwell: That's why I spend a couple of hours, researching every day for a two-hour radio show, newspaper headlines from around the entire planet! Going to every news service I can possibly think of. And new ones are being introduced to me by listeners who do the same thing, almost on a weekly basis, to try and get some concept of what's really taking place. Just because, they'll leave stuff out!

Gary: That's why most of us listen to you, too. We get what's actually going on from you and your guests and so on. And I appreciate K-Talk.

Stockwell: Thanks a lot, Gary. Let's try in one more caller, before the next break. Andrew in Salt Lake.

Andrew: Yes, good morning Jack. Hi, Lyndon, very intelligent guest this morning.

A particular question for you, and let me preface it this way: I do not believe in prohibition. I do not believe that it is Constitutional, even though we did have an amendment, which said that we could prohibit champagne, for example. Over this last holiday season, I partook of marijuana with some friends. Do you believe that anyone has the right to tell me I can not do that?

LaRouche: Well, it depends. What we've done--we've got a silly situation, now, in terms of this. We're putting people into prison for long periods, for what is, at most, a minor infraction, which should not be Federal, in any case.

We have drug smugglers, who we should be going after. We're not. Not really.

Andrew: What about Prohibition?

LaRouche: Well, Prohibition, was, again, this was an operation set up by Rockefeller and Co. with some friends in Canada. Remember, they have Prohibition in Canada, during World War I. In that period, they developed the gangster mob, which took over putting the hooch into the United States, once Canada went off Prohibition, and we went under the Volstead Act. So, we had the great building of organized crime.

I do not believe in excessive, unnecessary excessive things which smell like Prohibition. You don't have to over-regulate the U.S. population. Stick to things that you should stick to. For example, we've got a big problem with drugs. We've got a generation of young people who are the victims of the drug habits of their parents' generation.

Stockwell: Hold on a second. I want to, we'll get to more of that, here, right after the next break. And then, when you talk about going after the drug smugglers, I want to know on what level of the operation, Mr. LaRouche, you're referring to?

LaRouche: George Soros!

Stockwell: We'll be right back.... [break]

All right, Andy, I just want to give you one chance here, to perhaps, to clarify your question. I don't know if you're getting the answer you want.

Andrew: I wanted to ask, if he agreed, that prohibition of alcohol and prohibition of non-patent drugs are the same game.

And I'd like to point out that the marijuana that I've been getting lately, comes from Canada, where it's now legal. And I think it is the same game. And if you look at the first marijuana tax stamp, which occurred right after Prohibition was repealed, you'll see the same game players, playing the same game. And, DuPont was threatened by hemp oil, and the fiber wars were all about hemp, and the cotton industry, and Mr. Hearst's forest of trees, which he had dedicated for his newspapers, were threatened by manila hemp. And I believe there is no Constitutional basis, for the drug war. Unless it's patent drugs and we're protecting the patent.

Stockwell: All right. I'm going to open up that line. Mr. LaRouche, you want to address that?

LaRouche: I think I wouldn't agree with that. The point is, I am opposed to repressive kinds of things, the way the Volstead Act, was put into the effect. It's wrong.

Stockwell: You're opposed to that.

LaRouche: Yeah, absolutely. But, there was cases, and there are problems, and which you have to deal with them. The question is, how to deal with them. The problem is, in this whole business about the drug culture which was introduce, as a part of the destruction of the U.S. population, particularly the Baby- Boomer generation, in the period following the Missile Crisis, the Kennedy assassination, and the start of the war in Indo-China.

That this was an attempt to [create] a drug culture, to destroy the morals and minds of American citizens. This was what resulted in a change of the United States, from the world's leading producer society, to a post- industrial, pleasure-seeking, bread and circuses society, which is now bankrupt.

So therefore, in a thing like that, the first thing of government is persuasion; is to make clear that this is a menace to the public, it's a menace to the national security. Make it clear. That was not made clear. There was a bunch of opportunists, who went along with powerful interests, which were behind this--the interest of Bertrand Russell and Company.

Stockwell: You mean something more, than just Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No."

LaRouche: Exactly. That doesn't work at all. Doesn't work at all. There are cases, where you have to deal with a problem. And you deal with it, by the best methods. But you don't--that doesn't mean you reach for the gun right away. It means you sit back, and you say, "What's the issue?" And the way you deal with these problems, you try persuasion first. And, if you can solve the problem by persuasion, or even halfway solve it, don't go for anything more than that.

Stockwell: Okay, then. Let's bring that down to the level of people who are selling "meth" to elementary school and junior high school kids.

LaRouche: Minors? That's different. Minors have to be protected. When people reach the age of judgment, say, 18 to 25, that range--look, they're adults. And I find that they're probably more intelligent than their parents are these days! At least the ones I'm working with.

Stockwell: So, what you would do with that age group, is different than what you do, selling drugs to somebody under 18?

LaRouche: We have to protect minors.

Stockwell: Yeah, okay.

I'm going to go on, here. I'm going to Paul, and then to JR. Paul, you've got a question about Utah Republicans.

Paul: Yes, I do. I am a supporter of you, Lyndon LaRouche. I appreciate what you're doing, in trying to protect us, back there. And in many ways what you're doing to protect the country from being undermined by some of those in Washington, that don't seem to have the best interest of the common man out here.

But, my concern is, we've got a lot of die-hard, staunch Republicans, that are just, I call them "Bush die-hards," and I don't know really how to appeal to them, in such a way, that they’ll even listen to give you a chance. I don't know what you deal with in the East, how it is there--but, any more advice for us, personally? Out here, they're just kinda--I don't know what to do. They're just going to their grave, y'know?

LaRouche: Let's hope they don't go to their grave, until they're saved. We don't want them to go to their graves, in that terrible condition!

Look, what I do, is this: You see, I do it. It's become a lost art. Now, I know a lot of history, and I know it from a personalized standpoint. I find that, if you can point out to people what the history of the United States, the history of Europe is, and get it across to them in a way, of personalized way: so they realize that they have absorbed the effects of successive generations' experience. For example, I go through a thing about, what about World War I? What was the effect of that? That's embedded in our society! The Depression: the Coolidge-Hoover period--embedded in us. The Roosevelt period, embedded in us. Harry Truman, that bum, embedded in us. The nuclear weapon issue, embedded in us. Eisenhower saved us from Truman and what he represented, at least for eight years. Then you had the Missile Crisis; then you had the Kennedy assassination; the war--these things have all had their effect ton the inside of the members of the population.

If people know, recognize, what's inside them and say, "Oh yes, I remember that. Yes, grandpa told me about that. Oh yes, I remember that." And they realize that these reactions are embedded in them, then they're more likely to be rational. Coming on directly, with a showdown argument on an issue, is sometimes necessary. But, it's not, for me, the preferred way. I would rather have people think, and think about what's embedded in them from their parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, and from earlier history. That's the way in which to get people to think, about what?

Because, how do you motivate people? Human beings? They're not monkeys. Human beings are immortal. That is we have the power of ideas, the power to discover principles that we can not detect with the senses. We can discover those principles. We pass them on. So therefore, we, in our lifetime, inherit the ideas transmitted to us. We pass them on to others: This is an expression of our immortality. If we think about what our life means, for coming generations, for the future of our nation, then we look at ourselves differently, than if we think of ourselves--"I gotta take care of my interests, in my time. I'm gonna die soon. I gotta get it while I' here!" And that difference in attitude, is the problem.

When you have a dedication, to say, "We're all going to die." Call that the "penny." It's called the "talent," in the Protestant version of the New Testament. We have a talent. How are we spending that talent? What are we buying in eternity, for that talent? That is, what are we doing, with our lives, which will mean something for the future of humanity?

Stockwell: Thanks a lot, Paul.... [break]

All right, we're back. We've got about five minutes, left in the program. JR, we'll be with your question regarding gold in just a moment. My guest is Lyndon LaRouche. Once again, Lyn, I'd like to invite you out here, on behalf of those who appreciate what you have to say.

It's interesting how many people have a hard time, when your name comes up, but when they sit there and listen to what you have to say, and think as you were saying a moment ago, it's all you want people to do anyway--is just sit back and think, for a minute--how all of a sudden, they start to agree with some of your concepts. So, I'm inviting you out here, so that we can sit down and have a long discussion, without interruptions. And you can get some of these ideas across.

And you can ski a little bit, too.

LaRouche: [laughs heartily] I'm wa-a-ay past that!

Stockwell: Yeah, well, I figured that. One person told me the other man, "You can't expect an 80-year-old man to get elected President." I said, "He isn't your run-of-the-mill 80-year-old man. I'm sure he could put a lot of 60-year- old guys to shame."

LaRouche: I try to do that, regularly!

Stockwell: Let's squeeze this question in here from JR, on the price of gold. JR, you're on the Stockwell show.

JR: Thank you. I have two: I wondered if you could expand a little bit on the Eisenhower/Truman. I didn't quite understand how he was saved.

But, on the price of gold: Why can't you, why can't the government buy some gold, and raise the price astronomically, and then pay off the national debt, and stay away from that borrowed money?

LaRouche: Well, that doesn't really work. But, what we are going to have to do: We're going to have to have a fixed-exchange-rate system, and that means, we're going to have to back to a gold-reserve system. Not a gold-standard system, but a gold-reserve system, in order to police and maintain a fixed-exchange-rate system.

We're going to have to make trade agreements, which will have a 25- to 50-year duration. These trade agreements must be stable. That means a fixed exchange rate; there are certain adjustments that can be made within such a system, but generally it's a fixed system. To do that, you've got to have a medium that you use, the way Roosevelt designed it--a medium you use, in order to regulate and control the price of currencies, so they don't go floating around in wild ways, the way we're getting now.

So therefore, for that purpose, we need to go to a monetary gold reserve unit, to regulate it. That would mean, that you're talking about a gold price well over $1,000 an ounce, right now. That would be needed, given the amount of gold available, or probably available, and the monetary requirements, you're talking about, probably well over $1,000 an ounce. That is necessary.

JR: I would think the government could pay that debt off, by raising the price of gold, to $10,000 an ounce, if they wanted to.

LaRouche: No, that wouldn't work. That wouldn't work.

JR: Would you comment in the time remaining with me with the Eisenhower/Truman--you said that Eisenhower saved us from Truman, and I didn't understand that.

LaRouche: Truman was a right-winger. People think of him as a left-winger and he never was. He was a hard-core right-winger. He was the guy who adopted the policy of preventive nuclear warfare, which is the policy of Cheney, today! He got us involved in a Korean War, which never should have happened. He bluffed with nuclear weapons we didn't have, yet. He got us into trouble, all over the world. We were on the verge of Hell. Then, the Soviet Union came about being number one, on a thermonuclear weapons system--and we were number two. We hadn't made it yet.

Now, Eisenhower came in--Eisenhower was against this funny stuff, this crazy--what he called later, the military-industrial complex. For eight years, Eisenhower gave us some stability, by fending off these nuts, like Truman, and the people behind Truman, or like Robert McNamara and similar nuts, who were trying to get us into an actual nuclear war. He gave us some degree of stability. He wasn't perfect. He was lousy on the economy. But, he was an honest fellow.

And Truman is the origin, in the Democratic Party, of those nuts who went over to become Cheneyac Republicans, who are pushing preventive nuclear war today, and pushing us to the edge of a war, that nobody can win.

JR: Thank you, sir.

Stockwell: All right. Thanks a lot.

About a minute left. Do you know if this will be archived on your website, by any chance?

LaRouche: I suppose so. You can find out from them. They haven't told me.

Stockwell: "LaRouchein2004.com" I think it is.

LaRouche: Yeah, they probably will do it.

Stockwell: Yeah, they'll probably have it there.

[TECH:] We will.

LaRouche: Okay. That's it.

Stockwell: Also, that's probably the best way to catch.

Hey! Listen, I'm serious about coming out and, visiting us, here in Utah.

LaRouche: We'll see what the year looks like.

Stockwell: Okay! All right. Again, Lyn, thank you so much for being part of the program. You have my deepest respect.

LaRouche: Thank you.