Question: Hello Mr. LaRouche. My name's Eric, I'm from Montgomery County, Maryland. I don't know if you believe that people should do what they will, under a law of love, or not, but in politics, there are a lot of controversial issues, and I know you yourself have faced many a conflict, and had to make hard decisions. And, being a leader, I guess that's part of it. But, how do you feel about such things, or where do you stand on--in favor of, or opposed to, say: gun control, abortion, the death penalty, conservation/preservation of the environment; and how lots and lots of money seems to go to sports figures and entertainers? That's my question.

LaRouche: Well, I would say, for example, what was intended by the Second Amendment, was intended, and with wisdom. Because the American people had been through a period of knowing, that if they were disarmed, and subject to a repressive force without means to exert moral suasion, that the country was subject to being taken over again. The move toward gun control, while many people participate in it, has been orchestrated by those who wish to disarm the American people.

Now, for example, let's take the case of this sniper business. We're going to do something about this: What the U.S. government did, and law enforcement did, in this sniper case, was a crime against the nation--a crime, partly, of incompetence. Because, what happened is, the police are stopping all these guys, these traffic jams, then not taking down the license plate numbers! They're looking at people, interrogating them, staring at them, intimidating them, trying to coax something out of them ... they're not taking down license plate numbers. If they had taken down license plate numbers, they would have caught these guys a long time ago.

Then, they get two guys; we don't know what the judgment is on this case--you can't believe a thing you hear, really. But, now, what does the Justice Department do? It intervenes, to take the case out of investigation, comes to a summary decision, and starts to move to try get the death penalties quickly, in various jurisdictions, to get these guys out of the way, and say, "Closed Case," to [inaud], and "all over; that was the problem."

Now, we have a problem in the United States. We have a problem, which is not guns, because people who get guns, who shouldn't have them! Why take guns away from people, who are not a problem, and let them flow into the hands of those, who are a problem? And leave the innocent, defenseless, and so forth?

So, in that sense, I agree with the Second Amendment, though the Bill of Rights, itself, is a product of the Jeffersonian reaction to the French Revolution. So, that was a mistake. But, there are elements of it, which obviously are valid; and those elements can be honored, safely; the Federal Preamble to the Constitution, allows us to interpret these things according to the general welfare, sovereignty, and posterity: We can do that. So, the fact that the Bill of Rights is a dubious document, is not, in itself, a problem--under our Constitution. An honest Presidency, and honest courts, can sort the thing out, so that the reading of the Bill of Rights can be construed so it's consistent with the intent of the Constitution as whole; not as a collection of this and that.

The death penalty? No! It's a piece of barbarism, which inherently violates rights! The death penalty violates rights, and it degrades humanity. So, you want to put a guy away for the rest of his life, because he's an incurable killer? So what! It costs money? So what? Better than kill 'em. I know, you're supposed to be in a Christian nation, therefore you believe in redemption. So you don't act as the final judge, against Redemption. And, maybe the guy in prison can redeem himself, even within prison, and do something useful. And at least preserve some sense of immortality, despite what horrible crime he may have committed.

The whole system of justice stinks, right now. There is no justice in the United States: It is politically determined justice. Just as there's politically determined, politically opportunistic treatment of law-enforcement cases, such as the sniper case. They blasted it all over the newspapers. They terrify everybody in sight. They cause a panic. And they don't do a competent job of investigating the law enforcement: Because, they'd have caught this guy; they'd have caught these guys! All they had to have done, is take down the license plate numbers, which they could have taken down. And, all these locations--about two or three locations, surveyed; put the thing through the computer; compare the license plate number: BINGO! They had it! But, they went through this song-and-dance of trying to find this psychological profile of the imaginary killer, the phantom killer--what going on in his mind?--go out and look for this guy: Totally incompetent. And, a lot of people in law enforcement are extremely upset about this, especially at the higher level.

On single issues? I don't believe in single issues. I don't believe in single-issue politics. The point is, if something is right, it's right. And it should be judged by law. It should be judged by the courts, according to natural law, and according to our Constitution. And the thing should be argued, on reason, not on the basis of pressure groups. What happens is, I find the single-issue movements, in the United States, are the worst source of corruption, in the political process. And, the worst elements of this, is this alliance with right-wing Catholics and Protestant fascists.

For example, as I've reported many times: 1979-1980, I'm running for President, against Carter, in New Hampshire. There's a guy in Massachusetts (and I'm running, also, in Massachusetts), there's a guy in Massachusetts, who is being killed by his own family. A guy who is mentally sound; who is not in a terminal state; he's in seriously impaired health--but he's conscious, he's functional, he's rational. The family wants to kill 'im, because they want to save the expenses of keeping him alive. I intervene against this, as a Presidential candidate, saying, "This is morally intolerable to me, that anyone could support and condone this. This is a violation of the right to life. He has a right to life. You don't kill him, for the sake of saving money!" I said, "That's what the Nazis did--kill the ‘useless eaters.' We don't have that, in this country." Hah! Guess who intervened, to stop me on this thing? The national right to life movement: They only believe in saving fetuses, not born human beings. So much for the single-issue movement.

So, I don't believe in single issues. I believe, that if an issue, on its merits, is presented, as a matter of law, we should deal with it accordingly, as a political process. But, the idea of saying, "Where do you stand on this issue? This issue? This issue?" is lunacy! Where do you stand on the collapse of the U.S. financial system? Where do you stand on the collapse of the U.S. economy? Where do you stand on the question of going into needless wars? Where go to stand on the fact, that the President is clinically insane?! And, he's got a bunch of lunatics in there--draft-dodgers--who want to go to infinite World War III?

So, I don't think we need that kind of thing. I think we can discuss anything, and decided how we should approach it. When you go out in the street, where do you stand, on this issue, the way this guy defines that guy? That is insanity!

As I say, on gun control? Yeah: I have a position. But, that's based on my view of the historic significance of our Constitution.

On the death penalty? Again: The world has now come to the point, that rational people accept the idea that the death penalty is a mistake. We're no longer a barbaric society, with no resources. We can control crime. Therefore, we have no excuse for killing people, because they happen to be, say, a perpetual menace. We don't kill 'em. We don't kill 'em, not for the sake of them, but for the sake of others. And we don't have a case, like you use the death penalty, to shut up an investigation--as was done in the case of the Oklahoma bombing. They fried the guy, in order to shut 'im up. And, we never found out who did it. He may have been involved, but he didn't do it. Couldn't have done it.  So, where's the guys who did it? Well, the Justice Department closed off the investigation, so that nobody would find out! Why would the Justice Department cover up for a crime like that? And decorate the stage with a corpse, to cover up an investigation that should have been made?

That's where I stand. That's my difference. By reason? Make a reasonable argument? Yes! But, go with the reasonable argument, as a question of law and policy. But the idea of dividing politics, on where you stand on an assortment of single issues, that is what is destroying our country politically. [applause]

-30-