Agape:
 In Search of Universal Love

  Rolf A. F. Witzsche

An Age of Northeast Asia Begins:
A New Takeoff Toward an Age of Peace and Prosperity.

- LYNDON LAROUCHE INTERVIEW ON BEV SMITH RADIO SHOW -

 

February 26, 2003 [unedited transcript]

 

{The Bev Smith Show airs out of Pittsburgh, on the American Urban Radio Program, and is broadcast on over 100 black radio stations throughout U.S., from 10 p.m. to 2 a.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday. LaRouche last appeared on the program during the 2000 Presidential campaign.}

 

BEV SMITH: Please join me and welcome to the show a man who's called "a controversial internatonal political figure," none other than Lyndon LaRouche. Hi Lyndon, how are you?

 

LYNDON LAROUCHE: Well, I'm frisky, I think.

 

SMITH: How are you?

 

LAROUCHE: Feeling pretty good.

 

SMITH: How've you been these days? We haven't talked in a while. It's been a while.

 

LAROUCHE: Oh, I've been up to things. I've been trying to stop a war that some people thought was inevitable, and things like that, and had some effect to that effect. We haven't won yet, but we're still fighting.

 

SMITH: For people who don't know who you are, how do we describe you? You're referred to as "the perennial candidate"; you're referred to as "an international controversial political figure"; some Democrats call you "the spoiler of the 2000 campaign"; what do you call yourself?

 

LAROUCHE: Well, I'm sort of someone who fits the image today, of what Franklin Roosevelt represented under conditions of depression and post-depression recovery in the past. I represent that today. There are many other people, still around, who want that, but none of the leading politicians is consistently outspoken in favor of that. So therefore, I represent the Roosevelt Democrats, and the voice for a lot of people who are silent in the background.

 

SMITH: Do you consider yourself a Democrat or an independent?

 

LAROUCHE: I'm a Democrat; I'm in the Roosevelt tradition. I grew up in the Roosevelt tradition. I am in the Roosevelt tradition when it comes to economy, when it comes to a conception of our national interest.

 

SMITH: Before we get to how you view--and then, we're going to work our way to Arkansas, because we want people to get to know you--on the Bev Smith Show we're opening invitations to all of the candidates who want to run in 2004, from all points of view, so they can make a decision. And that's why Lyndon LaRouche is our guest tonight.

 

As you look at your kind of politics within the Democratic Party framework, [where do you] fit?

 

LAROUCHE: Oh, I fit. I fit. Remember though, there's a changeover. In 1981, there came in, the Democratic equivalent of Nixon's Southern Strategy: It was called the Democratic Leadership Council. And these fellows and I don't get along at all. They get a lot of money; they have a lot of power in the party because of that. But since 1981, they have been a predominant power.

 

Now, Clinton, of course, was associated with them, but I don't think he fits that model. He was just a guy who was running for office who had to get along with them. So, that's pretty much where I fit. I'm a traditional Democrat; these guys, in a sense, that oppose me, in the party leadership--now, that's not necessarily true of the Congress--there are a lot of people in the Congress who would like to quietly work with me, sometimes less quietly. But in the party machine, the Democratic National Committee at present, the Democratic Leadership Council is top-dog. They don't like me. I don't like them. I think that they represent a sort of a Democratic Party version of Nixon, of a Nixon Southern Strategy.

 

SMITH: Lyndon, there are a lot of people, particularly in the African American community, upset about the Democratic Party, because they say, those folks who are upset, that the Democratic Party has moved away from the things it held dear, and as you called it, moving toward a Nixon party, and moved toward appeasement on Capitol Hill. Are they right?

 

LAROUCHE: Essentially, factually, they're right. To the extent that the Democratic Leadership Council, that is, the Al Gore side, for example, of the party, reigns--they have adopted a policy they call "the middle," or the "suburban policy." Now that means they're going for voters who are in the upper 20% of family-income brackets--the so-called suburban vote. And they have left out entirely, especially, increasingly over the past 20 years--they've left out of consideration anyone who is in the lower 80% of family-income brackets. You see that in the figures. And that is the basic issue. There are many other issues. There are issues of education, health care, job opportunity, all these kinds of things. But they all boil down to being the victims of discrimination against people in the lower 80%.

 

This affects not only Americans of African descent, it affects Hispanic-Americans, and others. But the Americans of African descent, who identify them[selves] as such, are a very special constituency, and for historic reasons, having to do with the Confederacy and slavery, it's a very important part of the country. And the Democratic Party has, in effect, while courting that vote as a block vote, has more and more to drive the so-called African-American out of positions of influence inside the party.

 

SMITH: Well, let's take a break.... We'll talk about how they're doing that, the charges that the Democrats are trying to get blacks out of the party leadership arena. And then, we'll get to his view of what's wrong with the Bush Administration.

 

[station break]

 

SMITH: ...Our guest tonight, Lyndon LaRouche. Lyndon is running for the Presidency on the Democratic ticket, and we're here tonight to meet him, and talk to him, and find out what his views are of this country. By the way, speaking of the war, the leaders of the U.S. Roman Catholic Bishops have affirmed the Church hierarchy's opposition to the war with Iraq. We can add the Catholic Bishops to the list of people against the war. Bishop Wilton Gregory who heads the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops says it's hard to justify war without clear evidence that Iraq is about to attack, or was involved in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The Bishops, here in the United States, the Catholic Bishops, against the war.

 

Lyndon, as you look at the Democratic Party, and its position on the war; as you look at the Democratic Party and its position on the Bush spending on the war, and the economic position America is in right now: They claim, the Democrats, that it's difficult to get their position heard in the media. They have positions, that they made it clear, but they're getting nowhere because the media is against them. What do you think?

 

LAROUCHE: Well, that's not quite true. It's true that the war party, as such, that is, those who are behind people like Richard Perle and other prominent people who are the war party, and Dick Cheney, the Vice President--they're getting the big play in the media. But, the Democrats have no reason to complain.

 

Look, I've been opposed to this war before it entered this phase, and I've influenced international policy on this issue, because of the work I've done and the work of my friends. We've been involved in many countries; we've been involved in fighting the war in this country. We've had a lot of success. There's no excuse in the Democratic Party for saying that you can't have success in opposing this war, because most of the American people are against it.

 

We do have a few Democrats who really are fighting against it. We have Kennedy who is taking a position on some of the issues--maybe it's not as strong as I would like--but he's doing a job. You have Senator Byrd, who's an old hand--he's now 85, I think, approximately, now--took a leading position on this question. You have Senator Feinstein who's taken a similar position; others. So the Democratic Party is not for the war. However, the Democratic Leadership Council is refusing to take a position against the war, despite the fact that many Democrats in the Congress and elsewhere are against it. The reason is, that you have Al Gore, and you have Joe Lieberman, and you have people of similar persuasions, the people of Democratic Leadership Council types, who are for the war.

 

For example, you take Lieberman, the Vice Presidential candidate with Gore: He is {for} the war. He's one of the biggest backers of the war. So, the reason is, that the moneybags, on whom the Democratic National Committee largely depends, include a certain group of people who are very much for the war. And therefore, for that reason, many Democrats, like Al Gore, are defending the war, and other Democrats, who violently disagree with him, privately, are refusing to come out and fight them publicly. Therefore, they make the excuse that the mass media's not listening to them. Well, they're not saying anything to the mass media. Why should the mass media listen to them?

 

SMITH: Why do you think they aren't? Traditionally, it has been the voice of the Democratic Party, leading the opposition on behalf of the people. Same thing with civil rights and human rights. But at every level, we are seeing and hearing silence in the Democratic court. Does Mr. Bush wield that much power on Capitol Hill?

 

LAROUCHE: No! The problem is simply, is the rottenness--. You know, Kennedy, Senator Kennedy made a famous address at the beginning of 1995: He said this country does not need two Republican parties. And as long as the Democratic National Committee crowd, who happen to be my opponents, if anybody were asking, are in power, the Democratic Party {will be} the number two Republican Party--and that's not an order the Republican Party would wish to have.

 

SMITH: Wait a minute. The Democratic Party will become the number two Republican Party?

 

LAROUCHE: No. What Kennedy said, in 1995, after the results of the election. As a result of an election lost, in large degree, because of the Al Gore's friends, the right-wing crowd. The right-wing crowd has taken over the party to the degree--

 

SMITH: Wait a minute. You're saying that Al Gore, who most Americans think, or consider to be a liberal--you're saying he's a conservative?

 

LAROUCHE: Well, I don't know what that means, but Al Gore is generally on the wrong side of every issue I know of. He's close to some of these funny guys, who are for the war, and always has been. But the difference is essentially this: We have moved away from the Democratic Party of Roosevelt, especially since 1981, to a Democratic Party whose leadership, behind the Democratic Leadership Council, is pretty much a suburban version of the Nixon Southern Strategy. We call it the "Suburban Strategy." The suburbanite strategy says that people in the lower 80% of family-income brackets may be solicited for votes, but their interests will not be heard in making policy.

 

SMITH: Why not? Why won't the issues be heard?

 

LAROUCHE: Well, because that's what's happened. We've had a shift in our country, in politics, to the degree that the so-callled Establishment, the financial establishment--. Look at, for example, there's an underlying [reason] which, I've referred to a number of times. If you go back to the period before 1964, the United States was a producer-nation; our identity as a nation was as a producer-nation: agriculture, industry--we were the most effective producer-nation in the world.

 

From about the time of the beginning of the Vietnam War, we went through a change, which is called a "cultural paradigm shift." We became, gradually, a consumer-society, living by exporting our jobs to poor people in Third World countries who would work for lower wages, and exploiting foreign countries to provide us what we wear, what we eat, and so forth. And reducing the lower 80% of our family-income brackets, more and more, to discards. And you see, in every policy: We used to be a nation committed to the general welfare. We are no longer that. We are now a nation committed to, in the words of Justice Antonin Scalia, to a shareholder society. Those who hold the wealth should get the benefits, and those who do not hold the wealth, should just suffer along.

 

That's the policy, and that's they gut of what we're talking about. That change is the policy. My fight is to change it back to a Roosevelt policy of a nation committed to the principle of the general welfare.

 

SMITH: As you look at the state of America today, under the Bush Administration, rate him: Almost three years in office; how has he done, in your mind?

 

LAROUCHE: [Laughing:] Oh! Biggest failure in the world. Well, I forecast all this. I gave a televised address just before George W. Bush was inaugurated, outlining exactly what his administration would look like, in terms of economic policy and related policy, in particular. Everything I forecast has come true. So, George Bush has, so far, has operated, except for the war policy, which was an innovation that came late, but, in every other feature, Bush has done exactly as I warned he would do. And Ashcroft is just as bad as I warned people he would be, at that time. So there's no change, there's no failure in the Bush Administration. The Bush Administration was failure at birth, and it just hasn't changed since then.

 

SMITH: It's not changing has put the condition of America in a very fragile state. Would you agree?

 

LAROUCHE: We're in a depression. We're in a depression worse than, implicitly, the one of 1929-33.

 

SMITH: What are the signs--? I've been saying that on the show, and we're had guests like you saying it on the show. But, it's kind of hard to convince people, when they see on television, it looks like everyone is doing well. What are your indicators that we're in a depression, and that we're worse off than in the original Depression?

 

LAROUCHE: Well, as you know, I'm an economist, and I am the publisher of a magazine, which specializes in political-economy, economics, especially. I'm the most successful forecaster, long-range forecaster, in the past 40-odd years. I keep a watch on this stuff. There is not evidence, there are not actual facts, which would support the conclusion that the United States is not in a depression. There's a tremendous propaganda effort to convince people that the market is going to come up again. But the market is already dead. It's not going to come up again. We're going to have to do the kinds of things that Franklin Roosevelt did, back in the 1930s to get out of this new depression. If you look at the condition of the people in the country, just the average people, the average person in the country is suffering in a depression.

 

SMITH: What are the indicators of a depression? Because, remember this administration, along with Greenspan, keep telling us that we're on the rise, that things are getting better, that the national debt is going to go down after a while, that this is just a temporary position. Stop me, Lyndon, when I get to a phrase you haven't heard--and I think the American public is confused.

 

LAROUCHE: Well, they're confused because they're in a state of denial. Look, if you're poor--suppose you're 75 years of age, and you just lost all the money you invested in 401(k)s, and so forth and so on. You're faced with the prospect of debt: Your Medicaid is being cut; your health care is being cut; everything is falling apart. You're in a desperate condition. Therefore, you wish to believe that there's some remedy for your condition. And people--this is called "denial." People go into a state of denial, wishfully hoping that somehow what they're seeing is not true. But there is absolutely not evidence, on the physical side of the economy--that is, employment, health-care conditions, price of housing as a percentage of salary or equivalent, all these indicators which are {real} things. There's no indication in the economy that there's been anything but a precipitous collapse of the physical standard of living of not only the lower 80% of the family income brackets, but the lower {half} of the upper 20% has recently taken a big hit with the collapse of the so-called technology stocks and so forth.

 

So, we're in a depresssion, in which very few people are still able to steal a lot of money.

 

SMITH: Yes, a lot of people are getting ripped off in this depression era. But, how do we recover from it?

 

LAROUCHE: Well, you have to go back to what Roosevelt did--not exactly copy everything. What I'm pushing is this: You've got, of the 50 states in the United States, 46 are, at my last count, hopelessly bankrupt, if they were not states. That is, there's no way that they can continue to balance their books by tax adjustments or by cutting expenditures. It won't work.

 

SMITH: Where does the cost of the war--? Look, $800 billion already for Afghanistan, and we're proposing that we're going to be there five more years. Our military is spread thin all over the world. What is the war in Iraq going to cost us? What have we already spent?

 

LAROUCHE: Well, if we decided to go into Iraq, then nobody knows how much it's going to cost. If we decide to do the job that's indicated, the mission, to overrun the place and reorganize it and occupy it for a period of time, you're talking about a trillion dollars, or more. You're putting that on top of a trillion dollar deficit, which is the Federal deficit we can project for this fiscal year, at the current rate of development, that is, tax policy and so forth. At the current rate, we're looking at approximately a trillion dollar a year deficit in the Federal budget. You're going to put a trillion dollars of a war for one year on top of that, and who knows what beyond that? It's just not going to function.

 

SMITH:...We'll take a break. And when we return: What happened when Lyndon went to Arkansas....

 

[station break]

 

SMITH: Our guest is Lyndon LaRouche, an outspoken candidate for the Presidency in 2004. Lyndon, there are those that call you the "Perennial Candidate." How do you define your urge to be President of the United States, and why are you running again?

 

LAROUCHE: Because apparently, every time that anybody has chosen someone else, when I was running, the result has been an unpleasant experience for the people of the United States, or at least most of them. So the people of the United States have made mistakes. Well, they often make mistakes, historically, sometimes for whole periods of time. The American people just make one mistake after the other in their choice of political leaders. Well, they've done that recently. Now the time has come that everything I've warned them could happen as a result of my not being President.... [tape change]

 

...who's been perennially wrong, and this time they think that people are going to recognize that I've been right, and that, just as people voted for Coolidge, they voted for Hoover, and you know what they got. And then time came the Depression hit, and the people realized they'd been foolish when they voted for Hoover, when they voted for Coolidge, and they voted for Roosevelt instead. And that's the time we've come to. This time, I'm Roosevelt instead.

 

SMITH: When you went to Arkansas, as the guest of the black political leadership there, did Democrats greet you?

 

LAROUCHE: Oh sure! We had a grand time. The leader of the Black Legislative Caucus there, Rev. Sen. Hank Wilkins, received me, and sponsored a forum in his area, that is, a candidates' night issues conference, which I addressed. Had a grand time. Met a lot of nice people there, very good people, very talented. Then, by prearrangement, I went to address the Legislative Black Caucus, the state one, on the issues of what measures must be taken to deal with the present financial crisis, the crisis of the states in particular. And in the course of that I was presented, in the usual, customary manner, to the State Legislature, both the Senate and the House. [Met] a lot of good people, had discussion with some people who were old friends of mine there, and others. And so, it was fun.

 

But there were some people, of course, in Washington, who were not exactly happy with the fact that this nice event was going on in Arkansas.

 

SMITH: Here's what we heard today. We tried to get some people on, Lyndon, as you well know, from the Democratic Party, and we also tried to get the Reverend who invited you, who also is a state legislator, so that we could find out why the Democrats are upset. Unfortunately, we weren't able to get your host to come on, and the Democrats were running around at the last hour trying to find someone to come on. Maybe you can tell us: What were they upset about?

 

LAROUCHE: Essentially what I've discussed before: There's a pack in there, in the Democratic National Committee--actually, the upset centers around Gore and Lieberman. Without Gore and Lieberman and their pack in the Democratic National Committee, we wouldn't have, really, much of a problem. But those two guys, who are on the pro-war side, are very unhappy with me, because of what I've done on issues--one the question of party policy, nothing secret, all things I stand for, and anybody who wants to find out can know it. But they just don't, and I just don't, get along. And they're not very democratic when it comes to tolerating people who disagree with them.

 

SMITH: Let's open up the phone lines, and go to Al in Atlanta. Good evening, and welcome to the show. Say hello to Lyndon LaRouche:

 

CALLER: I'd like to ask the Presidential candidate this question: Every ally that America has picked, Osama bin Laden being the latest example, has turned against us. What reason do you believe that's happening? How would you change that policy by which we choose allies in the future to prevent people who join us, and want help, and everything [inaud], attack us with it?

 

SMITH: Let me see if I understand right, Al. Are you upset because our allies, some of them, namely Germany and France--?

 

CALLER: No, no, no. I mean those Third World, people like Osama bin Laden, or intermediaries, those people who are fighting a war for their own independence, they come to the U.S., ask for help, the U.S. gives them military supplies and logistical support, like Osama bin Laden fighting against Russia in Afghanistan, and then, later on, take those weapons and that intelligence, and that training that we gave them, and attack us with it. It happened with Noriega....

 

SMITH: Okay, let's ask Lyndon if that's what happens, or does the United States reneg on the deal that they made, because....

 

LAROUCHE: Well, Noriega got into trouble because he refused to go along with Iran-Contra.

 

SMITH: Exactly.

 

LAROUCHE: But, in the case of Osama bin Laden, Osama bin Laden was the creation of largely a combination of British, United States, and Israeli interests, during the period of the activation of al-Qaeda, by these interests, first under Brzezinski, then under Oliver North, when George Bush was Vice President. And they are the ones who set these things into motion, that we're dealing with now.

 

For example, the war of Iraq against Iran, in that war, Donald Rumsfeld, now the Defense Secretary, delivered the biological weapons to Saddam Hussein for Iraq's war with Iran. Those are the weapons we're now complaining about, as "weapons of mass destruction"--most of them probably have been destroyed because of age, I mean, anthrax vaccine doesn't last that long. But, this is the general pattern.

 

In the case of Noriega, it was different. Noriega got in the way of Oliver North, and for vengeance, they decided to get rid of him.

 

CALLER: No, but that still doesn't answer the question. Osama bin Laden and the mujahideen were fighting against the invasion by the Russians....

 

SMITH: But remember--

 

CALLER:...They came to the United States and asked for help.

 

SMITH: But wait a minute caller. They didn't come to us to ask for help....

 

CALLER: Yes, they did.

 

SMITH: We offered our help. [more back and forth]

 

LAROUCHE: No, actually, Bev, we created them.

 

SMITH: That's what I'm trying to get the caller to understand. That we set up this force, these troops.

 

CALLER: ... trained them....

 

SMITH: Listen to what I'm saying though: {We} did this, and we had a deal with them, caller, and tell me if I'm correct. This is my information, Lyndon. The deal was that we wanted the oil; we wanted to be able to build the pipeline, because we messed up the deal with environmentalists in Alaska, and after that oil spill, the U.S. citizens changed their minds. So the deal for the oil companies to have a pipeline out of Alaska was blown. So we turned to Afghanistan. We're supposed to have a deal with the al-Qaeda that if they won against the Russians, we would get the pipeline, but the al-Qaeda changed their minds, and the deal fell through. The al-Qaeda changed their minds two different times: one, in the underground oil pipeline, and two, in allowing the United States to set up military forces within their country lines. Any of that true from your vantage point, Lyndon?

 

LAROUCHE: Well, actually, the operation was, the United States, the same way they were running the Iran-Contra war--the war was actually started by Brzezinski, when he was National Security Adviser, not by Bush, but by Brzezinski--this was a long-standing policy. And what they did, certain factions in Britain and the United States and Israel, together, went to certain forces which were influenced by British intelligence. They created what became known as al-Qaeda. It didn't exist before that. It was a creation of these interests. They created it in order to run what was called a geopolitical war in Asia, in which oil was only a secondary feature of the overall policy.

 

So, we created this force. Then, we abandoned them, in a sense, and they continued to function as a force--actually, we continued to have some influence over their operations, but officially, we abandoned them. On to Clinton....

 

SMITH: And, let's take a break. And hold on for just a minute Al, we'll finish up with you and get to other callers. But, Lyndon when we come back, address the abandonment, because my sources tell me, that the abandonment is what caused the anger, and the way in which we abandoned them.

 

[station break]

 

SMITH: Seventeen minutes on top of the hour. Lyndon LaRouche is our guest, finishing up with the questions that Al says. Literally, Lyndon, what Al is asking, is, why do our so-called friends desert us after a while?

 

LAROUCHE: Well, they didn't exactly. We happened was that, remember when the al-Qaeda formation was created, that is, as a U.S. asset, actually a U.S. and British asset, with some Israeli complications on the weapons side, the argument was made to people in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, who financed a lot of this, we're going to free our Muslim brothers in Afghanistan, from the communist enemy. And so, therefore, on the basis of an appeal to religion, many people volunteered to join al-Qaeda, under Brzezinski, and then under the Iran-Contra operation, to conduct a war against the Soviet Union, in Afghanistan.

 

When the war had ended, the United States, in a sense, dropped the option. That is, when the Soviet Union had collapsed, and had pulled out. So, at that point, the feeling was, among many of these fighters, so-called, was that they had been betrayed, because they had joined to fight a war against communism, and the United States had then left them, abandoned them. This was the case of the people who were accused in New York, in that, setting the bomb in the basement of the Twin Towers, one of the Twin Towers there. This is a group which had been recruited by the United States, which had been recruited on the basis of an Islamic commitment to fight communism, and when the Soviet Union had collapsed, and they were dropped, they felt they had been abandoned. And there is a good deal of that there.

 

But that is not the main factor. That is a factor in the situation.

 

AL: But they weren't dropped. They joined to fight communism, the Russians pulled out of Afghanistan, they had the whole country to themselves. But had the U.S. gone in and occupied it, they would have rebelled, because they would have seen us as coming in as another foreign power.

 

SMITH: Not necessarily. [cross-talk] We made promises ...

 

AL: These people are crazy, plain crazy. There's nothing you can do that can please them, and no matter what you do or say, good or bad, they're going to rebel. I think their minds are just like that.

 

SMITH: Well, what I want you to do, though, is I want you to also consider the way we do business. And that may not make you, as an American, comfortable, because whenever we Americans have to look at ourselves in the mirror, our egos get in the way.

 

AL: No one person is going to please everyone, period.

 

SMITH: But we have to look...

 

AL: You can be the nicest guy in the world, and they'll still hate you, because you're nice.

 

SMITH: Well, Al, I'm going to tell you something. You have to begin to look at all of these countries that we did business with, turning their back. And if everyone is saying 'no' to you, Al, maybe you ought to start paying attention, but we thank you for joining. 1-888-331-1210.

 

SMITH: Ernest in Cincinnati, welcome to the show.

 

ERNEST: How are you doing, Miss Smith? I'd like to ask Mr. LaRouche a question. I'm a registered Democrat, and I'm 64 years old, and I want to know that the Congress, does the United Nations, have the power to make George Bush use all that money, all the crude oil that's going to come out of the Persian Gulf, to pay for this war?

 

LAROUCHE: Well, there is no money for that. It's a bluff. It's insane. The whole thing is nuts, I mean, from any standpoint.

 

ERNEST: ....inaudible

 

LAROUCHE: The whole idea of this war is

 

ERNEST: ... they call flat-drilling. They're actually drilling now, on the Kurdish side of the Iraqi border, but they're extending over, taking the crude oil. That's why Saddam Hussein invaded the Persian Gulf in the first place. And now, that's why the Turks want $60 billion, because they know that the Americans are going to come in, and they're going to start drilling for crude oil. And where's all this money going?

 

SMITH: Well, part of the deal with Turkey, is over our soldiers being allowed to be in the country. That's the deal that we made with them, and they want more money.

 

ERNEST: Miss, if you think all we're going to do is put soldiers over there, and [ ] all that crude oil, you've got another think coming.

 

SMITH: You'll sell me a what, what will you sell me?

 

ERNEST: I got a bridge down over the Ohio River, I'll sell you real cheap.

 

SMITH: Thanks, Ernest. Twelve minutes before the hour. You can see by some of the callers that there's no faith and trust in this country, in some of things that they're saying. And you can also see, Lyndon, that Americans are confused over what our foreign policy is.

 

LAROUCHE: Absolutely.

 

SMITH: Can you help us out? What is our foreign policy?

 

LAROUCHE: Well, now it's a jam-up. The senior people, traditional people, think that our present foreign policy is insane. They think that George Bush is being manipulated by a handful of people. They think that George doesn't know what he's really doing. He's been manipulated by a few people, around Dick Cheney, carrying out a policy that Cheney cooked up at the end of the first Bush Administration. When senior George Bush, and Scowcroft and company, turned it down. But Cheney, as Vice President, has revived that policy, and has put us on this course, into these present new wars.

 

Most of the senior intelligent ranks in the United States -- that is, the military ranks -- think this is insane. But they will be obedient to the sitting President. And therefore, they're in the position of being asked to go to fight a war, which they know should not be started, all because the President is being misled by his Vice President, and his Vice President's cronies.

 

SMITH: Well, of course you know, that all of the cabinet close to the President, are the same people who were close to his father. So, isn't this a continuation of the original Bush campaign?

 

LAROUCHE: Not really. There are significant differences. This Cheney phenomenon has characteristics which are far different than those of the early Bush Administration. I was no friend of George Bush the first, and he was no friend of mine. But, he is different. The two are different. And young Bush has become a captive -- not that he desires to be a captive, but maybe believes he has to be for opportunistic reasons -- but has become a captive of this crowd around Cheney, which, we call them the Chickenhawks.

 

SMITH: So, are you saying that Cheney is calling the shots?

 

LAROUCHE: Cheney has a crowd around him which is pretty much calling the shots.

 

SMITH: Let's take a break, and when we come back, more with Lyndon LaRouche.

 

[commercial break]

 

SMITH: Seven minutes before the top of the hour.... Let's go to Marie in Philadelphia, holding to talk to Lyndon LaRouche. Marie, welcome to the show.

 

MARIE: Good evening, Bev, and God bless you, and your staff. I want to say hello to your guest. The more I listen to everything that's going on, the more I'm convinced that there's a large, large conspiracy going on here. And there's no reason to believe everything that's coming out of one direction or another. But I largely get the impression, that most people are by and large, and across the world, are against this war, and our leadership has seemed to be constantly trying to promote this destruction. And it's not just the destruction within one area, we're talking here. We're about destruction in a lot of different places, and I think the people are more aware of it than the leadership. And I would like to hear what -- I didn't get his name --

 

SMITH: Lyndon LaRouche, has to say. Okay, Marie. Did you understand her, Lyndon?

 

LAROUCHE: Not completely. It was muffled partly.

 

SMITH: What she's saying, if I can kind of recount for you, or recant it for you, is, the people say one thing, the Administration says another. That is doesn't appear that the Administration is paying any attention to what the people want. I put it this way: A few days ago, in a speech, the President called the hundreds of thousands of people who demonstrated against the war, in the United States, and the millions around the world who demonstrated, irrelevant. She wants to know, how you feel about that.

 

LAROUCHE: Well, that is foolishness. The President is not, in my view, an intellectual giant. But he is a sitting President, and I'm a Presidential candidate, and a patriot. And therefore, I have to deal with this guy, in the sense that I have to respect his position as a sitting President. But, at the same time, I have the obligation, as well as the right, to recognize that he is intrinsically incompetent, in dealing with many of these problems.

 

Now, he also has an attitude problem, which I found among many of our poorer citizens from the Southern states. You know, when they "You know how I gits when I don't git my way." And this President has much of that in him. And therefore, when the people of the world -- there were over a hundred million demonstrating this past weekend, against the war, in counted demonstrations -- that view represents the majority opinion of the world, of the nations of the world,

 

SMITH: He called them a focus group.

 

LAROUCHE: And also the majority of the opinions of the people of the United States.

 

SMITH: He called us a focus group.

 

LAROUCHE: And when a President ignores that, he is in mental trouble.

 

SMITH: The President is in mental trouble.

 

LAROUCHE: When he ignores that. I mean, that is reality. If he's a politician, and he's saying that the opinion of most of the people of the world doesn't mean anything to him...

 

SMITH: That's what he said.

 

LAROUCHE: Then, he's in trouble.

 

SMITH: Let's take a break.

 

[commercial break]

 

SMITH: Good evening, and welcome to the second hour of the Bev Smith show, brought to you nationally, by the American Urban Radio network. [phone numbers]

 

And in this half hour we're going to try to take as many calls as we can, for our guest, Lyndon LaRouche. We're delighted to have Lyndon on the Bev Smith, and from time and time, we're going to present to you a pot-pourri of candidates running for office, running on the Presidential side, and from other --- so we extend invitations to {all} of the candidates to join us, and Lyndon hasn't been on our show for a while. We thought we'd give you an opportunity to hear some of {his} points of view, about what he thinks is needed in this country.

 

You know, Lyndon, before we get back to the callers, I've been upset that on neither platform, Democrat or Republican, have I heard anything about infusing new industry in the American economic plight, about presenting new [tape break]

 

Tape 2:

 

[something missing]

 

LAROUCHE: (starts in mid-sentence) ... general welfare clause in the Preamble, and based a policy of economic recovery and reconstruction, on that policy. Now this meant building a lot of infrastructure. It meant TVA. It meant other programs. These programs, which were funded largely through the public, or through things that were semi-public, like the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. These programs put people to work, and thus built up the tax revenue base of the states and communities, as well as the nation. By that method, we stopped the depression, and brought some stability back into our financial affairs.

 

Then Roosevelt went on with other programs, such as Rural Electrification, and so forth, which were expansions of our potential, and we emerged from the end of World War II, about the time of Roosevelt's death, the most powerful nation on the earth. And we had built our strength tremendously.

 

Today, we could do the same thing. The policies of the past period have been a terrible mistake. We're now a bankrupt nation. But we {could}, using the same methods used by Roosevelt, the Constitutional methods he employed, we could launch Federal programs, which would deliver credit to states, and to certain Federal projects. These programs would be devoted to things like rebuilding power generation and distribution, water management, general transportation, including saving our railroad system and air traffic system, and education and health care. And health is right now a major priority. Lack of hospitals, lack of all kinds of things. And as one former Surgeon General emphasized also, recently, there's a lot of need for education of the public on dealing with things like obesity and so forth, which are also killers.

 

All right. We could set these programs into place. We could create enough employment to bring this system back into balance. We could proceed from that with a rebuilding program, the way Roosevelt did, during that period '33 through '44-45. And that's what I've proposed. And there are many people in the country interested in this, many serious politicians, even recognized names, who are not being heard by the media, and others. But we have the program. We're ready to go work. We're ready to push this thing, if we can get enough people aware of what we're proposing, and get their backing for pushing it through the government.

 

{It can be done.}

 

SMITH: 1-888-331-1210, the number to call. Lyndon LaRouche is our guest.

 

Lyndon, before we go back to the phones, there are those who watch what's happening among voters in America, and say, there are two target groups that the parties needs, Blacks and Latinos. The Latino vote is becoming fragile. Traditionally, it has been the hip pocket of the Republican Party, but we're beginning to hear rumbles in the support that the Republican Party traditionally gets. Some Latinos, upset with this Admnistration, are talking about going on the other side.

 

While that is happening, Democrats may be losing ground with the African-American vote.

 

What is your appeal to both of these segments? Why should they vote for you?

 

LAROUCHE: Well, the appeal is very simple. They would like to survive. What they need is a sense that I'm being supported. Very few from these strata would disagree with what I propose. They will say, well, the establishment will never let you do it. You can never get the people in the Congress to go for it. That's their objection. They say, therefore we have to take what we can get, because we don't have the political power to choose what we get.

 

Once the people get a sense of strength, and get a strength of numbers, a strength to move their own politicians, then you will find that their eyes will open up, and they'll be discussing these things.

 

People, as I said earlier,.. People who are poor, frightened, isolated, protect themselves from psychological stress by what's called psychological denial. Many people in the United States, who are suffering precisely the conditions I described, will deny that, or will say, the recovery is just around the corner, because they don't see the possibility of actually changing the direction of things. So, the problem here is largely one of demoralization, and the question is, of getting a leadership together, that will inspire enough people to see that there {is} motion out there, that they can get behind.

 

But most people are waiting for something to support. They're not prepared to initiate something.

 

SMITH: Let's take a call. Louise in Philadelphia. Welcome to the show.

 

LOUISE: Hello.

 

SMITH: Hello, welcome to the show, Miss Louise.

 

LOUISE: How are you, Bev?

 

SMITH: I'm doing just fine.

 

LOUISE: I know you are. It's a good show. Hello, Mr. LaRouche.

 

There are some questions I'd like to ask you. You're speaking for the nomination in the Democratic Party for President?

 

LAROUCHE: Yeah.

 

LOUISE: And you ran before, right?

 

LAROUCHE: Yep.

 

LOUISE: Now. Our interests affects everybody. I haven't seen too much that the party has done, for especially black people. You cannot go back to Roosevelt. You must move on, and therefore, I'm thinking about, what would you do for the minimum wage, small business, Medicare, our education? Can you answer those things? And what do you think about Turkey putting a price on America of $10 million dollars? What would you do in that case?

 

LAROUCHE: Well, first of all, all these issues, which are the issues you listed, I've taken a very leading position on this, with very concrete policies.

 

LOUISE: And affirmative action. Afffirmative action had been broadened more than black people think, because there's gays, and women. So, what would you do in those cases? And I'm going to hang up and listen. Medicare?

 

LAROUCHE: Okay. Well, affirmative action failed because there weren't the jobs to match it. And also, we've produced a tremendous demoralization among our young people. You get out there in the streets, and you see the tremendous demoralization. It's like a disease that spreads across the country.

 

What I'm doing, among other things, is, I've been building a movement, to try to get the 18 to 25 year bracket, that is, the college age bracket, engaged in leading political action, which will draw young people into a sense of self, that is, a sense of their own participation in shaping the future of the nation.

 

LOUISE: Now, Bev...

 

SMITH: Yes, ma'am. [some cross talk]

 

LAROUCHE: And what we need specifically, is exactly what I've proposed. You need a reconstruction program, which provides the jobs that are needed..

 

SMITH: Okay, hold that point for a moment. What we're going to take a break, and when you come back, let's talk reconstruction program. You say "reconstruction." What do you mean? Reconstruct what? We have to find out what you're talking about. How would you build these new sets of jobs? Where would the new industry come from ? How would you save Social Security? What about the President's proposal to make senior citizens pay for Social Security? What about the stealing of Social Security funds? What would you do to stop the tremendous amount of spending for the Defense Department? The candidate answers, after this. - [commercial break] -

 

SMITH: Thirteen minutes after the hour. Our guest is Lyndon LaRouche. Lyndon, do you want to tackle those issues before we move on?

 

LAROUCHE: Right, real quick. First of all, single-issuism doesn't work. Our list of single issues will not work, it has failed consistently in history. What you need is a specific analysis of what the overall problem is, and an approach which will address and encompass the remedies which are required for the problem.

 

At present, all the states of the United States are bankrupt. There is no program that could be designed presently, I don't care who designs it, or with what credentials, it won't work unless it meets certain standards.

 

First of all, where is the money coming from? It does not exist. At least 46 of the states are hopelessly bankrupt. The Federal government is bankrupt. Where are you going to get the money? Therefore, how are you going to get the money?

 

The money can only come by creating the money through the authority of the Federal government, under our Constitution, to generate credit. This credit can only be generated by the Federal government. The Federal government would therefore supply the credit, under depresison conditions, to meet the needs of both the states, and the Federal government itself.

 

Now, this means essentially, an effective program starts with basic economic infrastructure. That is, with the so-called public sector, or semi-public sector. The sector of public utilities, and public works. This means transportation, energy production and distribution, urban renewal, water management, education, health care, and similar things. So these are the programs for which the Federal government, or the states, both backed by the Federal government, will have an expansion program, to bring the total level of employment up to the level that we can bring our state budgets back into balance, and presumably our Federal budget.

 

Then, the Federal government {must} stimulate through things like the Kennedy Investment Tax program, must stimulate targetted areas of encouraged private investment, to get these areas also moving, and that's the way we got a recovery under Roosevelt; that's what we can get now.

 

The problem of inequities, which the questioner also asked about, can only be addressed by re-introducing the principle of the general welfare, as embedded in the Constitution, as Roosevelt used it. Everyone, the entire population, is entitled to the protection of the Federal government, in terms of the general welfare of {all} of the population, and its posterity. If you have that principle, then you have a program that works. If you have politicians and government that are working on that principle, you can address every problem.

 

SMITH: 1-888-331-1210. Let's go to Tony in Cincinnati. Good evening, and welcome to the show.

 

TONY: Hello.

 

SMITH: Hello, Tony. Welcome to the show.

 

TONY: Hey, how are you doing?

 

SMITH: Okay.

 

TONY: Listen, I just had a comment to make, but I had a question or two for Mr. LaRouche, okay? One was, what does he think of John Poindexter's attempt at a Total Information Awareness Program. Two, this is not a question, is on the money concerning infrastructure, because, with all the troubles we have, our infrastructure is crumbling. All across the country. It includes transportation, other things mentioned by Mr. LaRouche. But the important thing here is, where are we being led, and by whom? You see, this Administration, as everybody realizes, is totally political. In his campaign, the President, the accidental President, so ordained by the Supreme Court, said he had no interest in nation-building. And I'm going to give you a good example of bait-and-switch. Then he talks about helping women of cover. Believe me, my dear, they're not going to help women of cover in Afghanistan, because they're through with Afghanistan. Okay? They were looking for the guy there, and they didn't find him.

 

It goes on and on forever.

 

SMITH: It goes on and on forever, right.

 

TONY: Okay, the Turks held them up, they held the Administration, their backs to the wall, they got a solid commitment for cash. Okay? I don't know how that Turkish Parliament voted today, and if any of your stated objectives that equate to democratizing the world, are true, then what will they do about Saudi Arabia, and their women of cover?

 

SMITH: Absolutely. And what about, and Lyndon, in addressing his questions, his great questions, talk to me about what the United States is doing about Saudi Arabia anyway? In 2001, right before 9/11, in May, we took, the United States, some $35 million to Saudi Arabia. I don't understand that, Lyndon. They have money.

 

Secondly, the pilots who hijacked and kidnapped and later flew the planes into the World Trade Building were {Saudis}. Why aren't we at odds with the Saudis? Instead, we're friends with them, and it is the Saudis who are said to be harboring Osama bin Laden. Lyndon?

 

LAROUCHE: Well, the charges against the Saudis are actually without foundation. There were lists of names of persons with Saudi identities, many of whom proved either to be not involved at all, but were names that were just adopted and stuck as identities on some...

 

SMITH: Now, wait a minute. Are you saying that the United States deliberately pointed the finger at Saudi Arabia?

 

LAROUCHE: Well, somebody did. But that was only part of the show.

 

The point was, the policy here, was to get a war started against Islam. That's the name of the policy. This is the policy which was being used by Cheney, back when he was Defense Secretary under the first Bush Administration, when he came up with this policy for the war on Iraq, and all the other things. These are not new policies that were {caused} by some recent development. These were policies that were in place already, with these guys, back then.

 

So, there was no such problem. There has never been any proof submitted -- there have been rumors, but rumors aren't proof -- that there were Saudis that did the job on Sept. 11. We don't yet have any evidence, or claim of evidence -- that is, of actual evidence...

 

SMITH: Well, then, you say rumors aren't proof. Well, the President has based his entire policy on Iraq on rumors and innuendos, hasn't he?

 

LAROUCHE: Absolutely.

 

SMITH: And we're going to war, aren't we? Next week.

 

LAROUCHE: Yes, that's true. We may not be going to war, but we certainly look as though we are.

 

SMITH: Innuendos do work.

 

LAROUCHE: This is the situation. This is the lunacy of the situation.

 

SMITH: Tony, thank you for your call.

 

TONY: Thank you.

 

SMITH: It's good to have you out there listening. William in Birmingham, welcome to the shows.

 

WILLIAM: Yea, how you doing?

 

SMITH: All right, how are you?

 

WILLIAM: I think Mr. LaRouche is not being quite honest about the Saudis. I think one of the reasons why they don't [ ] is because they have so much money injected in our system. Hello?

 

SMITH: We're listening to you.

 

WILLIAM: I can hardly hear you.

 

SMITH: But, I can hear you.

 

WILLIAM: And another thing, as a veteran, I want to know something from you, Mr. LaRouche. Are you supporting this push to put more money into the VA system, especially as it related to homeless veterans, and veterans in prison, suffering from war-related injury? Another thing, will you suffer an affirmative action program for the VA system, to make sure that all veterans get a fair shake within that system, because they're not getting it? And another thing is, would you be willing to bring the draft back, so that all Americans can share in the defense of this country?

 

SMITH: Which is Charlie Rangel's proposal.

 

WILLIAM: I support that proposal.

 

SMITH: Okay, Lyndon?

 

LAROUCHE: Yeah, I support that proposal.

 

SMITH: So, he supports that proposal. Now, let's talk about the VA hospital. He wants to know how you feel about the VA hospital, and what the American government is -- I'm going to add this part, Lyndon -- I get complaints, and we're working on a show right now around the complaints we're getting, from soldiers, Americans soldiers, of every branch of the military, who say that they're fight, they're going to war in Afghanistan, and they're not able to get the benefits, which was the cry of the Vietnam veterans. That their families aren't getting the stipends, which is the cry of women whose husbands have been sent to Iraq. Where are you on these issues?

 

LAROUCHE: I'm all with it. That's exactly the kind of complaints I've had for years.

 

WILLIAM: Let me ask you something. LaRouche?

 

SMITH: But wait a minute. What do we {do} about it, Lyndon? If you were President.

 

LAROUCHE: Very simply. Look, we have a policy, which ... people forget our Constitution. Our Constitution is structured, basically, on the basis of the Preamble, which is unlike any other Constitution in the world, that the principles of governments, are set forth in the Preamble of the Constitution. Any interpretation of the Constitution, or any amendment of the Constitution, or any Federal law, is properly subject to that Preamble of the Constitution.

 

Now, the provisions of the Constitution are three: first, that there is no legitimacy to government except as that government is sovereign, that is, in its entire territory.

 

WILLIAM: It's great what is written on paper...

 

LAROUCHE: It means what it says. ...

 

WILLIAM: .. black man..

 

LAROUCHE: It means what it says. But unfortunately, some of the people who administer it...

 

WILLIAM: What would you do to make sure this is being done?

 

LAROUCHE: Let me continue. Secondly, is the general welfare. Now therefore, we are obliged...

 

SMITH: Wait, wait, wait ... Look, we can only hear one at a time.

 

WILLIAM: I'm sorry.

 

SMITH: So, let's do this. You asked him a question, caller. Let him respond. Let him share his views with you. Go ahead, Lyndon.

 

LAROUCHE: Okay, so the point is that the Federal Government is {obliged}, under its Constitution. Now the problem here is, you have now, on the Federal bench, you have people like Antonin Scalia. He's a Federal judge, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. He and others have laid down the law called shareholder value. Under shareholder value, they have {raped} the Federal Constitution. Until you get a political force in power, which defeats what they represent, and puts the Constitution back on a Constitutional basis, as Roosevelt did, none of the problems you are addressing are going to be addressed. Therefore, the practical question is, who is going to put who in power, to get that job done?

 

And that's what I'm all about.

 

WILLIAM: I can understand that also. But there's one more issue. You say you are an economist, right?

 

SMITH: Yes, he's an economist.

 

WILLIAM: Tell me this. As other countries develop, and become industrialized, tell me how will this affect our economy, as far as the world market is concerned?

 

SMITH: Okay, Lyndon?

 

LAROUCHE: I couldn't hear him.

 

SMITH: David, we're having real problems with people hearing, tonight more than ever. Lyndon, what the caller is saying, repeat that again, William.

 

WILLIAM: Okay, as other countries develop, and become industrialized, how will this affect our position in the world market? We only make up 3 to 4 percent of the world market. You know that, right?

 

LAROUCHE: We're a very large part of the world economy. We're probably, in money terms, we're about 10 percent of the world economy.

 

WILLIAM: You're sure it's 10 percent?

 

LAROUCHE: Well, it doesn't necessarily should be, but that's the way it is.

 

WILLIAM: I don't think it's 10 percent. But I'm asking you a question. As other countries develop, how does this affect our economy, as far as the world economy is concerned?

 

LAROUCHE: If other countries develop, yes, our economy will become a smaller part of the world economy. No question about it.

 

SMITH: But that's normal attrition, though, isn't it?

 

LAROUCHE: Yes, absolutely. That's healthy.

 

SMITH: But listen, let me just, for a moment, expand on his question. But the United States is in a precarious situation, because we're in debt. And we've loaned out money, and we're now using the loaning of money, the lending of money to other countries, as blackmail. You know, you don't go along with what we'll do, we'll cut off loans, we'll do this. How do we change that perception of a blackmailing those countries in the debt, and what about Third World countries, Lyndon, who say that they can't pay off their debts to us, they're starving their own people?

 

LAROUCHE: Also, they don't really owe anything to us. It's a rigged debt. Like the Ibero-American debt since 1971. Ibero-America owes the World Bank, the IMF system, nothing! They've more than paid all the debts they've incurred. But we imposed an artificial debt upon them, fraudulently, per force, and now we're demanding that be collected.

 

The problem is, is that the world financial system, as it's developed especially since 1972, is a gigantic fraud. The whole system has to be put through bankruptcy reorganization. Many of the debts cancelled, because they could never be paid anyway. If you try to pay all these debts, then the result will be, you will cause a catastrophe for humanity, like that which occurred in the 14th century, New Dark Age, where they tried to collect all the inflated debts, and it resulted in a collapse of the population, mass death, and that's what would happen around the world if we did that.

 

So, therefore, we're going to have to, whether we like it or not, we're going to have to write off most of what are debt claims, within the IMF system now. There's no way it could be avoided, because those debts could never be paid anyway.

 

SMITH: Let's take a break, and when we come back, finishing up with Lyndon LaRouche.

 

[commercial break]

 

SMITH: Thirty minutes after the hour, our guest, 2004 Presidential hopeful, Lyndon LaRouche. 1-888-331-1210. Lyndon, did you want to finish up a point you were making before the break?

 

LAROUCHE: No, I think I covered it, sort of.

 

SMITH: Okay. Let's take some more calls. Sondra, how have you been?

 

SONDRA: Hi, sweetie, I'm doing great. Bless you, how's my girl?

 

SMITH: We're hanging in there.

 

SONDRA: Oh, I love it, baby. I'm getting to you, Boo. The weather's clearing up, and I'm going to get to you.

 

I just wanted to say to Mr. LaRouche, it's an honor to speak with you. I've followed your career for some years. I have one question, a two-part question, but it's one question. What do you propose to do about reparations, for the descendants of slaves? And what do you propose to do, about an apology to the descendants of slaves for the inhuman treatment of women, children, and men, who are the descendants of slaves, and also slaves? What is your position on that?

 

LAROUCHE: Well, reparations as such does not work. What should be done, this is an involved issue, but what should be done simply is, the first thing is to provide the system which repairs the legacy of slavery, in the sense that, we haven't got rid of it yet. We still have a Ku Klux Klan mentality in the United States. It's represented by the Nixon campaign of 1966-68. It is continued by the Democratic Leadership Council's policy of so-called suburbanism, today, which is another form of the same thing. The first thing is to get rid of that. And to restore the general welfare principle, in the Constitution.

 

SONDRA: Now, what does all that mean? Because you say reparations didn't work. Well, we should say ...

 

LAROUCHE: How are you going to calculate it?

 

SONDRA: Well, the Jewish community didn't seem to have a problem with that. Neither did the Japanese community. What was calculated, for one thing, for the Japanese, was property stolen. If we look at the records for African-Americans, to this date, to this very date, I know Maxine Waters and I petitioned the U.S. Department of Agriculture, we marched around the Department of Agriculture. African-Americans have had their land stolen. These are a matter of records. There are cases where the Department of Agriculture conspired with a local bank, local heads of government, to steal property. That's one way to calculate it.

 

LAROUCHE: Now, you're getting to the point. That's the point.

 

SONDRA: There was a promise made, and then changed, of an acre and a mule. So many acres and a mule. What happened to that? If you constitute those kinds of damages, there is a way for reparations to work, as it has worked for the Japanese and others.

 

LAROUCHE: Those are different cases. The Japanese, the case was largely for people who were living, or had recently died. For their immediate heirs.

 

SONDRA: That's what we want.

 

LAROUCHE: Ah. Now, in this case, the issue is, you named a number of things there, which are all I agree with, have to be dealt with. First of all, the injustices which are accessible, in so far as they affect living people, or their immediate heirs -- you can't go back a great number of generations, it becomes impossible.

 

SONDRA: No, it doesn't.

 

LAROUCHE: Because you can't calculate it. There's nobody can calculate it -- I'm an expert in this area, you cannot calculate it.

 

SONDRA: We can go back, just like ... I'm not interrupting you, but I do have this point to make. Then I'm going to hang up and listen, I know other people want to talk. But I have not heard one candidate for either party say anything about what you're going to do, when we vote for you, about reparations, restoring Black people's land, or Asiatics' land, or Moors', or whatever you want to call it, African-Americans, we're all one nation, Africans, in America, the descendants of slaves. Which we {can} trace back. We're doing it now. We {can} capitalize ... I mean, you can capitalize on our vote at the polls. Now, until I hear one of you say something about an apology to my people, in the form of reparations, I am not supporting you. I don't care what else you say. You can be the economist of the world, I don't care who you are. Until you say something about what you're going to do... you {said} all about the Ku Klux Klan mentality, yeah. What are you going to do about it?

 

Now, that's all I have to say. I rest my case. I love you, Beverly.

 

SMITH: Thank you.

 

LAROUCHE: Well, I generally take the position that Martin Luther King took, and the diversions from that course of action, that he represented in practice, and the departure from that by even people who were close to him, after he was murdered, that has been a disaster for us. Because we lost leadership, all of us lost leadership on civil rights, because Martin was a person who, as in his last address, would say, that he'd been to the Mountaintop. That is, he, like Jeanne d'Arc in the case of France, was willing to put his life on the line, for the sake of a principle for all people, to make the nation whole, by eliminating this injustice of racism.

 

That is what I think the mission is. I think that anything else -- the way reparations have been used by some people, is dangerous, because it appeals, it promises something which from the present system, would never be given, within the terms of the present, and thus diverts efforts away from the things that could be won: that is, the goal which Martin repersented up to the point he was assassinated.

 

And that's the way I approach this matter.

 

SMITH: 1-888-321-1210. A point that Sondra made, and then we'll move on. We have two more calls to take before we say good-bye. Sondra made a point about how there are records. Shortly after slavery was over, the United States commissioned a report, which has become a part of the national archives. They interviewed people who were recently freed as slaves. They documented where they lived, what their jobs were, and in the voices -- because I have seven volumes of it -- in the voices of these slaves, they recorded what they went through.

 

Now, under damages, denial of civil rights is guaranteed under the Constitution, under the 14th Amendment, with the continuation of these rights being denied, don't at least those descendants have a right?

 

LAROUCHE: Well, I say in any case of equity, there's a straight case of equity before the court, it should be handled justly by the court. There's no question about that.

 

I'm talking about the substitution of an idea of a scheme of reparations, as a diversion from mobilization for the issues of the day, upon which the real life and death of the present population, and their posterity, depend. That's what the issue is.

 

SMITH: But I don't think, in all fairness, that the people who are discussing reparations -- and I've been privy to many of those discussions -- are... they're not ignoring the other problems. They see this as a part of a whole pie. Theu see this as a failure for the United States, to even deal with the issue of slavery. This country has never really dealt with it, Lyndon.

 

LAROUCHE: Well, we've dealt with it. I've dealt with it. Of course, I have a long history on this thing. My family has a history on this thing.

 

SMITH: I'm not talking about you. If you become President, that's why you were invited to the churches. That's why you have entre into certain ethnic communities, because of your position on issues. But when you become President of the United States, you're no longer Lyndon LaRouche, who represents a concept, a LaRouche concept.

 

LAROUCHE: I already represent that.

 

SMITH: Yes. So now you would represent the United States. How would you deal with those issues, once they come up in your political campaign, or once they come up before people on Capitol Hill? Let's take a break and come back and get your answers.

 

[break]

 

SMITH: 17 minutes before the top of the hour. Lyndon LaRouche is our guest. Lyndon, as it relates to some of these issues, where does a President take the forefront? How does a President deal with these issues?

 

LAROUCHE: A President must... Let's take how I'd deal. I mentioned Martin before. I've said many times, that Martin was qualified to be President, probably one of the best qualified to be President, because precisely of what he said under those circumstances. He knew he was slated for death. And he made the address he made, because implicitly he was being offered the compromise, that he could get out of death, and so forth, if he would be a good boy. And he made the speech, in which he said, "I will not."

 

Now, this is like the case of Jeanne d'Arc, and this is a difference between failed and effective leaders, in all of history. That is, leaders for a time of crisis. Martin was a leader for a time of crisis. No one who followed him, especially those who criticized him, showed themselves to be capable of that quality of leadership he represented. That is something I understand very well. Which is why I have special praise for Martin.

 

If you want to lead society, you have to be concerned not with yourself, but with the other. Just as a grand-parent has to be concerned with the sacrifice they often make for the sake of their grandchildren. Once you shift from that, and say, "What can I get?" or "What can I promise to my neighbor, in terms of payment?", you lose that authority, that power to influence others, on which society depends.

 

We have entered a period -- we have a totally corrupt society. We've entered what is sometimes called the "now" generation, sometimes called the "consumer society" generation. People concerned with what they get. The people who suffered and died, in the fight against slavery, were not fighting only for what they thought they could get. They were fighting for others. They died for others. Just as in wars. People die for others. And therefore, if you want a cause to be successful, and I want this cause to be successful, then you don't go out and start to lure people into things like, "We'll get you reparations," which they should know they will not get that way, anyway.

 

And that's where the problem lies.

 

SMITH: You say, don't lie to the public, tell them the truth.

 

LAROUCHE: Oh, somebody will promise them. There are people who will promise them anything, just to get elected. I will not.

 

SMITH: Let's take -- we have three more calls, and then we'll let you go. Carl in Atlanta, welcome to the show.

 

CARL: Thank you, Bev, and thank you for having Mr. LaRouche. Mr. LaRouche, I've been reading you, following you for some time. I respect you as an intellectual. You've got some great points. I admire your State of the Union speech that you gave, particularly talking about the genocide in Africa, and the complicity of the Kissingers, and the need to destroy the population of Africa in order to gain their resources vis-a-vis the AIDS virus. Is that what you were referring to?

 

LAROUCHE: That's part of it. It's still going on. We've got genocide in Africa, supported by the United States, now as policy.

 

CARL: And you also made mention to the attempt to destroy black politicians in America, which we've watched various mayors be indicted, or investigated by the FBI, from Bill Campbell here in Atlanta, to Willy Brown in San Francisco, Sharp James, etc. and stating that the government had a concerted effort to destroy black politicians.

 

LAROUCHE: Especially a certain crowd in the Justice Department. They do it systematically.

 

SMITH: Repeat that again, and speak up just a little louder. You said the government is involved in this?

 

LAROUCHE: Oh sure. There's a certain group around Keeney and so forth, in the Justice Department, which is always involved in these kinds of frame-ups against politicians. They want to get a certain type of politician out of the way, they run a nice frame-up against them.

 

CARL: ... BBC, Reuters, a lot of the Saudis that were supposedly on those planes, were later found alive, and they said their passports were stolen, etc.

 

LAROUCHE: Yep.

 

CARL: Many of them had died before, or... You're absolutely on point that this was absolute frame-up by Cheney and the Bush Administraiton. But my last point, in the event that you're not successful in your candidacy, and America's not turned around from its present course, do you see us going down the path of martial law, and some form of military dictatorship.

 

LAROUCHE: I think that it's even worse. I think that if we do not turn the situation around this time, now, in the months ahead -- I think we can do it, it's possible, it's not guaranteed that we could, but it's possible -- if we do not, then we're looking at a Dark Age for humanity for maybe a couple of generations or more to come.

 

BEV SMITH: Okay. Thank you, dear. 1-888-331-1210. Quickly trying to finish up, with Ryan in Philadelphia. Hello, and welcome.

 

RYAN: Hell, how are you, Bev?

 

SMITH: Fine, Ryan.

 

RYAN: Hello to your guest, Mr. LaRouche. Mr. LaRouche, I read your book {Dope, Inc.}, all right? Now, everybody's fixated with this oil snatching grab over there in Iran. I contend that it's not only oil, and nation-building situation; it's a dope situation involved here too.

 

LAROUCHE: Oh, tremendous!

 

RYAN: When the Taliban was in control, they shut down the whole heroin trade. And they killed a lot of the war lords who were pushing heroin, and had them grow other products. As soon as they were run out of Afghanistan, the warlords were allowed to come back and raised their poppy seeds, or poppy plants. Am I correct?

 

LAROUCHE: Yeah, sure. The Pakistan-Afghanistan operation has become one of the major opium sources in the world.

 

RYAN: Exactly. And people keep on... I listen constantly to radio. The people are fixated on this oil. It's not about the oil. The dope is what's keeping this economy running, all over the world. Am I right?

 

LAROUCHE: Well, in a sense you've a bunch in various countries, including New York City, in the banks, who take this drug traffic, and the drug traffic is one of the major money-laundering operations through which criminal power, financial criminal power, is concentrated in the world today.

 

RYAN: Exactly. And people have to wake up and realize it's not about the oil. It's about the drugs. The drugs are what's keeping our economy afloat at this point. Oil will be running out in another 25 years...

 

LAROUCHE: Well, no, we got a good 80 or more years to go.

 

SMITH: Well, it's oil. The life of oil is longer than that when you look around the world. But it's both, caller. It's both issues. Drugs and oil. And you're right, we ought to be talking about both.

 

RYAN: Right. You have a good night.

 

SMITH: Thank you. 1-888-331-1210. Finishing up after this.

 

[commercial break]

 

SMITH: Seven minutes before the top of the hour. Coming up, ... Finishing up our conversation with Lyndon LaRouche. First of all, Lyndon, we thank you. There were so many people who wanted to talk with you, and we thank you for staying longer than you planned. We'll finish up with Rochelle, who's been holding in Philadelphia. Rochelle?

 

ROCHELLE: Hi, Bev, how are you?

 

SMITH: Fine, welcome to the show. And thank you for holding. Okay, thank you.

 

Hi, Mr. LaRouche, how are you?

 

LAROUCHE: Oh, pretty good for an old geezer.

 

ROCHELLE: Well, that's good. And thank you both for being there.

 

I have a few qustions. One being is that I believe I heard you say, you would eliminate the outstanding debt?

 

LAROUCHE: What?

 

ROCHELLE: Did I hear you say, you would eliminate the outstanding debt?

 

LAROUCHE: Well, much of it. The point is, you're in bankruptcy, in a state of bankruptcy, worldwide, the world banking system. You're going to have to reassort the business, got to decide what debts will be paid and what not. You're not going to pay all the debt. You can't. It's not feasible. Most of the debt's phony anyway, so you'll take the phony off the top, and reorganize the rest.

 

SMITH: So, it {can} be done?

 

LAROUCHE: It cannot be paid. There's no possible way it can be done.

 

SMITH: But the problem can be resolved. There's a way?

 

LAROUCHE: Oh, sure. It's called bankruptcy reorganization.

 

SMITH: Okay, go ahead.

 

ROCHELLE: Okay, then, my other question is that, and I also heard you say that reparations would be near to none, because we cannot calculate the payment that needs to be issued...

 

LAROUCHE: No, it's counterproductive, because there are things that should be done, which amount to eliminating the problem at its root, the causes of the problem at its root, at its continuing root.

 

SMITH: Such as...

 

LAROUCHE: That's what must be done.

 

ROCHELLE: Okay, but let me just say this. Because we know the root has not, and does not seem like it's going to change, let's go back to the start of the root. When the seed was planted, and how it continues to grow. My point is, though, we all know, the documentation is collected, factual information will show that there is a method, that free labor took place in this country for years by our ancestors, and no one was compensated for it. So, my point is, there is a calculation of a formula that can be developed, to come up with some kind of a payment to us for reparations, restitutions, call it whatever kind of aid you want to, but if we take the time, and go back, whether it be through a taskforce, through a study, whatever, there's a formula that can be developed for reparations, because we do know that there is a line-item on the balance sheet that says Accounts-payable for reparations for the slaves who built America.

 

SMITH: Okay, thanks for your comment.

 

LAROUCHE: Oh well

 

SMITH: It's a very personal, sensitive issue.

 

LAROUCHE: I know, but it doesn't work, that's the problem.

 

SMITH: Lyndon, thank you so much for joining us.

 

LAROUCHE: Thank you.

 

SMITH: As the political year heats up, we'll have you back again.

 

 Home Index: