LAROUCHE WEBCAST:
A Pathway Out of Our Greatest Crisis
[PDF version of this transcript of the webcast, and the dialogue which followed.]
Lyndon LaRouche gave this address on Oct. 5, 2012, as the first in a series of Friday evening webcasts leading up to the Nov. 6 elections, to be aired at larouchepac.com. Matthew Odgen of LPAC-TV moderated; a dialogue with viewers follows LaRouche's opening remarks.
Thank you. We shall get at the business....
We need a new national policy, a new national policy perspective. We're in the process of a general breakdown crisis of the trans-Atlantic economy in particular, with emphasis on the United States, which is in a financial breakdown crisis at present. Western and Central Europe are entrapped in an increasingly hyperinflationary breakdown crisis. And if Europe continues to function in that way, with this hyperinflationary program, which has been recently installed on top of a previous hyperinflationary program, you're not going to see much of Europe. We have to change that.
Now, the only solution for the problems of the United States, in terms of economic and related problems—when I say related problems: economics, physical economics in particular, is central to the economy of the nation and its people as a whole.
Recovery Begins with Glass-Steagall
So, the first thing we have to do—and there is no alternative, and the same thing is true for Europe—there is no possibility of the survival of the United States and/or of Europe, without a Glass-Steagall law. They have in Europe a ring-fencing version as a so-called substitute for Glass-Steagall. It doesn't work. It's just suicide on a slower basis.
So therefore, Glass-Steagall is the first action. Without Glass-Steagall, there's not going to be a United States, because we're now engaged, ourselves as a nation, in a hyperinflationary acceleration, which would mean that whatever happens in a few months, if it continues in this way, under Obama, for example, there isn't going to be a United States. There's going to be a piece of wreckage, where there once was one.
The rate of starvation is there. The rate of a great, crucial food shortage for the people of the United States will continue, if Obama remains in office. That does not say that I know what the other candidates are going to do. There are several of them in the wings presently. But the point is that if Obama remains President, you're going to see mass starvation increasing in the United States, especially in areas which used to be the food-growing areas. And people are going to start dying en masse, out of the effects and side effects of hunger. When people have no food at all, they tend to eat all kinds of things just to survive. And they often die of the effects of what they eat. That's the condition that the continuation of the Obama Administration represents for the United States in the coming period.
So Glass-Steagall is the only thing that can save the United States, as it saved the United States before, with the Franklin Roosevelt Administration. Go back to it. That gets us out of the mess. But, Glass-Steagall of course means not cancelling the non-included debt, but it means that non-included debt is going to go bankrupt all on its own, because most of it is going to be wiped out. It's purely speculative. It's worthless. It's hyperinflationary. And to bring the system under control, you just have say that Glass-Steagall will take care of, on behalf of the government, the private-public [commercial, non-speculative] banking system; and the other kind of banking [investment banking] will just have to learn how to survive on its own good behavior—which will happen, as it happened under Roosevelt. But there is a much more serious problem.
A National Credit System
So now, the problem is, we have to have a national credit system. Once we have cleaned up the banking system—because, remember, most of the banking system represents worthless assets—most of the Wall Street and similar kinds of entities, represent worthless assets, which the United States can not, under Glass-Steagall, bail out. Now that means that the total amount of banking capability, of reserves and credit available, would be limited. But there's a remedy for it.
We have to create a national banking system, which has another feature. A national banking system will be based on the borrowing of credit which is secured and guaranteed, as an asset, by the Federal government; which means that wherever the banking system—or the proper banking system—comes up with a case which is, in terms of the government, going to work to the good of the economy of the United States, that will be taken seriously into account.
NAWAPA
One of the biggest projects we have in mind is the NAWAPA [North American Water and Power Alliance][1] project. Now this has been kicking around since the assassination of John F. Kennedy, or shortly after that. If that program had been implemented, you would not have a water crisis in North America today. You would not have most of the problems of the western area of the United States. And most of the shortage of the ability to grow crops and all these sorts of things, would have been cured. But that would be one of the greatest driver programs, with about 14 million people employed suddenly, in this process of creating a North American water management system, which will solve the general threats of dessication in North America, by itself.
So the idea of having people trust the Federal government to guarantee the projects, will mean that we can put, on that account alone, 14 million people to work, in highly productive employment. That changes the character of the United States.
Now, there are many other things. There are areas, for example, in the northern part of the Eastern states of the United States: We used to have an auto industry, and accompanying an auto industry and a manufacturing industry, we had many others; we had aircraft industries. During World War II, we had built up the make-everything-industry, including for warfare.
We must go back to that. That's a couple more million jobs to be added to the 14. And there are other programs, of the same type; which means we have to go to this conception, which is the original conception of credit of the United States under its Constitution. So simply going back to that Constitutional provision will be sufficient to get, not riches for everyone, but a recovery and a genuine rate of growth, and a prospect of the future.
The greatest problem in the United States today is the fact that people have become more and more ignorant in every practical way. Because they don't, first of all, have employment of the type that bespeaks productive power, and productive power is very close to intellectual power, to mental power. And that's been lost. People are dumped on the streets, they're dumped out of their jobs. They don't have a future under the present system; under the Obama system, and the two toad-like systems [G.W. Bush Administrations] before that.
So this thing has to change; we have to go back to what we were doing as long as John Kennedy was alive as President. Because in the history of the United States, the assassination of Kennedy and failure of relevant powers to investigate the actual crime of his assassination led to a decline in the U.S. economy; in its physical economy, in the condition of life of our people, which has been going for all this period since the time that Jack Kennedy was assassinated. We have never had a period under any President since the assassination of John F. Kennedy when there was actually a net per capita improvement in the economy of the United States.
So what this means is, going back to the NAWAPA project, which is one of the projects which was on the agenda in the period when Kennedy was assassinated. And 14 million jobs would have been put into work at that time, had Jack lived or had the investigation of his assassination been taken into account.
So, we're going back to the time we started to take a nosedive. We have some things which were going on then which were good, but they were not sufficient to compensate for what happened after the Kennedy assassination. The space program: There was a high-tech driver program around Massachusetts; they had a good time with it because they wanted it; one of the big beneficiaries of that. But that project now, of course, has been crushed by Obama.
But it was never sufficient to make up for the loss of productivity which followed the assassination of Jack Kennedy; and of course, the long war, the ten years virtually, of war in Southeast Asia, which should never have happened. Actually, Kennedy was killed primarily because he opposed the war in Southeast Asia, which Douglas MacArthur, who was a key advisor on this, said, "Don't do it. No land wars in Asia for the United States." And what that did, that war killed off the morals and future and happiness of a good part of our population. It put us really on the slide, and that decade went down to the dirt.
We didn't do too well under another President. Another President came along, and he had some good ideas, he did some good things, but he wasn't allowed to do too much. So, the United States has actually been in a process over these successive generations, since the assassination of Kennedy, has been in a downslide morally, culturally, and every other way. And each generation tries to make it out for themselves, but they don't see the pattern. They don't see the pattern, that we have been going downhill.
And with the Green policy, which had already started at the time that Kennedy was pushing things up, the Green policy has destroyed the United States morally as well as physically, economically. So these things have to be changed.
Money Does Not Have Intrinsic Value
But the other part of this thing is, people make the mistake—and Glass-Steagall points in that direction—people make the mistake of thinking that money has an intrinsic value. Money does not have an intrinsic value. The use of money as a presumed value goes back a long ways, it goes along with what is called the oligarchical system. It goes back actually to the siege of Troy, where the killing of a whole people, a mass murder of a whole people occurred. And this has happened a number of times in European history since that time. Just mass killing of people.
Why? On the basis of what is called a monetary system, a money system. And a money system which is of the form called an oligarchical system, where a small ruling class—fat, sloppy, skinny, whatever, but useless and murderous—has reigned over nations in the European region.
Now, the remarkable thing about the United States is not so remarkable. There was a fellow—Nicholas of Cusa—a Cardinal, one of the most famous minds in all modern history. As a matter of fact, he almost invented modern history. And before he died, his commitment was to induce Europeans who wanted to do so, to cross the great ocean—and he knew where the ocean was, and he knew where the land on the other side was, because the scientists at that time knew that information. They knew the size of the Earth; they knew the approximate size of the ocean, and Columbus was able, based on the information developed for him by Nicholas of Cusa and others, to plot a course, which he met. He arrived when he expected to, and he arrived as he expected to. So, there was a development.
Out of this came, eventually, with a lot of mishaps here and there, there came a point where we started a new civilization, by Europeans, as colonists, moving across the Atlantic Ocean into the Americas.
Now the particularly most successful case was that in North America, and the greatest concentration of success in the early days of that century was Boston. That effort, which was in Massachusetts, which was the foundation of the creation of the United States, and everything that our system meant, was crushed by the British, by William of Orange and his types. So that, for a time, our Massachusetts Bay Colony and its ancillaries continued to function, but they were crushed.
But nonetheless, the effort came back with a struggle since 1763, the Peace of Paris. And suddenly there is a division; the Americans began to assemble again against the British Empire.
The British Empire had been first installed as an empire on the planet. It was not the royal family, the royal system had not been changed; but that had changed in 1763. At that point there was a struggle that began with the ending of the French and Indian War, which coincided with that first Peace of Paris.
Out of this came a struggle from within North America, within what became the United States, to establish a republic, based on the same principles which the Massachusetts Bay Colony had brought into being with its own automatic currency—not based on a monetarist system, but based on a credit system. When the U.S. Constitution was first formed, the provision was for a credit system, not a monetarist system. Monetarism came in because of the loans and debts of the United States at that time, in which other people were using money to assist the United States or to collect debts from the United States. And that is where this problem came up.
But intrinsically, in our constitutional principle, the United States was founded on a tradition which goes back to Nicholas of Cusa, which goes back to the Massachusetts Bay Colony's development, and went to the idea of a credit system, which is the definition of our constitutional monetary system. It's not a monetarist system. It's a credit system, not a money system.
And therefore, our return to those principles of that American Constitution, that understanding of its historic significance, is what is required. So therefore, we make these changes: Glass-Steagall, no compromise, Glass-Steagall as Roosevelt defined it; ironclad, no change. That's the precondition for our recovery and our survival. And any future Presidency of the United States at this time must adopt that policy, or they're not fit to rule. We have to be clear on that.
There are other problems—national credit: We have to organize the national credit system as a national credit system, the way it was intended by John Quincy Adams, not that maddened nitwit who replaced him [Andrew Jackson]. And we need large driver projects, which include chiefly NAWAPA, the biggest one, and the other things; and the space program—which I'll come to in the closing part of my report—is a crucial one, and for reasons which many people may not yet know, or haven't caught up with.
End the Political Party System
Now, all this means that Obama must be swept out of office now. This is not a partisan situation or question. This is not a partisan issue. The greatest error in the United States, as was understood by George Washington and others, was the establishment of a political party system, a national political party system. That was the greatest piece of stupidity ever imposed upon the United States by itself; and Andrew Jackson was the most typical of the infected creatures who participated in that.
But the idea of a Republican and Democratic Party—this procedure was wrong, because what it led to was all these other kinds of management problems. So we have to get back to a credit system under our Constitution. There's no change in principle in order to do that. And as George Washington understood, and others, repeatedly, the problem of the United States was the introduction of a party system, a national party system. And there should be no national party system, and that should be done now under the incoming Presidency of the United States—the end of the party system as such. There are other ways of approaching this.
Besides, you look at the party system: They're messes anyway. The Democratic Party, it's a mess. There's no coherence there; it's simply a bunch of gangsters with a bunch of fools following them, each trying to win for their baseball or their football team or whatever it is. And you have these football teams, and they're all impassioned to beat the other team. What about doing something for the nation, rather than trying to defeat the other team? We don't need this stuff, and the time has come to quit.
Rebuild the system based on a non-party system in which the citizen has the authority, not some party. The citizen does not have to give up his independence as a citizen, but we have to have a government which is based on discussion of ideas, not this kind of lechery that we get now, and the obscenity that we just saw in the recent efforts.
And Obama couldn't exist except under that kind of corrupt system. He couldn't be made President. He was losing, and then suddenly, the way the drugs are flowing across from Mexico into the United States, and in that area of the world Obama made a big victory and knocked out his competitor in the Democratic Party, and that's all he had to show for it. And he had some big muckety-mucks from Britain who are noted as the biggest thieves in the world, and they financed Obama, arranged this financing, and we've been subjected to this corruption and destruction all these years under Obama, and some clown is trying to say vote for him again. This must not happen.
We can reorganize the system and its secondary features to go back to the original principle of the Constitution. Because there are two things we don't want to do, which have been done. One, is you don't want to go back to a party system. Because when you make the issue one of partisanship, like a football team or a baseball team competition, on the question of deciding policy of government, that is a piece of idiocy. You want the citizen not to vote for a team, like somebody in the stadium thinking he's investing in something, and finding what he's bought on the way out or sold on the way out.
You want a thinking citizen; you want the citizen to accept the habits of thinking, of thinking through decisions, of demanding the education needed for them to make the decisions that they've been called upon to make, as George Washington had intended.
Not Worth a Troy Ounce
And the other thing we have to get rid of is the idea that money has an intrinsic value. Money has no intrinsic value. Money is no better than governments that are able to organize money, in a way that fits the national needs.
Now, the idea of the money system comes from Troy. Troy ended up—they tore the whole joint down, killed most of the people, except a few kiddies and old ladies and things like that. And they set into a motion a system which is the oligarchical system, which has cursed Europe, European civilization, in one way or the other, and now the United States as well, and other nations.
With this came the idea that there was gold, or silver, or something else, that had an intrinsic value, as a metal, or something of that sort, an intrinsic value. And this intrinsic value was value, and money would be based on the control of this, particularly copper, zinc, gold, silver, whatever—this thing that was used as a physical object was assigned a certain value, and the whole society was imprisoned to that money value.
We don't need that. We never did. And what we saw in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, with the pinetree shilling that was introduced in that period, was a demonstration of that. And Benjamin Franklin's conception of a money system was based on that precedent, with his paper currency conception. The foundation of the system of economy of the United States, the Federal system, was based on the same principle. And it's only when we gave up the principle to outside forces that we got into trouble with our system.
We do not need a monetarist system. As a matter of fact, you've come to a time when everybody in Europe is bankrupt. They're totally bankrupt. Because the inflation under which they're living, bespeaks something worse than what existed in Germany in 1923, in the collapse of the currency then. So, we're in the process of a global collapse. Money, of whatever denomination, is no longer a control mechanism, but rather politics and political power is.
And therefore, we have to go a credit system, which is well understood in history, or should be. And that means this reform, around these three principles of:
- Glass-Steagall;
- A national credit system (as opposed to this kind of banking system we've had now); and
- A return to production, through projects typified by NAWAPA.
This is what makes sense, and what we can do. And we can just get other things out of the way.
Nuclear Winter
I think the very existence of the United States demands that Obama be swept out of office. I know what he is. I know what his mind, so-called, is. I know what he does. And I know what his role has been. He, together with certain people who own him in England, and elsewhere, and Saudi Arabia—because remember, this goes back to 9/11. What we're living through right now, in the United States and throughout the world, as in the recent assassination of our diplomat [Amb. Christopher Stevens], is, under Obama, we're dealing with this problem.
And this is headed toward what? It's headed toward a reduction of the world population, which is decreed by the Queen of England, and a whole mass of her associates, who have decided to reduce the population of the planet from 7 billion people, estimated today, to approximately 1 billion. That process has actually been in progress. We're seeing in the world precisely those conditions which can bring on that rate of death among populations, in the United States and elsewhere.
What they intend to do, as Obama makes it very clear, is launch a war, a war which would lead to a thermonuclear war. In other words, all you have to do, is continue the process of the Obama policy now, his military and related policy, and we are going to find ourselves, in a very short time, relatively, weeks or months, you're going to see—if we don't stop it—a thermonuclear war.
And a thermonuclear war leads to what's called a nuclear Winter, this time a thermonuclear Winter.
What happens then, is the U.S. Navy, and its submarine fleet, in particular, and other forces, combine forces to conduct a war against Russia, China, and others. Russia and China are very capable in these weapon systems. The United States is very well equipped in terms of, say, the naval system. And the naval submarines of the United States, if they take on this assignment, would very quickly reduce a good deal of this planet to nothing.
It would probably take an hour and a half, and the expenditure of thermonuclear forces from the United States, from China, from Russia, and from Europe, and so forth—that amount, which are probably two general waves, would turn the whole planet into what's called a nuclear Winter. A thermonuclear Winter. Because you would create weather conditions, cold weather conditions, from which it is doubtful that we would be able to maintain a population, even of the survivors of the war.
And therefore, the time has come that we have to take on two things that are our enemies. One enemy is the monetarist system, which is one of the principal modes which lead us toward our destruction. The second thing is the related system to the monetary system, which is typified by the British Empire tradition, and by those within the United Kingdom, and within Saudi Arabia, who created 9/11, under an Obama who is 9/11 Two—if he gets a chance.
So, therefore, the time has come that what Obama represents—it's not just he himself—it's what he represents that must be swept out of office, for the sake of the very lives of every damn citizen in the United States—and I say "damn" advisedly. Because that's what we're up against.
The Natural Wealth of the Nation
So therefore, what we have to do, the idea that the United States must go to a Glass-Steagall policy, cannot be argued against by any competent, sane person. The idea of going to a national credit system, in terms of a banking system, cannot be argued against by any competent person who understands this. We cannot ever develop the monetary basis, as a simple monetary basis, to sustain a recovery of the U.S. economy from its present conditions. The only way we can do that, is by using national banking as a method of creating a credit system, which by the issue of credit, against a government debt responsibility, enables us to fund projects which are going to contribute to the natural wealth of the nation.
And it's the natural wealth, not the money wealth, which is important. The natural wealth of the nation and its people. We've come to that point.
The myth of money must be cancelled. The money changers must finally be discharged from government.
Now, there's another problem. Europe is a problem. Europe is on the threshold of disintegration, Western and Central Europe. Because it's now entered into a phase of hyperinflation. And if that continues, hyperinflation worse than 1923 Germany, how long is that going to last? So, therefore that's our problem.
We have to recognize that the euro system was a crime against the human species. The attempt to force a group of nations—and this was started actually by London, but Mitterrand, the President of France, was the key instigator of it. Germany was on the verge of being independent again, as a unified nation. And then suddenly, Chancellor Kohl, who was the leader of Germany at the time, had a friend of his [Alfred Herrhausen], who was the greatest banker in Europe at the time, the greatest in skill and capability, who was assassinated. Assassinated by somebody coming across from, say, a westerly direction.
And at the same time, a key figure of the French government, a servant of Mitterrand's, said, effectively, that if Germany tried to unify, France would go to war against Germany. And this was backed up by the prime minister of Britain [Margaret Thatcher], and by the President of the United States, poor George Dumblebum Bush.
So therefore, this process led to the euro system, which looted and destroyed these nations of Europe.
And the attempt to maintain the euro system, means that Europe will not survive. Europe has now entered into a deadly hyperinflationary explosion, and it cannot survive under those policies. The euro system simply should be regarded by all Americans as an unwanted entity. Not because of the nations and people, but because of what it implies.
The euro system is now hopelessly bankrupt and in a state of hyperinflationary collapse, and there's nothing in sight that's going to change that, except the will of the people. If the will of the European people says, "we're going to get rid of this, yes, fine," the United States should take a very sympathetic view of the success of that restoration of the system of sovereign nation-states, rather than the so-called euro abomination.
This is not a matter of interfering in their governments, because they don't have governments any more. How can you threaten the government of a nation, when the nation has no government? And that's the case in Europe, in fact, right now.
A Planetary System of Cultures
So, therefore, we have to think about how we're going to reorganize the world. We're now going through a great crisis; we're on the verge of the extinction of humanity, threatened by the nuclear weapons crisis, thermonuclear weapons. Bankruptcy all over the world. Africa, which has been murdered over and over again, as a whole continent, by the British in particular, over these periods. The world is a mess. It has elements in it which are viable, and valuable. These elements must be protected, and systems of cooperation among sovereign nation-states must be established, to ensure stability.
We have to go, in one case, to a global policy: a policy of global sovereign nation-states, entered into systems of cooperation, and deliberation on cooperation. That's what we require.
We're now faced, as I said, not only with a nuclear Winter—and Obama's existence, his policy, what he did in Benghazi, in fact did, is headed toward a nuclear Winter, a thermonuclear Winter. And what they're trying to do in pushing something against Iran—again the same thing. What they're doing in Turkey, the same thing. These things are chiefly coming from the United States, and from the Obama Administration under British direction, and Saudi direction. The British empire is actually partly the Saudi empire. And these forces are there.
So, what are we going to do? We're going to re-establish our system of sovereign nation-states; secure agreement among nations to go to a credit system, rather than a monetarist system; set up systems of credit which enable nations to rebuild, and to create stability; re-establish sovereignty.
Now, sovereignty means this: It means that in the history of mankind, you have a variation in cultures, and people function, not only on the basis of their nationality, but they function on the basis of the culture that nationality is assumed to represent. We need a planetary system of cultures, of national cultures. It just means, that we restore the best we had earlier, and put some more growth in it.
Now, how do we get to a world without war, without world war? Yes, you can have all kinds of quarrels and so forth, up to a rather intense state, if things are managed properly. But world war, or general war approximating world war, is no longer feasible in the age of thermonuclear weapons and similar kinds of weapons. We can't have it.
A Defense of Earth
But we've got another problem before us. That's not the only problem. We've got a problem with a lot of big rocks, called satellites; and they're swarming, particularly to our attention, between the orbit of Mars and the orbit of Venus. We know a small percentile of these asteroids, and they come in all kinds of flavors and sizes. And if they hit the Earth, as they do occasionally, they will take out an area, say, comparable to San Francisco Bay—something like that getting wiped out, and all the people in it getting wiped out. That can happen. Smaller events of that type can happen. Larger ones can rarely happen. And a really big one, if a really big satellite hits the Earth, then no more people.
So therefore, the defense of Earth, while it has not been much discussed, was actually being pushed as an issue and a project at the time that I was pushing for the SDI. And that effort has continued.
Today we find ourselves in a position where we do not have the kinds of information we need, let alone the equipment we need, to get out there and steer some of these asteroids—first of all, locate them; steer them in such a way they do not collide with Earth. Because they would either do damage to life on Earth, or they totally destroy human life on Earth, and all life on Earth.
So therefore, we have a mission now, and it's becoming more acute as time passes, that we must get out there, between the area of Earth and Mars in particular, and build up systems of cooperation, as with Curiosity on Mars; and by using the speed of light of communication between the systems we establish on Mars and the systems on Earth and so forth, we're going to have to develop a system by which we can detect these satellites that are floating around, and intervene to steer them away from a collision with Earth.
And this is typical of the kind of problem that we have to deal with in the coming period. We have to totally reverse the idiocy and the crimes that were done by Obama, in terms of the space program. The problem with the space program already, was we were not doing enough to meet this challenge. We weren't giving it sufficient support to meet this challenge. And now the time has come that Obama has tried to destroy it all!
And that is a crime against humanity: When a head of state acts to intervene in world affairs, to block and halt a means necessary to preserve the very existence of the human species, that is what we will not tolerate. And Obama, for that reason alone, should be just quickly ushered out the gate, or probably impeached. We probably can't wait longer. We should probably get him out of there now. But that's the challenge.
The Worst of All Possible Governments
So now, that's where we stand. We have, on the one hand, the worst government in most parts of the world that we've seen in a long time. And the U.S. government under Obama is the worst: The worst of all possible governments! You wouldn't think that anybody could do that, but that's it. He is. Only the Saudis, if they were capable, would be equally evil.
So, we're at that point. We have an understanding of what this nonsense is. We have a system in which you don't have clear party solidity. The Republican Party is not a solid creature; the Democratic Party is not a solid creature. And you have a lot of other loose groups around who don't really agree with either! Or they don't agree even with themselves, because they don't even trust themselves, I guess.
But the point is, we have to build up a new political system which is based on, for us, our national tradition. I don't think that most people in the world would disagree with us on what the United States system was, the conception of the political system. They might have some disagreement with what we've been doing, and what our policies are, and what our thinking is in many cases, but the principles are not at risk. And therefore, I think that's where we stand. If we can do that, I think we can make it.
So therefore, where are we? We've got a Democratic Party and we've got this piece of junk, called Obama, who's stuck on top of it, running for President. You have the other side, and other sides in-between.
We have to have a sort of an understanding, of coming together, and instead of taking issues—and issues are deadly: When you take issues and make bargaining over issues a stake, it's the choice of issues which you have to agree upon. In other words, you don't want to have more football rivalries, or basketball rivalries, as politics. You want to say, "What is the total combination that this nation needs as a whole, that the world needs as a whole, as a composite policy?" Without that, then we don't have a solution. But Obama must go. This is not a partisan issue. This is a human issue: Obama must go!
We've had, 9/11 number 1; we're getting number 2 now, under Obama. And Obama is one of the people who's been blocking the exposure of the evidence of who did what, in number 1! The evidence is there. Throw this SOB out of office now! Get the voters to do that, too. Throw the guy out! And partisan loyalties do not provide any excuse for tolerating Obama any more.
[1] See http://larouchepac.com/nawapaxxi.
The dialogue with viewers which followed LaRouche's opening remarks.
