LPAC Manhattan Project Shakes up Chelsea Democratic Presidential Candidates Forum

The rank and file of the Democratic Party organization in Manhattan are not yet moral corpses (although they do smell funny). LaRouche’s Manhattan Party intervened with the courage to uphold the truth, beckoning the New York Democratic Party towards an actual future WITHOUT Wall Street and Obama.

The venue in Chelsea was about half full, at 250 people, mostly boomer-aged party leftists, with an array of 40-something aged organizers directing much of the operation. The event began with the representatives of each of the three Democratic presidential campaigns answering questions posed by a moderator. Hillary’s representative was the County Chair of the party, a leading member of the Assembly and current Congressional candidate to replace Charlie Rangel.

From left to right, representatives of Clinton, O’Malley and Sanders’ campaigns, moderator far right.

During the initial phase, the moderator asked questions about “policy debates” in the Democratic party, attempting to find some difference between the candidates, but never touching seriously on the true matter—the increasing death rate of Americans, particularly their children, and the impending financial disaster. It was in this phase that our organizers first began to shape the event.

The Hillary representative lied brazenly in at least two cases about Hillary’s positions. He was asked about her financial “reform” policy, and stated, “She wants to go beyond Glass-Steagall,” without offering any indication of what that meant. The moderator asked for a clarification, “Does that mean she’s in favor of breaking up the big banks?” His response was a lying, “Yes I believe so.” At this point, we became vocal, calling him a liar, from our seats in the audience—”THAT”S NOT TRUE, SHE’S AGAINST IT!” Then, he lied a second time when asked point blank by the moderator if Hillary was in favor of a No-Fly-Zone in Syria. He said, “No” so we again agitated, from various corners in the audience, saying, “HE’S LYING AGAIN! THAT’S NOT TRUE!” The bald-faced liar was visibly destabilized, both in his recognition that people in general really did care about these two questions, and in finding himself called out publicly.

The effect of this was clear during the audience question period, which was lengthy. The overall tone of the questions was not at all satisfied by any candidate, demanding a real response to the cuts in Social Security announced, the plight of prisoners in the US, and most loudly, the Wall Street problem.

One of the first audience members to ask a question corrected the Assembly member on his lie about Hillary and the NFZ. Then, three different audience members unrelated to us exposed Hillary as a Wall Street candidate—the first by demanding to know what Hillary supports, if not G-S, and the other two by indicating disgust and indignation at her campaign contributions and speaking fees from Goldman Sachs, as well as general “drift toward the right.” Another audience member demanded a response on the death penalty—which the moderator declared, “Everyone in this room rejects,” only to be corrected by the O’Malley representative, who read a very recent direct quote from Hillary endorsing “a more careful” application of the death penalty. The Assembly member lamely attempted to discredit what was clearly a matter of public record!

The Assembly member was flummoxed by this angry anti-Wall Street, anti-Hillary, and mutedly anti-Obama sentiment alive in the crowd, but he really lost his cool when our activist asked, “What will your candidate do about the hospital-bombing, mass-murdering, drone-launching, ISIS-supporting, global bully, World War 3-instigating, Dictator-in-Chief Barack Obama!?” The Assembly member was the only one of the three who responded to this question, by starting off with bluster, “Remember who started this wars!…” To which our activists shouted from their seats, “YOU MEAN LIBYA? WHAT ABOUT 50 TROOPS IN SYRIA” He stumbled in his speech and eventually shut up after saying, “If you disagree with the President, that’s your opinion.”

Shortly after, we managed to get another question, asking, “In the past 48 hours we have had the conclusion of the Vienna meeting around cooperation to defeat terrorism. China offered to begin an immediate reconstruction policy for Syria. At just that moment, Obama announced a so-called ‘authorization’ of 50 US troops into Syria—an ILLEGAL, UNCONSTITUTIONAL MOVE that threatens World War Three with Russia, as these troops are very likely to come into conflict with Russian forces! What will you do!?”

The Sanders campaign urged restraint in military action in Syria, and specifically on arming rebels “when we don’t have any way to know who they are.” They agreed with the need for development, and acknowledged the refugee flows, but claimed there was a need to resolve the conflict first. Then they gave support to the Vienna meeting. The O’Malley campaign, which had earlier given the idea that US foreign policy should be about promoting a “global middle class,” and using “development and diplomacy as equal tools with military action,” made similar comments, calling it “a very important question.” The Assembly member lied again, and once more we called him out for lying.

LPAC Activist Jessica White.

Finally, at the end of the event, our teacher activist stood up, without being called on, and issued a “correction,” by instructing the campaigns and the crowd that we need Glass-Steagall and an end to QE so that we can direct credit towards infrastructure, schools, transportation, etc. The correction was—Glass-Steagall is NOT some issue to be discussed—it’s a LIVE bill in the Congress and must be enacted NOW.

The only significant contingent of truly young people in attendance demonstrated the global effect of China’s policy—they were a club of CUNY students who are organizing for the DREAM immigration act to be implemented. One in their group approached our organizer and praised the question on development versus WW3. The group of students were all Central American, and many of them were well aware of the Nicaraguan canal. “We know what China’s doing!”

What followed was an informal straw poll which seemed doctored for Hillary’s benefit, even though she did lose it. According to the tally reported, Hillary received 79 votes, Sanders 89, and O’Malley 54. But to our eyes, Hilary had fewer and O’Malley more. We approached the representatives of the Sanders and O’Malley campaigns and gave them the New Silk Road report as the ONLY true solution to the incredible global crisis, and briefed them on progress on Glass-Steagall and Obama’s wars. Activists distributed literature outside of the event, finding widespread disgust with Hillary and her representative.