MATTHEW OGDEN: Good afternoon, it’s April 6, 2015. My name is Matthew Ogden. You’re watching our weekly broadcast with the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee. We’re broadcasting today over Google On Air, and I’d like to introduce the members of our committee who are joining us via video: Bill Roberts, joining us from Detroit, Michigan; Dave Christie, joining us from Seattle, Washington; Kesha Rogers, joining us from Houston, Texas; Michael Steger joining us from San Francisco, California; and Rachel Brinkley joining us from Boston, Massachusetts. And here in the studio, you’ll see I’m joined by Diane Sare, by Jason Ross from the LaRouche PAC Basement Team, and also by Lyndon LaRouche. So, Lyn, I’ll let you begin.
LYNDON LAROUCHE: Well, we have a new regime in place since Monday last week. Because Ben [deniston] ran off with the whole story on Wednesday, repeated the fulfillment of that on Thursday, and he went into a rather vigorous effort on that effect on Saturday. Now, what has happened since then, as from Saturday on, is our team, including this young gentleman and Ben and so forth, has gone into this operation, deeply. And we’re taking an organization, for example, with some members of the people here, who are part of that. She’s [Kesha Rogers] part of it; and then we have from San Francisco, we have volunteers from there. We’re going into work officially, at that point, from California.
So this thing is active, and what it means is, that the potentiality for water supplies, on planet Earth, has been revised, greatly upward, by what Ben has done in his work. And that’s what we were doing, which means that the entire policy, on the water policy of the United States as a nation, is one case in which everything that’s being told, on the official line is one great fraud.
So therefore, the potential of having water sources, in terms of our system, that is, our system of Kepler, the Kepler system now has been shown, to have potentials for water supplies, to human beings on Earth which were never really consolidated as propositions before. And what Ben has done, as by just what he’s been doing along the way, he’s laid out a very firm view of what the potential is, the actual potential for water supplies for mankind on Earth.
Now, this means, in particular, it means in the United States that the entire water policies of the United States are intrinsically incompetent. But the difference is that in order to realize the greater potential which we have available to us, because of the benefit of what Ben has done, we now have to go to work and understand what Ben has done, its implications, and to bring it out into practice. And I think as of this past week, the end of this past week and today, especially on Sunday and today, Monday, we have now entered a new phase of the options for mankind. And everything that we had thought that was possible or impossible, prior to this time, is now possible. And what we have to do here, is essentially is to take some steps which lead toward a broader understanding, of what this possibility is that Ben has ferreted out.
And that I think is the essential mission. All of our people should be fully qualified in that, that is, all the people in this reception here, should be qualified by themselves or by this discussion we have with them, to go out of this meeting, in an hour from now, and be fully understanding of what the mission is. They may have to do some study to perfect the performance of the mission, but they will know what the mission is. And I think we can do that in an hour.
OGDEN: Okay.
JASON ROSS: Well, I can say that in terms of where to take in support of what Ben had laid out, some things we’re in discussion about working on, is much more on — well, let me focus on one point that he had emphasized, about people who would say, “Wait a minute — you’re finding a 32-million-year cycle in the climate of the Earth, who cares? What does that have to do with California when we only have one year of water left?” I was trying to picture somebody planting seeds in the Fall, and wondering whether or not to grow them, and saying, “I don’t care about seasons, I want these to grow tomorrow.” You know?
But the fact is, we don’t know all of the factors that influence the way that precipitation falls out of the atmosphere. We know that there’s a tremendous amount of water in the atmosphere, far more, many times more than we use currently, many times more than falls on land. Ninety percent of the water evaporated from the oceans, falls into the oceans, and never even makes it to land. So the prospects of developing more on the ionization technologies that Ben had brought up, and also on finding out what are all of the possibilities for desalination? What’s the most effective types of reverse osmosis and other technologies, for us to be able to make use of the tremendous amount of water that’s in the oceans — no shortage of water there; there’s no shortage of water in the atmosphere, as a whole. Again, plenty of water up in the atmosphere. And if we keep looking at our role in regards to water, only being water that’s already fallen on land, then there is no solution. Then you’re setting yourself up to have arguments over who’s going to get cut: Is it the almond farmers’ fault, for example? People are blaming almond. Or saying we should stop eating meat, or taking showers.
You know, the real crisis is not making the creative leaps to expand our control over the full process of the water cycle, and looking only at land water.
OGDEN: Yeah. What Ben was elaborating in these discussions last week was that, if you have a galactic perspective on this, from the standpoint of, say, taking the Keplerian view, and say, these are not just isolated, Earth-bound phenomena, but these are reflections, these are shadows of a Solar System, extra-Solar System-wide process, which goes to the very galactic level. So you were referencing this 32-million-year cycle, where you have the Solar System coming up and down through the galactic plane and that this has been associated with ice-house effects and global glaciation, and things of this sort. And then, all the work that’s been done on the incidence of cosmic rays, and what this does to the weather patterns and the weather systems here on Earth.
When you think about mankind as a species which is not, we are just victims of our circumstance as beasts, but we are a creative, we are sort of co-creators, and we cannot just accept the things that are given to us, but we are stewards of creation and we are improving the productivity of nature. So when you think about the specific measures that Ben lays out in this paper, atmospheric ionization which has already been a proven technology in several countries around the world; desalination, which you mentioned, which is being used in a semi-mass scale in areas of the Middle East and elsewhere; and then obviously, mass water management on land, like what China is doing, which is far outstripping the United States, but you take all of these things together, that’s this new perspective that Ben is bringing to this, which has not been part of the discussion heretofore.
LAROUCHE: Yeah. The understanding, in particular, of the polar system, and of the Pacific Ocean. And the Pacific Ocean is the greatest vulnerability in the fact of failing to use it properly, that’s the big problem. So in practice, if you can, with a movement of the rainfall area, on the edge, say, of California, you are already able to move some things, to increase the actual amount of apparent water resources. The problem is, as Ben has emphasized, we were relying upon what was pre-given as assumed values, and what is neglected is the fact that there are alternatives, which are much richer, for this purpose than what is otherwise being considered.
OGDEN: Actually changing the weather patterns, changing the rainfall patterns.
LAROUCHE: Absolutely, that’s it. And that obviously solved a lot of problems. It means, because you have whole land-areas in particular, which is the big problem, and these land-areas do not — like most of Asia — they do not provide the rainfall capabilities which you would think they would have because of the Pacific Ocean! So we’re don’t move the water offshore on California; we may get some in Canada, in that area, but we don’t get the water there. But the water is there! We have to engineer the movement of the water motion, in order to meet these challenges.
And this is what mankind requires most urgently. And it’s right now, in terms of the United States territory, as in California itself, where we have this dumb-Brown character, doing all kinds of crazy things. But the point is, we have to have people, as leaders of government who have the capability of understanding what Brown does not understand, and does not want to understand. Because the case of California, is the prime case to focus upon, to say “where’s the guilty party?” And Governor Brown is generally a good example, of the most miserable of the relevant parties!
And now, the thing we have to do, is realize that we have the ability to create a new kind of economy, by doing this. And we have to put everything into making it. And we can do it.
But, what Ben has done, when we discuss among ourselves what this means, and look at some of the climate things that Ben has been working on for some time, before he even got into this thing, he’s come with a new conception of what water is. Now, this is not a technical thing, this is saying that people have not got their mind focussed in the right way. So we’ve got to get the people to focus their minds in the right way. What about the fact that the water should be coming down, in California, and inland from California? Why isn’t it moving into there? Can’t we do it?
And that’s the question. So how do we save man from stupid assumption which we get from the Greenies? The Greenies are really criminals on this thing: Because what the criminals are doing, is a criminal action — what the guilty parties are doing. They’re guilty and they should be charged. Most members of the Congress are guilty parties on this count: They are willing to destroy the United States, and increase greatly the suffering of the American people, because they want to do it their way! And we’re saying, no.
So therefore, my conclusion is this: We have a candidate, a putative candidate, for the next President of the United States, O’Malley. O’Malley is the only person on the planet right now, that I know, who’s qualified to actually be a President of the United States, which is coming up fairly soon. And that means a reorganization of the United States, to change the way the United States government thinks, to conform with these realities, and to provide for a meaningful life, to end what has happened in the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century, where the destruction of the productive powers of labor have been enormous! We have people who are practically potential criminal creatures out there, without employment or without decent employment at least. And this is the problem.
And so therefore, the water problem is not just that, it’s not just a water problem. The problem is we’ve got to move the policy of how the water is dispersed and organized, on a planetary basis. And I think, in particular, the only figure I can think of around the United States, who’s capable of doing the job, if he were willing to do it and capable of doing it, which is O’Malley. O’Malley is probably, in my view, the only person presently running for either potentially President of the United States, or something similar, the only person fit to be elected. And I think that for us, that feature of the aspect, has to be brought forth.
What’re we going to do? Well, the first thing: are we going to elect Obama, or re-elect something like him? Are we going to turn what Moses would call a burning Bush, one that should be burned out: No Bushes any more. Actually, the existence of Bushes in the Presidency, and even before the Presidency, has been one of the chief reasons for the destruction of the productive forces and conditions of life of the American people. So it’s a good thing that someone like O’Malley, if he decides to go ahead and do what he’s implicitly moving toward, if he wants to do that, move in that direction toward, he’s probably the only person fit to run for President of the United States at this time. And that’s the implication.
KESHA ROGERS: As has been discussed, the issue here has to be the mission of the Presidency, because what we’re discussing is, that you’re not talking about a personality, you’re talking about defining the policies that are necessary to move the nation out of the present crisis. And is the person who is fit to lead, going to actually rise up to the mandates and to the requirements that are necessary, to pull the nation out of this crisis. And what has always been the faction of our Policy Committee, our candidacies, and what our organization has been doing, is to define what that Presidency must be.
And so, right now, the definition of that has been very clear, in terms of the scientific method and what has been presented by Ben on dealing with the water shortages, but also from the standpoint that it’s not just a local crisis, but that we to look at it from a global and galactic perspective.
But I think this is going really to the question of what has been our fight against the corrupt Wall Street policy, that this is exactly what’s behind the policy not to actually address what has to be done in dealing with this crisis, the fact that you have the Wall Street control, with that of the Bushes, the Green policy, the policy to convert the idea that water is not a human right, as some crazy people have said, it should be a commodity or should be something that is used just as a market value! And this is the insanity that we’re dealing with. And so, if people don’t recognize this, who think they are qualified to lead the nation, as an insane policy that is killing people, they’re not fit! So I think what we’re unleashing right now, is going to actually be a total transformation in the thinking of the population as to what has to be the method by which leadership will arise.
LAROUCHE: Absolutely. Absolutely.
DIANE SARE: I think on this Wall Street question, you have made the point on numerous occasions that it’s a criminal enterprise which should be shut down. And I think the sooner we can disabuse the American people of their worship of money, and their insane view of economics, the sooner that we have a chance of their being able to survive. I mean, this is the thing where Martin O’Malley has actually distinguished himself from the other candidates, because he’s been willing to pick a fight with Wall Street. And his criticism of other so-called leaders or elected officials, is that they will not speak of what he called the “excessive behavior” of Wall Street.
But if you think about the mentality — people remember the Enron situation in California, where they jacked up the prices of electricity, even orders of magnitude and you had people dying in elevators and things like that, and you had these people gleeful, like some kind of Satanic ritual, that they were making an extreme profit, literally over people’s dead bodies. And so that the Wall Street response to this, is, how can we extract more loot? Will the water crisis be the thing that jacks up our bubble for another two days, before everything descends into chaos and Hell? And so, I think this is crucial.
The other thing is that this week, April 9th is the 150th anniversary of the victory of our Federal Republic against a British-sponsored rebellion known as the Confederacy. And Abraham Lincoln was extremely concerned that the nation be unified, at the end of this war, which why he chose, I think, Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain from Maine, to receive the troops on the surrender, who allowed the Confederate soldiers to maintain their dignity — he didn’t make them all grovel — and Lincoln’s expression “with malice toward none and charity toward all.” So that we were going to pull the nation into a Union, through the transcontinental railroad, water and canal projects , we were going to develop the South, it was a real program of unifying the nation.
And this April 9th, appropriately enough, we are having a rally at Wall Street to remind Americans of that legacy, that that’s what we won 150 years ago, and this is what we have to recommit ourselves to, today.
LAROUCHE: Well, let’s take one thing, let me interpolate it here, because it’s important to make this point now: Look, there’s the thing called Wall Street. Wall Street should be entirely shut down, as a matter of national law. And the same thing is true in Germany. Germany has a similar form of corruption, that everything that is the big banking business in Germany, is essentially, largely corrupt. For example, the conflict between Germany and the Greek government: The German elements in Germany who are supporting this wrong policy, essentially have to be shut down! But the Germans who produce things, and who earn things which they use as a source of production, fine, they should be fully supported. But the profiteers, which is what the right term is for them, the useless profiteers, the parasites, should be simply shut off. And the simplest way to do it is by putting taxes on them for their behavior. And put penal taxes on that.
Because the nation itself, the United States does not need that banking system! And the best thing we can do for the United States, to save it, is to shut down that banking system and to go to a straight commercial/savings banking system organization. And have a thing where there’d be no profiteering by parasites. That, when a banker is functioning as a banker, in the real sense of history, or does loaning in some other mechanism, of that way, we should give them the assistance of maintaining that kind of function. But when you get to the Wall Street types, anything that’s called “Wall Street” should be called the latrine. And that’s what we should do is treat them as the latrine. It’s a good place to dump that stuff we don’t want around anywhere.
But the issue here, is not the question how we’re going to change our economic policy in the usual way, but we have to remember, when Bill Clinton was being thrown out of office, which is what was happening, what happened was the United States was destroyed, by treason! And what happened was treason! And what was done to Bill, was actually a mechanism for treason.
And that’s what happened. And then we had this whole section, a meeting, and this and this and that and so forth, and the whole thing was destroyed. There has not been anything — there were two things in general are true about this thing: The United States began to go into a period of permanent disintegration, a degeneration with the turn of the century in 1900, that date. Some of you know exactly what the meaning of that date is, what happened.
You had a great plunge for science, in the advancement of physical science, to the end, of the 19th century. Then the 20th century began the destruction of the United States as an economy and as a system. And it was done by what? By a Roosevelt — the wrong one — Teddy Roosevelt, “Teddy Bear” Roosevelt. The murderer, and he was a murderer! He was involved in the assassination of the President. And that’s how it happened.
So we’ve got to learn these lessons and apply the implications of those lessons of history. How was the President of the United States assassinated, to make way for Teddy Roosevelt? For two terms. And what followed that, in general? What followed in the 1920s, until [fd] Roosevelt.
Then when Roosevelt ushered out, by death. Then people moved in. The Kennedys came in, and they were killed, they were murdered. Other Presidents were virtually killed, in assassination attempts, and they dealt with other Presidents in the same way to destroy them.
And the Bushes were running everything. And the Bushes are really treasonous creatures. I mean, the Bush family, from Prescott Bush on, the Bush family is an evil force of treason against the United States, and people should say that! Bushes are for burning, but just get them downwind.
But this is the issue we’re really dealing with. There’s no solution unless we change the economic system, to return to the principles of the U.S. economy. And that means we have to take into account, the thugs, who have corrupted our system, back in the 1980s in particular. Yeah, we had some good Presidents, but we had very few of them! We were lucky to have a few and who were not also assassinated, in the course of their employment.
We have that problem now. The British Empire and what it represents, has been controlling the United States by intimidation and by mass assassination! Assassinations in one sense of political assassinations, and assassinations by physical assassinations, have done that. And this is what you’re talking about, is this issue; you cannot walk around it! Wall Street is a bunch of murderous criminals!
That’s the effect of what their role is. Like all the stuff, the fracking — the fracking is criminal operation against the resources of the United States and against other parts of the world. Get these guys out of there!
We need a Presidency which will do that! And we don’t have any candidate for President now, even prospective candidates for President, except for O’Malley — that’s all we have. Now, to me, that means that we have to sit there, and not comment, not speculate, we have to realize that unless we have a President coming into power, with an administration team which is going to rule, we don’t have any chance of surviving as a nation. And therefore, O’Malley right now, is the only person on the horizon who has any visibility as a prospective President, who would actually be a functional President. We have other people who would like to be President, but they’re not functionally qualified. And that problem is real. And therefore, what we have to do is we have to change the legal structure, we have to have a Presidential candidate who will respond to this requirement. We need to have a campaign, out in front, not behind the scenes, not guesswork, out there: We need a certain kind of President right now! and the only one we have on the tap right now, visibly, is him! And we’re going to have to ask him, in one way, indirectly or so forth, exactly what he thinks about what I just said. Because from my standpoint, what I said right now, is fact. There is no option. And our job is to get that fact in motion.
And don’t fool around with these guys. We don’t want Bushes. We don’t want Bushes — Moses doesn’t want Bushes. And that’s a religious theme. That’s a very sacred theme: Moses doesn’t want any Bushes.
OGDEN: A religious conviction? A conviction of the Bush family?
LAROUCHE: Yes! That’s right. [laughter]
I just would emphasize, because this is absolutely crucial for the whole issue you’re dealing with: What is the principle, which mankind as a species, has a moral responsibility to satisfy? That is the satisfaction of what is before mankind in the period ahead? What is that responsibility? What’re the requirements? How can we achieve them? And we need a President who’s going to be the gathering point, for a large team of people who are going to be called into service at a rapid rate, within the period of 12 months! We are a 12-month certainty, of a qualified Presidential candidate for election, then.
And that’s what we have to shoot for. That’s what the water issue is: You will never get the water project done, the reform, without that measure. They’ll screw it up, like you know, this creep up in California, Jerry Brown. He’s terrible. He’s a freak! And I mean, he had an ancestor who was a perfectly decent figure, but he’s a disaster! He’s a public nuisance! He’s a sanitation problem! And it should be said: Get this guy out of there as soon as possible, and then you can save California.
OGDEN: Mm-hmm. California needs a Brown out.
LAROUCHE: Exactly, you got it! You won the prize! [laughter] We need a Brown out, all agreed.
ROSS: I have Brown saying: You know, California should really probably really only have 300-400,000 people in it.
LAROUCHE: Well, I think we can start with him! [laughter] We could shaft him off someplace else. I don’t think China will take him.
MICHAEL STEGER: Well, I think this is what’s so critical about what Ben presented, because you see two factors involved. And Brown epitomizes this degeneration: You have, one, a scientific stupidity. There’s just no scientific conception! What Ben lays out is the only legitimate scientific conception, regarding this drought out there! [audio interrupt] That’s where the actual drought’s coming from, where the water supply actually exists, and the question then for man, is how do you access that water supply? But the science today is a hoax, it’s a fraud, it’s illegitimate!
But then you combine that with this fascist austerity, and that’s what Brown’s saying. He’s basically saying the same thing that European Union is saying to Greece. It’s the same — “we can’t afford you! Just get rid of the population. We’re not going to support you, we’re not going to develop, there’s just too much of you, we can’t afford it.” And they’re actually saying that Brown is the “tough-guy that can get the tough job done” and get in there and tell people in California, “there’s just too many of you.” And that’s what’s got to be taken out!
You’ve got to get rid of this fascist austerity, this Wall Street program, and it was] Teddy Roosevelt who brought it in. It was this shift away from the Lincoln policy towards the development of the West, that [fd] Roosevelt and Kennedy had. But Brown epitomizes this return back to Teddy, you go back to so-called “nature,” natural parks that are going to go into a complete desert with no development.
So we’ve got to get this whole Brown degeneration out of there. But then you’ve got to bring in the scientific conception of what mankind is in the universe and this question of atmospheric rivers, this question of the galaxy, is the only legitimate climate science today in the United States or on the planet. Everything else is a fraud. And we should just say it, and we should move in this direction.
And if we do it, I think we’ve got a program in California and the Western States to move on this, this week, starting today.
RACHEL BRINKLEY: You’re definitely getting a sense with Ben’s studying of how man can actually create and transform the entire water circle of the planet. You know, he did this demonstration where he showed that 90% of the water from the oceans falls back into the oceans, 10% onto the land; but what’s a greater amount than that 10%, is the amount from plant life, transpiring back into the atmosphere. We’ve done studies, demonstrating for one, we can influence plant life, where it grows, with the water cycle; we had a plan for this with NAWAPA.
Two, it just gives you a sense that the cycle is just not fixed. Also, yes, the desalination and factor of desalination would bring an entire new element into the water cycle, which doesn’t exist, of bringing in water directly from the oceans, desalinating it, then evaporating and whatnot, and going back into the atmosphere, which is a man-made factor of the global water cycle.
So it’s not a fixed thing, it’s very much changeable. And we have been moving water around on the ground for a long, long time. Da Vinci was moving rivers, the Romans has aqueducts, but the question of moving it in the atmosphere, which would not require this mechanical sense, could be a much more efficient means, now that we’re entering the 21st century, to effect these things, as we can right now.
So yeah, you’re right that this is — it has to be a concept of a revolution in our thinking, not just a mish-mash of small factors and small solutions.
LAROUCHE: I think Ben has gone pretty far in covering that material from what I’ve seen, what he’s done and what you see what he’s done. Because there’s a lot of close hand-work on this thing, because he’s going through examining fact after fact after fact and sorting these things out, what’s feasible and what’s not. And he spends long hours and has spent long hours for years, at his desk, which has produced as a result of that, has produced a capability which has come out in a refined form in this most recent work.
So I mean, that’s fact, that’s already fact. All of us who know him and know what the work is, it’s a fact. We can all solemnly say, “This is a fact.” That’s it. And what we have to do is do the work now, which backs up what that fact is.
DAVE CHRISTIE: You know, one other aspect is, the war danger in this context. I know, Lyn, when you put forward the warning years back, after the death of Muammar Qaddafi, that part of the British push towards the war against what is now the BRICS nations, but in particular, the Russia-India-China combination, was the fact that India and China said “we’re not going to go along with the global warming policy.” We’re not going to go along with the population reduction strategy that the British Queen, the Monarchy, had demanded, which was to shut down industry and so forth.
And I think that, the reason that the war is on, is because those nations refuse to submit to a population-reduction policy, whereas, what you get from Brown is, you know, we’re going to get rid — 38 million people of California are going to somehow to be reduced to 300,000, — or at least that’s the implication of what he’s discussing. And I think, the fact that directionality exists, also heightens the desperation by London and Wall Street, who are committed to this kind of policy, that the only way to destroy the BRICS process is through war.
Now, in that context, I think it’s important to reflect on some of the offers that have been put on the table to the United States: One, an echo of the Strategic Defense Initiative, which is the Strategic Defense of the Earth, which is bigger than just simply asteroid defense. There was really the whole question of space weather. I was just reviewing some of the work of Sergei Pulinets, whom we had interviewed around the time when we were looking at earthquake precursors, which has this relationship with the ionosphere. But he was even discussing hydration and so on, and this much bigger perspective on what water actually was; it was, as Matt had mentioned earlier on the cloud formation due to cosmic radiation, but also this relationship of the Sun and the ionosphere, and having that play a role in the water cycle.
So I think it’s that kind of collaboration between nations at that highest level which will also be the pathway out of war, and collaboration between nations as the policy.
SARE: The other aspect of that is if you look at some of these incredibly difficult hotspots, like now you have the Saudis doing a depopulation carpet-bombing of Yemen, what is the feature of this whole region? It’s a desert! Your work there, to get a peace agreement between the Israelis and the Arab surrounding nations, back in the ’70s, was based on water. And in a sense, unless mankind actually begins to think of the planet in this way, and to address certain fundamental needs, because what would be the basis for peace in that region if you don’t have water? There is no basis for it. So that this becomes, really, a crucial question for the planet as a whole, and a crucial way of our nations relating to each other, in a new paradigm, which doesn’t yet exist, but it’s on the brink of existing with what the BRICS nations are doing.
LAROUCHE: The issue here is, that the Saudi interests, and the interests associated with the Saudis, is the greatest engine of genocide on the planet today. And therefore, if you want to have a nation or set of nations that function, you must eliminate the Saudis and bring them under control. The Saudis are the greatest criminals on the planet. The greatest species of criminal on the planet! And their fellow travellers all have the same habits as they.
We have, right now, we have the President of the United States, who has now said he’s going to make a deal, but he’s going to make a deal which opens the gates for the Saudis to destroy that part of the planet! And that’s what Obama did in his own area, in northern Africa. He’s a traitor against the United States, Obama is, by virtue of his actions! And this has to be understood and emphasized.
And we cannot let anybody get by with that. The Saudis are murderers and everybody who’s protecting 9/11 — 9/11 is actually a Saudi whole production! And we have to get rid of the Saudi operation! Otherwise, you’re not going to have a safe planet. Shut down the Saudis! The Saudi people can still live, they can live fine; just take away their weapons, and make sure they’re not abused — but take away their weapons. It’s their weapons which were deployed, in the British interests, since the beginning of the century. And that’s what’s happened to us.
And everybody who’s covering up for the Saudis, and backing up the Saudis are criminals — if they’re American, they’re criminal! Because any American who understands the nation and how the world functions, knows that the Saudi operations are criminal. And 9/11 is simply the best demonstration of that! Anybody who covers up for 9/11 is a traitor to the United States. Because they’re witting traitors to the United States.
OGDEN: Yeah. And to the extent that Obama refuses to neutralize the Saudis, the so-called peace deal is just a setup for war. And as you said, the evidence is contained within the 28 pages, and Obama very well knows it, that in there, you have the evidence that the Saudis at the very highest level, were involved in setting up, coordinating, and financing 9/11. And Obama is refusing to release those documents — along with, guess who? George Bush.
LAROUCHE: Yeah, well the Bushes — since Prescott Bush, there hasn’t been to my knowledge, an elected Bush whose work was any good at all! And Prescott Bush was the worst example. He was the greatest criminal of the Bush family.
OGDEN: And Roosevelt recognized that: He seized his assets under the Trading With The Enemy Act!
LAROUCHE: Yeah. People should be reminded of that.
SARE: Especially now: It’s the 70th anniversary of the Victory against the Nazis this year, and you have insane things coming out, like the Los Angeles Times had an editorial saying the celebrations should be held in Kiev instead of Moscow! [Ogden gasps] Where we have Nazis coming back into power. I mean, it really is extraordinary.
This question of “Never Again,” I mean, did people say that at the end of World War II? They said “Never Again.” Well, we have it in Obama, the Bush family, the Saudis, and the Nazis that have come prominence in Ukraine.
LAROUCHE: Well, the people who’ve done these things, under the cover of government support, are criminals. The 9/11 issue is action of a criminal action by a Presidential system — by the Presidency, the two Presidents, the Bush Presidency and the Obama Presidency, are criminals against the United States and its people. And that should be said! Why can’t people say that? They’re afraid to say that? It happened, the facts are all there. Did Obama refuse to expose the 9/11? Did he refuse, after having promised to do it? Did he? Right? Well, he didn’t make the correction, he’s a criminal! Because he covered up the mass murder of American citizens in the New York area, for example, and other places as well.
So the time has come to call the shot on this one: Honest people get justice. But those who are intrinsically causes of injustice will be criminalized.
OGDEN: And it should also be asked, is he protecting Jeb Bush? Is his refusal to release the 28 pages, which will clearly embarrass the Bush family, a protection racket for the Jeb Bush candidacy?
LAROUCHE: I think the current Presidential prospects as such, that, you take the Republican Party, now the thing you want to do here, in this case, is shut down the Republican Party, because of doing that! They’re doing that, it’s a crime against the nation! They’re covering up everything, they’re committing a crime against the nation! They should be put on trial.
CHRISTIE: I think a lot of this criminal operation, if you think about it, whether it be what al-Qaeda represents or ISIS, whatever you want to call it, it’s really a criminal operation that flies under a religious banner, and frankly the same thing with the Nazis in Ukraine. If they’re a criminal gang that is basically run by oligarchs that flies under a Nazi banner, but it’s criminal operations to be used and deployed from a geopolitical standpoint. If you look at the Silk Road, what is one of the crucial routes, from Europe through Istanbul, over to Asia; similarly the Maritime Silk Road coming right by Yemen and up through the Suez Canal.
I actually was just thinking of it, that one of the things that Lawrence of Arabia, was involved in — which if you don’t have any idea of the British connection to Saudi Arabia, there’s a good example for you! — but he was involved in, deployed to shut down the Berlin to Baghdad Railroad, which was sort of the Silk Road, you wouldn’t maybe have called it that back then, but this was the legacy of Henry Carey in unleashing the kind of rail connectivity that could have led to peace back then; but which was, of course, destroyed by the British through World War I, World War II, and III and on to here. But it’s the same policy. So I think this criminal racket should be shut down once and for all, and of course, dry it up, dry up the funding for it, by shutting down Wall Street and London.
LAROUCHE: Good! Quite relevant.
BILL ROBERTS: I would just add on this question of Jerry Brown’s policy, in California, of reducing the water supply, this is, as Ben pointed out over the weekend, this is willful genocide. This is absolutely, willfully criminal, and you can see that — I mean, it’s not just a case of someone being misinformed, or merely bad science: You know, this is the guy that shut down the Congressional proposed nuplex operations to desalinate, to build several desalination stations off the coast of California, and several down by the border of Mexico. And that was this same Governor Brown who sabotaged that operation at the time! So, when you’re talking about a guy who’s saying, “we just can’t live the way that we have,” and basically perpetrating a fraud by saying “this is man-made climate change” that’s causing this; and number two, the other fraud in this whole thing, which is that we just have a limited amount of water!
I mean, what Ben has showed, which directly intersects the sabotage operations of Jerry Brown, is that: No, there’s a cycle to this thing, and we can intervene on this cycle. There’s three different, known levels of human intervention on that cycle of water.
So I think that in the same way that O’Malley has stepped outside the box and leveled a basically — taken on this lie that we can somehow compromise with Wall Street, that the party can compromise and the country can still survive, we similarly have to move very quickly bring out a very active charge against this lie that somehow we can compromise with this Green fascism and that somehow the country can survive. Because if you’re talking about allowing the most productive state in the United States, the most populous state, to begin an outmigration process, you’re talking about the absolute collapse of this country.
LAROUCHE: Well, you’ve got to look at one other thing on this thing: There’s a question of the next President. Now, last night, at the close of our meeting last night, I emphasized that, and everybody in the assembly agreed, understood this, that this is the issue. So what we need to do is actually realize that O’Malley is not really, yet, in the Presidential loop — he’s right there, next to it. And in the meantime, on top of that, he’s the only candidate, who meets the requirements for the United States at present, for being a President at this time.
Now that leads to a lot of questions, which can be legitimately bruited about. But the question is, it’s not O’Malley as such, it’s what is going to be a combination of say, O’Malley, if he’s qualified and the people who are going to have to be the team that balances the Presidency.
In other words, you can’t start with the President, and say, “this is the President.” Well that’s crap. You’ve got to say: What is the Presidency?
And we learned this from Bush, the Bush experience and from the Obama administration. And they always covered these guys up by saying “well, they’re the President.” Yeah, but they didn’t represent the Presidency in an honest way! They were fraudsters from the beginning! And they intimidated their way into power! And by cheating and so forth.
So the question is: We have to actually say, we have to have a new Presidency, not just a new President. Which means you want a group of people who are of the same mind, in terms of about what has to be done, who will balance off what becomes a Presidency. In other words, you have a selection of people who put together, working together, become an effective Presidency: They each have their own, specific talents, and they share a common idea and talents and commitment. We need that.
So therefore, we have a potential: Right now, the only person who is considered as a Presidential candidate now, is him, O’Malley; the only person who’s on the deck right now, who could be called for Presidency. But, he, by himself, is not qualified to be President! He’s qualified if he can head the Presidency. And create a Presidency.
Now, no Bush is of any use. You just, — Bushes are for burning. But I don’t want the smell of the burning, so just get rid of ’em, get rid of ’em. And we have a lot of members of Congress who are frauds! I mean, they’ve sold their soul to the devil so many times, they don’t know what a soul is! Except for the kind of other sole. [laughter]
And so therefore, the point is, we have to actually bestir, from what seems to be a very minimal capability, we have to take that apparently very minimal capability and realize that we have the potential, of organizing, if we have a Presidential candidate that’s qualified, we have the possibility that we will correct and create the next Presidency of the United States. Not because it’s our greed or desire to do that, but because we need somebody who’s qualified to do the job, and right now, we don’t have almost anybody, who’s qualified to do the job, and that’s what the issue has to be that we are facing right now, practically.
We’ve got to get a Presidency, not a President. We don’t want any Bushes any more! Let Moses burn the Bushes, we don’t need these crap artists. And we don’t need obamas, either. He’s a fraud, he always was a fraud from the beginning, if you take his record, as I know his record, from the beginning of career! He’s a fraud! And so, you call him Mr. Fraud. Mr. Fraud Number X, or whatever it is.
I think that’s on our plate.
But we need to say, “we are going to cause, stimulate people to become a party which assembled is qualified to become the Presidency of the United States. And we desperately need that leadership!
OGDEN: Yeah. And I think what Ben has produced makes it clear that we absolutely have the authority, to be the leadership of that Presidential team.
LAROUCHE: These guys are no good, they’re no use to us! They’re no good. Why do we want no good, useless people in Presidential and related positions — we don’t want it! And the problem is, we are depressing our people, our citizens. Our citizens have lost their soul, they’ve been deprived of their soul, they no longer have any sense of authority; they have uh, uh, uh! attitudes, submission!
We’ve got to restore the Presidency, to the service of a United States! And to the people of the United States! We don’t have it any more! We’ve got to get it!
CHRISTIE: Just on that point, O’Malley made that point on the despondency of the American people; I thought that was a useful point, and the danger of that despondency.
LAROUCHE: Yeah, it’s extremely important. That’s what we have to do. And we had the meeting last night, it was a social meeting, on drama and music; and it was fun. But the point was, at the end, I laid the thing out, and the response was immediately, “yes, yes, yes, yes, yes!” That’s what we have to do. Fry that which is not edible. [laughter]
OGDEN: Ok! I think that’s very clearly said. So, we’ve got our marching orders.
LAROUCHE: Yeah, I think we can cook ’em up.
OGDEN: Okay. Thanks a lot for joining us. I think we’re going bring a conclusion to our show today: Stay tuned.
