-Caveat Lector- from: http://x6.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=430151387&CONTEXT=917195221.1963983102&h itnum=23 AL GORE AND THE NUCLEAR DANGER (was EIR Talks Interview 01/06/98) Author: John Covici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 1999/01/08 Forums: alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich, alt.activism, alt.politics.british, alt.politics.democrats.d, alt.current-events.russia, alt.current-events.bosnia, talk.politics.mideast, talk.politics.china EIR TALKS, JAN. 6, 1999 - GORE AND THE NUCLEAR DANGER - {The following is the full text of Debbie Freeman's speech at the Baltimore meeting Jan. 5, which text will be edited down to be the guts of both EIR Talks and the LaRouche Connection this week.} DEBRA FREEMAN: I'm glad so many people came out tonight, because we really do have a tremendous task. And what I really want to make absolutely clear to people in no uncertain terms tonight, is that completely contrary to what you hear on TV, to what you hear on the news, the bottom line is that at this very moment, there is an ongoing, British-style parliamentary coup d'etat going on in the United States. Anyone who told you that ``the worst was over'' when the impeachment fight moved from the House of Representatives to the United States Senate, is a liar. Anyone who told you, that when this fight moved to the United States Senate, that ``calmer heads would prevail,'' {is a liar.} And at this moment, this nation is in greater danger than it has been at any moment since the Declaration of Independence. And I will explain exactly why that is. But what I also want to make clear to you, is that the fight against the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, while it is an absolutely crucial fight, {while it's a fight that we can not afford to lose,} it is also the case that it is only one battle in a much broader war. And the fact is, that if we're going to win that battle, you must understand the terms of the larger war. Otherwise, we won't win this battle. Now, just a couple of facts, so that you understand the setting in which all of this takes place. First and foremost, the larger war against our nation, and against the people of this nation, has been triggered by what is without question the worst financial crisis that this nation has ever faced. Number two, something that you will not read about in the press, but which I hope to make clear to you tonight, is that if President Clinton was to be removed from office, and Al Gore were to come in, the danger that you would face, would not only be a danger that would be caused by the financial crisis. But the fact of the matter is, that if Al Gore becomes president of the United States, then nuclear war is not only possible, it is likely. And if you doubt that, then simply look at the policies that Al Gore has defined as his policies. First of all, Al Gore was engaged in a series of behind-the-scenes manipulations that stopped the President of the United States from attending the recent Asian summit meetings that took place in Malaysia. I think everybody remembers that. The backdrop for that, was what? It was the threat of a war with Iraq. Al Gore was the single greatest promoter of a strike against Iraq. At the last minute, that war was called off, and President Clinton did ultimately travel to Asia. But at the crucial meetings that took place, the man who represented the United States was Al Gore. And if people think back -- and, you know, that was just Thanksgiving time. It seems like it was years ago. But at that time, Al Gore travelled to Malaysia, made a vicious, nasty speech that undid five years of work that Clinton did as President of the United States, in terms of forging relations with other countries. And Al Gore put himself at the helm of the IMF steamroller that is crushing the nations of Asia and Eastern Europe. At the same time, although the immediacy of a conflict with Iraq was avoided then, a short time later, again, while President Clinton was out of the country on a trip to Israel that everyone {except Al Gore} advised him against making, the plot was hatched for the bombing of Iraq. Now, I don't care what you think about Saddam Hussein. I don't think very much of him myself. But the bombing of Iraq, was a set-up for President Clinton. First of all, he was misled as to the terms of that bombing. President Clinton was informed while he was on his way back from Israel, that Saddam Hussein had violated all agreements, and that ``every nation in the world,'' was in agreement that there had to be a military strike. {Well, in fact, there was not one nation in the world that agreed with us, with the sole exception of Great Britain.} President Clinton was told that the Russians agreed. The Russians did {not} agree, and they promptly recalled their ambassador. The President was told that the Chinese agreed. The Chinese did not agree, and the Chinese head of state issued a scathing attack on the United States. The President was told that all the nations of the Arab world agreed. No nation in the Arab world agreed. Even Kuwait, who one could hardly refer to as a nation, refused landing rights to U.S. planes. {The United States stepped completely outside the boundaries of international law in the bombing of Iraq.} Now, why is that important? Well, in a world where there is tremendous instability, where there is financial instability, where there is political instability, if you have one nation -- our nation -- a nation that's supposed to have the utmost respect for the law; if our nation steps outside of the law, then how in fact do we pull an outlaw state like Israel in line, when she violates the rights of her neighbors, when she violates international law, when she abrogates international treaties? But that was the policy that was imposed on our President, by Al Gore, and by Al Gore's friends in London. And the fact of the matter is that if you think back to when the assault on President Clinton in the U.S. Congress first began, when the monstrous and lying evidence that had been gathered by that sexual pervert, Ken Starr, was released on the Internet, that same day, President Clinton appeared before the General Assembly of the United Nations. And when he stood up to speak, he was given the longest standing ovation by the heads of state of every other nation; the longest standing ovation given to any head of state, with the sole exception of Nelson Mandela, when he was released from prison. After the bombing of Iraq, I doubt if that would have occurred. And that's why I say that President Clinton was set up. But look at where we stand now. And I want to dwell on this for a moment, because this question of Al Gore leading this nation into nuclear war, is something which is very important, and which you will not hear anywhere but this room. Because if you turn on the news right now, what you'll hear on the news, are the various reports back and forth about what's likely to happen when the Senate opens tomorrow. They're now saying that a trial in the Senate could begin as soon as Thursday, that all deals have fallen apart, that there are people who are {adamant} that Clinton has to be removed from office. And then, kind of on the tail-end of the news, they'll say ``Oh yes, and by the way, there was another engagement with the Iraqis today. But nothing to worry about. No Americans were hurt. We think an Iraqi plane may have crashed when it ran out of fuel. Nothing to worry about.'' But it {is} something to worry about. Because what it represents, is an escalation of tension in the region. And it's an escalation of tension at a time when Israel has run amok under the leadership of that fascist, Benjamin Netanyahu. And this is going on with President Clinton, who despises Benjamin Netanyahu, and has already stated clearly his support for a Palestinian state. What do you think would happen, if the President of the United States was Al Gore, who is against a Palestinian state, and who is a friend of Benjamin Netanyahu? What kind of arrogance would you see coming out of the state of Israel then? So please be assured that when I say that a Gore Presidency would bring us not only to the {possibility} but to the {probability} of the engagement of U.S. nuclear missiles, that I don't make that statement lightly. Another fact in this war that I want you to understand, is that the war that we're fighting, is not against the Republican Party. That would be an easy war to fight. But what you have to understand, is that the war that we're fighting, is against foreign-inspired treason, very much like that of the foreign-inspired treason that led to the Civil War in 1861. And I think that by now, most people know that what brought the United States to war in 1861 -- people tell you that that was a war of the North against the South. But the Confederacy would have never challenged Union forces, shots would have never been fired, if that Confederacy had not been guaranteed financing and materiel from the City of London. They would have been insane to do so. They wouldn't have lasted a day. But they knew they had the backing of financial circles in the City of London, and they knew that they had the financial backing of Wall Street. And it was only under those circumstances, that they went as far as they did, and brought this nation to war. And the fact of the matter is that the same financial backers of that treason 100 years ago, are the individuals that you see again today, financing this treason, financing the New Confederacy. And if you watched the House debate a couple of weeks ago, and you have any doubt at all that this is a New Confederacy, please, when you go home tonight, look at some of the old footage of Mr. Asa Hutchinson, who is now one of the managers of the impeachment. And when you turn on the news tonight, listen for a few moments to the majority leader of the United States Senate, Mr. Trent Lott of Mississippi. And tell me again, that you're not quite sure that this is a New Confederacy. It is a New Confederacy, which makes very public their support for the Old Confederacy. They support the principles of the Old Confederacy. They support the principles of slavery. They have done so repeatedly and openly. And most of them hail from states where the Confederate flag still flies over their capitals. And I will tell you, that in the state of Mississippi, much to my surprise, a state which is the only state in the United States that has a majority African-American population, not in an urban center, but statewide, the majority of the citizens of the state of Mississippi, are African-Americans. The Mississippi State Legislature has the largest black caucus of any legislature in the United States. And with all of that said, in the state of Mississippi, slavery is still legal. That's right. Just in this last legislative session, they tried to repeal slavery as a legal institution from the state law books in Mississippi, and they failed, by an overwhelming majority. This is indeed the new Confederacy. Who are their financial backers? Richard Mellon Scaife, whose family, the Mellons, were involved in financing the first Confederacy. Conrad Black and the Hollinger Corporation, who hail from the City of London, who own the majority of the newspapers in the United States, just as they owned the largest newspapers during the time of the Civil War. Lord Rees-Mogg, of the House of Lords in London, whose editorials attacking this President, pre-date anything any of you ever heard about Whitewater or Monica Lewinsky, or Linda Tripp. And what I want you to understand, is that these forces and these individuals, haven't simply gathered together against President Clinton. Oh yes, they do intend to remove William Jefferson Clinton from office.{ But their principal enemy is not Clinton. Their principal enemy is the United States of America. Their principal enemy is the system of government, with all of its flaws and pimples, that we live by. That is what they find absolutely unacceptable.} And what do they say? They say ``Well, the United States, it's a great place. The Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, these are good documents. But, you know, they're old. So, what we need to do today, is we need to reinvent government. We need to reinvent the Declaration of Independence. We need to reinvent the Constitution.'' What the hell do we have to reinvent something that's already been invented? Do you see any research corporations giving out grants to reinvent the wheel? We don't need to reinvent the wheel, we have the wheel! And it works real good. So, when Al Gore gets up, and he talks about ``reinventing government,'' he's not talking about ``reinventing government.'' He's talking about {destroying} government. He may want to reinvent some other form of government. But the form of government that governs this nation, is something that he is simply opposed to, because his masters are opposed to it. And when you hear people talking about a ``Third Way,'' the ``Third Way'' that they're talking about, is what? It's slave labor. It's NAFTA. It's free trade. See, the only thing that's free about free trade, is your labor. You work for free. It's a slightly different connotation than ``free'' as in freedom. It's ``free'' as in no money, no wages for you. But certainly the fruits of your labor are not free. I guarantee you that the people who benefit from the fruits of your labor, do intend to make great financial compensation from them. Now, the problem that comes up when we discuss this, is that what lots of people say, is people say ``Well, look. This is all very interesting. But you know, it's too much. It's too complicated. You're not going to get people to go with all of this all at once. Let's just look at this thing right now. ``We don't want President Clinton impeached. So, let's deal with that. Let's save the President. And then, after we save the President, well, then we can deal with all this other stuff. But right now, let's just make sure President Clinton doesn't get impeached.'' But the problem is, that if you look at it in that way, you won't be able to stop President Clinton from being impeached, because you will not understand the nature of the operation against him. So that when someone comes along and says ``We don't want to impeach President Clinton. Those of us in the Senate, we're not like those crazy maniacs in the House of Representatives. We're not a bunch of hotheads here, we're not a bunch of fanatics. We're not a bunch of zealots. Everyone knows, that in the United States Senate, we're calm. We don't run for election every two years, we run every six years. We're not held hostage so much to local constituencies. We respond to a broader constituency.'' And if you believe that, as many Americans did -- because again, remember what happened. The day that the House voted to impeach Clinton, the American population was {furious. People were furious.} And they showed that they were furious. In Washington, people came out in the streets. In polls that were taken, within the course of one day, President Clinton, who is the most popular president in American history, found that his approval ratings -- everyone said his approval ratings would be affected if there was an impeachment vote. And they were affected. His approval ratings went up by eight points. Because the American people were {disgusted} by the spectacle that they had witnessed on the floor of the House. And one member after another, got up and said -- what? ``This is a coup.'' And the American people heard it, and they repeated it. But that was last month. Now, people don't think it's a coup any more. Now, people say ``Well, I don't think that they're really going to remove President Clinton. I think that all they're going to do, is censure him.'' Well, do you know what that means? What is censure? Does the Constitution allow for censure? There's nothing in the Constitution that allows the Senate to censure the President of the United States. If the President is guilty of impeachable crimes, the Senate has the right, by a two-thirds majority, to remove him from office. {If they can't do that, then they should keep their damn mouths shut.} The only way that censure has any meaning, is if the President agrees to it. So, what is the game? The game is: we don't have the votes to impeach you -- maybe. So what we'll get you to do, is destroy yourself. {You} agree to a diminishing of your power. {You} agree to a co-Presidency. {You} agree to move Al Gore more into the forefront. We won't execute you. We will allow you to kill yourself. Isn't that the choice that -- you know, that's the choice that honorable tyrants give. Right? Barbarians just shoot you. But an honorable victor, hands you your pistol, and allows you to kill yourself. And that's what these guys are playing around with right now. And the American people have got to recognize it. And what's going on with President Clinton, is the equivalent of an inside-outside operation. Because look at what he's faced with. He goes to the Senate -- and again, the situation in the Senate is not better than it was in the House, {it is worse.} Because in the House of Representatives, what you did have, was you had a core of Democrats, feisty Democrats, who were prepared to defend this President. First of all, you had the Congressional Black Caucus, who knows the Confederacy when they see it. They know the Klan. Right? You don't have to come in wearing a white hood and robe, for them to know that it's the Klan. And they know that you don't negotiate with the Klan. You don't negotiate with a lynch mob. You can't negotiate with a lynch mob. So, in the view of the Congressional Black Caucus, they were fighting to the death. They had no choice. You had other good Democrats. I still remember Bob Wexler from Florida, who shouted, at the top of his lungs: ``Wake up, America! They are trying to impeach your President!'' Who plays that role in the U.S. Senate? Forget about the Republicans for a moment. There is not one Democrat -- not one in the United States Senate, who has stood up and defended this President. Who? Have you heard anyone? The best they have done, is they said he should be censured. No one has defended him. He is completely isolated. You have 21 -- 21 members of the Senate, who are absolutely committed to removing Clinton from office. Twenty-one out of 100. You did not have the same proportion in the House when this process started. You now have a proposal that was worked out between Trent Lott, the leader of the Republicans, and Tom Daschle, the leader of the Democrats, a proposal which would say ``we want to limit this trial, limit the trial to 10 days. Stipulate to all of the evidence that Ken Starr has presented. Don't call any witnesses.'' Would you stipulate to a trial like that? That's not a trial! That's a lynching! {It is a lynching.} And what do they say to the President? They say ``Well, do you want to paralyze the government? You know, if we have a full trial, Mr. President, well, if we have a full trial, and you call witnesses, and you want to mess around with all this stuff, well, you know, no business is going to get done.'' Well, no business is going to get done, if the President is impeached! And they say ``Oh, well, you don't want to bring out all this sordid business by calling witnesses.'' They flooded the Internet with pornography for three weeks! Why shouldn't that be challenged? What is President Clinton going to present in his defense, that is more sordid than what Ken Starr has already paraded all over the world, completely unchallenged? How can you ever conduct a trial, based on a prosecutor's bill of complaint -- unchallenged? There was no opportunity to challenge it before the House of Representatives. And our advice to this administration, is very straightforward: you tell them you want to have a trial, fine. Then we'll have a trial. And if the business of the nation is stopped for one month, for two months, for six months, then that's what will happen, because we will fight this trial, and we will fight it until we crush you and your violations of the U.S. Constitution. Because that is the only way that this President can secure this Constitution and this nation. And the American people wouldn't have any complaints if he did that. See, the Republicans tried to do this once before, didn't they? When Gingrich said ``Either you agree to our budget cuts, Mr. President, or we'll shut down the government. We'll shut down the government, and the people will blame you.'' Well, at that time, Clinton stood up. And he said ``I am not going to sign this budget.'' And Gingrich sure as hell shut down the government. But you know, I don't think the American people blamed Clinton. Because Clinton's got his problems right now, but he's the President. Where's Gingrich? Where's Newt? And his revolutionaries, whatever they called themselves. I keep thinking what I call them. I don't want to say it, because he's got a camera on there. Where are they? And the situation now would be exactly the same. But you have to see the fact that the situation is not {better.} As far as the situation in the Senate, the situation is worse. But then, what happens? And this is why I said it's an inside-outside operation. Because, you see, one of the things that they're holding over the President's head, is they're saying to the President, well, if you don't make this deal with us, if you insist on a full trial -- it's the same thing prosecutors do when they try to force you to plea-bargain. They say ``You want a trial? Okay, we'll give you a trial, buddy. But if you lose, you're dead.'' Right? Isn't that what they tell you, when you plea-bargain? They say ``All you've got to do, is say you're guilty. And you say ``But I'm innocent.'' They say ``It doesn't matter, honey. If you say you're guilty, you don't have to go to jail. Or you only have to go to jail for a couple of months. You go to trial, and we convict you, and you're going away for five years.'' And most people cop a plea. Now, what do they say to this President? They say ``Okay. You want a trial? You think you can beat impeachment? Maybe you can. Maybe you will hold on to office. But when you come out, Ken Starr is going to indict you, and he's going to indict your wife. And anyone who ever supported you.'' And, you know, this President is the first President since Abraham Lincoln who is not independently wealthy. And he can mount a legal defense as President. But as a private citizen? Ken Starr has spent {millions, tens of millions of dollars.} Where is Clinton going to get the money to mount a defense against that? And don't think that that isn't on his mind. But then, what do his friends on the inside say? They say ``well, Mr. President, we think you don't have to worry about that. Fight 'em. And maybe Ken Starr will come after you when your term is over. But we can take care of that. All we've got to do is make sure that Al Gore gets elected president after you, and he'll pardon you.'' And then they turn to Gore, and they say ``Right, Al?'' And he says ``Ah-ha. Sure, I'll pardon you. I'm your loyal servant, Bill. Whatever you want. You want to fight? I'll stand by you.'' And that's how the game is played. But again, I want to come back to my original point. You can't overlook the larger war, because this is not just about a creepy guy who happens to be vice president, and a bunch of ugly Southerners in the U.S. Senate. It's not that easy. It really is something which is much more complicated. And you have to understand this thing, from the standpoint of history. Because the fact of the matter is, that there are parallels in history for what we're seeing right now. And unfortunately, the parallels are not pretty ones. But probably the model for this attempted parliamentary coup against Clinton, is the coup that brought Adolf Hitler to power in Germany in 1933. The reasons are the same. The individuals, the financial interests involved, are the same. And the shocking thing, and the thing which is most difficult for Americans to understand, is that the result, as horrible as Hitler was, the result this time, would be {worse.} And the reason why, is because the conditions are worse. See, what occurred with Hitler, is something that really is a very straightforward situation. You had the Great Depression. In the panic of that Depression, you had financial interests based in places like Wall Street, the City of London, and other financial centers, determined to hold onto power. In the context of their drive to hold on to that power, they were absolutely determined to exact every last drop of blood they could, out of the people who inhabit this planet. Treasury Secretary Mellon proposed absolutely vicious austerity for the population of the United States. People talk about Herbert Hoover's Depression. It wasn't Hoover's Depression. It was Mellon's Depression. And he was going to exact the cost of that Depression from the American people. Abroad, what you had was a grouping very similar to the IMF today. The seven victorious countries in the First World War, determined to exact every penny of war reparations from the nation of Germany, from the First World War. They had already done a damned good job of dismantling Germany's economy, and demanding that Germany pay that debt, in the same way that they demand today, that nations kill their populations to pay the debt. And that was the ongoing matrix from 1929 to 1930, 1931. But the problem was, that with the unravelling of the banks, following the Crash of '29, they could not maintain their power. And nations were breaking out. And you had two parallel developments that threw these financial interests into an absolute panic. One, was here in the United States, with Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Because FDR basically told Wall Street to go screw themselves. And he was very explicit about it. And what FDR did, was he crafted a recovery program, which was based on the most elementary points of American System economics. And what it basically came down to, was looking at a bankrupt financial system, saying the banks can't be saved, but the people can be. And if you want to secure a nation, you put people first. And that's what FDR did, and the nation rallied around him. The banks didn't like it. Wall Street didn't like it. But the American people supported him. You had something else going on in Germany, something which was far less publicized, which was that you had, after a series of meetings of something called the Friedrich List Society. Now, who is Friedrich List? Well, Friedrich List was a German economist, who was one of the collaborators of our Founding Fathers. He was one of the architects of what we call the American System. The List Society was {illegal} in Germany, but they met in secret. And many of Germany's leaders were a part of the List Society. That was how they had been educated. They had been educated in these methods. And they came up with a recovery plan for Germany, which entailed not paying the war reparations, rejecting the war reparations, but actually rebuilding Germany from the inside, in precisely the same way that FDR was rebuilding the United States. And there was a Chancellor in Germany, whose name was von Schleicher, who previously had been a military leader. He was a general in the German Army, a very, very decorated military leader, who was implementing this plan. He was implementing this recovery plan. And the financial oligarchy, faced with the prospect of a strong, independent U.S. economic recovery under the likes of Roosevelt, matched with the rebirth of the German industrial giant, was more than they could stand. And you had two operations that were launched. One, was the parliamentary coup against von Schleicher, in which Hitler took power. There's all this crap that you read in modern history books, about the ``great popularity'' of the Nazi Party. They had just suffered the greatest election defeats in their history. Their popularity was going down, not up. They would never -- Hitler would not have won an election in 1933. It was only {after} the parliamentary coup. Because first you had the parliamentary coup. Von Schleicher and the Lautenberg economic recovery plan, was forced out. Hitler came in on Jan. 28. One month later, the Nazi Party staged something called the Reichstag fire, where the equivalent of the Congress was burned down. And they blamed it on the enemies of Hitler, which wasn't true; it was the Nazis that did it. But it gave Hitler the right to bring in emergency decrees. And all of the rights of the German people were taken away. And by the time Hitler went through this process, within a year of the consolidation of power, then there was no possibility of opposing Hitler. And the next attempt to oppose Hitler, came not then, not in '33 or '34, but it came 10 years later, with an attempted coup against Hitler by the German military, which was sabotaged by -- who? By the British. The British installed Hitler in power. Then they fought a war against him. And while they were fighting that war against him, they gave up the names of every person who was trying to overthrow him. And that's part of the public record. That's a well-known part of history. And any American who lost a relative in that war, from 1944 on, should know that they have Winston Churchill and the British to thank for it, because it was the British who prolonged that war. It was the British who kept Hitler in power, because they wanted him in there, because he served their purpose. And the fact of the matter is that the people who financed the Nazi Party, before Hitler was made Chancellor; the people who financed the Nazi Party when Hitler's popularity was waning, are the same people, the same families, the same interests, who not only are financing this coup against Bill Clinton, but who are the principal financial backers of Al Gore. And again, you have to be very clear on what Al Gore represents. Because if you listen to President Clinton -- and you know, sometimes, you need to listen to him, and sometimes, you need to ignore him, because he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. I mean, he's a good guy, and he's got good instincts, but he's very gullible. And President Clinton gets up there, and he talks about his great Vice President Al Gore. And he says that Al Gore is a ``good guy.'' And Al Gore stands by him, and he's the best vice president anybody could ever want, and he supports me, and blah-blah, and this is a partnership. And Al Gore nods his head, and says ``Yup, I'm with you, Bill. I support everything you do.'' And probably 90% of the time, if you were just hanging around, watching what went on in the White House, he does look like a real sycophant. He just seems to love everything Clinton does. He's Clinton ``yes man.'' But then, when you get to the core of what these two people represent. Well, we know what President Clinton represents. We know that he locates himself in the tradition of Kennedy and Roosevelt. We know that he doesn't like the British. His whole schooling is based on an anti-British, anti-imperialist outlook. We know that he's a great student of Roosevelt's drive to lead the U.S. out of the Depression. We know also that he's a student -- I wouldn't go so far as to say that he's a student of LaRouche. But we know -- and if you don't know, I'm telling you -- that his administration has been engaged in an open dialogue with Mr. LaRouche, from the time he first came to Washington. He's not a product of Wall Street. He really does believe in putting people before banks. And he does believe, that that global financial system needs reform. Now, that doesn't make him the greatest guy in the world. He's got a lot of problems. He has a lot of weaknesses. But fundamentally, he's a good person. And fundamentally, he's a great supporter of the American System. He supports progress, he supports development. He tried to forge a new relationship with Africa. It didn't work. He couldn't do it. He tried to forge an alliance with the Chinese. He said that the key relations for America in the 21st Century, would be the alliance of the Pacific, not with the old countries of Europe. Why? Well, because the vast majority of the Earth's people live in Asia. And you can't ignore that. If you talk about what's going to make the next century, if you believe that the greatest resource that any nation has is its people, then there is no question that China is the richest nation on Earth, because it has the largest population, and a new commitment to that population. Well, What's Al Gore? Well, you know, people say ``Well, you know, Al Gore, he's not so bad. Okay, I wouldn't vote for him. Maybe he'd never win an election; Yeah, it's true, he kind of looks like he's made out of wood, doesn't have much personality. ``But I mean, he's not a {bad} guy.'' Well, he {is} a bad buy. And he's not a bad guy just because he has a rotten personality. He's a bad guy, because in terms of his outlook, his outlook is a poisonous outlook. And it's an outlook which -- it doesn't matter if he says that he agrees with the president. His basic, fundamental ideology is {opposed} to the President's. It is no accident, that when he was in Congress -- do you know who one of his closest friends was in Congress? Newt Gingrich. Together, they formed something called the Congressional Clearinghouse on the Future. And what were the principles of the Congressional Clearinghouse on the Future? Well, they were Al Gore's principles. Al Gore says what? Reinvent government. What does he mean? He means destroy national sovereignty. He's against the principle of the nation-state. It's not a slander. He'll tell you that. He'll tell you that. He'll tell you that every nation must sublimate its interests to {global} interests -- that you don't have the right to protect your nation. That when a nation trys to protect it's own industry, by implementing certain protectionist measures, by imposing tariffs, or taxed on foreign imports -- {that's bad.} That's not {free trade}. That's not {globalization}. So, when he says reinvent government, he {means}, take away the constrainsts that allow national sovereignty. It means sublimate your national institutions to international institutions. And he means it doubley for developing sector countries, as he does for advanced sector countries. Number two, in his outlook, against something he holds, in close similarity with Mr. Gingrich, if anybody ever vetures to read the book that Al Gore wrote, or, I don't know if he actually wrote it, I don't think he writes, but it was issued in his name, when he was a Presidential candidate -- this book called {Earth in the Balance}. What you will read in there, is the most {unbeliveable} anti-science, anti-technology tract that you will ever see. As a matter of fact, if you take Al Gore's book over here, and you take, do you remember that beserk 210-page thing that they printed in the newpapers when the Unibomber threatened to kill a zillion people? {You read} the Unibomber's tract, and you read Al Gore's book, and they had the same ghostwriter. {It's} the same outlook, {complete hatered of science}, complete {hatered} of technology. {Hatered} of development. The idea that you would actually, you know, disturb some snails for the sake of building a dam, to provide electric power for a rural community, is {totally contrary} to Al Gore's rural mint-julep outlook. Number three: use the author of NAFTA, biggest supportor of slave labor on the planet. Bill Clinton, when he ran for President was against NAFTA. Al Gore was for NAFTA, before it was called NATFA. He supported NAFTA when he was in the Congress, he supported NAFTA when he was in the Senate, and when he ran for President, he ran on a pro-NAFTA plank. He {supports} slave labor. It is the very basis of his reinventing govenment {principle}. And finally, like his predecessor, as vice President Georger Bush, and he hopes that he will follow in George's footsteps. He has a {vicious} population control outlook. And one of the reasons {why}, he and President Clinton cannot come to agreement, on Asia policy, or Africa policy, is that the basic principle of Gore's outlook toward Africa and Asia, is population reduction, population control. {That is his outlook}, so {please}, {do not tell me} that he's really not such a bad guy. Maybe not the greatest personality in the world, not the greatest speaker, but {not} a bad person. {What else could he do?} {You take} the poison that this guy puts out, and you combine it with his unbelievable personal ambition, and what you come up with is a national security threat. Both domestically, and internationally. Everything that he represents, is not only against the view that this President have, but it is absolutely against the vital interest of the United States. And if you go back to the reasons why they are attacking this Presdent, again you have got to understand, that this is a war, it's not a domestic war, it's a global war. On the one side, you have the principles on which the Declaration of Independence, on which the U.S. Constitution and on which the form of goverment that we enjoy are based. With all of its flaws, it's the best system available right now. What you have on the other side, is the continuing directly contrary free-trade outlook. And its the outlook of this nations most ancient and continuing enemy -- the British Monarchy. And in this country the British Monarchy is represented by their Wall Street interests. And that is what's behind this coup on the President. And people have got to get it straight, because we are, right now, whether you like it or not, whether you're a willing army or not, {we} are locked in a mortal conflict over this question. If you're a willing army, we can defeat our enemies. If you are not a willing army, then this nation does not have a chance. And that is really what it comes down to, but you have to understand, that these are two axiomatically opposed forces. And what's happening right now, thaty the fight {is} being excelorated by the instability in relations among nations that provoked by the accelorating financial crisis -- because look, you {just have to face the facts}, what we've seen, and we've seen this since 1987, you have a collapse in financial stability, it was kicked off in 1971 with the floating exchange rates, but it's gotten progressively worse, at the same time you've had a contraction of real economic output, and that has gotten worse, and as this process has proceeded, what you also have, it a process of disintigration {among people}, where as unempolyment grows, as pysical output decreases, as people's standard of living is driven down, you have an inherent distrust of government, you have cynicism, you have people who say, {I don't give a damn} about what goes on in Washington, which is exactly what the enemy wants, and we're in a phase were that kind of situation is intensifying. And look, I'll tell you something, this mixture, is an explosive political mixture. It's this same mixture that preceeded Hitler's rise to power. But, when I said earlier, that if this thing happens now it will be worse -- let me explain to you the one added ingredient, that you didn't have in the 1930s, because what you didn't have in the 1930s, but which you do have now, is you have a lunacy, that has never been witnessed in the world before. You have a whole class of people, not the bankers, not the financiers, but what you have are these financial parasites. I was in New York last week, you get to see them up close, they're these {hideous} young financial zealots, who masterbate with their little hand-held electronic calculators. Did anyone ever see the movie Wall Street? Beware of anybody who has a shirt which is stripped, but with a white collar. (laughs) It's their uniform, and they're there, with their little calculators. {Hysterically}, trading derivatives, and calculating their mutual funds. They have no power, but they also have no skills. They have build careers on managing mutual funds, on dealing with paper, on trading derivatives. And as this system starts to blow apart, they are like fear-maddened rats. And there is nothing worse that a herd of rats driven by fear. If you frighten a group of rats, you frighten a group of any other kind of animal they'll turn around and run, you frighten a group of rats, what will they do? Attack. They're crazy. Absolutely crazy. This new class, that didn't exist in the 1930s, this is what made the Gingrich revolution. You want to see one of them up close?, Take a good look at Bobby Erlich. Take a good look at him. Looks like a nice guy. Didn't seem so bad when he was in the state legislature, watch him in the hall of Congress, he is a vicious, murderous bastard. Somebody should put a pair of handcuffs on that guy. He {is a killer}. Why? Because if Clinton continutes to proceed with his policies, then the base of power, that supports people like Bobby Erlich is striped away, and he will {kill} to hold on to that base of power. And you have to understand, the nature of these individuals. They don't have to be jeering, ugly Mississippians like Trent Lott. Those guys are easy to recognize. You know somebody comes in whereing a white sheet, you say, you can't fool me, he's a member of the Klan -- good work Sherlock. But those are not the guys, those guys are dangerous, I mean you see a guy with a white robe, and a rope, you know your better off, either shooting him or going someplace else, but it's the guy who's not wearing the white robe, who sometimes is even more dangerous. And you have to learn to recognize people, not only by the outward appearance, but by what they believe in. What policies they support, what they act on. And again, if you go back, to the 1930s, if you go back to the policies that were imployed by Roosevelt, by what they were attempting to do in Germany, what you can see, is that, okay, we have a terrible financial crisis, right now, it's worse than what we face in '29, without question, but in principle, it still is the case, by applying American System policies, the crisis could be solved. Understand what I'm saying -- not that the system can be saved, the financial system can't be saved; it's hoplessly bankrupt, but {so what}?, you can have a new financial system. Bank goes bankrupt, fine, put it through bankruptcy, form a new bank, on sounder principles. That's what a nation has the ability to do. It's what a nation uniquly has the ability to do. That's what Lincoln did. It's what Roosevelt did. It's the direction that John Kennedy was moving in. And obviously the current fear of the finacial oligarchy is that it is precisely what Bill Clinton will do. When Bill Clinton gets up, and starts talking about a new fincancial architecture, when Bill Clinton goes to Korea, and says to the Korean people, what has happened here it not your fault, but it's the fault of trillions of dollars flowing in and out of financial markets. Not your fault. Something that comes from outside, something that has to be regulated, something that has to be brought in line. The financial oligarchy goes {crazy}. Now, you might sit there and say, well gee, if in fact it's true, that by applying these policies, you could resolve this crisis, why wouldn't they want to do it? If these policies would work, if the kind of policies that Roosevelt implemented, if the kind of policies that Mr. LaRouche is proposing, if they would work, then why not go with them? Well, because in fact, they've been implemented repeatedly, both this country and elsewhere, in other countries that have modeled themselves on the American System. Well, then why object? Well, the answer is elemetary, my dear citizen. Because the fact of the matter is, that these kinds of Ammercian System methods, well they work all right, and they save the institutions of governement all right, and they do a damn good job of protecting you, but they do have a side effect: and that side effect is they cut down to size the power of the financiers. It diminishes the power of financial centers, like London, and Wall Street and Tokyo. And what we've seen repeatedly in history, is rather than allow that power to be dimished, these guys have shown that they would prefer to destroy the world -- and they came damn close when they put in Hitler But the fact is that if they are allowed to do it now, they will succeed, and therefore, when we talk about stoppint the impeachment of Bill Clinton, and when we talk about how Al Gore, and the installation of Al Gore, as President, or as co-President, would be the parallel to the parilamentary coup that installed Hitler, only with worse results. You have to understand it in this broader context, and you have to understand that the differences between the two sides, these are irreconcilable differences. They're not going to be settled by negotiation. Not on the big scale, and not on the small scale. There are two diametrically opposed outlooks, they're two diametrically opposed views of man. The American System believes in man created in the image of God. The Constitution is based on it. All principles of good govnerment are based on it. The British system {does not} belive in that. There is no such thing as a citizen in the British Commonwealth. Ask anyone who's a member of the British Commonwealth. Rebecca's not a citizen, she's a {subject.} That's the term that's used. They're considered subjects. And power doesn't come by the fruits of your own labor, it's inherited. It's a different outlook, the two can't live together. They have different {goals}. And the two goals are constantly banging away at each other. And we've reached a point now, it's not a terrible moment in history, it's a wonderful opportunity, because the fact of the matter is that for years, this enemy within the United States has been able to function, how? Well, they functioned in secret, they functioned behind the scenes, they don't call themselves the Tory Party, they don't say we don't believe in the American system, but they do their dirty work behind the scenes. What's happened now, because of the nature of this crisis, is these guys are way out in the open. They're not operating in secret anymore. They're way out there in public, in the light of day. And what you saw, when this operation in the House of Representatives, you got the first taste of what the American population thought when they saw these guys in full daylight. And it was {revulsion}. And that's good. Because we're now at a point where they can finally be defeated. Because this fight has been going on from the moment this nation was founded. And it's high time that they were defeated. Now only here, but you see if they're defeated here, then what hope does any other country on this planet have, what hope does Africa have, or actually going into the 21st century? as full partners with other nations of the world. What hope do the people in the Middle East have of ever living without the constant threat of war looming over their heads? What hope do the people in Eastern Europe, who fought all these years against Communism, who finally overthrew the yoke of Communism, only to find that the freedom of capitalism brought them a worse life than they had before? The fight has to be won in the United States. And it has to be won by you. See, what all the American people, sure Clinton has the highest popularity, and the American people {hope to high heaven} that this guy fights to the bitter end, but he's not going to fight, unless you fight. You want him to fight to the bitter end in the Senate? Well fine, what are you going to do? He's completely isolated, he has no support, there is no one in the Senate who will speak out for him. So, what we have to determine, is that while it's true that there'll be a trial in the Senate, that the fight doesn't get determined in the Senate, the fight gets determined outside the Senate. In a different court, in a court where there actually is some law, and don't get fixated on what goes on in the Senate. I go {crazy}, I hear people say, but they can't do that, why that's illegal, why that's unconstitutional, well {what the hell is the matter with you}, where have you been? You think they care? They make up the rules as they go along, this is a {lynchmob}. They don't give a damn about what are the rules. We'll all play by the rules, this is not a gentlemen's agreement. And the fact of the matter is, the question of fighting to the death, Clinton's going to have to fight, whether he wants to or not. Because they do {not} make deals. Every deal they've up to now, they've broken. Can you picture -- let's look at it this way, let's forget about Clinton and the United States Senate, you're a young black man in Mississippi, you've been accused of raping a white woman. You didn't do it, but it doesn't matter, you've been accused, and there is a lynch mob coming after you, they're wearing white robes, and they've all got ropes. You want to negotiate? You want to make a deal? What are you going to tell them? Your going to say, look, boys, you want me to admit I did it, will that make you feel better? If I admit it, will you leave me alone? Do you think they will? I don't think so. Okay, how about this: I'll leave the state; don't touch me, I'll leave, I'll never come back, then we'll just forget the whole thing happened. I don't think so. It doesn't matter what you do, if you're that young black fellow, you can beg, you can confess, you can run, {it does not matter}, they are going to kill you. Therefore, you should fight. And that's what Clinton is faced with, and that's what you're faced with. People would prefer not to fight. People would prefer to find some way to settle this. {There is not way to settle this}, {it is a nasty ugly bitter fight}. We didn't chose it, but that's the way it is. And if you have the idea that maybe we can just deal with this, and then everything will go back to normal -- forget it. And let me remind you of something, Abraham Lincoln fought the Civil War, and he won, and they killed him. You have to win a total victory. And right now, the only institution, that's prepared to do that is the LaRouche movement. And that's okay, because we can be the catalyst for it, we can be the catalyst for mobilizing citizens, and if people respont, other institutions will kick in. It happened when we formed Americans to Save the Presidency. We saw it happen repeatedly, and it will happen now. But it really does mean, that all of you, people who just, you know, you're just, look people are just kind of ordinary citizens, you're trying to make a life for yourselves, your tring to make a life for your family, and sure you're concened about your country, but the fact is, that as in any war, you're drafted. And you have to turn yourselves into an army. I'm not suggesting you go out and shoot the first Republican you see (laughter); it won't work. You have to fight differently, and we have all the ammunition. We gathered up the arsenal, people see it on the table, we did a first run, which was released today, of about a 1/4 million leaflets -- which is about all we can get out in a few days. If we get out a 1/4 million leaflets in a couple of days, if we have to do another 1/4 million, we'll do that, we didn't want to print them all at once, because the way that we see it, the way the situation is moving now, we might want to say something different a couple of days from now than you're saying today. But, we have the day of action, tomorrow, we have the newspapers with Mr. LaRouche's article in it, on Gore and Hitler, which draws out the parallel of this parliamentary coup that took place in Germany, to now, it makes clear to people, the danger of a Gore Presidency. It establishes it as an unacceptable option, and see the one thing that you got to understand in this war, is that right now, the enemy is operating on this Gore option. Get Clinton out, bring Gore in. Not for a long time, Gore is a transitional figure. He's like a self destruct missle. You just kind of fire him, it's true with any missle, when it hits, by virtue of its nature, it destroys itself. But the idea is, bring Gore in there, let him finish term, then let him be the Democratic nominee against George Bush Jr.--who is their actual candidate, who is their actual candidate. He's the person who they rely on to really implement these policies. But Gore probably has more support as a Democratic nominee from Republicans than anyone else. They {want} him as a Democratic nominee, and they can guarantee that he'll be the Democratic nominee by making him the President, or the co-President. But if we destroy Gore as an option, they've got to regroup. They don't have another option. Right, because their idea is that the only way the American people will for this, is if they -- and this has been said explicitly to groups that have gone to Washington, when people went to see, this guy from Louisiana, who was supposed to be speaker of the House, Mr. Livingston, before they opened his closet, and by the way, that wasn't done by Decmocrats, that was done by Republicans, the Republicans wanted him out, because he wasn't enough of a zealot. But when a women's group went to see Mr. Livingston, Mr. Livingston said, look, ladies, you're very upset, I understand you like Clinton, but look, why don't you go see Vice President Gore, he's really a very nice guy, you'll like him. And that's the card that they're playing. They know the American people are upset about the attack on Clinton, but they figure they can soften the blow, if they convince the American people that Al Gore will -- he's just like Clinton. But, {he's not}. And people have to be very clear on that. So, I want people, before they leave here tonight, if they have questions, if you're not sure, get your questions answered. But, then make sure that you leave her ready to fight. Take leaflets. Take the newspaper, make sure you yourselves buy a copy of that {EIR} special report, because you need in-depth understanding if you're going to organize other people, if you're going to bring other people on board, you need to know a little big more than just what it says on one side of a leaflet. There's no good giving people advanced weapons, if you don't know how to shoot them, and you have to look at these things as kind of the instruction manuals on how to use your weapons most effectively. But, I really want to end, where I started. Which is that you {please}, if it's not {clear} to you that there is an ongoing coup, to overthrow the Presidency of William Jefferson Clinton, if it is not clear to you, that we face a graver danger than we have at any time since the founding of this nation, then let's make sure that it is clear before you leave here, so you're prepared to do what we have to do. So, that's all that I have to say. We are currently entering into one of the most turbulent and dangerous periods in world history. Without {EIR,} you will simply not know what is really going on. The success of the LaRouche movement, and the worldwide influence of Lyndon LaRouche personally, are essential, if mankind is to find a way out of this crisis. The forecasts and analyses published in this magazine, over the past 24 years, represent the most consistently effective economic forecasting in modern history. Why is this so? How can we account for the superiority of LaRouche's economic forecasting, over the babblings of other economists and government officials? ``Behind our qualitative advantage over this publication's putative rivals,'' LaRouche wrote in {EIR} of Jan. 2, 1998, ``there was no `crystal ball,' no statistical pseudo-science, but only superior science: that of Johannes Kepler, Gottfried Leibniz, Carl Gauss, and Bernhard Riemann, most notably.'' It is just not a matter of pride in {EIR'}s outstanding accomplishments, LaRouche continued: ``This is the crucial issue upon which the survival of the U.S.A., and of this global civilization now depend.'' If governments and other relevant institutions fail to heed LaRouche's warnings, and to adopt the policies he advocates, then we are heading for a new Dark Age. Escalate the fight. Help bring others on board. Redouble your own efforts to achieve victory against the British-led financier oligarchy. Your future, and that of your posterity, depends upon it. Call 8883473258 Sincerely yours, Susan Welsh Associate Editor ********** NEW ********** LaRouche publications now has a web site: http://www.larouchepub.com . For further information send Email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . On the web site you can find information about how to order various publications, the Table of Contents of recent Executive Intelligence Reviews, lots of articles by LaRouche and much more. You can also hear the real audio version of this program as well as some past issues. EIR Talks can be heard at 5:00 PM Saturdays Eastern Daylight time on the following satellite: Galaxy 7 (G-7), Transponder 14, 91 Degrees West, 7.56 Audio. ``EIR Talks'' also airs worldwide on shortwave radio on Sundays starting at 5:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time (2100 UTC) on WWCR, on frequency of 5.070 MHz. The full-hour program includes commercials for The New Federalist, Executive Intelligence Review, and other periodicals and books. Radio stations which pull the program down from satellite have the option of using the included commercials and other material that rounds out the hour or substituting their own. For further information, contact Frank Bell at 703-777-9451. EIR Talks can be sent to you each week via Email. To receive this Email you must subscribe to the LaRouche mailing list. To do this, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a line (not the subject line) saying subscribe lar-lst John Covici [EMAIL PROTECTED] Copyright © 1995-99 Deja News, Inc. All rights reserved. Conditions of use · Site privacy statement reviewed by TRUSTe DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om