From oneb!cs.ubc.ca!van-bc!vanbc.wimsey.com!cyber1.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ccs!covici Mon Jun  7 06:21:04 PDT 1993
Article: 22136 of alt.activism
Path: oneb!cs.ubc.ca!van-bc!vanbc.wimsey.com!cyber1.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ccs!covici
From: covici@ccs.covici.com (John Covici)
Reply-To: covici@ccs.covici.com
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: EIR Talks to Lyndon LaRouche 06/02/93
Message-ID: <340-PCNews-124beta@ccs.covici.com>
Date: 7 Jun 93 9:55:12 GMT
Organization: Covici Computer Systems
Lines: 663

   - ATTENTION   FREE LAROUCHE   ATTENTION   FREE LAROUCHE -

   The wider LaRouche's presence, the greater the pressure
to get him free. 
   Put LaRouche on radio, with a new interview each week. 
   The transcript below is from a weekly hour-long interview
formatted with news breaks and commercials. 
   To get LaRouche on radio, calls from people within 
stations' listening area can be most effective. Program
director and general managers are usually the ones to make
decisions about programming. 
   Get interested contacts with businesses or products to
advertise on the stations during the EIR Talks With LaRouche
hour. This provides greater incentive for the stations to carry
the program. 
   Any radio station on the planet can air the weekly
interviews with LaRouche. The EIR Press Staff can provide weekly
tapes for broadcast. Or stations can pull the program down from
satellite, using the coordinates below. The interviews are
broadcast Sundays on satellite from 6:06 PM to 7:00 PM Eastern.
For More Information: Frank Bell, Press Staff. 

   Galaxy 2, 74 Degrees W          
   Trans 3 74.9 mHz NB, SCPC                
   3:1 Companding, Flat           

     or      

   Satcom C-1, 137 Degrees W     
   Trans 2 7.5 mHz               
   Wide Band Video Subcarrier    


   June 2, 1993 
   ``{EIR'}s Talks With Lyndon LaRouche'' 
   Interviewer: Mel Klenetsky 
   
   MEL KLENETSKY: Welcome to ``{Executive Intelligence
Review'}s Talks With Lyndon LaRouche.'' I'm Mel Klenetsky.
We're on the line with Mr. LaRouche from Rochester,
Minnesota. 

      - Today's Political Terrorists: the Freemasons -

   Mr. LaRouche, there has been a great deal of political
terrorism taking place around the world. We saw the bombing
of the Uffizi Gallery, the Solingen incident in Germany, the
terrorist attack and assassination of Cardinal Posadas Ocampo
in Guadalajara, Mexico. 
   Do you attribute to these incidents any kind of
coordinated activity? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: Absolutely. 
   One should look back to the early to middle nineteenth
century, say, from the period of the 1840s into the
assassination of U.S. President McKinley by an assassin
imported from Europe. 
   These are methods which we associate with Giuseppe
Mazzini's Young Europe and his branch, which was part of the
U.S. Confederacy, called Young America. This is exactly what
has happened before. 
   In Italy, for example, some sources have quite
efficiently, I would say, attributed some of this to P2, or
to Freemasonic lodges. If you look back into the late
nineteenth century and similar things, you will find, for
example, the Young Turk rebellion in Turkey, which was run by
a Freemasonic Lodge, which was connected to funny things
going on in Russia at the time, which gave us Bolshevism,
which was connected to Volpi di Misurata, who was behind
Mussolini; you find phenomena such as the fact that the Young
Turks' magazine editor was Vladimir Jabotinsky, later a close
friend of Mussolini, a fascist who founded the leading
fascist current in Israel today. 
   So these are Freemasonic methods of that type, Grand
Orient Lodge in France, Grand Orient Lodge in Italy; similar
groups in the United States and outside it, all connected of
course to the tradition of Lord Palmerston in connection with
the united Grand Lodge in London. That is the place where
this goes. 
   If one knows the history of the nineteenth century and
the early twentieth, there is no doubt in anyone's mind of
exactly what's going on. 
   
   Q: Well, Lord Palmerston was the Prime Minister of
England in the 1860s. Are you saying that England and other
foreign powers are behind this terrorism today? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: In a sense, yes; but I don't think that is
the way to understand it. 
   The typical American likes to blame government for
everything. For example, if anything goes wrong, they say,
``Well, we've got bad government in Washington.'' People
don't realize that it's {their} government as well as anybody
else's, and what's happening therefore is that if the
government is malfunctioning, then somebody must have taken
over a role of influence in either all or part of his or her
government, and they don't look for those influences, and if
they do, somebody comes along to them and frightens them with
a scare word called ``conspiracy theory.'' 
   Look at the facts of the matter. It's not just the
1860s. Lord Palmerston, as Prime Minister, personally, in
addition to orchestrating the China Opium Wars, personally
put the President of France, later Napoleon III, into power
in France; and Queen Victoria was so shocked by this overt
action of a British Prime Minister meddling in French
politics, that she downgraded him from Prime Minister to
foreign minister, from which post he continued to do the same
thing. 
   Palmerston was the controller of Mazzini. Palmerston was
the fellow who, through a fellow called David Urquhart,
controlled almost every thought of Karl Marx; that sort of
thing. 
   Particularly in the period of Napoleon III on, the
French imperial faction of the Napoleon III tradition, was
the Grand Orient Lodge of France. Grand Orient of Italy,
which was very close to Mazzinians, was a branch of British
intelligence. B'nai B'rith in Europe and in the United
States, was a branch really at the top levels of British
intelligence, of Palmerston. The assassination of Lincoln
came from the circles of Lord Palmerston using in part B'nai
B'rith and the old Confederate intelligence apparatus to do
it. 
   That's the kind of thing we're looking at. I know these
fellows, these Palmerston-tradition Freemasons; and their
objective, as in the case of Posadas Ocampo, the Cardinal in
Guadalajara, Mexico is to eliminate the Vatican before the
end of the century. They say so rather loudly; and they do
it. They are moving in that direction. 
   These are the fellows in the West who were behind the
attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II. No one wants to
say it, because that's attacking Freemasons; and attacking
elements of our British ally is not popular in certain
circles in the United States; but that is the plain,
unvarnished truth. 
   The problem in this case, as I know from Italy, from key
people in Italy: they {know} this is that faction of the
Freemasons in Italy; and they {say} so. But someone says,
``No, you can't say Freemason; you've got to look someplace
else.'' Why not look at the perpetrator? Why do you have to
invent a perpetrator, when you know who did the job? 
   [commercial break] 

   Q: Mr. LaRouche, if behind World War I there were some
policies that lay behind this spate of terrorist activities
leading into the war, are there policies behind the spate of
terrorism that we are seeing in terms of today? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: Exactly the same thing. 
   For example, if you want to understand modern
history--and I'm speaking about {recent} modern history, not
modern history in its full sweep from the middle of the
fifteenth century--the place to start is in the 1850s and
1860s, especially in the United States. 
   Lord Palmerston and his friends deployed an effort to
destroy the United States. He didn't start it, but he
deployed the assets which Britain had built up for the
purpose of destroying it. The purpose of the Palmerston
operation, as the letters of a British agent and U.S. traitor
August Belmont admit, and of which August Belmont was an
agent, among others, was to split the United States into
about four parts, beginning with the split off of the
so-called Confederacy. 
   The Confederacy was not a ``Southern rebellion''; it was
a British intelligence-directed, Palmerston-directed
Freemasonic operation topdown, using Freemasons from New York
City and Boston and so forth, not just people from the
southern region. Albert Pike, for example, was a traitor, a
satanist, and so forth, who came from the Boston area, and
rose to be head of the Southern Jurisdiction of the
Freemasonry, in about 1859, and continued as leader of
Freemasonry into 1890. 
   So when the United States won the Civil War and
suppressed the treasonous faction around Pike and Jefferson
Davis and Judah Benjamin, the British, using Judah Benjamin's
apparatus, assassinated Lincoln. And from that point on,
everything that was done, was an attempt to recapture the
United States, using the Confederate Freemasonic faction to
gradually take over the United States, which they did to a
large degree, and also to prevent the influence of the
American ideas, as exemplified by President Abraham Lincoln,
from continuing to spread in Germany, in the Russia of
Alexander II, who was an ally of Lincoln, in France and so
forth. 
   The British feared that if these ideas of Alexander II
and later Count Sergei Witte of Russia for cooperation among
Berlin, Paris, and St. Petersburg were to go forward; if
railroads were to be built East-West from Brest in France to
Vladivostok at the other end of Asia, that the economic
development spearheaded by German growth throughout Eurasia,
would mean that the power of the British empire would be
broken forever because of the economic power developing in
Eurasia. And therefore all politics to this date, has been
based on what has been called since the end of the nineteenth
century geopolitics; and geopolitics is the principle of
keeping wars and other conflicts going in the Eurasian
continent, to the purpose of ensuring that no economic
development within Eurasia, from France and Spain to China,
will {ever} become powerful enough and unified enough, to
threaten the continued form of an Anglo-American version of a
British Empire based on the countries surrounding Eurasia. 
   So that is the essential politics of the period. That is
how we got into World War I. The British got certain elements
in France, the Napoleon III tradition in France, to ally with
them against Germany, and to manipulate Russia. Palmerston
was out of the way then, but his crew organized the Young
Turk rebellion in Turkey. It was the B'nai B'rith Lodge
directed by these people, these Freemasons, which used the
Kurds to set off the massacre of the Armenians. The same
Young Turk operation inside Turkey and in part in Greece, was
key to bringing Mussolini to power later, but it was
immediately key to launching the Balkan wars that actually
set World War I into motion. 
   The situation in World War II was a little more
complicated. Hitler was put into power by certain
Anglo-American forces, including George Bush's father,
Prescott Bush, who wanted Hitler in there in order to
eliminate the von Schleicher government; but the same
essential ultimate principles were at work; the purpose of
the Anglo-American faction, the Freemasonic faction at that
time, was to put Hitler into power and to ensure a ruinous
war between Germany and Russia, another balance of power move
on the continent. 
   So if we look at today, at the way the British, with the
support of George Bush and Gorbachov unleashed in 1991 the
Serbian fascist faction to take over Serbia and to launch
bloody horrors against the other former groups within
Yugoslavia, you see the same geopoolitical motive. 
   In fact, when we talk to top-level people in Britain,
they will say frankly, ``Yes, of course you're right. We did
it for geopolitical reasons.'' So if you use the word
``geopolitics'' and understand it as a British Palmerston
faction reaction to the fear of the spread of the ideas of
the American System as typified by Abraham Lincoln, whom they
murdered, then you understand how the watershed of modern
history has been shaped continuously by the British effort to
eliminate the ideas of the American Revolution from this
planet. 
   [commercial break] 

    - {EIR} Warned of Destabilization of Italy, Europe -

   Q: Mr. LaRouche, while the assassination of Cardinal
Posadas Ocampo and the bombing of the Uffizi Gallery can be
seen in terms of an attack on the Vatican, the Uffizi Gallery
bombing can also be seen in terms of the destabilization of
Italy. What are the purposes behind that policy? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: Well, if one were an Italian living in
Italy today, he or she would have seen the reports on this
from {Executive Intelligence Review} cited as an authority
throughout much of the leading daily press of Italy, as well
as in weekly magazines and in some of the influential news
services which operate their offices out of Rome itself. 
   Especially referenced, of course, in connection with our
reporting, is our report on the meeting on the British royal
family's yacht Britannia, where these plots were made to
destroy Italy. 
   This report that we issued, became a subject of open
discussion in the Italian Parliament, during which elements
of our outlining of this meeting and its policies were
confirmed in Italy. Parallel to our own work similar reports
are raging throughout the Italian press, often coming from
leading figures of the Italian public life. It is understood
throughout Italy, that Italy is facing destruction steered by
those forces which are represented on that (British royal
family) Britannia yacht meeting. The personnel and so forth
are known and whatnot, and that the destruction of Italy,
through scandals and terrorism and what was called in the old
days strategy of tension, is what is in progress. 
   So all the leading political class of Italy, some of it
on the wrong side and some of it on the patriotic side,
understands what this is. 
   They also understand, from inside Italy, looking at
Germany, at France, at Spain, and so forth, that {all} of
continental Europe is being destabilized. Scandals are being
used to destabilize the government of Germany, which could
fall into an Italian-like situation soon. The present French
government is set up to face crises. The Italian government
is disintegrating rapidly. The major government in England
will probably disintegrate also pretty soon, as a part of a
general policy change occurring from that quarter; and so
forth and so on. 
   What is understood, is that the general process of
global deconstruction of governments and other major
institutions of government, extending into the United States,
is in progress, and that these heirs of Palmerston, so to
speak, to give it a simple focus; these deconstructionists,
these modern neo-Nietzscheans, these post-moderns, are
destroying institutions from within, partly because they
react to a situation as a mad dog would, not because they
understand what they are doing. But the people who have
unleashed and encouraged these mad dogs, do know what they
are doing. This is the deconstructionism of figures in
France, for example, such as Jacques Derrida, whose influence
is very great among the post-modernists, who are this young
new layer taking over and destroying everything in their
sight like a locust plague around the world these days. 

     - Cult Awareness Network Operation Destabilized -

   Q: I want to move on at this point to the issue of Galen
Kelly. He is associated with the Cult Awareness Network and
the Anti-Defamation League, which is one of these groups that
is affiliated with the Freemasonic orders. He was recently
convicted of kidnapping in Alexandria, Va., and this has
certain implications in terms of your situation, because he
and his associates were involved in one way or another, with
targeting your group. 
   Can you begin discussing what the implications are,
although we're going to run out of time and come back to it
in the next segment. 
   MR. LAROUCHE: Yes. We can just indicate that the
conviction of Kelly occurred, despite the efforts of his
friends inside government to fix the case, to get him off on
the charge of which he was convicted. 
   Kelly was convicted on one Federal charge of kidnapping;
and according to the word from the courtroom and from what I
know from other sources, there are other charges awaiting
him.  He is now looking at approximately 100 months in
prison, and with the other charges coming in, he could be
spending a very, very long time, most of the remainder of his
life in prison. That is the potentiality, and not the
certainty. But this destabilizes the entire private sector,
including the Anti-Defamation League, which is already under
legal attack for its spying operations, destabilizes the
entire private part of the apparatus which was deployed to
try to bust up our political movement. 
   [commercial break] 

   Q: Mr. LaRouche, we have been discussing Galen Kelly. Of
course, Galen Kelly was involved in the attempted kidnapping
of Lewis du Pont Smith. He was let off in that case, despite
30 hours of tapes, and he has been involved, in one way or
another, with the ``Get LaRouche'' operation. What are the
implications of the fact that he has been found guilty and
has been convicted of another kidnapping case? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: I have seen the paperwork which shows that
this felon, Galen Kelly, who has admitted on the stand to 30
to 40 abductions, which are in fact kidnapping, in the recent
period, has been paid substantial amounts regularly through
the national Cult Awareness Network, and also {personally} in
recent time through Cynthia Kisser, who is the leader of the
Cult Awareness Network. 
   Galen Kelly was connected to the same people who created
the Jewish Defense League, that is, the terrorist
organization which used to be associated with the name of
Mordecai Levy and Herb Brin and people like that on the West
Coast. 
   Kelly was also close to JINSA. He uses Lubavitcher thugs
as his preferred assistants in taking and holding his kidnap
victims. He has made at least three to four attempts to
organize a successful kidnapping of Lewis du Pont Smith as
part of this operation. He has admitted, and his accomplices
have admitted, that he was personally involved in
brainwashing persons who were then used after their
brainwashing, with the knowledge of the Federal government,
as false witnesses, as perjured witnesses, against me and my
friends in sundry legal proceedings. And that is all, of
course, on the public Federal record, and proven using
government documents, and using, of course, statements by the
perpetrators who work with the government. 
   What this does, is to threaten to bring down, obviously,
the Cult Awareness Network. It adds to the troubles of the
Anti-Defamation League, which is a close collaborator. For
example, Mark Rasch, one of the former prosecutors against us
who lost in Boston, but also a prosecutor in Virginia, is
implicated in this operation. Mira Lansky Boland of the ADL
is implicated, and a close associate of Kelly in this
operation. The sheriff's department in Loudoun County is
closely implicated in this operation. 
   So when Galen Kelly was convicted of a felony, albeit in
a case not directly related to us, but using the same
personnel who operated against us, that conviction
establishes all his accomplices in that act as being a
felonious crew, also subject to all kinds of appropriate
legal proceedings. 
   More significantly, the fact that from any layman's
standpoint, one section of the government using an IRS agent
who had been deployed against us, attempted to fix the
witness to get Kelly off four days before the trial began,
shows a very serious problem of corruption inside the
prosecutorial agencies of government, and that thing is not
going to sit still forever. It's exposed. 
   So it's a very interesting situation, which will take
many perpetrators, such as the Anti-Defamation League and the
Cult Awareness Network and other people who have been
accomplices of Kelly in his now judged criminal activities,
and put them in a very bad situation--which is all to the
good. 
   
   Q: On this Galen Kelly situation: the earlier trial in
Alexandria, Va., that involved the attempted kidnapping of
Lewis du Pont Smith is the subject of a book called
{Travesty,} and in that book, it describes 30 hours of tapes
that a former sheriff or deputy assistant in Loudoun County
had made under cover, which outlined the whole process of
laying out an attempted kidnapping. 
   How in the world did Galen Kelly and the others get off? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: Well, it was fixed, and we were aware of
how it was fixed. You should have seen the {voir dire} of the
jury panel in that trial, and you should hear the instruction
which was made by the judge during the time the jury had
already been sitting, an instruction which virtually
instructed the jury to let them off, contrary to all
precedent in conspiracy law, from the standpoint of
information of legal experts. 
   The judge said that unless they could prove that Kelly
et al. had agreed upon a very precise, detailed plan of
action--not agreement to kidnap, which they'd agreed to--but
a detailed plan of action for an actual kidnapping, that they
would have to exonerate them, which the jury did, under the
judge's instructions. 
   So that error by the judge, since of course under due
process, under the double jeopardy rule, we can't try them
again, even though the judge made an error, stands. 
   But there was tremendous pressure, particularly to save
Newbold Smith, who is very close to the Bronfmans and to the
Philadelphia Freemasons as well as the Society of Friends up
there; to save him, even if it meant letting the rest of
these perpetrators off. 
   Then what happened, of course, is that the government
went after the other perpetrators, not Newbold Smith but the
others. And they got Kelly on a charge which is not directly
related to us but used the same apparatus that he had used in
his operations against us, or part of it. 
   So that apparatus is now caught, and of course the whole
original case is now going to be seen in that light. 
   By the way, it was 60 hours of consensual tape
{totally,} if you include the FBI telephone buggings, which
were going on as well as the undercover tapings done in
cooperation with the FBI and the prosecutors by this
undercover former deputy sheriff. 

           - Why President Clinton Must Reverse -
            - His Current Foreign Policy Track -

   Q: As we are talking, the situation in Serbia seems to
be getting worse and worse. There is fear at this point, that
Kosova and Macedonia will be involved in the conflict. Is
this ``safe havens'' policy that Bill Clinton has signed on
to, going to work? Or what can Bill Clinton do? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: In terms of this policy? Nothing. 
   Clinton plain backed down to Anglo-French pressure, the
so-called {Entente Cordiale} pressure. It was just a plain
backdown. He capitulated. The agreement is worthless; it
means massacres, it means bloodshed. 
   It means that the United States and its European allies
have wiped the Bosnian Muslims off the face of the planet,
and have pretty much condemned many Croats, many Kosovans,
potentially Macedonians and others to a similar genocide.
This is genocide, this is holocaust. This is war crimes;
these are crimes against humanity perpetrated by the Serbian
government. 
   {This is not a civil war.} 
   [commercial break] 

   Q: Mr. LaRouche, we have been discussing the Serbian
situation. Before we come back to this point, later on we're
going to start to talk about David Gergen coming in to the
Clinton administration. 
   But Serbia: what can be done, what can Clinton do to
reverse what you have described as total genocide in a
situation which could easily spread throughout Europe? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: Well, the United States could say that
there is no question but that the embargo against the
Bosnians has to be lifted, while the embargo against the
Serbian fascist forces of this ultra-right wing bunch of
genocidal lunatics should be strictly enforced. 
   What has happened, is that the Serbian factor, to call
it that, has made a mockery of the so-called ``safe havens,''
by butchering people in these ``safe havens.'' Meanwhile, the
United Nations and other forces have refused and failed to
provide any of the promised protection to the ``safe
havens.'' So the whole thing to which President Clinton
agreed, is a botch job, it never worked, it's a dead letter.
The agreement no longer exists; in fact, it never really did
exist, as events have shown. The slaughter goes on. 
   At this point, President Clinton can revert to saying,
``Well I was right. We bent over backwards to our allies to
come to an agreement. They failed; they refused to act, and
we cannot allow a spreading Balkan war, which {is not a civil
war} but a war entirely the responsibility, in terms of
{initiating an aggressive war,} was initiated by the Serbian
fascist faction. 
   And, of course, with the backing of the British, the
Bush, and the Gorbachov governments. That is a little
embarrassing point; but I don't think Clinton has too much
problem with attacking Bush for his crimes. 
   The problem for Clinton is not just that. The problem
is, that everything in Clinton's program is disintegrating,
because he has backed down on the crucial issues of domestic
program. I am not referring to the health program, which is a
no-fly anyway, that cannot work, for reasons which I think
have now become apparent to the Clinton administration. 
   But on backing down on the question of getting jobs
started, backing down on the economic package, where he
should have gone after that idiot, Sen. Gramm, for absolute
idiocy. I mean Gramm, there he is: the biggest failure in the
history of the Senate. Look at Gramm-Rudman! The biggest
failure in the 1980s. Clinton doesn't have to bow down to
that guy; Gramm's a fool, a babbling fool, who has little
household remedies for all kinds of important scientific
programs--that guy's a huckster. In some places, he'd be put
in jail for that kind of swindle. 
   But Clinton backed down on it. Clinton has got to get
his act together. His problem is, that he has to
recognize--as I'm sure he does privately--that there is a
depression in progress; there is no recovery in progress. The
United States is never going to have a recovery, not with its
present program. We're going deeper and deeper into the
ditch. 
   Clinton's foreign policy was left to him, essentially,
by the Bush administration. It's an utter failure. He's got
to reverse track on this. If he doesn't reverse track, his
administration will just disintegrate. Not all at once, but
just the erosion, the kind of process that happened to
Carter, only faster and worse. 

- President Clinton Must Stick To His Political Positions - 

   Q: As President Clinton got into difficulty, one of his
changes was to bring in David Gergen, who is a former member
of the Nixon administration and a Republican, and he's been
telling Clinton that he has to go back to the Democratic
Leadership Council agenda. Is this going to solve Bill
Clinton's problems? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: It's not going to solve his problem, but
it's a move. And I think, before saying whether it's going to
work or not, or whether it's just another failure, you have
to look at it as a move. 
   What is Clinton doing? Gergen's coming in is the
Democratic Leadership Council profile. 
   The Democratic Leadership Council was supposed to be
kind of a southern strategy operation on the Democratic Party
side, to recapture the formerly Democratic South for the
Democratic Party, whereas, since the time of Wallace and to
some degree Goldwater, the Democratic South had been captured
by the Republicans, who called it their ``Southern
strategy.'' 
   The Democratic Leadership Council's approach was to
establish a kind of middle-of-the-road coalition among
certain Republicans and Democrats, with a policy to match. So
Gergen's coming in, is not inconsistent with some of that
policy. That can go many ways. 
   For example, you have the Reagan Republicans out of
there, many of whom were former Democrats, but who supported
Reagan against Carter, because they thought Anybody But
Carter, that's ABC, that was the feeling back in 1980, 1981.
And they went to Reagan. The Reagan Republicans, including
these former Democrats, hated Bush, because Bush did
everything possible to immiserate these Reagan Republicans.
The way he treated Reagan, was unconscionable. Of course
Reagan disliked him, and Bush always knew that Reagan
despised him. So that was a Bush reaction. 
   So Clinton has the potential of cooperation from some
Reagan Republicans and Reagan's Democratic admirers to take a
position somewhere in the political spectrum which would
strengthen it, and that could be done, and Gergen could be a
sign of moving in that direction. 
   But that is not going to work by itself, because the
problem that Clinton has, is that he has to have the right
program, and he has to stick to it. He had essentially the
right program on Bosnia, on the former Yugoslavia, and he
dumped it. 
   He had the right program, although a foot-in-the-door
program, on this economic stimulus package, and he backed
down. He fought a little bit, but he didn't really fight. He
backed down. And that is why he looks so bad. It's because
where he has good programs or sound programs, he backs down.
And people are just disgusted. People who crank themselves up
to support him, feel let down and betrayed, when he just
dumps the ball and runs off the field to practice something
with the opposite team. 
   That's his problem. One is to have the right program,
and the other is to take a political position and stick to
it. 

            - Why the Derivatives Tax Can Work -

   Q: Senator Boren has been putting a certain amount of
pressure on Clinton's budget proposal, because of the BTU
tax, the tax on energy; and certainly the tax on energy has a
lot of people in energy-rich states such as Oklahoma, where
Boren comes from, oil states, and farmers around the country,
up in arms. 
   What would you propose to do, instead of this BTU tax or
this type of tax proposal? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: Remember the Carter program on energy,
with old James R. Schlesinger in there as energy director.
Remember what Carter tried to do. It was a failure.
Fortunately, it wasn't carried out fully; it was a failure--a
terrible failure. 
   I'm afraid that President Clinton has not done his
homework on economics. He seems to have a very shallow
conception of economics, and doesn't understand the
sensitivity of the economy to energy availability and prices. 
   For example, agriculture is almost entirely energy
sensitive. It's more sensitive to energy, than it is to small
degree of price fluctuations. 
   Every industry in the country is sensitive to energy
supplies. If you raise the price of energy, putting a tax on
it which can have multiple effects, you'll sink the whole
economy worse than it's already sunk. So the BTU tax was a
bad idea from the onset; and people who attack it, may not be
attacking it because they're part of the oil states, or
something like that, though they're probably more sensitive
to it. But people are attacking it because it's bad for all
kinds of people. It's bad for business, it's bad for
agriculture, it's bad for the economy generally. 
   It was a desperation move by the White House to come up
with {something} to match the pressure it was getting from
Ross Perot's campaigning. It was a very bad idea. 
   What they should do at this point--they're not going to
get the BTU tax in the form it was proposed, it seems pretty
apparent at this point, Clinton's compromised that away, too.
He compromises away some bad policies as well as good ones.
They're going to have to tax the derivatives market. This is
going to be, not a long-term perspective, but it's going to
be, what, $80, $90, $100 billion a year which would be quite
helpful, more than the BTU tax would bring in, in terms of
the tax situation; and it won't tax anything useful. It's a
sin tax. And he should do that. He should simply let this
thing go, and say, ``Well, you passed a bill, but it's not
going to balance the budget.'' Turn their own medicine
against them, and come up with a sin tax, the derivatives
tax, and say we're going for up to $100 billion a year more
out of taxing these outlaw derivatives, which, by one view of
the law, are illegal anyway. And get them out of the
business, and bring this whole business of derivatives under
control for regulation purposes, or perhaps elimination
purposes. But in the meantime, we're going to tax a great
deal of money out of it. 
   But if he would do that, he'd get himself into a big
fight with the major banks and the New York Federal Reserve
District and others; but nonetheless, he would take a
position behind which a lot of people in the United States
could very easily rally; and he could win that fight, even
over opposition. But he will have to take the position, that
he's got to win a standing, knock-down barroom type political
brawl against tough opposition on {something} if he's going
to establish the authority of his Presidency. 

   Q: We have 30 seconds left. 
   What do you think about Ross Perot, and what he's been
doing in terms of his campaigning? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: Ross Perot is a serious phenomenon, but I
can't take his Federal Reserve and budget balancing policies
at all seriously, except to look at them in a totally
negative way. 
   Ross Perot has done great damage to the United States,
by repeating the kind of nonsense which one would expect from
the mouth of that utter incompetent, Senator Phil Gramm. 
   
   MEL KLENETSKY: Thank you very much, Mr. LaRouche. We'll
be back next week with ``{EIR'}s Talks With LaRouche.'' If
you have questions for Mr. LaRouche, you can write to
``{EIR'}s Talks With LaRouche,'' P.O. Box 17390, Washington,
D.C., 20041-0390. 

                           - 30 -



----
         John Covici
          covici@ccs.covici.com

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor