TRANSCRIPT: Lyndon LaRouche Interview with Patrick Timpone
September 17, 2013 • 8:45AM

Radio show host Patrick Timpone interviewed Lyndon LaRouche Monday on "The Morning Show with Patrick Timpone," on http://oneradionetwork.com. The program is archived here.

PATRICK TIMPONE: I'm not sure what Lyndon LaRouche is doing with his diet, but evidently he knows what he's doing: He was 91 years old two days ago [sic] and he's on the line. Larouchepac.com, he's a political activist, researcher, and on the website they always call him "controversial." I wonder why that is?

Good morning Mr. LaRouche, why are you so controversial, sir?

LYNDON LAROUCHE: Probably because of what I do, and also the people who don't like what I do, like the Wall Street gang.

TIMPONE: What are some of the things you've said over the years, Lyndon LaRouche, that they didn't like? A lot of the herd out there, and they always call you "controversial" when they don't like what you're saying.

LAROUCHE: Well, the problem is, is that I don't approve with what they don't agree with! [laughter]

TIMPONE: Well, gosh, you've written so much about the economy over the years, and it's so interesting. Other than our guy, Andrew Gause, who we have on once a week, you're one of the few people out there, I guess, in 2007, that called this great recession. How did you see that coming?

LAROUCHE: Well, I've been doing that for a long time. I don't do it as a habit of making forecasts of that type, but I do deal with things when they do happen in that way, and that's my particular expertise. There are a number of people who have similar kinds of expertise, but I think mine has probably been unique in terms of the years. I first made my first significant forecast as a warning of a major recession, back in my youth — relative youth, I was working as a consultant then, and most of my work was done for a long time as a consultant.

So in those circles it was known, but then, later, I would say about the beginning of the 1970s, I began to be much better known, especially in 1971 when I made this forecast which everybody else had contradicted, and I was proven right. So since that time, I've been rather active in this stuff.

TIMPONE: We want to dig into Syria this morning, one of the reasons why we called you, but let's stay with the economy for a second. So have you based your overall predictions and forecasting, Lyndon LaRouche, on the basic idea that of fiat currency, that if you just keep printing more money, well then something bad's got to happen, or what?

LAROUCHE: No, my forecasts are based on what the U.S. government was founded, that basis, on Alexander Hamilton. And Hamilton's design, which has nothing to do with what most forecasting is, Hamilton's design has always been proven to be actually accurate, and the Hamiltonian system, as much as it has been followed has been the basis for the greatest accomplishments of the American System as a whole.

TIMPONE: And the Hamiltonian system is what?

LAROUCHE: Well, we don't believe in this so-called money system as such, we believe in the credit system. And therefore, our banking system, not this bailout system, but the banking system, the real banking system, is based on those considerations. We deviated from that, but up until, I would say, the end of Bill Clinton's term, when the change in the U.S. economy occurred, we were still in that direction. We didn't always behave too well on that, but we were in that direction.

TIMPONE: But didn't Hamilton — maybe I got the wrong guy, Lyndon LaRouche, but wasn't he the guy that really argued with George Washington, for a private central bank? Why would you have that, rather than just keeping the central bank owned by the Treasury?

LAROUCHE: That was not the situation.

TIMPONE: Okay, you tell us what it was.

LAROUCHE: Hamilton's discovery and policy are the credit system. In other words, you would have a cycle where you would produce and market food, and you have other cycles, and these cycles were combined, in such a way as to be a credit system. So, you would actually work as a credit system, as opposed to what's called a financial system or a monetary system, where you negotiate through the monetary system. In terms of Hamilton's design, you worked inside the process, not on the basis of the trade of money. It's based on credit.

For example, we're now, in a sense, the whole Wall Street system will assuredly collapse, probably before the end of this year, or slightly later. But what will happen, the hyperinflation which is in that system is so hard, in monetary terms, that we can never bail ourselves our, so we're just going to have to simply cancel a lot of things, and go back to a credit system again. I mean, you'd shut down most of Wall Street — Wall Street is going to be shut down, most of it's going to be shut down anyway. The degree of bankruptcy and inflation is so big that it can not continue to exist. There's some form could exist, but it'd be much more limited in scale of participants.

What I would do, is just go the opposite way, and insist on Glass-Steagall, because Glass-Steagall is a credit system, or is the basis of a credit system if you use it properly. It's what we've used many times, and it has worked. The best form, Franklin Roosevelt's role, in saving the United States from a general collapse in the 1930s, is an example of how a credit system can save a nation. And we're in a situation where we need a credit of that type, and Glass-Steagall will provide the core of that structure, that we need. In other words, we could actually have a collapse, in the sense of the prices of things, if we went with a Glass-Steagall system.

TIMPONE: A Glass-Steagall system where you'd then separate the investment banks from the commercial banks again?

LAROUCHE: That's right, exactly. The investment banks are on their own. They're gambling in a sense.

TIMPONE: Sure, sure.

LAROUCHE: And they claim the right to gamble, but what they've been doing, is they've taken over and invaded, really what our system is, and that was the result of the cancellation of Glass-Steagall back at the end of Bill Clinton's term.

TIMPONE: So, as you well know — I don't know what the monetary system is; it's hard to tell these days, 'cause they quit giving us the real numbers — but just say, if you say, about $20 trillion maybe, is that pretty close, and then, how much is the debt? Stated debt? What? $17-18, and then probably, people say it's really $150 trillion. There's just not enough money to pay the debt!

LAROUCHE: Well, that's the point, the point is nobody can ever pay that debt!

TIMPONE: No, it's just not going to happen, right?

LAROUCHE: It's pure speculation. There may be a little drainage down there, on a very modest scale.

But what's going to happen, one way or the other, that banking system, the Wall Street banking system is going to collapse. I don't know exactly on what day it's going to collapse, but now it's headed for a collapse.

My solution is that we now get Glass-Steagall through, now, and if we also have a credit system attached to the banking system which we would support as our traditional banking system, then we can really make it.

TIMPONE: Please tell us exactly what you mean when you say a "credit system," in simplistic terms of an example of what that is?

LAROUCHE: Well, what you do is like in Hamilton's time, you would have the farmers would come in with their seasonal crops' harvests, and so the farmer then would sell the crop for his income. Now, some of that income would go to people who are producers of other things, like, not just agriculture, but manufacturing, and therefore you would have a cycle, in which you have a cycling of the movement of worthwhile goods, being produced goods, and other words, the farmer buys into the manufacturing business and vice versa, and similar kinds of things.

So therefore, our system, the American System, is based on production, not on monetary circulation. Monetary circulation exists, but it is controlled by credit, the credit system. And a credit system simply means that the farmer pays off his debts, and sells things to other people, manufacturers, for example, or otherwise employed, and the cycle is essentially based on that. And you combine that with credit. For example, what this nation needs right now, and this is the leading issue, it's been an issue since the time that Kennedy was assassinated, where this process got into a mess; but in that system, we used credit as a way of increasing the productivity of goods, the productivity of goods then becomes part of the payments system, as the basis for the payments system, and we also have a credit system. For example, if we know that a certain investment, a long-term investment, say, 10 years, 15 years, 25 years, if we know that that's good then we will go to both a collection of banks and other institutions, and we will put up a backing for credit established, with the approval usually of the Federal government, or a similar process.

But what we would do, in this case, we would simply shut down the worthless crap, in terms of the financial speculators, Wall Street, so forth, that kind of crowd, and we would instead put the emphasis back where Roosevelt had left it, for example, in his term of office, back to a credit system, where credit is given on the basis of the governments or other people's agreements that this thing which is going to worked out in the course of say, 5 years, 10 years, 15 years, 20 years, as an investment, that these investments are sound. Therefore, we need a credit system on top of a credit of trade, we need a credit system to support and sustain those kinds of investments.

TIMPONE: Based on productivity?

LAROUCHE: Absolutely.

TIMPONE: We're going to get into Syria after the break. But one other question before we do that: You used the term, Lyndon LaRouche, "collapse," a couple of times. But I'm wondering if the Federal Reserve Bank of New York has the ability, which they do, to monetize and credit digits on a computer, and [s/l flem 11:41] them, or buy mortgage-backed securities, or Treasuries, like they're doing to $85 billion a month right now; why would anything collapse? They're not going to run out of zeroes, why would people balk at $8 Starbucks when it's $4 now? Won't they just keep buying it?

LAROUCHE: No, they can't do it. It won't work. The problem is, is that the way the Wall Street system and related systems work, is they're purely gambling. They're like the game, the board game, where you play a board game and you try to win on one of these properties nominally. But there's no value in this thing!

TIMPONE: They're bettering on interest rates or whatever they're doing — something, everything!

LAROUCHE: [crosstalk] ...on fiction. Yeah, it's all fiction. Therefore, this system, if you take the total productivity, of the U.S. economy, in terms of goods and services, that are actually consumed, you compare what Wall Street's income is and you say, "this is a complete swindle." It shouldn't have existed, ever. It doesn't mean we wouldn't allow some persons or some organizations to take a risk on investment, but that kind of investment risk is not one we want our own banks, our public banks to be saddled with. But if some businessmen think that they can gamble on the success of some kind of an investment in terms of productivity, ultimately, then, we may let them do that, as long as they're not creating a bubbling which would cause a catastrophe, or disruption, in terms of the economy as a whole.

In other words, we're just going back to, really, what our system is, but with a certain regard for modern conditions now. But essentially it's our tradition, ever since George Washington and Alexander Hamilton: That's our system, and always has been, really. There are other people who had funny ideas who tried to change it, the Wall Street system was always a parasite, and always an enemy of the United States. It's been an enemy of the United States since the time of our original Constitution.

TIMPONE: When Andrew Jackson tried to rout them out!

LAROUCHE: He was one of the biggest thieves, but he was not really an intelligent thief. He was a crook.

TIMPONE: Oh, was he? Oh okay — I thought he was a good guy. It shows you how much I know.

Okay, Lyndon LaRouche. His website is larouchepac.com; he ran for President many times, beginning in '76, and we're going to ask him about Syria, and his whole take on that. He's a student of this kind of thing, geopolitically.... [break]

Okay, with Lyndon LaRouche! We're very honored to have him on. So much we've got from this gentleman, I mean, even if you disagree with everything that he's saying, for some reason, well, he's been at it for a very, very long time, and studies this stuff, and he just doesn't give up!

Mr. LaRouche, let me ask you something, just in passing, before we talk about Syria: Do you do anything special, since we talk a lot about health: You're 91, your mind just seems clear as a bell, and just very aware. Do you do anything special for your brain or your health?

LAROUCHE: I try to, I think. But everything is sort of normal for me. When you get to my age, you have to be a little bit more careful of how you look at, or overwork, things. And so I'm a cautious person in that respect, but nothing special otherwise, apart from obvious medical advice, which I take happily.

TIMPONE: Nothing special. Nothing special for your brain or anything like that. Do you suspect that your—I would assume—many hours of reading, and talking, and you do webcasts,—that keeping the brain active is very important, I would think?

LAROUCHE: Well, it is important, because you're in touch with the world, as I am, and I'm less active in terms of details, as I was before. But I've narrowed myself to things which I should be concerned about, and it's nice.

TIMPONE: Okay. So, are you concerned about Syria? We, our listeners, have probably been getting most of their information through radio-television, on the internet, and probably have a general idea of what's out there in the mainstream media, even the alternative media, about what Syria's about. Lyndon LaRouche, give us your opinion of what this whole thing is about, and what's going on?

LAROUCHE: What's going on now, is we're going through the greatest financial crisis in modern or related history. It's coming on fast. We can expect a crash, for example, of the Wall Street system, and similar kinds of systems. They may not go extinct, but under present conditions, they're going to have to make some very large adjustments, because the rate of inflation built into that part of the banking system, is such that it just cannot keep going.

So, what's going to happen—a smaller group of people will take over what has been the Wall Street system, and the comparable system in the British system, as such, while the other people will be dumped on the street. But now, you have to realize that the driver behind this is the Queen of England, who's not just the Queen of England—she actually represents a control of about 40% or more of the entire planet, in terms of control, a direct and indirect relationship. You could say, in one sense, a higher one.

So, what's happened is, this system is going down. The Queen is making it worse by getting agreement throughout most of the transAtlantic region, agreement to reduce the human population from 7 billion people, toward one. Which means there are a lot of people, when you take, you know, China's got a population of 1.4 billion people. And other nations have similar things. So, obviously, when you say you're going to reduce the whole world population to one billion people—which is what the Queen in publicly stating, and is doing—it's not there yet, but that's where it's going. And most of the things that are happening now, are related to the fact that the Queen of England, and institutions such as the Dutch institutions, are actually in the process, and agree to do it publicly, to shut down the existence of most of the human population, to reduce it rapidly from 7 billion people, to one.

So, that is really the main driver of what is happening now, in terms of politics, in terms of related policy.

TIMPONE: War, chaos, possible nuclear use—you're suggesting, in your opinion, all of this is because they—whoever they are—the Queen and their gang—want less people.

LAROUCHE: Yeah. That's part of it. But there are other aspects to this.

Because what happened is, actually in the United States, we've had—some parts of the United States economy did have growth, even after Kennedy's assassination. But, overall, since Kennedy's assassination, the general direction of the U.S. economy has been down, per capita.

Similar things have happened in Europe. So, we're in a downslide anyway, so you have an expansion of speculative investments in money thing, and a reduction in productivity, reduction in terms of—industry almost does not exist in the United States, major industry. Like the auto industry. It really doesn't exist any more. It has fragments of it still there. So, we have a collapse of food production—we're producing less food per capita than ever before, in a long time. So, the whole thing is a mess.

We've come to a point of a threatened breakdown crisis, and this is having a very important effect on the beliefs of the people of the United States. The people of the United States are moving rapidly away from what's called the establishment. And that's a qualitative change, which is a big one, which means we're coming to a collision point, including a threatened collapse of the whole U.S. system under its present conditions, where some drastic action has to be taken, which gets justice to our people, and gets our economy growing back again.

TIMPONE: Real wages are not keeping up at all, are they not?

LAROUCHE: As a matter of fact, we know... Oh, we've cut the food supply in order to sell other products, and our food supply presently being generated, is not sufficient to maintain the present population of the United States.

TIMPONE: So, this whole chemical weapon thing, the whole Russian thing, you're suggesting—what is that about?

LAROUCHE: It's a part of this process. We've had empires before. People don't realize that the British empire is not the United Kingdom—it's a very large empire which probably represents directly about 40% of the world's population. The Dutch are part of it, the Dutch system, the Netherlands system. And so this system is what is controlling most of the destiny of the planet.

People don't realize how little control individual nations have over the planetary trends.

TIMPONE: How does the Queen and this empire control the United States today? How is it that, as you know, and everybody knows all the presidents go over and they all do their thing with the Queen, when they're inaugurated—how is this control controlled? What keeps the people being controlled, controlled?

LAROUCHE: Well, we would have had a complete collapse of civilization but for the creation of the United States. What happened is, in the 16th and 17th century, we had, in the Massachusetts Bay colony, we had the kernel in design for a new kind of political system. And so what happened, in effect, is because of the influence of this particular thing, what became the United States, we developed, centered on the original Massachusetts Bay colonies, we became a factor which determined the policies of Europe.

Because if you have a European system, and somebody is operating successfully, economiclly, outside the European system—which is what the effect of Columbus—then suddenly the European system was exposed to a different continent. And the people who came up in that new continent, as such, had an influence on the policies of Europe.

So that what's happened, we've had a constant conflict between the United States and the British-Dutch system, which are the dominant systems of this whole period. But at the same time, by the time the Constitution was established, the British banking system had already taken over, and really taken under Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren. At that point the bankers, who were British bankers, situated and based in the New York area and Boston, were controlling the banking system, the private banking system, of the United States as a whole. And so, that's what led to the Civil War, was this issue.

The victory of Lincoln gave a certain success to the recovery, but then we went back to the same system. The time of Andrew Jackson to the point of the Civil War was one period. We had a period from the death by assassination of the President of the United States, and during the whole period of [ ] Roosevelt, we were still back under the control of the British System, the British banking system, which was controlling the American banking system. That is, the private banking system.

So, this is the situation. We've now come to another crisis point, again, and the same kind of issue, but in a completely different form, but it's the same basic issue. You have two points here: the British imperial system, which is typified by the Roman Empire, the ancient Roman empire, the British-Dutch empire, which is just an extension of the same thing.

So, that's what the fight's about. It's not about the fight inside a nation, or this or that issue; it's the fact that you have a system out there, in which you have these struggles. And the United States has generally, since the assassination of Kennedy, since the assassinations, have actually caused the fluctuation in this thing.

It happened again. It's happening now.

TIMPONE: So, these people are entrenched in the whole banking system worldwide, including the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and all of these people we hear about, JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, HSBC—this is who these people are.

LAROUCHE: It's not just them. It's the fact that the whole system is controlled. The international system. It has different elements in it, different aspects of these elements, but the whole system which is centered in the monetary system—that whole monetary system has different aspects, a complex structure, nonetheless you have; really you have the United States as a great nation, as under Franklin Roosevelt again, and then you had the European system, which was a mess because of two world wars.

But now we're back into a real mess.

TIMPONE: So, at the very top, you still had the same people for the last 3-400 years or whatever, controlling the thing, controlling the game?

LAROUCHE: The same thing since the great religious wars earlier.

TIMPONE: Here's an email for you. "Mr. LaRouche, in 2007," Bobby writes, "we reached a point of peak credit and peak debt in the world. Since then the banksters introduced bailouts for themselves, kicked Americans out of their homes, introduced QE I, II, III. What are your thoughts of Ben Bernanke leaving the Fed, and Larry Summers withdrawing his name for consideration? Finally, do you advocate the American government seizing the Federal Reserve system?"

LAROUCHE: My point is, we just have to go through a very simple re-enactment of the Glass-Steagall law. That Glass-Steagall law, in the face of the inherent bankruptcy of the Wall Street system in particular, would mean that we would come back to a Franklin Roosevelt orientation, but under contemporary conditions. In other words, it would be the same principle that the Roosevelt recovery represented, in going from the absolute bankruptcy which was created—you know, from 1901 until Franklin Roosevelt, the United States was a mess. And was becoming worse, and worse and worse.

Under Roosevelt we had a recovery. Then we had Truman, who was a mess. And then we had a recovery, in a sense, from Truman, but then others came along, who put us up again, and then we got into this war in Indochina, and the United States has been slipping and sliding down ever since the mistake that Douglas MacArthur warned against, of this war in Indochina, which set forth a process of war after war after war, largely in Asia but other locations, and that process has guided much of the trends in the world system as a whole.

TIMPONE: So, this collapse that you're talking about, that you mentioned in the next couple of years, if it's simply a matter of more inflation, what would precipitate a tipping point? In other words, I'm trying to understand, well, what would keep people from, again, paying $10 for Starbucks instead of $4? In other words, you're saying, psychologically, philosophically, Lyndon LaRouche, there's a tipping point for people, what they're willing to pay for stuff?

LAROUCHE: No, it's not that simple. It is simpler as a matter of fact. If we have a return to Glass-Steagall now, with an understanding of what the errors were that were made in breaking from Glass-Steagall, Wall Street will go down. And comparable institutions in Europe will go down. We will still have banking institutions, but they'll be purged of a lot of their naughtiness.

So, what I'm concerned about, is people. The people of the United States, for now, are at the lowest point in what their morality, not their morality, in the sense of morals. They are breaking with Wall St. Wall Street had a panic, because they discovered in California, that I was pushing Glass-Steagall, and when they discovered that I was pushing Glass-Steagall, they hit the roof. And they've been fighting against me ever since on this question.

Because Glass-Steagall is the thing which would do two things: It would bankrupt most of the swindlers of Wall Street. They're already bankrupt.

TIMPONE: Isn't it a fact, though, that Wall Street controls Congress? Why would Congress ever repeal Glass-Steagall? (sic)

LAROUCHE: Well, you take the case... After Franklin Roosevelt's death, you had a new government which was based on other institutions, and since that time, since the death of Franklin Roosevelt, the United States has never really been out from under control by the internationally centered British interests. Members of Congress are terrified by this kind of thing. And they're terrified to the present day.

But what's happened now, with the big change now, is that the people of the United States are no longer disposed to submit to that system.

TIMPONE: You're saying, that's the difference now, the consciousness of Americans?

LAROUCHE: I don't [ ] call it consciousness-it's an awareness. They know that they're being robbed. They're frightened, they're really frightened. But most of them have courage, and want to fight to get their nation back again, and their economy back again.

And they're breaking—Wall Street's having a panic with me. I'm not, I don't have that kind of resources, so why should Wall Street be afraid of me? Well, because of what I'm doing attracts the support of a growing number of American citizens, and not just ordinary citizens, a lot of people, in higher ranks, who realize that what I'm talking about is what's necessary, especially people who are well-informed. They realize that this is necessary. And what I'm talking about is a very simple way to get growth back into this system. And they want it.

Wall Street is determined to go along with the British policy of reducing the human population to one billion as a whole. Which means a lot of genocide inside the United States. So, therefore our fight is to get back to becoming, really, the minimal thing that most people out there want, they want their country back. They want their nation back. Some of them dream about Franklin Roosevelt, they dream about other people who were heroes in the leadership of our government.

But they want their country back. They want the kind of thing that they thought was their country. And that's where I am. I agree with them. They were right to have that country back, and I'll do everything I can to see that they get it.

TIMPONE: So, let's take the position, being positive as we are, that the possibility of Glass-Steagall being reinstated is probably not very high, is it?

LAROUCHE: It's very high.

TIMPONE: You really think it is? So, what would induce, if they're controlled by these people and financed by these people, what would induce Congress to repeal Glass-Steagall (sic)? The people?

LAROUCHE: There's also the people of Congress.

TIMPONE: People in Congress are changing too.

LAROUCHE: People in Congress are not what they were, say, a few years ago. They know they're being robbed. They know that under this administration, they haven't got a chance. That things will just get worse and worse and worse. They know that. And the Congress does not have the kind of support that it would take for granted in earlier times. Wall Street is worried by me. They're seriously worried about the effect of what I'm doing.

Why is that so? Because they don't have the basis of support that they claim to have.

Now, the other factor is, guess what? Many parts of the Conress, including parts of the Democratic party and other parties, are actually betting, or actually controlled, by Saudi Arabia. And I can tell you, as a matter of fact, that Saudi Arabia, together with the British, were the authors of 9/11. And that issue is being heavily debted right now. Because there are special rules put on by Bush, and by Obama, to suppress all facts concerning 9/11, and the facts pertain to the role of Saudi Arabia, the British monarchy, and the BAE, which is a branch of the British monarchy and Saudi monarchy, and that's the issue.

And you have people in the Congress who are not necessarily in the Saudi and British brief [?], but they have been bought up by the Saudis on behalf of the British.

TIMPONE: And they're certainly involved with Syria, big time.

LAROUCHE: Syria was created by this whole thing. There was never a reason for a Syrian war, just like what happened in Libya. And in Libya, the whole thing was a fake. And the President of the United States was the instrument used to create this mess there. The President of the United States is also the guy who created the mess in Syria. And this is now the big issue there.

TIMPONE: What about all this talk of, well, the United States' real motive here is to get to Iran, and to topple these guys, and they're going to do it through Syria? What do you think...

LAROUCHE: This is simply a British operation. The entire thing is a British-Saudi operation. Now the Saudi King under its present leadership, is simply an extension of the Anglo-dutch imperial system.

TIMPONE: Controlled by them.

LAROUCHE: Controlled by them, sure. What happened in 9/11? There were three fundings. Saudi Arabia actually ran the 9/11 operation, personally. The two pilots who were crucial in New York were backed by the Saudi Prince [Bandar], and that's how the system was won. And then what happened is, the Bush presidency put the lid on the facts. You're not supposed to talk about this issue.

And later on, Obama endorsed the same lid.

Now, everyone who's well-informed in circles of government in the United States today, knows that's the facts. They just don't want to talk about it, because some people will do nasty things to them, if they talk about it. But the fact is, that what was done in 9/11, and the continuations of that same thing, were done under both President Bush, George W. Bush, and Obama. And they're still doing it.

And you have people in the Congress who are running as representatives, qualifying themselves as representatives, who are backing this operation.

TIMPONE: Final question, and we'll let you go. I know you have to go a few minutes early. "What would happen," an email writes, "if all the money were not spent on being sick? The medical-pharmaceutical complex will fail, and so will the money not given to these institutions—this is written pretty poorly—but the freedom to be healthy will destroy Big Pharma and the Big Pharma money players?"

LAROUCHE: Well, of course. That's the intention, the intention of the imperial factions internationally, which include the Saudis as a part of the British system, that this is all based on the idea of reducing the population. It's been done before. The Roman Empire did the same thing to itself. And other experiences in Europe are very similar. So this has gone on before. And they don't give anything for people. They think of their system, of their power in their system—that's where they're interest is. And we have different things, different views. But that's where it lies, and this is what is going on now, which is called in the Congress, and the issues in the Congress, is exactly that.

You have a significant number of members of Congress who have joined on to Saudi Arabia, the same institution which launched 9/11, that launched the planes that were used in 9/11. And the head of Saudi Arabia today was personally directly involved, as in the West Coast, was involved directly in putting through 9/11 as an operation.

TIMPONE: There's two or three trillion dollars, back to the health care thing—it feels like it's designed to keep people sick.

LAROUCHE: It's designed to kill them.

TIMPONE: Kill them.

LAROUCHE: The policy is the reduction of the human population from 7 billion people to one. That's the Queen's policy. That's the international policy. That's what's being done. We now have taken foodstuffs which people need to eat, and it's being taken away from them, in the form of chemistry, in the form of fuels.

And there is not enough food being produced now, to meet the demands of the people. And the rate of people who are going to die, simply from lack of food, is great, and increasing. So, therefore, you've come to a point where the people are in the state of potential revolt, in the large. They want their country back. That's the effect that they want. And if we get Glass-Steagall through, and do what we're supposed to do about Wall Street, we will get the nation back. And we'll save the people.

TIMPONE: Mr. LaRouche. Thanks a lot.