LaRouchePAC Policy Committee Discussion, July 7th, Transcript
July 8, 2014 • 11:04AM

Watch the video here, & listen to the audio here.

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good afternoon, my name is Matthew Ogden, and you're joining us for our weekly discussion with the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee; today is July 7th, 2014. We're broadcasting today live over Google Hangouts on air. We're joined by video by Bill Roberts, who's joining us from Detroit Michigan, Kesha Rogers, who is joining us from down in Houston, Texas, and Michael Steger, who is with us from San Francisco, California. Dave Christie will not be joining us today, and neither will Mr. LaRouche, but here in the studio I'm joined by Diane Sare and Rachel Brown.

Now, the three of us just had a short discussion with Mrs. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, right before getting on the broadcast, and Helga's emphasis was on the paradigm shift which is now accompanying the fight over the vulture funds and their attack on Argentina. And I would call people's attention to the lead story which is on website today, which is an article by Mrs. LaRouche, called "The Greed of the Vulture Funds Will Backfire, There Is A Limit To the Tyrant's Power."

And in our discussion, Mrs. LaRouche emphasized that you have to look at the statements that were made, for example, by the Foreign Minister of Guyana, last week, at the meeting of the Organization of American States (OAS), Robeson Benn, who hit the nail on the head and called on the United States Congress as the entity which can act, to change the entire paradigm by reinstating the Glass-Steagall law immediately. Mr. Benn, the foreign minister, said that it's a "moral responsibility" of all people involved including the American people and the government of the United States, and he went on to say, that if you look at the question as to whether or not the Glass-Steagall Act had been repealed in 1999, we never would have had this situation in the first place, where you have international financial institutions which had gone completely out of control. And the foreign minister cited the actions of President Roosevelt in having established the firewalls of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1933, and putting a limit on the speculation that was involved in the Wall Street-dominated financial system.

See for Reference:Guyana Urges Return to Glass-Steagall at Historic OAS Meeting: Argentina Wins Strong Backing in its War Against the Vulture Funds

So, as Mrs. LaRouche said in this article, that meeting of the South American foreign ministers at the OAS last Thursday [July 3] in which they raised their voices in unity with a unified "No!" to this attack on the sovereignty of nations, she says, this "chorus of Latin American foreign ministers, which rallied in full solidarity behind Argentina at the emergency summit of the Organization of American States, was the opening chord of a new composition of a different world financial and economic order," which I think is a beautiful image, sort of like a Beethoven symphony.

Now, the other thing Mrs. LaRouche emphasized was the statement by the Venezuelan Foreign Minister Elias Jaua, where he asked the question, how many lived could be saved with the $400 million which is being demanded by Paul Singer's NML Capital? He said, how many people could eat with that sum of money? How many doses of anti-malarial vaccines could be administered, pediatric hepatitis vaccines, polio, pneumonia vaccines? In other words, how many people are going to die, because of the demands of Paul Singer and NML Capital?

And then, the last point, was the statement by Argentine Foreign Minister Hector Timerman, who is today, probably as we speak, meeting with the so-called "Special Master" which has been appointed by Judge Thomas Griesa, out of the New York U.S. Circuit Court, and the Argentine Foreign Minister said that he will not be alone in this meeting with the Special Master. He said, "Not only will I be accompanied by all of you," all of those foreign ministers at the OAS, who showed solidarity with Argentina, "but I will also be accompanied by the faces and the ghosts, of all the victims of the vulture funds and all the countries that protect them." Mrs. LaRouche compared this to the famous chorus of the Erinyes in Friedrich Schiller's poem The Cranes of Ibykus, where they swear that never tiring, never repenting, never being appeased, they will pursue the murderers."

So, Rachel, maybe you can pick up some more on what Helga was saying to us.

RACHEL BROWN: Yeah, just to emphasize the point that the role of the U.S. Congress is not to ignore the fundamental breakdown: This is the driver of the war policy, what happened in Ukraine, Iraq. It's not enough to just discuss the issues of Iraq and be against military action, without recognizing the fact that we're in a global economic breakdown crisis, and there's an intention for genocide, which is what you see in Argentina, and the reaction of 80% of the world to support Argentina. They know that they're on the chopping block too. Which actually is the famous quote from that if you do not resist Hitler and the Nazi takeover of Germany, that you would next in line, too. Now, because of the work of Lyn and Helga over the recent decades, we have an opposition in place. But it's not enough for the U.S. Congress, as I mentioned, to just discuss domestic issues. They have to discuss the breakdown crisis of the global financial system, and the intention that's behind it to suppress nations.

Now, we also have Germany waking up to the fact that the U.S. has not acted as an ally, that we have been continuing the spying policy that Obama oversigned, that he okayed these phone discussions with [German Chancellor] Merkel, that this has been ongoing. That there has been a recent arrest of a German citizen who went to the U.S. Embassy, allegedly, and offered his services as a spy, and the U.S., instead of turning him in, accepted it.

So, all of these, the so-called trans-Atlantic friendship that's been promoted doesn't mean a thing. The fact is, is that there is a policy of Empire on the planet, the U.S. has been subjugated to it, under the Presidencies of the Bushes and Obama, and now is the time to throw out that apparatus, with impeachment, A.S.A.P. To recognize that there is a motion in the world right now of resistance, so the U.S. Congress has to do it, too.

DIANE SARE: I'd just add, a few days ago, Lyn was very explicit on this question, where he said the number-one strategic national and international issue is the removal of Barack Obama, under the Constitution, through impeachment, from the White House. And the first example he gave, and there are many impeachable offenses, as we know — Francis Boyle said there are a couple of them which would be "slam dunk," without even hearings, on the bombing of Libya and the killing of U.S. citizens with drones — but what Mr. LaRouche was hitting explicitly was Obama's shameless backing of ISIS, that we are arming these people, that we have $500 million in the Defense budget to arm the Syria "rebels" who are al-Qaeda. These are the people who are going to be killing Americans, so how can you be arming the ISIS on the one hand, and then sending in a thousand American soldiers, so-called "advisors" but "prepared for combat," and that is against the Constitution!

And I would just say, we're going to be meeting with members of Congress this week and we would urge people out there, to be calling in and mobilizing these Congressmen to meet with us, and to impeach this President, before we get into World War III. But this is already illegal. That is, as soon as you send a military person who is "equipped for combat," into another country, if the President has gone to the Congress for approval, this is a violation of the War Powers Resolution. And there is a letter circulating which Barbara Lee and Congressman Rigel of Virginia, a Democrat and a Republican — I think it has 70 or so signatories on it, saying that Obama has no right to launch military action without the Congress, but he's already done it!

I think that gets to the other point that Helga made yesterday, which is, we are now at end-game. Mr. LaRouche, a few weeks ago, right here in this very studio, had made the point that the financial system was like an elevator, and the cable had been cut and it was at the 70th floor, and it was going to hit bottom. And there is a difference, there is a boundary condition: the 76th floor, the 37th floor, the 23rd floor don't seem to be all that difference, except that you're going much faster. When you get to the bottom, everything changes, and it is the end, and there's no going back, and you're not going to put the elevator back up. And we are at the 100th anniversary of World War I, the Guns of August, and what you see, what you were just outlining Rachel, is this collaboration of the BRICS nations of China and Russia, of the population of the 80% of the world's population lining up with Argentina against the system. We have no — under Bush and then Obama, we are not going to influence the world politically as the pawn of the British Empire. The United States has lost its credibility: We're spying on Germany! They're our allies! The only thing left to preserve this rotten system that the vultures represent, is thermonuclear war! That is their only action!

So the only way that this can be taken off the table, is impeachment of Obama first and foremost; number 1 has to occur, and then, the Four Laws which Lyn has put forward, immediately, to organize the recovery and to consummate the paradigm shift which is under way. Which is under way but which cannot succeed without the United States playing a crucial role. And I think somehow we have to get this picture across to these very blocked representatives who live in their own time zone, and this is like an Einsteinian problem on Capitol Hill. I don't know if they're going too fast or too slow, they're on a different planet, a different universe. So many of them agree with us "in principle," but they think they can act in a time that has nothing to do with the historic moment.

OGDEN: Well, we know that a lot of them have been out in the districts for this past week, over the July Fourth holiday, and many of them have been confronted directly by activists with LaRouche PAC and members of LaRouche PAC, so we expect that they're going to be feeling the heat, in many different ways as they come back into Washington this week.

But I think that this paradigm shift is very, very clear. One of the other things that's very important is that both Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping are going to be in South America this week. Putin is going to be doing meetings, leading up into the BRICS conference which is happening this Saturday [July 12], and he will have bilateral meetings with many of the South American countries, including with Argentina; and then Xi Jinping is picking up where he leaves off, and coming out of the BRICS meeting, he's going to be meeting with [President] Cristina Fernández de Kirchner in Argentina, and many other countries around this area.

And we know that countries in South America are orienting towards the high-development, high-technology orientation, like this Nicaragua inter-oceanic canal, and then, what Argentina's doing with nuclear power in collaboration with Russia, this is the antipole to what you see coming from the British Empire and the Queen's genocide policy, to say, the Green policy of suicide, killing yourself, low technology, carbon capping, that's what Obama is a servant of. And when you say, Obama has clearly come out on the side of NML Capital against Argentina, his spokesman, Ben Rhodes said as much; he's arming the ISIS rebels; he's sending boots on the ground in contravention of the War Powers Act; he has already been arming the insurgents in Syria. And as LaRouche said, the key to this entire situation, is to remove Obama from power by the act of impeachment. And it could be done tomorrow. And I think that's our agenda here in Washington this week.

KESHA ROGERS: Absolutely. And I think it's very relevant and important to note, just thinking about we're coming off the weekend of the Fourth of July, Independence Day weekend, and I think that it's very important that in some of the discussions that we had this weekend, someone pointed out that a lot of people, their thinking when it comes to Independence Day, it's just another holiday — it's a day. But it's not a day, it is a principle. And it's a principle of natural law that actually defines the objective for the future, and that's what Benjamin Franklin, that's what the founders of the nation were thinking about, is not just how they were going to destroy tyranny that was confronting them in their day and age, but would give us the resources as a civilization, as sovereign nation, as a republic, to be able to defeat tyranny and ward off tyranny any time it presented its ugly head to us.

And that's what we're facing right now. As Benjamin Franklin said, "I give you a republic, if you can keep it." And it was interesting, talking to constituents and speaking with the population over this Fourth of July, Independence Day weekend, and really saying, "Did you not remember, that in the Declaration of Independence, it says that we have these 'inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'; but it goes on to say that to secure those rights, you actually have government of men being created to actually fight off tyranny. So that means, it doesn't just "happen." It's just something that you have access to because you don't have to fight for it.

And that what we're in right now, more so than in 1776, the fight against tyranny today, under the British Empire, as we see it today, under Barack Obama, requires much more of a fight from us, than it has in the history of our United States republic. And I think that people find themselves being called to a great task and a great mission and I think it's absolutely true, what Rachel and Diane have said: We have to get these Congress members to get their heads out of their rear ends, or wherever the heck they have it, and start looking into the future. Because right now, this situation is exactly as Mr. LaRouche has warned. Bail-in has already been set in; nation-states are being destroyed; and if the population does not see their obligation to stand and put an end to this, by adopting and demanding LaRouche's four points, which start with the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall banking reorganization, then we are going to bring it upon ourselves, as a nation, the destruction that would be brought about our inaction.

So, I think that the optimistic side is that, as Americans we have unique tools and resources there, defined by our Constitution, which is not just some old document of the past, but as I said, reflects the action for the future. And I think we're going to have a lot of fun this week in our activities, which Rachel and Diane will be leading up in Congress, to really put the pressure and demands on our elected representatives, of reminding them who they work for: This is a government of, by, and for the people, not of, by, and for Wall Street.

SARE: One thing on that, I just want to really stress, and I know I brought this up last time, but I don't think — people are so wedded, if you remember when Mr. LaRouche first introduced in 2007, the "Homeowners and Bank Protection Act," and we had people who said, "Yes, but they signed a contract. They have to pay!" And the fact that whole system is completely unjust and criminal, and that people were flipping homes and swapping mortgages, and God knows what else, somehow didn't matter; the fact that someone signed something — and in this case, a lot of times, they come to collect, and no one even has the original document, because it's changed hands so many times.

But I was reading this morning, the front page of the Bergen Record [New Jersey] has a story about a man who's 63 years old, and he had a $5,000 student loan, that he struggled to repay. He's actually paid $10,000 toward it, but because of interest and probably the debt being switched hands so you start over, and so on — even though he's paid $10,000 on a $5,000 debt, he still owes money. His Social Security is being garnished, to pay his student loan, and that is the criminality we're talking about. When we say "Wall Street has to be bankrupted," there is nothing worthwhile, we're not going to save these people who are engaged in criminal looting of the population.

And when you get to what you said about the Venezuelan foreign minister, the $400 million debt, this was NML Capital in Congo Brazzaville: They purchased that [debt] for $10 million, and then they turn around to collect it! It would be as if Rachel owed me $1,000 but lost her job, so then I knew, "Okay, she's not going to be able to pay that, but Matt, I'll sell you this debt." An d you say, "I know she lost her job, so I don't think I'm going to collect — I'll give you $25 bucks for it." And then, you turn around and demand $1,000, for something you paid $25 for! I mean, it's just straight criminal activity, with genocide as the intent!

And that's what NML Capital is doing to Argentina: They don't want Argentina to pay the debt, they want a list of all of the raw materials, all of the resources, what can they loot, and that's what our Supreme Court is pretending to uphold. And the beauty of it, and Helga's point, "there's a limit to a tyrant's power," is because there is a natural law, where this stupid Supreme Court ruling has actually no authority in the real world, because it's completely against natural law, and the right of people to survive. And it's been nakedly exposed in front of the whole world population, and people are saying, "No. Take your debt..." and, whatever, "we are not going to pay, and the whole world stands with Argentina" against this fraud. And that's what really makes it a revolutionary moment.

BROWN: Just to add onto that type of resistance, to cover this BRICS development, is that right out of the meeting, you know, a lot of these other financial agreements, Dodd-Frank, bail-in, you know, they're slated for three years down the line to come into effect. Well, right now, out of the BRICS meeting, there's a proposal for a development bank to be implemented, and begun, immediately afterwards. Which is what you're saying along this question of the natural law. That there's a discussion now that the U.S. dollar no longer has to be the reserve currency for the world, for oil; you know, there's discussions of ruble, yuan deals, etc. So there is, instead of these financial contracts, there is the beginning of a motion towards an ulterior financial system, which is actually run by these nations which are declaring their right to sovereignty. And just out of this BRICS meeting, one of the investment banks to be developed will have 350 billion in capital, specifically for infrastructure projects.

There's another one out of China, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which is said to be put into motion as well, financed by China, against the policies of the IMF and the World Bank, which have been trying to use this sort of usury debt policy to keep these nations from investing in these projects.

So this is the fight right now, as you're mentioning, is this question of natural law, of progress, and that's what we have to demand today, that the U.S. join, and implement as well, shut down this empire.

MICHAEL STEGER: I know we're pulling more together on this question, but you see the clear signs of what Lyn's been calling for and there's been many references to the International Development Bank, that Lyn proposed in 1976; you see, really, an anti-dollar alliance. You see, the Russian and Chinese trade deal was extensive, and it's now being discussed that it'll be based on the ruble and yuan trade, versus the dollar trade. President Xi Jinping of China had a similar discussion with the President of south Korea on the yuan and won of south Korea, for similar kind of trade. There's been a proposal based on the attempt by, again, U.S. courts to impose criminal fines upon foreign banks for violating U.S. law by trading in dollars, specifically in this case, BNP Paribas [of France].

But you see that there's a reaction, "well then, we're not going to trade in dollars." So, all of the trade with China, for example, which has now been referenced in a specific case, we should trade that between the euro and the yuan. People are moving away from the dollar-based system. That's not moving away from the U.S., it's moving away from a British imperial system, it's moving away from this floating exchange-rate system that Lyn directly intervened in, in 1971. They're looking for exchange rates based on long-term trade agreements, and the references are all the same: Towards advanced manufacturing, specifically nuclear power development, aerospace, space technology: That's the discussion in the BRICS, that's the discussion with Argentina, it's the discussion with South Korea, this is the orientation.

And you begin to really see what a new economic system looks like, even with the financial architecture. And I think specifically the head of the Russian central bank will be going to China over this week; we know [German Chancellor] Merkel was just in China over the weekend with discussions between Germany and China. So it's remarkable.

And I think what's interesting then, is you take some of the references, the references of the Argentine foreign minister, also Manolis Grezos, now elected from Syriza party, the 92-year-old Member of the European Parliament, his references. What he referenced, when someone said, "why are you running for political office at your age?" and he said, well, because with many of my former comrades, and former friends and collaborators [in the anti-Nazi Resistance], when they passed away, what they said, "if you live you have to fight for all of us." And you begin to see, people are not identifying with their self-interest, they're not identifying with Adam Smith's universe. They're not identifying with this British empiricist outlook. It really is much more what Percy Shelley identified, where your identity becomes far more expansive. You begin to identify with the human race, you begin to identify with other nations, not just your own personal interest or your nation's interest but with the interest of mankind.

And that really defines what Helga often references as "This is the Schiller Time" [Nun kommt die Schillerzeit], this is where you begin to look at a new paradigm for mankind.

And one reflection, just on that: How the generations have been developed: It's been 50 years since Kennedy's assassination; it's been 25 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall. And the way Vernadsky defines this as, the time of a species is within a generation of that species. It causes one to think, given developments today, what will the human species look like 25 years from today? How will we develop the next generation of the human species? It really does give a sense to what Lyn's Four Laws indicate as a potential. And it's just a remarkable situation.

OGDEN: Well, I think, picking up on what Diane was saying earlier, Mr. LaRouche emphasized in a discussion I was involved with him about 10 days ago, that you have to come to the central principle, that money as an idea is a fraud. Money has no inherent value, and contracts based on money are not legal. These are actually against natural law, because they're against the human principle. And the idea that money, in isolation from productivity, from increases in the productive powers of labor, from increases of man's ability to control higher and higher forms of fire, the idea that money has some sort of value, is the idea of evil associated with the British Empire, the British monarchy. And actually, also, as Pope Francis as point out, this worship of money is of a Satanic form of evil, which has destroyed the human race.

So, when you look at the really critical document, which I think we have to continue coming back to, the "Four New Laws To Save the U.S.A.!" in which Mr. LaRouche lays out the recipe by which — the only recipe by which, not only the United States, but the entire world can actually get out of this dark age, the central principle is that of Alexander Hamilton and Abraham Lincoln. And Abraham Lincoln's efforts to save the United States, at the time that it was being attacked by the British Empire during the Civil War, by issuing the greenbacks, and saying these greenbacks are an expression of Hamilton's principle of credit, which is a principle of human productivity.

And what Mr. LaRouche says in that document, that everything is subsumed by the Vernadsky principle, the idea that human progress itself, human progress per se, is a universal physical principle. And it's the superior universal physical principle because the three phase-spaces of Vernadsky, the noösphere, the biosphere, and abiotic, the human, the noösphere, is the superior phase-space of those three. So this human principle, the Vernadskyian principle is what has to define all economic policy for the human race.

And I think Mr. LaRouche's unique role in that, in terms of a scientist and a scientific thinker in world policy-making, was highlighted by his address in Russia several weeks ago, at this Vernadsky-Pobisk Kuznetsov conference, in which he lays out this Vernadskyian principle, and you can see the interface between people like Mr. LaRouche and Sergei Glazyev, for example, who's a top economic policymaker in Russia. And his interface with top layers in India, his interface, along with Mrs. LaRouche's relationship with top policymakers in China.

And you can see that if we are to succeed, and it's by no means guaranteed, because the British Empire is not going to accept a total paradigm shift which will wipe them out of existence, laying down; if we are to succeed, it will be because Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche are the strategic guide-points, for these countries around the world who are now standing up to resist the evil of the British Empire.

BILL ROBERTS: I would just add to that, I think the paradigm shift that we're seeing with the creation of new development banks based on the BRICS, the beginning of the replacement of the dollar as the reserve currency, is just, it's a repudiation of a negative, that these countries are no longer going to accept that the dollar, or a currency, money is put before human life.

And there's a shocking example of this, right now in Detroit, I think the UN is intervening on behalf of the residents of Detroit, directly intervening with discussion with the White House. Because half the residents of Detroit are unable to pay their water bills, and the Detroit Water Department is beginning to shut off water for people! And you know half the city's residents could have their water shut off! You can imagine just the dark age, I mean, if there's one thing that has the potential to create a new Black Death spreading, it's the shutoff of water! I mean, from the standpoint of needing to drink water, but also sanitation, preventing disease, all these sorts of things!

So we're familiar with the case of Detroit because of the way in which Wall Street has created murderous conditions with their manipulation of financial values, but you just really have — I mean this is a situation where the UN is intervening being there's international accords that regard water to be a human right — which it is! I mean, we really have just reached this point at which it is very clear that something our greatest leaders in the past have considered a point which must be upheld to defend civilization, which is that money is not something that is upheld before human life, as FDR expressed this. I think that's at least being recognized.

And Matt, I think what you brought up as, okay, then what is the basis upon which nations have to be brought together around a new principle, which expresses how the future is to be stepped forward in such a way to create a future for humanity, that's where the discussion goes from here.

But we're certainly seeing a point where even the thieves, you're getting a disagreement among institutions on the question of how the bail-out is to be implemented, which is causing in and of itself, a kind of absolute coming up against a wall, even as far as how to implement the bail-in, which is creating a crisis for the institutions that agree on murdering the population.

SARE: On this Detroit situation, I mean this is really, particularly Satanic. Because, if you think about what Detroit represents, the "arsenal of democracy," this incredible, productive capability. If it were the case, we succeed and we impeach Obama, we pass Glass-Steagall, we get credit and we're going to build, you have an incredible resource in this part of the country, which are now older-generation people who may not all physically be able to do the work, but who had the skills to impart to younger generations. So the very heartland of the United States, which was so crucial, and which could become critical again, were the United States to join — you know, I think of China financing the construction of the Bering Strait Tunnel, so you're going to get to Alaska and then what? Is anyone ever going to have a railroad or are they just going to end after they cross?

OGDEN: Bobsleds. [laughter]

SARE: Right! But if we were to build that, then what would the role of Detroit be? And then, what could be the identity of the population? And you can see, in a sense, this funny — like an instant, or in the twinkling of an eye, the transformation of the population where you go from feeling totally dejected, beaten down, we can't pay our debt, we're losing our water, to: No, our nation is building, we're going to have a crash program for thermonuclear fusion, you have the skills, we need you, we're going to rebuild this part of the nation, we're going to have a crash program to do this. And all of a sudden people's identity shifts, and they remember again what it is to be a human being, to be a Promethean human being and not part of the Zeus system.

And that shift then changes everything. And it changes dramatically what the potential of the nation actually is. But so you see this occurring in the city which would actually be the key to organizing the actual physical recovery of the United States.

BROWN: That is essential, this question of what is the purpose of a human life, because you do see a tendency among people in the United States — you know there's been articles out talking about the end of the American empire, and well, this is OK. And you see a reaction to sort of allow this to go on, there's a resettling, but "it may not be like it used to be, it may not be as good, but we'll survive and it's OK."

But the point is, it's not just a readjustment of things on the planet, and now there's going to be other people taking place, it is the question of what is a human life for, what are we here for? We're not here to just give up. We're not here to say, "well, at least I'll survive and hopefully my kids will too." It's to actually participate in creating this change, creating something different for the future.

So, we can't allow this type of thinking to seep into the population one bit. We have to constantly wake up every morning, and think, "what new thing am I going to do today? How am I going to contribute today, to something that will last after I'm gone?"

OGDEN: And that really was the identity of the founding of the United States. Mr. LaRouche has constantly emphasized the figure of Nicholas of Cusa, in creating the impulse towards bringing the best of European civilization away from the Satanic effects of empire in Europe, and into the United States. But if you look into the culture of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, it really is the best of what human beings had to offer. I would encourage people, I know the Friday webcast from ten days ago, that Dennis Small did, he concluded by contrasting Cotton Mather with Thomas Hobbes; and the evil that Thomas Hobbes and Adam Smith represented, that man is just a beast, man is just a base creature, pursuing the pleasure of his senses, versus Cotton Mather, who said, what is the greatest form of joy? The greatest form of joy is the pursuit of the opportunity to do the most amount of good. And how can I say, I've done this much good with my life? How much more good could I accomplish, for the future? And Cotton Mather did that directly by being the mentor of Benjamin Franklin. And Benjamin Franklin's mission, in which he said, okay, I have to leave Boston, to go to Philadelphia to create the kernel of the revival of what had already been accomplished by the Massachusetts Bay Colony, but what was crushed by the rise of William of Orange to power in 1688, and the crushing of the Massachusetts Bay Colony.

As Mr. LaRouche has said, the American Revolution was sort of almost a pale reflection of what had already been established with the Massachusetts Bay Colony. And it was fragile, the figure of Benjamin Franklin held it together. You had many different, diverging impulses which became out of control after the death of Benjamin Franklin. But still, the kernel of what Cotton Mather and the Massachusetts Bay Colony represented is what guided the original Declaration of Independence, and the original creation of the United States.

So I think you're absolutely right, Rachel, the question of what is the purpose of a human life, that is a real question. And that is the identity of the American republic, and that's why we can't let America be destroyed by British Empire.

STEGER: It's remarkable that what's happened the last couple of weeks, on this question of Obama's impeachment. You can see that under the direction of the British Crown, his controllers, there is an attempt of massive flight forward, and the idea, like Diane, you pointed out, $500 million for Syrian rebels — well, the Syrian rebels are ISIS! They're taking over al Nusra's oil fields! We've been training them in Jordan, as was revealed in the Blood Feud book that references Hillary Clinton's references to Obama's call the night of Benghazi, the explicit line. The point is that we were already shipping arms and ammunition to the Syrian rebels from Libya, where we provided al-Qaeda in Libya with these weapons.

But all of these things have kind of opened up just the last couple weeks. The IRS scandal is massive, you've had top Democratic Party advisors calling for a special select committee on the IRS scandal. The Benghazi special select committee is meeting over the course of the next four weeks. They have subpoena power. You have the revelations from the Blood Feud book.

So it's remarkable, we've got these next four weeks, and so the urgency — which is really a culmination — it's not like we're going to impeach Obama in the next four weeks, it's been a five-year drive of a major fight to fundamentally change the course of this government.

It should have been done with the impeachment of Cheney: That should have been the point where we changed the course of government in 2006, and it wasn't done. And it's taken five years, but you've now got a marshaling of forces in the United States. But they have to gain the courage to act. And to just reemphasize, people watching this show, the American population, your involvement in the next four weeks as Francis Boyle said, any member of the House can have the floor for 20 minutes, make the case for impeachment, force a two-hour debate. That act alone can change the entire political dynamic of the country.

Because we've got to shut down this empire system, Obama's got to go, and these next four weeks — because after these four weeks, they go off into — I mean, who knows what will happen politically, but we know that Obama inside the Executive branch, inside the office of the Presidency, means the threat of massive world war, of nuclear launches, a religious war unfolding and spiraling out of control. His removal, these next four weeks are absolutely critical, so just to make the redundant but emphatic point.

BROWN: It's true, we can't take that issue, with all this discussion of the new system, and new potential, we are at a crossroads, where we can either shut down this policy once and for all, or we are headed for world war. I mean, as this process continues, the British Empire gets more desperate, as Matt mentioned, and are not simply going to take this lying down.

There was discussion last Friday, of Dempsey and Hagel that they are considering use of air strikes in Iraq, could be at any moment. So this issue of removing Obama is not an optional issue. The war danger is absolutely connected to this policy for development, so we've got take advantage of these few weeks, as you mentioned.

ROGERS: Yeah, you can say that the new paradigm, which must be brought into existence, and people have to have a real sense of what that is. And in order to do that, you have to actually have a sense of what it is that we're fighting for which goes back to exactly what Rachel and Diane were bringing out, on the true identity of mankind. And how you get people to recognize that this is not just a fight for the survival of the here and now: If you're going to defeat tyranny, you have to bring into existence a new world, a new conception of mankind which is going to fight for the future progress. And I think what you're seeing right now, just to reiterate, the direction that Russia, China, is taking, that is very much in line with the identity of what the United States was founded upon, the identity that was taken up by Lincoln and taken up by FDR and John F. Kennedy, and others, who understood as we were just discussing, this idea that the intention of the empire, the intention of tyranny is to take away human creativity.

And I was just reflecting on the fact that there was a report on this human creativity and human access to true culture, Classical culture, and I was just reflecting on the report on these vultures that are going after Argentina, and going after their national sovereignty. Well, you know some of the first things that they try to do, is go straight for the monuments and go straight for the cultural assets of a nation. And you see some of the same things that happened in Detroit, where when they said, "well, you can't pay your debt, we're going to start taking your art works, taking some of your music pieces," or things that are actually essential for the development of a truly Classical culture.

And I was just watching — this is very interesting, people can take a look at this — I was watching a movie that was put out, called "The Monuments Men" —

OGDEN: Uh-huh!

ROGERS: It's very interesting, because it's talking about how, during the time of the fight against the Nazi occupation and Hitler, you had men who were not militarily trained; they were professors of art and music and Classical culture, and their job was to go into the areas where the Nazis were occupying and to save this Classical art. And it was very profound, because they were saving pieces from Da Vinci and Picasso and other great Classical artists and musicians and so forth. Anyway, the power of it is that this was actually taken on by Franklin Roosevelt, and Franklin Roosevelt understood that we have to actually do this, because this was going to be essential for saving and defending culture. And at the end of the movie, Franklin Roosevelt had already passed away, and the professor who was leading up the mission and recruiting the men to go into the military and sacrifice their lives in order to defend this culture, he is talking to Truman at the end, and Truman says, "Well, do you really think it was worth losing lives? Do you think it was worth the fight to save some pieces of art, and some monuments? Are people 30 years from now, going to pay attention and remember this?" And it ends by showing 30 years down the line, the gratitude that given, because people fought to secure and to make sure that true Classical and human culture can be defended and can be saved, and that that paradigm had been brought into existence, because people chose to fight. And people like Franklin Roosevelt made sure that that was possible.

So right now, we have Obama, who is going to do everything in his power to defend the Empire and not defend this commitment to Classical culture, and that's why he has to go, and we have put people in place who will defend that existence for the next 30 years to come.

So I thought that was very profound, and you see where we stand today, and why our job is so critical and so clear.

STEGER: Most people are so unaware of what shapes their identity. Many people today misunderstand, and think their identity is just their physical organism. Maybe it extends a little but more to their family. Very few people, and I think what makes Lyn's foresight and leadership so unique, Lyn's conscious and has done the work to identify it, our human identity today has been shaped by at least the last 3,000 years of human history, and the critical developments of that process.

That's actually physically what shapes the modern human identity today, is that course of development, from the Italian Renaissance, but even what that was shaped from going back to Classical Greece, back to Homer, and the resurgence of civilization out of a very severe dark age. And people are just unaware of these questions, and it's remarkable how to see, when you're conscious of that, someone like John Quincy Adams, or someone like Nicholas Biddle who set up the Second and Third National Bank, being enriched by that quality of 3,000 years of history, shape an ability to then act upon this kind of historical moment, in a very unique and profound way. And it really then demonstrates what real human identity consists of, that 99% of the people are completely unaware. And that really where the paradigm shift has to shift. We have to develop a higher quality of the human species from that standpoint.

OGDEN: Good. I'll just note, before we end here, that Diane and Rachel are both here in the Washington, D.C. area for the entire week, and as Diane said earlier, we want as much input, as much pressure from around the country as we can get from people calling in, setting up meetings, demanding that the Congress meet with representatives of the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee who are here in town.

And I'll also note that later today, on the website there will be an interview conducted with Dennis Small, on more of the details around the fight that's ongoing around the vulture funds versus Argentina. So you can keep your eyes out for that.

So unless there's anything more to add. I think I'll bring a conclusion to our discussion for today. So that's a lot for watching, and please stay tuned to