WE HAVE THE FORCES; WE NEED THE LEADERSHIP — TO MOBILIZE FOR VICTORY

LAROUCHE PRESS CONFERENCE IN FRANKFORT, KENTUCKY

From Volume 3, Issue Number 11 of Electronic Intelligence Weekly, Published Mar. 16, 2004

LaRouche Strategic Briefing to State Legislators

WE HAVE THE FORCES; WE NEED THE LEADERSHIP — TO MOBILIZE FOR VICTORY

Here is the strategic briefing that Lyndon LaRouche gave to a private meeting with 17 state legislators, from across the nation, on March 13.

The key thing going on now, which is key to understanding what we have to deal with, is what I feared, which happened in Spain. Now, don't believe any of the public press on this stuff. There are some leaks in various press, which give you a key to what's fake. For example, there's no possibility that al-Qaeda was involved in this. There's no possibility that the Basque separatists, the ETA, were involved in this.

This was done as an international operation. We know who did it. It was a group, which I've identified: a Synarchist group, but a very special Synarchist group, whose most prominent figure internationally is the granddaughter of Mussolini, Alessandra Mussolini; who is associated with an organization which is also embedded inside parts of the Italian government; in the French right wing of Le Pen; in the Spanish fascist right wing; and with a lot of the fascists in South and Central America. Their program is another "Clash of Civilizations," this time, to create a clash between the United States and the Hispanic population below the U.S. border, and within the U.S. borders.

This is another 9/11, which the suckers were all going to blame on some Islamic group abroad—which has nothing to do with it, except for the fact that some people were stooges for it.

Now, this is a typical kind of problem. I mean, this is the kind of thing I've had a lot of experience with. And therefore, I've been on top of this for a long time. I know exactly what's going on. But, it's typical, the way the public reacts to this is typical of our problem. We've used several examples to try to illustrate this, in the past. Here's the guy, he's a fish in a fishbowl. He's swimming inside a fishbowl, and he's saying, "I'm going to get the place I want, in this fishbowl." Meanwhile, the fishbowl is being carried by somebody outside, to the bathroom, where it's going to be dumped down the toilet. This is the typical American, who thinks he knows from experience, what the rules of the game are, and he's operating within the rules. For example, people say, "Well you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. You can't go back. Look, you can't go back to the past. You gotta go with the way it's going now." Well, the way it's going now, the fishbowl is being carried into the bathroom, and they're going to dump the contents down the toilet. Is that where you want to go? Or do you have to change?

The Battle of Leuthen, For Example

For example, you have the famous case of a battle, which involved Frederick the Great, at Leuthen. Leuthen is a battleground, which had three major battles on it: One before Leuthen, and one later—Napoleon ran into the same area, and did a much poorer job than Frederick the Great did. Napoleon was a bum, you know; he was essentially a bandit. Not really a general—he was a general nuisance, but not otherwise qualified.

Anyway, so Frederick the Great was faced with a military force commanded by the Austrians. He was part of this Austrian-Prussian war, and they came to this place in Leuthen; it's a famous place, because of its geographic area, and it's one of those crucial places in those times you would choose to fight a battle, for control of that position. So, he was totally outnumbered. And what the Austrians were doing, was a classic type of maneuver, a double-encirclement maneuver. Frederick didn't have the forces to deal with that. But, he destroyed the Austrian forces in two flanking operations, in the same day. The thing he did, which was crucial, which was a matter of his understanding of the situation, and the confidence which his commanders, his junior commanders, and troops, had in him. He told them to scamper. He told them to break ranks and scamper, and run like hell, and regroup in a predetermined position. And they did.

Now, normally, in those days, when you had troops, you wouldn't break up the formation; you try to control them in formation. But, they did it! And by doing that, which the Austrians thought impossible, he outflanked them in one position, and then, just to rub it in, he outflanked them a second time in the same day, by similar methods.

And the Austrians were defeated. And the battle between Prussia and Austro-Hungary was essentially settled, implicitly, by the outcome of that battle. It set the pattern.

Now, in this case, the obvious thing is not simply a cute maneuver of a geographic flanking operation. The point was, that Frederick, because of his skill—and he was well trained, actually—because of his skill, recognized that there were features, in terms of the way in which forces could be deployed, which were beyond the comprehension of the Austrian commander. And therefore, he deployed his troops, with confidence in their ability to carry out the operation, which was a total surprise, outside the thinking of the Austrian commander. And that's the way he won the battle.

Now, this is often the case in history. For example, you have a major general of the United States—a kid!—the Marquis de Lafayette, who played a key part, a decisive part, actually, in winning the Battle at Yorktown, on which the independence of the United States is based! Again, the same principles are involved: Is, you go outside what is the fishbowl, into ways of thinking, which you're not conditioned to accept as rules; and you see that the rules of the universe, are different than the rules you're taught to obey. And you see a rule built into the universe, which is contrary to the rules which you've been taught and conditioned to follow.

Now, that's the situation we're in. People will say, now, with the election, and the political situation in general, that we're going in a certain direction. "It's all locked up." Nothing is locked up! Except possibly the minds of some people. All the bums I thought would be out, are now out. They went out exactly as I thought they'd go out. Clark was a flake; he went out because he was a flake. He flaked out. And his behavior in the Balkans was a tip-off as to what he was going to do. When he was a flake for Madeleine "Half-bright," in the Balkans, and made a mess of things there. He's an academic flake, who had no real understanding of real warfare, or real principles. He prided himself on his Oxford education—and was promoted on his Oxford education.

He reminds me of what my friend, the colonel, then was a commanding general of France's forces under de Gaulle, but then a colonel: At that meeting with the generals in France, when he—as only a colonel—the key figure in the French occupation forces in France at the end of the war. And the discussion was, what do you, in the case of outbreak of war? And nobody could answer. So, he waved his hand timidly, and said, "Well," with respect for his generals, he said, "first, you fire all the generals."

That's the kind of situation you face now. Picture, where people are so confident of their position, their barracks training, their management of peacetime conditions, or expected conditions: They suddenly come up against an unexpected situation, and they try to apply the rules of the expected situation to an unexpected situation—and they goof! And that's what we're in now.

What's going to happen?

Behind the Madrid Bombing

All right: This terrorist outbreak in Spain, is not something in Spain. It's a strategic operation, inclusively against the United States. Its interpretation is—look, what's the Hispanic-language population of the United States: It's the largest single identified minority in the United States. What's it part of? The largest part comes from the Caribbean area, especially from Mexico. Now, many of these are fully American, in every sense, except they have some memory of the Spanish language and use. Others are recent immigrants—legal and illegal. The flood of Mexican immigration into the United States, recently, is based on the conditions we created in Mexico since 1982: We shut down their economy; they couldn't get the money to feed their family; and they would either come across the border, or sneak across the border; and from there, they would work at slave-labor wages, or the equivalent, to send money back to their families in Mexico. And communities, whole states in Mexico, depend upon remittances from Mexican nationals working in the United States, who are sending money back home. And that is the major source of the income of these people.

So therefore, you have a hatred against what the United States has done, since 1971-72, especially '82, against the United States throughout all of Central and South America. We are hated! We are increasingly hated—because we raped them. And, if you keep raping somebody, they may object eventually. And they object strongly.

So, on the basis of this hatred among people below the border, which has spread into the north of the border, you have this guy Huntington, Samuel P. Huntington, of the so-called "Clash of Civilizations"; Huntington, who is an agent of a British agent called Bernard Lewis—who is his actual adviser, and shapes his policies, who's now an old fellow, resident at Princeton, who runs these guys—runs Brzezinski, too. And did run Kissinger, for a while.

So what they've done, is conceived of, is conducting asymmetric warfare, to destroy the United States. That's what happened in 9/11. It was an attempt to create a state of terror, under which they could manipulate the United States, and put it in the direction of establishing a dictatorship. The purpose of the dictatorship is obvious—what I identified: It's the Felix Rohatyn phenomenon.

You go back to the period of World War II and before. In the Treaty of Versailles period, a group of international bankers, typified by the people who patronized Felix Rohatyn, Lazard Frères, called Lazard Brothers in the United States—these guys realized that what they had done, at the end of the war, the Versailles agreement, could not work. In other words, here you had a world, which was shattered and indebted, by a prolonged, so-called World War. The French and the British were totally bankrupt at that point. The British and French had been saved from an otherwise inevitable conquest by Germany, by the infusion of U.S. forces, materiel, and troops; otherwise France would have been defeated, and Britain, also. And also, the United States put a lot of money into that.

So therefore, the New York bankers were now the creditors of the French and British nations. The French and British nations were counting on being bailed out by squeezing the Germans, in war reparations payments—which the Germans could never pay! Because you would loot the economy down to the point, it can not generate these payments, these tributes. That means that the creditor is bankrupt, because the guy he's sucking on has no more blood!

The Synarchist International

So, thus, everyone knew at the beginning, as this fellow John Maynard Keynes said, in Versailles, that this system was doomed to collapse. So, at that point, these bankers, which are actually Venetian-style financier oligarchs, decided to plan world dictatorship: The same kind of world dictatorship, in principle, is being pushed now, inside the United States. The dictatorship was the assumption that the system was going to crash, and since these involved governments, which were governments, which had sovereignty, the pressure on governments is that the governments would have to take care of the people first and the essential institutions of society, before the bankers. And the bankers said, "No go." And therefore, you had the formation, among these bankers, of what was known as the Synarchist International. It's the legacy of the Napoleonic wars.

The Synarchist International, then, from 1922 to 1945, established a network of what we call fascist dictatorships, on the continent of Europe. These fascists were supported by the United States, by Morgan, by Harriman, by du Pont, and by Mellon, and similar types. They were the ones who funded putting Hitler into power in Germany, as a key to establishing this master plan. They only turned against Hitler, when the issue became the United Kingdom, and the British Empire. And Churchill and Company said, "No, we're not going to let a German dictator run our fascist empire. If there's going to be a fascist empire, we're going to run it—an English-speaking empire."

So therefore, Roosevelt had the support of Churchill, and even some of these bankers, in conducting the Second World War, up until the summer of 1944, at which point, a right-wing turn occurred in the United States, led by these bankers, and that fascist pig, the Ku Klux Klan veteran, Harry Truman—to speak plainly about such matters. That's what he is: Truman was a fascist! And people are running around saying he's a good Democrat: He's a no-good Democrat!

So, we went through a right-wing turn in the United States. We got into an unnecessary conflict with the Soviet Union, which was terrified at the time, and wanted to cooperate. We forced a nuclear confrontation, first by dropping those two bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki; and proceeding to announce, from Truman and Company, that our policy was preventive nuclear warfare with the Soviet Union as the first target. We conducted that policy, even though we didn't have the bombs. Because the bombs we had used, in Japan, were experimental prototypes. The third of a series. We didn't have a production line to produce these nuclear bombs. We did not have, actually, an effective air delivery capability, which this policy implied. But, we insisted we did, and we conducted our politics under Truman, as if we did. We conducted right-wing campaigns against unions and others, inside the United States, to break their backs. This process of a fascist movement, inside the United States, reached a peak under Truman in 1948. And then, you have McCarthy as an afterthought—an afterbirth—of Truman. And, we were saved from that, by Eisenhower.

So much for the myth of the Democratic Party!

And, I had actually worked to try to get Eisenhower to run for President in 1947. He agreed with the argument, but didn't do it. He said, "I have to do it later. I have to wait." And he did wait, but he ran on the Republican side. But, he did save the United States from these guys.

So, what we had, this right-wing turn, is what we're looking at now. You have something, which was called "fascist" during 1922-1945. That is what's running the top of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, now. That's why you had the Gore-Bush rivalry, in 2000: Because you didn't have a candidate who represented the United States, running for President. You had some bunch of clowns: You had Bush, who was probably the most stupid man that ever ran for the office; and then, you had a fascist rug-chewer as his Vice President, who was actually going to run him. You had Gore, who is less than nothing—he's also of this type. He's an interchangeable chameleon, with no definite species attached to him. And then, you had this fascist, Lieberman, from Connecticut, as the Vice President. So, the Vices in each case, were the force of evil, and the clowns were the Presidents.

Enter: Felix Rohatyn

So, the system was, to have a clown for President—and we got one now! And to have a Vice President, who would take care of managing the vice—which we got now!

So, now, we're in the situation; the system is coming down. They orchestrated this situation, such that they were going to wait, until they rammed through the selection of a Presidential candidate in the primary process in the Democratic primaries. They think they have done that now. Now, they'll go to work against that candidate, which will now be the one target. Assuming if they get that one candidate out of the way, with aid of massive computer-assisted vote fraud, they can take over the country, come November.

In the meantime, what's their policy? They have a policy, also for Kerry: The policy is the Felix Rohatyn policy. It's the reason I was kept out—by the orders of these bankers. Because, the issue is very simple: When you come to a financial crisis, and this system is coming down, now—there is no possibility of avoiding a depression. It's here! It's on! There's no recovery possible. It's gone. We're headed toward Hell!

Now, of course, with our system of government, if you have a President, with something in the Congress, and the people supporting him, you can not impose a dictatorship, under our Constitution: Our traditions and so forth, will not permit it, particularly in this day and age. The issue is going to be the people! Are you going to defend the people? Or, are you going to sell the people off for body parts? Rohatyn says, they're going to be sold off for body parts. And, if a Democrat goes into public office, who is controlled by the Rohatyn Democrats, or the Soros Democrats—which are the same thing—then you're going to have a fascist dictatorship. I don't care who is the President. Kerry will be rigged, when the team is put together, if he's elected. It'll be rigged in such a way, that he has no control over his own administration. The bankers will have everything in place to pull him down—pre-set up. And, you look for a push on the Vice Presidential candidacy: that will tell you what's going on. They might even push for McCain. It's not impossible.

But, that's the general situation.

Now, what's going to happen? We don't have a nomination now. The fact of all these votes, and so forth—we don't have a nomination. We all know it. Incidents which blow apart the consensus of agreement can turn the delegates in such a way that it doesn't go that way. We have that—number one. We have the depression coming on, which can bring that kind of situation on. This will probably hit with full force, well before June and July.

We go from there, we get a nomination. We go to the election: November. What's going to happen in the election? Are we going to get the computers out of there? Otherwise, I'll tell you what's going to happen: You might have a 20% vote fraud, in the national vote. It's all being pre-rigged. We're fighting against it; some people in the Congress are fighting against it. They realize what it is. That's good. I'm glad to see the fight—but we need more strength on it.

Then, you go to a jammed-up—at best—a jammed-up Electoral College, more jammed up than in 2000. Now, you have a fascist monster, called Scalia. He's called Scalia, named for the scales on his back! And his financial habits, hmm? What's going to happen with the five fascists dominating the Supreme Court?

So, nothing is decided! In the meantime, all kinds of hell are going to burst loose around this planet. In this process, the launching of another terrorist raid—now, remember: If those trains had all come into that train station on schedule, instead of all coming in late—you'd have had something comparable to New York, in terms of the death toll! I mean, imagine the trains come into the enclosed train station, with these explosives on them, going off, and timed to explode at the time the trains were all supposed to be simultaneously in the station. All you do, is look at the list. What was the date and time of arrival of each of these trains? At what time did these bombs go off? Where were the trains then, as opposed to where they were supposed to be, if they'd come in on schedule? And the Spanish usually pride themselves, on the bringing the trains in on schedule these days—one of their big braggadocios.

Who runs it? Who's capable of doing this? The same people who ran the Bologna train station thing in 1980. The other guys, I'm familiar with—we know who they are. We know the top people by name. We know who's behind them: The Synarchists are behind them; the Synarchist International. So, don't take any little fairy stories, about the mystery of who's behind it. We know who's behind it: It's a major strategic operation, whose included target is the United States. And, one of the elements that's potential here, is the orchestration of Hispanic revolt, inside the United States—provoked. All you have to have, a few atrocities and so forth thrown in: You've got it. You've got Ashcroft in power; you've got Cheney still in power. These guys, and the people behind them, would do it. Have no illusion.

When you know a guy is a man-eating tiger, you don't have to convict him of eating another victim. He already has a record: That's his character—he's a man-eating tiger. You've seen what he's done. You're going to say, "Well, let's give him a fair chance!" "What? Eat my cousin?"

And so, these guys are there; they have the power; they've demonstrated it. Look, a war was imposed on the United States by an act tantamount to treason. The use of the War Powers provision, of the design of the Federal Constitution respecting the Executive, to put constraints, through checks and balances, especially the Senate, on the war-making powers of the Presidency, such that we could not have a George III using Executive power to start wars on his own, against the will of the people, against good reason.

So therefore, what they did, is they got the cowardly Congress, the "cowardly lions" of the Congress, to agree to an in-between condition, of bullying, and these guys—one by one, one after the other, capitulated all the way, until we're deep into the war. And even though it was known that Cheney had done it, they wouldn't say so. They'd say, "Well, we're going to get Bush in the next election!" How do you know you're going to get a next election?! Why wait? "Oh, we want to play fair."

Well, the reason is, you got a bunch of skunks in the Democratic Party, who are also part of the Synarchist operation: Look at the number of people in the Democratic Party, who are financial controlled by people like Felix Rohatyn and George Soros. How many people are on the take for George Soros? How many people are defending George Soros? He's the guy who's "helping us out against Bush?" Who owns you, if George Soros owns you? Who owns George Soros? The London Synarchist bankers.

That's the problem, you see. That identifies the problem. The fishbowl problem: That we've become so conditioned to "popular opinion" we say, "We have to adapt to popular opinion. We have to go along with the way people have been conditioned to go."

In a period of crisis, leadership consists, usually, of going against popular opinion, when it's necessary! And, when you're going to do that, you have to know what you're doing. There's an element of risk; there's always an element of risk in leadership. And, if you're unable to take that risk, don't pretend to be a leader! Because, in times of crisis, such as the Battle at Leuthen, facing Frederick the Great, you either are a leader, who is capable of seeing the opportunity, taking the necessary risk, or get out! Scram! Git! Be gone!

And the problem is, and what I have to do in this process—none of the other guys that are in the running, have the knowledge or guts to deal with this situation. And that's what my job is: Somehow save this nation. Because I'm telling you, what's out there, in terms of prevailing institutions, has no capability of saving this nation. We have the troops out there. We have the forces with which to win victory. But we don't have the leadership, which can utilize and mobilize those forces for victory, in a time of conflict. If we can't change this thing, we're doomed.

LAROUCHE PRESS CONFERENCE IN FRANKFORT, KENTUCKY

Democratic Presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche gave this press conference in Frankfort, Kentucky, on March 9.

LAROUCHE: I would recommend, to understand what I'm about to say about the state of the campaign, one should pull down from the London Guardian site, Larry Elliott's column on the Argentina crisis today. One should also pull down, from the Bank for International Settlements' Quarterly Report, some things I refer to now.

The situation is, that people think the primary campaign is over. It's not over. It's not even close to ending. Because the issues which are going to decide what happens in the election, are not decided, and Kerry has not decided what his program is. So, what's going to happen is, the explosion of an international financial crisis, is going to change the agenda, during the coming months, between now and the convention in Boston this July. What will come on the agenda, is the fact that we have to go back to an FDR-type policy, to get out of what is going to be the biggest depression in anyone's memory. This would mean that there'll be a fight in the Democratic Party, which is already ongoing, and I'm one part of that fight. It's a fight between people, including Bob Rubin, who I am generally sympathetic to—I have my own views—who is opposed to Felix Rohatyn's policy. Felix Rohatyn, an associate of Lazard Frères, is one of the king-makers behind the scenes in the Democratic Party today. The plan is, that he should control Kennedy. If Felix Rohatyn controls Kerry's election, Kerry will be an office boy for the bankers during the middle of a depression.

The issue is, to fight that issue out. I think Kerry, personally, is a man of good qualities, and courageous, but he's ignorant of economics. My job is, among other things, to replace him—that would be the best option—because I know how to make the decisions, but the other option is to educate him, and therefore I'm running for those two purposes. Both for the candidacy, which is not settled now, and also, to educate my only rival, Kerry.

At the same time, we have several other points that are coming up, now, with the convention. What happens at the convention, nobody can predict right now. What will happen in the election, no one can predict—especially with this touch-screen voting. With computer voting, you could have as much as a 20% fraud in a national election. Many of us in Washington are working to overturn this computerized voting, and to go back to a straight paper ballot, in order to ensure an honest election.

The other issue is the election. Since we don't know whether we're going to have a fair election! We could have likely a worse mess than we had in 2000.

Therefore, that issue is coming up.

Then, we don't know exactly how this is going to work out, and we have to face what is going to happen, between the election, and the inauguration of the President in January.

So, these are several points which are now on the agenda, in the context of a world financial crisis, which have not been put before the public yet, and must be put before the general public increasingly during the coming weeks and months. That's what the campaign is about this time.

We've eliminated all the chaff, all the also-rans are out. It's Kerry and me. There's nothing else. So, Kerry and I are going to be the pillars, or the poles, of a debate over these issues of policy in the coming months. That's what the whole campaign is.

QUESTION: Well, I wonder what kind of evidence you have of—clearly there has been a crisis in Argentina for a while, but what evidence would you give of the worldwide depression?

LAROUCHE: Well, anyone—there's tremendous evidence. I've written about it a great deal. I have a record of the most successful long-range economic forecaster in the past 30 years.

But on top of that, the stories which indicate there is not going to be a crisis in the United States, are fraudulent. Now, when it comes to the Bush Administration, he's probably the most ignorant man in politics in the United States. I don't think his opinion's worth much on this question. Others are keeping their mouths shut. But you have now, from Europe—remember, the Bank for International Settlements is one of the more significant international features of international finance. We're talking about what? We're talking about a collapse: First of all, we have the bond rates. The bond rates have been about 5% low, over a period of time. This thing cannot be sustained. It can blow.

We had in the recent period, remember we have a world economy which is estimated in the order of $41 trillion dollars net, product. All right, we have in the recent period, about $8.7 quadrillion dollars of financial derivatives turnover, in the past year. So, we're actually with a totally bankrupt system, more bankrupt than Germany was in a sense, in 1923. We're in a much more severe crisis than during the period of the last depression, when Franklin Roosevelt came in.

This is all known. But there's no evidence whatsover that there is not a crisis coming on, but many people are sitting in wishful denial, and saying there is no crash. There is a collapse. It's coming on now.

QUESTION: So, what shall we do?

LAROUCHE: Well, the process is, you have to, first of all, start from the mind-state of Franklin Roosevelt, coming in the 1932 election, 1933. You have to approach a crisis like this. You have to put the Federal Reserve System into bankruptcy; the U.S. banking system is bankrupt. You must put it through bankruptcy reorganization, to prevent chaos.

The international monetary system is now in a crisis; that most of its debt, the majority of its debt, is to Argentina and Brazil. There's now a conflict, a collection conflict, between Argentina and the IMF and Annie Krueger, whom some people think is Freddie Krueger's sister—the acting head of the IMF now. These issues ares such that the whole system is coming down.

You have also a real-estate bubble in the United States, which can blow very easily—.

QUESTION: But, I guess I want to see, what would you do then? Change the [inaudible]?

LAROUCHE: The United States government, under the power of the Constitution, puts the Federal Reserve System into bankruptcy reorganization, works with other nations, in other countries, to put the IMF, which is our property—that is, the property of a number of countries—we put it into bankruptcy reorganization. We generate a mass of credit, for large-scale infrastructure programs, with the intent in the United States to increase the total employment by 10 million persons. Without that increase in employment, as you're seeing debated in the legislature here, in Frankfort, today, so in 47 other states of the Federal States—the states cannot possibly meet their obligations as states, without cutting into the incomes of people to such a degree, that that's intolerable.

Therefore, the states are, in a sense—if they weren't governments, would be bankrupt. They can not meet their obligations. And they don't have the resources with which to meet the obligations. Therefore, what we have to do, to stabilize the United States, we must increase employment, through infrastructure projects backed by the Federal government, to the degree that the income in the states, is sufficient to enable the states to balance their budgets.

In other words, there's no fiscal austerity, no budget-balancing trips, will work. And the legislature in this state, as in other states, is facing the same problem. That there is not the money available, from tax revenues, without looting the people to impossible degrees, to balance the budget. Therefore, this is our problem. So, the first thing you have to face, is stability of the U.S. government, which is now bankrupt itself. Our current account deficit, for example, presently, over $700 billion dollars a minute—it's impossible.

So, under these conditions, the President of the United States must take action to maintain the continuity of business as usual, in the ordinary sense, both by government, by state governments, by local communities, and to try to get some employment back into this economy. We're losing employment.

So, those are the things that Roosevelt would have done. And the problem today is much more serious than it was then—our economy is much more decadent than it was under Roosevelt. But what we need is a President, and an administration, which thinks like Franklin Roosevelt; the same kind of thinking is the approach you start with, to deal with a crisis of this type. And from my dealing with governments abroad, I know that they would go along with the United States in the kind of proposal I'm proposing, if it were to be made.

QUESTION: So, to have the states hire more people, basically. And the Federal government as well? Or, just the states?

LAROUCHE: The Federal government has to take the primary responsibility, under our Constitution. But, the point is: Our system of government has three arms of government, under our Constitution. We have the Federal government with the Executive Branch, the Legislature, and the Supreme Court, the Federal courts. We also have the states. The states are a part of the Federal system, and they have certain powers in the Federal system, but which are theirs. And without cooperation between the Federal government and the states, you can not solve our problem.

All rights reserved © 2004 EIRNS