Friday Webcast, May 20, 2016

May 20, 2016

Friday Webcast, May 20, 2016

We begin tonight's broadcast with an on the ground video of activists with LaRouche PAC's Manhattan Project who held a rally earlier this week demanding an end to the Obama Administration's cover up of the Saudi-British coup behind 9-11. We are joined live by Diane Sare, member of the LPAC Policy Committee who reports on the continued mobilization to release the 28 pages in wake of the unanimous passage of the JASTA bill in the US Senate. The British-Saudi friends of Obama have gone into overdrive. Jeff Steinberg elaborates on the crucial role President Putin is playing in continuing to outflank his adversaries in the context of the ASEAN meeting occurring right now in Sochi.


MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening! It's May 20th, 2016. My name is Matthew Ogden, and I'm happy to welcome all of you to our weekly broadcast here on Friday night with I'm joined in the studio today by Jeffrey Steinberg from Executive Intelligence Review and we're joined over Google Video by Diane Sare, member of the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee and leader of our operation in Manhattan, the Manhattan Project.

As the viewers of this webcast most probably know, we are in the midst of an all-out war over the 28 pages and everything that that implies. We are facing down the Saudi/British apparatus that were responsible for the coup of September 11, 2001, and everything that has followed from then—the cover-up, the aggressive deception that has been perpetrated by the FBI over the last 15 years. As viewers of this website probably know, a very significant development occurred in this fight, just this week. The JASTA bill (the Justice Against State Sponsors of Terrorism Act) that has been sitting in the United States Senate for years, passed the Senate unanimously, which would lift the sovereign immunity claimed by the Saudi Royal Family—the Saudi government—and allow the family members of the victims of 9/11 to sue the Saudis because of their responsibility for the attacks on 9/11. This is obviously going to move into the House, where it's scheduled for a vote sometime in the next two weeks. However, it has been made very clear by the Obama White House that if this bill reaches Obama's desk, he will veto it. The Obama faction, the [john] Brennan faction, has definitely begun to circle their wagons against JASTA, against the 28 pages, and in protection of this entire Saudi/British apparatus.

The center of this fight, the focal point of this fight in the United States, has been New York City, obviously the location of the majority of the deaths that occurred during those attacks on 9/11, and the Manhattan Project. The LaRouche Movement has been in full force out on the streets over the last several weeks, especially this week, holding rallies, tables, having a very, very substantial presence in the area of Ground Zero—also taking an aim directly at the cover-up which is being perpetrated by the FBI.

To begin today's broadcast, before I introduce Diane Sare, who can elaborate a lot more on how this activity is continuing, I would like to play a short excerpt from an on-the-ground video that was recorded yesterday during the rally that occurred in front of FBI Headquarters in New York City. So, this is a short excerpt from that video:

VIDEO EXCERPT: [singing]

Ha ha ha, ha ha ha, ha ha ha JASTA bill has passed the Senate, soon the House. Let the FBI go to Hell with the Saudis. Put Obama into jail with Bush!

OGDEN: The video of that rally is available in full on the LaRouche PAC website, and on the LaRouche PAC YouTube channel. We encourage you to share it as widely as you can. I think it gets you into the spirit to be a participant in this fight. Diane, let me introduce you, and let you say a little bit more about what we're doing in New York.

DIANE SARE: Okay, thanks for that. Well, as you could see, probably, from the video, there is a very different dynamic now among the American population, and I would say in Manhattan in particular, but I just got a report from fellow Policy Committee member Rachel Brinkley, who was calling in from the rally at the FBI Headquarters in Boston. I can say that the fear and the intimidation that this institution has wielded over decades, is now shattering and crumbling in the wake of what's happening around 9/11. I think this victory that you alluded to earlier with the JASTA bill passing unanimously in the Senate, is part of the fight coming to light.

What people want is not only the truth of the events of September 11, which Mr. LaRouche has reiterated repeatedly. You had close to 3,000 Americans murdered on September 11 in the lower part of Manhattan and at the Pentagon, and nothing was done. You had 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, and we did nothing about that, but [instead] invaded Iraq. Obama overthrew Gaddafi in Libya. What you've had is a lie and a cover-up, and a massive injustice which everyone knew. The FBI has itself been a major part of the cover-up, from Robert Mueller giving the orders initially not to release the 28 pages; to Louis Freeh, the former Director of the FBI, who is now the attorney for Prince Bandar [bin Sultan], who is defending himself in this case about Al-Yamamah, which I think Jeff may go through later—the Saudi-British collusion.

What people deserve is justice. What we're finding in the streets, especially here, and also some in Massachusetts—because you remember, the planes that were hijacked to hit the World Trade Center, were hijacked from Logan Airport in Boston—is that there are many, many people who were very directly touched by this; that they lost a loved one or a friend in the World Trade Center, or in the Pentagon, or first responders who are dying to this day of diseases from what they inhaled during the rescue mission and the cleanup process.

What's happening is that the population now is refusing to be cowed. I can say, a few months ago, when you were out in front of the FBI building, campaigning against the FBI, people used to have Groucho Marx sunglasses, and a big nose and a mustache, that people could put on when they signed up at the table, in case they were afraid that their picture was being taken. What we're finding now, is that the leaflets and the literature are literally flying out of our hands. Everybody wants the material. We have a sign that says, "Why does the FBI protect mass killers?" In Massachusetts they have pictures of Whitey Bulger, the Tsamaev brothers, Obama, the Saudi King. People are pulling over to sign up.

There's a real anger. The point is to take this to the next step. What does Justice mean? Does Justice mean that we go and blow up some other country, or kill somebody else? This is not Justice. This is not what the family members of the victims want. What is necessary, what must be done in a tragedy like this, is to ensure that the people who died, have not died in vain. And that means—and I think what people are searching for—is that we have to restore the mission and the intent of the United States of America, as Alexander Hamilton in particular, and Leibniz and Cusa, intended—that a nation-state with the consent of the governed should function. That is a more profound job.

What you have, which people have not been willing to take up, or at least not in the way that's required, is the question of the role of President Barack Obama; that Obama is absolutely a killer. This is known. Everybody senses it; otherwise there would have been much more done against him earlier. The fact that he's saying that he will veto JASTA if it passes. I think any Congressman who doesn't support this should be tarred and feathered by his or her constituents. In other words, this is just a part of a broader fight, which Mr. LaRouche has been involved in for many decades, which is the question of what is the meaning of one's life. As Martin Luther King said, "Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now." That is, if one's life is snuffed out early due to a terrorist attack, due to being in a war, or if one lives to be 105 years old, whether you live to be 50 or 100 or 12, that mortal existence is a very tiny sliver of mankind. It's a very tiny sliver of the existence of our planet and our solar system.

The question for each of us, is what do we contribute to the development of mankind, which itself as a species is immortal, and by people taking action to right the incredible injustice which is exposed in its full treasonous content before us right now; that if this is rectified, then what we do is we give immortality to those people who were killed on that day.

I think this is a mission that is very, very clear to the American people, and very urgent that they think on this level, and not on the stupid, disgusting, low-level of electoral politics—[donald] Trump vs. Hillary [clinton] or Bernie Sanders—all of which is shaped by a capitulation to the British Empire and to the acceptance that Obama has to remain as our President, which he does not.

Oh, just one last thing I want to say on the theme of a living-memorial, which Mr. LaRouche brought up in response to a question from a veteran who comes to our New York meetings. We are planning for May 28, the Saturday of the Memorial Day Weekend, a day-long event. It will have the usual webcast discussion with Mr. LaRouche, but that will be preceded by a presentation over video by his wife Helga Zepp-LaRouche, and then in the evening a wreath-laying ceremony and a Musikabend. I think the point of such an event is not simply to remember those who gave their lives in the battles for our nation in the missions around September 11, the first-responders, the people who died that day; but, in a sense, to strengthen us that we can ensure that victory is delivered in this case.

That's what I can report for now.

OGDEN: As I said earlier, we're joined today by Jeffrey Steinberg as well. I'm going to let Jeff give you a little bit of a picture of the sheer escalation and hysteria that's coming out of the Saudi/British side of this, as the fight heats up. So Jeff.

JEFFREY STEINBERG: Let's start out with the really critical point that came through from the discussion that we all had earlier today with Mr. LaRouche. It's critical that people understand, as very, very few Americans do understand, that when you're talking about the Saudis, you're not talking about a country that's a big pile of sand with a lot of oil in the Middle East, you're talking about the British. There is no separation whatsoever between the British and the Saudis. The Saudis would not exist were it not for the fact that they are an integral and subsumed feature of the British Empire. If you take that concept and really rap your mind around it, then you'll realize that when we are looking at the attacks of September 11, 2001, we're talking about the British, the British/Saudi apparatus.

You're getting a hysterical response right now from the Obama administration, from the British, from the Saudis, over the fact that we are very close to forcing them, not voluntarily, but by an enormous outcry of pressure to release the 28 pages; the 28 pages from the original 2002 Joint Congressional Inquiry is the aperture into the entire picture of how the British-Saudi apparatus runs world terrorism; maintains a global empire based on principles of terrorism and blackmail and the rest. And that is really what is on the table right now.

There was very concrete evidence that emerged over the course of a number of investigations of the direct role that the British played in the 9/11 attacks. The Al-Yamamah deal that was negotiated between Prince Bandar and Margaret Thatcher back in 1985 and continues to this day, created an offshore fund in the range of hundreds of billions of dollars. Those funds are the machinery that has created al-Qaeda, that has created the Islamic State; that has made it possible for Europe to be on the edge of a complete social disintegration as the result of the wars of the Middle East, the wars of North Africa, the refugee crisis, the fears of blind terrorism. It's all part of the British mechanisms of global empire control.

Under the Al-Yamamah deal, Prince Bandar received $2 billion in commission fees for his role in creating what was nominally a barter deal involving British weapons systems and Saudi oil. At the time of the 9/11 operation, Prince Bandar was regularly receiving payments from the accounts in the Bank of England, from the Defense Export Support Office of the British Ministry of Defense, into his accounts at Riggs National Bank in Washington, DC. At least $50-72,000 of those funds went to support the two lead hijackers; the first to arrive in the United States, who were housed in San Diego, California. That is part of what is in the 28 pages.

When members of Congress have gone in to read the 28 pages, in literally every instance, they've come out and have said that the information contained in those pages forces them to completely rethink everything that they've believed about the history of this planet for the last 30-40 years. And in fact, going back much longer than that. So, it's the British Empire that is on the line in this fight; and therefore, it's not surprising that the British are now pulling out all of the stops to make sure that the 28 pages are buried. And as Diane quite eloquently said, there is a denial of justice to not only the families of those 2977 people killed on 9/11, but for the American people and the people as a whole.

So, what's going on right now? You've had a break-out; there's clearly a certain institutional move to get the 28 pages out. To let the cards fall where they may on this entire Anglo-Saudi apparatus. Now, you're getting an intensive push-back. To put it in the most preposterous terms you could possibly imagine, today on Capitol Hill, the Saudis are circulating a 104-page document that they have produced; arguing that they are among our leading allies in fighting against jihadist terrorism all over the world. They're trying to sell this package of lies to the US Congress; and unfortunately, there are many members of Congress who will be inclined to swallow it. Anthony Cordesman, who's widely recognized from the Center for Strategic and International Studies as a leading expert on the Gulf region, has come out with his own absolutely shameful claim that it would be unfair to the poor Saudis to take the evidence that a few mid-level Saudi government officials helped the 9/11 hijackers, and extrapolate from that, blaming the Saudi empire. Well, guess what? Any serious investigation, any investigation that takes up the fundamental issue of Al-Yamamah, of the fact that there is no difference, there is no space whatsoever between the British Empire and the Saudi Empire; any investigation that seriously goes after that, as Executive Intelligence Review has been leading the way on that issue since the time of the 9/11 attacks, when Mr. LaRouche was an eyewitness by television to those events unfolding.

It is the British Empire that we're dealing with; and that's what has got to be brought down. Otherwise, Europe and the United States are facing a wave of terrorism that will go beyond anything that we've seen up until this point. So, this is a real showdown moment, and we've got to take all of the measures necessary to ensure not just that the 28 pages are released and made public; but that there is a full spotlight, top down, on the role of the British Empire — from the Queen on down. Through the Al-Yamamah project, through the hundreds of offshore accounts holding billions of dollars in funds that are available for use by terrorist organizations, by drug trafficking organizations, by gun smuggling organizations. That entire apparatus has to be dismantled; and we've got a unique window of opportunity right now to do that, and we can't let that opportunity slip through our fingers.

OGDEN: I just want to follow up with you, Jeff, on a subject that Diane touched on. The story of 9/11 really has been a story of two parts. There were the attacks themselves, obviously, and everything that led up into them; the most horrible terrorist attacks ever to occur on US soil. But the second part of the story has been the 15-year effort by agencies of our own government to withhold the truth of what happened on 9/11, from the American people, and especially the family members of the victims of those attacks. And as we've documented here, and has become very, very clear in the last few weeks, the FBI has played a central role in what Bob Graham has called not just a cover-up, but an aggressive deception campaign. And Bob Graham himself has found himself right in the crosshairs of that aggressive deception campaign as the former Senator, Chair of the Intelligence Committee, author of the Joint Inquiry Report, when he said, this investigation is not completed; there's much more to be investigated here. There's not only what happened in San Diego, there's also what happened in Sarasota; which makes it not just an isolated incident, but proves that this was a pattern across the board. And you could probably find related stories if you dug deep enough in Paterson, New Jersey and in northern Virginia. But when he pursued that campaign, he was threatened, intimidated by high-level ranking members of the FBI; we've told this story.

Very interestingly, Brad Sherman, a member of Congress, was interviewed last week; and he related how he had just found out about this story from Gwen Graham, who is the daughter of Senator Bob Graham, who is now a Congresswoman from Florida. Sherman said he was approached on the floor of the United States House of Representatives, and Gwen Graham told him this story about how her father and her mother were just travelling on a private trip to visit her sister for Thanksgiving dinner. They got off the plane at Dulles airport and were corralled into a room, confronted by members of the FBI. And Brad Sherman said, "I was flabbergasted. I was astounded when I heard this story." He said, "Bob Graham is obviously a much more level-headed individual than I am, because I would have been hysterical if this had happened." But because of this story, Brad Sherman turned around and signed the bill to release the 28 pages.

So, this has been something that Bob Graham has experienced centrally, personally. But very interestingly, he's also stressed that this is not just a rogue agency, or just a small pocket of the Federal agencies that have been engaged in this aggressive deception; but that it goes all the way to the top. Graham was interviewed this week for an article for the Daily Beast by Eleanor Cliff, and I just want to read one very short quote that he delivered, which makes it very clear that he understands that he's taking on the entire Bush/Obama apparatus in this fight. He said: What becomes clear, is that this comes from the top and reflects "a clear directive that had gone out from the White House to avoid embarrassing the Saudis because the CIA, FBI, Department of Justice, Department of Treasury, Department of State, all these agencies wouldnt be playing off the same sheet of music if the composer didnt want it, and the composer lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue."

So, it's very clear that this is for the highest stakes, and it's very clear where the opposition to the release of the 28 pages is coming from. So Jeff, maybe you want to say a little bit more about that apparatus inside our Federal government.

STEINBERG: It's actually pretty straightforward. The FBI is not a Federal law enforcement agency. From its very inception at the beginning of the 20th Century, it was always an instrument of London and Wall Street power. In effect what you're looking at is a Federally-sanctioned Murder Inc. Blackmail Inc. And the fact that J Edgar Hoover, who was notorious for his collusion with organized crime, for his blackmail files on members of Congress and others, is dead; but the apparatus at the top has simply become more sophisticated, using more advanced tools. But the basic point is absolutely the same; it's an instrument for maintaining the power of London and Wall Street over all of your lives. There are obviously honest individuals who were duped into thinking they were going to work for a Federal law enforcement agency; and probably some of them do some useful work in the small. But the organization as a whole, from the top, from its very inception, was conceived to be a police state apparatus. Early Congressional opponents equated it with the Russian Okhrana; they were absolutely right, and it's only gotten worse and worse over the years.

So, you have issues that will come up in the 28 pages. The FBI had a paid informant living in the San Diego area — a Saudi; two of the hijackers, the original hijackers to arrive in the United States, were living in his home for over a year. And yet, when the 9/11 Commission and before that the Joint Inquiry staff attempted to interview that FBI informant, to find out what did he know; to find out how much information had he passed on to the FBI. Why hadn't they done anything about two leading well-known al-Qaeda terrorists residing in southern California? They found out that the informant had been put in the Federal Witness Protection Program, given a new identity, and kept from being interviewed. Not even the FBI field agents who were handling this informant were presented to either the Joint Inquiry or the 9/11 Commission to be interviewed.

And, as Matt said earlier, Robert Mueller, who was the FBI Director — he came in a week before the 9/11 attacks — was adamant that the 28 pages had to be buried. Now, some people say, "Well, the FBI made such a botch of the investigation, and they should have been in a position to prevent it in the first place; so it's a bureaucratic cover-up to protect their reputation." I say, "No." They are there to protect the British Empire and its Wall Street apparatus here in the United States. They've been that from the very beginning. If you have the image of the FBI as Murder, Inc., you're a lot closer to the truth. Anyone who's ever investigated the assassination of John F Kennedy will give you chapter and verse; different circumstances, different events, same conclusion. President Lyndon Johnson, in his last interview before his death, said "I discovered that we had a Murder, Inc. operating right here in the United States." And he was talking about the FBI.

OGDEN: And one thing I can recommend to people is to go back and watch these interviews that LaRouche PAC conducted with former Congressman Neil Gallagher; because he was on the ground battling this all the way back in the 1960s and '70s. And he's very vocal about the nefarious role this agency has played and continues to play.

Now let me just invite Diane to follow up a little bit, and to bring in some more of the discussion we had with Mr. LaRouche this morning.

SARE: Well, I'd just like to add, and I think Jeff and you will have more on this, but of course, none of this would be coming to light at all but for the actions of President Vladimir Putin. Since his decision last September when he announced that he was going to crush ISIS, and the intervention that was made in Syria, which basically put in bold relief for anyone who doubted what Mr. LaRouche's assessment was of the role of Obama as a British stooge backing these terrorists. You were suddenly confronted with the United States taking the position that Assad had to be overthrown; which would have turned Syria over to al-Qaeda and al-Nusra and ISIS, versus the Russian position that this scourge had to be eliminated. As that became more and more clear, Obama's position frankly became untenable; and various people have moved to say that we can pull the plug on this drive for what could only become a thermonuclear confrontation between the US and Russia, by exposing the role of the Saudis in 9/11, because of the role of the Saudis and Turkey in the situation currently today. And that was followed up, as was discussed before, with this extraordinary concert in Palmyra; which again, I think really addresses the question of a living memorial where there's an intent for a victory of civilization. And that's what embodies Putin's actions.

OGDEN: And as we've elaborated in the last few days, there's a major turning point that is happening in Asia; it's yet again an example of Vladimir Putin playing the flank, and completely turning over the chessboard and changing the rules of the game. I'm going to let Jeff say a little bit more about this, but right now in Sochi, Russia, there is a two-day summit ongoing between Russia and the ASEAN countries; with 10 of the top ASEAN heads of state present, which is very significantly including a discussion from the Chinese President of the AIIB, the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, about investments that the AIIB can make into developing Russia's Far East. Sixteen projects are being discussed, totalling $8 billion. This comes right on the heels of a very significant meeting that Russian President Vladimir Putin held with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. And Mr. LaRouche was emphatic that if there was a strategic shift where Japan comes into the Russian-Chinese camp, this would change everything. He asked the question, "Is Japan really going to do this? If so, that's a very positive development for the entirety of Asia." Obviously, this would follow up on a lot of the activities that Mr. LaRouche was personally involved in beginning to initiate in his visits to Japan back in the 1980s; and the role that Japan could play as a positive force in these development projects worldwide in the context of the One Belt, One Road New Silk Road Project. So, this is yet again another strategic shift; a flanking maneuver that Putin is carrying out which is changing the rules of the game strategically on a global scale. And I'm going to let Jeff say a little bit more about that, and then we'll get to the institutional question for today.

STEINBERG: Well, two things. Obviously, the entire initiative coming out of the Eurasia region associated with China's One Belt, One Road program has now demonstrably become a joint project in which Russia and China are the two really critical anchors. Not only has this Russia-ASEAN summit in Sochi really solidified between the Southeast Asian region and Russia and all of the member countries of the Eurasian Economic Union, but combined with the agreements that have been reached between Russia and Japan, the fact that Japan was invited to participate — Prime Minister Abe will attend the East Asian Economic Forum coming up in a few weeks; and then, President Putin has been extended an invitation to return to Japan. So, you already have the framework for Eurasia becoming the driving force for development and for the emergence of what Helga LaRouche has called the New Strategic Paradigm; a repudiation of geopolitics, a repudiation of the concept that was promoted by the neo-cons from the Bush administration onward about a unipolar world under an Anglo-American empire control. That's gone. And the bankruptcy of the trans-Atlantic financial system is one of the further factors driving that. But Eurasia is emerging.

I should report that there are two very extraordinary developments which have just happened in the last day. For the first time, a leading official of the German government has indicated strong support for the whole Eurasian development One Belt, One Road policy; German Foreign Minister Steinmeier gave a speech at an OECD conference in Berlin yesterday. In his keynote speech, he cited the visit of Chinese President Xi Jinping to Duisburg, Germany two years ago, where President Xi Jinping and Chancellor Angela Merkel greeted one of the first freight rail links to arrive in Duisburg, that started out in Chunking in central China. And now there are many routes that are running on a regular, weekly basis between China and various parts of Western Europe; so this is an extraordinary development. Basically, Steinmeier said we've got to extend this to include the entire area between Vancouver and Vladivostok; which means that he's thinking — as we've been arguing — that the United States and the Western Hemisphere have to be fully integrated into this process.

Now the other significant development today, which goes back to Diane's point of a moment ago about the war against terrorism, the war against the British/Saudi/Turkish promotion of these jihadi terrorists. The Russian Defense Minister today, Mr. Shoigu, came out and called for the United States and Russia and the Syrian government to begin joint air operations against both the Islamic State and the Nusra Front; and he said very specifically these joint missions should commence on May 25 — in other words, five days from now. He also announced that as of May 25, Russia will be conducting unilateral military operations against ISIS and Nusra Front targets all over Syria; and that it would be imperative for the United States and other western powers to make sure that all of the rebel groups that are in compliance with the ceasefire distance themselves geographically from the Nusra and ISIS areas, because they are about to be pounded. So, on the one hand, it's an opportunity for the United States to actually join in an increasingly effective coordinated military operation to crush these murderous jihadists; and at the same time, the Russians are making clear that Putin has just launched another strategic flank in the Syrian situation that is going to change things dramatically over the next few days.

OGDEN: Now, as our last question, and I'm sure that Jeff will be able to sort of bring a lot of these different threads that we've explored together; we're going to bring it to the institutional question, which really is very much along the lines of the New Paradigm that is necessary. The importance of a new Marshall Plan, as Helga LaRouche has called for in the Middle East and North Africa, and the uniting of the Eurasian continent under this Peace Through Development perspective. So, the question reads as follows: "Mr. LaRouche, a report by the Guardian on the economic influence of refugees on Europe, found that refugees to the EU could repay the money spent on them by almost double in just five years through their impact on their hosts' economies. The study, written by Philippe LaGrande, a former economic advisor to the President of the European Commission, found that the refugees will actually create more jobs, increase demands for services and products, and fill gaps in the European workforces; while their wages will fund dwindling pension funds and public finances. At the same time, the study found that refugees are unlikely to decrease wages or raise unemployment for native workers. What is your view of the economic impact of the refugees on the European-wide economies?" And I know Helga had some specific remarks to say in response to that.

STEINBERG: The basic thrust of that study is obviously true; but there is another element that has to be fully factored in. There has been well over 1 million refugees from these British-instigated wars throughout the Middle East and North Africa and Afghanistan and Yemen; and it's created a real crisis. It's caused a backlash reaction, a real dangerous right-wing reaction in many parts of Europe; and we're seeing that in some of the recent electoral results. Chancellor Merkel's initial impulse to reach out and provide assistance and safe haven to these refugees was very definitely the right kind of humanitarian impulse. And yes, over a period of time, if Europe revives the real economy, which is in a state of shambles even in Germany because of the policies of the British Empire; the looting policies, the bail-outs, the negative interest rates, the QE, all of this madness. You could actually benefit from the flow of refugees into Europe; but, you've also got to look at these war zones, particularly in the case of Syria. There must be a concerted, international effort to rebuild these countries. The plight of the refugees is something that has to be treated as a humanitarian crisis; and yes, some of the refugees will remain in Europe. But there must be a commitment to rebuild these shattered nations in the Middle East, in North Africa, Afghanistan, Yemen; and there's got to be a massive investment to accomplish exactly that.

Now, some people are concerned when you talk about a Marshall Plan; it implies certain countries being excluded, it implies the postwar dimensions. But clearly the thrust of it is to rebuild, to actually create the conditions of life where people will want to go back to Syria, will want to go back to Iraq. Many of these places — like Yemen — have never been adequately invested in or built up. So, you've got to have this orientation; and fortunately, earlier this year, President Xi Jinping of China made an historic trip to the Middle East. He went to Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Egypt. There's probably not another leader on the face of the Earth who could have made a trip to the Middle East and gone to both Saudi Arabia and Iran at a time when both countries are being manipulated by the British to start a sectarian war that would kill millions if not billions of people if it got fully underway.

So, there is the Chinese One Belt, One Road policy, in which the Middle East is the crossroads. It's the crossroads between Asia and Europe; it's the crossroads between Eurasia and Africa. And if you don't genuinely develop that part of the world, rebuild these destroyed nations, then the refugee crisis will be overwhelming. You won't be talking about millions of refugees streaming into Europe, you'll be talking about billions of refugees. So, we're at a critical moment. And yes, the refugees can play a positive, valuable, constructive role in rebuilding the European economy; but, it's got to come at the same time that these nations that have been destroyed by British Empire wars, are rebuilt in a genuine way so that the people of those nations can revive their culture, revive their economy, and create viable places for their children and grandchildren to live.

OGDEN: Thank you very much. Now, before we end, I'm going to give the last word to Diane, to deliver your marching orders from headquarters in Manhattan, and to remind you of what's happening over the next week and a half.

SARE: Great, thank you. First, let me say that no one should be afraid of the FBI anymore; they'll be soon finished off and run out of the country. Just a reminder to everyone in the greater New York area, and also if you're following the LaRouche PAC website, as you are if you're watching this webcast, should tune in on Saturday, May 28 — the Saturday of Memorial Day weekend — for our consult which will begin at 1pm Saturday afternoon and the events of Mrs. LaRouche, followed by Mr. LaRouche's Saturday talks; and then a wreath-laying ceremony and Musikabend dedicated to this principle of justice. This could be the year, this could be the week, that the United States rejects once and for all the domination of the British Empire through its puppets Obama, Wall Street, and the FBI; and we actually join with the New Paradigm as it's being led right now by China and Russia.

OGDEN: Wonderful; thank you very much Diane; thank you for joining us here today. Thank you Jeff for joining me here in the studio; and thank all of you for tuning in to our weekly LaRouche PAC Friday evening broadcast. So, please stay tuned to; a lot is going to happen and we want to keep you updated. If you haven't yet, please subscribe to our youtube channel, so that you don't miss anything that we post; and please circulate this Friday evening broadcast as widely as you can. Thank you very much and good night.



Obama Still Stalling on 28 Pages

Sen. Bob Graham has told the Florida Bulldog that the Obama Administration has structured a four-step process around the demands to declassify the 28 pages, that stinks of more cover-up. In a May 18 interview with Dan Christensen, former Senator Graham recounted the May 17 meeting he had, along with Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) and Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA), with Director of National Intelligence Gen. James Clapper. While Clapper came across as "sympathetic" to the demands to declassify the chapter from the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11, he explained that President Obama has organized a four-step process for deciding on whether or not to release the pages.

After Clapper submits his own recommendations to the President, the matter will be further referred to the Interagency Security Clearance Appeals Panel (ISCAP), which has representatives from the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, the State Department and other intelligence agencies, which will review and make their own recommendations. President Obama will then make a decision—and refer the issue back to the Congress for final decision.

If this sounds like a stall and cover-up, it is.  While Senator Graham was not about to denounce the process, he expressed alarm about the added steps:

Christensen reported:

"Graham, who co-chaired Congress's Joint Inquiry into 9/11 in 2002, said 'the idea of adding Congress to the declassification mix is new. I've talked with numerous people in the White House and they've never suggested that anyone other than the president would make the decision to release. I don't know where Clapper got this idea, and I hope it's not just another stalling tactic.'

"Graham said it is unnecessary to involve Congress now. 'This was a document the Congress was prepared to make public 14 years ago, but the Executive Branch intervened and said there were unstated reasons as to why these pages could not be released,' he said.

"'Such a move would just add another unexpected step to the process with a body which has a reputation of being slow to make decisions. Look what's happening today about the Zika epidemic. Congress can't decide whether to appropriate money to prevent it.'"

Washington sources have added that, following President Obama's meeting with Gulf Cooperation Council leaders in Saudi Arabia last month, the U.S. is moving ahead with joint military programs—and is relying on the Saudis to make huge new purchases of U.S. weapons. There is also growing pressure, both in the U.S. and in Britain, to cut off arms sales to the Saudis over their persistent war crimes and violations of the Geneva Conventions in their war in Yemen, which both the Obama and Cameron governments are aiding.


Also Relevant