04/09/14 – Jacob Hornberger – The Scott Horton Show

Man, you need some new stickers for the back of your truck.
Scott Horton here for LibertyStickers.com.
Aren't you sick and tired of everyone else being wrong about everything all the time?
Well, now you can tell them all what's right with some stickers from LibertyStickers.com.
At LibertyStickers.com, they're against everything, so you know they're good on your issue, too.
Whether it's the wars, police, state, gun laws, the left and right of the president, LibertyStickers.com has hundreds of choices so you can find just the right words to express your opposition and contempt for those who would violate your rights.
That's LibertyStickers.com.
Everyone else's stickers suck.
All right, you guys, welcome back to the show.
I'm Scott Horton.
This is my show, Scott Horton Show.
And our guest today is Jacob Hornberger.
He's the founder and the president of the Future Freedom Foundation.
Welcome back to the show, Jacob.
How you doing?
Fine.
It's always an honor and a pleasure to be back.
Well, good times.
Happy to have you here.
Hey, so you and Sheldon Richman are on a speaking tour around the Northeast, correct?
That's correct.
All right.
So tell us where all are you going and the dates and times and all these things.
Well, yeah, we're doing it in conjunction with the Young Americans for Liberty and their local chapters at the schools we're visiting are putting together the event, the venue, promoting it and so forth.
And we've already done Monday and Tuesday.
And tonight we're going to Binghamton University in Binghamton, New York.
So if anybody is in that area, come out and see us tonight.
It's at the lecture hall on campus.
And that'll be at seven o'clock.
And then tomorrow night we're going to be at the University of Albany.
And then the following night, Friday night, which is the last leg of our tour, is at the University of Vermont in Burlington, Vermont.
So, yeah, we're having a blast.
I mean, we're just you know, we're taking our libertarian angle internet show that we do every Monday.
We're taking it live.
And so we have a spontaneous conversation between Sheldon and myself for 30 minutes.
And then we involve the audience in the conversation where they have input, questions, answers, comments.
So it's really a nice little, nice little analysis of libertarian issues and applying them to the burning issues of the day.
We're showing these kids that you can, that the only real practical thing is to advocate pure, uncompromising libertarian solutions, and that they ought to go beyond these reform things that we always hear from conservatives and start talking about restoring a genuine free society to our land by dismantling all this state of junk.
Cool.
Well, so, hey, I know you've been doing this a long time.
FFF, you founded back in 89, right?
That's right.
It's about 25 years now.
So tell me about the difference in going and talking to young people like this.
Is it are the numbers that much more?
Are they that much more educated or has anything changed, really?
Oh, it's an incredible, interesting change.
I mean, I mean, you know, when we started in the movement, I started in the movement five years ago.
I mean, it was a relatively small movement, and I mean, you could barely find any college kids that were interested in this.
You know, I was several years later in the 80s.
I was program director at the Foundation for Economic Education.
And even then, there were some kids that would come to our seminars, but mostly it's because their parents sent them there, their grandparents or something.
But what we're seeing now is kids that are really, really have this fire in the belly for libertarianism, and they believe in it passionately.
And they're self-educated because they're not getting educated on like Austrian economics and libertarianism in college, obviously.
And so, you know, we're showing up at these events and they've read Mises and Hayek and they know Bastiat and Hazlitt.
And it's incredible.
I mean, we already have like, you know, common ground to have conversations with, but it's clear that what they're doing is studying in the summertime or studying on weekends on things that they're passionate about that obviously they're not getting any credit in school for.
And so, I can't tell you how impressive it is.
I mean, that's why we're on this tour is to kind of, you know, ignite fires within these kids and kind of transmit our passion for this philosophy to them.
But also to raise their vision to a higher level, because, you know, there's so many people that just advocate reform, reform, reform, like Obamacare.
We've got to get rid of Obamacare.
But they don't go to the root of the problem, and that is Medicare, Medicaid, government intervention, licensure and so forth.
So, what our aim in this tour is to raise their vision to a higher level and say, look, we've got to talk in terms of dismantling Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and not phase them out, but just repealing them.
And, of course, the national security state, the giant military empire, CIA, NSA, we hit it all, Scott, within a half hour in a conversation between Sheldon and me, we pretty much hit the basics and the application of the basics.
And by the time the hour is over, there are a few libertarian subjects that we haven't covered, believe it or not.
Man, that's great.
And you post at least some of these online at the videos on YouTube and at FFF.org, too, right?
Well, our weekly meetings where Sheldon and I get together and talk about libertarian principles and apply them to what's going on in the world today, those are all online.
People can, they're on YouTube and you can just go access those.
These that we're doing here with these groups, we're not videotaping, so you can't get those.
You have to come to the event and get them live if you want to get participate.
I see.
Well, maybe you could do that thing like you do with your journal articles and hold them for a couple of months.
And that way you still encourage people to come on out.
But then also later on, we can watch them.
Those of us who couldn't possibly make it to Vermont for your show on Friday.
Yeah, well, what we found is, you know, it's so expensive to videotape events.
And then we figured there's more spontaneity when people know they're not being recorded.
There's just more of a casualness.
Yeah, I can see that, too.
So we figured it's an academic environment.
We thought we'd make it more of a discussion and people don't have to worry about, oh, I'm going to be on tape or what if I make a fool of myself with my question?
You know, that sort of thing that goes on in a program.
Well, let me ask you this.
Well, first, let me say this, then I'll ask you something.
When I gave that speech at your event at the Students for Liberty event there in February, John Glazer's part of the talk was the libertarian part.
And mine was the more empire part.
But, you know, he really emphasized in his speech, and I think he had told me when we had talked about how important he thought it was to to really focus on this in this way, because he feels like in Washington, D.C., these kids are a lot more kind of young Republican and they're not very radical.
They might be radical on Medicare, Medicaid and stuff like that that they couldn't possibly need that kind of thing.
But they're not nearly as versed in or concerned with matters of the national security state and and civil liberties and that kind of stuff, which, of course, is, you know, ranks as first priority to me.
Although bankruptcy and all that could be pretty bad for peace and liberty all the way around, too.
Don't get me wrong about the other stuff.
But I wonder if that's your experience, that maybe a lot of these kids, they come from the right.
They're kind of fiscal conservative, but they really need whooping in his shape to really make libertarians out of them.
I don't think there's any doubt about it.
I mean, because there's like all the rest of us, you know, we discover libertarianism, I think, mostly through economics, maybe through the drug war.
But very few are exposed to the libertarian case on foreign policy, empire, civil liberties.
And that we consider that or I do, I consider this a much graver threat to our freedom and our well-being than the welfare state.
And that was a big eye opener to me when I finally realized what the founding fathers were concerned about, you know, why they opposed standing armies and that that danger exists to this day.
I mean, President Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial complex as a threat to our democratic processes.
And that threat has not diminished.
In fact, it's grown.
And these kids would not be exposed to this type of thinking because we all grow up with this this idea that the national security state is part of a free society, that, in fact, our freedom is owed to the CIA and the NSA and the giant military, that they're out there protecting our freedoms.
You know, a force for freedom, you know, and it's the exact opposite.
And that's what our objective is to come in and say, look, you know, there's reasons why the founding fathers of this country oppose this kind of way of life.
And even if you buy it as part of the Cold War syndrome, which was the justification for this radical change in direction, as Eisenhower pointed out, this farewell speech, the Cold War ended.
And so what are we still doing with NATO and military bases all over the world and regime change operations and sanctions and all this stuff?
Well, you know, most of the crises that they used to justify this are caused by them or provoked by them.
And so that's what our objective is here is to raise the vision of these kids, even if they don't agree with us.
It's not it's not really important that they agree with us, but we're over there saying here is something to consider.
And if they never hear the idea, Scott, then they're never going to consider it.
And our objective is, hey, let's let's plant the idea there and then they can decide for themselves whether it's a good one or not.
Well, you know, a lot of times it's a lot of insight can be gained just by confusing somebody and then letting them work it out for themselves.
I remember Anthony Gregory, who writes for FFF.org, by the way, and for the future freedom.
He told me one time about a speech that he gave where a kid came up to him after and said, but wait, so I'm still confused.
You're against taxes and prisons.
And Anthony said, well, yeah, of course.
No taxes, no prisons, no prisons, no taxes.
And the kid just does.
Mine's just blown because here, you know, Anthony is more right wing than the right wing on everything they're good on.
And he's more left wing than the left wing on everything they're good on.
And it's, you know, libertarianism, pure libertarian purism, puritanical libertarianism, walking right.
Pure libertarianism, Richmondian libertarianism.
And so I think, you know, where you can surprise people that.
Wow.
So, Jacob, it sounds like you hate Medicaid, but then you're telling me you hate empire more than you hate Medicaid.
And people just they don't know what to do with that until, you know, hopefully once you explain yourself, they kind of realize that, oh, I'm living in a world where people actually think some things I'd never quite considered before, but sound like they make a lot more sense maybe than what I have been hearing all this time.
Right.
And especially at the college level, you know, where kids are figuring out, you know, what their philosophy is, what their guiding light is, what they were born to do.
They're trying to figure out what they want to do with the rest of their lives.
And that is the academic experience, to be exposed to all kinds of different ideas and go back to your dorm and debate them and argue them and whatever, even if you haven't made up your mind.
And so that's why we love to come to these campuses, because there's an intellectual honesty there that the kids are generally interested in principles.
You know, principles matter and ideas matter and ideals matter to them.
And life hasn't battered them into conformity yet.
And so we sit here and say, OK, here is the libertarian paradigm.
And again, you know, we don't we don't expect a total agreement, a hundred percent agreement, although we get it with some of the libertarians that have studied this stuff.
But to me, it's like tonight the organizer told me, hey, I've invited a bunch of people that don't necessarily agree with libertarianism.
They don't really understand it.
They're curious.
That's fantastic.
That makes for an exciting presentation and discussion when you've got people that don't necessarily agree with you.
All right.
And again, that one is tonight at Binghamton University in Binghamton, New York, at the lecture hall there.
We've got to go out to this break.
When we get back, we're going to talk with Jacob a little bit more about his tour with Sheldon Richmond around the Northeast this week.
And we're also going to talk about Michael Swanson's book, The War State.
Stay tuned.
We'll be right back after this.
Hey, Al Scott here.
Ever wanted to help support the show and own silver at the same time?
Well, a friend of mine, libertarian activist Arlo Pignotti, has invented the alternative currency with the most promise of them all.
QR silver commodity discs, the first ever QR code, one ounce silver pieces.
Just scan the back of one with your phone and get the instant spot price.
They're perfect for saving or spending at the market.
And anyone who donates one hundred dollars or more to the Scott Horton Show at ScottHorton.org slash donate gets one.
That's ScottHorton.org slash donate.
And if you'd like to learn and order more, send them a message at CommodityDiscs.com or check them out on Facebook at slash Commodity Discs.
And thanks.
All right, you guys, welcome back to the show.
I'm Scott Horton, this is my show, The Scott Horton Show.
On the line, I got Jacob Hornberger, he's the founder and the president of the Future of Freedom Foundation at FFF.org and FFF.org slash subscribe.
For their monthly journal, The Future of Freedom.
And again, he and Sheldon Richman, editor of The Future of Freedom, are going to be doing a talk tonight at Binghamton University in Binghamton, New York at the lecture hall there.
And tomorrow they'll be at the University of Albany.
And on Friday, they'll be at the University of Vermont.
So look into that.
Check out your Young Americans for Liberty chapters, etc.
If you can get nearby any of those places or if you're a student at any of those universities, go and meet Jacob Hornberger and Sheldon Richman in person and ask them really hard questions.
Like, what's so great about the book The War Estate by Michael Swanson anyway, Jacob?
Oh, it's one of the most awesome books I've ever read in this area.
I mean, it's somebody that wants to understand the origins of the warfare state that under which we've all been born and raised.
This is the book.
I mean, I'll never forget when I got the book in the mail.
I didn't even know who Mike Swanson was.
And I often get books from authors, you know, as part of our work at the Future of Freedom Foundation.
And then I'll thumb through them, but most of them are kind of like not our cup of tea.
They've got a call for reform or vouchers or something.
If something isn't pure and uncompromising, we won't review it, we won't promote it or anything.
So I thought, well, this is just one of those standard books.
And so I'd never heard of it.
So I started thumbing through it, looked at the table of contents, and I said, oh, my gosh.
And I started looking more carefully and I said, wow.
So I took it home and read it.
I couldn't put it down.
It was just this absolutely fantastic presentation of how we got the warfare state, primarily since World War Two.
And it opened up with Eisenhower's farewell address that I mentioned earlier.
But it gives the whole roots of it, the consequences of it, how it turned our country into effectively a garrison state.
We ended up adopting totalitarian methods that even live to this day, torture, assassination.
And Swanson puts it all together.
And so we ultimately met and we got to be friends.
And it's just been a real joy to get to know this guy.
He's actually an investment advisor.
But he's a historian.
He went to the University of Virginia.
He either got his master's or he was studying for his Ph.
D. or both or something.
And so he really knows his history and he knows how to research.
And he's done just a fantastic job with this book.
I couldn't recommend it highly enough.
In fact, it was the lead article in our monthly journal, Future of Freedom.
Right.
And that article is now on the website.
It was published today on the regular part of the article section at FFF.org.
It's The Origins of America's Warfare State by Jacob Hornberger.
The review of The War State by Michael Swanson here.
And so I guess, can you tell us, were there any surprises in there or anything unique that you learned, say, about the Eisenhower era that you didn't really understand before that he helped clarify or or something that you think really stands out that people ought to be aware of that, you know, to kind of because, you know, I got to tell you, man, I was born in 76 and I grew up in the Ronald Reagan kind of brinksmanship, renewed Cold War kind of after detente and all that.
And it's just always been the case my entire existence that America garrisons the planet, that the president reigns supreme.
He is our leader and all of this stuff.
And you're telling me that this is all artificial from, you know, post World War Two.
But the problem is, is World War Two was so long before I was born.
Thirty years before I was born, it was over.
So, you know, maybe that's just the way it is now.
I don't know.
You know, you're always trying to say that this is alien.
It should be considered alien to our system, but maybe it's not.
I don't know.
Maybe I set you up for a good answer there somewhere.
Yeah, I mean, nothing sticks out in Swanson's book is something really special that that that sticks out.
What what I saw is that here is a guy that recognizes that this is not the standard American way of life in which our country was founded, that there really is a remarkable shift.
I guess something that does stand out where he says between World War One and World War Two, despite the fact that that Americans had adopted an income tax in in in 1913.
You know, here they had gone most of the first century of America's existence without any income taxation.
You you made it.
You kept it.
You decided what to do with it because there was no welfare programs either, like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.
Well, so the income tax adopted 1913.
I was stunned when he went to read when he says that between the two wars, World War One and World War Two, a very small minority of people were paying income taxes.
I think he's like two point five percent or three percent or something like that, that it was imposed just on the rich, which, of course, we libertarians would oppose.
We oppose all taxation, but especially income taxation.
But then after World War Two, when the military says, oh, look, we we know we had to build up this huge military force to fight the Nazis.
But oh, by the way, now you have to keep it as a permanent part of American life to fight our new enemy, the Soviet Union.
Which had been our partner in World War Two.
And so you've got this big Cold War thing that the communists are coming to get us.
And then the income tax starts getting imposed on everybody to the point of where it is today, where even the poorest people are suffering under the burden of this of this huge tax on the IRS.
And I think that was a stunner.
But what's really remarkable about this book is he he just puts it all together in a really readable format.
I mean, this isn't your academic tone that's difficult to get through.
It's just for the regular person, what I call the educated layman who is interested in knowing how we got to where we are today with this huge military empire and the CIA and the NSA.
But he doesn't doubt much of the NSA or the CIA.
It's really the military empire that he deals with, which is one of the three components of the national security state.
But it's a fantastic summary of how we got to where we are today.
It's really interesting to me to read about Eisenhower's quarrels with the military and how even when he did win, he just barely won.
You can kind of when you when you listen to his farewell speech after reading the war state, you can kind of feel the the tone of voice a little bit better there where he's really coming from, where he's tired after eight years of battling these guys.
And, of course, Eisenhower's version of battling them was to try to limit the size of the army and just make more hydrogen bombs and do more CIA coup d'etats.
That was the the limited empire under Ike before the real brinksmanship started.
You know what I mean?
And the the real arms buildups of the Democrats that came after him.
But, you know, it just portrays even Eisenhower as, you know, maybe the cowboy grappling to the hydrogen bomb from Dr. Strangelove.
But but no more than that, the beast is way bigger even than the Supreme Allied Commander of World War Two at that point by the time he's the president of the United States.
Yeah, and I think we need to keep in mind that that, you know, he wasn't just a passive actor in this, that that he's the guy that approves the Mossadegh plan where the CIA is going in there to oust the democratically appointed prime minister of an independent country.
And he's the one that puts his stamp of approval on it.
And then one year later, he puts his stamp of approval on doing the exact same thing in Guatemala.
And so, you know, it's not like he was just saying, well, I oppose this and I'm fighting with the military and the CIA over this.
This guy was going along with it.
Now, granted, it may be in the CIA that was coming up with the ideas.
Certainly they had come up with the Iranian coup before Eisenhower got the power.
Truman had nixed it.
And then the CIA comes back and presents it as an anti-communist plan to Eisenhower and he goes along with it.
So and he's there for the big buildup of this huge military empire.
So he buys into the whole Cold War, you know, any kind of the communists are coming to get us and so forth.
And he buys into the Truman doctrine where we have to keep the communists out of every country in the world.
And so then after eight years of this, he says, oh, by the way, I want to warn you guys of how dangerous this is to our democratic processes.
Why didn't he do that at the beginning?
Why didn't he just say, look, this is all a crock.
We're not going to sacrifice our freedoms.
We're not going to sacrifice our principles.
We're going to we're going to fight communism with a free society rather than by adopting the policies that are inherent to totalitarian regimes.
Right, especially because he was Ike.
So in that whole only Nixon can go to China sense, he should have been able to tell the American people, hey, listen, we got a real problem here.
And I need you guys to back me on this.
And the American people would have absolutely backed him.
If anyone in American society had the ability to face down the empire that he'd inherited from Harry Truman, it would have been like Eisenhower.
And he just didn't do it.
Absolutely.
He had the total credibility as head of Allied Forces, Army general revered by the American people.
He would have been the guy to say, we're not going down this militarist road.
We are going to fight this totalitarianism by a free society.
And we're going to show the world that this is the way you do it instead of embargoes on Cuba, invasions at the Bay of Pigs and so forth.
And the other interesting thing about this is that, you know, he fairly he gave a fairly free hand to the CIA.
He didn't try to rein them in.
He didn't try to control me.
He just put John Foster, I mean, Alan Dulles in charge.
And, you know, he sort of let them do their own thing.
So by the time Kennedy comes into power, you know, that was one of the things they hated Kennedy for, is that he was, Kennedy was putting tight controls on the CIA all of a sudden.
He was reining them in.
In fact, he even threatened to tear the CIA into a thousand pieces.
He didn't like the CIA.
And they didn't like that at all.
You know, they really expected Nixon to be elected, and Nixon was Eisenhower's vice president.
So they saw this sort of continuity.
And all of a sudden, Kennedy gets elected, and their attitude is, who are you to come and control us?
We've lived eight years of running this show ourselves.
Yeah, well, he shouldn't have kept them at all.
Maybe that was his problem.
He should have fired every last one of them upon taking office.
Yeah, well, he fires Dulles.
He fires, I forget, Dulles' right-hand man, and then another guy that he transfers out of there.
So, I mean, to fire practically the founder of the CIA, I mean, Dulles was this revered figure.
That was huge.
But what he really should have done was present to the American people why the CIA needed to be abolished at this point.
And, I mean, he did threaten to tear them into a thousand pieces, which to me is saying, I'm going to take away all your power.
And they knew that that's what he was aiming at, and yet, you know, he leaves it into inexistence, and we've got this monstrosity still today.
Well, you know, I've always been a real skeptic about the, they killed him because he was an angel theory.
But I think that Swanson certainly has done the most out of anyone to convince me that after the Cuban Missile Crisis, he really did decide that he had to do something to limit what these guys were doing.
And I don't know if he was really going to get out of Vietnam or if it was the test ban treaty he was pushing or whatever it was that pushed them over the edge.
And again, you know, I'm not exactly certain who hired the hitmen who fired the shot or whatever, but I do think, I guess I can see that Swanson has convinced me that even if JFK started out as a Clinton or an Obama, that maybe he started going a little Kucinich there toward the end.
I don't know.
I'm still a little skeptical.
Oh, there you go.
It's a dramatic shift.
It's an absolutely dramatic shift, and the mainstream historians are now recognizing it.
You know, they denied it for so many years, but after the Cuban, I mean, Kennedy knew, and so did Khrushchev, that the Cuban Missile Crisis brought us to the very edge of extinction with all-out nuclear war.
In fact, if Kennedy had followed what the military wanted him to do during the Cuban Missile Crisis, we wouldn't be standing today.
They were telling him, go in there and bomb and invade, and what they didn't know was the commanders on the ground had battlefield authority to use nuclear weapons, which they had.
And so an invasion or a bombing would have resulted in nuclear missiles being fired immediately.
And so after that, Kennedy recognizes, he's got this soul-searching, and he says, my gosh, that came so close.
So he has this secret correspondence going on with Khrushchev, and Khrushchev's going through the same soul-searching, and they're saying, let's end this.
Let's end the Cold War.
Let's live like today.
We live with Vietnam, and we live with China, Cuba.
I mean, there's communist countries, but there's no antagonism.
There's no hatred and anger like there was during the Cold War.
That's what Kennedy was aiming for with Khrushchev, and that's what scared the death out of the military-industrial complex and the national security state, because their position was, you can't trust the communists.
You can't reach a deal where you're going to disarm, because the communists are just lulling you into existence, and they were looking at this thing.
We're going to go to war.
At some point, we're going to go to war, and Kennedy was effectively disarming America and surrendering.
Yeah.
All right.
Well, I'm sorry we've got to leave it there, but I've already kept you more than half an hour, and I've got to go because Clive Stafford Smith is next about America's torture regime here.
So thank you very much for your time, Jacob.
Oh, my pleasure.
Thank you.
Bye-bye.
All right.
Thank you.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.