07/25/14 – Nebojsa Malic – The Scott Horton Show

Hey y'all, Scott here for MyHeroesThink.com.
They sell beautiful 7-inch busts of Libertarian heroes, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Ron Paul, and Harry Brown.
These finely crafted statues from MyHeroesThink.com make excellent decorations for your desktop at work, bookends for your shelves, or gifts for that special individualist in your life.
They're also all available in colors now, too.
Of course, gold, silver, or bronze.
Coming soon.
Hayek, Hazlitt, Carlin.
Use promo code Scott Horton and save $5 at MyHeroesThink.com.
Alright you guys, welcome back to the show.
I'm Scott Horton, this is my show, The Scott Horton Show, and our first guest today is Nobosz Samalich.
He writes for Antiwar.com.
He's been writing for Antiwar.com for 14 years.
Since the year 2000.
The Balkan Express is the name of his column.
Oh no, that used to be.
Now it's Moments of Transition.
I knew that.
Moments of Transition.
And the new one coming out tomorrow, I believe, is A Clash of Civilizations, from Fukuyama to Huntington.
Welcome back to the show.
How are you doing, Nobosz?
Thanks, Scott.
It's good to be back.
Good, good.
Very happy to have you here.
And I guess I apologize to the audience.
I got cicadas and chirping birds outside and it's not much of a radio studio in here today.
But you know, the sounds of nature is better than a jackhammer.
Very happy to have you back on the show here.
There's so much controversy going on in Ukraine right now, and especially over this plane.
And you know, I'm just guessing that you know everything about it.
I know you're paying a hell of a lot more attention to it than I am.
And I was hoping that you could just go over what all is known and what all is not known about the shoot down of the plane in eastern Ukraine, Nobosz.
Well as...
At least to start with.
Right.
Well, as the case may be, I've just finished up a blog post about that entitled it's some basic police work.
You know, anybody who's grown up in the United States and watched tons of police procedurals knows about the holy trifecta of means, motives and opportunity, right?
So who had the means, the motives and the opportunity to shoot down this plane?
And all the indicators point to the one party that has not been named as a suspect in the Western mainstream media, that has never been mentioned as a suspect, that has never been mentioned at all in this context, aside from a source of quote-unquote reliable intelligence that turned out to be a couple of doctored YouTube videos.
And that is the military junta in Kiev.
All right, now, so let me say this before you get into making your case.
Well, let me say a couple of things.
First of all, I forgot to mention that your own blog is Gray Falcon, right?
That's correct.
Grayfalcon.blogspot.com.
So it's MH17 and some basic police work there.
I had to double check because I guess you changed the format.
I just want to make sure it's still the same blog here.
Yes, it is.
Gray Falcon there.
Okay.
And so now here's my thing about it.
And I think that the other side of the argument would have a strong case that nobody ever ascribed a deliberate, well, maybe some coup did or whatever, but I don't think the official narrative is to ascribe a malevolent motive to the rebels that they would shoot down this plane just because they like shooting down civilians so much.
It's that they must have thought that they were shooting down a military plane from Kiev and they hit this thing by mistake just because they can fire a rocket doesn't necessarily mean that they can pick their target carefully enough to really make sure.
And so it must have just been kind of a horrible screw up.
So in that sense, it's sort of perhaps does it nullify the question of motive?
Because let me say, just for me, when I first heard about it, sounds like the most plausible explanation is the rebels did it accidentally and we can get into all the particulars of the missile and all that kind of thing.
And then, I mean, obviously, as a false flag type of attack by Kiev to make the rebels look bad, to blame it on them, that's got to be, you know, I don't know, second or third or fourth on the list for plausible explanations.
I certainly don't completely discount it, but doesn't seem like the one that comes first to mind.
Seems like the Occam's razor answer is that the rebels did it accidentally.
So what about that?
Well, and that's that's exactly what the propaganda is counting on.
I'm not excluding the possibility, but the more evidence emerges and the more propaganda I see, the more unlikely that scenario seems to be.
There were reports that the rebels had one of these missile systems, maybe one or two that may be functional.
You even had high ranking U.S. officials going out of their way saying, well, even if they did have them and there's no proof that they did, they don't have the training to operate them.
So we think it might have been somebody else.
And the whole thrust of the propaganda from the first minute of the plane coming down was Putin's missile.
Russia did it.
Russians are to blame.
It's all the Russians fault.
It's just I couldn't believe my own eyes.
I watched like the main three networks flipping the channels and even the structure of their coverage was exactly the same.
They would, you know, at the exact same time they would switch to a human interest interviewee.
They would tune into the reporter in Moscow.
It was just incredible how synchronized they were.
And again and again, they were pointing out, you know, the Russians, the pro-Russian rebels or whoever they call them.
And they didn't mention a single time the possibility, even the possibility of the Ukrainian government being behind this.
Now let's consider the actual evidence.
The Ukrainian army has the exact system that was blamed for the shoot down.
The Sa-11.
They have not just they don't just possess the launchers, they've deployed the launchers in the area like a week before.
For what?
What reason?
I mean, the rebels don't have any air force.
They were claiming, oh, we were protecting ourselves from the Russian air force.
Right.
Where's the proof that the Russians had ever flown in the area?
There isn't any.
Whatever.
OK, so they had these launchers.
One of the explanations I heard to be charitable here is that they were using these air to air missiles and surface to air missiles to engage ground targets.
This is, you know, these are not very precise missiles.
They cause widespread devastation, lots of shrapnel.
I'm not sure this is a weapon that's banned by conventions, but it comes very close.
So either they're using them to fight non-existent Russian planes, they're using them to shoot civilian planes and blame it on the Russians or they're shelling civilians with them.
Take your pick.
But there's those are the three possible uses behind the deployment of these launchers.
Secondly.
And now let me let me let me stop you there real quick.
Is it conceded by the Western side that they do have these launchers?
That's only the Russian accusation, which the Russians did show satellite footage.
But I mean, this is these are the systems that the Ukrainians had in their inventory at independence in 94.
And the Ukrainian media have shown pictures of them around Ukraine.
The famous picture of the alleged rebel launcher being, you know, scurried back to Russia was taken at a Ukrainian held town that is west of the rebel held territory and nowhere near Russia.
Right.
Well, wait, I want to have them.
I want to I want to let you get back to that.
The picture of the so-called picture evidence and all that in just a moment here.
But I just wanted to make sure about when the when the Russians said, look, we have satellite pictures of these kinds of missiles in Ukrainian hands, you know, in the area or relatively near, which is the same thing that Robert Perry's CIA sources are telling him apparently.
Did the U.S. push back on that and say, no, that's not true?
Or did they not try to dispute the assertion, the Russian assertion that the Ukrainians sure did have missiles like this nearby?
They didn't address any of it directly.
They essentially had the State Department spokesperson tell the reporters that she has super secret intelligence that she can't, you know, she can't divulge the source.
It's harf, but yeah, go figure.
You know, she said, oh, I've got this proof from the intelligence community and I worked in there for six years.
So trust me, you know, we have evidence that this is not true, but I can show it to you.
And every time that the reporters pressed her on it, one specific reporter, in fact, she would say, oh, well, you know, between the super secret intelligence and social media, you know, we're the ones telling the truth and the Russians are lying.
And when pressed by Matt Lee from AP, she said, you know, yes, I'm saying that everything the Russians say is a lie and everything we tell you is the truth because we're not in the business of manufacturing propaganda.
And that is a bold faced lie.
I mean, you got to you can't help but think Adelaide Stevenson and all of this thing.
When people start deploying their satellite pictures, oh, you say you don't have missiles in Cuba, huh?
Well, what's that then?
And the Russians are just completely embarrassed.
They're called out in front of the whole world and that's it.
And it's the greatest thing that ever happened in Adelaide Stevenson's pathetic life and blah, blah, blah.
Right.
And so that was what Colin Powell was trying to compare to in 2002 and three.
And here the Russians have said, here are our satellite photos.
What about that, America?
And America can't say nothing other than, well, we have secret satellite photos that we can't show you that say otherwise.
You know, the Soviets had more honor than that when it came to questions like this.
We got to take this break.
We'll be right back with the votes of Malik's in just a second.
He's an antiwar dot com slash mileage.
Hey, y'all, Scott here.
So you made a little bit of money in this horrid economy only to find that the Fed is more or less outlawed saving.
So into the treacherous waters of the stock market bubble you go, but how to make a little money without too much risk of losing it all.
Check out Wall Street window dot com.
Mike Swanson is a successful former hedge fund manager opens a very real window into his main account, updating his subscribers on the facts of and the reasoning behind all his market moves.
Follow along on paper or with real money and see what happens at Wall Street window dot com.
All right, you guys, welcome back to the show.
I'm Scott Horton.
I'm talking with the boats of mileage.
From antiwar dot com and from the blog Gray Falcon.
And we're talking about still this mystery seems like of the shoot down of the Malaysian airliner over eastern Ukraine.
There's so much more information to go over here.
I had interrupted you to go back over, follow up a couple of questions about the pictures and the location of the Ukrainian military's surface to air missiles.
But when I did interrupt you, you were saying secondly, I don't know if you remember what your next.
Right.
Well.
No, no worries.
I do remember it was basically the pictures, the YouTube videos that were quoted.
And this is amazing that, you know, back in the times of the Cold War and the Cuban Missile Crisis, you had Adlai Stevenson, who for all of his failings was a gentleman.
And you had Nikita Khrushchev, who for all of his failings had decency and you had that exchange and the Russians said, OK, yes, you caught us.
You know, we had these missiles there and they, you know, they made a deal to exchange the missiles in Cuba for the missiles in Turkey, which is the part that most U.S. public doesn't know about.
And the nuclear war was avoided.
And now we have people who have just repeatedly lied, who have repeatedly used accusations of, you know, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
And the same media that told you about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq are telling you we're telling you about the gas attacks in Syria.
We're telling you about, you know, atrocities in Bosnia.
We're telling you about genocide in Kosovo.
We're telling you about, you know, how the Russians are to blame for this.
I mean, when are people going to wake up and realize that people who've lied to them repeatedly are not to be trusted?
I don't know.
I just don't know.
OK, so let's let's assume for a sec for a second that, you know, social media is a reliable source of evidence.
You've got this, you know, alleged radio intercept.
And let's let's backtrack here for a second.
There's been intercepts of Ukrainian officials, conversations and even Victoria Nuland and Ambassador Pyatt talking about who they're going to put in charge in Ukraine in January before the coup happened in late February.
And all of these things are, oh, well, these are suspect YouTube videos and we don't really know who did that.
And we refuse to authenticate them.
And all of a sudden, you know, the Ukrainians put out a random video and all of a sudden that's firm evidence.
Well, some people actually took a look at the video and said, wait a minute, I know this billboard.
And they tracked down the billboard.
And the billboard is in the city of Krasnodarmysk, which is deeply in territory held by the Ukrainian military.
So essentially, this video isn't showing a rebel missile being shuttled off, you know, hidden back in Russia.
This video is showing the Ukrainians moving one of their launchers with a rocket missing from it deeply in their own territory and falsify falsely presenting it as something else.
Now, why would they be doing that?
Well, to ask is to answer the question.
Furthermore, there was the audio intercept that they claimed proving that the rebels had shot the plane was actually spliced together from several recordings.
And the rebels had actually shot down a Ukrainian plane the day before and several other planes in the surrounding days.
But they doctored it so as to sound as if they had shot down the civilian airliner.
And people did voice analysis.
People did the timestamp analysis.
I mean, the basic, you know, the basic first look at the thing noticed that the video was posted, you know, an hour, like six or eight hours before the plane was even to fly over the area, much less be shot down.
But the most damning piece of evidence, I think actual evidence, is that the plane was nowhere it's supposed flight path.
This is the 21st century.
All of this data is online.
You had data for planes that were flying the same route days before, weeks before.
And they all went like 200 miles further south.
And for some reason, this particular flight is routed by the air traffic control, the Ukrainian air traffic control, north across the war zone.
Well, no, I'm not going to I'm not going to get into the Russian evidence that there was a Ukrainian military plane nearby.
And there's theories whether, you know, that the plane was hit with an air missile and after it didn't blow up from that was shot down by the air ground to air missile just to make sure that it was destroyed.
I don't I haven't looked into this.
I don't know.
But the fact that the plane was rerouted and the first excuse was, oh, it was bad weather.
There was no bad weather.
There's proof that there was no bad weather.
Yeah, that's what I was going to ask you is because that is what they said at first was well, they had to reroute them around a storm.
There was no there was no storm.
There was no bad weather.
All the data from the air traffic control was seized and sealed.
None of it is being made public.
The tweets that the Spanish national posted were deleted.
He disappeared.
I mean, this is this is one of those massive cover up indications of, you know, there's too many things wrong for the official story to hold water, simply too many things wrong.
And the worst of this is the worst of this is this is the amount of.
It was a tragedy that 300 people died.
I will say this and I will absolutely underline that it's absolutely unconscionable that these poor people got killed.
They were innocents, just like the people on the ground trying to live their lives and being bombed by the government that purports to be their own.
But but if these people were actually shot down as a false flag attack to blame Russia and cause war, then this crime is like trifold in magnitude.
I mean, this is we're talking not squared, not crime squared, but crime cubed.
Yeah.
Well, and like you said, you know, just with the rapidity that we go through these kinds of things in this era, people ought to be wise to this now, if not outright, you know, false flag attacks and setups from your local FBI sting operation, you know, all the way up to the largest cases, at least look at Iraq, weapons of mass destruction.
Look at, you know, John Kerry's claims about all of the facts about the gas attack in Syria last summer.
This kind of thing that at least you can't tell them to tell you the truth, even if they aren't the ones who are really behind whatever horrible thing happened.
They still aren't telling you the truth about it ever.
Exactly.
And that's that's part of the problem.
And but even that would be somewhat forgivable, at least because, OK, we expect governments to lie.
But when the representative of that very same government, Kerry's spokesperson comes up to the podium and tells reporters, you know, we tell nothing but the truth and the Russians constantly lie.
I mean, that takes.
I don't I don't even know what character trait that takes.
You know, it's just mind blowing arrogance and complete disrespect for the truth that gets me.
Yeah.
Well, you know what it is, too, is the reporters love that because they get to be on Team Righteous against the bad guys.
So, you know, like Dan Rather put it most blatantly kind of after September 11th.
But it really goes for all these guys all the time.
And that is, hey, ultimately, I'm lining up behind my commander in chief and saluting and you tell me what to do and say, I'm on, you know, I may be a reporter, but I'm on Team U.S. government first, you know.
OK, well, and again, you know, that's if they admit to it publicly, that's fair enough.
We know where we stand with them.
But at the same time, they're like, oh, no, no, no, we're honest and objective and love the truth.
And these evil Russians keep lying in their propaganda.
And how does that square?
I mean, so far and full disclosure, I'm on RT like twice a week.
They talk to me regularly.
They haven't paid me a penny.
This is all volunteer work for me.
They call me to comment on stuff and I do because they listen to me and they don't censor me.
And, you know, they never serve me loaded questions, unlike the Western media that have tried over the years.
But I don't work for them by any stretch of imagination.
And they're accused of being propaganda.
And I keep thinking, no, I mean, I've seen propaganda at work.
They're not propaganda.
This is not how you do propaganda.
They bend over backwards to be objective and fair, even, you know, using the language and concepts that are anti-Russian served by the Western media, because, again, they're trying to be fair even when it's to their detriment.
Well, I'll disagree with you a little bit about that.
I think they're perfectly happy to make America look bad in any and all cases that they can possibly come up with.
But I'm not blaming them.
I'm blaming America for the U.S. government, particularly for being horrible on so many freaking things.
They do nothing but just hand.
They don't have to lie.
RT doesn't have to propagandize.
All they got to do is report the facts about the predator state of the U.S. government all day long.
And they make our society look horrible.
You know, well, I mean, it's one of those true sucks, but it's going to be called out for hypocrisy.
Yes.
Don't be a hypocrite.
Yeah.
That's the pile of skulls in Iraq.
They'll tell you, you know, America really sucks now.
The U.S. government.
I try to differentiate.
Now, I'm sorry, because I've helped to derail.
It's my fault.
Derail this entire conversation.
But when we get back with the most amount after the top of the hour, we'll be talking more about the situation in Ukraine and even the risk of war with Russia, which I think is real, because Ray McGovern and Eric Margulies say so, too.
And I listen to them.
Hey, y'all.
Hey, y'all.
Scott Horton here.
Are you a libertarian and or a peacenik?
Live in North America?
If you want, you can hire me to come and give a speech to your group.
I'm good on the terror war and intervention, civil liberty stuff, blaming Woodrow Wilson for everything bad in the world, Iran, central banking, political realignment, and well, you know, everything.
I can teach markets to liberals and peace to the right.
Just watch me.
Check out Scott Horton dot org slash speeches for some examples and email me Scott at Scott Horton dot org for more information.
See you there.
All right, you guys.
Welcome back.
I'm Scott Horton.
This is my show.
Scott Horton show.
Coming up on the show, Jonathan Landay is going to be back to talk about the Islamic State.
What Obama know and when do you know it and all that interesting stuff.
Right now, we're on the line with Nebojsa Malic from antiwar dot com.
And we're talking about the Ukraine plane.
And I really want to talk about the broader war and the history and the this and that and whatever you think people really ought to be told here, Nebojsa.
But if we can wrap up on the plane here real quick, I wanted to point out that the Associated Press and in fact, Landay at McClatchy Newspapers and many others reported that they had kind of a pool briefing by high level, all anonymous intelligence officials climbing down rapidly from virtually every crazy accusation that John Kerry and Samantha Power had said.
And then no sooner did that come out than Reuters had come out with this story saying, ha, here's a rebel leader admitting that, yeah, they did have that kind of rocket and yeah, they must have tried to cover up the shoot down by sending it back to Russia.
And that's where I wanted to ask you, I guess, Nebojsa, whether you've seen this and recommend to the audience Moon of Alabama, which is a great blog that doesn't they don't believe anything that they're told by the government.
And it turns out they're always right.
Ukraine, Reuters interviews Benedict Arnold.
Rebels had book, book, book, however you say it, downed MH17.
And this is about how the guy that they interviewed, the big Reuters scoop, Khodorkovsky, Alexander Khodorkovsky apparently is not a rebel, is a former rebel who has decided to side back with Kiev again, and yet was put forward as basically being a spokesman for the guilty parties here on the at least so-called rebel side.
I guess that's a pretty apt term for them, Nebojsa.
Did you have a comment about all of that?
I did hear about the story and it gets even better.
Apparently, several other blogs, including Vineyard of the Saker, have actually taken apart the BBC coverage and Reuters coverage of this interview and concluded that the interview was doctored because Khodorkovsky never actually said this.
Oh, right.
He's in fact denying part of it.
Right.
Right.
So, you know, he said we may have had it.
I don't know.
And what they aired was we had it and I know.
And so it's one of those things, if I mean, I hate to bring up the air or did they just write it?
Did they actually doctor an audio clip of that?
I don't know.
I think it was a translation thing.
So they may have overdubbed him, but, you know, it's very difficult to how do you notice if I could have been an accident and confirmation bias, too, but maybe not.
I'm sorry.
Go ahead.
Oh, I don't know whether they did this deliberately or not.
I'm just saying that, you know, there's evidence that this was doctored to fit the narrative.
And so, you know, even when this guy can't corroborate their their crazy claims, you've got a situation in which, you know, you've got the government and the media in the Anglosphere trying their best and hardest to blame Russia and the rebels for this.
And their case simply doesn't hold water.
And that's that's the you know, that's the worst part of this whole story that, you know, if you if you start thinking about it, if it was the Ukrainians who shot down the plane in order to make it a false flag and garner condemnation of Russia.
And actually, the U.S. officials immediately said, oh, this is going to be a game changer.
This is going to persuade Europeans to follow with our sanctions, because that's the broader war that you wanted to me to comment about.
The broader context of this is that what's happening on the ground in eastern Ukraine or over Russia, whichever way you want to look at it, is actually just one of the fronts.
It's one of the trees in this particular forest.
The big struggle, the big picture, the strategic fight is between Russia and the United States over Europe, because United States is trying to force the Europeans to sever their economic and political ties with Russia, which would hurt the European economy tremendously.
It wouldn't really hurt the American economy because the United States doesn't have that much of a trade exchange with Russia, which is abominable for a country that styles itself to be a good neighbor.
But the Europeans have all, you know, they import energy, they import all sorts of raw materials.
They even import technology and weapons.
And it goes both ways.
And so the whole thing is, OK, let's sever Russia and and Europe so Europeans can stay our good clients and we can, you know, we can control the rest of the world.
What the Russians on their on the other hand are saying, look, you know, we've got all this great economic exchange and there's no reason we should be enemies.
We should work together.
And if the Americans want to join us, great.
And if they don't want to join us, we can do without them.
We don't really want to fight anybody, but, you know, we've got these Nazis killing our people here.
And, you know, who among you would do otherwise?
And so this is really about what the Europeans are going to decide.
And based on what I've seen so far, you know, the French are extremely reluctant to break their contracts with Russia.
The Germans realize the breaking contracts with Russia and breaking ties with Russia would be economic suicide for them.
So I think if the airplane was shot down for the sake of convincing the Europeans to be hostile to Russia, then we're dealing with 300 people murdered over policy and that is just a crime.
Yeah.
The whole thing's madness.
And, you know, it's funny because the American position, even on the climb down, is Russia has created this entire atmosphere that this happened by supporting the rebels, even in spirit or, you know, whatever it is.
And yet to talk about atmosphere and conditions, let's just be frank and blunt here.
The atmosphere and the conditions that created this entire war were midwived in her own words by Victoria Nuland in February when when her people, the person that she named in the phone conversation, took over the government with the help of the Nazis and overthrew a legitimately elected government, which may have been bad, but it was legal and was acting with remarkable restraint towards people who violently tried to overthrow it and eventually did.
And then they started a war against their own population, claiming that these were terrorists.
So if anybody created conditions for anything, it's the United States government performing a coup in Ukraine.
Sure.
Yeah, I was.
I'm sorry for interrupting there.
I was just going to clarify Victoria Nuland being the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, basically assistant secretary of state for Europe.
She gets to make the policy for Europe and Eurasia.
And considering that she's been Dick Cheney's assistant, Strobe Talbot's chief of staff, ambassador to NATO and the wife of Robert Kagan, do we really want somebody like that to make our policy?
And then, you know, John Kerry and Obama having to either follow or get out of the way?
I mean, I don't know to which extent they're even in charge.
Yeah.
Well, I mean, the the combination of the two of them gave her the job.
I don't know under what pressure, but or whether they just thought it would be a great idea or what.
I don't know.
It's their responsibility either way.
I agree.
But but yeah.
But yeah.
No.
I mean, the thing is, Ron Paul was saying, just like you said, hey, as long as we're talking atmosphere, really, you could go back to February and the American back coup.
And then everybody said, what a kook Ron Paul is saying, that the atmosphere is what counts here rather than what really happened.
And it's like, no, he was actually just responding to what you guys were saying, that that's all you have left, is that the atmosphere was created by the Russians.
But then they go, oh, what a hollow argument when you turn it around.
God dang it.
Well, that's that's that's exactly the point.
I mean, we're dealing with people who have a philosophy, if I may call it that generously, that they can do no no wrong and that their enemies, whoever they may be at the moment, can do no right.
So if they do something that's perfectly OK and fine and even virtuous.
But if somebody else does something either in self-defense or, you know, a perfectly normal, non objectionable thing, let alone something objectionable, that's the crime of the highest order.
And it's unforgivable.
We're dealing with people who are absolutely incapable of judging actions on the merit of the actions, but judge actions on the merit of the perpetrator.
And you can't win an argument with them because simply, you know, they all they're always the good guys in their own minds.
Right.
They'll just change the subject to the next talking point or whatever it is.
They don't care.
That's the great part of being a warmonger, is you could be completely shameless and just keep plowing on with whatever kind of lie.
They're great at that stuff.
Well, as I like to say, you know, you can deny reality.
Right.
You can deny reality all you want.
You can deny that there's a wall that you're headed to until you hit the wall.
And sooner or later, you know, their denial of reality is going to catch up with them.
Yeah.
And the rest of us, too.
In this case, they're messing around with the other biggest pile of H-bombs in the world.
Exactly.
And that's that's why it's a danger to everybody.
Yeah.
All right.
Well, thanks very much for your time.
It's great to talk to you again, Nobosa.
Thanks for having me, Scott.
See you.
Nobosa Malik to everybody.
He's at Antiwar.com and at the Gray Falcon blog.
Hey, all Scott here.
If you're like me, you need coffee.
Lots of it.
You probably prefer taste good, too.
Well, let me tell you about Darren's Coffee Company at Darren's Coffee.com.
Darren Marion is a natural entrepreneur who decided to leave his corporate job and strike out on his own, making great coffee.
And Darren's Coffee is now delivering right to your door.
Darren gets his beans direct from farmers around the world, all specialty, premium grade with no filler.
Hey, the man just wants everyone to have a chance to taste this great coffee.
Darren's Coffee.
Order now at Darren's Coffee.com.
Use promo code Scott and save two dollars.
Darren's Coffee.com.
Hey, y'all, Scott here.
Like I told you before, the Future Freedom Foundation at FFF.org represents the best of the libertarian movement.
Led by the fearless Jacob Hornberger, FFF writers James Bovard, Sheldon Richman, Wendy McElroy, Anthony Gregory, and many more.
Write the op-eds and the books, host the events, and give the speeches that are changing our world for the better.
Help support the Future Freedom Foundation.
Subscribe to their magazine, The Future of Freedom.
Or to contribute, just look for the big red donate button at the top of FFF.org.
Peace and freedom.
Thank you.
Hey, everybody.
Scott Horton here for LibertyStickers.com.
If you're like me, then you're right all the time.
Surrounded by people in desperate need of correction.
Well, we can't all have a radio show, but we can all get anti-government propaganda to stick on the back of our trucks.
Check out LibertyStickers.com.
Categories include anti-war, empire, police state, libertarian, Ron Paul, gun rights, founders quotes, and of course, this stupid election.
That's LibertyStickers.com.
Everyone else's stickers suck.
Peace.
Peace.
Peace.
Peace.
Peace.
Peace.
Peace.
Peace.
Peace.
Peace.
Peace.
Peace.
Peace.
Peace.
Peace.
Peace.
Peace.
Peace.
Peace.
Peace.
Peace.
Peace.
Peace.
Peace.
Peace.
Peace.
Peace.
Peace.
Peace.