01/29/16 – Dan Wright – The Scott Horton Show

I love Bitcoin, but there's just something incredibly satisfying about having real, fine silver in your pocket.
That's why Commodity Discs are so neat.
They're one-ounce rounds of fine silver with a QR code on the back.
Just grab your smartphone's QR reader, scan the coin, and you'll instantly get the silver spot price in Federal Reserve Notes and Bitcoin.
And if you donate $100 to The Scott Horton Show, he'll send you one.
Learn more at Facebook.com slash Commodity Discs.
CommodityDiscs.com.
All right, guys, welcome back.
One more.
Next guest is Dan Wright from Shadowproof.com.
Welcome to the show, Dan.
How are you?
Good.
Thanks for having me on.
Very happy to have you here.
Great piece.
Very interesting, scandalous stuff, if you ask me.
Congress quietly kills ban on funding neo-Nazis in Ukraine.
Well, neo-Nazis in Ukraine?
Congressional ban on funding neo-Nazis in Ukraine?
The killing of a ban on funding neo-Nazis in Ukraine?
Whatever do you mean, Dan?
Well, I don't know if people know this, but a good deal of the forces in Ukraine that the U.S. is backing, or at least tangentially backing in some cases, consider themselves to be part of a long tradition of, I guess, white supremacy.
Actually, it's not even neo-Nazis.
In some cases, they trace it actually to the Nazis.
And some of these, they call themselves battalions, have been incorporated into the defense forces that are being trained and equipped by the U.S. military as part of NATO.
One of those battalions is named the Azov Battalion, and it's led by a guy, Beletsky, who is openly a white supremacist.
He's led rallies or gangs, really, to beat up black immigrants in Kiev.
So not surprisingly, when this information came to light that these were being trained by U.S. forces, Congressman Conyers and Congressman Yoho attached an amendment to the House Appropriations, Defense Appropriations Bill, through voice vote it passed, saying, we don't want to arm these people.
They actually left a warning saying, this will be just like the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, according to Conyers, because once the battle's over, they're not going to leave the battlefield, they're going to keep their weapons.
So it passed, and apparently, somewhere along the line, the Pentagon lobbied successfully to have it removed, and they used a very weird argument, or I think a dishonest argument, that it was redundant, because there's already a provision not to equip neo-Nazis, white supremacists.
But of course, if that provision had been in effect, they couldn't have been trained in the first place.
So they successfully got it out of the bill, so the U.S. can, at least legally, continue to supply and train the Azov Battalion, which is an openly neo-Nazi group that the only reason it was caught was because the Associated Press, among others, saw that their uniform actually has the Wolf's Angel on it, which traces back to its alignment with the SS.
So that's kind of a weird story.
And of course, it was the Nazis of the Right Sector and the Svoboda Party, formerly the Social Nationalists, who overthrew the Poroshenko government in January of 2014 in the first place.
So this is, I guess, the Azov Battalion, or just one of the many Nazi groups at play over there.
And yeah, it's funny the way, I guess, was it just oversight, or they just deliberately averted their eyes when they let the military get away with this argument that the Leahy Law already was good enough to prevent this when, I mean, some of these congressmen must know that, as you say here, the Leahy Law doesn't go into effect unless the State Department, who's behind this whole thing in this case, certified that these guys are committing war crimes, which, of course, they have not certified.
Right.
They have not certified in their case.
They have, I mean, in other cases, there's been really strong accusations with some of the other battalions.
There's a battalion called the IDAR Battalion, A-I-D-A-R, that has been human rights watch, has said straight up, these people are committing war crimes in East Ukraine, so I imagine they would never, the State Department wouldn't try there.
So yeah, the State Department refused to do it already, and so the funding and arming will continue to go on.
If they were going to do it, they would have already done it, and I think the members of Congress are basically, they don't really want the issue anyway, but I don't think they want to be seen as, quote-unquote, weak on Russia, so I guess they look the other way, and it was apparently, according to reports, the Pentagon that were the people behind the scenes lobbying to kill the Conyers-Yoho Amendment, so the Pentagon, I guess, has a relationship.
The Azov Battalion, it should be noted, was integrated into the Ukraine National Guard, even though they still carry all their Nazi regalia, so I guess the Pentagon likes the relationship they have right now, they don't want to change it, and got the amendment killed.
Congress went along.
Yeah, amazing.
Yeah, and as you say, this is all in the AP and everything else, where they go, hey, guess what, everybody?
Our army is now expanding their training from just the National Guard, which we all know is made up of nothing but a bunch of Nazis, but now they're going to train the Ukrainian army too.
All this stuff is just kind of right out there for anybody to see, if you're looking at it.
But now, so here's the real rub.
As far as I know, and I admit, I haven't really been keeping up in the last couple of weeks, but the ceasefire has been holding, right?
We have basically a status quo where many fewer people are being killed, and America is now tipping, or is now continuing to tip that balance back toward war, and try to make it seem, I mean, obviously, the effect very well could be that it will become, in the eyes of the Kiev regime, easier to go back to war.
Right, I mean, from the beginning, the U.S. position, at least, from Victoria Nuland and other people, Bassert, Piaf, and all the rest of them, is we don't want a frozen conflict, because we think a frozen conflict benefits Russia, because the coalition in Kiev is so corrupt and problematic and at each other's throats, that if it's frozen on the east, they were right, by the way, because ironically, one of the people who is, one of the groups causing controversy are these battalions, and recently, they had a shootout with police in Kiev, or near Kiev, so they don't want a frozen, they want people to direct their anger and aggression towards the east.
A frozen conflict for the U.S. position is not good.
They want a war back on, because it helps give the people in Kiev some breathing room, helps them unite the country, if you will, in a sort of nationalistic fervor against the invasions or perceived invasions in east Ukraine, so they don't want a frozen conflict.
They want these people to keep, go to battle.
Unfortunately, the only people crazy enough to want to go in and participate in this war are neo-fascists and neo-Nazis, regular people, as reported by Foreign Policy magazine, are dodging the draft any chance they get.
They don't want to go die in east Ukraine, so I don't think the U.S. wants the war to end.
They want it to stay hot, and so they're doing a lot of things, I think you could say, to exacerbate the situation.
This is not a good piece for them.
Right.
Well, it's too bad we don't have Ron Paul in the election campaign to talk about this, because what great fodder for politics this is, because it's the kind of subject that's so far outside of what is allowed in the typical discussion, and yet it's all so proven and undeniable, and so scandalous.
I mean, the term Nazi, but not being completely abused like the, whatever that guy's iron law of people stupidly bringing up Hitler.
I mean, these guys really love Hitler, and they say so, you know?
A presidential candidate, if Donald Trump or somebody wanted to hit Hillary Clinton and them over the head with this, boy, could they hit them hard.
Yeah, these are not, that should be, that's important, this is not, I guess, Godwin's law where people are, and not only this, they aren't even really, I definitely recommend some of the great stuff over at Consortium News on this.
Oh, yeah.
Thank you for saying that.
But if you look at the roots of these guys, this is not this weird manifestation of neo-Nazism in the U.S.
This is the people who, you know, historically, through their families, through the history of Ukraine, actually do trace themselves, particularly through Stepan Bandera, apparently, to an alliance with Hitler's Germany.
It's not very abstract, it's actually quite vivid and historical and deep there, so they are definitely Nazi sympathizers, and in some cases, Nazi loathers.
By the way, it should be noted, as of Battalion's own spokesperson, because they were confronted by USA Today, this is how mainstream this has gotten, how obvious it is, they admitted that at least 10-20% of their recruits were Nazis.
Now, it's probably a lot higher than that, but I'm saying, even if you're admitting that 10-20% of the forces you have under arms are loyal to a Nazi ideology, that's pretty damning that we're funding and equipping these people.
Yeah, got that right.
All right, when we get back, we'll have more with Dan Wright about America's insane Ukraine policy, and he's got a good one on Yemen here, too.
Hang tight.
Hey, Al, Scott Horton here to tell you about this great new book by Michael Swanson, The War State.
In The War State, Swanson examines how Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy both expanded and fought to limit the rise of the new national security state after World War II.
If this nation is ever to live up to its creed of liberty and prosperity for everyone, we are going to have to abolish the empire.
Know your enemy.
Get The War State by Michael Swanson.
It's available at your local bookstore or at Amazon.com in Kindle or in paperback.
Just click the book in the right margin at scotthorton.org or thewarstate.com.
So you're a libertarian, and you don't believe the propaganda about government awesomeness you were subjected to in fourth grade.
You want real history and economics.
Well, learn in your car from professors you can trust with Tom Woods' Liberty Classroom.
And if you join through the Liberty Classroom link at scotthorton.org, we'll make a donation to support The Scott Horton Show.
Liberty Classroom, the history and economics they didn't teach you.
Okay, guys.
Welcome back.
I just saw it out of the corner of my eye during the break, Hillary Clinton on Wolf Blitzer.
And at the bottom, it says, Hillary colon.
I haven't been briefed on Libya.
No, I don't know what you're talking about, Wolf.
So that'll be a fun archive for us to go look up after the show.
Right now, though, I'm still talking with Dan Wright from shadowproof.com, shadowproof.com.
And we're talking about, well, the Nazis, Barack Obama's policy of backing the Nazis in Ukraine, and their coup really beginning with their protest movement in November 2013 and on, picking up from Bush's old Orange Revolution program, basically.
And how they've got us into this mess, backing the very radical right wing, like Right Sector, Svoboda, and the Azov Battalion.
And so, I guess I really don't know what else to ask you, other than if you wanted to comment on...
Oh, yeah, I see you linked to this, too.
Oh, here's something let me say about this article.
It's full of great links to great sources for all his assertions.
I think you'll appreciate that.
Congress quietly kills ban on funding neo-Nazis in Ukraine.
And you say at the end here, you know, there could be another coup.
And I'm not sure if I see your link here.
I assume it's to Andre Peruby, the Right Sector member of parliament, who has said before, hey, I overthrew the last government, I can overthrow you, and you guys better look out for me.
Is that right?
I mean, he's definitely a factor.
I think there is a genuine threat.
And by the way, the establishment took a lot of weird lines on Ukraine initially.
And they initially sort of pushed back against criticism, this is all Russian propaganda, anybody who disagrees with the official line here.
And then what you started to see in these last, I think, few months is it break.
So you saw, you know, Mershimer, you saw some of the other foreign policy people saying, hey, you know, this is kind of...
We are forcing a confrontation here, we probably don't want, obviously, Professor Steve Cohen over at The Nation has talked a lot about this and faced a lot of blowback for saying these things.
And now recently, there's been a kind of even greater conversion, if you will, or I would say realization.
And there are people are starting to wonder that, wait a minute, what happens if these right wing militias that are basically been off the leash for the last year or so to go fight the quote unquote Russians in East Ukraine, turn their turn their ire on the government in Kyiv, which is hanging by a thread and is already facing all sorts of divisions.
And that reality is coming closer and closer to or becoming more and more likely to happen as there's shootouts with police from, you know, some of these right wing militias, there's open declarations like that, that we can just overthrow this government, we overthrew the last one.
And, you know, people tried to play this down.
But the far right militias were integral into the maiden protest, they played a lead role, they were the people crazy enough, bloodthirsty enough, however you want to think about it, to go toe to toe with the police, they raided an arms depot, they were having shootouts with police.
I mean, this is a group of people who, you know, in fact, are actually angered by not winning in the East, they don't want a frozen conflict either.
And they're turning their guns, in some cases, literally on Kyiv, for what they see as a failure to uphold the Ukraine nation.
So I would be very worried if I was, you know, Poroshenko or Yatsenyuk or any of these jokers in Kyiv right now, thinking, you know, what happens, are these guys ever gonna lay down their arms?
And now that they're getting even better training by the US, I think it's kind of a powder keg.
And a lot more people now are thinking, including I saw an editorial in the Washington Post of all places saying, you know, this is we got to do something about these, the neo Nazis, the neo fascists, the far-right militias, before they overthrow this government too, in which case, who knows what happens next.
Wow, that ran in the Washington Post, huh?
Well, it was an op-ed, it wasn't Fred Hyatt of the editorial, it wasn't him, for sure.
Still, but he allowed it to run, I guess, though, that's something, huh?
Something slipped through, yeah.
Well, now, yeah, I mean, the thing is that they could get us into a war with Russia.
I think the Russians have shown that it was all a bunch of propaganda, that they were determined to, you know, absorb, or whatever you want to call it, you know, invade and occupy and re-uptake the Donbass region.
They obviously have helped the so-called rebels there resist domination by Kiev.
But even though they claimed 10 times that thousands of infantry had come across the border, it never was true.
But it seems like it sure could be.
And if you go by the apparent, best I can tell, level of groupthink in Washington, D.C., which doesn't seem as heated, but it seems as, you know, solid a consensus as any time during the McCarthy era, I guess, about Russia right now, it seems like they could really get us into a war with Russia.
If every single person in Washington, D.C. is determined to agree that Russia started all of this, no matter how it is they're reacting, then they could turn this into a real war.
Right.
And that's kind of the reason they want to own that narrative so bad, because the reality is much more complex.
The reality is, you know, you have Victoria Nuland.
I mean, people, they keep talking about, isn't Russia so paranoid?
You have a Victoria Nuland out there endorsing a movement openly, handing out cookies and bread, endorsing a movement that's trying to violently and successfully overthrow a government that is allied with Russia and Russia's backyard.
The idea that that wouldn't be provocative, or the larger picture of an expanded NATO, when Russia and other countries said, after the Cold War ended, why don't we have just a joint security agreement?
And the U.S. said, no, let's not do that.
Let's just keep pushing east until we hit the wall.
And they've hit the wall in Ukraine.
And I guess some of them were hoping that through a show of strength, this is always very neocon thinking, a show of strength, Russia would just forget that they have this historical tie to this area, and they would just, I guess, let the U.S. and Western forces kind of, and influence, take over their entire sphere of influence.
I guess not.
So I guess Putin kind of called their bluff a little bit, and so did other people.
And now they're kind of at the point where they're trying to convince people that this is worth the fight.
And the problem is, nobody really agrees that Ukraine is worth American blood and treasure.
And so they're kind of having to maneuver right now.
Because there was a group think.
There was a narrative that they fought very hard to preserve.
But nobody really believes it.
And now that it's clear that that isn't enough to get their way, nobody's willing to take it to the next level, at least.
I haven't seen anybody do it publicly.
Maybe people are lobbying in the background, but nobody actually wants to send U.S. troops and possibly get in a confrontation with Russia in a state or a position that Russia is clearly willing to defend or even support.
So I think it's a total mess.
Nobody wanted to get into this.
And the more we examine how we got into this, the more it's clear that some of these people are way off the reservation.
I think Victoria Nuland is unbelievably irresponsible in getting us involved in an internal dispute in Ukraine.
And now I think it's going to be very tough to get out without just having admitted, which is something they really don't want to do, that we screwed up and shouldn't have been involved in this in the first place.
So it's a real standoff right now.
And I don't know how it's going to work out.
But in no way is this a good thing for us to be doing.
And the stakes could not be higher if this gets really ugly.
Well, and the thing of it is, too, is, you know, it's not just that, hey, look at the history in an honest way.
And you can see how America really picked this fight.
But if you look back here at, you know, who's lobbying what, you basically have, you know, the neocon crazies who just hate Russia, I guess, because of what Trotskyists they still are in a way or whatever.
I don't know exactly why they hate Russia so much.
But there's no one else who's with them other than Lockheed.
And you know, Andrew Coburn had that great article about the big party they threw in Crystal City for everybody who's lining up for all the new defense contracts in the name of the renewed Russian threat.
But all of the rest of us, we don't have a beef with Russia.
The Soviet Union is long gone.
Way gone.
And important to remember is, I think there was a genuine move to replace the Soviet Union because remember, the Soviet Union justified so much money being spent and so much money so much.
And also from a philosophical perspective, if you're a Straussian or whatever, that it unified the country around a great grand Manichaean good and evil.
And when that went away, they thought, you know, radical Islam would fit that role.
They could replace it essentially with something equally as large and equally as, I guess, scary for people.
And after Iraq, that's kind of all gone away.
People have really kind of lost the taste for blood.
I'm not sure they ever had it on the level the neocons had it.
And so Russia is kind of the old standby.
I think there's a lot of these arguments about Russia or the hyping of, you know, they're completely in control of the media or they're spending billions.
I mean, this is just, it's kind of ridiculous.
And it's a way to justify defense spending is really the undergirding, I think, principle of the whole thing.
It's a way to keep them in power and keep their think tanks funded mostly through the defense industry.
But in terms of an actual existential threat, it isn't one, although they're doing everything they possibly can to put the two nuclear superpowers, all of those nuclear superpowers, head to head.
But yeah, this isn't really, and nobody cares about this.
I think that's the one thing they learned when they tried to really start hyping this up and did all these publicity stunts is that nobody cares about Ukraine in the United States.
It's just not that important to us.
And that was actually a talking point that came out of Republicans who said, Putin cares more about Ukraine than we will.
And it's true.
Right.
Nobody cares here.
And that kind of means on one hand, they can get away with anything, or maybe when push comes to shove, we really won't support what they want to do there.
But it could break either way, I think, you know?
Yeah, I would say so, too.
I mean, I think it's, this is, I think there's some cooler heads have prevailed.
You've seen this, by the way, this ripple through Washington establishment.
The Brookings Institution had a major kind of back and forth where different people got into a major fight, you know, because it's Strobe Talbot's the head of it, and he's a hardcore neocon.
And some of the younger scholars were like, this is ridiculous.
Why would we risk so much of our security here?
So I think it's, it's kind of a last gasp, to some degree, but it could still be lethal.
You're right.
They could still do something really dumb and get us involved in something we really don't want to be involved in, more so.
So as much as they're losing power and influence, because the culture is changing around them, people don't really, they've been chastened by 10 years of blood in the Middle East.
They still, they still want to go for this.
This is like the last hurrah.
So I think it could go either way.
I'm not so sanguine that this is going to blow over necessarily.
Yeah.
Well, and, you know, you and I are in a bad position from, you know, don't name it after me, but it's another version of Godwin's law where we sound like alarmist kooks to raise the very real possibility of an exchange of hydrogen bombs.
If the U.S. and Russia get into it, you know, this is not playing around once you start fusing hydrogen isotopes together and this and that.
And yet, you know, that kind of thing just doesn't seem to happen very often.
It didn't happen in the cold war.
So it almost seems silly to bring up, but then why do they still have so many thousands of them?
You know, sure.
Seems like a real risk to me, even if it's a small risk, it's a small risk of ultimate catastrophe.
And it's a small risk not worth taking.
I think it's also an important point, not just that we came close actually to it in the Cuban Missile Crisis, but that there's this dishonesty going on right now.
So the former ambassador, Pfeiffer, the current one's PI, the old one's Pfeiffer, went before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with Bob Menendez, currently under investigation, and other people there to say, you know, we made an agreement in this, I think it's a Budapest agreement.
We didn't put it in writing.
This is actually what he said.
We didn't put it in writing, but we did tell them that we would defend them if Russia ever invaded and we think Russia's invaded.
And the committee agreed, and then Victoria Nuland came in and said, I actually negotiated that.
It was a political agreement.
We never agreed to defend them.
And she actually was criticized by Senator Johnson, Senator Menendez, for saying, how dare you say we don't have a military defense agreement with Ukraine?
Now, if we had a military defense agreement with Ukraine and the U.S. believed its own public statements, the U.S. would have had to have jumped in because it would have been in defense of military agreement.
So I think there's not just, they never got into NATO, but they're willing to kind of lie their way inch by inch into this war because they feel it's so important.
So that's already happening.
So in a straight military conflict between Russia and the United States on, you know, honest or dishonest terms, it's still just as deadly and still just as much an existential threat.
I mean, if it's, there's a reason we didn't go to war with Russia during the Cold War.
We knew it would end in a nuclear exchange.
So I think these people are playing a very dangerous game and one that has, I mean, the risk of nuclear annihilation versus the upside of what, of sort of very, I mean, even if you talk, forget the neo-Nazis for a second, which is proven, the people running the government in Kiev are amazingly corrupt, incredibly corrupt.
There's mostly these oligarchs like Poroshenko and these other kind of skeevy cronies running around.
I don't know why we would risk what we're risking for such a group of people who, in my opinion, are in no way sympathetic.
Yeah, I mean, you know, J.P. Soteli had a great piece about how, yeah, there are Chevron interests there and there's Archer Daniel Midland interests there.
They got some some pretty prime wheat fields and this kind of thing.
But, you know, could anybody by any stretch consider that America's national interest to risk all this just for a little bit of that?
So Joe Biden's son can cash in a little bit or whatever.
I mean, that's ridiculous.
So, you know, the best thing that they could probably argue from the empire's point of view is, well, we don't really gain anything by taking Ukraine other than we're taking it away from Russia and that hurts Russia.
And so that's good for us on some whatever scale you're supposedly measuring this contest, you know.
Well, this from like I said about the last guest, this is also really read Brzezinski and a lot of other people, you know, taking Ukraine away is the death blow in their view of Russia without this is what Brzezinski said, the group is the old national security adviser.
He said, you know, Russia with Ukraine is an empire, Russia without Ukraine, it's just another country.
So for them, that's the point of this.
It's to sort of completely, I guess, contain or restrain or destroy the ability to project power of Russia, which I mean, is this really what we're I'm not sure this is an incredible national goal.
United States that warrants this kind of risk taking, let alone who we're getting into bed with, which are neo-Nazis and corrupt oligarchs.
So, I mean, this is for them.
This is a major kind of the kind of coup de gras of the end of the Cold War, which that's why, you know, they didn't stop when the Cold War ended.
They kept expanding NATO.
They kept pushing and pushing and pushing.
And, you know, Ukraine for them is the checkmate.
But I don't know how many other people really care that much about it or would even see a benefit to that.
If you look at the problems in Europe right now, this is the main concern.
I'm not sure that Ukraine has to join the EU.
As far as I can see, the EU has a lot of its own problems.
It hasn't worked out.
So it's a checkmate for them.
It's a grand final conclusion for them.
But I think for everybody else in the country, particularly the United States, I mean, who cares?
Yeah, I mean, seriously, average person, grab a globe and look at it and then see where you live and then say, ask yourself, what do you mean we must control the heart of of Asia?
Because of what?
You know, they never answer that part of it.
Why Alfred Mackinder's control the heartland thesis is relevant to any of us in our lives.
You know, Alfred McCoy, the great professor Alfred McCoy, wrote a great piece all about this and talked about, you know, what our elite see as the ultimate threat is ultimate peace in Eurasia, that you would have a system of pipelines and railways and highways and electricity lines from Shanghai to Lisbon and that.
What I guess American politicians would lose power and influence, but it sounds to me like what they're saying is that the people of the world will get rich and have higher standards of living and be fine and what maybe be able to maintain independence from our political government.
But what do the American people have to lose in that?
What kind of zero sum game do they think we're playing here?
You know, like this is the age of mercantilism.
It's interesting because on the one hand, you can look at it that there are people with grand designs, I think, in the intellectual community, particularly the neocon intellectual community.
That's true.
On a more basic level, at least from my perspective, is a lot of this is how do we justify our continued existence?
And for NATO, this is a key moment because a lot of people, including what's interesting, is the realist class of establishment intellectuals, people from Harvard, people in the Brookings Institution saying, why is NATO even still around?
Why do we have this entity?
And this is how NATO fights for its budget.
And why do we have all this defense spending for an enemy that is, if they're terrorists in the Middle East, doesn't have major military assets?
Well, now we have Russia.
Russia justifies that.
So I think there's a game being played to justify the status quo or justify the establishment.
And I think that this is a part of it on some peripheral level that this justifies continuing this system, no matter how obsolete it kind of is to the way the world has changed in the last 50 years.
So I think there are definitely people with grand designs in Eurasia, the grand chess board, I guess, as Brzezinski said.
And there's also people just saying, how do I keep this going?
How do I keep how do I justify the F-35, which is just like huge trillion dollar boondoggle?
How do we justify NATO forces and increased military spending?
How do we justify our think tank budgets?
Now, there's no how we justify our Eurasia studies section here.
So I think there is a lot of stakeholders who are trying to find a way to justify their existence.
And for them, Ukraine is the gift that keeps giving.
Right.
Yeah.
Hey, it was Lockheed, Bruce Jackson from Lockheed, that created the committee to lobby for a NATO expansion back in the 1990s.
And you hit it right there on the head with the F-35.
It's all just about the arms economy here in America.
Anyway, I've kept you way over time.
I hope I haven't wasted it.
I think it's been great.
I really appreciate your time on the show.
And I really hope everyone will go and read this great article.
Congress quietly kills ban on funding neo-Nazis in Ukraine.
Thanks, Dan.
Thank you so much.
Hey, I'll Scott Horton here to tell you about this great new e-book by longtime future freedom author Scott McPherson, Freedom and Security, the Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms.
This is the definitive principled case in favor of gun rights and against gun control.
America is exceptional here.
The people come first and we refuse to allow the state a monopoly on firearms.
Our liberty depends on it.
Get Scott McPherson's Freedom and Security, the Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms on Kindle at Amazon dot com today.
Hey, I'll Scott Horton here for Liberty Dot Me, the great libertarian social network.
They've got all the social media bells and whistles.
Plus, you get your own publishing site and their classes, shows, books and resources of all kinds.
And I host two shows on Liberty Dot Me.
I on the Empire with Liberty Dot Me's chief liberty officer, Jeffrey Tucker, every other Tuesday and the future freedom with FFF founder and president Jacob Hornberger every Thursday night, both at 8 Eastern.
When you sign up, add me as a friend on there.
Scott Horton, Liberty Dot Me.
Be free.
Liberty Dot Me.
Hey, I'll check out the audio book of Lou Rockwell's Fascism Versus Capitalism, narrated by me, Scott Horton at Audible dot com.
It's a great collection of his essays and speeches on the important tradition of liberty from medieval history to the Ron Paul Revolution.
Rockwell blasts our status enemies, profiles our greatest libertarian heroes and prescribes the path forward in the battle against Leviathan.
Fascism Versus Capitalism by Lou Rockwell for audio book.
Find it at Audible, Amazon, iTunes or just click in the right margin of my website at Scott Horton dot org.