03/25/16 – Grant F. Smith – 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, y'all.
Scott Horton Show here.
I'm him.
And introducing the great Grant Smith from the Institute for Research Middle Eastern Policy.
He's written, I don't know, a dozen books or so about Israel's influence in the United States, legal and otherwise.
The latest one being Divert about the theft of weapons-grade uranium by the Israelis from a nuclear plant in Pennsylvania.
Just one week ago, he helped with the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.
Grant's group, IRMEP, helped put on a conference in D.C.
This is the third annual, more or less, here, Israel's Influence Conference.
You can watch all the videos of it at Israel'sInfluence.org and at IRMEP.org.
I guess, from what I saw, which was at least half of it or something, you had one heck of a great conference there last week, Grant.
Yeah, it was excellent attendance.
I think we had, I don't have the final numbers, but at least 400 people packed in there.
The feedback I'm getting is that it was people really energized because there are a lot of different perspectives, a lot of different presentations, and people really, really felt uplifted and engaged by the extra time to talk to other participants and the speakers who hung around for the whole thing.
Well, and of course, I have my favorites, but was there anybody you really wanted to highlight that you thought did even better than you expected them to do or were that much attention grabbing?
I actually was very impressed by Jim Loeb, who, although everyone was pressed for time, in 18 minutes really talked about the rise and influence of the neoconservative movement.
Yeah, he was great.
I piped that one in live here on the show.
We played it.
I was like, oh, Jim's talking, everybody listen.
Oh, really?
Oh, yeah.
So you can switch that in.
Alison Raimondo is also very interesting and had some excellent quotes and really engaged and was questioning the audience and basically did a Q&A right on the spot.
So I thought that was particularly good.
On the legal panel, Maria LaHood really talked about freedom of speech.
And of course, she does a lot of defense of Palestinian-oriented rights actions in the U.S. and she's very good.
But overall, and of course, Philip Weiss talking, really dissecting the New York Times, as only Philip Weiss can, based on having worked at their magazine and whatnot, those certainly stood out.
But overall, I mean, I had the chance to watch these presentations live and then go back and watch the videos, too, when I didn't quite catch something.
Like, I didn't understand Lawrence Wilkerson's presentation fully until I watched it the second time.
But I'm not going to say anything stood out or really rose above others.
Of course, Gideon Levy, who characterizes himself as a one-trick pony and is clearly not, had a lot of very interesting things to say about what he would do with all of these members of Congress who come over constantly, paid for by Apex Travel Agency, the American Israel Education Foundation.
So, I mean, I'm not going to say anything was – I just thought everything complemented everything else and there were really, really interesting presentations this year.
Yeah, it really was great.
And do I have it right?
You were on C-SPAN as well?
Yeah, C-SPAN picked it up and broadcast the whole thing live, also broadcast it over C-SPAN radio, which is on a station powerful enough to reach, you know, Northern Virginia, Maryland and D.C.
So, they really took a chance to present this other view of U.S.-Israeli relations even before the big APEC conference, which, of course, they also covered extensively.
So, we were happy about that.
They don't always have the bandwidth to do, you know, these sorts of programs and it was quite good.
And you can also see the embedded video from that on IRMEP.org.
Yeah, and again, that's IsraelsInfluence.org and IRMEP, I-R-M-E-P.org.
Okay.
So, now, let's talk about your, and we did talk about this before, but hey, it's so important.
Let's talk a little bit about your latest article we're running at AntiWar.com today about the Americans' belief, unlike anyone else that you did the study of, Americans' belief that the Palestinians occupy Israeli land rather than the other way around.
Can you explain that?
Sure, I can explain that.
And I just think it's important for people to realize the back end to this.
We are now using Google Consumer Surveys as a polling platform.
And if you look at various rankings, there are clearly polling platforms that do very well, like Google Consumer Surveys and a few others, and polling platforms that are absolutely unreliable.
And unfortunately, Gallup, which is one of the most broadcast and read, has a really extremely poor ranking for accuracy whenever you look at things like polling on presidential candidates and that sort of thing.
So, I'm happy to say that as they have expanded the platform into other countries, like the United Kingdom, like Canada, like Mexico, we're now able to do polling of different populations and different languages, in the case of Mexico, and ask them simple questions.
So, the question that we asked before the conference, since you don't want credit, I'm not going to give you any credit anymore, Scott, but you kind of put this idea in my head.
What is the fundamental question in the Middle East for a lot of these outcomes and things that we're confronting?
It is this occupation and this conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.
And so, we asked the question on March 16 in four countries, quote, which of the following do you believe to be true?
A, Israelis occupy Palestinian land.
B, Palestinians occupy Israeli land, unquote.
And so, the article at antiwar.com today really just simply talks about where each country is and why America seems, you know, the United States, why the United States seems to be divergent.
So, in the UK, it's 57.7% correctly believing Israelis occupy Palestinians.
In Canada, it's 51.4% believing that.
In Mexico, it's 54.6%.
Only in the United States is it below 40%, 39.8%.
And the majority of American adult internet users, which is the population surveyed, 49.2% believe that Palestinians, in fact, are the ones occupying Israelis.
And so, unlike these other countries, which we talked about this before, unfortunately, they don't have better scores on this legal UN land claim, very important issue.
They don't have much understanding or as much as you'd hope.
Nobody scored 70, 80, 90%.
But in the United States, the indications are that the population believes kind of exactly the opposite of what these other major country believes.
And if we had the ability to survey the world, I suspect that we'd get consistent views in other countries that they believe, in fact, there's an Israeli occupation versus a Palestinian occupation.
Right.
Yeah.
And, you know, I guess I'm always harping on this because I remember not understanding it at all just because, you know, on TV, at least, they'll never just show you a picture of the map and say, here's the occupied territory, everybody.
Never, never, never.
And so I remember, I mean, I have to go back to, you know, high school or maybe very early 20s when I didn't really know about this at all.
And I would even mock and characterize both sides, all sides as, oh, God gave this land to us.
No, God gave this land to us.
So it's this intractable problem with magical religious property rights, you know, that are a far cry from our kind of Lockean perception of where property rights come from and stuff.
And so just the whole thing is ridiculous.
So just, you know, it's an intractable problem and it involves, obviously, a bunch of details that I don't even need to know because I know already just how intractable it is.
That's all I need to know.
And then it was much later that I found out that, no, what happened was the Palestinians lost over and over again.
And when they lost in 67, they've been living under a foreign government's military rule since then.
Oh, OK.
That's a little bit different.
Now I understand who's fighting over what.
It's not so much about magical, you know, property rights and supernatural opinions from the sky and this kind of thing.
It's just simple land theft and occupation, invasion and occupation.
Just the same as politics all over the world.
Well, there's yeah, there's a reason, though, Scott, that you don't know and that, you know, most of us didn't know.
That is because there is a concerted effort to obscure these sorts of facts, contest them and get information that might illuminate even varying perspectives.
McGraw-Hill Education had a textbook with that very, I mean, you've probably seen the map Disappearing Palestine, where it shows what the situation was kind of in 1948 and the growth of the Israeli control over lands in the region to the shrinking and detrimental effect of Palestinian holdings on the West Bank and whatnot, the growth of settlements, et cetera, et cetera.
McGraw-Hill basically is pulping a textbook called Global Politics Engaging a Complex World, pulping them because they included that map and a number of Israel affinity organizations swept in and basically said, no, we can't have that information in a textbook.
So I think, you know, there are reasons why people don't know about some of these issues.
And one of the reasons is because there's a massive pressure campaign always on that tends to undercut and punish that sort of information getting out.
Right.
All right.
Now, so in your talk at the conference, you explain that and then you get into, as you put it here, the context and you have this great quote from Benjamin Netanyahu.
I won't play the audio because it's in Hebrew.
But this was released, as you say, here in 2011, secretly recorded video, maybe accidentally recorded video.
I think they try to turn the camera off, but maybe accidentally hit the button twice or something and leave it running.
So he thinks the camera is off and he's visiting in the living room of some settlers on the West Bank.
Correct?
Right.
That's that's the setup.
And again, as you say, this was 2001 that this this tape was made.
And he says, quote, I know what America is.
America is a thing you can move very easily.
Move it in the right direction.
They won't get in our way.
Unquote.
So it's, you know, the leader of Israel basically speaking candidly that he knows that the United States can be moved.
And so, you know, it's just a statement, too, is the one the part you left out is the one that gets me the worst is 80 percent of them.
And I don't know about those numbers today, but 80 percent of them, the American people support us.
It's absurd.
That's it.
Absurd, says the prime minister when describing how easy it is to control what the American people think about him and his government.
Well, and I guess he was out of power at that time, but still.
Right.
Well, I would I would contest the numbers.
I don't have numbers from 2001.
You know, a lot of people take the favorability ranking.
And again, I point to Gallup, which does these periodic surveys of favorability.
Again, we don't want to get into this, but I question some of their the way they feel this.
But, you know, favorability rankings for Israel, Palestine and Iran.
And consistently, Americans do feel favorably toward Israel.
But when you start asking them follow up questions like about foreign aid and most Americans think foreign aid is much more than it is and generally don't favor it.
But once you start asking questions about, you know, spending issues and priority issues, then they're not so favorable.
And then they tend to say that, no, it's too much.
So, you know, one of the functions, early functions in this country, when the Israel lobby was starting to be set up, was to do public opinion polling and release favorable results.
And that's never stopped.
So you've got the Israel project, which does a lot of I don't know where they conduct their polls.
They don't even say, but a lot of polling always showing that Americans always support the incursions into Gaza, the military actions.
The American Jewish Committee is constantly releasing polls about American favorability and actually sort of weaponized poll saying this in that country is it harbors views about Israel that are damaging because they're fundamentally anti-Semitic and this sort of thing.
So polling polls can be a weapon.
But, you know, if you conduct what I would call neutrally, you know, sort of neutral language polls, such as the one we just talked about, what do you believe to be true?
And you even offer an open question like if you don't like either of these responses, fill in your own.
I think you get more accurate results.
I think when you go through a list of countries and you put Israel next to Iran, which it's going to be that way because of alphabetical order, you're going to get an impact because people are bombarded with negative information about Iran.
And then Israel, of course, they're going to feel favorable just because of the order of the question.
So I think that conducting polls where you ask one question and then aggregate a set and talk about what the methodology was, you get radically different responses.
But getting back to the original question, I think Netanyahu was probably very confident and his confidence lies in the ability of all of these hundreds and hundreds of organizations to move America in Israel's favor.
That's what he was talking about.
That's what I believe he was talking about, as opposed to any sort of inherent or a priori American favorability towards Israel.
First of all, Americans don't think much about foreign policy and foreign affairs in general.
And when you ask them again, they don't support the aid.
Right.
Now, I want to make sure and give you enough time to get a little bit further through this.
I think it's very important the way you show, for example, the discrepancy on issues like the Iran nuclear deal and the occupation and just support for Israel anyway between American Jews and the groups that claim to represent American Jews.
Because, boy, is there a discrepancy there.
There is a discrepancy.
And I think the most recent battle over the Iran nuclear deal really brought a lot of those out.
I mean, if you go back into history and I do in some in some research, you see that, again, there was this sort of gradual transformation of some of the oldest organizations like B'nai B'rith, which was formed to welcome in Jewish immigrants.
And help them assimilate, educate them, make sure they had proper hospitals, education opportunities, cultural opportunities and all of this.
The transformation of some of these older organizations into basically organizations involved heavily in lobbying.
It's very interesting because originally many of them oppose the idea of a Jewish state.
And so, you know, look, drilling down into some of these organizations that have been around forever, like B'nai B'rith or the American Jewish Committee.
First, you know, they formed and then they began to have a bigger impact on foreign policy, in particular, opposing Russia.
But if you look at this latest deal, which brought a lot of this out into the open, you had the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, which was formed, you know, back at the beginning of the last century.
The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, which tries to sort of consolidate and coordinate the top Israel affinity organizations.
They were all against the deal.
And so, in portions of the news media and from these organizations themselves, they try to portray that as the reflection of American public opinion from those of us who happen to be Jewish, as opposed to just their own policy, tightly coordinated with the Israeli government.
But yet, when you look at the polls, general support in the United States for the deal was 53%.
If you look at the poll of Jewish Americans, it was 59%.
And so you can really see that this claim, this narrative, that any of these major organizations on this issue were at all representative of American Jewish support or non-support for the deal were wrong.
And now that's varied over time.
I believe that the most recent polls, some of them indicate that overall support has been declining, and I would expect that general polls and maybe even that community might have changed.
But there is in no way any accuracy to say that in this particular lobbying initiative, major battle, that these organizations which get a lot of cachet and a lot of credit for being representative bodies, particularly in headlines, no indication that they were following any sort of grassroots or membership-based policy.
They were simply taking their cue from the Israeli government.
Right.
Well, and the thing about that one is, too, is there was such scaremongering over that deal.
And it seems like the liberalism and, I hate to say, but possibly the Democratic Party loyalty of American Jews helped to override all the scaremongering about how horrible this was going to be for Israel.
But, I mean, you have to admit, there was not really much in the way of very detailed and informed arguments in the media, especially on TV, for the deal.
It was all, you know, glittering generalities one way or the other and not much explanation as to, you know, just how expanded the inspections are going to be now and this kind of thing.
So to still have American Jews better on average than whatever other ethnic groups you poll on this issue in that way, that's really something.
Same thing for the Iraq War, too.
I think maybe a majority of American Jews supported it, but they're the first ones to turn on it.
I mean, when you poll by ethnic group, which is kind of a silly way to do it anyway, but they turn on it very quickly, you know.
Well, going back to the point you made, and I believe, you know, Gareth Porter has done more work on this than anybody, revealing that the whole Iran nuclear scare was fundamentally had no basis.
And yet the American media, the starting point continues to be that there was and is a major nuclear weapons development program in Iran.
And so that's the starting point.
And if you start at that point and keep repeating the words Iran nuclear weapons, pretty soon, subliminally, even if you never say it, you know, just like if even if you never say Iraq has nuclear weapons, if you keep putting those words together, chemical weapons, Iraq, blah, blah, blah.
And in that case, there's more over it.
But you keep putting those words together, Americans are going to subliminally come to believe that there is, in fact, a major program.
And as I cited in that presentation, 58.4% in 2014, at the end of 2014, when all of this is really coming to a head, 58.5% of Americans believed that Iran had nuclear weapons at that point.
And so you could pretty much tell them anything.
And they would believe even if you didn't talk about delivery systems or whatever, as long as they believe that Iran already had nuclear weapons.
And of course, you know, leaders like Netanyahu have always been saying that they're either months or years away from that.
And organizations on the ground here in DC, in particular, such as the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington, hammered this, hammered it, hammered it, hammered it.
Always Iran nuclear weapons rallies, blah, blah, blah.
There is absolutely no question and no reason to believe that Americans didn't believe the hype.
And yet it wasn't true.
And I would argue this propaganda effort, we pay for it because we're giving all of these organizations the ability to do all of this with a huge tax subsidy.
And I would at some point like to get to the issue about some of the activities these organizations have engaged in that were illegal, yet they were never investigated.
I think there's a real misperception about these organizations, again, being grassroots organizations or having the right to continue doing these sorts of things when they have engaged and there have been credible investigations of foreign agency and criminal behavior.
I think it's not helpful to not understand these issues and then simply say, well, this is just a group of Americans.
Americans, apple pie.
It's a special interest lobby.
I would argue, no, it's not.
It really isn't.
It is a very important point because as I was discussing with Danny McAdams on the show the other day, even Walton Mearsheimer in the Israel lobby, they say, hey, this is the game of democracy.
If you don't like it, organize better or whatever it is.
But when we're talking about the power of the Israel lobby in the United States, we're talking about telephone trees and email lists and people who are dedicated to their issue.
Yeah, that's right.
We're going to remember your name and we're going to support your primary opponent next time.
But that's life.
What's wrong with that?
Yeah, that's all fine.
Telephone trees are great.
Primaries are great.
What's not great is, again, if you're going after a major trade concession, I'm not going to call it a free trade deal because it wasn't.
It was a managed trade deal which provided a subsidy to Israel and the top lobbying organization, with the help of a foreign national, in this case Israeli Minister of Economics, Dan Halpern, actually steal classified information provided by American corporations and industry interest groups and deliver it both to Israel and AIPAC to fight the deal.
There should have been espionage prosecutions.
And looking at the file that was compiled by the FBI, there clearly were grounds for criminal prosecutions.
And yet, not only was the trade deal passed, but the investigation was shut down by the Justice Department.
And I go into this in the books, obviously.
You can go into case after case, whether they're foreign agent registration orders against AIPAC's parent, which clearly applied to AIPAC, against the Zionist Organization of America, which also had two executives, three executives involved in the NUMEC diversion.
Whether it is recent examples, like United Against Nuclear Iran, going after a Greek shipper and holding classified information that they were using to target him, even though he was seemingly innocent, and the Justice Department shuts down his defamation suit because that improperly held classified information might be leaked to the public.
That's not American as apple pie.
That is an insidious set of activities where, if it were any other country, if it were any other group that was not as enfranchised, there would be criminal prosecutions.
And yet, you see the Justice Department, decade after decade after decade, folding, not doing its job, appearing as the small captured group beholden to political concerns that it is, destroying these cases out the window, and yet rigorously prosecuting the very same statutory violations when it's other disenfranchised groups.
So I don't accept this idea that this is as American as apple pie.
We haven't even gotten into the issue that this is a foreign country that we're talking about.
And I don't buy the idea that because in the open there are these rather mundane political activities taking place and free speech activities taking place, I don't believe that absolves the very serious violations that these groups engage in.
Right.
Okay.
Now, I hate to change the subject from the criminality, but I've got two very important issues that I still want you to tackle for us here today, Grant.
And the first one is, as you talk about in your article, is this iron triangle of right-wing, not necessarily all dual citizens, but for intents and purposes, basically Americans slash Israelis who are very rich and very right-wing.
And a lot of times, I guess, like in the case of Adelson, they're a lot more American than Israeli, and in a sense you could argue that the poor Israelis, it's the Americans who keep foisting the Likud party on them.
And Adelson, he subsidizes the biggest newspaper that is distributed free in Israel, and he donates all this money to the Likud party to help Netanyahu and his people maintain their control on power.
And so, as much as we complain about the tail wagging the dog, maybe it's the American tail wagging the Israeli dog, too.
I think that's absolutely right.
I think that every bit as much as the U.S. should and did and could have its own Foreign Agent Registration Act of 1938, it's insane for any country to allow so much outside influence in its own internal affairs.
Internal politics, because as you correctly state, this dog can start wagging a very big, very well-funded tail.
I would quibble a little bit with the characterization of all of this as being on the right or Republican or conservative or whatever you want to call it side when, of course, you've chronicled this from other people on your show, that Haim Saban is an extremely big player, managed to insert Martin Indyk, former AIPAC Director of Research, into Brookings at a moment when he could make a real difference in trying to show sort of – Well, I was thinking in terms of Israel.
Does Haim Saban and the other kind of more like what we would consider Democrats in the United States, are they behind the Labor Party in Israel making sure that the Labor Party stays good and right nationalist on all foreign policy issues, too?
Yeah, I really don't know.
I think it's clear – Sure wouldn't surprise me.
It's clear what you say.
I mean it is Sheldon Adelson who owns these newspapers and is, again, funding Likud, so there's no question about that.
I just – and yeah, you have to – that's the evidence.
We can go with his major impact.
His impact is on both sides of the ocean, whether it's Republican Jewish caucus or whether it's funding ZOA, funding AIPAC until they had a falling out with them.
He's actually sued some of these Israel affinity organizations because they weren't doing what they said they would do with his money.
But yeah, clearly, clearly the cash that sloshes from this country into Israeli politics and into their media is something that many Israelis have talked about as being an extremely unfortunate, damaging, moving toward extremism, that sort of thing.
I, of course, focus more on what's happening in the United States, but I think it's an extremely important point.
Yeah.
Well, we have – it was just I think pretty recently where they had the big – the fundraiser which is, I guess, what, half evangelical Christians turn out or more and everybody donates tax-free directly to the IDF.
Right.
Those giant rallies.
The Israeli army, everybody.
They provide support services that would otherwise be provided by the Israeli government.
The Israeli government would have to build recreation centers on air bases.
They would have to provide extra funding for all of these what look to be nonlethal, but when you put it into a foreign military, obviously they're offsetting some costs.
Just like I would argue the massive flows of U.S. tax-exempt donations into the Wiseman Institute for Science.
There's no question that that was supporting the Israeli nuclear weapons development program whether it went in directly or indirectly offset their other costs.
So money being fungible, these things have a huge impact and it's very, very curious because you have speakers such as Sheldon Adelson at these giant confabs in Hollywood and New York saying that they regret that they wore U.S. Army uniform instead.
They should have – and they hope – he hopes his sons will become snipers in the IDF.
So there's this real glamorization and I think it is now becoming visible in obviously some of these statistics of Americans who are fighting in the IDF increasingly rotated to the front lines so they become casualties.
It's a wonderful propaganda boon to say that Americans fighting these evil Palestinians were killed in action in the latest Gaza incursion.
And so I think there's a real propaganda slash other issue there in terms of Americans fighting.
But again, the U.S. government won't do anything about it.
Even when Michael Oren was a ranking officer in the Israeli military and holding U.S. citizenship, you didn't see any giant move in the U.S. State Department to enforce laws about pledging and becoming an officer in a foreign army.
These things are simply not done.
We claim to be a nation of a rule of laws except there's this big asterisk when it comes to things involving Israel where we don't enforce laws prohibiting Americans from becoming officers in foreign armies.
So big issue there.
Friends of the IDF, yes, there is Christian evangelical Zionist support.
I argue, however, and argued at the press club, that if you really peel back the layers, that whole evangelical and Israel lobby and Israel alliance is on very shaky foundations since there is this dispensationalist basis for it.
And I also argue that KUFI, which everyone thinks is gigantic, it was really set up with the help of some key Israel affinity organization donors who provided Convio for their fundraising or providing support so that they could have Burson Marsteller organize their confabs at the Washington Convention Center.
So they've received a lot of subsidization in order to be able to launch their organization.
But they've gone dark since then.
The International Fellowship of Christians and Jews is a very important organization in terms of subsidizing various Israeli organizations.
They had 2012 revenue of $113 million.
A lot of it raised in these small sort of $300 increments, help a Ukrainian family relocate to Israel, that sort of thing.
Very much emotionally driven to help people move to Israel and that sort of thing.
I've got to interrupt here.
Give me 45 seconds or something, one minute on your new lawsuit, please.
Yeah, so the new lawsuit is against the Central Intelligence Agency.
It's based on Obama's appeal to Americans at American universities and students to support the Iran nuclear deal.
But he said something very interesting in his speech.
He said basically that U.S. is providing unprecedented levels of military and intelligence aid to Israel.
And if that's true and he didn't adjust for inflation, that means that we're providing $1.9 billion in intelligence aid.
And so we've sued the Central Intelligence Agency for the top line budget number so that we can understand the classified portion of taxpayer dollars flowing to Israel in addition to the unclassified.
Awesome.
I've got to stop you right there.
I've got to do this other show.
It's Israelsinfluence.org for all the video and everything like that from the great conference.
And you can read the PDF file of Grant's great PowerPoint there and everything like that.
The book is Divert.
The website is irmep.org, the Institute for Research Middle Eastern Policy.
Thank you so much, Grant.
Thanks, Scott.
Hey, I'm Scott Horton here for Liberty.me, the great libertarian social network.
They've got all the social media bells and whistles.
Plus, you get your own publishing site and there are classes, shows, books and resources of all kinds.
And I host two shows on Liberty.me.
Eye on the Empire with Liberty.me's Chief Liberty Officer Jeffrey Tucker every other Tuesday.
And The Future of 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.
ScottHorton.
Liberty.me.
Be free.
Liberty.me.
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.
Hey, y'all.
Scott Horton here for WallStreetWindow.com.
Mike Swanson knows his stuff.
He made a killing running his own hedge fund and always gets out of the stock market before the government generated bubbles pop.
Which is, by the way, what he's doing right now.
Selling all his stocks and betting on gold and commodities.
Sign up at WallStreetWindow.com and get real-time updates from Mike on all his market moves.
It's hard to know how to protect your savings and earn a good return in an economy like this.
Mike Swanson can help.
Follow along on paper and see for yourself.
WallStreetWindow.com.
Thanks for watching.