06/03/16 – Peter Van Buren – The Scott Horton Show

Hey y'all, check out the audiobook of Lew Rockwell's Fascism vs.
Capitalism, narrated by me, Scott Horton, at audible.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 statist enemies, profiles our greatest libertarian heroes, and prescribes the path forward in the battle against Leviathan.
Fascism vs.
Capitalism by Lew Rockwell for audiobook.
Find it at Audible, Amazon, iTunes, or just click in the right margin on my website at scotthorton.org.
Hey y'all, Scott Horton Show, I'm him.
Check out the archives at scotthorton.org.
More than 4,000 interviews now, going back to 2003.scotthorton.org.
Sign up for the podcast feed there.
And follow me on Twitter, at scotthortonshow.
And I'm sorry, I've been falling behind on the number of interviews here, guys.
Really, the election has taken everyone's interest away from foreign policy, so there's less to interview about, unfortunately.
And I've just had a hard time really arranging them.
And plus, I'm really busy trying to write this book.
I'm working on chapter two.
I'm making progress, but yeah, it's kind of a pain.
But anyway, I'm still here, and I'm still doing interviews.
Like, listen to this one.
All right, y'all, introducing Peter Van Buren.
He used to be with the State Department for a long time, and then he quit as a whistleblower.
Wrote the book, We Meant Well.
And also, Ghosts of Tom Joad, he writes at wementwell.com.
And we rerun a lot of it on the blog and in article format as well at antiwar.com.
Welcome back to the show, Peter.
How are you doing?
Pleasure to be back with you, Scott, always.
Very happy to have you here.
So we should talk about the wars and stuff sometimes.
But anyway, I want to talk about the e-mails again with you here.
You're about the best guy I've got on it, because you used to work at the State Department.
You really know this stuff backwards and forwards.
I think I'll start off our interview without a question, but just complaining that the scandal is called the e-mail scandal.
And what a terrible name for a scandal, because e-mails are boring and stupid, and everybody e-mails things back and forth.
And what's so scandalous about e-mails?
It doesn't tell you what the problem is in the title at all.
And then I guess there's kind of a discrepancy, too, about what really is the problem.
Is it that she was trying to hide this stuff in the first place?
Or is it that there was a satellite photo of a North Korean nuclear weapons facility on there?
Or just what is the dang deal anyway, Peter?
So the floor is yours, sir, to straighten this out here.
Thank you.
Talking about titles, I'm just so glad that the media hasn't really focused on adding gate to the end of everything.
We can at least be happy about that.
Yeah, yeah.
So be happy for what you get these days.
Maybe we need a new name for it.
What is it?
What's the crux of this thing?
And then let's come up with a new title for this.
Are we allowed to curse on your show?
I forgot.
Yeah, go ahead.
I'll bleep it out.
It's too bad.
So Hillary Clinton's bullshit would be my nomination.
But let's change it.
Hillary Clinton's complicated bull.
The thing about the email problem, the email situation at State Department Hillary Clinton is that it's being mischaracterized by the Clinton people in particular and very much picked up by, I'm afraid, both political sides of the spectrum.
It's being presented largely to the public as some kind of legal slash technical thing.
The legality part comes at us wrongly from both directions.
First, on the conservative side, we're being told, at least the conservative commentators are just hoping, hoping, hoping that there's going to be a legitimate indictment and actual criminality coming out of this, which would obviously doom Clinton's campaign.
And they're focused very much on criminality there.
On the Democratic side, on the liberal side, they're focused on criminality because they don't think an indictment is going to happen.
And by setting the bar at criminality, whatever does come out of this will be less severe.
And while criminality is certainly an element of all this, the media on both ends of the spectrum miss that what this is really, really about is judgment, about decision making, about the kind of leader that Hillary Clinton was at the State Department and therefore is reasonable to say will be as president.
If we focus on leadership and judgment, then I think the whole thing becomes clearer and a lot of this technical legal stuff becomes details that support the conclusion that she has very poor judgment and is not a very good leader.
Okay, so let me just, just to get the criminality aspect out of the way then.
The problem, I think you've explained on the show before, anybody else at the State Department did what she did, they would be held criminally liable, right?
So you're just saying that there's no point in really focusing on the criminality aspect other than just for illustrative purposes, because we know she's Hillary Clinton.
We know the law doesn't apply to her.
We know that there's zero percent chance that she would be actually indicted and prosecuted for this.
Exactly, and so setting the bar at criminality is foolish for both sides because I cannot imagine, even in my most wishful thinking, that the Obama Department of Justice will indict the presumptive Democratic nominee.
I just want to make sure the audience is clear of your point, that you're not saying, oh come on, it's not that it's criminal, it's just that I don't like it.
You're saying, oh yeah, it's criminal, but it's just that you understand that that level of law could never be applied to someone like her in this country, and therefore there are other points that also really need emphasizing too.
Thank you for saying what I meant to say much clearer.
I got you.
I just want to make sure that people understand, because as you said, the way you characterized the Democrats' position on this I think is really apt here, that if she's not going to be indicted, then it's no big deal at all.
It's a great way to frame it from their point of view.
It's kind of like a rich white guy with great lawyers can murder his wife on TV, and he's not going to go to jail.
So think of it that way.
Anyway, the point here is that let's look at what the State Department Inspector General report said last week, and let's look at what we know has happened and apply that against the question of, does this person have the judgment and leadership skills to be the President of the United States?
The State Department Inspector General report, and I want to emphasize that this is a dispassionate set of facts.
These are not arguments, speculations.
This is not crazy right-wing guy on talk radio saying something versus crazy left-wing guy on talk radio saying a different thing.
These are facts that were uncovered through an investigation.
If you read the full report, which I have, it's all footnoted.
It's all marked clearly how they came to these factual understandings.
The Inspector General that did the report was appointed by Obama.
This is not a right-wing conspiracy, da-da-da-da-da.
Anybody who hasn't read the report should just shut the hell up in commenting about it.
I have read the report, and what the report says is that Hillary never sought any kind of approval for her email system.
What she did was violation of the State Department regulations in place at the time that she did it.
Hillary Clinton was proclamating information throughout the State Department telling her underlings not to do what she did.
Hillary Clinton violated the Federal Records Acts that covered her by not creating proper federal records.
Those are facts.
Those are things that, in fact, approach criminality, though we're not going to talk about that word.
But more importantly, they talk about judgment, and we're not even getting into the classified side of it.
That's waiting for the FBI to announce, though I will be happy to touch on it.
She violated the Federal Records Act, just not a thing that you want your president to kind of walk into the office having done.
She never sought permission or advice on technical matters far beyond her personal ability to understand that.
That speaks to the quality of judgment and decision-making that she is capable of.
It just isn't the thing you want your president to be.
She violated the regulations of the organization she was leading.
Again, lead by example, lead from the front, well, that's not it, because at the same time, her office was pushing out memos and warnings to the entire State Department not to do what she was simultaneously doing.
People will say, and I've heard this from some of her defenders on the left, well, look, she's Secretary of State.
She's not supposed to know.
You'd be foolish to require her to know all the regulations, all the things like that.
True, absolutely true.
But that's why, as a leader, she had a responsibility to reach out to her very large organization and staff and say to them, here's what I want to do.
Does it work?
Does it make sense?
Does it fall within the regulations?
Is it a good idea security-wise?
Why shouldn't I do it?
Why should I do it?
How do I make sure that I'm covered and getting legal approvals?
No one expects the head of an organization, whether it's the head of General Motors or the President of the United States or Secretary of State, to know everything.
What you expect them to do is exercise excellent judgment, know what they don't know, and call for assistance and help when they need it and delegate things properly.
Hillary delegated, did not allow for oversight of her system.
She personally decided who had access to it and who didn't.
She personally cut off the entire State Department from interacting with her directly because the only people who knew her e-mail address were a small group that she handed it out to.
If anyone thinks that all adds up to good judgment and leadership skills, I guess they better vote for Hillary because they don't understand.
That's what this is really all about, separate from the issues of classification, which I'm happy to go back and talk about.
I saw a clip of the Morning Joe show where Chuck Todd, who to me kind of represents that point of view so buried in the numbers and the details that there's really not much kind of wisdom or perspective there or anything like that.
He's kind of the most reliably dim kind of mainstream media guy that I can think of.
I like that.
Reliably dim.
Yeah.
I mean, any given time you turn his show on, right?
You know, very interested in the number of Democrat voters in any given county, but no understanding of what any of it means.
But anyway, I saw him even saying, geez, you know, the thing that really gets me about this, guys, is that doesn't it seem like she did it in the first place in order to hide the e-mails away from everyone?
And that it really wasn't.
She says it was because of convenience, but I don't even like having to deal with the Wi-Fi in my house.
Isn't it convenient to have a server in your house if you're not your own computer genius?
And I thought, wow, you know, once you've lost Chuck Todd, you're in real trouble here.
You know, because isn't that the real point?
And isn't that the one that I guess may or may not.
I don't know what the IG report says about it, maybe outside of its purview, that the reason that she did this was to cover up in the first place to prevent, as you said, the American people, journalists, whoever, from having access to her e-mails, which we supposedly ostensibly own.
I mean, that's clearly what everyone says is the reason why she did it.
The IG report doesn't really get into the why question.
It simply reports what happens.
However, one of the reasons they could not get into the question of why this was all done was because that Hillary refused to cooperate with the report.
She made sure that none of her senior staff cooperated with the report.
And because her IT administrator, who ran this whole thing, pleaded the Fifth Amendment and refused to cooperate with the IG report.
This, again, gets into this question about judgment and leadership, because I think we all can go back and remember over the past year the number of times Hillary has claimed that she's willing to cooperate and is cooperating with investigations, that she wants this all to be brought into the public so they can see she did nothing wrong.
And, in fact, she didn't cooperate.
And she made sure that other people around her did not cooperate.
And that level of lying, and, boy, that's a strong word to use, you know, lying.
There's a lot of nicer words to use or less vague or less precise, but she lied.
She absolutely lied.
She lied when she said that what she did was approved.
It wasn't.
The State Department IG report makes that clear.
She lied when she said that she was going to be transparent about all this and that she was going to cooperate.
She lied about these things.
That's a real big one, I think, too.
That one didn't get as much play on TV as I thought it should have.
And because I think we only found that out from the report, right?
We didn't know that already, that she had refused to even talk to them.
That's correct.
And, again, it's important to keep circling back to the underlying fact that this is all facts, that we're past now speculating or wondering or leaking or anonymous sourcing or anything like that.
For the very first time since this first story was first broken in March of last year, we now have an independent set of facts in front of us that you can't just not agree with, that you can't just say, well, it's a theory or who can trust, you know, Alex Jones reporting this or Scott Horton or anybody else.
We're past that now.
These are facts from a dispassionate, independent investigator who states his case, who makes it clear how he came to acquire this information, who he talked to, who he didn't talk to.
And there they are.
And the fact that the media, Chuck Todd included, is not focusing on that and still presenting this like it's a football game, well, Team Clinton says this, but the IG's report says that, is really beyond the pale to me.
It's just something that makes me absolutely nauseous to see that our media is not standing in front of her with this report in their hand, reading things out loud and saying, you know, Madam, on June 27th, 2015, you said this.
However, the IG report says the complete opposite and says that, and here's why they came to that understanding.
Can you please explain that?
No.
I mean, no one's doing that.
Absolutely no one is doing that.
Right.
Well, at least on that clip of morning Joe that I saw, Mika Brzezinski looked like she was going to cry.
It was from the next morning after it came out.
And she said, she was like, I don't know what to do.
I think I'm going to, the word, it's about to come out of my mouth.
I can't help it.
It was a lie when she said this or that.
And it was like she couldn't believe it.
Hillary, her hero, would say something that wasn't true, and yet I'm trying to come up with excuses and I'm drawing a blank.
You know, it was really kind of funny to see.
And that's it.
There are no excuses.
I mean, actually, Hillary has offered many, many excuses.
She said, I want the convenience of carrying only a single device, but there's plenty of pictures of her using her BlackBerry as well as an iPad, as well as a regular cell phone.
So the convenience argument falls away.
She's down now to arguing, well, everybody does it or did it.
And she has said all the other secretaries of state before her did this.
And even that is a lie.
Hillary's report makes it extremely black and white that Condoleezza Rice never used e-mail.
Now, that's its own issue.
But for Hillary to claim that all previous secretaries of state used private e-mail is absolutely, again, factually incorrect.
And she's read the report, or certainly her staff and speechwriters have read the report, so why lie about that?
In addition, Colin Powell sent out a limited number of e-mails on his personal account way back in the dark ages of the Internet when, you know, AOL was the sort of standard of these things.
He did not run a private server.
He did not shield himself from the Freedom of Information Act.
He did not do this for four years and cover it up until someone finally exposed him.
Madeleine Albright says she may have sent a handful of e-mails, and that's about it.
And so, you know, it's just simply, it's like saying that, you know, son of Sam and I are both killers, right?
He was a mass murderer who killed dad, and I stepped on an aunt yesterday.
So, yeah, technically speaking, I guess we're both killers, but that's both correct and irrelevant.
And so for Hillary to go back now and her only, only excuse that she's got left is everybody did it.
I mean, that's what six-year-olds say, right?
That's what teenagers say when they're caught smoking.
Mom, everybody does it.
Well, and she's the one running for president, not Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice either.
And she's the one who's put herself in front of the American people and said, please judge me.
If Madeleine Albright or Colin Powell was in front of us running for president and therefore saying, please judge me, well, then, you know, we'll talk about what they did.
But again, to use a teenager's caught smoking in the bathroom excuse, once again, go back to those key words, judgment and leadership.
All right.
Now, here's something that is not talked about nearly enough, I don't think.
Maybe this should be the name of the scandal, the missing 30,000 emails that Scott Horton does not believe were private emails.
Oh, now, Scott, I mean, first of all, what a cynical, cynical view of this.
Gosh, I mean, lighten up, bud.
But yeah, OK, what about that?
First of all, those 30,000 are not all that's missing.
Keep in mind that we have absolutely no nothing from Hillary's first two and a half months in office where she claimed she was using yet another server.
This one run off of her old Senate office.
Now, how long ago was she in the Senate?
I don't know.
And she claims none of those emails from her first two and a half months in office exist anywhere on Earth that she didn't delete them.
They just disappeared somewhere.
Someone deleted them or whatever.
So we have no information on her first two and a half months.
Then you raise a critical point in that Hillary says that she deleted 30,000 some emails that she claims were quote unquote personal.
She did that with no oversight, no backup, no check, no one looking over.
It actually was her lawyer who made the decisions, her lawyer's shoulder.
And saying that one of the reasons we have federal records acts is that so that independent researchers and journalists and others can go back and look at what was said and done.
And in fact, sort through what is and isn't business and personal and all those those other things.
I'm sure if we could pull out some of those emails, some of them, of course, I agree with you.
I made a joke about cynicism, you know, are like, you know, so-called smoking guns.
I mean, they just wanted to get rid of them.
But I'm sure there's also a lot of them that had a combination of personal and business in them that Hillary just said, well, it's personal.
You know, hey, I'm going to yoga class at 10 o'clock.
And after that, I need to schedule that call with Netanyahu to discuss more cluster bombs.
And that Hillary's people simply said, boom, personal email deleted.
Right.
The whole point is what are our magic words today?
Leadership and judgment.
If that's the kind of person you want leading the country, you really, really need to rethink that.
Yeah.
Well, and, you know, that's not some far fetched hypothetical either.
Cluster bombs for Netanyahu to use on civilians.
That is exactly the kind of thing that she's covering up in there.
And again, the question of is that the person you want leading your country?
Is that the kind of person who makes those kinds of decisions?
But now they say that they've got those emails.
They were backed up on the cloud by some server company, whatever.
And or I think I even read the FBI went in and read her disk and said, yeah, nice try deleting these emails.
But we've got them all.
Didn't they leak that, that they have them all?
There's been a lot of rumors, stories, whatever's about that.
But I don't know that anyone has actually come out and said publicly, yes, they're in someone's possession.
But as we all know, stuff that electronic stuff is very, very hard to really get rid of.
For example, in my State Department career, same place Hillary used to work, because she didn't bother to ask the right people, I guess, we would do destruction drills.
This is what the idea would be that if the embassy was being overrun by bad guys, how do we get rid of the most sensitive materials?
And with anything electronic, the plan was to drill holes in the hard drives or the electronic devices, physically drill holes in them, and then to the extent possible, bash them with sledgehammers.
I mean, literally physically destroy them and scatter the parts.
I mean, that is the level you need to go to in order to really get rid of something.
I suspect, and this is simply pure conjecture on my part, that one of the things about this IT administrator, Brian Pagliano, he's the one that has been given both immunity from prosecution and taken his right against self-incrimination in a lot of these investigations.
I suspect he knows what happened there.
And he knows where these backups are, should they actually exist.
Every sysadmin admin that I've known loves backups and always has another one out there someplace, because that's their job, right?
Everything goes belly up and somebody calls and says, gosh darn it, get our systems back online, and the sysadmin's job is to get them back online.
So they tend to be sort of anally retentive people who always have a backup of the backup.
It would be fun to kind of page through those 30,000 emails and have an independent oversight authority look at them and determine if any of them were work-related.
At that point, you're looking at destruction of evidence as well as perjury charges.
Well, and it's just guaranteed that there's all kinds of stuff in there about Libya and Syria and God knows what.
So here's the thing.
The real question is, so what happens?
What comes next?
This and that.
I guess at some point, the Justice Department has to decide that they're not doing anything.
And then at that point, we just hope that enough angry FBI pigs leak to Judge Napolitano all the things that they wish had been in the indictment, and then we see what happens politically, basically.
I suspect that that's basically what will happen.
The only thing I'll tweak on your prediction is I think that Obama will throw a bone out there and that some low-level person will be slapped on the wrist in some way.
I think Obama doesn't want to go down in the history books as saying, hey, you know, gosh, all this smoke, but absolutely nothing really happened here.
Thanks for playing.
I think they'll pull somebody, and this guy Brian Pagliano is a great, he'll make a great patsy because he's already been granted immunity, so they can charge him with a million things, right up to crimes against humanity, and nothing can be really done there.
And he's kept his mouth shut with the Fifth Amendment, so that's that.
I want to see a Saturday Night Massacre.
I want to see a bunch of people saying, damn it, if the law was the law, she'd be under indictment right now, I quit.
But I guess there's no honor at the DOJ.
There's no honor, but more importantly, the key part of the Saturday Night Massacre was that you had special prosecutors appointed who worked semi-independently of the Department of Justice.
Obama has refused to appoint a special prosecutor in this case, and instead handed it over to the rank-and-file, including his own political appointee at the head of the Justice Department.
So I predict, yeah, that you're going to see a patsy punished in some way.
I think the big debate between the Hillary camp and the Obama White House will be how high up that patsy needs to be to kind of keep both sides comfortable.
You can imagine the argument going on.
I think that someone in the FBI will leak parts of all this, because I think law enforcement tends to take crime as a crime.
And certainly I doubt Hillary has too many friends in the FBI.
The big variable in any of this, whatever happens, is timing.
Yeah, exactly.
And that's the killer here.
If it happens before the convention, that gives Bernie an extra shot.
If it happens after the convention, it has whatever effect it might have.
But as the nominee at that point, Hillary has a lot of stuff behind her.
If Obama really totally wimps out and holds it until after the election, well, at that point you might as well just call it a coup.
Yeah, I mean, I think you'd have some angry FBI agents leaking at that point if the higher-ups were just dragging it out and dragging it out for political reasons.
But that has to be the overriding factor in every bit of the conversation going on there is how it affects her run for the presidency in their timing of releasing it.
Absolutely.
You just can't not say that matters.
I mean, everybody in Washington is saying the official things, which is investigations take as long as they take.
And that's fine.
I mean, that's what you expect the director of the FBI or the attorney general to say at this point.
That's standard language for any investigation.
But we know realistically that the longer this is delayed, the more political the delay becomes.
The other thing that's interesting would be, and Trump has said it out loud, what we all know would be that if this report does take for some reason until after the election and Hillary wins, the Republicans are going to begin impeachment hearings about an hour after the inauguration.
And we'll see where that goes.
Hopefully they'll handle it better than they have the Benghazi hearings.
Yeah, well, not much chance of that.
I mean, to think of taking a scandal like the Libya war and reducing it all the way down to Benghazi and then even reducing that all the way down to did they blame it on a video or not, or God knows what, only the Republicans could be so horrible about something so horrible.
It was really shameful how badly they handled that.
And there was information in there that needed to be parsed out and needed to be discussed and needed to be independent of whether you think Hillary is the antichrist or not or whatever.
I mean, there was a lot going on in Libya and in Benghazi, and the Republicans had given themselves this very broad mandate and then, as you said, sort of wasted it on arguing about whether a video or talking points were blamed in the wrong way or whether people were manipulated.
Well, as long as I have the opportunity, I'll go ahead and bring it up again because I just think it's the most important thing in the world, the series, four or five-part series by Jeffrey Scott Shapiro and Kelly Riddell in The Washington Times.
Printer versions are actually okay for your browser.
Their website is a disaster, but the printer versions are good.
And they did a five-part series, four or five-part series in February of 2014.
No, 2015, about Libya and how they lied us into it and how they knew al-Qaeda were on the side of the rebels that we were backing all along and how the CIA and the DOD tried to stop her and she stopped them.
And they tried to negotiate after the war had started.
They were talking with Qaddafi's son, and she quashed that, trying to arrange an interview with Denis Kucinich because he plays a part in it as well.
There's a recorded phone call of him talking to Qaddafi's son, and Qaddafi's son is telling him the truth, and Kucinich is going, Oh, my God.
It's really something else, man.
I mean, if the Republicans would just read The Washington Times, is that asking so much?
But, of course, it was their war, too.
Yeah.
No, I think there's a lot.
And one of the things people should be paying attention to is, Hillary made her big foreign policy speech yesterday, and she just didn't talk about things like Libya.
It's kind of a big deal in that it gets, again, to her judgment and decision-making, and it gets to the idea that Libya is still going to be a big mess that the next president, whoever he or she is, is going to have to be dealing with.
And leaving that out of a major foreign policy speech, again, tells you much about it.
There's been articles online, and I haven't read both versions of her autobiography, I read most of the book when it first came out, the hardback edition, but there have been a lot of people online who have compared the hardback with the recently issued paperback, and it shows that she has deleted portions of her autobiography that dealt with Libya and Syria.
Really?
I knew that she had changed the part about Honduras, but I didn't know that she had changed the Libya-Syria stuff, too, huh?
And all they've said is the Hillary campaign said, well, the paperback edition had to be shorter than the hardback, so we clipped out some of these things.
Edited for space, you understand.
Wow, can you tell me off the top of your head where I can read about that?
I saw it maybe on Salon, maybe on Slater, or maybe on Vice, because I always look at those sites.
Yeah, I definitely got to look that up.
That sounds great.
It's a Google out there, but again, these are the questions.
Judgment, decision-making.
Is this the kind of person who we're going to trust with all the responsibilities of the presidency?
And please, let me just jump right ahead and say, don't give me this, well, if we don't vote for her, we're going to get Trump.
First of all, this election is not over.
Bernie Sanders is still running, and I'm hoping that Bernie is someone I can choose to vote for in November.
There are other third-party candidates, and there still remains the possibility, however slight, that Hillary won't be around and there may be, say, a Biden-Warren ticket out there.
I don't know.
But I believe voting is an act of conscience and that I need to make a decision that I can live with as opposed to voting, holding my nose and trying to pick the lesser of two evils.
And I simply cannot buy that the strongest argument to elect Hillary Clinton is she's not someone else.
Well, that's usually the way it goes.
Barack Obama had people fall in love with him and that kind of thing.
But the standard dynamic is Bush versus Gore, that I hate the Bush family more than I hate Clinton-Gore, or I hate Clinton-Gore more than I hate the Bush family.
I mean, that was the only arguments for either candidate in 2000.
What does that say about our democracy?
It sucks.
It's an empire.
It's corrupt.
Anyway, listen, man, I love talking with you, Peter.
You're great, and I'm sorry that we're out of time.
I've got to go, but I'd like to interview you again sometime about Hiroshima.
You've been writing a lot of great stuff about that.
Yes, I'd be happy to come back and talk about that.
There's important things to say.
Thanks again, Scott.
If nothing else, we'll do it in August.
Perfect.
Okay.
Hey, listen, man, thanks very much.
I appreciate it.
My pleasure.
Bye-bye.
All right, y'all.
That is Peter Van Buren, formerly with the State Department.
He wrote a book called We Meant Well, which is sarcastic, you know, and also A Ghost of Tom Joad.
Read his great blog at WeMeantWell.com, and we run pretty much all of it on the blog at AntiWar.com slash blog as well.
Thanks.
All right, y'all, sign up for the podcast feed at ScottHorton.org or check out the archives there and download them however you like.
Help support at ScottHorton.org slash donate, and follow me on Twitter at ScottHortonShow.
Thanks.
You hate government?
One of them libertarian types?
Maybe you just can't stand the president, gun grabbers, or warmongers.
Me too.
That's why I invented LibertyStickers.com.
Well, Rick owns it now, and I didn't make up all of them, but still.
If you're driving around and want to tell everyone else how wrong their politics are, there's only one place to go.
LibertyStickers.com has got your bumper covered.
Left, right, libertarian, empire, police, state, founders, quote, central banking.
Yes, bumper stickers about central banking.
Lots of them.
And, well, everything that matters.
LibertyStickers.com.
Everyone else's stickers suck.
This part of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by Audible.com.
And right now, if you go to AudibleTrial.com slash ScottHortonShow, you can get your first audio book for free.
Of course, I'm recommending Michael Swanson's book, The War State, The Cold War Origins of the Military Industrial Complex and the Power Elite.
Maybe you've already bought The War State in paperback, but you just can't find the time to read it.
Well, now you can listen while you're out marching around.
Get the free audio book of The War State by Michael Swanson, produced by Listen and Think Audio at AudibleTrial.com slash Scott Horton Show.