12/08/16 – Daniel McAdams – The Scott Horton Show

Hey y'all, Scott here for Ryguys T-shirts.
Ryguys, that's W-R-Y-guys dot com.
Great, irreverent, thought-provoking T-shirts upholding a pro-freedom perspective.
Inspired by such classic humorists as Mark Twain, H.L. Mencken, and Oscar Wilde, they invoke the wit and wisdom of the past to satirize modern myths.
These high-quality shirts for men and women look good and feel good, and they make great gifts.
Use the coupon code SCOTT for 15% off.
Ryguys T-shirts at Ryguys dot com.
That's W-R-Y-guys dot com.
All right, y'all, this is Scott Horton's show.
Check out the archives at scotthorton.org.
4,000 and something interviews going back to 2003 there for you.
And also, the big new thing at libertarianinstitute.org.
It's me, Sheldon Richman, Will Grigg, and Jared LaBelle.
We're the new Libertarian Institute.
It's our first big fundraiser.
So if you guys want to help support, check out libertarianinstitute.org slash support.
And now introducing our friend Daniel McAdams.
He is formerly was Ron Paul's foreign policy advisor for many years in his congressional office there.
And now he is the co-host with Dr. Paul of their daily TV show, The Liberty Report.
And he also is the director of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, which is the second greatest libertarian institute in the world.
Welcome back to the show.
How you doing, Dan?
Hi, Scott.
Thanks for having me on.
Very happy to have you here.
And I do hope all you people, especially those deep pockets, will help support the Ron Paul Institute, too.
Absolutely.
It's end of the year.
Write it off on your taxes.
Donate to your libertarians.
You love and need time, everybody.
So that goes for Dan as well as this side of the microphone here, too.
And for example, here's the reason.
This essay, Rebels Lose Aleppo, for the Syria war.
That's my question to you, Dan.
Well, I think it is very significant.
You know, there was such a dramatic move this week where, you know, I think some 85 percent of rebel held eastern Aleppo was was liberated.
Of course, Washington would say it fell.
But whatever the case, it's back in the hands of of government forces.
And I think that really is the the breaking of the back.
However, as State Department spokesman Elizabeth, is her name Elizabeth Judeau, said, the war is not over, which is an ominous sound, because that means Washington is not going to give up.
Yeah, that does.
That is.
It could be taken either way.
I didn't hear the way she said it.
But yeah, either she's lamenting that.
Yeah, unfortunately, the war is not over yet.
Or she's saying, yeah, you just wait till us and the Turks and the Saudis and the Qataris double and triple down again.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Because we had the same conversation three or four years ago.
Right.
Hey, look, Dan, the rebels have got their ass kicked right out of Homs.
Apparently the war is over.
And you're going, yeah, yeah.
Hold your horses, Scott Horton, because the Saudis aren't done.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And how many hundreds of thousands are dead between then and now?
Yeah.
For nothing.
You know, it's just.
Well, I think when the I hope someday when history is written, if there is a real history, the magnitude of this inhuman move by U.S. foreign policy from really 2005, when when they when the first WikiLeaks cable showed us what what Damascus, U.S. embassy in Damascus was up to until now to show what a dark chapter this is in U.S. history.
Right.
Yeah.
And, you know, I mean, it's got to sound really weird to people, especially libertarian listeners to this show that government forces moving into a city and kicking all the rebels out of it would be considered a liberation by really anyone.
But these things are relative, aren't they?
They are.
And, you know, this is the this is the bifurcation, you know, the the Manichean view, you know, that we've we've been saddled with forever.
You know, Scott, oh, if you don't want to invade Iraq, you're you're you're Saddam's puppet.
Oh, if you don't want to go to war with Russia over Ukraine, then you're Putin's poodle.
You know, and it's just it's just insane.
I've never heard you say a positive word about Assad.
I'm certainly not a fan of any foreign government.
But the fact of the matter is the U.S. and its allies, as you pointed out, created these monsters.
And, you know, for us who are interested in U.S. foreign policy, the defeat of this project is is a good thing.
All right, so let's go back to 2005 then.
You know, I was going to try to think of a good Homer Simpson paraphrase.
You know, the Simpsons had gone completely to hell.
Crystal Pepsi had been taken off the shelves.
Seinfeld was merely in syndication.
George W. Bush had been reelected.
Fallujah had been attacked again.
What what was important?
What changed?
What was the thinking in in the George W. Bush administration in 2005, Dan?
Well, it was strange because that was around the time, you know, I was I was on the on the Hill.
And it was it was actually even shortly after that, that the U.S.-Syria relations, you know, of course, right after 9-11, U.S.-Syria relations were pretty good, you know, maybe too good because we've heard reports that the U.S. sent people to Syria to have them tortured.
So that's how good they were.
Yeah, including innocent men.
Yeah, exactly.
And I'm laughing.
It's not funny.
But, you know, unfortunately, Assad didn't learn the lesson that it's much more dangerous to be an ally of the U.S. than to be an enemy of the U.S.
So he thought he thought he was making brownie points by doing all this.
But in fact, you know, they were laying the groundwork for regime change in Syria because, you know, we see from this cable in 2005 from from a political officer at the U.S.
Embassy in Damascus back to Washington, which essentially was a blueprint for how to overthrow the Syrian government.
And it was interesting at the time I was on the Hill and I was actually invited with a number of other congressional staffers to meet with some people in the Syrian embassy to chat with them because they actually were very positive.
They were looking forward to better relations with the U.S.
They thought things were on the right track.
And it wasn't very long after this that for some reason they they they really they literally did not get the you know what hit the fan.
And all of a sudden they had to be overthrown.
So it just shows that Washington foreign policy can turn on a dime, leaving people who thought they were improving relations scratching their heads.
Yeah.
Well, you know, I'm beating a dead horse here, but it seems like nobody else ever talks about it in this context.
So I guess that's my part of the division of labor here or whatever.
It's to remind everybody that the Iraq war didn't work out like it was supposed to, where the Shia just are completely compliant and appoint Chalabi to be their ruler and then pressure the Iranians and the Syrians and everyone else to live like the new Iraqi Democrats or whatever it was that Paul Wolfowitz had fantasized.
And that by 2005, 2006, this was right when they were giving up and saying, oops, it didn't work.
We actually just fought a war for Iran's interests.
We imported their revolution to Iraq rather than exporting some Iraqi revolution to Iran.
And so now it's time for the Sunni turn.
And that was Zalmay Khalilzad and a guy named Biddle.
I don't know if he's directly related to the guy from the Second Bank of the United States or not.
But a guy named Biddle wrote a thing for Foreign Affairs about it.
And then, as you say, you have this the WikiLeaks that indicate this kind of thing and the very famous Seymour Hersh article.
Well, should be very famous Seymour Hersh article, the redirection.
Oops, we screwed up.
We fought a war for the Ayatollah and we gave him half of Iraq.
So now to make up for that, we're going to try to take Syria away from him.
We can't start the Iraq war all over again.
We'll have to, quote, unquote, finish that.
But at the same time, we'll take our consolation prize and we'll try to turn on Iranian interests in, as Hersh wrote it, in Lebanon, in Syria, and including working with the Israelis to back Jandala terrorists inside Iran as well.
Yeah, and it almost makes you wonder if it goes back to the horrific, duplicitous U.S. foreign policy toward Iraq and Iran in the 80s, where you support one side until the other side's almost dead, and then you flip your support to the other side.
It really is sort of a murderous thing.
And I wonder if this is just another chapter of that approach.
Let's just get them to all kill each other.
You know, Allah is something.
Yeah, well, and there are plenty of indications, actually, certainly from the Israelis, but from the Americans, too, that actually keep them fighting.
So, you know, I think they kind of decided pretty early on, what, 2012 or 13, maybe, that, OK, maybe we don't really want to get rid of Assad.
Maybe Horton and McAdams are right that we're going to end up having a black flag flying over Damascus.
So maybe we don't want to go quite that far.
But let's just make sure that neither side can ever win or ever really lose.
And as the Israeli military strategist put it on the front page of the New York Times, let both sides continue to hemorrhage to death.
Yeah.
What a cynical way to view the world.
You know, it's just, you know, it's the religion of war.
It's an infectious disease.
And it's unfortunate because these are real lives.
And we've seen, you know, I've seen footage over the past few days of people returning to their homes in Aleppo.
And, you know, some of them are Christians.
You see them putting up their Christmas decorations.
Others are just happy to be home.
I mean, how can you deny that, you know, that the fall of these horrible rebels is a good thing?
All right.
Now, so there's so many different angles we've got to catch up with here.
First of all, Tulsi Gabbard, the Democrat representative and I believe combat veteran, certainly Army veteran, Democrat member of the House of Representatives from Hawaii.
She has introduced a bill to stop arming terrorists act where she goes right after Jabhat al-Nusra, Arar al-Sham, which is another basically a group founded by original al-Qaeda members and friends of Osama.
Pretty much, you know, hard to differentiate from al-Nusra there and their partners in war.
And, you know, I'm not exactly sure the angle on the Islamic State if she's talking about, you know, American allies or what.
But any support for any jihadist groups would now be banned by this resolution.
And I don't know, man, I'm thinking we need to get some bingo cards going and figure out how to make a fun game of keeping track of which congressmen and senators oppose this thing.
And then once it passes anyway, I think it'll have to pass with a name like that.
Then we'll see, you know, how it's applied and who fights over it.
And does it count for the Bata Brigade or only for the Sunni militias or what's the deal?
Yeah, but, you know, I think, you know, it's a it's a great move.
I mean, I we can do nothing but applaud her.
She's been very brave on this.
She's she stood up to the establishment.
I mean, she even went to talk to Trump.
So that says a lot.
But but, you know, what the what the other side will say is, oh, we never intended to send weapons to al-Qaeda and al-Sham and all these guys.
It was only to go to our moderates.
You know, it's only because you haven't effectively funded our moderates that ended up in the hands of these bad guys.
So, you know, this is what they've said all along.
So the intent is probably not there to fund these.
But I think that's a symbolic move.
It certainly will allow her to go down to the floor.
And I see the co-sponsors are not only Barbara Lee and Peter Welch, who would be expected, but also Dana Rohrabacher and Thomas Massey.
You know, two Republicans who have a more nuanced view of foreign policy.
So I think that's a good, positive, positive start.
Well, and, you know, Rohrabacher's name on there.
He is currently under consideration.
They have not, you know, debunked this or, you know, leaked that it's no longer the case.
He is, you know, at least supposedly under consideration currently to be the new secretary of state.
So for him to do this must mean that he thinks that Trump wanted him to do this or certainly wouldn't mind if he did this, because he's not trying to jeopardize a chance to be the secretary of state.
Right.
Yeah, no, I think from from what I hear, he has certainly entertained that idea.
And it's not something that he would turn down.
I think he's quite a dark horse in the race.
But looking at the people who who are also being named, you know, it's it's it's hard to say that he's the worst.
On the contrary.
And and he has been very outspoken.
I was rewatching a great clip where he took U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Samantha Power, out to the woodshed for some of the garbage she was trying to say in the Foreign Affairs Committee.
So this is not, you know, and I've Dr. Paul and I've worked alongside Rohrabacher for a number of years.
He is not a shrinking violet by any stretch of the imagination.
Yeah.
And he's no Dr. Paul either.
He's not.
He's not.
But he's certainly not a neocon, which is a plus.
Hey, I'll 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 the 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.
Yeah, that's certainly true.
I mean, I guess if anything, I think of him as just unreliable and unpredictable.
I'm not sure what he's going to say.
I know he knows a lot about Afghanistan, but I don't know whether that means he's going to come up with a brand new plan for how to really win the war there after all, or whether he's going to say, let's just go ahead and go, which I think is his current position.
Well, I know he used to drink a lot of Red Bull in the morning, so maybe it depends on how many Red Bulls he has.
Yeah, we've got to figure out the social psychology of Dana Rohrabacher and how to keep him good on the things he's good on.
I like hearing him say, oh, come on, the Soviet Union's gone, man, let's get along with Russia.
And then he says, because we need them to help us fight China.
And I go, oh, God.
Okay, so now, yeah, the Gabbard-Rohrabacher thing.
I think, you know, at the very least, Dan, there's going to be a debate about this.
This is going to have to go somewhere.
You know, I haven't read the language of the thing.
I guess the language needs to say, and or any group who ever had large numbers or, you know, some numbers of defectors who left that moderate group to go fight with Nusra or al-Sham or ISIS or any group that has, you know, substantially shared the battlefield with them or has been shown to have shared weapons with them that they've gotten from us or our allies.
And then that way you can be a little more encompassing to the different little sub-militias who, for the most part, I mean, as Patrick Coburn says, these are sort of the guys that al-Nusra sends to talk to the Westerners to get our guns and money.
They're basically the arms procurement branch of al-Qaeda is all they are anyway.
So, but yeah, I guess it's all just in the language of how the thing's written.
And I don't know.
I mean, it may be that broad already, actually.
Yeah.
I mean, I think it's from what I'm reading now, it looks like it's modeled after the Boland amendments, you know, that was geared toward stopping USAID to the Contras back in Nicaragua in the 80s.
So, you know, it's not a bad idea to look back to history, you know, for these things.
Well, then I guess we know what happens next, right?
CIA drug dealing probably in Afghanistan in order to pay for it all anyway.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
But it's the one good.
I'm just looking at some of the some of the some of the points that are made on it.
It makes it illegal for the U.S. government to provide assistance to any nation that is given or continues to give such assistance to terrorists.
And now we know very well that some of these Gulf states have openly supported al-Nusra Front and the others.
So that might that might become interesting if that if it passes in that sense.
Yeah.
All right.
Now, let me ask you about this here.
I'm sure you saw an article or two in The Washington Post that came out after the election that said that now italics and underlined now Obama has decided there's a counterterrorism mission in Syria and that the al-Nusra Front is nothing but al-Qaeda.
And if not the entire rank and file, at least their leadership must be decimated because there are al-Qaeda enemies who are determined to attack the West.
And Gareth and I were speculating whether Obama did this to try to block Hillary or whether he only did it after it was clear that Trump won.
And then he was, you know, like basically preparing to hand off the baton either way to whether you want to if you want to fight if it's Hillary and you want to continue to to work against Assad, leave that avenue open.
But then once she lost, then he said, all right, let's go ahead and and redirect against the al-Qaeda again back toward Assad and and send JSOC after the al-Nusra Front.
But then so the obvious dog that didn't bark type of a question raised sort of a thing in the article is what about the CIA?
Because, you know, of course, it's special forces who are actually doing the training and that kind of thing.
But the project is a CIA project to back these rebels.
So, you know, to simplify it, The Washington Post story saying Obama orders top tier special forces to target CIA terrorists.
But did they talk with CIA about that first?
Or do you do you have any indication of whether maybe that part of the program has finally been called off then?
Yeah, I mean, we had a moment of optimism when when Obama made that announcement that maybe he'd realize this has all been a terrible mistake.
But unfortunately, I think that moment passed very quickly.
You know, there have been many there have been many circumstances over the course of U.S. involvement in Syria, many instances of Pentagon sponsored troops fighting CIA sponsored troops.
And it's almost like the old spy versus spy in Mad Magazine cartoons.
It's it would be comical, if not so tragic.
But you're absolutely right.
What does this say about the CIA's ongoing mission to train people?
And they have not been as discerning as the Pentagon.
And that's an understatement, I think, of the year.
So what what does it mean for that?
I'm afraid what it means is what we've seen yesterday, which is a new White House memorandum that Barack Obama issued lifting the export restrictions on military assistance to to the rebels in Syria.
You know, I wonder about that, because I kind of think that it's the opposite of that.
I mean, I'm really not sure it's written so vague.
I don't really know.
But and and I don't mean to assume the best of the Democrats or anything.
Don't get me wrong.
But it sort of says that this is because of our counterterrorism mission in Syria.
We need to do this to I don't know, maybe arm Shiite groups to fight against the Sunni groups now that it's the great stab in the back.
Maybe they're really going for it.
And this is an attempt to help Hezbollah and the bottom brigade finish on this rough.
Yeah, but I think they're lying because they've lied from the beginning.
Remember, the Corazon group, more dangerous than Al Qaeda.
The whole reason that the U.S. went in was a phony counterterrorism mission.
You know, so I have no doubt that they're lying again, I'm afraid, based on their track record.
Yeah.
Well, man, if only we could be flies on the wall in the Trump transition and all of this going on now with the different factions.
I mean, here are the two things on foreign policy obviously wants to have some kind of trade war with China or whatever.
But for all of his blah, blah, this or that about NATO, he clearly never meant to really shake up NATO or get us out of NATO or kick anyone out of NATO or really do anything about NATO.
He doesn't want to completely redo the post-war world order like all the neocons are crying.
But he did seem to be pretty clear that I don't want regime change in Damascus and I don't want a problem with the Russians.
But so now the question is, is this tallest of alpha dog presidents going to be able to get his way even on those two issues?
Or the CIA and the military are right now just reading him the facts of life and he's memorizing.
Yeah, I think.
And don't forget now the Senate has gone full frontal.
Senate Republicans have gone full frontal against Trump.
They're launching a number of investigations into how the Russians hacked our elections.
They've hacked the Drudge Report and Zero Hedge and the Ron Paul Institute.
They're hacking everything in sight.
And so the Senate Republicans led by Lindsey Graham and John McCain are starting a number of investigations against the Russians.
So this is one bright light in the Trump campaign that has been fairly consistent, which is we need to get along with Russia.
So he's not only going to have to fight the neocons.
He's also going to have to fight the U.S. Senate, I guess, his own people.
Well, and, you know, it makes sense in a very superficial way that since he can't hire the neocons, since they went to war against him and lost over the last year, that he's got to fill his staff with somebody.
That's not apparently going to be our friends from Cato and defense priorities.
And so he's got to go for a bunch of guys in uniform or former uniform guys, you know, bring in a bunch of generals.
And yet, as has been covered pretty thoroughly in the press recently, Mike Flynn and James Mattis, both army general and Marine Corps general, and apparently the Joint Chiefs of Staff don't for two possibly, but certainly the the the former two there have personal grudges, serious personal grudges against Iran, with Mattis blaming them still and upset still over the barracks bombing in 1983.
But both of them blaming Iran for the Saudi resistance in Iraq, the Shiite militia resistance in especially the year 2007.
And apparently both of them lost their own men.
You know, my men is how they call it in the military were killed fighting Saudis, which was a fight that Petraeus never should have picked in the first place since we were fighting that whole war for Mactada al-Sadr at the time.
But anyway, so these guys are like, you know, it'd be like if you mean we're in war and then the Iranians killed you.
Well, I got a grudge, man.
Dan was my friend.
But now that's why to not make me the secretary of defense.
Right.
Because I'm not seeing clearly on this issue.
But this is all Trump has left himself a people to pick from is people who, you know, not only just are military men full stop, but have a personal grudge with Iran, which is not necessarily Russia's ally, but in context, they are.
You know, they're the Russians are certainly backing the Shiite crescent against the American al-Qaeda Saudi axis of evil over there right now.
But so this is a big contradiction.
And, you know, I don't know, man, if if Donald Trump is, you know, if he thinks he knows what he's doing or if he already has some kind of agreement with these guys or or I don't know, man.
What do you think about Madison Flynn and their agendas versus, you know, the incoming newbie?
Well, I think the real tragedy is failing to draw the right conclusions from these two events that you point to that have led to them having such personal animus toward Iran.
Why did the Marines die in Lebanon?
Why?
Why did his why did their men die in Iraq?
Well, they died because they were in a place where they shouldn't have been.
That had nothing to do with U.S. national interest.
Now, if they were mad at anyone, they should be mad at President Reagan and President George W. Bush for putting their men in harm's way based on a lie which they knew was a lie at the time and putting them and putting them up for in such an untenable situation.
Why wouldn't they draw the right conclusion that it's interventionism itself that caused those men to die and the people that killed them?
This doesn't excuse.
It doesn't excuse what happened, but they were fighting on their own soil to expel an invading force.
You know, it's so it's it's disturbing that they can't draw the logical conclusion and come over to our side and be non interventionist.
Yeah, exactly.
Well, and, you know, I did kind of allude to it there, but it's really worth beating people over the head with, too, that the entire Iraq war, too, was fought for Muqtada al-Sadr and the Shiite alliance.
That was Skiri, Dawah and Sadr, those three legs on the stool.
And here America picked a fight with Sadr for no reason to try to diminish his influence inside the Shiite coalition, which didn't work.
All it did was get a whole bunch of people killed for half a year straight.
Thousands and thousands and thousands of people killed fighting in East Baghdad and in Najaf and for nothing.
Yeah, for nothing.
But, you know, there was a lot of money made by defense contractors in that war.
So there are a lot of there are a lot of mansions in the beltway that no doubt about that.
Well, yeah.
And when I say nothing, I mean really nothing like narrow down nothing inside a larger war for nothing.
You know, I mean, this is like they might as well have just had the army fighting the Marines out in the desert killing each other is how stupid this was.
You know, absolutely.
Just unbelievable.
And still they get away with pretending that, oh, yeah, you know, this is all on the up and up.
James Mattis says, oh, yeah, no, I was against the Iraq war.
Oh, you were?
Oh, that's funny.
I don't remember you resigning.
I think actually you were the guy that led the invasion of Iraq, right?
Oh, yeah.
That's some pretty good opposition there.
Tough guy.
Yeah.
Well, you know, it's interesting.
We did a show this past week on The Liberty Report about this and and just doing some research.
I was curious about how much you make as a with your pension as a four star and their their pension is about two hundred and thirty seven thousand dollars a year, which is a pretty good chunk of change.
You know, I mean, I think even if you resigned, you'd still be able to keep that money.
It's not like he's going to be on the street playing a guitar with an open case for change.
Well, then we know what he did instead, too, was he went to General Dynamics.
In fact, we should talk about how he got fired there, because I think that was important.
Everybody always cites these things.
I'm sure you've seen a million times, Dan, where they say, oh, yeah, Mattis, he's such a warrior monk, because check it out.
When it came to conflict with Iran, he kept saying, oh, yeah.
Then what?
Oh, yeah.
Then what?
I see that over and over again.
But the context was not in case of conflict with Iran.
The context was in case of getting along with Iran, in case of passing a nuclear deal with Iran and ending our beef with Iran.
Oh, yeah.
Then what would if they attack our ships in the Persian Gulf anyway?
Oh, yeah.
Then what would if they, you know, have Hezbollah kill our all our al Qaeda fighters in Syria?
Oh, yeah.
Then what at warning against peace?
Well, that's absolutely right.
That's absolutely right.
And this goes back to the animus that you talked about.
You know, he was he was so strongly against the Iran deal, which, you know, nobody can deny.
It's worked very well so far.
But he was so opposed to it that he became very vocal and almost to the point where he was challenging the president, his commander in chief.
And so he had to be let go.
Yep.
All right.
Well, listen, man, I've kept you over time here, but thank you very much, Dan.
I really appreciate it.
It's always great to talk to you.
Thank you, Scott.
It's great to be with you.
All right, y'all.
That is the great Dan McAdams.
He's over there with Ron Paul at the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.
It's Ron Paul Institute dot org and their great show, The Liberty Report.
Watch it daily.
You can find on the blog at antiwar dot com as well.
And we reprint everything Dan and Ron write at the Libertarian Institute as well.
Libertarian Institute dot org.
And it's our fun drive.
Libertarian Institute dot org slash support.
Thanks, everybody.
You hate government.
One of them libertarian types.
Maybe you just can't stand the president.
Gun grabbers are warmongers.
Me, too.
That's why I invented Liberty Stickers dot 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.
Liberty Stickers dot 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.
Liberty Stickers dot com.
Everyone else's stickers suck.
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 Scott Horton dot org, we'll make a donation to support the Scott Horton Show.
Liberty Classroom.
The history and economics they didn't teach you.