All right, y'all, welcome to the Scott Horton Show.
I am the Director of the Libertarian Institute, Editorial Director of Antiwar.com, author of the book Fool's Errand, Time to End the War in Afghanistan, and I've recorded more than 5,000 interviews going back to 2003, all of which are available at scotthorton.org.
You can also sign up for the podcast feed.
The full archive is also available at youtube.com slash scotthorton show.
All right, you guys, on the line, I've got Dan Gifford, and he is a gun rights activist, among other things, and produced the documentary Waco, the Rules of Engagement.
Of course, this subject is still important, and important again for various reasons, because of recent TV movies that have been made, and really comes up every April, and because there's so many important lessons and so much injustice outstanding on the issue.
So I'm very happy to have you here, Dan.
Welcome to the show.
Well, thank you.
And, you know, we're living deep into the future now.
This is a long time ago, almost 30 years ago now.
So there are a lot of people listening that this is just a story in history.
It's not something they lived through at all.
I was a teenager at the time, but paying close attention, of course.
But so a lot of people really might not know anything about it at all, except I guess it's safe to presume that people know it was an ATF raid on this Protestant sect, however you want to characterize them, on the outskirts of Waco, that went wrong, and led to a prolonged FBI siege, and then the fire at the end.
And at the time, the narrative was, it was all basically a Charles Manson, Jim Jones type cult, and it was all a mass suicide.
And if not, they deserved it anyway, but don't worry, it was.
And that was pretty much the end of that.
And yet the new narrative, which took a while to really take hold, but really I guess by the turn of the century, the new narrative was that actually that's really not right.
And it was Waco, the Rules of Engagement, and the sequel, Waco, A New Revelation, that really did the most to get people to understand the truth of what had really happened there.
So I guess first of all, it's kind of a side issue, but can I ask you about exactly what was your involvement with the second film there, A New Revelation?
I know Mike McNulty took part in both, and I've spoken to him back in the past.
He's dead now, of course.
And I know that there were some differences there, but I was kind of interested in that before we get into the story, if that's okay.
Well, you know, Mike was the main researcher.
In fact, he's the person who drew my attention to the situation at all, because I thought that official narrative that you mentioned was true, like everybody else.
That, by the way, is still the official narrative that people know and love and want to believe, even though it's totally not true.
And there's just...
I don't know what else you can do about that.
Once things are stuck in people's minds, that's it.
The film is online on YouTube and a number of other places.
The problem is, if you've read that piece that I wrote, that 15,000-word piece, it's on my website, about what really happened to Waco and how we got around the government's efforts to cover it up, is that that is just not a situation that can be undone.
Now, there's so many viewpoints on this.
Some people like the religion angle, the political angle, etc., but that film has been cut up so that what you will find on YouTube is not the original film, at least that I've seen.
It's been cut up to express various people's points of view.
Now, the problems you allude to that Mike and I had was that somewhere along the line, he started thinking, and this was put into his mind by some of the, what I call the ultra-religious types that we were covering things up, and so he decided he owned the film, and he took it and stole material and made his own version, and that is still out there.
At the time, you could not mention certain things and still have credibility.
One was Vince Foster.
Those people probably don't even remember who Vince Foster was, but he was Hillary Clinton's assistant, White House assistant, and was found dead.
The official narrative there is that he committed suicide, and there's all sorts of side things about the affair he had with Hillary, and he was upset about what went on at Waco.
Who knows?
What I'm convinced of is that the official story is probably not true, but to have mentioned his name at that time got the eyes rolling.
You would never have any credibility, so there were things like that that had to be kept out of the film, and so that was something he had a penis on, and we had a lawsuit, I had to go collect all these tapes that were out there, but they're still out there, and Mike did a good job, and in many respects, after we wrapped up the film, he miraculously got access to the evidence locker via Texas Rangers.
I don't know how he did that, but anyway, it just showed that a lot of the evidence that was shown in the trial of the Davidians was a lie, and that's really what describes the entire episode.
Everything that people have heard about what happened there and who the Davidians were and everything else is a lie.
The ATF, you mentioned the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, or Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, staged this raid initially as a publicity stunt, because you had a new administration coming in, the Clintons, who were promising more gun control, and when you are the ATF, that means to you more budgets, more people, more power, more prestige, all of that.
What they had hoped to do was do a big public relations splash with lots of people in handcuffs and lots of guns on the ground, you've seen this before, and scare the public and scare Congress into passing this extra legislation.
So it was about publicity from the get-go.
They had no business doing this, because there was nothing illegal going on at the time.
The stuff they put in their warrant to justify the raid was all a lie.
They claimed the Davidians were dealing drugs, which they weren't, and the reason they did that was- Wait, wait, slow down a second here, because I don't want to get in too big of a hurry, because I know there is so much to cover, but there's something I wanted to really elaborate on there, the all-important point, what you're saying about the so-called arsenal of weapons on the property here, that this was a gun business.
And the most important fact there that I know of, the most pertinent fact to all that, is that Paul Fata, who ran the gun business, that he left that morning, an hour or two before the attack, bright and early, 7 in the morning or whatever, with a dually pickup truck with a camper on it, and trailing a U-Haul camper, both full of rifles, full of rifles, hundreds of them, to go down to Austin, to what used to be the best building there at Sheridan in 290, where they had the Saxon Gun Show.
And he was just going down there to sell guns.
So he left the Davidians' property with something like above 90% of their weapons that morning, just to go do business, like any other Texan buys and sells guns.
Well, there, see, there, I'm a Texan, too, I used to live, my people were frontier people, some of the original settlers of Kerrville, and I had five Texas Rangers in the frontier division, you know, this was 1870s and all that.
So the people in the rest of the country find it difficult often to understand how guns are seen in Texas versus in New York City or in Vermont or some other place, very, very difficult.
But you know, that's an important point.
The Davidians had a number of side businesses.
One of them fixed cars, one of them did something else.
There was one that delivered mail, there was a number of them.
This was a side business, and what they would do is they'd notice that when the political talk about gun control started, that the price of guns went up.
And so they bought guns from a dealer in town, held them in inventory, and when the price went up, they did what you just mentioned, they went to the gun shows and sold them.
Perfectly legal, no problem, there was nothing untoward at all.
Now, that's, but you mentioned to most people in Washington or around the country that, hey, I got all these guns, that sounds like an armed camp, that sounds like insurrection, to pick the correctly popular word, going on.
Sounds like Jim Jones with guns, it's, and if it's misrepresented as it does get, and as it was, then that paints their perceptions.
So yeah, there were some talk that the Davidians had converted some of these to machine guns.
We found no evidence of that whatsoever.
There was a, supposedly a rifle found after the building burned that had been converted, but it was the ATF saying it, and the ATF agents in my presence and presence of others have bragged about how they can take any semi-automatic firearm, that's one where it fires one shot with each, or the trigger, into their lab, and they can work some magic on it, which is if much, put some WD-40 on it and cause it to fire twice with one pull of the trigger, and that qualifies it as a machine gun, and then they can arrest whoever was possession.
The ATF is an agency, I cannot understand for the life of me why it even exists anymore.
It got new life after the Gun Control Act of 1968, when it was going to be disbanded, because what it did then was just collect taxes on tobacco, and- And in fact, fully automatic rifles are legal in America if you pay the proper tax to the ATF, so ultimately the warrant was just over a tax.
Yeah, well, you could pay, there are only so many, there's a given quantity that are, and after 1986, that's when the inventory, if you will, was set, and you can buy any of those, assuming your local police and sheriff will let your O sign off on it, and that's perfectly legal.
Now, what you used to be able to do until 1986 was convert or buy new machine guns, which was something that one could do, God, going back into ever since we've had them, you've probably seen the ads, remember in the piece that I wrote from the time, you could just send some money off into a, there were these ads in comic books, literally, and you could buy guns and machine guns with no questions asked.
And we didn't, by the way, have mass shootings at that time, so something's clearly amiss besides the guns.
But that's, that is so easily misrepresented, and just, again, cinches in people's minds, and I hear this all the time, the, about the, why would anybody need a gun, why would anybody have these, yadda, yadda, yadda, but that's it, it was a business.
Well, and in this case, the answer was that essentially the Branch Davidians are an infantry force.
What other purpose would they have for all those guns if they weren't planning to do something horrible with them?
Which, they never quite said they're gonna march on downtown Waco and kidnap the mayor and take over the town or something, but that was the implication, that, oh my God, these people have all these weapons, what might they do with them was sort of step one in the whole narrative of how dangerous they were.
Now, there you have it, that's the fantasy that was stroked, and that you would have read in, oh, the Dallas Morning News and all the rest of it, because they're sucking up to the ATF to have access and the FBI to have access, that's a problem within the, within the news business.
There was a reporter there named Lee Hancock who just was out there just bilking this stuff for all it was worth to put these scary things in the inner stories, and that paid right into what the FBI wanted.
But the whole thing was a publicity stunt.
A big part of this, too, which, well, yet you hear people talk about is that David Koresh was molesting underage girls.
Well, even if that were true, which the local sheriff said in the investigation it was not true, he was not doing that.
Those stories came from some nasty child custody battles that were going on, and one of the things most people remember who were of age at the time is a young girl named Carrie Jewell who testified in front of Congress that David Koresh did molest her, and she appeared there with her father.
Now, we spoke with her grandmother, and her grandmother insists that story was not true because the girl was with the grandmother at the time, and she said that the, this was part one of these nasty divorce things going on.
The father decided he didn't want to be a divinian anymore, and the mother did, and she died in the fire.
And so he was using the notoriety of appearing with his daughter to boost a showbiz career he wanted to get going at the time.
He was a disc jockey at some station up in Michigan.
So the grandmother did not want to appear on camera, she did not want her name used, but we talked about this in the film, and there was a congressman from California at the time who put her on knowing that her story was false, and it fits perfectly with something he had done prior.
Those with a memory go back to 1990, and there was a girl named, we called Nurse Naya, who gave testimony when we were getting ready to go to war with Saddam Hussein, who said she saw Iraqi soldiers come into her hospital and grab babies out of an incubator and throw them on the floor and stomp on them.
And it's right there in the piece that I wrote on DanGifford.com, and that was a complete lie, a complete setup.
It was a public relations scam by Hill and Milton, with the help of Tom Lantos, who was the congressman, knowing it was false, just to get the country incited, and it did.
Boy, shut up, those Iraqi soldiers who do that, we better go get the bastards.
And we did.
And this is also true of a lot of the testimony you see when people come in about various contentious subjects, is it's just flat not true, or it's a public relations scam, or it's put on there by congresspeople who are senators who know the story is not true.
In this case, the girl who said she was a nurse was the Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter.
She was 15 years old, and it was just a complete scam, but yet that sticks in people's minds.
That's the power of the image.
And you can't undo that stuff once it's out there.
Yep, and you know, it's such a powerful metaphor that you're making there, or analogy, in the way that they treated Iraq.
And to me, in fact, Iraq War II has, you know, really the closest example, or the closest kind of parallel to what happened at Waco, where the narrative was, we have this insane leader, so you can't negotiate with him.
And he's got these illegal weapons that are a danger to us all.
And he's bad to his own people, and so we've got to save them.
And so now we've got him surrounded, and we send in the Delta Force.
And essentially, it's the exact same script that they did to the Branch Davidians and to Iraq.
And as horrible as it is what they did to Iraq, in this case, what we're talking about is, they took this little parcel of land in northeast Waco, Texas, out on the prairie there, and they made it into a foreign nation.
An enemy state, led by a madman dictator, so damn insane.
David Koresh, he said he's Jesus.
And they built this whole narrative, like he just invaded Kuwait, you know, or whatever it was.
That was the level of demonization and othering of the Davidians that they did to those people at the time.
It was a propaganda campaign.
It blew me away.
It was more than what they did to Saddam in Iraq War I, and equivalent to what they did to Saddam in Iraq War II, I think.
Yeah.
Well, there's more to it here, as you have read, and that is racism.
Now, as you saw on there, I have a picture posted of the Good Old Boys Roundup, which was an event when the ATF agents would go back in the woods and drink whiskey and hand out honey licenses.
And that was something I was not ready to believe until I worked myself into a drinking group of some ATF agents in Washington and listened to them, and they were talking about David Koresh was miscegenating, if anybody remembers what that was.
The last case, I think, on Warren was Loving v.
Virginia, a Supreme Court case in 1960-61.
And all through the South, even in Texas, there were laws against mixing the races.
White people, that's why it's called the White Slavery Act, if a person takes a girl across the state line.
Of course, these laws go back to the 1920s, but you've got a bunch of people in the ATF who are bubbas, and they're used to chasing moonshiners, and they're from that culture, and they're not about to accept white guys having sex with black people.
But almost half the Davidians were black.
Right, but meanwhile, the narrative was, look at this guy, Koresh, with his mullet and his Trans-Am and his guns, and what a...
I don't know how often they really call them a racist, but it was certainly implied that they were all just a bunch of cletus, like John Yocles, rather than an international group of people who had come there.
That's right.
But that was a key part of the narrative, is they were all a bunch of ignorant rednecks who were out there praising Jesus and polishing their guns up and passing the ammo and God knows whatever else.
And it just flat wasn't true.
But again, it plays to a well-established narrative that we've had in popular culture for a very long time.
You've got Elmer Gantry, you've got Jim Jones, you've got the other camp-types and charlatans that go on, and what, in fact, the Branch Davidians were nothing more than an offshoot of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
So if you are okay with the Seventh-day Adventists, then you should be okay with the Davidians.
However theology works, they switched over.
But I thought, this is what has thrown me, I thought the revelation that I've been here, that half the Davidians were black, and that was one of the reasons for this raid would raise the ire and anger of people, but what it's shown me is that black lives, in fact, do not matter.
Only certain black lives matter.
Well, I don't know if anybody really found that out.
I don't think that ever really broke out into the public consciousness at all.
I think the only people who know that are people who've seen your movie.
No, it did not then, because I didn't put it in, but I have later, and it doesn't matter to people.
I am really surprised.
Well, it's clear in the first movie, there's footage in the first movie of the home videos that the Branch Davidians had taken of themselves being held hostage by the FBI.
That's true.
There are many black people there.
I don't know if it's explicitly addressed, but it's clear that there are many black people there, and I guess...
But that's the stunner.
With all the political blather that we're doing today about blacks, about whites killing blacks, white policemen killing blacks, it's a thing apart.
It doesn't matter.
And that's really, really been a surprise.
Yeah, you know, remember, famously, the Davidians held a sheet out the window of the three-story tower part of the house there that said, Rodney King, we understand.
Right?
Like, listen, we seem to be going through the same thing as you in a little bit different way here, if anybody wants to show some solidarity.
Now, I'm sorry, go back.
Would you talk a little bit more about the accusations that the Davidians had a drug lab?
Because we're not even at the raid yet.
We're going to talk about the raid in a second, but right now we're talking about the pile of lies used to demonize these people, and this is a particular one.
It played into the war and the form of the raid was the accusation that David Koresh was cooking meth.
Well, the important part about this is if you are a police agency and you say that you're going to go raid somebody or some group that has some drug connection, they're selling drugs or using drugs, whatever it is, you can get free military equipment.
That's tanks and other gear and training to go do the raid.
And if there is no drug connection and you want military gear, you have to pay for it.
So in this case, ATF says, well, these guys are doing just what you said, and so we want free military equipment.
They got tanks, they got training, they went to Fort Bragg, where I used to...
I'm sorry, Fort Hood, soon to be renamed, I'm sure.
So there they go.
But that's what they did, and it was a no-knock raid, which means...
And that's another factor we're getting to do with the bottom policing about whether police should be able to just kick in the door unannounced.
And like the Breonna Taylor situation in Louisville and so many others, been going on for a long time.
And so that was why they claimed they were doing drugs, but there was no drug connection whatsoever.
It's very much like a case out here.
We had...
I'm in Ventura County right now, which is next door to Los Angeles County.
Back about just shortly after the Davidian situation, there was a man who owns some property that Uncle Sam wanted to buy, but he didn't want to sell it.
And so, lo and behold, one day, a drug enforcement agency said he was helicoptering over the property and noticed the guy was growing marijuana plants on his property.
So then we have a huge combined agency raid on this guy one morning, where they storm into his house and shoot him to death, kill him.
And there's no marijuana plants, not even a seed or whatever else there is that goes on with marijuana.
Nothing.
He had nothing whatsoever to do.
Complete setup scam.
But when you put that out in the news, people say, oh, well, he was a drug dealer.
Sure.
So it takes... the lie is out there ahead of time.
And the way I remember, Dan, is this correct?
The way I remember it was they knew that they were lying.
What had happened was there had been a factional split among the Davidians where David Koresh's faction had kicked the previous guys out.
And in fact, the leader of the previous guys went to jail for murder.
And Koresh took over the place and called the local sheriff's department and had the hazmat team come and dismantle the drug lab and get rid of it.
Now that the old order was over and the new guys were in town and they knew, and that was years before, and they knew that he had called the sheriff to come and clean the mess up.
Yeah.
Yeah, that was true.
The guy was named, his last name was Roden.
And he was the son of the leader who split the Davidians off from the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
I should explain, as it was explained to me, that the Seventh-day Adventist Church and the Branch Davidians are a little different in that the Branch Davidians believe in a living prophet.
And this woman thought that God had spoken to her, and so she started the Branch on the side, very much like you have branches of Episcopalianism and Baptists and all the rest of them, and that her son was crazy.
And he was the guy you're talking about.
And some people who were around him, and he did kill somebody.
I think he used an axe to kill somebody and went to a loony bin.
So that's the story on that.
But it had nothing to do with Koresh and nothing to do with anybody around Koresh.
But even if it had, that's beyond the jurisdiction of the alcohol, tobacco, and firearms.
Just as even if the stories about child molestation had been true, which they were not, there's no jurisdiction that the alcohol, tobacco, and firearm people have over those alleged crimes.
And it was just used to throw gasoline on the allegations, and it flamed the public, and there you go.
And it works.
Okay, you guys, check it out.
The new book is finally done.
Enough already.
Time to end the war on terrorism.
It's available in paperback and Kindle.
Also, the audiobook is coming, although that might take a little while.
For all those who participated in the big fundraiser of 2019, I have the list, and you will be getting all your stuff as soon as my boxes of wholesale copies arrive.
Thank you so much to everybody for your support of the show and of the Libertarian Institute, and I hope you like the book.
Hey guys, Scott Horton here for expanddesigns.com.
Harley Abbott and his crew do an outstanding job designing, building, and maintaining my sites, and they'll do great work for you.
Need a new website?
Go to expanddesigns.com slash Scott and save 500 bucks.
Hey guys, check out Listen and Think audiobooks.
They're at listenandthink.com and, of course, on audible.com, and they feature my book, Fool's Errand, Time to End the War in Afghanistan, as well as brand new Out Inside Syria by our friend Reese Ehrlich, and a lot of other great books, mostly by libertarians there.
Reese might be one exception, but essentially they're all libertarian audiobooks, and here's how you can get a lifetime subscription to Listen and Think audiobooks.
Just donate $100 to The Scott Horton Show at scotthorton.org slash donate.
All right.
Now, before we talk about the actual ATF raid itself and what happened there on the first day of the whole crisis, can we talk a little bit more about the guns themselves, and especially I'm interested in the undercover informant, and I mean, it's almost a cliche now, right, that they could have got him at Walmart.
Why do they have to do this big raid in this way at all?
But they had, like, he was going shooting with federal agents that he knew were federal agents and told them, I know you guys are federal agents.
We're all friends here, right?
Like, they knew what kind of guns he had and what was going.
Can you get to the extent of that for us, please?
Yeah, that's exactly just what you said is exactly right.
There was a, they had an undercover guy.
Well, there were, it started off, there were some guys, ATF agents living next door in an empty house who were claiming to be students, and of course they were too old, and the Davidians weren't, they weren't stupid.
They didn't recognize what was going on.
One of them came to live in the Davidian house among them, and their reason, they said, well, we knew he was undercover, but we thought maybe he could turn to Jesus.
I mean, that's one of the, I mean, if you're in Texas, you know lots of people who were fundamental Christians, and that's one of the things that they're always doing is they're proselytizing.
They're out looking to save souls, and so, yeah, that's legit, and they went to target shooting with this guy, and just as you said, they knew who he was, and the way the, the way the firearms laws are, there were, there was a case where this guy let the Davidians shoot his gun, which I am told was actually illegal for civilians to possess.
Now, that's a, that's a quirk about the firearms laws, that they're so technical, that it's like the old Soviet Union, you know, show me the man, I'll find you the crime, and that's, so they clearly wanted a raid.
The reason they wanted a raid, a big splash, was it's a dick extender.
It makes them look tough.
It gets splash.
It gets top billing on all the news shows across the country.
Scares everybody, and say, oh my god, we've got to do something about religious, you know, nuts out in the middle of Texas someplace who have guns.
Well, and Al Gore was saying, remember, as part of the reinventing government program, hey, maybe we need to fold ATF under the Justice Department instead of Treasury, which would have completely neutered them and their independence and made them even littler of a brother to the FBI, right?
Well, what they need to do is get rid of the Bureau of Alcohol Defense and Firearms.
It serves no purpose.
It was about ready to go on the ash heap back in the 60s when the Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed, and because what do they do then?
They were the alcohol and tobacco gang.
They collected taxes on alcohol, chased moonshiners, and collected taxes on tobacco.
So when that law came about, somebody thought, well, why don't we put them in charge of enforcing the new federal gun control laws, which weren't much, and since then, there's been a movement toward a bigger mission.
You know, it's always expansion.
All these agencies, when you create them, think of them as life forms that want to survive.
They have their own instinct.
They want more money, more power, more personnel, more say in what's going on, and that's really what happened here.
It just grew up in a lot of the stuff that enabled the alcohol, tobacco, firearms people to...and now explosives.
That's another one that's been added on.
It was done by the people in charge to justify their existence, and that's all it is.
I don't think...
I can't think of any reason we need it.
I can't think of any reason, really, that we need federal firearms laws.
I mean, we have it, so there's a Second Amendment, but, you know, this is one of the things that this whole thing leads into, is if the Second Amendment isn't safe, then the First Amendment, as we have seen, is not safe either, with the woke, you know, culture coming in about who can say what, and the limiting of speech and the muzzling of things, and this is going to bleed over into the rights of due process, and I would say the rights of due process, by the way, if people are afraid of public safety, the rights of due process are the real threats to public safety, because they prevent the arrest and incarceration of bad people quite often, unless everything is done just so, you know, as it's...that is a case that is going to...
I had not found that we have too little of a police state here, but when we get to the raid here, the narrative is that the ATF pulled up, but unfortunately the Branch Davidians had prior knowledge and ambushed them.
I want people to hear two clips here.
First, this is just some audio.
It's from the film Waco, The Rules of Engagement, the sounds of the battle.
All right, so that's, you know, audio from the front yard.
Most of all of what you can hear there is them firing towards the house there, and then this is a separate audio of a guy named Wayne Martin, who immediately called 911.
All right, so I used to have, in fact, I do still have, I think, the cassette tape of that entire call.
And I guess the first thing that jumps out at me there, I mean, obviously there's no ambush happening here, that's ridiculous, but the other thing is, it's me, Wayne!
In other words, he's on a first-name basis with the sheriff himself who answered the phone in this small county jurisdiction.
That's who he's talking to.
Yeah, that's the...all the evidence we found was that the ATF showed up and just started shooting.
And that brings up a question that most people can't imagine.
What do you do when the police show up at your house and just start shooting and make it very plain that they intend to kill everybody, as the people in the building felt?
Or they're also firing from the helicopters, too, into a house that they know is full of children and women.
That's another way.
But that's what the situation was.
What do you do?
You call 911?
Yeah, they did.
The sheriff didn't know anything about the raid out there.
It was just a completely heinous, uncalled-for, inexcusable situation.
And the people who did it have still not been called to ask about this.
It just all led to what we'll get to, the premeditated murder by the FBI.
But that's exactly what went on.
Yeah.
All right, so let's hold that subject for one more, because it was a 51-day siege, right?
The FBI comes in and says, well, what happened was, you know, the devil himself took over this part of Texas, and so we've got to, you know, build up the thing.
As bad as the ATF said he was, he's 10 times worse than that.
And so in come the tanks and all the hostage rescue team, which are essentially paramilitary forces, special operations forces of the FBI.
Which are de facto military.
The thing people don't grasp is that the FBI hostage rescue team and the British SAS and the Delta Force and the French equivalents and the German equivalents are basically all one thing.
They all know each other, they all train together.
I had sources call me from Hereford, which is where the SAS trains, and that's their headquarters in England, and point out people who were on that hostage rescue team who were there for training.
So it's a very, you don't think of that, but it's all one thing.
All one unit.
All right, now, but so here's the thing, though.
In America, really, we're not at war, and we're not at holy war.
And so if you're accused and if you survive the initial assault, you're supposed to get a lawyer and go see a judge and get a trial and get a trial in the media and see what you can do.
You're not supposed to hold up for six weeks and say, God told me that I'm supposed to stay in here and screw you guys.
And so that's the narrative.
The most powerful part of the narrative from the other side, I guess, is that the fact that the Davidians, as they say, didn't just come out, meant that, well, something had to be done.
As the ladies at the grocery store where I worked, second groceries at my first job, said at the time, they just need to go in there and end it.
End it.
I'm sick of this.
And so that was what it was.
And they went in there and ended it.
But so can you address that?
What in the hell was going on with David Koresh and his people that they decided that instead of hiring Dick DeGaran, which they ended up doing, the baddest lawyer in Texas by far, right?
No problem.
Go ahead and stick your wrists out for cuffing.
Instead, they didn't.
Why not?
And what was the story there?
Well, let's take a look.
Let's go backtrack.
Was that really the thing to do?
Okay.
You've been attacked by the government who has lied to get a warrant, who has shown its intent to murder all the way through the situation.
And during the standoff, the guys, the hostage negotiators, the FBI, are arguing theology with you about how many angels can sit on the head of a pen and say, they're right.
You guys are wrong about the nature of God or Jesus.
So you've got theological arguments going on.
You've got the FBI, the guys in the tanks out there, exposing their genitals to the people in the building.
And there are lots of threats coming on the phone calls between the negotiators and the Davidians about, gee, do you have enough fire insurance?
All these little lignando about we're going to kill you.
Would you turn your kids over to them?
Dick Revis mentioned, and this is why I put him in the film, because he has such a great talent for reducing complex situations to just plain old West Texas good sense, is that these people thought they were living their religion, that this was apocalypse, these were the forces of evil out there, and that they were in Noah's Ark and they'd be safe.
And I think the thing that makes this so difficult for people to grasp who want somebody to go in, or the FBI to go in and just clean them out, is this public relations thing again.
Most people believe that the FBI agents are Ephraim Zimbalist Jr. in the FBI, or Jimmy Stewart, or a bunch of Boy Scouts with badges.
It's not.
This is a KGB it was turned into.
It has political ends.
It has aspirations, all sorts of things.
This is not what people think the FBI really is.
And if you doubt it, just look at the news stories about how often it lies about things.
Who is this Seth, I forget his last name, who was one of the Democratic operatives who was murdered in Washington and his laptop stolen.
The FBI said they didn't know where the laptop was.
Turns out they've had it all along.
Turns out they've had all kinds of things all along that they will not look into because of political situations.
And this is really a very, very touchy, dire subject.
People start thinking in terms of how we got into this and how you're going to get out of it.
The FBI needs to be massively clipped.
There's a cartoon I have on my website that's the guy putting up the FBI letters and he spells it F-I-B.
There's a lot of truth to that.
But they really don't know what they're doing and think that what the FBI does is okay just because it's the FBI.
And that's pretty much the case in case of a lot of police actions and especially the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.
Just thinking that these guys are on the side of righteousness when they are, in fact, not.
I'm glad you mentioned Dick J. Revis there.
He wrote the great book Ashes of Waco.
It's actually just been 18 years.
It's 5,500 interviews in 18 years and he was the second one from April 19, 2003.
It was Dick J. Revis about his book.
Yeah, and I spent a lot of time with him.
Dick's a good buddy of mine.
I made his acquaintance when we were, I think we showed the film in Austin at the film festival there.
He was from the San Antonio Express News, right?
I believe at one time, yeah.
He's written for a lot of places.
His parents used to run a newspaper in Abilene up in the Panhandles, I recall.
But he got a job teaching journalism at North Shore on the State, which is right next door to my hometown of Chapel Hill.
And so we had a good time showing him around and things.
But he's a good man.
I went out and talked to a lot of these people as well.
Frankly, I couldn't believe some of the stuff I was hearing about the way the agents were acting.
One of them I just loved was there was a motel in Waco where the ATF agents and the FBI guys were staying.
And the woman who cleaned the place said, well, they'd get into regular fights and some people, they were pointing guns at each other.
And she just had a great thing.
What police do I call?
You know, you've got federal agents and they were stoked to go in and kill.
Oh, yeah, they were completely militarized.
And as is shown in your movie, from their own footage of themselves that they took, that they were ready to attack.
And if you reread the piece I posted on my website.
I did.
I did read it.
Again, you saw the thing about the SAS.
Hey, y'all, let me tell you about the Libertarian Institute's latest book, What Social Animals Owe to Each Other, by our executive editor, the great Sheldon Richman.
For decades, Richman has been explaining libertarianism to the left from the left.
He makes a strong case that any honest liberal, progressive or leftist actually should be libertarians, since in fact, it is freedom itself that provides what y'all want.
Richman argues the case for liberty and peace, the human spirit and social cooperation, for true liberalism, libertarianism against the corrupt forces of statism, corporatism and violence.
What Social Animals Owe to Each Other by Sheldon Richman, now available at libertarianinstitute.org slash books.
Hey, guys, Scott Horton here from Mike Swanson's great book, The War State.
It's about the rise of the military industrial complex and the power elite after World War II, during the administrations of Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower and Jack Kennedy.
It's a very enlightening take on this definitive era on America's road to world empire.
The War State by Mike Swanson.
Find it in the right hand margin at scotthorton.org.
There's so much information here, everybody.
You gotta, if you haven't seen the movies, again, it's Waco, the Rules of Engagement, Waco, A New Revelation, and the third one, and I gather you weren't part of this, but it is still really important, The FLIR Project, all of which can be found on YouTube.
And we'll talk about The FLIR Project and the 99 cover up in a minute here.
But we got to talk about April 19th and the last day, the poison gas attack, and then the fire, the origins of it, and the narrative.
Of course, at the time, yeah, Jim Jones, poison Kool-Aid.
They, as Bill Clinton, I think, put it, a bunch of religious fanatics murdered themselves.
What else do you need to know?
This guy burned his own people to death, because that's the kind of guy he was.
But you say that's not so.
I couldn't find any evidence of automatic weapons, and I am suspect of any claims made by the ATF about that they were there, because they have bragged in my presence and others that they can fake it, which they can.
It's very easy to do.
And that's the way the laws are constructed.
That's makes it even easier.
One of the problems here I've found among the general population is that because we, so few in our number, have ever been in the military and handled weapons themselves, you can tell most people almost anything.
You can tell them a broomstick is a machine gun, and they'll believe it.
And the people who are involved in what we generally would call the gun control movement know that, and if you read their literature, they play on that.
They say, well, if something looks like a machine gun, well, people will think it is a machine gun.
Or if something looks like a hand grenade, they'll think it is a hand grenade, or whatever it is.
And that's smart in one sense, that you can, they're doing that, but it certainly is not bad for public policy.
Yeah.
All right.
So can you talk about what happened on April 19th, and the gas attack, and then leading to the fire?
The narrative at the time was it was a mass suicide.
But you don't agree with that?
No.
No, there's no evidence that, when you look at the real evidence, what happened, and the game plan, and this was alluded to days and days before about how much fire insurance you got.
You guys got enough fire insurance in there?
Was to put the chemical in, which was called CS.
It's a long chemical name, but it's not tear gas.
It's what's called a riot control agent, and it's highly irritating.
I've sniffed some of it going through the Edgewood Arsenal gas chamber four years before, back in the 60s.
And it's not deadly unless you burn it.
Now, when you set it afire, think of it like a talcum powder.
Very fine powder.
And it burns, and it produces hydrogen cyanide.
And so this was known.
And so what they did was they injected this stuff into the building, and then at one end, you'll see this in the film, one of the tanks tears off a corner on which a 30-knot wind is blowing.
And that's one of the reasons when the, what was his name, Jamar, I think was the FBI guy in charge there, said, why did you pick that day?
He said, the weather.
Well, that's the weather.
The wind is blowing, so you tear it off, and you light it up, and that's where you see the first flame is at that corner.
There have been all kinds of talk about, well, we heard David Koresh tell people to light up the place or pour the fuel.
I talked to one of the survivors just a couple of weeks ago about that, just to, again, sense that down.
And he said, nobody ever lit any fuel in there or poured any fuel, or people said all kinds of things.
Somebody had a cockamamie idea one time about throwing gasoline on the tanks when they came in, but then they realized that would be pretty stupid, so they didn't do it.
Right.
Yeah, that was my understanding, too, was they discussed, should we, essentially, should we make Molotov cocktails?
And then the answer was, no, let's not.
And then they didn't.
And that discussion from the wiretap, they admit, comes at like six o'clock in the morning or something, hours before the fire broke out.
It has no direct relevance.
Yeah, but again, it's a powerful thing to put out there and say, oh, yeah, well, we have it on tape and they're saying that, but so much of this stuff is just fakery.
So they've ejected the CS into the building, and the first place you see a flame on the FLIR, which is the forward-looking infrared which records heat, this is the government's own video tape taken from the aerial surveillance plane, is right at a corner where the tank comes in and tears off a corner and the wind that blows that stuff, that flame, right through the building.
It's just the fire chief, the former fire chief is on in the film also, and he points out how this is like same principle as a pot-bellied stove.
You know, you want it to burn hotter, you open up one side, you want it to burn cooler, you've got it down.
But this is what they did.
And it went right through there and just set the whole place on fire.
Devastating.
I had a discussion one time with Mike McNulty, and honestly, I'm not sure if this is in the interview or if this is just when I spoke to him on the phone.
I kind of think this is not in the interview.
But he was talking to me about how they were planning to do a Hollywood movie produced by him.
Like, in other words, to really get it right, not wrong, kind of thing.
But anyway, on this question, he told me that he thought, and I forget all the reasons why he thought this, but it wasn't just simplest explanation.
I think he, you know, there was a body found there and a rifle and whatever in the wreckage.
And what he thought was that there was a man in the room, I think he even named the man who he thought was there in that room, who he surmised fired a rifle at the tank and that the muzzle flash ignited it.
And that that would have been the initial cause of the fire there.
No, we found what it was was the pyrotechnics that the FBI claimed it did not have there that would actually start a fire.
Yeah, well, and he was the one who found them, right?
Yeah, and this is typical.
The FBI told the court these were silencers or something like that.
Now, anyone who's familiar with weapons would look at that and say, no, that's not a silencer.
That's not a bomb or something.
That's a grenade.
And that's what they did.
But they lied about that as well.
Now, Michael was not going to make the Hollywood movie.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
Just on that point real quick.
They did find and he showed where they had mislabeled them the silencers.
He found them in the evidence locker, correlated them.
And these were pyrotechnic CS gas rounds.
And they were found at all three apparent separate origins of the fire in the house.
Yeah.
So and you know what?
I really regret because I'm pretty sure that this was not part of my interview with him.
But it kind of one of the after conversations.
And I really wish I had the recording of what all he thought about that.
But I did get that from McNulty himself, which means something to me.
But for what it's worth, I don't think any of us really know exactly for sure what happened.
Well, I think the important thing is here is that we I think we established intent on the part of the FBI to burn the place down.
And they were so frustrated, so angry.
And so were the ATF people.
They wanted to blood.
They wanted retaliation.
And they got it.
Yeah.
And I think the idea was that the building itself was defense exhibit a look at all the incoming bullet rounds in the front of the house, in the front door and the roof that they had to get rid of that thing.
They knew that.
And I think that was part of them not coming out, too, was I think that's in the I forget if it's in the first or second movie where we hear the audio from the negotiator saying, well, the rules have changed and now nobody is allowed out of the house and anyone who does come out will be dealt with.
So now that was going on at the back of the building, which the news cameras couldn't see when the fire starts.
There are people who are trying to get out and you see the muzzle flashes from the government side into the building.
And when the S.A.S. guys told me over in London that they beat the clock, which means they were in combat at Waco and didn't get killed.
I have an explanation of what how to do, why that phrase is there.
Yeah, that was.
All right.
So thanks for mentioning that.
Listen, so let's talk about that.
First of all, we have the forward looking infrared, as you mentioned, from the FBI's own plane flying overhead.
We see all these flashes.
You can see the men get out of the back of the tanks and fire machine guns.
You can see the men at the sniper positions.
It's in both movies and especially in a new revelation.
It's higher quality footage and it's it has essentially elaborated analysis of the sniper positions and so forth and elaborated analysis by the experts.
But so can you please and to me, that's just open and shut.
Anybody look at that with your eyeballs.
There's your government killing people.
But now here's the part that's so important.
It's so important.
And it's a multipart question.
Is there any evidence?
And I'm not trying to cast the question in any light for or against.
Is there any reason to believe that any ATF agents were involved on the last day getting some revenge for the first day?
That's just one part of it.
But wait.
And then when it comes to Delta, because we know the hostage rescue team, the FBI hostage rescue team was it was they were in charge.
It was their their show.
But then so tell me everything that you can about the role and how you know all the sourcing on everything important to know about the role of the combat applications group there.
That's Delta.
And the especially the well, not just especially, but yeah, them to the British SAS, the Special Air Services and their role.
I know you just said you talked to these guys.
They told you themselves that they killed Branch Davidians.
No, they said they beat the clock.
But that's that means that they were in combat.
And that's 100% certain that that's what that means.
Did you do you remember what did you did you read that section I added in?
I read the article, but I'm just verifying for, you know, my own sake and the audience, too.
It's it's certain that that's what that means.
Beat the clock was they were in combat and didn't die.
They call it.
Well, it's called beat the clock because at Hereford, which was the headquarters of SAS in England, there is a large clock that sits on top of a plinth, you know, in support.
And when an SAS person is killed in combat, their name is inscribed on that plinth.
And so when they go into an engagement and come out alive, the phrase they use is they beat the clock.
So that means that they were in actual combat or fired their weapons in Waco, which is what they were when these guys came to the showing in London that was part of the Human Rights Watch lead film.
But you mentioned something earlier about the better quality clear that Michael got a hold of.
One of the things when you get involved in trying to find out criminality of the government or a large corporation is that they will bury you with information that you can't will take you years to go through.
Or in the case of the film, because what we had here with the clear the forward looking infrared that was a maybe a fifth generation, it was a copy of a copy of a copy and copy.
It was nowhere near as clear as what was shown during the Senate hearings and congressional hearings.
And apparently what Michael got a hold of on I've seen that and you can it's much, much better.
You can actually see the people in there and the muzzle flashes.
And if you've seen the CBS 60 minutes to did a piece about this where they took a British former army specialist and spotting IRA snipers from using that technology.
And he says, yes, you're right here.
This is not sunlight from Venus or whatever.
This is swamp gas.
These are people on the government side shooting into the building to prevent the civilians from getting out of the burning building.
There's no question whatsoever.
And that fits what the attitudes that I had, we were going to do a film, Hollywood version of this with Warner Brothers, as you remember there, and I was received a death threat to not go forward, which I thought was aimed at my kids.
And then the liaison between Walker, the production company we were working with at Warner Brothers one morning, she did not show up at a meeting and her body was found in her home in a closet with a bullet in the back of her head.
It's an unsolved murder since 1999.
Man, you know what?
Let me ask you this.
I'm so sorry about that.
But, um, and I don't know enough about that.
I only read that in your piece today for the first time.
Was there not a guy who was like an independent investigator working for the House of Representatives and now analyzing the footage who also was murdered in like 1999 or right?
There was a guy who guys last name started with a G. Yeah, he, I forget his name, but he, as I remember, he had a heart attack was the story in his lab and his door was locked to me.
Okay.
Everybody, we've had, uh, everybody we had look at this and agrees with what, what it was and what it shows.
And of course, one of the problems you run into with this is that when you're talking about, uh, government criminality, the people who are often experts in, uh, deciphering it are people whose jobs depend on government paychecks.
That's another problem.
Well, so we circumvented that with the man who invented the infrared technology who you see on the, on the screen.
And it's just, there's just no question about it.
And I, I've added that into the piece that's on my website about what really happened there.
Yep.
And it really, it is absolutely beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Forget a reasonable one.
It's beyond an unreasonable doubt.
When you look at that footage of what's going on there, uh, you can see now though, is that very few people care.
Yeah.
Well, it doesn't.
And we, when we're talking about the excesses of police, uh, and, uh, going out and enforcing picky laws, that's one of the problems that was at Waco.
If we had to, the drug laws, some of these things, these firearms laws, what, who cares?
I mean, it's just, uh, yeah.
Interracial dating.
Yeah.
Seriously.
These are victims of crimes, man.
What are you talking about?
That one's not even on the books anymore.
Haven't you heard that the court struck that down finally for God's sake.
But you know, you got guys out there that are still angry about that.
ATS still enforces it.
They don't care.
Uh, the judge made the law.
Let's see him enforce it.
Yeah.
We know.
Um, okay.
Well, uh, no.
So, uh, in, in the second movie, uh, McNulty puts, um, Stephen Barry, who's, I don't know if they say exactly if he was Delta, but they say a special operations commander, high level special operations commander there.
And, uh, Gene Cullen, who is a former CIA officer.
And both of them said that they were told by members of Delta force that yes, they had been, uh, in Cullen's words, in a firefight with the branch Davidians in the back of the house on the last day in, uh, Stephen Barry's words, pulling triggers.
And, but so what else?
And now, I mean, even Lee Hancock at the Dallas morning news will tell you that Delta was there, but then she'll say, I never said they did anything to anybody.
So I wonder, is there anything else that you can tell us about how we know that the combat applications group was actually there assisting or leading the hostage rescue team?
And also the, in anything else about the SAS, again, I think it's a matter of public record that they were there at least advising or, you know, hanging around barbecuing or whatever, but, um, actually helping to kill the branch Davidians.
Any other details that you can provide about how we can know that?
Well, I'm not going to get into anything that would, uh, allow somebody to triangulate into sources, but I've just mentioned when I was in London with the film, right in the front row, there were four fit young guys who, you know, they were obviously military and they were pissed off that the film was being shown.
Uh, but, uh, they were the ones who then said, we, we beat the clock there.
They were, they were, they were in the fight, the Delta force.
Uh, I've got, had, uh, resources in there.
And the reason I got sources is that there's a disagreement with the, the mission about some of these things, you know, we're not talking, at least I hope we're not talking about, uh, having, uh, murderers in uniform.
I mean, that's, that's the, that's the issue here is that, uh, we go back to the Nuremberg principle just because you have superior orders to do something.
Is it moral just because you're a cop and you have sworn to enforce all the laws and the legislature passes a law said that says round up all the Jews.
Do you go round up all the Jews?
Or is that beyond the pale of what you, uh, of the moral, uh, you know, what is legitimate?
And I think you have a lot of that at Waco.
One of the things that I found chilling was that at many of the showings, there was a guy that I mentioned in my piece there named, uh, Jeffries, I think, who said he was a former, uh, green beret special forces guy who showed up and pretty intimidating guy, obviously very tough guy.
And he would take the government side about, uh, how this just was a whole conspiracy theory and anybody who thought so.
And if you don't, you don't agree with me, I'll meet you in the parking lot, you know, some of that kind of stuff.
Uh, the, uh, the effort that was put into this and still is, uh, as of a year ago, at least I noticed, uh, is very, uh, very considerable.
Uh, the, the honey traps continue.
That's, uh, for people who don't know what that is.
That's when they good looking woman comes up and tells you how wonderful you are, tries to get you in bed.
And so that there is a, uh, leverage to be used for extracting information, uh, older, oldest, oldest time technique, but it's still going on.
And it's, uh, uh, still notice at times that there are people who are showing up where I am and they're, uh, I guess maybe I'm better at spotting some of this and those people, because when I was drafted back in the sixties, that's at the army intelligence headquarters.
That's what they sent me out to do.
So there, there are things that are very spotable and maybe, uh, are not for every person, but there's a lot of effort still going on here.
And the, I think we come down to the, these agencies need a massive trimming and abolishment.
Well, you know, I am the last one in line to spin for Janet Reno, but you know, it seems kind of unfair that she took the whole rap for this thing.
When in fact, it turns out, we found out at the very end of the Clinton administration that they both stipulate that she asked the president and he told her, yeah, do it.
And not only that, we know that, or it's at least must be right.
That if Delta was on the ground shooting these people, that they did that on orders from the president.
They don't work for Janet Reno.
So well, Janet Reno, you're right.
Took a rap.
And here's the problem with that whole story is she deserves the blame, but he's the president, not her.
Well, not really, but she had been in office a couple of days.
She only knew what the FBI was telling her.
That's the isolation.
She only knows what she's being told.
She's not there.
She's doesn't know anything.
They know about her hot button, which was to use about child molestation and which all of which her cases, I understand in Florida, when she was attorney general have been overturned because she was using dolls that are physically correct, you know, leading children to claim that they had been molested when in fact they were not.
That's it.
So that's, that was an issue for a time.
So I can't lay it on her.
Now, Roger Stone, whose name has been in there.
And again, he's, he's in this piece that I mentioned.
He told me that the person who really gave the order to attack the Davidians was Hillary Clinton.
And this is what I'm sure she's the one who gave Bill Clinton the order to do something about it.
I wouldn't doubt that very well, but you know, so this was in, this came out and I have the clip here, but I want to play it cause it's from old Tony snow on Fox news from a long time ago, but I taped it back then.
And what it is, so it's the, it's well, hell here, I'll play the clip for you, man.
I have it here.
It's Bill admits he ordered Waco right here.
Now, David, the president said something about Waco in this, uh, in this interview, correct?
That, uh, that seems to have some people interested.
What's the day of the camera.
Well, but James Riotti was at the white house in April the 19th, 1993, the day that the branch Davidian compound in Waco burned to the ground.
Mr. Clinton in talking about that day to investigators suggested the tragic outcome wasn't his fault, though he does take some responsibility.
Mr. Clinton testified, quote, I gave into the people in the justice department who were pleading to go in early.
And I felt personally responsible for what happened.
And I still do.
I made a terrible mistake.
Officials at the justice department were caught by surprise by the president's statement.
They say that attorney general Reno and Webster Hubble, a long time Clinton friend who was in charge of the Waco a standoff coming into an end, uh, consulted with the president, but didn't have to twist any arms.
They say that they consulted with the president merely to apprise him of the situation, uh, but not to get his permission.
Uh, they suggest that Mr.
Clinton's suggestion that, uh, he gave in to the people who wanted to go in, go in early is simply not accurate.
David, thank you very much coming up next bill.
And don't you love it's in the context that they're investigating James Riotti cause he's sitting on the couch with James Riotti watching the church burn.
Um, but anyway, and then, so there he is, he's, he's taking responsibility for it and saying that he told them, okay, go ahead.
Well, that's the, that's the buck stops here.
He's the president.
So yeah.
Okay.
He takes the responsibility.
No, I mean, gave in is different than yeah.
When Janet Reno told me later, I said, okay, I mean, you know, gave in means he said, yes, go ahead.
And you know what you're right about?
She'd only been attorney general for a couple of days, a few days, whatever it was a few weeks.
And he'd only been the president for eight weeks or 10 weeks or something at that time, but still.
So I never murdered anybody when I was only on the job for a few weeks, you know, I don't know.
Uh, and, and I would have been happy to tell the FBI no.
And, and you know what, this is, I forget which movie it's in.
I guess it's in the second movie is that Sessions, who was the outgoing head of the FBI.
He wanted to get on a plane.
He was on his way to get on a plane and go to Waco and negotiate at end of the thing himself.
And bill stopped him at the airport and wouldn't let him do it.
Well, there's something important to think of.
Remember here about if you're the, let's say you're the new president, you've come in and, uh, rewind back to when LBJ was a president and he was asked, are you going to fire J Edgar Hoover?
Are you old enough to remember that?
Uh, no, go ahead with the anecdote.
Okay.
I think it rings a bell.
And LBJ said, you can't fire God.
Now, certainly not when you put it to him like that.
What's he going to say?
Yes, I'm going to fire him.
Oh, if he was going to fire him now, he can't.
But J Edgar Hoover had a whole file drawer of all the smarmy stuff on all the politicians in Washington.
And everybody with any sense in Washington in official life is scared to death of the FBI.
Let's say you, you Clinton have come into the office.
You have all this baggage that has, uh, that comes out or could be investigated.
If the FBI turns on you, what are you going to say duress?
Yep.
They've got the, they've got the number on it.
And, or, you know, if you give us, you give us permission to go in here and smoke them and we'll not look at too close at what's been going on at the airport down in Arkansas or whatever the other stuff was, it was happening or your, uh, dalliances or, uh, we, we won't, uh, we won't look into your other peccadillos that you're, we, that he got into later on cash from James Riotti, his, his, uh, co-audience member during the fire.
Um, but, uh, that's, that that's on a lot of anybody with any sense who's, uh, in Washington.
That's on their mind is you better be on the right side of the FBI.
If you're in a high profile or they could turn on you and they could do massive damage and you're done.
Yep.
Well, I think all Americans know that they should know that.
And in fact, that's the most recent James Bovard article he wrote for the Libertarian Institute, uh, is about Libertarians watch your back because they will say that you're lying just by tricking into, you know, that's right.
That's a chilling one too.
If you've seen that, uh, I agree with him that, uh, uh, you know, characterizing Libertarians as, uh, domestic terrorists, which is what the former CIA guy, Brennan has been talking about, uh, among other things.
Uh, this is, this is really dangerous stuff.
And we could, we're, I mean, they don't, the only wolf is, uh, is absolutely correct on this.
You know, we are contracting a police state, just no question about it.
And each time we add a pecky, a little picky law that, uh, it requires an interaction between police and, uh, and, uh, citizenry where the citizenry is liable to get killed.
Uh, it just adds to it.
And there's too many people that take that as just the normal course or that the police are always right.
My last Wadeer here at a murder trial in Los Angeles, there was a guy there who said that, uh, well, he was asked by the judge, well, have you made up your mind about the guilt or innocence of the accused?
He says, yeah, he's guilty.
Well, how do you know that?
He says, well, the police say he did it.
So he did it.
Yeah.
And there's lots of guys like that.
Yep.
All right.
Now listen, and boy, ain't that, ain't that the story of Waco where, you know, we'll have to skip the court trial, but let me just say they were acquitted and then convicted anyway, sentenced as though they'd been convicted and sent off for dozens of years.
But we got to, we got to wrap here, but we got to talk just at the end about the renewed investigation and cover up of a Senator John Danforth.
And we did cover this with James Bovard on the show just a few weeks back, a couple of months ago, I guess.
Um, but this is such an important story.
And then his refutation is refuted by, uh, the movie part three, the FLIR project, which shows how they rigged all their tests just so shamelessly you could just die over it, um, in order to acquit themselves here.
Can you tell part of that story for us here?
Well, I got us received a, uh, invitation, which I, I posted that online.
You can read it.
Uh, and I refused to go talk to them because I, I understood the fix was in, I knew what, I've seen these kinds of blue ribbon panels and investigations for years.
I used to be a reporter in Washington back in the 1960s, uh, working out of Baltimore.
And it's, it's just, you know, you appoint a blue ribbon panel and they find, oh, well, yeah, there were mistakes made or recruitment or problems, but we got it all fixed now and it'll never happen again.
You know, good baloney.
And this is his purpose was to whitewash what really happened there.
And that's why I made a point of talking to the guys at the SAS over in London and, uh, the questioning developing sources who were in a position to know, I'll just say about what the, uh, Delta force did at Waco.
And they confirmed it.
Yeah, they were involved.
And again, you go back to what is the hostage rescue team.
They're all part of the same, the same thing, same, uh, they, they, they trained together that know each other.
They, they, it's, it's inseparable.
So, uh, well, I mean, he had found these, not just the pyrotechnic rounds, the CS rounds that we referred to earlier, but these incendiary rounds, but then it was kind of a red Herring because they said, yeah, look, they did shoot those into a puddle hours before the fire broke out.
It was sort of a red Herring, like the audio of, yeah, pour it.
It doesn't matter.
That was at six in the morning.
It doesn't have anything to do with anything.
And then they use that in order to diminish away the pyrotechnic rounds and nevermind what McNulty found in the evidence lockers and all this, it's just this one thing.
And then once they dismissed that, um, Oh, and then the next thing was, uh, they went to Fort hood and they filmed themselves firing machine guns, but in the FLIR project, he shows how they use flash suppression, uh, ammunition, extra long barrels, and they use water trucks to spray down all the dirt to keep the dust down.
So just to make sure that it couldn't possibly replicate the circumstances from that day so that you wouldn't get those kinds of muzzle flashes to appear on the FLIR and which they didn't.
And then they, uh, and they got away with that and they got some Republican Senator to tow the line on that.
And that was the end of that.
Well, yeah.
And there's the political connection again.
Some, and that's one of the difficult things about this whole subject is that you've got conservatives who will, uh, rail against, uh, the excesses or they'll say the videos deserve what they got.
But I think one of the most damning things is that how many of the conservative talk show hosts like Larry Elder, like Bill O'Reilly, like, uh, guys that I named in the, in the piece, uh, Sean Hannity would not touch this film with a 20 foot pole when we were, when it was released, uh, they would not, our, it kept coming back.
So our, uh, our public relations guy says, well, they won't, they won't have anybody on.
They won't even talk about it.
Dennis Prager, who's, uh, a, I'm sure everybody listening knows who some of these people are yet.
They will, they will pompously talk about how this was such an excess and, uh, of government, uh, power and abuse of power, but they wouldn't step on it.
They wouldn't step into it.
The couple that did, there was, uh, one guy that, uh, threw me off the show because I showed the FBI guys were lying to be hit on.
Of course, there's Ed Asner who got shoved into the breach on one of the NBC shows to, uh, call me a Nazi.
And that was, that was buttressed by somebody saying, well, here in Hollywood, they said, well, you have a, we know that you have a swastika framed in your living room, which is true.
You saw the picture.
I did see the picture.
And the picture is what?
Very incriminating.
Yeah.
It's my father after they, after they captured the Remagen bridge and, uh, or two, but you can.
In a way you kind of got to appreciate it, that they're that cynical that they would do that.
And, but who was it by the way that said that was, they had heard it somewhere kind of thing, or they had seen it themselves.
Well, my wife, my wife was my partner and she, we were, she was very involved in, knew a lot of the people here in Hollywood.
We have a, we hosted every month, what was called a girls group, which were all these producers, females who work in, they, they shared gossip and who's doing what, what projects coming up, that sort of thing.
And they'd, they'd all seen the picture.
And so, but that's the interesting thing is how few, even this is, this area is highly Jewish.
This is a businesses that would not recognize an American soldier with a captured Nazi flag.
Yeah.
With a, yeah.
With a war trophy that look at me, what I did to you is what the, what that picture says in every way.
It's like, it's like saying, yeah, the guy has a swastika on a book on his shelf, but it's the rise and fall of the third Reich by the proud American Patriot, William Shearer, you know, come on.
But, but if you really want to smoke, there's a piece I'm going to post here fairly soon, but we had swastikas on our own airplanes until early on, until the, through the 1930s.
That wasn't the standard oil in New Jersey tankers?
We, we have, you know, if you, before Pearl Harbor, if you were saying, pledging allegiance to the flag, you did the, you did the Seagull salute.
That was called the Bellamy salute.
Bellamy was the guy who, who wrote the pledge of allegiance.
I mean, the, and now of course you can, if you went to that time all over Arizona, these traffic signs, the highway signs had swastikas on them.
I mean, it's just completely ignorance being expressed about, people don't know any better.
Yeah.
Well, I'm glad you have such thick skin for stuff like that.
And I guess when you got federal cops following you around all the time, then people trying to make something out of a heroic picture for your dad like that is probably more amusing than anything else at that point just shows the absurdity of their attacks.
Yeah.
I've got, I've got another one.
He was in the Pacific prior to Pearl Harbor and there's another one holding up a Japanese flag.
So maybe he was an Imperial Japanese too.
Yeah.
He's a partisan for Hirohito, I guess now.
Okay.
Yeah, absolutely.
All right.
Well, listen, Dan, I'm so glad that you did this work and it's so important.
And I saw the movie when it came out at the Doby mall theater here in Austin, Texas in 1997.
And I'll never forget the first time I saw the helicopter kill the kid scraping rust with his trowel in the water tower and the rest of this stuff.
I haven't seen it in years now, but I remember every bit of it.
Honestly, I can recall every bit of it.
And it's been so important.
And it's the kind of thing, you know, it's hard to tell people to read a book and there are a lot of great books about Waco, but it's really easy to say to somebody, look, man, take an hour and a half and look at this, compare the narrative with the truth and see what you're left with, keep the change and see where you're at after that.
And it's a life changing thing for people.
I know it is.
And you know what, it's kind of a bummer, but then again, it's empowering too, cause it's the truth, right?
So what are you going to do?
We've got to bear witness to it.
Well, there's a lot of truth that needs to be out there on a number of subjects.
Uh, that's, uh, I'm, I'm not sure I go along with Al Gore.
Was it Al Gore or, Oh, I guess it was Biden said we, we believe in truth, not fact.
I mean, yeah, that's a philosophical discussion.
You can have a, over some whiskey at night, but that's, uh, you know, the scary thing is that he really meant that, right.
They're like, well, you know, when we have these larger concepts, we believe in, we're not going to let little details get in the way of that.
You know, like who's guilty and who's not stuff like that, you know?
Yeah, that's, it's a very, very, very disturbing.
And it's, uh, I I'm very bothered that we are generally putting together a generation who doesn't, whose vocabulary is being shrunk and the words are being redefined.
I mean, do you remember what Winston Smith does in 1984 for a living?
He redefines words.
We had a former congressman named Bill Foster out of Illinois who was very blunt about changing the constitution and how he's going to do it.
Well, not by the process, change the meaning of the words in the document.
And he's right.
When you've got academia on your side, you've got the media, which, which part was he talking about particularly there?
What was that about?
He was talking about the second amendment, the one I heard, but he just emphasized the militia clause and that kind of thing.
Well, you could change it.
I mean, think how many words have been changed.
The word we say, oh, like nice.
You say, somebody's nice.
Nice.
Originally did not mean that.
You could use it pejoratively, but with a drop and say, oh, did you like so-and-so?
Oh yeah, he's nice.
You know, meaning well, something less, but the original word meant not good.
It was, there are many, many words that have changed over time.
And he was, I don't know which portion he was talking about, but he was talking about changing the meaning of the words in not just the second, but also in the larger constitution, which is now also being talked about by law professors who don't want to go through the constitutional process of changing it.
The words mean things.
Which they can just ignore it all they want anyway.
I mean, they're, they're hardly bound by the words of the constitution anyway, other than they have to still pretend to have a bicameral legislature and little details like that.
But that's just the form of the thing, but it's the executive branch that rules all.
We have a bisexual camel?
Yeah, that too.
It was a bicamel, bicamel legislature.
Oh my God.
Yeah.
It's completely broken the budget now at this point.
It's out of control.
All right.
I got to go.
You got to go.
Thank you so much, Dan, for doing the show with us here.
I really appreciate it a lot.
I know the listeners.
All right, you guys, that's Dan Gifford.
He produced Waco, the rules of engagement.
And you should also watch Waco, a new revelation and the FLIR project.
And they're all available on YouTube.
And in fact, if you just Google up my name and Waco, you'll find blog entries at the Libertarian Institute and probably tweets and wherever where I post these videos from time to time for people.
And then check out Dan Gifford's website.
It's dangifford.com.
That's with a D at the end there, dangifford.com.
And what really happened at Waco and the establishment collusion to cover it up is a really important piece for you guys to take a look at there.
And there's quite a few more than that to Waco skepticism and counter skepticism.
And will ABC really tell us what happened at Waco in 1993 are both really good and important ones as well.
Thanks to you guys.
