All right, y'all, welcome to the Scott Horton Show.
I'm 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 the brand new Enough Already, Time to End the War on Terrorism, and I've recorded more than 5,500 interviews since 2003, almost all on foreign policy, and all available for you at scotthorton.org.
You can sign up for the podcast feed there, and the full interview archive is also available at youtube.com slash scotthortonshow.
All right, you guys, on the line, I've got the great Dave DeCamp.
He's our News Editor at antiwar.com.
Welcome back.
How you doing?
Good, Scott.
Thanks for having me back.
Oh, yeah.
Happy to have you here.
I'm doing Freedom Fest and all these things, so I'm relying on you to catch me up.
Let's start with Afghanistan.
What's the goddang deal there, Bobby?
Well, so as you know, the Taliban has been kind of on the offensive and been making some gains against the Afghan government, as expected, and the U.S. has been bombing Afghanistan pretty frequently.
There was just another story today that the U.S. was increasing airstrikes in Afghanistan.
They announced, the Pentagon announced this last week, then earlier this week, and then again today.
So they're really, there's a lot of U.S. airstrikes going on there.
And General Frank McKenzie, he's the head of U.S. Central Command, and he has the authority over Afghanistan now.
It was recently transferred to him.
And when he was kind of cornered by reporters, well, unfortunately, our reporters that, you know, get into the Pentagon and the White House, they, they want to know why the U.S. is leaving and why the withdrawal is happening.
But when he was asked if the U.S. airstrikes would stop after August 31st, which is kind of the withdrawal deadline that Biden said it would be completed by, he couldn't, he, you know, left it open.
He couldn't give an answer.
So there's a chance that the U.S., you know, between the funding to the Afghan government, which is increasing for 2022, Biden set aside $3.3 billion in his budget, that's, you know, pushing Israel money for next year to support the Afghan military.
So between that and the airstrikes and the small troop presence that's going to be split between the embassy in Kabul and the Kabul airport, if that's tenable, they might give up on that.
There's a chance.
Who knows?
You know, it seems like we're going to kind of just keep fueling this proxy war.
So yeah, things aren't, things aren't looking good there.
The civilian casualties are really, they spiked this year because of all the fighting.
And you know, the U.S. has to pull out and get out.
And you know, this kind of civil war, the Taliban fighting the U.S.-backed government is something we all expected.
It was inevitable.
But kind of by staying, by Biden pushback, the original May 1st withdrawal deadline, you know, there is little, there's a chance that the government and the Taliban will negotiate something.
It's a small chance.
But kind of by sticking around, Biden is, you know, he's really scuttling that, that small chance.
Yeah.
And just fueling the violence.
Yeah.
I mean, that makes sense, especially, you know, the Afghan national government wants the Americans to stay so badly.
The last thing in the world they want to do is, although they ought to realize now that the, you know, it's too late now anyway, but they don't want to make a deal if they think that a lack of a deal can somehow in the end keep the Americans on the ground there to support them instead.
So and that's the story of the last 15 years.
So yeah, you know, I'm sure that's still the same.
Now, I don't know, man, if there was ever such a thing as a paper tiger, it's the Afghan National Army.
Right.
I mean, the Taliban is walking right into military bases and taking whatever they want.
And, you know, I guess I've read a few reports that, you know, in some places, I don't know if this is, you know, ANA divisions kind of devolving back down to militias or these are, you know, separate groups that are being raised up by the different factions.
But essentially, it sounds like even the resistance against the Taliban are already giving up on the ANA and are going back to their own little regional militias anyway.
Is that right?
Yeah.
I mean, there has been a lot of reports of that, of the militias.
Yeah.
I mean, no matter how much money the U.S. throws at that army, it just seems like it's going to fall apart.
Yeah.
They're just buying more weapons for the Taliban anyway.
Yeah.
Yeah.
It's just all going to end up in their hands.
Man.
Yeah.
I mean, people keep asking me, why now?
You know, why are they leaving now?
I don't trust it.
It must be a distraction from something else or something.
And the answer is because the Taliban won the war.
That's why now.
They're going to have to launch a massive new effort to drive them back.
And even that would just be temporary, as we saw with the last surge.
In the end, it was only counterproductive to help the Taliban recruit that many more people into their ranks.
And you know, by the time the surge was over, they were doing better than they were when it started.
So it looks like game over.
I mean, hell, I don't know.
The generals didn't overthrow Biden.
They left the Bagram Air Base.
Yeah.
Well, that's why I said, like, you know, when the withdrawal started, a lot of people asked me, oh, are they actually doing it?
What are they doing?
And I didn't know for sure.
And I don't think any of the Pentagon leaders know.
Even now.
It's like I said, there's a chance they have this plan to keep like a few hundred Turkish troops at the airport so they can secure the embassy.
It sounds like when that general is saying, well, gee, I can't commit that we're going to end all airstrikes.
That's just part of putting pressure on the president rather than it doesn't sound to me like Biden told them, yeah, we're going to keep bombing the Taliban from the air.
I think the war against the Taliban is over unless they really force him to back down and change his orders.
But those seem to be his orders, best I could tell.
Yeah, there's a chance that they just say, you know what, we can't keep this embassy in the air, but let's just get out.
So yeah, we'll see.
I mean, it's one of those things we won't know really until September what what it's really going to look like.
And I don't think they know either.
Yeah, well, I don't know, Dave, all the guys that lost the war like George W. Bush and David Petraeus, Stanley McChrystal and H.R. McMaster, they all say that, gee, we can't leave yet.
Because then something bad will happen.
And I don't know, maybe if we stay, we can just keep muddling through, as Stanley McChrystal said.
Well, George W. Bush really cares about the women of Afghanistan.
I don't know if you heard.
It's a very big deal to him.
Yeah.
Which is, you know, why he put a bunch of, you know, sicko male chauvinist pigs in power to rule that country for the last 20 years anyway.
They're not the Taliban.
They're just different male chauvinist pigs who legalized raping your own wife or starving her to death if she doesn't put out and all this stuff.
Yeah, no, that's fine.
Yeah.
These guys are very progressive.
But yeah, it is funny how even Bush has kind of adopted those talking points that the media, you know, because the New York Times and all like leading up to the withdrawal, there's just tons of stories about what it means for the women of Afghanistan and stuff.
So it's clearly just used as a talking point to prolong, you know, the occupation of war.
Interesting to see who picks it up.
Well, you know, I mean, I don't know the veracity of this.
It seemed credible enough.
I saw a thing on Twitter this morning from an Afghan journalist talking about this comedian down in Kandahar province who the Taliban arrested and murdered.
And you know, I don't doubt it, really.
I'm not 100 percent convinced or whatever, but I don't doubt it either, because they are bastards and they always have been.
And they were behind, you know, before there ever was an ISIS-K, the Taliban had an entire, you know, kind of regime of suicide bombings back about 10 years ago during the surge and doing suicide attacks in the, you know, al Qaeda in Iraq style against civilians and whatever.
So, you know, I certainly don't expect a bunch of mercy on their part.
And that's going to be endless talking points for the hawks here, that we just can't leave because something bad is happening.
And, you know, Ron Paul is the only one of national stature who ever said that, look, we left Vietnam and it's fine.
Now they make our suits, you know.
Yeah.
I mean, there is a good chance Taliban, you know, could be, will be trading partners with them in 10, 20 years from now.
Yeah.
I mean, look, if anybody has ever, and that was why Bill Clinton supported them in the first place, right?
If anybody's going to be able to provide stability for Afghanistan so that the Americans can take their resources, Taliban is probably the best bet for that.
And that's all they care about.
Right.
So, yeah.
Give them air support against ISIS.
Yeah.
That's right.
Taliban Air Force.
They got a plaque on the wall, it says in the Washington Post, they got a plaque on the wall at JSOC headquarters.
I forgot where that was, if it was in the region or what, but.
Hey, y'all check out our great stuff at Libertarian Institute dot org slash books.
First of all, we've published no quarter the ravings of William Norman Grigg, our Institute's late and great co-founder.
He was the very best one of us, our whole movement, I mean.
And no quarter will leave his mark on you, no question.
Which brings us to the works of our other co-founder, the legendary libertarian thinker and writer Sheldon Richman.
We've published two collections of his great essays, Coming to Palestine and What Social Animals Owe to Each Other.
Both are instant classics.
I'm proud to say that Coming to Palestine is surely the definitive libertarian take on Israel's occupation of the Palestinians.
And Social Animals certainly ranks with the very best writings on libertarian ethics, economics and everything else.
You'll absolutely love it.
Then there's me.
I've written two books, Fool's Errand, Time to End the War in Afghanistan and Enough Already, Time to End the War on Terrorism.
And I've also published a collection of the transcripts of all of my interviews of the heroic Dr. Ron Paul, 29 of them, plus a speech by me about how much I love the guy.
It's called The Great Ron Paul.
You can find all of these at Libertarian Institute dot org slash books.
All right, anyway, so now let's talk about Iraq, because Biden says Iraq War three and a half is over, kind of asterisk, asterisk, asterisk.
And everybody was mocking him yesterday, especially me.
But even, you know, The New York Times and The Washington Post and everybody was saying that, well, you know, it doesn't really mean anything.
In fact, I'm going to run your punch line here.
I saw Richard Engel on NBC say, well, which, you know, coming from the sources, what makes it interesting to me that like, yeah, what's really going on here is the Iraqi prime minister is in a lot of political trouble and he needs a public relations stunt.
And so this is to make him look better.
And we're just we're not pulling any troops out.
We're just going to redefine their mission from we're just going to not change their mission, but just call it by new terms, which do they think that the Iraqis can't read The New York Times?
Because I'm pretty sure they can read The New York Times.
Yeah.
Or any other media outlet that's reported this, because, yeah, because we knew this.
This was announced on Monday.
Biden met with Kadhimi, the Iraqi prime minister.
So they announced that they're ending the combat, the U.S. combat mission in Iraq by the end of this year.
And there's currently 2,500 troops, U.S. troops in Iraq.
By the way, Dave, do you know, the last time you saw those numbers, was that special operations forces, too?
Or that's just the kind of force protection infantry there, but not counting special ops guys?
That's the number from what I understand.
It's a regular infantry and I don't.
That's the number that the Pentagon kind of goes by.
That's the official number.
So it could it might not include special operations.
Yeah, I would think that it wouldn't.
Yeah.
And those are the guys who are actually doing any fighting if they're going out on raids or it's CIA guys or Air Force guys flying drones.
So, yeah, so 2,500 is the official number.
And the before the announcement was made, there's a ton of media reports, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Politico, that, you know, we kind of expected this.
This was that they were going to make this announcement.
And they cited all these U.S. and Pentagon officials that said it's not really going to change anything.
It's just going to change the the label.
But the number of troops aren't really changed or there might be a small drawdown.
So so, yeah, like you said, can the Iraqis that want the that are putting pressure on the prime minister to get the U.S. out, you know, they can read our media.
And so, yeah, it's just, you know, just a change in name, but nothing really is going to change.
But so far, I mean, I've seen reports today that, you know, some Shia clerics and stuff in Iraq welcome the news and some militias.
But I'm sure if I dig a little more that there are some that are not happy about it, too, because it's not really changing much.
But and, you know, if they're still there, they're still a target.
And that means that if they get fired on, you know, Biden can bomb the militias again in Iraq or Syria.
So, yeah, it really doesn't change anything.
And it means that U.S. troops could be in Iraq, you know, kind of indefinitely for who knows how long.
Now, just for clarity, for you know, there's probably a lot of people changing the channel right in the middle of the story here, where when we're talking about troops in Iraq, they're embedded with the Iraqi army.
They're not fighting against the Iraqi state.
They're fighting with it against what's left of ISIS there.
So what about what Richard Engel also said on NBC last night, which is, well, geez, the last time when Biden pulled troops out, when he was vice president with Obama and they pulled the troops out, next thing you know, Islamic State.
So that's why we're there.
And that's why everybody says we can't ever leave.
What do you think?
Well, yeah, I mean, like they always like to leave out the support for the, you know, so-called moderate rebels in Syria and Al-Qaeda affiliates and endless refront that the CIA and the Gulf states flooded Syria with money and weapons to fight Assad, you know, which is what led to the rise of ISIS, that and invade the U.S. invasion in the first place.
So, yeah, I mean, it's a good talking point for the Hawks, but, you know, like like always, they always have to leave out some facts and the reality.
So hopefully, you know, there's still U.S. troops in Syria, there's about a thousand there is the number.
And I think they kind of rely on the support from Iraq, from what I understand, the support from the U.S. base is there.
So in order to keep that occupation going, they have to keep troops in Iraq.
And you weren't saying hopefully there's troops in Syria.
You were starting to say hopefully something.
Then you changed what you're saying.
I was wondering.
Oh, I don't want anybody to misunderstand you.
You're going, yeah, good thing we got troops in Syria still.
No, what I what I meant to say was hopefully there's no plans to kind of restart, even though the U.S. policy against the Syria policy is regime change.
They have all these crippling sanctions on Syria.
And the policy is that the government has to change for the sanctions to be lifted.
But hopefully there's no big renewed push to fund and arm opposition groups or al-Qaeda or even though the U.S. does kind of provide some support to al-Nusra and Idlib through Turkey.
So just hopefully that there's not a big push in that direction, which I don't I don't see.
It's more of kind of a status quo, which is a horrible status quo.
The sanctions, the occupation and Turkey backing al-Qaeda and Idlib.
So, right.
I don't see that changing anytime soon either.
Right.
And now, so as far as the guys in Iraq, maybe get back to Syria again in just one second here.
But to just to wrap up that point about how there was more to the rise of ISIS in the Islamic State than just leaving Iraq.
It was back in the bad guys in Syria was the big missing middle there.
But then so in other words, without that, the supermajority backed Shiite Arab government in Baghdad that George W.
Bush's war installed in power there, they have more than enough of what it takes.
Even if the Americans never set foot or flew one more drone anywhere near Iraq ever again, they had the ability to fight their Sunni insurgency and which the only thing left of it right now is the most radical ISIS like factions are fighting them.
And they have all the power in the world that they need to keep ISIS and al-Qaeda down.
And if they need any help at all, they can get it from the Iranians next door, their best friends.
And so it's not only are you right that yet took Obama's war for the bad guys in Syria next door to lead to the rise of ISIS.
The real point is that could never happen again without a similar policy.
And so that brings us back then to the Idlib province.
And just how many terrorists do the American-Turkish al-Qaeda alliance have there?
And what is the plan other than keep Assad from wiping them out at this point?
Do you know?
And how many there are estimated under the control of Jilani and the other groups in Idlib now?
I'm not really sure of the specific numbers there in Idlib.
I don't really, from what I see, the plan is just kind of continually support these groups that control Idlib just to keep it out of the hands of Assad.
And that seems to be the only purpose.
I guess Turkey likes the buffer there.
But yeah, as far as I don't, I don't know enough about the, you know, the amount of fighters that al-Nusra has and exactly how many of them are on the ground there in Idlib.
But from what I understand, it's a pretty decent amount of fighters.
Yeah.
I need to do a deep dive on that, man, and really read the last 300 things that have been written about Syria and the Biden government's position on what they're doing there.
I mean, they're, as you say, they're keeping the oil out of the hands of the national government there.
And I guess they're continuing to back the Kurdish occupation of Raqqa, which if the Kurds ever had to make a deal with Assad to, you know, go back to, you know, semi autonomy and a deal essentially for the Syrian army to go back there and the Americans leaving, you know, to allow that to happen, then the Kurds almost certainly would have to agree to withdraw from the Arab cities that they have taken and occupied.
And I guess, you know, Raqqa was so bombed.
I don't really know, Dave, do you know if they've really tried to begin transferring Kurdish civilians into that city or it's really just their security forces rule in Arab city now, right?
Yeah, that's how I understand it.
I haven't seen anything about them, you know, putting Kurds into the city.
And that really is only with American support or it would not be that way, correct?
Yeah, yeah, definitely.
And, you know, it's funny because I guess if they did have to make a deal with Assad, they would have to give up Raqqa and the Arab cities.
But I remember when Trump said he was going to withdraw, the SDF said, you know, we could always just make a deal with Assad.
Right.
That was like their threat to the US.
Well, and in fact, I mean, it was reported multiple times that they had back channel talks going on.
Of course they did.
What are they going to do?
Hey, look, we heard Trump might just pull all the way the hell out of here.
The Turks are going to crush us.
We better bring Assad's Syrian Arab army in.
It happens to be the border of the nation state ruled by the capital city of Damascus.
Bring his troops back in there to occupy the buffer zone to to keep the Turks out, to reassure the Turks that Damascus will keep the Kurds under wrap so the Turks don't have to attack them and that kind of thing.
That was always the deal.
It was right there and only the Trump government stood in the way.
And then when he did want to leave, his own government stopped him, you know, and even Mattis resigned over it and then he backed down anyway.
And they did lie to him about the numbers, but he backed down on, I say, every single one of you out.
And if he'd really stuck by that, they would have had to get everybody out.
Well, I know Lindsey Graham gave him a visit with Jack Keane.
Do you know him?
He's like, oh, yeah, he's the guy behind the surges in Iraq and Afghanistan to a great degree.
Palling around with the Kagan's and the Institute for the Study of War.
Yeah, it was Petraeus and Mattis together who oversaw the rewriting of the counterinsurgency manual and all that.
And Keane is their guy.
That's why, you know, the big guy on Fox News and the rest, too.
You're wrong about everything.
If anybody had a scorecard on Jack Keane, he's one of the most failed advice givers in retired generals history anyway, you know.
Yeah, but him and Lindsey Graham, they visited Trump in the Oval Office and showed him maps of the oil fields, said, you know who will get these if we leave?
Iran.
And that was enough because Trump did reverse the decision ultimately.
But, you know, it seems like they did lie about the troop numbers.
But I still think he could have pulled it off if he really stuck to it.
Yep.
So absolutely right there.
Look here, you and I both know that what you need is some Libertarian Institute things like shirts and sweatshirts and mugs and stickers to put on the back of your truck and to give to your friends, too, that say Libertarian Institute on them so that everyone will know the origins of your oppositional defiant disorder and where they can listen to all the best podcasts.
So here's what you do.
Go to LibertasBella.com and look at all the great Libertarian Institute stuff they've got going there.
Find the ad in the right hand margin at Libertarian Institute dot org.
LibertasBella.com.
You guys check it out.
This is so cool.
The great Mike Swanson's new book is finally out.
He's been working on this thing for years and I admit I haven't read it yet.
I'm going to get to it as soon as I can.
But I know you guys are going to want to beat me to it.
It's called Why the Vietnam War, Nuclear Bombs and Nation Building in Southeast Asia 1945 through 61.
And as he explains on the back here, all of our popular culture and our retellings and our history and our movies are all about the height of the American war there in, say, 1964 through 1974.
But how do we get there?
Why is this all Harry Truman's fault?
Find out in Why the Vietnam War by the great Mike Swanson available now.
All right.
Yemen.
Who's killing who more there?
And when the hell are they going to stop?
Well, yeah, that's a good question.
So there's you know, there's been a lot of fighting between the government, the government, the U.S. and Saudi backed government of the exiled president there, Hadi.
There's been a lot of fighting between them and the Houthis in Marib, in the city of Marib, which is pretty much the last significant piece of territory that they hold.
And the Houthis have been trying to take it.
And there's also been fighting in a different in the Bada district, which is where the government, the U.S.
I don't like calling them the government.
I should think of a better term.
But where American, Saudi sock puppets from the hotel room in Riyadh or oh, no, you're talking about their mercenary forces on the ground there.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Which would include the Muslim Brotherhood there who are, you know, at least they were Salah's allies and for a time, at least they backed the Hadi government.
Yeah.
That would be, again, the side that America is on, not just Al-Qaeda, but Al-Isla as well.
Yeah, and there's all sorts of there's always reports in Yemen and Houthi and like Iranian media that the government's ground troops in this Biden, if I'm saying that right, province are Al-Qaeda, which it's always tough to confirm those reports.
But I mean, it does sound plausible.
Yeah, sure.
I mean, we already knew that if you're not so specific as to say in this district or this county at this particular moment, that is, as you're saying, much harder to pin down.
But there's just no question that what was a QAP is now called UAE's mercenary force on the ground there.
They just hired them all.
They claim, remember they, I forgot what year it was, 2016.
They said, listen, you guys occupying all these cities is a really bad PR problem for us.
So here's what we're going to do.
We're going to tell everybody that we defeated you in battle and then we're going to hire you all and pay you real good.
They said, OK.
So they withdrew from Makala and other towns and just joined the UAE's forces.
And I don't know if you ever heard this one, but there's a few like this, I guess where, but there's one in particular where I interviewed Nasser Arabi and I says, well, I don't know Nasser.
I mean, they're saying they're still bombing AQAP too.
And he's like, bah, he breaks out laughing.
Oh, they're bombing the UAE's militia on the ground.
You think, huh?
No, you know.
And he doesn't laugh that often on the show, but he just thought that was hilarious.
How could that be?
That you're still fighting AQAP if in fact you're not fighting them.
Yeah.
You're flying as their air force right now.
Yeah, man, but yeah, I mean, it kind of the important thing for us to understand is that, you know, there's been a lot of Saudi airstrikes around Marib and, you know, the U.S. is still supporting it and servicing their warplanes.
So, you know, completely still fueling the war.
The blockade is still being enforced.
People are still starving to death.
So Biden, you know, his promise back in February to end support for offensive operations in Yemen is, you know, didn't mean much.
So it doesn't look like there's any end in sight right now.
All right.
You want to do Russia or China next?
I guess we could get into Russia.
Let's talk about Russia, Russia, Russia.
I heard they fixed the election and they're going to kill us all or something.
What's the deal?
Yeah, well, close.
Well, so lately, this is kind of scary stuff.
There's been a big U.S. and NATO presence in the Black Sea.
Now, they've, you know, held military exercises in the Black Sea before, but it seems like this year they're really stepping things up.
The kind of the most reckless provocation came in June, which I believe you've interviewed people about, the British warship, the HMS Defender, it sailed 12 miles off the coast of Crimea.
Russia responded by firing warning shots.
Just complete, just completely unnecessary, you know, provocation.
And in July, the U.S. and NATO, they held back to back, you know, naval exercises in the Black Sea.
One of them is called the Seabreeze 2021, 32 nations led by the U.S. and Ukraine.
And, you know, the U.S. does this and then the U.S. admirals and commanders in the region, they say, oh, Russia is being really aggressive in the Black Sea because they fly, you know, they'll fly a plane overhead to keep an eye on them, make, you know, make their presence known.
And one admiral said that Russia has been increasing its aggression in the Black Sea.
And I mean, they're acting like, like I said, there's always been U.S. and NATO war games in the Black Sea, but they've really stepped up this year.
I remember a report from Stars and Stripes said last year, 2020, now military exercises and stuff were down a little bit because of the pandemic.
But in 2020, the U.S. spent like 89 days in the Black Sea.
And it seems like this year, you know, I haven't counted it exactly, but it seems like we're we've gone past that point.
There's kind of constantly U.S. warships in the Black Sea now.
And but they always say in their statements, the military statements on this, like, oh, we we always operate in the Black Sea.
This is, you know, Russia is, you know, being more aggressive now, which is just nonsense.
It's just Russia reacting to this massive presence.
I mean, 32 countries.
The last time those exercises were held in 2019, it was significantly smaller.
It was 19 countries.
So this is part of the effort to ramp up the pressure on Russia.
And, you know, Biden, they had that, Biden and Putin had a summit in June, and some of us, you know, we thought it went relatively well from the looks of it and the statements.
And there are arms control talks are, oh, that's actually this week, July 28th.
Wendy Sherman, the deputy secretary of state, she's flying to Geneva and they're going to hold what they call strategic stability dialogue, and it's supposed to lay the groundwork for more arms control.
So hopefully that kind of bears fruit.
Then again, I mean, I've seen some statements from them that said, oh, we have to negotiate a replacement for New START, which is the last nuclear arms treaty between the U.S. and Russia.
It's the only one, major one left, and it expires in five years.
So they're just focusing on replacing one treaty.
It's not, you know, we want to see more treaties and disarmament, but I don't see the U.S. taking steps towards that right now.
The way things are going and then with China, you know, the name of the game right now is, you know, the so-called great power competition.
Well, hold that thought for a second.
Let me ask you on Russia.
You talk about how, well, they're keeping the pressure up and no doubt about that, right, with their, you know, all the exercises, as you're talking about, and their endless military presence in the Black Sea.
And then I guess it was Gilbert Doctorow who had written a bunch of great stuff about the regular kind of practice runs by heavy bombers, I guess B-52s and others in the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea and the Oshkosh Sea out there in the far east.
And, you know, testing Russia's defenses and all this stuff.
And this is the kind of real escalation, the kind of thing that they hadn't done in a very long time.
They started doing.
But I wonder if they ever say, well, you can hear them, what all this pressure is supposed to accomplish?
They're not.
They even repealed some of the sanctions and what have you on the Nord Stream essentially gave up on trying to stop Germany and Russia from doing the Nord Stream Pipeline at this point.
Nobody really believes that Russia's about to roll into the Baltic states or anything like that.
So what is the end here other than just creating some tension and selling some ships and bombers?
Is there anything that they think that they're trying to get Putin to actually concede to at this point?
Like, for example, they're not saying give Crimea back right now.
And that's why we're doing this.
You know what I mean?
That would be overt.
We would at least understand that that was their stupid mission that they were going to fail to accomplish, but that that's what they were trying to do.
You know what I mean?
But it doesn't seem like that's what they're trying to do.
No, I mean, they say, like Biden has said that he'll never recognize Crimea as Russian territory, but they are they aren't like demanding that Russia returns Crimea to Ukraine.
That's like if Putin said, well, I don't recognize Crimea, I don't recognize Crimea, I don't recognize Crimea to Ukraine.
That's like if Putin said, well, I don't recognize your sovereignty over New Mexico.
Yeah.
Well, we don't care about that.
What difference does that make to us?
You know?
Yeah, exactly.
Yeah.
I mean, that's a good point.
What are the what is the goal here?
It's tough to say from what NATO, what NATO always says, they're just responding to Russian aggression and its presence in the its pressure on its neighbors and stuff.
I mean, I just to me, it seems like it's just a reason to, like you said, sell ships and planes and justify NATO's existence and expand NATO.
Luckily, it doesn't seem like Ukraine is going to join NATO as a full member anytime soon, it seems like Biden and is not, you know, ready to take that step because that would be a pretty huge deal if Ukraine was an official member.
But, you know, it just seems like more NATO expansion and military exercises.
And yeah, that's what I see.
But yeah, I don't I don't really see any other reason for it.
Yeah.
And got to do this simple shoe on the other foot thing that just imagine if there was a heavy Russian military presence in the Gulf of Mexico, you know, they sail a destroyer to Cuba every once in a while and sail it back home again.
What if they were doing this, you know, carbon copy, this kind of level, which they don't even have a Navy to do it with.
But anyway, they did.
And they were in our Gulf of Mexico like this all the time, you know, and doing military exercises with their allies.
Can you imagine the absolute level of, you know, DEFCON negative one hundred and H-bombs start flying?
Like there's no way the American people, the American government, but the population, too, would be in absolute panic frenzy that that was going on.
But they're supposed to just lay there and take it, you know what I mean?
And then but like we're discussing and I don't know, maybe I really need to start reading for and affairs more again.
Can't figure out what the hell is even the excuse for this at this point.
You know, they don't even have an end that they claim is their end.
Just getting rid of ships and planes, you know.
It's nuts.
Yeah.
All right.
And I really do need to start reading foreign affairs again.
I just lost patience for that stuff.
But, you know, you really kind of got to.
Yeah, no, I know.
All right.
Now, China, you were going to say things about China before I stopped you anyway.
So go ahead with that thought, if you remember what it was.
Yeah, well, I think it was about.
Well, there's a few things, NATO, you know, they're they got their eyes on China now.
They released a report last year that said that the alliance has to focus on China.
They've made statements that said they're like a I forget exactly how they worded it.
But, you know, that doesn't just prove what a make work program it is right there.
Oh, yeah.
I have a couple of quotes like this in the Afghanistan book about how yeah, Afghanistan is a team building exercise for NATO.
We didn't have any more reasons to exist.
So we needed something to do in Afghanistan is something we can do together to help.
Right.
Like they don't have no idea how crazy that sounds to anyone but themselves.
So they just say that outright, you know.
And then for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to be targeting China is kind of ridiculous on the face of it, isn't it?
Yeah, well, this is one story we have up on the page today, British warships enter the South China Sea, the UK, they deployed their new aircraft carrier, the Queen Elizabeth that's on its maiden voyage.
And I think I said this last time I was on your show, which was only a couple of weeks ago, so I don't want to be too redundant.
But part of the maiden voyage was to carry out was to bomb Iraq was that the ship, the aircraft carrier was in the Mediterranean and US and UK warplanes, you know, launched airstrikes against ISIS from it.
To me, that's just so crazy.
Like like similar to NATO calling Afghanistan a team building exercise.
They're like, oh, let's just test out our new warship on this country.
Who are they bombing in Syria?
They're bombing ISIS in Syria?
It was it was either in Iraq or Syria.
There has been a lot of airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq lately in the mountains, like the rural parts there.
It wasn't clear from the press releases and stuff if it was Syria or Iraq.
I guess, yeah, maybe I was just conflating launching from the Med, meaning Syria, and launching from the Gulf, meaning Iraq.
But that's oversimplified, I'm sure.
So sorry to go ahead.
It's just it's just insane.
It's just so evil.
Yeah.
What you're saying about like, hey, come on, we got a ship.
We got some planes.
Let's go do something with them.
Bomb somebody.
It's obviously the tail wagging the dog there rather than, oh, we found a nest of suicide bombers and we have to go protect some women and children from them.
But to get back to China there.
They're now the aircraft carrier and its strike group, all it's like escort ships.
They're now entering the South China Sea.
And that's clearly that's meant, you know, as a message to China, because that's that's a really sensitive, you know, part of the world between the US and China right now.
China has a big claim to the waters.
In 2014, under Obama, the US started sailing warships near Chinese claimed islands.
They continued through the Trump administration.
They're still happening today.
And the US has really stepped up its military presence in the South China Sea.
There's kind of a regular US aircraft carrier presence.
There's all spy planes.
I mean, I try to track this because it's a way to kind of physically see how the US is, you know, actually doing the Asia pivot this time is just the amount of, you know, warships and warplanes that are flying and sailing around the South China Sea now compared to just a couple of years ago.
It's like it's pretty significant.
And the US is getting, you know, NATO and its NATO allies to play along.
And here comes the UK with their aircraft carrier.
They're going to Japan and they're going to permanently deploy two warships to Asia now.
France has done some passages through the South China Sea, I believe.
I think Germany has a planned deployment later this year.
So, yeah, you could just really see how the whole empire is, you know, turning its eye on China in this part of the world, what they call the Indo-Pacific now, from, you know, which stretches from India to like Hawaii.
That's a new term for that part of the world that was adopted by the Trump administration's Pentagon.
And a little bit of framing will change a lot.
And a little bit of framing will change a lot if it, you know, when it comes down to it.
Yeah.
I saw there was a new piece last night, I guess it's on the page today, right, about how they're sending a new fleet of F-22s to Guam as well.
But, you know, David Axe and his story wrote about how the Chinese can blow all that up with just a couple of missiles and the whole thing is rendered useless immediately.
And there's no way to do the midair refueling required to make it effective and all the rest of it.
Mm hmm.
So I don't know.
Yeah.
OK, hang on just one second.
Hey, y'all, Scott here for EasyShip.com.
Man, who wants to use Stamps.com?
They're terrible.
Their website is a disaster.
I've been sending out tons of signed books to donors and friends lately, and it's clear the only real alternative to standing in line for the 1990s technology at the post office is EasyShip.com.
Preparing and printing labels with EasyShip.com is as easy as can be.
And they are cheaper and better than Stamps.com.
You can even send 100 free packages per month.
Start out at ScottHorton.org slash EasyShip.
Hey, look here, y'all, you know I'm for the non-aggression principle and all, but you know who it's OK to kill?
That's right, flies.
They don't have rights.
Fly season is here again.
And that's why you need the Bug Assault 3.0 Salt Shotgun for killing flies with.
Make sure you get the 3.0 now.
It's got that bar safety on it so you can shoot as fast as you can rack it.
The Bug Assault makes killing flies easy and fun.
And don't worry about the mess.
Your wife will clean it up.
Get the Bug Assault today.
Just click the Amazon link in the right hand margin at ScottHorton.org.
In fact, you can do all of your Amazon shopping through that link and the show will get a kickback from Amazon's end of the sale.
Happy hunting.
Hey, y'all, Scott here for Lorenzotti Coffee.
It's great stuff.
It's actually how I'm conscious and recording this spot right now.
You probably also like and need coffee.
Well, Lorenzotti.
Coffee's got a great dark roast and these really cool grinders so you can brew it as fresh as possible.
Here real soon, they're also going to have a nice medium roast and other options available.
Check them out at Lorenzotti.
Coffee and use promo code ScottHorton.org to save 10 percent.
They ship fast and it tastes great.
Support good anti-government stimulant suppliers.
Go to Lorenzotti.
Coffee today.
You know, I did this debate with, not a debate, a panel discussion with a wonderful lady from Reason.
The debate was the other thing.
Fiona Harrigan, I think it is, from Reason.
And she was great.
And we talked about everything and I talked way too much.
It was embarrassing.
I saw the video and I was like, oh, cringe.
That's what the kids say.
Is there videos from that thing?
Because I kept seeing stuff on Twitter.
One guy, one guy got video of it on his phone of the last panel that I did.
Anyway, and it was cool because it was hosted by or, you know, moderated by Grover Norquist.
And he was pretty good at shutting me up and changing the subject and stuff.
I give him good credit for that.
He should have probably stepped in more.
But anyway, a lesson learned at least from that.
But any who's.
The point is that Norquist says about China in the form of a question, but he figured out a way to say it, that they're surrounded by adversaries or at least people who don't like them and don't want them around.
And that includes the South Koreans, the Japanese, the Vietnamese and the Mongolians and the Taliban or whatever.
I don't know if he mentioned the Taliban, but, you know, he went around, he named a few more, too.
So if they want to fight everybody, they sure got their work cut out for them.
It doesn't really make sense for them to be, you know, an aggressive power at this point.
There's a lot of presumption on the part of the Americans accusing the Chinese for their designs against everyone when it doesn't seem like they're going to move on Kyrgyzstan soon or, you know, I don't know.
I guess the biggest fear is that they would take Taiwan.
But, you know, American policy has long been that Beijing is the rightful government of Taiwan.
They just don't want to see them reunited by force, but just by negotiation someday.
That's been the policy for 40 years.
So, you know, seems like a major break in that status quo is probably more likely to come from the American side than the Chinese side at this point.
I don't know.
But yeah, well, with Taiwan, I mean, it's kind of it's it's moving towards a change in policy.
I don't think it's going to happen in this administration, but I mean, they're taking a lot of steps to kind of boost ties with Taiwan and like little things like they start they started sending war planes to Taiwan for diplomatic visits instead of just, you know, discrete passenger planes.
You know, they're still they've always sold even Senate cabinet member.
Right.
Was that Trump or Biden that Senate cabinet member?
It was like only the secretary of labor or something, but still it was the first time they'd sent a full fledged cabinet member since Trump sent the health secretary Alex Azar was OK in last August and August 2020.
But that was the highest level U.S. visit since they severed diplomatic relations with Taipei in 1979.
So these things are small and symbolic, but the more you see of them, you know, the U.S. and Japan, Biden met with the Japanese prime minister and they released a statement on the on Taiwan.
They said peace like they I forget how they worded it.
It was something about the Taiwan Strait.
And that was the first time the U.S. and Japan mentioned Taiwan in a joint statement together since the 70s.
And you see a lot of this comes from the real hawkish Republicans in the Senate that are introducing they want to change the policy from strategic ambiguity, which means if it's not clear if the U.S. would come to defend Taiwan if China invaded it to strategic clarity, they call it, which is the U.S. would commit to going to war with China over Taiwan.
But that's still that's just kind of like the Tom Cottons are saying that.
But I think as the years go on, we might see more people calling for that.
And, you know, that's some as the propaganda is really ramping up, that's something I don't think many Americans understand, is that the reason why, you know, a lot of these world like the U.N. and the World Health Organization don't recognize Taiwan as a country is because the United States doesn't recognize Taiwan as a country.
People just don't really understand the policy, the sensitivity of it, the fact that the U.S. intervened in the 50s during the Taiwan Strait crisis and fought off and sent the communists back to the mainland.
You know, people don't understand the history of it.
But yeah, and changing that policy, I think, will make a conflict obviously more likely if the U.S. starts to support Taiwanese independence outright, then it's going to kind of, you know, it's just not it's not good.
Yeah.
Well, you know, Pat Buchanan wrote years ago that, hey, what if the Chinese rolled into outer Mongolia?
We're going to go to war with them or at some point we got to recognize there's a limit on our influence and maybe our limit should be way further back.
And at the end of the day, if we're not willing to go to war for outer Mongolia, why would we be willing to go to war for Taiwan?
It's, you know, I guess if I was Taiwanese, I would really prefer that the mainland not invade and conquer and enslave me under the red flag.
I don't see really as a Texan how that's my problem, you know, and especially when, hey, sorry, mutually assured destruction.
Somebody, you know, just type H-bomb in your YouTube and go look at that for a minute.
And that's why we can't fight China forever.
You just can't ever, no matter what.
I came up with this one one time.
Now I'll say it again.
What if the germ was deliberate and it was the Chinese commies deliberately inflicted that thing on us and everybody else because what mean old commies they are?
Well, we still can't have a war with them.
Even if they just killed 600,000 of us with this stupid germ, what are we going to do now?
New Beijing?
You know, no, we can't because then they, well, we shouldn't anyway.
But we can not and may not because they'll blow up our cities, too.
And we won't be able to shoot their nukes down before they do fusion over L.A. and Denver and, you know, San Francisco and, you know, possibly probably as far as Washington, D.C. by now, you know, in New York City.
Yeah, we can't.
And I think a lot of people have to kind of more people have to kind of wake up to kind of what's happening here and how China is becoming.
I mean, the Pentagon has outright said it, that China is the top.
They call them the pacing threat or sometimes they say pacing challenge.
And, you know, the name of the game right now is surrounding China with more military hardware and bases and forming alliances in the region.
I mean, like you said, you see NATO's getting in on it.
That's how you know it is just like, you know, it's just they're just using it as an excuse to expand the empire.
And this big country that we were fine with, relatively fine with 20 years ago, is now like, you know, our top enemy.
Biden said that we're in a competition with China to win the 21st century.
You know, it's just it's really.
What the focus is becoming and, you know, like a lot of people say Biden is in bed with the Chinese or something, but even if that were true 10 years ago, things have changed and things change quick.
You could look at all of the look at Saddam Hussein.
We were friends with him and then we turned around and went to war with him pretty quick.
So, you know, I should have Chas Freeman back on the show.
Yeah, to myself here, like here's the guy who's a real, real, real expert.
And I what I want to bounce off of him is the question.
I can't remember who it was who said this now, but it was somebody that I interviewed that said that, you know, when Trump put all these new tariffs on and did the trade war with China, that that was some real significant reduction in the economic interdependence of American companies and the Chinese.
And they really kind of have been going their separate ways since then.
And that then that's the real worry that when you have this huge interest behind selling ships and planes and you and nukes and you don't have much of an interest in just buying cheap crap or, you know, cheap, great stuff, you know, so, you know, there needs to be some tension there when big business rules America.
The question is which big businesses.
And if it's, you know, this is where we need Walmart to come in and save us from Northrop.
You know what I mean?
But I think that there is something else going on.
I think some of those big businesses that had interest in good relations, for whatever reason, maybe that is kind of changing because just the way Congress is going along with this, like the Senate, they recently passed this huge bill.
It's like 250 billion dollars and about 50 billion of it would subsidize domestic chip manufacturing.
You know, the microchips that they use for cars and computers and stuff.
And, you know, that this stuff passes through Congress like everybody's voting in favor of it, pretty much.
That bill, I believe, oh man, I can't remember now, but I'm pretty sure it was all the Democrats voted for it and some Republicans were against it because it wasn't like tough enough on China.
It's this huge bill.
It's not just the chip stuff.
And it also funds like research and development.
It funds U.S. federal agencies like science agencies.
But there's all this other crap in it.
There's all this like there's a bill about Taiwan strengthening relations with Taiwan.
I think the Republicans didn't think that Taiwan stuff was strong enough.
It could.
And there's like more sanctions over Xinjiang and Hong Kong.
And the House has passed its own version.
So they're going to negotiate it.
It's going to take a little while.
But, you know, kind of just seeing that how because because that is another step towards decoupling if we get the chip manufacturing going here.
And if just seeing how easily this stuff is passing through Congress and how on board everybody is, it makes me think that, you know, the tides are turning and the business interest, it's not as strong as it used to be.
Or maybe it's something with the Chinese companies or, you know, maybe they're competing more with our corporations.
I don't know what it is, but I see like kind of everybody seems to be in lockstep.
I'm sure there's still some big business interests that like Walmart, they could, you know, hopefully they'll get more of a say.
They're going to stick their neck out, you know.
Let's see.
Yeah.
The question is more like what's the status quo?
Are we getting along and trading here?
All of us or are we mostly not, you know, rather than.
Yeah.
Anyway, well, maybe they'll kill us all.
It'll be interesting to see for a moment.
Yeah, we could at least we could be like, well, at least we were right.
Yeah.
Man, that's a pretty bright flash.
Wow.
That is hotter than the sun.
And then that's pretty much the end of that.
Yeah.
Yeah.
But anyway, just one thing I got to get going in a couple minutes.
But I was going to say, go ahead.
There's just one more thing I wanted to bring up, because like I said, there's all this propaganda about China.
They're controlling our elites and stuff.
The Ben and Jerry's thing.
I don't know if you've interviewed anybody about it.
No, I haven't.
I've been reading up on it, though.
Yeah.
So I wrote it.
I've been following it.
You know, I'm not I don't know too much about these anti BDS laws, the technicalities of it and stuff.
But so Ben and Jerry's announced that they're going to stop selling ice cream in what they call the occupied Palestinian territories, which is being taken as they're just going to stop selling them pretty much in the Jewish settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
And Israel's reaction to this is pretty telling.
Because they're kind of freaking out about it.
So over 30 U.S. states have anti boycott, divestment and sanctions laws on the books.
It's a BDS movement.
And some are slightly different.
But pretty much what the laws do is it denies state funds from any companies or individuals who boycott Israel.
So say you're a contractor and you're entering contract with a state, say, Georgia, you have to sign a contract if it if the money is up to a certain limit.
The original limit was a thousand dollars.
So say you're doing something for a thousand dollars.
This happened to Abby Martin.
She was supposed to speak at a the journalist.
She was supposed to speak at a university in Georgia, looks at the contract that says you have to pledge not to boycott Israel, which is, you know, a lot of people don't which is, you know, pretty insane.
And she sued and there's been other, you know, legal action against these laws.
And some states have have changed the limit now.
So if you enter a contract, that's a hundred thousand dollars then.
But under that, so most normal people won't, you know, ordinary folks won't be affected by it, which is a good change.
But it's still just insanely unconstitutional law.
So for Ben and Jerry's, there's a Israel, the Israeli ambassador to the U.S. sent a letter to the 35 U.S. states that either have anti BDS laws or some sort of policy to enforce it against Ben and Jerry's.
You know, they're a U.S. based company.
They're owned by a British conglomerate now, but they were started in the United States.
They're still based in the United States.
You know, they're an American company to me.
And and, you know, this foreign government is demanding that our government take action against them for boycotting the occupation, if it's really even a boycott.
I don't know if you would even call it that because they just don't want to sell in these settlements.
And it's it's really just it's just so crazy.
And and so far, New York, Florida, Texas, I believe Illinois and New Jersey have all kind of started gotten the ball rolling, you know, sent the letters to the to the proper state boards to get to divest funds from Unilever, which is the parent company.
So if the state pension funds has stock in the company, they gave them like a notice.
If you don't.
This was for New York, at least the details in the other states, I'm not sure, but New York sent them a letter saying if you don't change, you have 90 days to confirm if you or one of your companies is boycotting Israel and then we might start taking action, which is divesting in the stock.
So, yeah, it's just it's just insane.
I don't think it gets enough coverage or kind of people don't see just how how nuts it is.
So there's an op-ed in The New York Times by a woman named Mareve Zonsine.
I think it is.
And she says the uniformity of official reaction in Israel to the Ben and Jerry's.
Oh, that's bad editing.
Not my fault to Ben and Jerry's decision reflects an Israeli political consensus.
Unlike that of the international community, it does not distinguish between Israeli territory within its internationally recognized forty eight borders and the territories occupied in 67.
And so and that's really right.
In fact, I saw someone joking around that Ola Dipshit, the mayor in New York, was talking about this as though the West Bank was just Israel, that wasn't any disputed territories or any of those euphemisms, even as though the annexation has all taken place elsewhere.
That's really something to see the mayor of New York City way out ahead of the State Department and and the rest of the of humanity on Israel, you know, having some kind of proper ownership of the West Bank.
But there you have it.
And you could see why, you know, probably a lot of these people think that that really is the thing.
So that's really how they understand it.
So they must really be outraged about Ben and Jerry's or don't even see what the controversy is.
It's like saying there's livestock on the land doesn't mean you can't squat on it.
You know, it's just Palestinians.
Yeah.
Yeah, no, exactly.
Yeah, they said that they're going to keep selling in Israel and, you know, within those borders.
Yeah, I think the reaction is pretty telling.
So.
Yeah, we'll see what happens with that, because Airbnb in 2019, they stopped listing, you know, they stopped listing properties that are that were in the West Bank.
And it had a similar reaction, even though I don't think that they were trying to do any make it wasn't like a boycott or anything.
They apparent they don't list they don't like to list property in disputed territories and they have other examples of where they do it.
I don't think they list in Crimea.
But this same stuff happened to the states.
I know Florida, Ron DeSantis, they put them on this scrutinized companies list that kind of does it the best funds from them.
And that got turned around pretty quick.
But Ben and Jerry's, I don't think that they're going to.
I don't think they're going to kind of give in to the pressure.
So it'll be interesting to see how it plays out, because you kind of need these high profile things to get these laws changed.
Otherwise, you know, they'll just stay there on the books forever.
But yeah, well, it'll it'll be interesting.
So there was an interview with an activist at the Mondoweiss blog about the title of it is it shows that BDS works.
And it was a group of Vermont activists who just focused on Ben and Jerry's and said, man, you guys got to stop doing this.
And then he tells the story of how and actually I didn't get very far into it and I didn't never get back to that tab, but I still have it.
I'm going to finish it.
But anyway, it's all in the headline anyway.
Local activists in Vermont forced the issue and made this happen.
And then it's like this massive thunderclap.
And of course, why the massive overreaction by the Israelis is you're talking about demanding that the states in America boycott Americans for not even quite boycotting them.
And the reason why is because they don't want regular Joe's wondering why a Jewish owned American ice cream company would have any kind of pseudo type boycott of any description against Israeli anything.
You know, I thought the Israelis are the good guys and on the other side of the barbarian hordes.
And so what do you mean that it's the Israelis who are the ones who are being unfair?
Just raising the question, you know, is to them a real problem because they know that the answer doesn't favor them.
To paraphrase old funny Stephen Colbert a long time ago, the truth has a severe anti-Israeli bias.
And so they just don't want this thing discussed.
Yeah.
You know?
Yeah.
And I mean, you know, I know Ben, I know his last name is Cohen.
So despite...
I don't know anything about Jerry.
I was just going on the Cohen thing myself.
Yeah.
So I don't know much about either of them, honestly.
His name being Ben Cohen.
They're still calling them an anti-Semitic company, which, you know, the people start looking into this on surface level.
It seems like...
Wait, this doesn't seem right.
Am I wrong?
It seems like they could afford PR men who would think, I mean, they they have to have balanced this.
But you might think that they would calculate that they might be pushing it too far, might provoke a reaction among regular Americans that, you know, why is it that the biggest threat to free speech in America is a foreign government, supposedly our ally, you know, trying to get our government to shut us up for daring to criticize them?
What the hell is that?
That might be the last straw for a lot of people, you know, but it seems like their public relations game is just all offense, all stiff arm and no nuance, you know?
Yeah.
Yeah.
It seems like they're not used to...
They're used to getting, I guess, like the quick victories from the U.S. and the media and stuff.
But...
Well, they're losing.
25 percent of American Jews describe the situation there as apartheid.
Yeah.
And it's the numbers only going up from there because it is.
And so that's it, you know?
Yeah.
Yeah.
No, it's it's pretty notable.
There is a similar poll, and I forget the number, but it was with young American evangelicals and their views on Israel are changing, too, so.
That's great.
Yeah.
That's important, right?
Yeah, it is.
I want to see.
All right.
Listen, I love talking to you.
Thanks so much for all the information and catching us all up on last week, everything we missed here and all the bad news, Dave.
You're great.
Yeah, man.
Thanks for having me back on, Scott.
Appreciate it.
All right, you guys.
That's Dave DeCamp.
He's our news editor at antiwar.com, news.antiwar.com.
Go and read up.
The Scott Horton Show, Antiwar Radio, can be heard on KPFK 90.7 FM in L.A., APSradio.com, antiwar.com, scotthorton.org, and libertarianinstitute.org.
