09/20/07 – Charles Goyette – The Scott Horton Show

Charles Goyette is the most independent talk show host in America.
He does the morning show on 1100 AM KFNX in Phoenix, Arizona, and he's my partner in crime at the Antiwar Radio Project for Antiwar.com, and I'm very glad to have him as a guest again on this show.
Welcome, Charles.
Scott, always good to talk to you.
How are you doing?
I am doing wonderful.
How are you?
I'm fine, too, but...
I can't imagine getting up as early in the morning as you do, man.
You know, I understand there's not very much that I can say good about it.
In fact, I was doing a crossword puzzle yesterday about the joys of getting up at 4 in the morning to be on the radio, and it's a very simple puzzle because there are no words over four letters.
Yeah, that sounds about right.
I bet you've used that one a hundred times.
At least once.
Yeah, okay.
Yeah.
All right.
What I wanted to get you on is because, well, I know that you share my exact same mindset about how the world works, only it's a lot more informed about a lot of things, and what I really want you to teach me and my audience about today is what the hell is going on in the markets?
Now, I know in general terms the government has been counterfeiting money and they've destroyed the dollar, but, you know, you've got mortgage, this and that.
You've got China talking about they may or may not dump bonds, et cetera.
Can you just kind of give us an overview of what's going on in the world in terms of the financial markets, Charles?
I'll do my best, which the situation on the one hand is very complicated and on the other hand it's very, very easy.
The United States dollar is a piece of paper, and for a long time it has had a certain amount of confidence lodged in it, a certain amount of prestige attached to it because America was a free and prosperous country, but ultimately the United States dollar is a piece of paper.
And we have been down this road in many, many countries throughout time of governments issuing currencies that are pieces of paper.
There was a time at which the U.S. dollar was a warehouse receipt.
It had no value in itself other than the fact that it was a receipt.
You've taken your car and left it in the parking garage, here is your receipt, sir, you give us this receipt, we'll give you back your car.
The U.S. dollar is a warehouse receipt for a certain amount of gold or at one time a certain amount of silver held in the bank vaults or in the central banks.
And over time the fact that the piece of paper was only a receipt for something else got lost and the U.S. dollar, although it is nothing but paper and ink, was deemed, was believed to have in this confidence game, value intrinsically in and of itself.
But ultimately it was a confidence game.
The piece of paper had value only to the extent there was a bigger fool that would take it after you had received one from somebody else in payment for your labor or your goods, that you had somebody else that would take it on.
Well, the game is almost over.
Pieces of paper have an intrinsic value.
You can use paper to write on, the dollar's already been written on.
You can use it, I suppose, to stuff your pillow and rest your weary head at the end of the day.
You can use it in the bathroom, I suppose, for something.
But ultimately all paper currencies resort to their, they return to their ultimate value, which is a piece of paper and ink.
So the whole world has been using the U.S. dollar as its reserve currencies, just as in the United States.
There was a time in which the federal banking authorities held a certain amount of gold in reserve against the issuance of this receipt.
Since World War II, other central banks of other nations around the world have held U.S. dollars as reserves against which they have issued their own currency.
This has given us a certain amount of economic strength and, frankly, largess that we didn't exactly earn in this country because the dollar was treasured by other countries as a means for them to conduct their foreign exchange and so on.
OPEC would sell oils that was denominated in terms of dollars.
Well, the game is over.
The confidence game is over, and it's because the dollar, the piece of paper that was purported to have value, has lost roughly, well, since the creation of the Federal Reserve, has lost roughly 95 or 96 percent of its purchasing power in the years since the Fed was created.
And I guess I've gone on a little long, but to cut to the chase, the Bush administration, in its fiscal recklessness, and its stretching the American empire to beyond any conceivable sustainable limit, has ended the game.
And so countries all over the world are starting to flee from the United States dollar.
The Chinese have signaled this, that they have way too many of them and they don't trust that its purchasing power will stay in place.
You hear Bush's supporters, the Kool-Aid drinkers, the 29 percent that still think this guy and his administration are capable of doing something right, you hear them say, oh, Hugo Chavez is abandoning the dollar, but that's only Hugo Chavez, and he's a bad man, and he's our blood-sworn enemy from South America, yada, yada, yada.
But the truth is, even countries that are purportedly our allies, like, well, let me give you an example, Kuwait, it was only years ago that we were pulling Kuwait's chestnuts out of the fire.
And Kuwait, oh, they pledged their undying loyalty to the United States, and we restored the royal family, American soldiers went off the fight and died, while the Aqaba royal family of Kuwait went off to Switzerland to disco dance and ski.
We restored their royal family, we restored the Emirate of Kuwait, and oh, at the time we did so, by the way, we discovered that they had little Filipino girls held in their private royal family compounds that were being held as sex slaves, we got promised they wouldn't do that anymore, members of the royal family were lying in congressional testimony to the American people, but still we restored them to their throne, we restored them to their family, and you would think with their pledges of undying loyalty that they wouldn't be among the ones, but they are just like Hugo Chavez, even the country of Kuwait is saying, you know, I'm not sure we want any more of these American dollars, maybe we ought to start pricing Kuwaiti petroleum in terms of euros, maybe we ought to broaden out our currency reserve base out of the U.S. dollar.
I guess, Scott, it's a long answer to say that the con game is indeed before our very eyes.
Well, now, when you talk about the Kuwaitis, I guess, you know, I want to try to give these owners of slaves the benefit of the doubt and say, well, you know, maybe they really, in their heart, are undyingly loyal to the United States, it's just that sticking to the dollar is just bad business at this point, they just don't have a choice anymore.
It is bad business, but of course, I mean, how can you say that they're undyingly loyal to the United States, the character of the United States changes from week to week, year to year, congressional election to congressional election, presidency to presidency.
So I mean, people don't pledge their loyalty to something that shifts with every new breeze.
So you could say, well, they pledge their undying loyalty to the principles of America to, but yet they told us that if we restored them to their throne, they would be implementing things that Americans believe that they cherish about democracy and so on.
After all those reforms, they told us they would implement and they didn't implement any of them.
So their loyalty is to their own power.
Oh, yeah.
Well, I don't think they ever even pretended, at least in American media, to Trump it too loudly claims that they were bringing democracy to Kuwait, but no, I guess I just mean to say it seems like, you know, if the Bushes tell the Sultans and the Meers and whoever in Kuwait that, you know, hey, we saved your ass that time and so you have to, you know, do what we like.
They're basically saying, hey, look, we have to diversify our funds.
You've destroyed your currency and it's not good business for us to, you know, loyalty only goes so far.
It only goes so far.
And if you take a longer term view as well, I mean, I think a number of the the Emirates of the the shakedowns are starting to look at cutting a better deal and finding and finding better friends.
So I'm kind of confused about some of this, Charles, and I may already know how you're going to answer this, but it seems to me like the dollar dominance that you talk about with the American dollar as the reserve currency for the whole world, basically, the bailout currency when local currencies get completely bankrupted.
That's all because of our foreign policy.
It's because of our imperial domination that makes that possible.
And yet at the same time, it's our imperial domination that's destroyed our dollar and made it, quote unquote, necessary for us to use for us to try to prop it up.
You're certainly right about the current the current situation where we find ourselves in.
There was a time, though, that you could take a United States dollar to any bank, a 20 dollar United States, 20 dollar green bank, any bank, give you a 20 dollar gold piece.
And so there really was a time that the U.S. dollar was as good as gold.
And so it was it was admired and desired all over the world.
There really was such such a time.
By the way, historically, we have seen over and over again that the situation, the cultures, the nationalities that rise in the in preeminence and the affairs of mankind and in prosperity are the countries or the cultures that use a good, reliable, obviously precious metal currency.
There was a time for for eight hundred years, currency in a great part of the world was the golden bezant.
And it was it was reliable and it was dependable for literally for hundreds of years.
And then they began to debauch the currency and they began to, you know, either file off some of the some of the gold content or issue it alloyed with cheap metals, with base metals.
And that's where we get when we say something is Byzantine today, meaning it's kind of weird, devious and a labyrinth of deceit and so on.
After referring to that, that word entered our language from the period in which the Byzantine currency, the golden bezant was debauched much the way the United States dollar over over time has been debauched.
So countries that rely on a good, redeemable, reliable form of money always rise to prominence in the affairs of mankind and in prosperity.
And so we really did have that in our history.
But it's been squandered by the Republicans and the Democrats over the last couple of years.
Well, now, I've read some conflicting things about this.
I want to know what you think about the idea that basically when Nixon took us off the gold standard in 71 for good, that he sent Henry Kissinger to Saudi Arabia to make a deal with them that we would have an oil standard, basically, that, as you said that before, that the oil states denominate their sales in dollars.
And is that the case in a sense that they've kind of switched the backing from gold to oil?
It might have been.
I'm not prepared to comment on it, except to say that when I talk about Byzantine affairs, I guess the case history is Henry Kissinger, because he was the master of deceit and run around making all kinds of deals.
One thing that Americans should probably know is that the oil shocks of the 70s with suddenly overnight sky-high petroleum prices, long gas lines rationing here in the United States, a good deal of that increase in oil prices was actually engineered by Henry Kissinger as a way to provide additional currency reserves to the oil-rich nation of Iran so that Iran could buy an unending flow of military hardware from United States merchant of death manufacturers.
So it was another Kissinger Byzantine thing.
If you ask me to, you know, Kissinger and dollar standard and dollar oil standard stuff, to me, Scott, it's like looking at a tangled spaghetti plate of Kissinger machinations trying to figure out, you know, well, which thread should we follow, because there were so many of them.
Right.
Well, you know, there are those who say that the real reason that they wanted to get Saddam was because the sanctions were going to have to be lifted at some point, and if Saddam Hussein was able to rebuild his oil wealth, first of all, he would have done it with the help of companies that aren't based in America, or the Bahamas, or wherever they're based out of nowadays.
And second of all, he had already talked about, or perhaps had already made a switch to starting to denominate his sales in euros, and there are others who say that that's part of the reason they want to bomb Iran as well.
Do you think that that's part of this?
I think you put it well when you say part of it.
In my view, and you and I have talked about this before, it was like a strange, I don't know, astrological conjunction of the planets or something.
There were so many reasons that the purveyors of this war brought together at one time.
It was like they were lining up, they were, it's like they were trying to win elections with multiple special interest groups, each of which was a minority, but consolidated together was a majority.
So they had people, there were people concerned about that, that were brought in to support the war.
There were people that thought, oh, this would be just wonderful for Israel, that were brought in to support the war.
There were people that really believed it was about a good thing, in their view, about American hegemony around the world forever, a pox Americana, they were brought in to support the war.
There were people that thought, I mean, people thought it'd be good for the stock market.
You think, how can any self-respecting human being with a flicker of decent human consciousness think that war is a good thing to make the stock market go up?
But I mean, I watched Larry Kudlow on television talk about it, about, you know, this war will be good for the stock market.
I mean, so there were, you know, there were all these coalitions that, you know, were cobbled together and marched together in support of the war, and clearly there were people who looked at what you've described, you know, the likelihood of the United States, or the world abandoning the dollar's reserve currency function.
Of course, what they end up doing, nothing ever worked, you know, first, nothing ever works according to plans with these geniuses, the first thing that happened was that more people started questioning the dollar as the reserve currency of the world, not fewer.
Sure, yeah.
I mean, it seems like the solution would be if your dollar hegemony is really in jeopardy, shore it up.
You're about to base it even more.
Yes.
Use your resources, the resources of the nation, the people's wealth, to become more productive, more rich, more prosperous, instead of squandering them on blowing up bridges and schools, only to tax the American people and impoverish them to rebuild the selfsame bridges and schools the next year.
Yeah.
Well, you know, when you brought up the story of Kissinger having the Saudis jack up the oil price so the Iranians could afford to buy more weapons of death from American billionaires who were already rich and don't deserve welfare checks, but anyway, that brings up the whole kind of scam here of the government intervention in the economy being done, not as regulation to protect us from the most powerful people, the most powerful private interests, but really to protect those most powerful private interests from us.
Yeah.
Did you see Jon Stewart interview Alan Greenspan the other day?
I did.
Was that the coolest thing in the world?
Yeah.
In fact, I saw on Lew Rockwell's blog, somebody posted it and said, you know, maybe he's learned a thing or two from Ron Paul.
Oh, that's what I put on my blog, too, is I'm just going to go ahead and default give credit to Ron for this because, I mean, who else in public life is talking about the Fed as a bad deal?
And for those who missed it, Jon Stewart said to Greenspan in his very naive and earnest way, well, but if we have a free market economy, why do we need the Fed?
Why don't we just let the market set the interest rates?
Well, what a conversation and a big part of it, actually, the other, I guess, the major part of it was, Stewart says, so you cut the interest rate and that makes the stock market go up a lot, right?
And Greenspan says, yeah, and he says, yeah, but you know, the average schmuck out there who doesn't own a bunch of stocks, but who has, you know, maybe a little 401k if he's lucky, a little savings account, you're punishing him.
You're driving down the interest rate.
All of a sudden, people on fixed incomes that rely on interest rate-denominated returns, they get less.
So, the Fed has decided that they're going to favor one class of Americans, the wealthy, the plutocrats, versus another class.
You are absolutely right.
This is the point I spent a good deal of time on the show here in Phoenix the other day about Scott, because this whole period that we're in, and I don't like to bandy these words about lightly, like fascism, but here is a good working definition for everybody to remember about what economic fascism would be.
Economic fascism would be a country, a regime, a government that socializes the costs and privatizes the profits.
And you see this over and over, here on a small scale here in Phoenix, the taxpayers can build the half a billion dollar football stadium for the private football owners and increase their private wealth at taxpayer expense by hundreds of millions of dollars.
The taxpayers can build the stadium for the private football team owners, but when the private football team has record attendance because of the new stadium and they earn a lot of money, do the taxpayers get a dividend check?
Of course not.
And this is what's gone on with Fed policy.
Here's the dollar, 12, 5, 13, wherever it was, and all of a sudden the Fed starts moving heaven and earth to shore up the stock, and it barely even had a correction, and the plunge protection team goes to work and they start billions of dollars transferred and moved the new Fed policies implemented and interest rates adjusted to shore up the stock market.
First of all, Charles, you're just picking on the president when you talk about trying to slander people who make their fortunes off of government funded sports stadiums, and I don't appreciate your underhanded attack on our great leader.
And second of all, is it really right that they created $500 billion, the different central banks of the world, in concert to bail out the big banks in the last month or so?
I can't even keep up, I don't even pretend to be able to keep up with it anymore, but of course it's the American people that do their business in dollars have dollars in savings and so on, they have a paycheck that doesn't go as far as the grocery store, they end up suffering the consequences of it, but they never link the consequences they suffer to the policies of the Fed and the administration that have destroyed the underlying value of the currency.
And I guess that brings us back kind of full circle on this thing, hey, did you see, Scott, the Congressional Budget Office estimate that finally brings some sort of rationality into projecting the cost of this war into numbers more like you and I and some of the people on antiwar.com have been talking about for years more, it's more like a $2 trillion war?
No, I didn't see that.
Yeah, I think it just got released today, so.
Oh, that just came out today, so?
I think so, yeah.
And, you know, that's what Joseph Stiglitz, the economist said, what, a couple of years ago that this thing was going to be $2.5 trillion by the time we're done.
Yeah.
Wow.
You know, it's funny, because they didn't say anything about that in the run-up to the war.
Oh, no, it was the war that would pay for itself, and you may remember Paul Wolfowitz when he, there was never a period in which these whack jobs were as full of themselves as they were in May of 2003.
There was George Bush strutting around on the deck of the Abraham Lincoln mission accomplished, I think he was in Singapore, that Paul Wolfowitz was going, oh, you know, look at us, and of course, he added that, he goes, well, you know, the thing with Iraq is, Iraq floats on a sea of oil.
So they were real candid back then about, you know, that it was oil and petroleum and stuff, and now Alan Greenspan violates the social taboos, so everybody knows, everybody knows it was about oil, and all of a sudden, you know, in polite circles, they're all scowling at him and wagging their fingers, right?
Yeah.
I think so few people are willing to do what you did earlier and say, here's a partial list of the thousand different interests that came together in favor of the war on Iraq, and everyone wants to say it was Israel, it was oil, it was this, it was that, it was only the one thing I think it was and not the things that you say, and I think you have it right when you say what you have really here is a convergence of interests of America's worst criminals.
Well, they were, yeah, they were a very dedicated band of bright political professionals, and it was just like winning an election, they wanted their war, they wanted their war, Bush wanted his war first before political approval, Karl Rove wanted the war for the 2002 elections, everybody had it, so they all came together, okay, how are we going to stitch all of these interest groups together so we can have our, there was a dedicated corps of men that wanted a war, they decided to find out who else they could bring in and what lies they had to tell to get all these other people roped in on.
What a great analogy it was, just like running another presidential campaign, only you're voting for the war this time.
Yep.
Very interesting.
Now, let me ask you one more thing, you did a great job on CNN's Lou Dobbs show the other day, anybody can watch it on my blog, thestressblog.com or at antiwar.com on the blog there, and one of the radio show hosts that you were debating with there said, yeah, Charles, but it's all this terrible debt and cost of war that you're complaining about, it's such a small percentage of GDP though, the deficit, yeah, it's the biggest round number ever, but compared to what the rest of the economy is pumping out, it's really not that big of a deal.
Scott, can't you smell a Republican political talking point from a mile away?
Well, explain to me why he's wrong then.
All right.
He says, well, the percentage of the deficit is small compared to historically small, and of course you'd never have time on those shows to give complete long answers that are informative, but he was talking on the very same day that the Fed had undertaken this move of desperation to cut the Fed funds rate a half a percent in the hopes perhaps of inflating the last bubble, the real estate bubble, but you can't reflate the last bubble, just like driving interest rates down to zero under or to 1% under Alan Greenspan wasn't enough to refloat the high-tech stock market bubble.
They're not going to be able to refloat the housing market bubble, but I'll tell you, let me use as a piece of evidence Dick Cheney had a piece in the War Street Journal yesterday Wednesday in the War Street Journal responding to Alan Greenspan, who said the Bush administration has been fiscally reckless, economically irresponsible.
Dick Cheney wrote the response piece, and you don't have to take it from me, a talk show host in Phoenix, but Dick Cheney finishes his piece talking about how well they've performed in the Bush administration.
He finishes his piece referring to the fiscal disaster that everybody knows is coming.
So when they issue talking points that whack-job talk show hosts pick up around the country about, oh, the shortfall of the budget this year is a bite, it's still a shortfall, and it's small in percentage terms.
Look...
Wait a minute.
You say that Dick Cheney yesterday in the Wall Street Journal ended his piece referring to there's an economic catastrophe on its way here?
A fiscal disaster that everyone knows is coming.
Now, think about that.
Well, now, wait.
Is he just saying everybody knows that Social Security is going to go bankrupt in 20 years, or what's he saying?
He's saying the whole house of cards, I gather, is coming down, but don't blame us.
Oh, no, he wouldn't have anything to do with it, only that he's been in charge for six years straight creating...
Yeah, I wonder, Scott, how at six and a half years into this administration they're going to try to figure out a way to blame it all on Bill Clinton, which is the first thing.
You watch Sean Hannity, you watch Fox News, and every time there's a problem in the Bush administration or the American people begin to wake up, there's some faux pas that these guys have taken.
Hannity goes, oh, yeah, well, what about Bill Clinton?
So I expect six and a half years later, as the Bush economic chickens come home to roost, they're going to try real hard to figure out a way to make people understand.
They have nothing to do with it.
They might have had a Republican House, they might have had a Republican Senate, they might have had a Republican presidency, they might have had a Republican president who couldn't bring himself to veto a reckless spending bill, but it's going to be, oh, yeah, well, what about Bill Clinton?
Yeah.
Well, and you know, there's plenty of great things to attack Bill Clinton for, but I can't see how they can pin their responsibility on him for the things that they've done.
Well, I made a virtual career out of attacking Clinton when it was Clinton time.
It ain't Clinton time anymore.
Right.
It's Bush time.
Yeah.
I'm sorry to keep you on so long, and I'm doubly sorry that I'm going to do this to you, but I want to read to you a selected paragraph here, and then the trivia question is see if you can tell me who wrote this.
Oh, good.
This will be fun.
And I'll go ahead and give you a hint.
It's not Ron Paul.
Okay.
Okay.
In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation.
There is no safe store of value.
If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold.
If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payments for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power, and government created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods.
The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.
This is the shabby secret of the welfare status tirades against gold.
Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the hidden confiscation of wealth.
Gold stands in the way of this insidious process.
It stands as a protector of property rights.
If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statist's antagonism toward the gold standard.
Okay.
I hope there's, Scott, I hope there's a big prize for getting this right.
If you get this right, you get the pick of any five bumper stickers from LibertyStickers.com.
Oh, I love your stickers.
All right, here it is.
Alan Greenspan.
Okay, you got it.
1967.
Yeah.
You want to know a funny story?
Yep.
The first time I ever saw Ron Paul on TV, it was on C-SPAN in 1997 when he just came back to Congress, and he had in his hand a big sheet of papers, and he says, hey, all this is the evidence that the Bush administration was still backing and financing and sending chemical and germ weapons to Saddam Hussein all the way through Desert Shield, even up until like two weeks before Desert Storm started, and here's all the information.
I thought, wow, the second time I saw Ron Paul on TV was, I think, that same year, and he was on the House Banking Committee, and he was asking Alan Greenspan a question, and what he did, Charles, was he was reading to Alan Greenspan what I just read to you.
Alan Greenspan, the case for gold, 1967, oh, it's gold and economic freedom, 1967.
And he read this passage, Alan Greenspan, and said, so, you know, what, do you agree with that or not, or what's the deal?
And Greenspan says, you know, he's not going to go back on his intellectual accomplishments or whatever, so he says, oh, yes, I wrote that, and I still believe that.
That's still absolutely right.
However, unfortunately, my colleagues at the Federal Reserve disagree.
Yeah.
Well, he said very much the same thing on the Jon Stewart Show the other night, didn't he?
He acknowledged the centrality of a disciplined currency, a redeemable currency, and then he said, but, you know, we've decided in this day and age, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Yeah, and then he ended by saying, and, you know, I was just telling my friends the other day that even though I'm 80 or something, and I've been doing this my entire life, I haven't learned a thing, and I'm no better at it than I ever was, and it might be...
Now, listen, this says it all about the Federal Reserve.
This says it all.
Here is the guy that was thought to be, you know, a Washington wizard with a pointy hat with stars and the half-moons on it, and he had a wand in his hand and stuff.
He didn't know.
He didn't see.
He didn't see the mortgage belt down coming.
He doesn't know.
He's not the good at predicting.
He's no better now than he ever was.
These guys are not capable of doing the job that the American people believe that they're there to do.
You and I know that it is a job that cannot be performed efficiently or, for that matter, at all at a centralized bank, that it can't be done, that he can't predict the markets, that he is not good at...that the economy cannot be fine-tuned from on top.
The economy is not some big machine with levers and dials that can be reset by a bunch of geniuses at the Fed.
He has as much admitted this, and yet we persist in having a central bank.
And you and...
I'll tell you, Scott, you and I know why, because you cannot have an empire.
You cannot have a global empire without a central bank.
Of course not.
No one would pay the actual cost of this.
This is my funny analogy.
Dick Cheney...
I don't know how funny it is.
You tell me later, and in fact, I'm sure it won't be funny now.
Dick Cheney, as CEO of Halliburton in 1998, goes to the shareholders and says, hey, we need to raise a trillion dollars so we can go conquer Mesopotamia.
Yeah, right.
That's not going to happen.
In fact, he spent the 90s trying to get sanctions lifted and trying to do business with Iran and Iraq, because after all, they're just human beings who want to do business like everybody else.
But no, you give him the vice presidency, you give him the Marine Corps and the American flag to wrap himself in, and then he'll have his trillion dollar war.
Then he has the funding mechanism, and they fund their war of choice by depreciating the value of the currency in the hands of the American people.
And boy, we have sown the wind, and now we're inheriting the whirlwind.
Hey, let me ask you to do me one more favor, Charles.
Just keep a little checklist or something on your desk in the morning, and make sure that you mention Ron Paul ten times.
You mentioned I was on that Lou Dobbs show.
I got e-mail from all over the...
I think I got more e-mail from this appearance than I've ever gotten, and somebody e-mailed me from Chicago or someplace.
He goes, Charles, I watched you on the Lou Dobbs show, and he said, you probably ought to hear about a guy named Ron Paul.
And so I sent him back a video of when I was on Fox News, somehow I was able to get a word in about Ron Paul on Fox News like eight months ago or something, and I said, you know, I kind of know who Ron Paul is, and I consider my show sort of an outpost of the Ron Paul campaign in some ways.
Yeah, well, we know that the Ron Paul revolution started in Phoenix, and we appreciate it.
Well, everybody does what they can.
I know you have this huge audience of tens of thousands of people driving around hanging on your every word every morning, and I just think, like, well, I wouldn't be terrible if some of them didn't know who Ron Paul was.
They know here.
I had, listen to this, I had a ten-year-old girl, her name was Samantha, called the show this morning, and she said, Charles, I listen to your show every day, and I want you to know I'm supporting Ron Paul for president.
Awesome.
Yeah, with this web.
That's good radio, too.
Very touching.
Awesome.
All right.
Hey, Charles, you're the best, man.
You've been here since before the sun came up this morning, so go, have lunch, and have a good time, and I appreciate you coming on my show again.
God, you're just a great friend, and you do great work, and I'm so proud to know you.
Thank you, buddy.
Vice versa, too.
Okay, buddy.
This is Charles Goyette from KFNX, 1100 AM in Phoenix, Arizona.