02/04/13 – Will Grigg – The Scott Horton Show

Hey ladies, Scott Horton here.
If you would like truly youthful, healthy and healthy looking skin, there is one very special company you need to visit.
Dagenian Lane at DagenianLane.com.
Dagenian Lane has revolutionized the industry with a full line of products made from organic and all-natural ingredients that penetrate deeply with nutrient-rich ionic minerals and antioxidants for healthy and beautiful skin.
That's Dagenian Lane at DagenianLane.com.
And for a limited time, add promo code Scott15 at checkout for a 15% discount.
All right, y'all.
Welcome back.
I'm Scott Horton.
Our first guest on the show today is the great Will Grigg.
FreedomInOurTime.blogspot.com is where you can find his great blog, Pro Libertate.
FreedomInOurTime.blogspot.com.
Just google Will Grigg.
It'll come right up for you there.
He's the author of the book, Liberty in Eclipse.
And are you doing radio?
It's always on and off with you, Will.
Welcome back.
Yes, it's always on and off.
It's intermittent.
Okay.
But you're great on the radio, and everybody's about to hear that here in just a second.
So here's what I want to ask you about.
The Democrats won everybody's guns, obviously, and so there's been a bit of a backlash.
I don't imagine this would have happened if it was George Bush reauthorizing the assault weapons ban back in 04, but he didn't.
But anyway, so the Democrats want to pass it again, and a bunch of sheriffs, apparently mostly out west, I guess, are saying that, nope, you're not going to be able to enforce any new federal gun laws in my county, because I care about the Constitution and freedom and all that.
And I thought, hey, wow, great.
Separation of powers and checks and balances and ambition must be made to counteract ambition, like James Madison said.
And it's working, Will, right?
And aren't you stoked?
Isn't it great?
It would appear to be great if you look at it at the most superficial level.
But the problem here, as you know, Scott, and as I've pointed out in a couple of recent pieces, is that the county sheriffs are, like pretty much every municipal law enforcement agency, administrative agents of the federal government, at least to some extent.
There are, I think, 256 county sheriffs who've expressed opposition for a renewal of the assault weapons ban and who have said that they would not enforce executive orders that would be tantamount to civilian disarmament.
At least a few, including my childhood friend Brian Wolfe, who's the sheriff of Malheur County in Oregon, have gone so far as to say they wouldn't enforce federal laws that they consider to be incompatible with the Second Amendment.
And as far as that goes, that's terrific.
The problem is that most of these sheriffs, all of them, you can round them up to all of them anyway, including my friend Sheriff Wolfe, are carrying out unconstitutional federal mandates all the time with respect to the so-called war on drugs.
And many of them are involved.
As a matter of fact, once again, I think you could probably safely say all of them are involved in multi-jurisdictional task forces that involve infringements on the Second Amendment and infringements on the individual right to keep and bear arms, however you define it, by whatever legal strategy you seek to defend it.
I think that the Second Amendment is not the most important protection of that indispensable right.
I think the fact that no government has the moral authority to disarm an innocent person is the most important consideration here.
But pretty much every sheriff of whom I'm aware has partnered with the ATF and other three-letter federal agencies to carry out policies that involve gun confiscation.
And so they're already on the hook in terms of receiving federal subsidies.
They've already determined that they will remain on the leash that the federal government has.
The question is the length of the leash that they will be permitted.
And so what they're saying right now, for the purpose of public consumption, these are elected officials, unlike municipal police chiefs.
These are elected officials with constituencies they have to placate.
What they're saying is in, if you will, sort of the subjunctive mood.
If this happens, then we will do this.
The problem is they've already, in terms of their actions and policies, made it clear that they are willing to do the bidding of the federal government.
And so it seems to me that what they're doing, rather than taking a stand on behalf of principle in most cases, is that they're defining for public consumption the length of their tether.
And I think that when the federal government gets serious about civilian disarmament, pulls on the leash, that more or less this entire group of self-designated Second Amendment refuseniks will get in line.
They'll find some way to walk back the bold statements they're making right now.
I expect that's going to happen.
I'm hoping that I'll be disappointed, but I don't think I will be.
Yeah.
Well, and deliberate or not, I mean, it seems like, and I don't know if this goes for all 18,000 different local police departments and sheriff's departments in the country or not, but pretty much anyway, huge portions of their budget.
I don't know if you have actual numbers for us or whatever, but huge portions of virtually all of these different departments' budgets come from the feds.
And if not outright transfer payments into their bank accounts, the cooperation on civil forfeiture, which we talked about on the show last week and all the money that they make off of that, the DEA or the ATF or whoever will come to local cops and say, you guys get 80% of the take and we'll only get 20 if we go around and seize this, that, and the other thing.
And of course, just the outright transfers of equipment from the Pentagon, right?
All those tanks and all those machine guns.
Yeah.
They're completely dependent on the feds at this point.
So to pull on the leash, they wouldn't have to threaten a sheriff with anything.
It's taking some of his stuff away, right?
Yes.
All they would have to do would be to point out the precedent, if nothing else, that was set about five or six years ago under the Bush administration involving a blogger from the Bay area who wanted to seek the protection of the shield law, the, the journalist shield law in California, when the federal government demanded that he provide video footage of a riot in the Bay area.
And he pointed out that he was protected under the terms of the California law.
And they said, no, this isn't a state law.
The, this isn't a state issue, rather, this is a federal issue because you had footage of Oakland police vehicles being destroyed.
And those are federal property because the Oakland police department receives homeland security funding.
So if you receive so much as a farthing of federal funds, you're on the leash and all bets are off in terms of the powers reserved to the state, supposedly under the 10th amendment.
And when you're talking about sheriff's departments, sheriff's offices, every single one of them is involved in some kind of a multi-jurisdictional narcotics task force that receives federal funding.
And more importantly, as part of this equitable sharing arrangement, you referred to earlier, Scott, in which sheriff's departments are allowed to keep most of the loot that they plunder through asset forfeiture.
I actually had the opportunity with a friend of mine by the name of Adam Birch to have an audience with the Payette County sheriff, sheriff about two weeks ago.
And he's one of these people who have said that he would not collaborate in a federal gun grab.
He doesn't think that it's practical, but here in rural Idaho, they're going to be going house to house and block by block and confiscating firearms.
But he pointed out that he will, if he finds three ounces of marijuana in your vehicle, confiscate your car and any money he can find.
He isn't quite as inretentive about this as some of the other sheriffs in Idaho, who if they find so much as a marijuana seed, will try to confiscate the vehicle and the property.
But he's somebody who says that he believes that the war on drugs is a useful enterprise and he will carry out asset forfeiture.
And I pointed out, if you're on the hook to that extent, you're in for the entire program.
And he's one of these people, I think, who are rather equivocal about how far they would press the interest of their constituencies, as opposed to the demands of the federal government that provides them with material assets and transfer payments and a cut of the loot.
And I think that if it comes down to cases that pretty much any defense sitters of this variety are going to fall on the federal side rather than the side of their constituents.
I don't understand why we would believe, apart from the leverage that we have over them, because they want to be reelected to their positions.
I don't know why people believe that we can outbid the federal government when dealing with law enforcement agents and law enforcement officers and police unions and the like.
We cannot outbid the federal government because they have our wealth and the wealth of other tax victims that they have acquired through plunder that they can use to induce sheriffs and police officials to do their bidding.
It, I think, is a species of illusion to believe that just by bringing pressure to bear on these people that we can somehow trigger their conscience.
There are some exceptional people in the ranks of county sheriffs, I have no doubt, but the way the system is structured right now militates against the proposition that they are going to interpose on our behalf if things get elemental, and I suspect that they will.
Well, you know, a few things there.
First of all, it's easy for me to imagine how, say, your childhood friend, the county sheriff, would think of something like Waco and would tell himself, well, I'll be damned if I'm going to let something like that happen in my county.
You know what I mean?
If that broke out here, I would go in there and make the feds leave and go resolve it myself and not have a massacre.
You know, something like that, telling himself he's a hero for those kinds of reasons.
But, of course, the only thing exceptional, really, about Waco or Ruby Ridge, well, Waco, there were a lot of people in one target house, you know, I guess that was something unique about it.
But mostly what was unique was simply that they fought back and won originally, and so then there was this long, drawn-out siege.
But as you're saying, with these multi-jurisdictional task forces, these guys, I mean, your friend, the sheriff, he's doing Waco raids every day himself.
His guys are out there on these multi-jurisdictional task forces.
If they're not outright burning everybody to death, they're at least coming in there with that Powell doctrine, ATF-style dynamic paramilitary raid, overwhelming force, screaming, get down, get down, and slamming pregnant wives into the wall and the rest of that.
I should point out that our sheriff here in Fayette County, Chad Huff, in at least one case I'm aware of, actually intervened to prevent a SWAT raid against somebody who was suspected of domestic violence.
So I think he's a cut above most of the people who were involved in this occupation.
He actually de-escalated the conflict, and we had a long conversation about his problems and his challenges in carrying out the process he calls de-thugging the people that he hires as deputies.
He's really frustrated because they come out of the post academy here in Idaho, many of them are military veterans, and they have exactly the wrong mindset to become peace officers, and he has to spend a lot of time deprogramming them.
So I think that he is, as far as this cohort of people is concerned, somebody who's at least trying, in good faith, to make a positive difference.
He's the sheriff that we all want to pretend to believe in, that they're all, you know, crunchy old guys who always protect us from the hot-headed young rookies or whatever.
It's not like that.
He's the proverbial Sherman Potter, to use a figure of speech he used before Scott.
But with respect to what my friend Brian Wolf is doing, he's involved in a militarized overflight program that's part of the Oregon State Medical Marijuana Initiative, where he overflies people's property without warrants in order to inspect from the air to see the size of marijuana grows, and then if he sees something that strikes him as anomalous or suspicious, at that point they will obtain a search warrant in order to get on the property and find out what's going on.
There have been a number of big enforcement activities in the last several months, just on the other side of the border in Oregon, in which they've sent SWAT teams to raid people who are involved in legally licensed medical marijuana operations.
We have a similar program on this side of the Snake River, where the Idaho National Guard is using helicopters to overfly Payette County looking for marijuana grows.
So this is, as you say Scott, a species of a Waco-style operation in perpetual session.
It's a low-grade version of the same thing, because Waco, as you know, was made possible by invoking a non-existent drug nexus that permitted Ann Richards to involve the special forces in an operation, training the ATF and training some of the other people who were involved in the initial raid.
When they were repulsed by the Branch Davidians, the Branch Davidians held their ground and won that battle, and of course the lesson of Waco here is that the Powell Doctrine will be triggered.
They will bring overwhelming force to bear on an identifiable target, and they will do whatever is necessary in order to overcome the resistance and obliterate the enemy.
And that's the operational template right now for contemporary law enforcement, is Waco.
That's not an aberration, that's the template.
Yeah, well I mean that's the thing, is the American people, well depending on whose point of view, from my point of view, from yours, they failed that test.
Instead of being outraged about Waco, they said, yeah those people were bad and deserved it, and plus they did it to themselves anyway, and blah blah, and it took years and years and years for this slow kind of final recognition that, oh geez, I guess, yeah they did lie to us about that, huh, but by then nobody cared.
And so what happened was the precedent was set that, you know what, every cop needs to go to Fort Hood for some training for the weekend.
Yeah, that's routine here, including in places like Payette.
Payette is a town of about 8,000 people.
The county is not very big, and it's not like we're dealing with a large urban environment here, but the SWAT team, which includes elements from across the border in Oregon, has been sent to Pentagon supervised training, and they've trained with people who are special forces operators, and they have interoperability in terms of their hardware and their tactics with the military.
And when you talk about Waco, it's important to point out that one of the prominent self-designated Second Amendment stalwarts is Sheriff Larry Smith from the ironically named Smith County in Texas.
He was at Waco with the ATF back in 1993.
He was on the scene when the so-called compound erupted in flames on April 19th, and his lesson, the lesson he drew from Waco, was the danger of guns in the hands of extremists.
He still to this day defends what happened at Waco as a qualified success, and he's somebody who's supposedly going to be horatious at the bridge to protect the residents of Smith County from the designs of the federal government.
Oh man.
Yeah, it's nauseating.
Hey, tell me this.
Have you ever heard of an excuse for why they need multi-jurisdictional task forces, or is it just blatantly because we're trying to blur those lines for one day when we just have a national police force, or what?
I think the latter is probably true.
There really is no rationale that's constitutionally supportable for having a multi-jurisdictional task force.
Right, like the Austin Police Department and the Travis County Sheriff's Department each have these specialized skills, and they come together like Voltron in order to accomplish a drug raid.
You know what?
Power Rangers or something of that sort.
Yeah, and of course what happens is that you spread out the lucre over all these different constituencies, and you strengthen that element of the iron triangle.
And the same thing's going on right now, by the way, in Minnesota with Mr. Obama's visit to the special operations center in Minneapolis.
And the special operations center is the military outpost for the federal fusion of all these supposedly independent police agencies and the sheriff's office there.
There are, I think, two different county sheriff's offices involved in this.
But Minneapolis, over the last 10 or 15 years, has supposedly been the site of a miraculous tamp down on urban violence that was happening in the early 1990s.
But actually, it's been one of these pilot programs, one of these areas used as a pilot program for the consolidation of militarized police authority over a large geographical area.
What I find interesting here is that in making the case for renewing the so-called assault weapons ban and for all the other things they want to do in terms of disarming the public, the Obama administration is not rallying the public.
It's lobbying police unions and law enforcement associations and going to things like this off the record, close to the public meeting in Minneapolis with people who are part of the local outpost of the paramilitarized homeland security system and speaking with them off the record about the plans that they have so that they can put pressure on the national legislature to enact these measures.
There's clearly a division of interest here.
There's clearly a schism between the public and our interests and the interests of our so-called protectors.
And I think that the strategy that Mr. Obama is pursuing here is very, very eloquent testimony about what's really going on here.
They want to create what Congressman Gerald Nadler last December in a remarkable episode of candor said is a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.
He actually said when asked if the so-called assault weapons ban or high-capacity ammunition magazine ban would apply to the military, he said, well, no, one of the things about a nation-state that defines it is that the nation-state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.
And that's what they're doing right now.
I mean, that's Lenin.
That's the Leninist formulation, power without limit resting directly on force that they're pursuing right now.
And that's the element of the story that not many people are really paying attention to.
They're talking about all the various scenarios in which the personal ownership of firearms is indispensable for the protection of life against immediate criminal aggression, which is true.
I don't in any way disparage that or diminish the importance of this.
But the more important philosophical question here, the more important ideological question is revealed by these comments and by Mr. Obama's repeated use of Bill Clinton's formulation about how firearms are important because we have a heritage of hunting in this country and we want to be able to preserve the right that people would have to have heirloom guns that will be handed down to preserve this heritage of hunting.
Of course, that's not the purpose why we have a Second Amendment, not the purpose why people should protect and covet the right to keep and bear arms.
The real purpose here is to deny the government a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.
And that's what they're pursuing right now.
And his selection, Mr. Obama's selection of preferred audiences and constituencies tells you what the real game is.
Yeah, for sure.
And, you know, the police unions, I don't know how they do it.
Well, I do know how they do it.
The local news is on their side in every town across the country, no matter what.
And that's why we're screwed on this right where where you and I and every thinking man in this country and woman long ago decided, wow, every SWAT team ought to be abolished immediately.
And the war on drugs has got to be repealed.
And did you hear the absolute nightmare horror story of the very nice family in the neighborhood that was completely destroyed by some horrible raid?
And yet it never makes the local news.
Your point of view on this kind of thing never makes the local news.
It's always the state protecting us little people from the terrible bad guys out there.
And and no matter you know what, if they if they did, you know, 15 Waco fires in a week in one town in Austin, Texas, the local news would still take the cop's side every time.
And therefore the people just they just continue going along, man.
That's true.
All the way down to the ground level of weekly newspapers in rural Idaho.
There was a horrible episode I wrote about last August in a little village called Litha involving a couple who are organic farmers.
And for some reason they got crosswise with a neighbor who decided that she was going to SWAT them.
And so she called the county sheriff of a morning.
This is April or August 16th of last year, and said that she thought there was a fight going on in this house.
Well, what she actually heard were chickens squawking out in the front yard of this home.
And so the SWAT, forgive me, it wasn't the SWAT team, the sheriff's office decided to mobilize, investigate this domestic violence complaint.
And in the 9-1-1 traffic among the various units that responded, I was able to get those recordings and put them on my blog.
One of the officers said we have to assume their weapons present because he's anti-law enforcement.
He's a constitutionalist.
And so rather than showing up with one deputy and a social worker, the way that they had showed up at a neighbor's home two or three days earlier for a call that actually involved drunkenness and weapons and physical violence, that's what happened two or three days before this raid.
On the 16th, they showed up in full SWAT attire.
They dragged the screaming woman out of her home at gunpoint, threw her to the ground.
Then when the puzzle man came out, he was ordered to his knees with the muzzle of a semi-automatic rifle, a so-called assault weapon at the back of his skull and handcuffed before he was told what was going on.
They conducted an illegal search of the home under the pretext of a safety check.
And once again, the video is available on my blog.
And they found what they described as marijuana paraphernalia, which is no coffee can, essentially.
But they abused both of these people.
They left the woman traumatized and bruised up and down both sides of her body.
She had a whiplash injury as a result of being thrown to the ground by a goon wearing body armor with a drawn gun that weighed her by roughly twice her body weight.
He ended up with a severe injury to his back when he was dropped on his tailbone with his hands cuffed behind his back.
This all happened.
It was completely unnecessary.
It was utterly illegal.
This is the sheriff's office that did this.
The Jim County Sheriff's Office.
Sheriff Rowland was actually at the point when the illegal search was going on.
This poor couple tried for two or three months to get any local news media interested in what had happened to them.
She contacted the wife, the abused wife, abused by the police, not by her husband.
Her husband had done nothing.
Contacted the messenger.
I believe it's called the messenger and advocate and nearby in Idaho.
And she was told that they didn't dare report that story for their own protection.
They're going to have to bring in an outside journalist to report it.
So they didn't do anything about it.
She went to the Idaho Press Tribune in Caldwell, which is about 10, 15, 20 miles away, and demanded that they investigate this case.
And so they tasked one reporter to take statements from the sheriff's office and the prosecutor.
And then they ran a 600 word story that was basically a press release from the sheriff's office and the prosecutor's office.
And that was the end of the story as far as they were concerned.
That's once again, in rural Idaho, a supposedly constitutionalist, a conservative state.
And these two people were in a situation where they could easily have been killed because they had been profiled as constitutionalist, meaning people, I guess, who take the Constitution seriously in the state of Idaho that happened.
And if it's like that in the Greenwood, what's it like in the dry?
Yeah, well, and there's I don't know.
I'm trying to remember because Anthony Gregory reported this, too.
He had this statistic somewhere.
Maybe it was from the Cato police abuse thing where they had counted how many hundreds of raids a day there are in this country.
Do you remember what it was?
I don't remember how many there are a day in the country, but I do know in the state of Maryland, there are 1600 a year in the state of Maryland alone.
And it was the chief of the Baltimore County Police who was one of the star witnesses of last week's Senate hearings.
Name is James Johnson, if I remember correctly.
His department has been involved in at least two separate incidents in which a no-knock SWAT raid involving flashbang grenades and beating down the front door to arrest people over trivial narcotics violations ended up with the fatal shooting of a homeowner who was not the subject of the raid.
There was a case involving a woman named Sherilyn Noel back in 2006, 2005, rather.
She was shot in her own bedroom by a SWAT operator by the name of Carlos Artson.
And after the family filed a lawsuit, a wrongful death lawsuit against the department, the Baltimore County Police Department, rather, gave Artson the silver medal for valor, which is their second highest award, for shooting a terrified 51-year-old woman in her own bedroom.
He was wearing body armor and a combat helmet with a ballistic visor.
He was carrying a ballistic shield.
He shot her twice in the upper torso.
When she went to the ground, he ordered her to move away from the gun, which she couldn't do, so he capped her at point-blank range.
This qualifies for valor in the police department and one of the star witnesses on the gun prohibition side of the debate at last week's Senate hearing.
And there was a very similar incident last year involving, once again, a homeowner in the second floor bedroom of his own house.
And it was the same Carlos Artson who killed the guy.
In this case, he was armed with what was described as a large sword that damaged the ballistic shield that was being wielded by this purported hero.
But once again, those are the interests, and that's the constituency with whom the Obama administration is working to enact new prohibitions on private ownership of firearms.
Yeah.
Well, you know, and the thing is, too, is we've really lost our civil liberties ally just the same way we've lost our peace ally in the left nowadays, too.
And people, you know, I was arguing with a friend of mine who he just couldn't even conceive that the state has its own interests, that the cops have their own interests, that the Pentagon has their own interests.
If it's not Dick Cheney and Halliburton and the profit motive usurping the legitimate state for their own corrupt purposes, then it's fine.
And but it just couldn't be right that the police actually are are our enemy themselves and they want to be.
One of the problems, I think, is that they don't do class analysis, although they pretend to.
They don't understand that there is a self-perpetuating class of corporate interests that are involved in expanding the homeland security state.
They can see that it becomes visible when it's in the hands of people whose ideological ideological background they despise, people like the Dick Cheney's of the world.
But too many people.
And this is by no means something which is entirely an affliction of the movement left.
There are plenty of people on the right to meet this description as well.
Now, fall prey to another one of Lenin's dicta, which is the idea that once again, in politics, all that matters is who does what to whom.
You want to be the who rather than the whom, and you don't care about the what.
But true civil libertarians focus on the what.
There are people on the left, like Naomi Wolf, for instance, who are wonderfully indifferent to party labels, and they pay attention to what's inside the package rather than the label on the outside.
Chris Hedges, I think, to a large extent is somebody else who meets that description.
But in fact, there's a great essay at Global Research that's the left case for guns.
Yeah.
And that said, it begins with the Orwell quote about, yeah, that rifle hanging on the wall of the working class guy.
That is democracy.
Without that, the whole thing's off.
And democracy in a very minimal, you know, bottom up power sense is what he's saying.
This is a major achievement in the history of the world that the average goofball can have his own rifle.
Yes.
And not for the first and I'm sure the last time I find myself missing Alex Coburn, because he was one of the people who really promoted an understanding of that principle Orwell talked about.
Yeah, absolutely.
Which is that you want to decentralize power and you should not trust power.
But too many people assume that it becomes a benevolent thing when it's in the hands of people who are supposedly, and I emphasize that adverb, supposedly sympathetic to their way of looking at the world.
Good grief, we had that foundation, fat and fraud, Jesse Jackson, leading a march in Chicago a couple of days ago, asking for the Homeland Security Department fully to militarize law enforcement in Chicago.
I'm trying to figure out how the Jesse Jackson of 1968 could be the Jesse Jackson of 2013 when you're looking at it in terms of literally bringing in an army of occupation.
I mean, back in 1968, 1969 or so, when you had the Black Panther militia being organized in the Bay Area precisely because they were being treated as the inhabitants of an occupied territory.
I think, you know, Jesse Jackson in that era probably would have, at least for the purposes of public consumption, have been condemning the tactics being used to militarize and regiment so-called communities of color in urban areas throughout the country.
And now they're demanding that the Homeland Security do those things that people were protesting against in the 1960s.
And I think that's largely because they believe that the occupant of the White House and his ruling clique are fundamentally sympathetic to their worldview, not understanding, among other things, the fact that there is a rotation in office.
And at some point, somebody that they dislike would inherit those powers.
I was just going to say, if it was Romney and his counselor, Karl Rove, up there in the White House, and it was their idea to invade Chicago, then what would you say?
Come on.
Yeah, they'd be plumbing the lexicon of the Knight Riders and the Ku Klux Klan, and they'd have a point.
Yeah.
All right.
I'm sorry, Will.
We've got to go.
I'm over time.
You're great.
I can talk to you for three hours every day on the show, obviously.
Everybody, I'm begging you, if you don't have a bookmark, bookmark it.
It's Freedom In Our Time.
He insists, really.
FreedomInOurTime.blogspot.com for the blog Pro Libertate, the book is Liberty in Eclipse.
Thanks so much for your time, Will.
Appreciate it.
Thank you, Scott.
You take care.
Hey, everybody.
Scott Horton here, inviting you to check out the Future Freedom Foundation at FFF.org.
They've got a brand new website with new and improved access to more than 20 years worth of essays promoting the cause of liberty.
And FFF's riders, including Jacob Hornberger, Jim Bovard, Sheldon Richman, Anthony Gregory, Wendy McElroy, and more, aren't just good, they're the best at opposing and discrediting our corrupt overlords in Washington and their warfare welfare regulatory police state.
That's the Future Freedom Foundation's new and improved site at FFF.org.
The Emergency Committee for Israel, Brookings, Heritage, APAC, WINEP, JINSA, PNAC, CNAS, the AEI, FPI, CFR, and CSP.
It sure does seem sometimes like the War Party's got the foreign policy debate in D.C. all locked up, but not quite.
Check out the Council for the National Interest at Councilforthenationalinterest.org.
They put America first, opposing our government's world empire and especially their Middle Eastern madness.
That's the Council for the National Interest at Councilforthenationalinterest.org.
Hey, all.
Scott Horton here, inviting you to check out WallStreetWindow.com.
It's a financial blog written by former hedge fund manager Mike Swanson, who's investing in commodities, mining stocks, and European markets.
WallStreetWindow is unique in that Mike shows people what he's really investing in and updates you when he buys or sells in his main account.
Mike thinks his positions are going to go up because of all the money the Federal Reserve is printing to finance the deficit.
See what happens at WallStreetWindow.com.
And Mike's got a great new book coming out, so also keep your eye on writermichaelswanson.com for more details.
Hey, everybody.
Scott Horton here.
You ought to consider advertising on the show.
Here's how it'll work.
You give me money, and then I'll tell everybody how great your stuff is, they'll buy it, and we'll all be rich as Republicans.
Sound pretty good?
Shoot me an email, scott at scotthorton.org, and we'll work it out.
Man, you need some Liberty stickers for the back of your truck.
At libertystickers.com, they've got great state hate, like Pearl Harbor was an inside job.
The Democrats want your guns.
U.S. Army, die for Israel.
Police brutality, not just for black people anymore.
At government school, why you and your kids are so stupid.
Check out these and a thousand other great ones at libertystickers.com.
And of course, they'll take care of all your custom printing for your band or your business at thebumpersticker.com.
That's libertystickers.com.
Everyone else's stickers suck.