Hey y'all, Scott here.
Like I told you before, the Future Freedom Foundation at FFF.org represents the best of the libertarian movement.
Led by the fearless Jacob Hornberger, FFF writers James Bovard, Sheldon Richman, Wendy McElroy, Anthony Gregory, and many more.
Write the op-eds and the books, host the events, and give the speeches that are changing our world for the better.
Help support the Future Freedom Foundation.
Subscribe to their magazine, The Future of Freedom.
Or to contribute, just look for the big red donate button at the top of FFF.org.
Peace and freedom.
Thank you.
Alright y'all, welcome back to the show.
I'm Scott Horton.
ScottHorton.org is my website where I keep all my interview archives.
And you can find me on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube at slash Scott Horton Show.
And I don't say this enough, we're live, 11 to 1 Texas time, every weekday, less Thursday, at NoAgendaStream.com.
Alright, first guest on the show today is Justin Raimondo.
He's editorial director at AntiWar.com.
He's the author of Enemy of the State, The Life of Murray N. Rothbard, and Reclaiming the American Right, The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement.
Welcome back to the show.
Justin, it's been a while.
How are you doing?
I'm doing great.
I love that ad, by the way.
Oh yeah, good.
I was hoping people would like that.
Oh, that's great.
Well, thanks.
Good.
Alright, so you've got two articles in a row now on the Boston attack, the Patriot Day attack on the Boston Massacre.
And so far, your speculation is that these brothers seem to have had some help.
What makes you think so, and who do you think helped them?
Well, let's see.
Tamerlane Tsarnaev is radicalized, supposedly, in the United States.
And then he goes to Dagestan, which is not exactly like going to Hawaii.
And he goes to Chechnya.
And he's there for six months.
And then he comes back and starts posting jihadist videos on his YouTube account.
I mean, you don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to suspect that he was given a task and he carried it out.
You know, it's very interesting.
I just now found this article in Izvestia, which claims that he participated while in Russia in a program that was conducted by the so-called Caucasian Fund, sponsored by the Jamestown Foundation, a neocon outfit, as you know, probably, which specializes in subverting any kind of Russian influence in Central Asia, including Dagestan, Chechnya, and has really taken up a Chechen cause, like most of the other neocons have up until this point.
So he was trained at one of these seminars.
Now, I don't know what they were training him in, but if this pans out, it's very interesting.
We have a quote in Izvestia from the head of regional counterintelligence from the Georgian government, which is now not under Saakashvili, but under the other guy, whose name escapes me, who is saying that this is what indeed happened, and that's what he was doing there, at least partially.
And also, we have news reports, admittedly from the Daily Mail, but other news reports are reporting this, that Tamerlane met six times with a prominent jihadist, who is probably this guy Dolgatov, who went under the name Abu Dajana, and that guy was killed in December of 2012.
Now, what makes you say probably was this guy?
Well, because there is testimony that that is indeed who he met with, because the Russians were watching these people.
All these people are under surveillance.
So the reports were not just that he met with somebody six times, but that he met with this guy Dolgatov six times.
No, but that was the implication.
I mean, it was kind of vague, but he did meet with a prominent jihadist in the town in Dagestan, where his father, and I guess his mother, presumably now live.
So, that's another thread in this fabric of terrorism.
And of course, the U.S. government is saying right off the bat, oh no, it was just two lone nuts, they were self-radicalized, is the favorite phrase.
But of course, every terrorist is self-radicalized in the beginning, and then hooks up with his fellow terrorists.
So, the whole phrase, self-radicalized, is just pure nonsense.
It's just a way of evading responsibility.
I mean, look, the FBI, how much money have they spent on Homeland Security?
I mean, trillions of dollars, probably.
And what is the result?
Boston.
That's the result.
So, I mean, these people are engaged in their favorite activity, which is ass-covering.
And so, I think that we have to get to the bottom of it.
I don't know if we will.
You know, one of the problems that we're faced with here is that TV just worships all cops, no matter what.
And so, if the cops give a press conference where there's 20 of them standing up there on a stage, and they all just take turns patting each other on the back for what a great job they did, TV news people just can't see through that at all.
They just can't stop and say, listen, I know you guys are the world's greatest heroes and everything, but how could this have happened on your watch?
You know what I mean?
They just, they never, they don't have, they don't look for accountability that way.
In fact, I've seen on CNN a couple of times where their guest has sort of asked rhetorically, like, hey, it seems like the FBI's got some explaining to do.
And the CNN anchors are the first to just fall all over themselves saying, not because we want to blame anyone, not because anybody should be in trouble, but, you know, just so maybe we could help do a better job next time or something.
They just, no one can, in polite society, I guess, can say that Robert Mueller should have to fall on his sword for this.
Maybe Barack Obama should have to resign for this.
How could this have happened on their watch a dozen years after the 9-11 attacks?
Well, you know, it's very American.
I mean, nobody takes any responsibility.
Nobody's at fault.
You know, in Japan, of course, these people would commit suicide.
In China, they'd be shot.
Well, whatever.
So, yeah, you know, it's a cultural thing, I think.
You know, nobody takes any responsibility for anything.
And it's just, that's what modernity is all about.
Well, that's a whole other interview, I think.
So we've got, look, you're right.
When you talk about the money spent, it's almost unimaginable how much money's been spent, right?
We're talking $8 trillion on the national security state, according to Chris Hellman.
But it's not just the money I'm talking about.
I mean, how many wars did we fight to deprive them of safe havens?
Oh, we have to stay in Afghanistan until the year 5000 because, after all, if we leave, the bad guys will come back, and they'll have a safe haven, and then they can launch attacks on the United States from their safe haven.
Well, guess what?
That didn't work, did it?
Right.
And even the headline in the Washington Post is that it was our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that motivated these two, according to the suspect.
Right, right.
Well, yes, I mean, that's the al-Qaeda line.
And, of course, you'll notice that those two wars were fought against bin Laden's legions.
I mean, I am convinced this is al-Qaeda.
This is al-Qaeda.
I mean, it's classic al-Qaeda.
They even got the recipe for the pressure cooker bombs from Inspire magazine put out by our friends at al-Qaeda.
So, I mean, al-Qaeda is not gone.
After we invaded Afghanistan, they simply moved into Central Asia.
Tajikistan, Chechnya, Dagestan, and all those other stands, they're crawling all over there.
Are we going to invade those countries?
I don't think so.
So, you know, this safe haven thing.
But, of course, I mean, you have to realize that the U.S. government has a vested interest in this self-radicalized just two lone nuts theory.
Because if it's not true, then the safe haven theory on which we fought two wars and are likely to fight more is wrong.
Yeah, and the Chechen jihadis ain't so bad theory is wrong, too.
And then that's a lot of very powerful people that have some explaining to do.
I mean, yeah.
You know, especially if this Izvestia report pans out.
Now, let's rewind a little bit and talk about a little bit more of the context there.
Because I think that, as you say in the article, this certainly would explain.
Maybe it's still in the realm of speculation.
But this certainly would explain a political reason why the FBI would not do a very good job following up on an American who goes, you know, back to where he's from in Chechnya and make some contact with some rebel fighters there.
But I think this is not something we're going to see explained on CNN.
So would you please explain about the Committee for Peace in Chechnya and the neoconservative angle on this thing?
Well, I mean, U.S. foreign policy since the end of the Cold War has been, in that area of the world, all about encircling Russia.
I mean, you know, the Cold War never really ended.
You know, even though the Soviet Union collapsed, we moved in in that area.
And there was an active effort to aid the Chechen separatists.
You know, the breakup of the Soviet Union wasn't complete, so we were going to complete it.
And, you know, you have the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya, which renamed itself the American Committee for Peace in the Caucasus.
And, you know, several dozen prominent neocons, I went to the Board of Advisors, Bill Kristol, all the usual suspects, and they took up the cause of Chechen separatism.
I mean, this was the one exception to their anti-Muslim, anti-Islamist orientation, you know, was this.
Because they hated Russia, and they especially hated Vladimir Putin, who threw out the oligarchs and cleaned up Russia, basically, as much as it could possibly be cleaned up.
And, you know, he was a nationalist, and they didn't like that.
And so, you know, you'll recall Richard Perle, during the run-up to the Iraq War, demanding that Russia be thrown out of the G8.
And, you know, because they didn't support the war.
So, you know, you have this Russophobia left over from the Cold War, and it's a bipartisan thing.
In my article, I talk about how their so-called foreign minister of the Chechen Republic, you know, the breakaway republic, Akhmadov, Ilya Akhmadov, was granted asylum in the United States.
And, of course, he lives in Boston, which is kind of Chechen headquarters in the U.S.
And Homeland Security objected.
I mean, you know, the guy was fighting alongside his male, I think that's his first name, Basaev, who is responsible, or was responsible, for the Beslan, you know, terrorist attack, where 300 people, including mostly school children, were killed in Russia by Chechen terrorists.
So, you know, Homeland Security said, wait a minute, you know, we should really let this guy in here.
And a bipartisan coalition of biggies, Madeleine Albright, John McCain, I mean, all kinds of people, Zbigniew Brzezinski, I can never pronounce that, and a whole host of other people signed letters saying, let him in, he's a freedom fighter.
And not only did they let him in, but they hired him to work for the U.S. government, in the U.S. Institute for Peace.
I mean, if that isn't Orwellian, I don't know what is.
And so this guy was let in over the objections of Homeland Security, which dropped its appeal to the immigration court, mysteriously.
And so, you know, the Chechens have been given a pretty good deal.
You know, they can get into the country, especially if they apply in Boston.
There was an article, a front-page article in the New York Times four or five years ago, with a graph showing that if you applied for asylum in certain cities, you had like an 85% chance of getting your asylum request accepted.
San Francisco, of course, was at the top, but Boston was pretty near the top.
And so, but Georgia wasn't that favorable to asylum seekers.
So, just a statistic there for you.
But, you know, U.S. foreign policy has been anti-Russian, so we didn't listen to the Russians.
And it came out this morning that even though the FBI is saying that the Russians didn't follow up after they asked for more information, in fact, the Russians say that they did follow up and made several requests to keep this guy under tabs.
And we didn't listen to them because we hate Vladimir Putin more than we hate terrorism.
And, in fact, some forms of terrorism we support covertly.
Well, like in Syria right now against Putin's allies in Damascus.
Right.
And in Libya.
So, you know, we're trying to recruit these guys, you know, to use them somehow.
But, again, as in Afghanistan, it's blowback time.
Right.
Now, to get nice and timeline-y here, the Russians said, hey, FBI, you ought to look out for this guy back in 2011.
Then, in 2012, he goes to Dagestan and then to Chechnya.
Then he comes back, and then in 2013 he blows up the Boston Marathon, allegedly.
Well, not allegedly.
Wait, wait, wait.
He didn't allegedly.
He did it.
All right.
Well, anyway, the FBI's story is last time they talked to him was 2011.
And, jeez, if only the Russians had followed up, then they could have maybe done more.
But now, and I don't know what this is worth to you or anybody else, Justin, but Lindsey Graham is saying his name was spelled wrong on a thing.
And Saxy Chambliss is saying that he's hearing, I guess, from his law enforcement sources that some police agencies might have, would have, could have, should have known something here, but they weren't sharing intelligence the way they should be.
That kind of thing.
Okay.
Well, you know, the spelling error thing, I don't know who misspelled what.
But as far as I understand it, Lindsey is saying that when he got on the plane that, I guess, the airline misspelled his name.
But you have to show a passport if you're traveling overseas.
And they look, okay, you know, you've got Homeland Security, you're getting on the plane, this guy is looking at your passport, and then he's looking at your ticket or your boarding pass, and he's comparing names.
I mean, so that should, you know, and plus, how did this lead to, I mean, like, what they're claiming is that they didn't know he was going to Russia.
But, I mean, why did the Russians make this inquiry then?
You know, I mean, it seems like the Russians knew he was coming to Russia.
So, I'm not clear about this.
As for Saxy Chambliss, what does he say?
Well, here's the quote.
I believe this is the quote.
It appears there may have been some evidence that was obtained by one of the law enforcement agencies that did not get shared in a way that it could have been.
If that turns out to be the case, then we have to determine whether or not it would have made a difference.
I believe that's the quote.
Well, I mean, what did these guys do?
After 9-11, they, you know, that's all we heard about, was about how U.S. intelligence has got to be more centralized.
We have to share, and so they set up, of course, in typical bureaucratic fashion, an entirely new office, the DNI, which didn't exist prior to 9-11.
Right, and the DHS, too.
Right.
A whole new department.
Right.
So, you have these two new, you know, bureaucratic constructs, and DNI is supposed to coordinate all of it.
I mean, how much money did we spend on this?
And they're still not sharing information?
A, I don't believe that.
And B, if it's true, I mean, we're cooked.
I mean, it's only a matter of time, if we're this incompetent, before somebody gets through with something far more lethal than a bomb with BB gun bullets in it and nails.
It's just, you know, the U.S. government is great at invading other countries, meddling in other countries' affairs, and pontificating about liberty and freedom for the whole world.
But when it comes to actually protecting the United States of America and its citizens, it sucks.
And this purged it right here.
Well, you know, I'd be happy to know how many different sting operations are going on in this country this week, right now, or last week, in the middle of this bombing.
How many different FBI agents were running an informant, tricking an innocent person into saying something stupid so they could be prosecuted on terrorism charges?
Yeah, I mean, you know, this is what they do.
I mean, it's, you know, it's all about filling, I mean, just like cops, you know, traffic cops.
You know, you've got this traffic cop, he's, you know, waiting in a side alley, waiting for some car to be coming by.
And it's easy picking.
He has a quota, or he or she has a quota.
And it's, I mean, you know, it's all about paying the mortgage and, you know, getting promoted.
Again, very American.
And, you know, as for actually doing the job you're supposed to be doing, forget it.
And so it's, you know, I love America, but it seems a little flaky at this point.
Yeah, a little flaky is a good way to put it.
Well, now, listen, you know, it seems to me everybody, you know, the conspiracy theorists are pointing to the presence of dogs and cops.
And somebody said that the people on the rooftop were, you know, like sniper, in sniper position.
That this was escalated security compared to the average marathon.
And it occurs to me that, you know, maybe they really did have a tip off and that they showed up there, but they still failed to stop the thing.
And so now they're playing a big game of cover your ass.
You know what?
You need evidence.
And they did have a tip off, you know.
I mean, they had the Russians.
No, I mean, there was going to be something there that day at the marathon.
Well, I mean, it's not unusual.
You know, these same people are saying, and I know I'm going to get a million letters from every crackpot on earth.
But these same people are saying, on the one hand, that we live in a police state.
And then, on the other hand, they're going, oh, there were snipers on the roof, there were police dogs, there were cops all over the place.
Well, which is it?
I mean, you know, are they surprised?
And plus, snipers on the rooftop, I mean, it's typical American incompetence.
If somebody is going to bomb the Boston Marathon, you know, like the brothers Zarnia did, what use is a sniper on a rooftop?
Is he going to fire into the crowd?
I mean, what are we talking about?
And especially for libertarians, what use is a cop anyway?
Is anybody surprised that a bomber could drop a knapsack within 50 yards of a cop and that a bomb goes off and the cop doesn't save the day?
I mean, Richard Jewell is the only cop who ever saved people from a bombing, and he was private security.
Remember the Olympic Park bombing?
I'm not surprised that a cop would fail, you know, even if he was there for that purpose.
But there's no – well, I don't know about that, but I mean, you know, there's no way they could succeed.
I mean, once they're in the country, then that's it.
I mean, how can we protect every, you know, big public event?
It just cannot be done, even in a totalitarian society.
So, you know, there have to be other – I mean, I know you're going to disagree with this, and my libertarian readers are going to disagree with this, but, I mean, I think it's time to end all immigration.
And I mean all immigration now.
That's it.
Goodbye.
Come on.
Absolutely.
But, you know, well, then you're going to have stuff like this, because look what we're doing, okay?
We're invading the entire world.
We are dropping – our drones are killing people in their houses.
Well, that's what's got to stop.
These guys are mad.
Well, that's not going to stop.
And until it stops, we have to end immigration, or else they're going to come after us.
I mean, it's a logical thing.
I mean, just like ending the welfare state is not going to happen overnight, so ending the warfare state is not going to end overnight.
And so people are going to come into the country, get on welfare, like the Tsarnaev brothers did, by the way, and their mother, and also some of these people, say, from Chechnya or whatever country we're involved in, are going to come in and they're going to take revenge.
Well, listen, you certainly have a point.
I don't agree with you on what should be done there, but it occurs to me that we're actually very lucky, for example, the Somali-American population of this country, which has been brought in in huge numbers all at once and sort of given their own little separate neighborhoods, not very assimilated at all.
And here, while, as you've covered very well in your column all these years, America has waged proxy war against their people since 2006, and really before that.
And we have had American Somalis, or Somali-Americans, however you hyphenate it, travel to Somalia to fight in the jihad against America's proxy forces there.
And I think we've been very lucky that none of them just did the math and blew up the Mall of the Americas or whatever.
I mean, how soft and easy of a target is that?
Not like I'm trying to tempt anyone, but I'm just agreeing with you that it's a pretty bad deal when you're...
It's like having your consulate in Benghazi, surrounded by al-Qaeda guys, and then still waging war against al-Qaeda guys in Pakistan.
No wonder they raid your consulate.
You know what I mean?
We're bringing these people into our country, and then we're killing their countrymen back home where they're from.
Right.
Exactly.
It's a bad policy, man.
So, you know, you killed my uncle, you killed my grandfather, but you're bringing me to America, giving me asylum, and then you're giving me a welfare check.
And, I mean, that seems like a bad policy, or is it just me?
Well, yeah, I mean, it's the empire that's got to stop.
And you know, it's funny to me that it's ironic that the jingoists in America tend to be the most warmongering, and then they're the ones who hate and resent the fact and can't figure out why there are giant populations of Vietnamese, and Laotians, and Koreans, and Germans, Japanese, living in their country.
It's because our government bombed the hell out of their countries, and they had to come here in order to survive.
Right, right.
So, tough.
Every empire, you know, is a multicultural phenomenon.
Which, I don't mind it.
I think it's good for America.
That's the one silver lining of all this imperialism, if you ask me, but still.
Well, it would be good for America if we didn't have imperialism, but we do.
So, now what?
I mean, that's really the question.
All right.
Hey, listen, I don't have a guest for this half hour.
Is it okay if I ask you a couple of questions about your book?
Go ahead.
I'm here.
Well, good.
I'm on this new internet stream, libertyexpressradio.com, and it's got huge listenership, and I'm under the impression that they're pretty right-leaning.
And I thought, wouldn't it be nice if they got a chance to hear Justin Romano talk about the old right, as distinguished from plain old conservatism or neoconservatism?
How do you distinguish that, Justin?
What does it mean, the old right?
Well, the old right was a reaction to the New Deal, FDR's New Deal.
And they were anti-war, they were anti-state, and they were pro-individualist.
As Roosevelt tried to get us involved in the Second World War, they fought that.
There was an organization called the America First Committee, which was the biggest anti-war movement so far in American history, dwarfing even the anti-Vietnam War people of the 1960s.
The America First Committee had close to a million paid members, and it had chapters all across the country.
And it was led not by hippies, they didn't have hippies back then, I guess they had beatniks, but it was led by conservative businessmen.
And of course, back then, the left was pro-war, especially after the Soviet Union was invaded by Nazi Germany.
And so what happened was that the Communist Party, its many fellow travelers, and the liberal left in general, including The Nation magazine, The New Republic, and all these so-called peace groups on the left, turned on a dime the moment that Hitler invaded the Soviet Union and campaigned to save the so-called workers' fatherland from a Nazi threat by getting the U.S. involved in the war.
And they were engaged in a fantastic smear campaign against the America First Committee and the conservatives in Congress who opposed entry into the war.
And you have to understand the mentality of the old right.
I mean, the old right saw the old America going down the toilet, basically.
FDR was in power, the state was rapidly expanding, and since war is the health of the state, as Randolph Bourne famously pointed out, they fear that they would fight National Socialism in the trenches and then come home to see it ensconced in power in Washington.
Kind of an overstatement, but that's basically what happened, in that we got the Warfare State.
I mean, after World War II, America entered the field as the great successor to the old British Empire.
And of course that was the plan, that we would take over Britain's role as the world policeman.
And so all the old anglophile types who had been in the pro-interventionist movement were on top.
And we had Truman.
So the old conservatives fought this, but it was a losing battle.
People like Robert A. Taft, Mr. Republican, as they called him back then, opposed NATO.
They opposed conscription.
Hey, let me stop you for a second there and go back to the war years.
Because I think what happened was America First has gone down in history as just a bunch of pro-Nazis who lost, and they should have lost.
It's really too bad, doesn't history judge, too bad that the American people waited until Pearl Harbor.
They should have gotten the war sooner.
They would have saved more lives and that kind of thing.
Right.
Well, I mean, that was the interventionist line back then.
Was that not the case?
Well, let's do an alternative history.
I mean, say we had not entered World War II at all.
What would have happened?
Well, I think the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany would have destroyed each other.
And I don't think Hitler would have taken over Great Britain.
Hitler was already being defeated.
And, you know, like one of the old themes of the conservative movement back then, after Pearl Harbor was that, and of course the truthers are going to love this, is that FDR knew.
And, you know, they had foreknowledge of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
And Robert Stinnett, who is no conspiracy theorist but an actual historian, has written a couple of books on this.
And I would advise your readers to go look them up.
That's Stinnett, S-T-I-N-N-E-T-T, I believe.
And, you know, there's lots of evidence that we were reading the Japanese, you know, signals that, you know, we had broken the Japanese code and we knew what they were planning.
And Roosevelt let it happen, you know, because he wanted to get into the war through the back door.
So, you know, it's very interesting to read that now.
But, yeah, you know, the old right is coming back.
You know, Americans are sick and tired of dealing with the world's problems.
They have enough problems of their own.
And so, you know, I think that, you know, you've seen the rise of people like Rand Paul, Ron Paul, and, you know, the Libertarian Republicans who are now a visible caucus and a vocal one in Congress.
Adam Ash comes to mind, you know, as a rising star in that firmament.
We're on the rise again.
And, you know, the old smears, you know, are forgotten.
Of course, all those smears were authored by mostly communists who wanted to get us into the war.
And, of course, you know, there was British intelligence.
You know, there's a whole series of books on the efforts of British intelligence to interfere in our internal politics and get us into the war because they thought their survival, you know, was at stake.
So a very interesting history.
In fact, I am working on a new book, you know, about this precise issue, you know, the smear campaign against, you know, the old right and who was behind it and why.
It's called Fear Itself, Roosevelt's Wartime Dictatorship, and I'm working on it.
That's a good title.
I like it.
Well, you know, one thing is I know he's your hero, Garrett Gourette.
That's how you say it, right?
Right.
Okay, now he was this writer for the Saturday Evening Post, and I'll let you go on about other great things about him and whatever.
Of course, he wrote The People's Potage, which if anybody in the audience has not read The People's Potage or the new version of it is Ex-America, you've got to read that.
But I, on your recommendation, got a copy of Defend America First, which is a copy of his anti-war editorials for the Saturday Evening Post in the years and years leading up to American involvement in the war there, I think beginning from even before the war broke out in Europe.
And the thing of it is how what you say about maybe the history that could have been and that sort of deal and the bad part of how it worked out, the bad consequences of the saving of the Soviet Union, that kind of thing, that's all in there from before the war.
It was all 20-20 foresight that, hey, you know, and in fact, even Herbert Hoover was good on this too, saying, hey, let the two dictators and their horrible dictatorship governments exhaust themselves.
If we ever have to get involved, let's wait until they're done.
Why would we get involved and save one over the other?
That kind of thing.
And they go on to just basically playing a mental experiment.
Well, let's see, if this happens, well, then what will happen?
And that kind of thing.
And they're basically predicting the rise of communism and a new Cold War after the end of the Second World War before American involvement even began.
Yeah, well, you know, Garrett Gurette was a prophet.
And I just want to read one short section from his very last book.
It's the epilogue.
It's probably the last words he ever wrote before he died.
And he really, and, you know, reading this brings chills down my spine because it comes back to the whole issue of terrorism and, you know, the Boston bombing, 9-11, et cetera.
It's at the end of his last book called The American Story, which is a history of the United States.
And at the end of it, he says, How now, thou American, frustrated crusader, do you know where you are?
Is it security you want?
There is no security at the top of the world.
To thine own self a liberator, to the world an alarming portent.
Do you know where you are going from here?
End quote.
So, I mean, he saw what was coming when we, you know, embarked on this road to empire.
And he foresaw in a metaphorical way, you know, the whole question of terrorism and what America would be confronted with.
And it's up to us to really carry on his work.
I mean, that's basically what I'm doing.
And, you know, we'll see how that works out.
You're doing a great job.
Thank you very much, Justin.
Appreciate it.
Thank you.
Bye-bye.
Good to talk to you again.
That's Justin Romano.
He's the editorial director of Antiwar.com.
That's Antiwar.com/Justin.
He's writing three times a week behind the headlines there.
If you're not reading him three times a week, it probably should go on your list there.
Justin Romano, also author of Enemy of the State, The Life of Murray Newton Rothbard.
And I just said it.
We just talked about it.
Reclaiming the American right, the lost legacy of the American conservative movement.
We'll be right back after this.
Hey, y'all.
Scott Horton here for the Council for the National Interest at councilforthenationalinterest.org.
CNI stands against America's negative role in the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the war party's relentless push to bomb Iran, and the roles played by twisted Christian Zionism and neocon-engineered Islamophobia in justifying it all.
The Council for the National Interest works tirelessly to expose and oppose our government's most destructive policies, but they can't do it without you.
Support CNI's push to straighten out America's crooked course.
Check out the Council for the National Interest at councilforthenationalinterest.org and click Donate under About Us at the top of the page.
That's councilforthenationalinterest.org.
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.
Hey, y'all.
Scott here.
First of all, thanks to the show's sponsors and donors who make it possible for me to do this.
Secondly, I need more sponsors and more donors if the show is to continue.
ScottHorton.org has all the links to use PayPal, Give.org, Google Wallet, WePay.com, and even Bitcoins to make a donation in any amount.
You can also sign up for monthly donations of small and medium-sized amounts through PayPal and Give.org.
Again, that's ScottHorton.org for all the links.
To advertise on the site or the show, email me, Scott at ScottHorton.org.
And thanks.
Hey, y'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.
