Sorry, I'm late.
I had to stop by the Wax Museum again and give the finger to FDR.
We know Al-Qaeda, Zawahiri, is supporting the opposition in Syria.
Are we supporting Al-Qaeda in Syria?
It's a proud day for America.
And by God, we've kicked Vietnam syndrome once and for all.
Thank you very, very much.
I say it, I say it again.
You've been hacked.
You've been took.
You've been hoodwinked.
These witnesses are trying to simply deny things that just about everybody else accepts as fact.
He came, he saw us, he died.
We ain't killing their army, but we killing them.
We be on CNN like Say Our Name been saying, say it three times.
The meeting of the largest armies in the history of the world.
Then there's going to be an invasion.
All right, you guys.
Introducing Patrick Martin, again, from the World Socialist website.
That's WSWS.org.
And welcoming him back to the show.
You might remember, what, just six weeks ago or something, maybe less.
We talked with him about the CIA Democrats of the election of 2018 here, which has now just passed.
And they have a new book being published.
It's published right now.
Mehring Books, M-E-H-R-A-N-G, Mehring Books publishes The CIA Democrats, a detailed exposure of the effective takeover of the 2018 Democratic Party congressional campaign by candidates drawn from the ranks of the national security state.
Welcome back to the show.
How are you doing?
I'm fine.
Boy, this really is just like you could have predicted in your worst predictions about how things could go.
And they really did a full court press here.
But just how successful were they in getting elected to these seats, these national security Democrats this time?
These specifically national security state Democrats, as opposed to someone who just feels that way.
But people with those jobs.
These are not people who were drafted and sent to Vietnam 40 years ago, or people who joined the military out of economic, semi-economic compulsion.
These are all people who were high-ranking officers or war planners.
So, as you say, people who actually are part of the national security state.
I would say that they fell slightly short of their top goal.
There are 11 who were elected, 11 Democrats.
Seven of them are veterans, two each from the Army, Navy, and Marines, and one from the Air Force.
These are all officers, like I said.
I'm sorry, all but one is an officer.
There was one who was a rank-and-file soldier.
Two actual CIA agents who give their name to the whole group.
And two who worked as civilian officials in the State Department or National Security Council, or both.
And then there were seven who fell just short of winning seats.
They had nearly 18, but they only got 11, including two where you are.
Two in Texas who fell—I'm sorry, three in Texas who fell just short.
Gina Ortiz-Jones hasn't conceded.
We're getting an echo now.
Oh, I'm sorry here.
She's 0.5 percent behind Will Hurd in the 23rd Congressional District, and she will get a recount.
Joseph Kopser is 2.8 percent behind Chip Roy in the 21st District of Texas, which is near you.
And Mary Jennings Hager is 3 percent behind John Carter in the 31st District of Texas, which is also near you.
So there are seven who lost by 3 percent or less, and then there are 11 who won.
And besides that, there were about a dozen others who were also RANs who fell well short.
How many others that were also RANs?
Well, I had—I was working with a list of 30.
There actually were, as I now counted up, 41 candidates, but probably half of them were running in heavily Republican districts where they had no chance to win.
I see.
Of the 20-some who had—or maybe 25 who had a real chance to win, 11 won, seven fell just short, and seven were further back.
So, for instance, one of the most publicized names, a man named Richard Ojeda, who was running in the 3rd District of West Virginia, he lost by 12.8 percent.
So he didn't actually do that well.
That's good.
That's still an impressive effort, 40 candidates.
Not that it was necessarily all coordinated, but it sort of almost looks like it was, you know?
There are two groups that actually do coordinate these efforts.
One of them is called VoteVets, which is a more—which tends to be a more liberal veterans group and is promoting veterans candidates and fundraising for them.
And another one—the other one is called WithHonor.
One of them is associated with Seth Moulton, who was a Democratic congressman from Massachusetts and a former Army Ranger who was the sort of godfather of this effort.
And those two groups actually promoted these candidates, and WithHonor got a $10 million donation from Jeff Bezos, whose name you might have heard before.
Yeah, of course.
The richest man in the world until the next bubble pops.
There is a sizable push for these candidates from very wealthy people for good political reasons from their standpoint.
These are people whose loyalty to the capitalist system and to the national security state is not in doubt.
They put their lives on the line.
They've shed blood, in some cases quite a lot of blood.
They have—they got their hands dirty, and so they can be trusted.
Well, and I guess none of them—I mean, on the surface of it, someone serving on the National Security Council could be like Hillary Mann or Flint Leverett, and they could be running, you know, to try to stop this kind of thing.
Because all the wisdom that they gained when they had the job, or Ray McGovern, who was the former chief of the Soviet division, who now has been an anti-war activist for the last 25 years.
But no, this isn't that.
These are all, as you're saying, guys who, you know, in that Tom Cotton fashion, say like, hey, I fought in Iraq, therefore you have to vote for me, and I'll be a hawk all this time and a reliable one and fit right in, rather than, you know, use it.
Well, I guess, I think, as we talked about before, the Gabbard model versus the Duckworth model.
Not that Tulsi Gabbard is perfect on everything, because she's really not.
But, you know, she basically says, hey, I'm a combat vet, so if I want to criticize the war, you could pay me the respect of at least letting me say it if you won't let anybody else say it.
Whereas Duckworth is just like, yeah, kill them all and let God sort them out.
That's how to get elected as a national security state Democrat.
Well, there are not, among the 11 who are elected, any who are arguably anti-war.
There's only one of the 11 who's even admitted in, or is even, how should I put it, who has even made the point, which is a fairly obvious one, that war is a terrible thing.
But he has at least admitted that he suffers from PTSD and had to overcome that in order to begin a career in politics, which he started in 2011 after he came back.
Wow, and who's that?
Jared Golden in Maine.
He's the only one who was a rank and file soldier, and he's the only one, in other words, not an officer, not a commander.
He's the only one who admits to having had PTSD, although at least a half a dozen of them were in combat, so they potentially could have had it.
Now, this is not the national security state Democrat, but I'm sure you're familiar with the lady.
I'm sorry, I forget her name, who I believe just won out in the Senate race in Arizona, who was formerly a Green Party lady and formerly anti-war, and who – there was this almost hilarious CNN story about her desperate attempts to back down from ever being good on anything and lining up as hard as she can behind the wars and pretending that she never even said all that previous stuff when she got it right back years ago.
McCain and so on, but yeah, she's done – I mean, and that's not an unusual experience with Green candidates, not to be too snarky, but the flexibility as to principle seems to be a requirement for a career in American capitalist politics, and even people – I mean, after all, Bill Clinton marched against the war in Vietnam and so did Hillary.
And look where they ended up, waging war, bombing.
In fact, you have the whole thing on your site, and I know that there are kind of sect – pardon me – sect-ist fights between leftist groups, but I read some of the criticism of the Democratic Socialists of America on your website here, and it didn't seem personal to me.
It seemed like real severe criticisms of their really choosing – of all things, the very worst thing our government does is waging this world empire as the thing to compromise on.
Is that really right?
Well, if you're going to – well, let me put it this way.
If you are going to remain as a faction of the Democratic Party and advocate the reform of the Democratic Party, you've sold your soul to the devil.
There's no – Well, but that might sound kind of overly simplistic.
I mean, are there – because maybe they just have different tactics from you as far as that goes, but I mean, do you have examples of where they used to care about the war and now they've decided they don't?
You mean the DSA?
Yeah.
I don't have examples because they've always been historically, I would say, going back to after the – they were formed after the Vietnam War, right?
The DSA was founded, I think, under its current name in 1983.
There was something before that called the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee, which I think goes back to the mid-'70s, and the people who were in it and who founded it, like Michael Harrington, were opponents or at least critics of the war in Vietnam.
But they long have abandoned any association with that, and there are no – there's no Daniel Ellsbergs in the DSA.
There's no people who are going to put their – put themselves on the line to oppose the war policies of the American government, and Ocasio-Cortez, when she ran in New York, did not run on the basis of opposition to war.
She didn't criticize Crowley because he voted for the defense budget.
She criticized Crowley for various other things, which I'm sure were perfectly reasonable to criticize him on, but there's a reason why even when the one issue – the one foreign policy issue which she raised, as I recall, was the Israeli-Palestinian issue.
And on that, she was so tentative and retreated so quickly when she was criticized from the right that it really was a shambles.
She said something more or less friendly to the Palestinians, and then she backed away from the – as quickly as she possibly could, declared herself not to be an expert on the subject, and basically went to ground.
Well, it really is a shame, too, because as a libertarian, we disagree on a lot of things, but I like knowing that even though I cannot count on liberals and progressives, I can count on real leftists to stay anti-imperialist.
But then, yeah, no, I can't.
Some of you guys, for sure.
The WSWS, I've never read anything but anti-war stuff there as far as you guys go, but people got their priorities, don't they?
The DSA comes from a different political tradition.
Their political tradition ultimately is the Shachmanite movement, which I don't know if you're familiar with that.
A bit, yeah.
A lot of the neoconservatives come out of the Social Democrats USA, so that's how I know of them.
Right.
The Shachmanites broke with the Trotskyists on the eve of the Second World War, and they ultimately, by the mid-1950s, they had moved so far to the right that they supported the Korean War, and they later supported the Vietnam War.
Max Shachman, who was obviously the godfather of that tendency, ended his days as a political advisor, a foreign policy advisor to George Meany and Albert Shanker.
So that's where they are.
Now, the people from that tradition have an anti-communist orientation and a pro—they're left critics.
They want America to be a—to wage war on the basis of democracy, right?
So they were big on Clinton's wars.
They were not so big on George W. Bush's wars, although Bush tried to steal their rhetoric, right?
Right.
He claimed that he was fighting a war against Saddam Hussein in order to bring democracy to Iraq, just happened to have two-thirds of the available oil that could be grabbed in that region.
That was just a bonus.
But why were they starting a—why were they seeking to democratize Iraq and not some country that didn't have oil?
Well, that was an embarrassing question.
You shouldn't ask it.
Why do they want to democratize countries we don't control that are dictatorships instead of all the ones that we do?
There's your kind of first clue is something is not quite on the up and up there.
But yeah, no, it is interesting that you do have people like Joshua Mravchik and I forget which old guys, Jean Kirkpatrick back in the Reagan years who came out of that Shatmanite movement and a few others.
All right.
Anyway, so here's something else I want to ask you about.
Well, first of all, I'm not sure if I asked all the right questions about these candidates.
Are there more details or anything else specifically about these particular candidates that we should really watch out for other than just kind of our scorecard of which of them got away with it and joined the House?
I think it is not insignificant that the two who were directly who were actual CIA Democrats.
Right.
I use the term loosely to apply to all of them because they all had national security backgrounds and were using national security as their credential for running for office.
But the two who actually were CIA operatives, Elissa Slotkin and Abigail Spanberger, both won.
And they're both going to be quite influential.
Elissa Slotkin did three tours in Baghdad and then was on the National Security Council for George W. Bush and then for Barack Obama.
She was one of the few officials who worked for both.
And then she ended up in the Pentagon for a couple of years before she went back to Michigan to run for Congress.
She's already, since she won her seat, been subject to a vast media buildup.
She had a 3,000 word gushing profile in our local daily newspaper, the Detroit Free Press.
And she was on Meet the Press on Sunday, welcomed by Chuck Todd as one of the two representatives of the new freshman class of Democrats.
So she's getting massive publicity.
Abigail Spanberger, likewise, she's, of course, in Virginia.
So she got a lengthy treatment and write up in the Washington Post.
And the third one who's getting a huge buildup is Max Rose, who's in New York City.
And he has been profiled endlessly by the New York Times and by various other publications based there.
And, of course, the people who are in the media centers are going to get the most attention.
But I think it's also who they are and what they stand for.
I mean Rose is still – he's a reservist.
So he went on small unit training actually during the campaign.
So he's keeping – he's certainly keeping his hand in.
And I'm sure you're going to see these newly elected congressmen given seats on the Armed Forces Committee, even on the House Intelligence Committee.
When you think about it, the committees that are supposed to oversee, that are supposed to exercise civilian oversight of these agencies, are now going to have former agents and former officers sitting on the committee acting as the civilian overseers.
Oh, man.
Completely violates the whole principle of civilian control of these agencies.
Because now it's more of the opposite.
It's military control of the civilian agencies, of Congress.
All right.
So here's who all sponsors this show.
First of all, Mike Swanson and his great book, The War State, about the rise of the military industrial complex after World War II.
An excellent history there.
And get all of his investment advice at WallStreetWindow.com.
Then there's Roberts & Roberts Brokerage, Inc., where you buy your precious metals.
And that's at rrbi.co.
Rrbi.co for all your gold, silver, platinum, palladium, et cetera.
No dev, no ops, no IT.
A great book about how to run your technology business like a libertarian.
No dev, no ops, no IT by Hussein Badakhchani.
It's really great.
I mean, I'm no businessman, and I really enjoyed reading it.
So I think you should check that out.
And also Kesslin Runs, the great new novel by our friend Charles Featherstone.
It's in the very near future and only slightly dystopian.
No, maybe worse.
Kesslin Runs.
And also check out Horizon.
Global.
That's Zen Cash.
They're changing.
They're not just a digital currency.
They really are working hard on becoming a new platform for all different sorts of blockchain-type secure applications.
And so for all you techies who really understand, check out all you need to know at Horizon.
Global.
LibertyStickers.com for your anti-government propaganda.
Tom Woods Liberty Classroom to fill your brain with good stuff.
Follow the link from my site so I get the kick back there.
ScottHorton.org.
And check this out.
At ExpandDesigns.com, you can get a brand new 2018, hey, a 2019 model website there and get a $500 discount if you use ExpandDesigns.com slash Scott.
And, you know, I think I'm pretty sure you pointed out last time that it's all over this Russia hoax that they're like, boy, I guess my country really needs me.
I better go serve in the Congress and all this kind of thing.
The fourth branch of government types are so full of themselves as our guardians that they're going to have to go and take over the legislative branch, too.
It's the only way to keep us safe.
Well, here is another guy to keep your eye on.
His name is Tom Malinowski.
He was elected in the 7th Congressional District in New Jersey.
Now, he was a – well, he goes back a long way.
He got his start as a speechwriter for Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
He worked in the Clinton administration in the State Department.
He was the head of Human Rights Watch, which is an agency that sounds great.
It's an NGO that allegedly blows the whistle on human rights abuses overseas.
However, it has a rather shabby record of only blowing or blowing the whistle mainly on human rights violations by countries that the U.S. government doesn't like, i.e.
Russia, China, Iraq in the day, and not blowing the whistle over human rights violations by Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran under the Shah, and so on.
Right.
So Malinowski then, after a decade running the Washington office of Human Rights Watch, became an assistant secretary of state under John Kerry for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor.
He specialized in human rights charges directed against countries that the U.S. government was trying to pressure, mainly those that were somewhat aligned with China that the U.S. government wanted to push away from China.
So then they brought out human rights charges against Burma, Myanmar, against Sri Lanka, North Korea, and so on, while they were soft-pedaled the equally brazen human rights violations that we've just seen pretty gruesomely in Saudi Arabia.
So he is now congressman from the 7th District of New Jersey.
And if you really want to get – I'll give you one detail, which is probably over your head because you're too young.
This is the district that was once held by J. Parnell Thomas, who was the founder and chairman of the House Un-American Activities Committee for 25 years.
And this is now being held by Tom Malinowski, who is an immigrant – his family immigrated from Poland.
He's a vicious anti-communist, and he will use whatever influence he has in Congress to hype the Russia investigation.
That's going to be his main area of interest.
What a joke.
Boy, just when you thought it was all out of gas, this Russia investigation, but OK.
Well, it's back.
So speaking of which – and this is really important, and this is work that has been done at least by your side.
I'm not sure if you were in on it or not, but I'd be willing to bet that you were – is the work all about Google and Facebook turning down traffic through their algorithms to leftist sites as well as libertarian sites like antiwar.com.
And before kind of the recent hubbub about this, you guys kind of had this story early back – I forget now – a year ago or something like that was when – Yeah.
I mean, they – I quit Facebook over the algorithm tweaks back in 2014, but they made it really bad and quite deliberately after the election in the name of the Russia scandal, right?
Yes.
And you know what?
Talk about the Google search results because that part is even more important than the Facebook, but I guess they both are.
Well, the Google search results are being manipulated through an algorithm change that was initiated in April of 2017.
And the impulse to that, we happen to know, came from the government of Germany.
Because in Germany we had launched a campaign against a group of professors in academia who were providing legitimization for what became the alternative for Germany, which is the revived Nazi party in Germany.
I don't know if you're familiar with that or if your listeners would be familiar with it, but they won 13 percent of the vote in the last election.
They are a viciously anti-immigrant party, and their supporters have carried out pogroms against Muslims, against Turks, and even against Jews in Germany.
You'd think that some things never die.
Well, that's one of them.
So, we had focused on the fact that these professors were trying to smuggle into German academia a sort of retrospective legitimization of the war ends in Germany in both World War I and World War II.
And we were highly critical of that.
And we became targets of right-wing attacks in the press.
And we know that the German government went to Google's German offices in Berlin and complained to them because our German site was getting so much traffic through this campaign of exposure.
So, a guy named Ben Gomez, G-O-M-E-S, who is the vice president of Google in the U.S., went over there, met with him, came back, and at his direction they redrafted a set of algorithms.
The result of these new algorithms was that our search traffic from Google declined by 75 percent.
And similar orders of magnitude were experienced by Truthout, Common Dreams, and as you say, some libertarian sites as well as left-liberal and radical sites.
And it reached the point of ridiculousness.
We are, by anyone's estimation – Let me stop you there for a second to make sure I understand it.
You're saying that in response to something that you guys specifically had done at the World Socialist website concerning German politics resulted in once the Germans complained to Google, they went ahead and threw in Truthout, Truthdig, Common Dreams, the Ron Paul Institute, and Antiwar.com, and whoever else was already kind of on the shelf for good measure.
Is that it at the same time?
My understanding, and this is a little speculative because we haven't got their internal memoranda, but they had started on this project after the election to shift to direct traffic.
That was fake news.
Russian-sponsored fake news.
Or else why wouldn't the American people hand their destiny over to Hillary Clinton?
Obviously.
It was called Prop or Not, which drew up the first hit list and was publicized by the Washington Post I think in November of 2016, right after the election.
And this began to percolate its way through Google.
We know that we sort of rocketed to the top of the hit list as a result of the German intervention because that took place in February and March of 2017.
Then you have this algorithm change in April of 2017.
And all at once, up until then, if you searched using Google for Leon Trotsky, you would get the World Socialist website.
And that makes sense because we are the leading publishers of his works and the leading advocates of his political message.
Obviously, you'd think if you were looking for libertarian, you'd get libertarians.
If you're looking for Trotsky, you'd get Trotskyists.
Suddenly, if you search for Trotsky, we don't come up in the top 100 search terms.
You have to go 10 screens, paging down, to find us.
Obviously, that has a big hit on our traffic.
Similarly, if you look for revolutionary socialism, you would have gotten us in the top 10.
Now, we're not in the top 200.
And there's a whole series of such things.
The danger of imperialist war.
There's a concept that we would have been in the top 10 or 15.
Now, we're not in the top 200.
Now, that can only be explained by a political decision.
And as a matter of fact, if you search for Trotsky, you get anti-Trotskyists.
You get people trying to spread lies about Trotsky before you get the people who actually advocate what Trotsky's stood for.
Well, and it really goes to show.
I mean it's just like there's a great Greenwald article this morning about the supposed indictment.
It's the apparent, I guess, indictment of Julian Assange or charging of Julian Assange reportedly here.
And how either you believe in free speech as a principle or you don't.
And you look at how easy partisans are willing to say that Julian Assange, who's done nothing except publish in the exact or virtually the exact same way as so many other journalistic organizations do in publishing classified information.
That if you prosecute him, you're saying that it's no different than saying that you can now have open season on any reporter or even any institution that publishes classified information in this country.
And yet the right-wingers hate Julian Assange for publishing the Iraq and Afghan war logs and State Department cables so much that they want him dead.
And the liberals all hate him so much because he stole the election from Hillary for Vladimir Putin.
And so they want him strung up too.
And so people who actually believe in, yeah, no free speech even for a partisan you hate or even for a Nazi or even for a communist or even for whoever you don't like is an important principle.
Because once you sacrifice it, you sacrifice it for the people who you thought were the good guys that you side with, who you didn't think were going to be the ones to suffer.
But it turns out those calling for censorship always get censored themselves first or soon enough.
Well, the reported indictment of Assange is not a surprise, but it is entirely outrageous.
And we have been very adamant in our public defense of Assange.
We organized – we participated in the protests and organized a protest ourselves in Sydney demanding that the Australian government exercise its legal responsibility to defend one of its citizens.
He is a citizen of Australia.
They have completely abandoned him.
And I'm happy to say that Christine Assange, his mother, actually endorsed our candidate in the recent congressional elections, Niles Nemeth.
Not because she necessarily agrees with all of our platform, but because he made an issue of defending Julian Assange in his campaign.
And she wants to make that public.
No one is taking up this fight except, as you said, a handful of people who actually believe that freedom of speech doesn't mean anything unless it's freedom for people whose speech you don't like.
No great Sheikh saying freedom of speech for people who agree with you.
Right.
Yeah, and it's amazing to see just how far that principle has gone.
I guess, you know, people don't – there's just not enough conversation along the lines of reinforcing in people why that matters so much.
And this is the simplest kind of stuff.
I mean, this is civics for first graders that, like, listen, the reason we have fair trials for horrible murderers is so that we have fair trials for people who are wrongly accused of being horrible murderers.
So we have fair trials for you.
Not that we do have fair trials, but I'm just saying that's the point of having fair trials even for the very worst people.
It's not a favor to them.
It's how to protect ourselves, all of us, so that we can be free unless we really have done something to deserve being deprived of our liberty.
And that's – I mean, I learned that as a small child.
That ain't libertarianism or socialism or liberal or conservatism or anything.
That's just common sense, you know, living in the world with a government at all, you know?
Well, that's a basic democratic principle on which – one of the basic principles upon which this country is founded.
And one of the problems that they have in consolidating this type of regime in the United States is that the United States is a – one of the few countries that was actually founded on the basis of enlightenment principles, not on the basis of nationalism, not on the basis of sort of an ethnic consolidation.
The – there were no – there was no country until they adopted a constitution and the constitution was laid down certain basic principles, which they're having a lot of trouble with.
That's why Trump wants to declare his right to eliminate constitutional freedoms on the basis of an executive order.
Right.
Excuse me.
Like the 14th – you know, canceling out birthright citizenship, which is guaranteed under the 14th Amendment simply by an executive order.
You know, in decades past, that statement itself would be considered – would have been considered an impeachable offense to declare that you can change the constitution simply on the basis of presidential authority.
Well, I'm not sure if they would have – if that's really true.
But you're certainly right that he thinks he can just break the law, and you know what?
That was what the guy before him thought and the guy before him and the guy before him, and nobody stopped him.
Nixon – even Nixon didn't assert – I mean he did say at a certain point if the president orders it, then it must be right.
But he didn't literally assert the ability of the president to change the constitution.
Right.
Just legislation.
Right.
If the president does it, that makes it legal.
But yeah, he would have recognized some limit on that, right?
I agree with you.
Just like with the election, where Richard Nixon, of all people, the ultimate argument absurdum, right?
When Jack Kennedy stole the election from him fair and square in 1960, he had enough decency – you could call it class or whatever you call it – to just go home and not fight it.
Because he said it would be too bad for the country to put the country through a fight over that power and that the power for himself was not important enough that he would do that to the rest of us.
And think of what a snake that dirty SOB was, and he was like, no way am I going to do this.
I'll be back.
Right?
But Hillary Clinton doesn't have as much class as Richard Nixon.
She's still stomping her feet and crying about this thing.
Well, it's – I think it's more the question of the stability of the country.
I mean why did Gore concede after Bush v.
Gore?
Right.
It wasn't because he was – it wasn't an honorable – it was certainly – I mean read Frank – if you want to laugh, read Frank Bruni or cry, read Frank Bruni's column in the New York Times hailing Al Gore this week.
Oh, really?
He set such a great example in defending democracy.
No, actually he set a terrible example of abandoning democracy because he took the position that votes – if the Supreme Court says votes shouldn't be counted, then you have to concede to the authority of the Supreme Court.
So he said, yeah, the stability, the power of the government is superior to the democratic rights of the people in Florida who didn't get their votes counted.
Right.
Yep.
There's a great – should be – I guess it is semi-notorious statement by a judge here in Texas, a criminal judge here in Texas who – it's one of those things that's always been true implicitly.
But she said outright about how finality for the court system, for the preservation of the legitimacy of the court system, finality is more important than being right when it comes to convictions.
And just because somebody is innocent does not mean that that's a good enough reason to jeopardize the entire system that claims that we get to decide who's guilty or not.
And if people can just second guess us all the time, they'll wonder why they put up with us at all.
And so just we have to nip this thing in the bud.
And so that was like even I think her opinion in denying an appeal.
They're like, you may be innocent, but that's not the question.
And weighing against that is the preservation of our institution itself.
I'm curious.
Do you support the death penalty?
No.
I mean I certainly believe that some people deserve to die for what they've done.
But I think unless they're – unless it's direct and proportional and immediate response, then no.
And I certainly don't trust a judge and a prosecutor and a jury to conspire to figure out who did what.
So that's the ultimate finality.
Yeah.
I mean – and this is – Ron Paul's position was he was a conservative Republican who supported the death penalty.
And he just said, honestly, come on, our criminal justice system is the most dysfunctional of government programs.
And as he put it, just look at the racial disparity in the death penalty.
When you break down the numbers, it's just not fair.
And that proves that there's nothing objective and scientific and rational and fair about this system.
It's a corrupt system that can't be trusted to do the right thing when it concerns taking someone's life.
Now, what's funny to me, right, is I can almost imagine, though, as long as we're musing about this, like some kind of standard – still imaginary, right?
Where beyond a shadow of a doubt, we're like, really?
It's so scientifically proven, not just some DNA, but everybody saw him and there's video and he admits it and his footprints and whatever.
You know what I mean?
Where it's just beyond a shadow of a doubt where maybe it could be OK to hang some SOB because people commit horrible crimes sometimes.
But, yeah, it sure is impossible to trust the state.
That's my first point, you know?
Well, anyway, you should start at the top.
Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Nixon.
Yeah.
Anyway.
Cheney.
Some of these war criminals are still alive.
A lot of them.
Hey, listen, man, thank you, Patrick, for coming on the show.
It's really been great talking to you again and I really appreciate the work you're doing attacking the left from the left here.
It's very important.
Well, we would not regard them as the left.
Well, you know what I mean.
Attacking the liberals from the left.
Left.
All right.
Thank you again.
Take care.
All right, you guys.
That is Patrick Martin.
He's writing at WSWS.
That's the World Socialists.
And they're putting out a new book called The CIA Democrats.
All right, y'all.
Thanks.
Find me at libertarianinstitute.org, at scotthorton.org, antiwar.com, and reddit.com slash scotthortonshow.
Oh, yeah.
And read my book, Fool's Errand, Timed and the War in Afghanistan at foolserrand.us.
