11/07/16 – Ted Snider – The Scott Horton Show

Alright, Charles Scott Horton here, and I got a great deal for you.
Anyone who helps support this show with a $50 donation, or more, gets a copy of the brand new Rothbard book, Murray N. Rothbard book, of long-lost essays from 1967 and 1968.
It's entitled, Never a Dull Moment, A Libertarian Looks at the Sixties.
Murray N. Rothbard, really, Mr. Libertarian himself, on Vietnam, conscription, civil rights, LBJ and Nixon, and all kinds of great stuff, from back during those times.
Never a Dull Moment, and it's an exclusive.
It's not available on Amazon yet.
It's an exclusive, so far at least, for listeners of this show, so be the first to get it!
Help support this show at the same time, just go to scotthorton.org slash donate, and again, anyone who sends $50 on this way, along with a mailing address, and I will get this book right to you.
Thanks.
Alright y'all, Scott Horton Show.
Check out the archives at libertarianinstitute.org slash scotthortonshow.
Yeah, it's the new thing, the Libertarian Institute, check it out.
And slash scotthortonshow.org slash scotthortonshow for my stuff.
And introducing our friend Ted Snyder, regular writer for consortiumnews.com and for antiwar.com, and he's got a really important one for you here.
It's called, we ran it I guess last week on antiwar.com, it's called The End of Obama's Term, A Report Card on Latin America.
Welcome back to the show, how are you doing Ted?
I'm doing well, thanks Scott.
Good deal man, good to talk to you again, and very happy to have you doing this work.
Thanks.
This is my real weak point, is keeping track of the empire in Latin America, and yet I know it's going on, it's just I don't know it nearly as well as Middle East stuff.
I know, I think part of the motivation for writing it was to catalog and put it in one place where I could keep track of it.
Yeah, no, that's good, I'm really glad that you did, and I think people really will get a lot out of it.
Again, it's A Report Card on Latin America, Ted Snyder, antiwar.com, y'all.
Alright, so, and in fact another version, slightly different version, ran in consortiumnews, Bob Perry's side as well.
Yeah.
Okay, so now, well you want to go back and hit us with a little history as you do here at the start of the article about Theodore Roosevelt and the good neighbor and all that?
Sure, sure.
And Scott, the reason the history is important is because when Obama became president eight years ago, one of the foreign policy promises he made was that he would do business differently with Latin America.
And that was an important promise because in the past America had done business with Latin America in an appalling way.
So the promise to break with that was a big foreign policy break, and so it's interesting to see whether he actually did or not.
The American record with Latin America goes back to the very beginning of the 20th century.
I think probably the first act was President McKinley, who had promised Cuba that they would help liberate Cuba from the Spanish, and then as soon as they had liberated Cuba from the Spanish just turned around and stole Cuba.
A couple of years later, in 1903, Roosevelt and the big early ones were McKinley, Roosevelt, and Taft.
Roosevelt would cut Panama.
He would just slice Panama off Colombia because Colombia didn't want to do a treaty with the canal.
So he just sliced Panama off Colombia, declared an independent country, put a government in power who immediately signed over the Panama Canal to America.
A couple years later, the Americans would go into Venezuela for the first time and help remove President Gomez, which is totally intriguing, by the way, because if you read Gomez's story and just leave out his name, you'd swear you're reading Chavez's story.
In 1909, President Taft throws José Santos Zelaya out of Nicaragua.
So you've got this really early in American history, this really early interference in Latin America.
In the modern era, that would just go on without change.
So Eisenhower in 1954 throws Arbenz out of Guatemala.
Guatemala will be the first CIA coup.
In 59-60, Eisenhower starts the covert action against Castro.
People usually think that Kennedy started that, but Eisenhower started that.
Kennedy would continue it.
Kennedy would also go on to start the coup that would overthrow the Brazilian government of Guarado in 1964.
Kennedy would throw Chetty Jagen out of Guyana.
There's a famous one in 1971, the Nixon coup of Salvador Allende in Chile.
You get Noriega in Panama.
You get the first George Bush, two coups with Jean-Bertrand Aristide in Haiti, Hugo Chavez in 2002 in Venezuela.
There's some suspicious ones, Torrijos being the plane crash in Panama, which there's certainly some early evidence that the Americans wanted to take him out.
It looks like a CIS assassination.
So it's not at all unimportant to ask whether Obama really did things differently, because there's this long, incredibly consistent history of America taking democratically elected presidents out in Latin America and installing brutal dictatorships that they would then go on to support.
So that's the history that Obama promised change.
And let me ask you about that real recent history right before Obama in the George W. Bush years.
You mentioned the coup.
And everyone, if you've never seen The Revolution Will Be Televised or Will Not Be or whatever the hell it's called, where they just document the entire coup d'etat in 2002 in Venezuela.
It's an amazing thing to see.
But it's been said, although I don't know who I'm quoting, and I'm sure he'll probably laugh, but it was said that Bush was so bogged down in Iraq, he couldn't attack Iran, he couldn't attack Syria, he couldn't really do anything.
And that ended up also leading to a period of relatively comparative benign neglect by the empire when it came to Latin America.
And I guess ultra-high oil prices at the hands of America's Middle East policy didn't hurt too bad either, that the Latin American countries were able to have quite a bit more independence from the empire there for a while.
So one, is that anything like correct, Ted?
And then two, what's Obama got to do with that legacy?
I think it's complicated.
I think there was a movement in Latin America.
I think the pendulum swung to the left.
I think it started with the election of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, who was then able to work with people like Lula da Silva in Brazil and Correa in Ecuador.
So you got the right people, you got the people in Latin America getting tired of the American intervention, finally making the swing.
And then it has been argued, and I was reading recently one book, one person claimed that Chavez was saved by Saddam Hussein, that if it hadn't been for Saddam Hussein, they would have taken, they would have had much more attention.
So I think the Middle East did distract them, but I think there was also this really innovative, lively, brilliant movement happening in Latin America where they were just saying, we're going to create an independent policy.
We're going to not be dictated to by America.
And one of the ways that they did that was by turning inwardly to the different countries in Latin America, working with each other and helping each other so that they didn't need to turn outwardly to the International Monetary Fund, the United States and the World Bank.
So I think there was some distraction in the Middle East, and I think there was also this very creative and sort of ingenious movement going on independently in Latin America, which is sort of swinging back the other way now.
And that's where some of these Obama coups come in, is that the pendulum swung away from America during the Bush years with Chavez and Pasilva and Bolivia and Ecuador and Paraguay.
Since Obama's come back in, that pendulum is very quietly swinging the other way.
So we've got the government out in Brazil now, and we've got the government out in Honduras now and the government out in Paraguay now.
So despite promising to do business differently in Latin America, the track record suggests not only business as usual, but actually successfully bringing what they used to call America's backyard, successfully bringing that back into the backyard.
So Obama's really swung the pendulum right back to the way it was in the 50s and 60s and 70s and first part of the Reagan 80s.
All right, now, so let's take a tour through here.
First of all, in Venezuela, and you and I might disagree about this, but it seems pretty apparent that Chavismo was working because of the high oil prices, and he certainly was able to do a lot of social spending and that kind of thing.
And yet now it's the classic problem of government finance, a government-centered economy like this, is endless printing of money and then price controls to try to control the effect of the monetary inflation, which is all the price inflation.
And then that leads, of course, to shortages.
When the wholesale prices are then higher than retail prices are allowed to be, then the whole system of buying and selling breaks down and people go hungry.
And so, you know, independence aside, in Venezuela it sure seems like the, or not really independence aside, it seems like the party that favors independence from the American empire are also the ones who are running it into the ground, running the whole country into the ground and opening themselves up to having power taken back by the right, who are then historically going to turn right around and sell out the whole damn country to the USA again.
Am I wrong about that?
Well, I don't understand economics at all.
I'm terrible in economics.
I never, ever understand economics.
I think if you look at Chavismo, if you look what happened under Hugo Chavez from the time after the oil strikes, when he got control of the oil industry, I think it was 2004, for 10 years up until about 2014, what you saw was incredible shrinking of the gap between the wealthy and the poor.
You got incredible eradications of extreme poverty.
You got incredible improvements in housing and education and health.
The system was working really, really well.
People who get the economics better than I do, because I really don't get it, people like Mark Weisbrot, for example, have written a lot of articles.
You wrote one very recently too, explaining that it actually continued to succeed.
It was actually sort of in trouble before the drop in oil prices, that other things were going on independent of oil.
The system was working, and it was working in Brazil, and it was working in Bolivia, and it was working in Ecuador and Paraguay.
I think there were other factors, other mistakes that brought it about, including interference from the states and interference from the right.
So, honestly, Scott, I don't get economics very well.
I'm not an economist, and I haven't figured out how to do my own economics yet, let alone countries.
But I think there was more than just the falling oil, and I think that the Chavez model was working really well for a long time, when times were bad for oil, and I think it stopped working well before oil prices really dropped.
So I think there's more to it than that, but I think the question is that all through that time, the right in Venezuela continued to not be able to take back government through legitimate means.
When they went to the polls, they lost, and they continuously tried to take power back through illegitimate means, like refusing to recognize elections even when poll counting was done and stuff like that.
So I think what you got was this frustration in Venezuela and in Brazil, where the old regimes simply could not win power back again through the poll.
So what they did is they took power back through things that looked like constitutional moves and weren't.
And, of course, the most recent one, really highlighting that is what's really clearly in Brazil, a coup by a coup government who openly and constantly admits that the reason we did this is because we couldn't get the government to go along with our economic policy, so we booted them out.
So you're getting the old establishment regimes unable to take government back through the polls, so they're taking them back in what I've called silent coups, constitutional coups or mass demonstrations on the streets that look huge but are really the same minority that lost.
And then what you're getting is various degrees of American support either being silent where it happens or recognizing the coup all the way to direct involvement.
So while the downturns were starting, you still got these establishment governments that did not seem to be able to take power back in the polls in Venezuela and in Brazil, constantly being frustrated in the polls.
So eventually, if they were ever going to get in again, they had to do it a different way.
And so you get these coups in Venezuela and in Brazil and then you get various degrees of American involvement anywhere from maintaining silence or recognizing the coup government all the way to participation.
And that happened in Obama's term.
In eight years, you've probably got four or five, tends to count them, four or five, six of those Latin American coups during eight years.
So at a rate of better than one every two years, which is an incredibly fast tempo.
So in my report card of Obama during his two terms, it doesn't look like he did business differently at all.
It looks like he did business just the same.
Well, now on the Brazil thing too, I wanted to point out that it was reported in the LA Times, and I don't know every facet of this narrative, but that the government, the left government that was in power, that their so-called justice department, whatever their title for it is there, their national prosecutor's office, that they were prosecuting corruption on the left and the right.
They were.
But the ones on the right were saying, and particularly I guess in their upper house or whatever it was, were saying, hey, this is going to cost us.
But they were caught on tape saying, we've got to impeach and remove her from power because she won't be able to follow through prosecuting us.
Well, the thing is, they were in the middle of, they were under criminal investigation at the time, so they're on tape.
And then, of course, her side put the tape out.
And the Los Angeles Times published the transcript of them saying, boy, if we don't want to go to prison, we better remove her from power first, because of all those crimes we committed and this kind of thing.
You get three really funny things, Scott.
I mean, they're not funny, they're horrible, but you can even say them.
The happening is funny.
You get three things.
First is you get that tape you're referring to.
It's a phone call that on the phone call they refer to as a national pact.
So it's a quotation, a national pact to remove Dilma.
And on the tape they say that they've got the generals, they've got the court, they've got everybody involved in this coup.
They call it a coup.
They straight up admit that it's a coup for all the reasons you said.
And then when you get after this, and this is where you get, has American involvement in Brazil been proven?
No.
Has America been silent on it?
Well, Michel Tamer is so confident that the Americans are okay with the coup that when he's in the States the other day, and he's making this speech in the United States, and here's what he says, okay, I won't read the whole thing, I don't remember the whole thing, but at one point when he says he talks about trying to convince the government to follow this economic plan that was completely contradictory to the one Dilma had been elected on.
And then he says at the end, and I'm quoting, but as that did not work out, the plan wasn't adopted.
And then he says, and a process was established, was culminated with me being installed as President of the Republic.
I mean, he straight up says to an American government audience, I took her out.
And so he's so confident that America's fine with the coup that he says it.
And then to make matters worse, Scott, the very first piece of legislation that the new coup government did was to legalize the very budgetary act they allegedly impeached Dilma for.
So they had no problem with what she did.
They legalized it the day after she was gone.
And they straight up tell an American audience that it was a coup.
And they even sent, was it the top guy or one of the right-hand men who was sent to the U.S. in the middle of the process of her removal from office there, correct?
It was the day after the vote to impeach, a senator named, I think his name was Nunes.
Nunes was sent to Washington, according to some, by Michelle Tamer.
And he got, you know, he met with Bob Corker and Ben Cardin and Ambassador Zellman.
He met with really important people the day after the impeachment vote.
So not only did the state say, we're not going to recognize you, we're not going to meet with you, the day after they accepted him in.
So, you know, so America maintained at least silence on this.
At most, they recognized it by meeting with him.
They have recognized it.
There's no doubt that the main people in the coup are U.S. government allies.
And other scholars have pointed out that Brazil's just, you know, Brazil's just full of funding from American organizations.
So has it been proven that America was involved in the coup?
No.
Is it suspicious?
Yes.
Has America been fine with the coup?
Absolutely.
They've been completely silent.
They haven't condemned it.
They've met with it.
They've recognized it.
And this is a government that just brazenly says straight out, you know, she wasn't on board, so we kicked her overboard.
Right.
Now, listen, Ted, there's this famous clip of Hillary Donald Trump, Clinton, saying, I don't care if a bunch of tiny, helpless Honduran children are trying to get into the United States.
They need to be sent back where they're from.
And so then that raised the question of why a bunch of tiny, helpless children, without parents or guardians, were being sent from Honduras on foot all the way across Mexico to try to get into the United States of America.
And what the hell was going on in Honduras at the time?
Ted, can you help fill us in at all?
Hey, I'll check out the audiobook of Lew Rockwell's Fascism vs.
Capitalism, narrated by me, Scott Horton, at audible.com.
It's a great collection of his essays and speeches on the important tradition of liberty.
From medieval history to the Ron Paul revolution, Rockwell blasts our status enemies, profiles our greatest libertarian heroes, and prescribes the path forward in the battle against Leviathan.
Fascism vs.
Capitalism by Lew Rockwell for audiobook.
Find it at Audible, Amazon, iTunes, or just click in the right margin of my website at scotthorton.org.
Well, so, you know, Honduras was the first coup to happen under the Obama government.
It was 2009, I think, when Manuel Zelaya was kidnapped at gunpoint and put on a plane and flown off with the plane refueled at a U.S. Air Force base.
Clinton herself, you know, she was Secretary of State at the time.
She refused to call it a coup.
She refused to recall her ambassadors.
Military aid was increased to Honduras.
Clinton was deeply involved in propping up the coup government by not letting Zelaya back into the country.
In fact, she says that straight up.
Clinton said in her book that in the days after the coup, she says, we strategized on a plan to restore order in Honduras.
Now, I'm quoting because that doesn't sound as funny as we speak.
We strategized on a plan to restore order in Honduras and ensure that free and fair elections would be held quickly which would render the question of Zelaya moot.
So, Clinton was very personally involved in kicking Zelaya out of Honduras and of making sure he didn't get back in and supporting the government.
Since then, Honduras has become a ridiculously dangerous place, the most dangerous place in the world for reporters, incredibly high murder rate.
So, Honduras has descended into a disaster.
That's a direct result of a Clinton foreign policy move in Honduras.
It's an amazing story and, you know, I love the part.
It's just a fun little footnote for anybody's grandma or anybody can just love this part of it.
That, hey, did you know when the paperback edition came out, Hillary Clinton got rid of all the part where she was bragging about how guilty she was for that.
You know, oh, I'm sure they were just editing for space, you know.
Yeah, of course.
But, yeah, which just goes to show that in contrast, when the initial hardback version came out, hell, yeah, this was something that was a great accomplishment of hers.
It was another notch on her belt of her time as Secretary of State that she successfully negotiated the ouster of this guy that America didn't want there anymore.
Right.
She's not confessing.
She's not apologizing.
This was clearly policy and she takes credit for keeping this guy out.
No question about it.
Yeah, I mean, anybody read what she wrote there in context, it's just as plain as day, absolutely.
This is no confession.
This is a bragging right.
Great.
And then within a year or two of Honduras, you know, you get Ecuador going down and Haiti going down and Paraguay going down.
These are all during Clinton's time as Secretary of State.
That's an amazing thing.
All right, so tell me about Ecuador because I know less about Correa and I know less about the situation there.
That's probably, well, that one and Paraguay.
Ecuador is one that doesn't get talked about.
You hear about Honduras.
You hear about Brazil.
You hear about Venezuela.
You occasionally hear about Paraguay, but not much.
You never hear about Ecuador.
Ecuador had a very popularly elected president named Rafael Correa.
He's an economist, popular, really huge approval ratings.
As soon as the layer went out, Correa said that intelligence reports said that he was next.
And, you know, people thought he was being paranoid, but there was an attempted coup on Correa right after saying that.
It was clearly an attempted coup.
Correa had done a lot of things that had displeased the establishment.
He had done Chavez-like.
He had renegotiated oil contracts so that the Ecuadorian people got a greater share of the profits from their own resources.
He refused to free trade again with the states.
He closed down a military base.
He joined ALBA with Venezuela and Bolivia and Cuba.
So this is a guy doing stuff that the Americans didn't like.
We know that prior to Obama, we know this from some of the WikiLeaks, we know that prior to Obama, the states was actively talking about keeping Correa out.
They talked about, there's a 2006 cable that says that the election of Correa, I think the word was they would derail U.S. hopes if he got in.
And then another 06 cable from Ecuador, the American ambassador says that we have actively discouraged allies from working with Correa, and she actually admits in the cable to working with people who agree with them against Correa.
So the Americans admitted to actively working against Correa.
When the coup came down, which was during the Obama years, and America continued to interfere in Ecuador after that, when the coup came down, it failed.
But the guy who tried to pull off the coup or the head of the coup was, so often he was a graduate of the School of the Americas.
And there was a government commission, an Ecuadorian commission, that concluded that what they called foreign actors had been involved in the coup.
That's as far as the commission report went.
But one of the members of the commission afterwards, expanding on it, said that there had been U.S. State Department and CIA involvement.
So we know the Americans were trying to keep Correa out from State Department cables.
We know that there was a coup that tried to take him out.
We know there were people involved in that American training.
And we know that the commission found that there had been involvement from outside actors.
So Ecuador is one of those really not very much talked about, but really sort of important ones, with another president who was more or less aligned with that Brazil-Venezuela sort of alliance that was looking inwardly in South America and sort of outwardly to the states.
And they failed to take him out, but they tried to take him out.
All right.
So now, did you do much research on the drug wars in Mexico and particularly over the last few years?
I guess the CIA and the DEA and the ATF were back in the Sinaloa cartel there for a while.
And then, I don't know, maybe the CIA backed the Zetas too.
I have no idea.
You know?
Yeah, I have not done a lot of research on that.
I have done some on a similar situation in Colombia, where the drug war in Colombia is often— and, of course, it's getting written up a lot lately because of the FARC negotiations that fell through.
But where you get in Colombia these sort of drug wars that seem to be more or less excuses for taking over peasant land.
And one of the real sticking points in negotiations in Colombia was the redistribution of this land.
But I haven't had a chance to look that much into the Mexico drug wars that you're talking about.
Yeah.
I mean, we hear casualties in the tens of thousands over however many years.
Yeah.
But I haven't read anything really good about it in a long time, unfortunately.
Yeah, I haven't seen much really good on that either.
All right.
And now, yeah, go ahead and talk to us a little bit more about Colombia because I had a guest on talking about the unfortunately failed peace deal.
But apparently there's still some talks, but there are a lot of vested interests in keeping the crisis going there.
What's the important part that people need to understand about America's role in the crisis in Colombia, Ted?
Scott, I'm not an expert on what's going on in Colombia.
I want to do more on this.
But there are vested interests in keeping the war going everywhere from arms sales to the war on drugs to the keeping of campesino land.
The thing that interests me here, and I don't have a lot to say about this yet because I'm doing research on it now and I want to write something on it later.
But the piece that interests me here, and I hope I'm saying his name right, is the role of the former president of Colombia, Uribe, in all of this because he's the one that really galvanized the movement that, you know, when you cut right through, what happened is you've got a half century war here that actually come to agreement to stop a war.
And the people voted not to stop it.
And if you look at the demographics, the people most affected by the war voted to stop it.
And the people who weren't affected but were perhaps benefiting from it voted not to stop it.
And you get this former president who really galvanizes the no vote.
What's interesting with this to me is that Uribe had been a very sort of faithful American puppet in Colombia before this.
And when he, I don't remember if he resigned or stepped down, when he stopped being president of Colombia, then all of a sudden there was all this flurry of activity, this payback activity with the states.
He was one of the three people on the committee looking into the Gaza flotilla.
He soured relations between Colombia and Venezuela before he left.
He did all these things to sort of help America after he left.
And I'm very interested in his role in this, whether it's actually he's continuing to act on America's behalf, because that's what he seems to have been doing since he left office, that he sort of received a lot of help from the states and then did this kind of payback.
I wrote an article at one point called Payback where I looked at his activity since he was president.
To me, I think the really interesting thing from a political intrigue point of view, not from a humanitarian point of view, the tragic thing is we had a chance to stop a 50-year-old ward and they didn't.
But from a perspective of American involvement and intrigue, I think the interesting thing is the role of Uribe in all of this.
Well, and you look at Human Rights Watch under the control of Kenneth Roth, the former State Department official.
And the guy I talked to pointed out that there were problems as far as some of the immunity terms in the deal and that kind of thing for people on both sides.
But anyway, good enough.
And how in the world could whatever flaws in this peace deal, how could they be bad enough for the leader of Human Rights Watch in Colombia to side with Uribe against the peace deal?
And that to me, you know, I think, OK, if it was the CIA themselves, they being the conspiracy theorists that they are, would conclude that they can judge with high confidence that that was an American influence operation and that the U.S. government had Human Rights Watch help tip the scale against a freaking peace deal.
Yeah, and they may not have even needed more help than just Uribe himself.
But and again, I'm nervous talking about this because I'm not an expert.
I want to do more research on this.
But Human Rights Watch has been really criticized for this in Colombia.
And, you know, their sort of take as far as I understand it is that you can't let people like the FARC just get off without, you know, you can't just let them get off.
There's got to be consequences.
But, you know, the flip side of that, as you pointed out, is that this isn't it's not an all or nothing thing where you don't win unless your enemies totally pulverize.
There were consequences for them.
And also you have to look at the history of the FARC and look at the question of, you know, why they were doing what they were doing and what their justification for some things they were doing.
You ought to look at sort of at the history of it instead of just starting conveniently at the at the end of it.
But I know there's been a lot of criticism of Human Rights Watch.
But again, this is something that I can't say too much about because it's an area I'd like to do more research into.
But I'm not I'm not I'm not confident saying too much about it yet.
All right.
No, that's cool.
Well, listen, we're running out of countries and we don't really have time to talk about Paraguay or Guatemala.
But can we can we on a on a on a.
Hey, it's a it's a crowded hemisphere.
But if we can sort of kind of end on a positive note, you can be as cynical as you want.
There's there are plenty.
There's plenty of wiggle room in here.
But how about that Cuba policy?
Huh?
Yeah.
So, you know, if you if you if you want to know on a positive note, you know, Obama probably made more progress in America and Latin American relations on that Cuba thing than on everything else, you know, put together.
And it's nowhere near enough.
They're cynical in Latin America because right after the Cuba deal, Obama called Venezuela a terrorist threat.
They're like, what?
You know what's going on?
And, you know, Cubans are still saying that that we're really happy that diplomatic relations have been open.
But the embargo is still on.
I just read a piece yesterday that in the U.N. for the first time under whether the state should keep an embargo on the states abstained for the first time.
They didn't vote yes.
But they actually abstained on their own policy, which is, again, kind of comic.
But I think, you know, I think it's not a really positive note until the embargo gets lifted.
But at least the opening of diplomatic relations showed some significant movement on the part of the states.
And that was noticed.
And I think that is the one that is the one real positive on Obama's report card.
But it won't be a total positive yet until it's not just diplomatic relations, but Cubans actually experience a change because of a lifting of embargo.
Well, thanks again for coming on the show, Ted.
I really appreciate it.
Thanks a lot, Scott.
I love doing the show.
I appreciate you asking me to be on it again.
All right.
Good deal.
Thanks again.
And everybody, check out the article at Antiwar.com, the end of Obama's term, a report card on Latin America.
It's in the viewpoint section at Antiwar.com.
And that's the Scott Horton Show.
Check out the archives at Libertarian Institute dot org slash Scott Horton Show.
All the iTunes and Stitcher and everything should be set up for you there to make the switch on over to the RSS feed at Libertarian Institute dot org slash Scott Horton Show.
Thanks.
Hey, I'll Scott here.
If you've got a band, a business, a cause or campaign and you need stickers to help promote, check out the bumper sticker dot com at the bumper sticker dot com.
They digitally print with solvent ink.
So you get the photo quality results of digital with the strength and durability of old style screen printing.
I'm sure glad I sold the bumper sticker dot com to Rick back when he's made a hell of a great company out of it.
There are thousands of satisfied customers who agree with me to let the bumper sticker dot com help you get the word out.
That's the bumper sticker dot com at the bumper sticker dot com.
I love Bitcoin, but there's just something incredibly satisfying about having real fine silver in your pocket.
That's why commodity disks are so neat.
They're one ounce rounds of fine silver with a QR code on the back.
Just grab your smartphone's QR reader, scan the coin and you'll instantly get the silver spot price in federal reserve notes and Bitcoin.
And if you donate 100 bucks to the Scott Horton Show, he'll send you one.
Learn more at Facebook dot com slash commodity disks commodity disks dot com.