12/30/14 – Will Grigg – The Scott Horton Show

Hey, I'm Scott Horton here.
It's always safe to say that one should keep at least some of your savings in precious metals as a hedge against inflation.
And if this economy ever does heat back up and the banks start expanding credit, rising prices could make metals a very profitable bet.
Since 1977, Roberts and Roberts Brokerage Inc. has been helping people buy and sell gold, silver, platinum, and palladium.
And they do it well.
They're fast, reliable, and trusted for more than 35 years.
And they take Bitcoin.
Call Roberts and Roberts at 1-800-874-9760 or stop by rrbi.co.
All right, y'all.
Welcome back to the show.
I'm Scott.
This is my show, Scott Horton Show.
Hey, I got Will Grigg on the line, William Norman Grigg, that is.
The great author of the book Liberty in Eclipse.
He does Freedom Zealot Radio, and he writes at freedominourtime.blogspot.com.
The blog is called Pro Libertate, freedominourtime.blogspot.com.
Welcome back to the show, Will.
How you doing?
Scott, I'm doing great.
I hope you had a very nice Christmas.
I did.
How was yours?
Ours was wonderful.
Thank you.
That's great.
Yeah, yeah.
I'm very happy to hear it.
Happy New Year and all those kinds of things.
You as well.
Thank you.
Man, I don't know if you saw Alko this morning with his predictions for next year.
Yes, I did.
It's all really the year in review.
I'll spoil the joke because it's spoiled in the first link, so who cares, right?
His year in review.
Boy, what a year, 2014, for the police state out of control.
He didn't even mention Mike Brown in there, right?
Didn't even mention Eric Garner because those are the ones that are on everybody's radar, but he reminded us of all the outrages that have gone by in the last year.
It really is something.
I guess, well, I want to talk to you about your article, Law and Order Leninism.
I guess really that is the best place to start is the question of the divide between right and left on this issue where they just can't admit to each other that they agree with each other and that the enemy is the police state and that they could work together on this.
It's us, you know, the Americans here.
We could have a consensus and yet, as you say, they're all wrapped up in Leninism.
Well, how so?
They're all wrapped up in a tribalist version of Leninism.
Leninism, as I defined it in this essay, is digested into two maxims.
The first of which is that government gives to exercise power without limit, resting directly on force, unlimited by law.
The second of which is that in politics, the most important question is who does what to whom.
And Lenin wrote voluminously and in self-contradictory fashion about a number of subjects, but I think in terms of the way that he exercised power as the founding ruler of Soviet Russia, those two maxims define how he conducted himself and define the doctrine that has been adopted pretty much seamlessly by every government of consequence since 1917, our own very much emphatically included on that list.
So what you have here is a situation where people who have been assigned or who have chosen one of two identifiable political camps in this country, one of two very identifiable factions, they've adopted these two maxims and the way that they relate to the police state that is now very much an overt and undeniable presence in our society is that they are situational Leninists, Leninists rather.
That is to say, when they are on the receiving end of government violence or somebody they associate with their tribe is on the receiving end of government violence, then they will run the skies with outraged cries over the unfairness of it all.
On the other hand, if somebody who's identified with the other faction is on the receiving end of such violence, then people who otherwise would be inclined to criticize the police state insist that the problem is that those people are not submitting to the due and proper authority of the government as embodied in the police officer.
So last April, you had left progressives talk about Cliven Bundy and his supporters as domestic terrorists when they were involved in an uprising based on tax disputes in Clark County, Nevada.
And you had conservatives extolling Cliven Bundy and his followers and supporters as essentially the renaissance of the colonial spirit of 1776.
And that all happened around Easter.
And by Christmas, suddenly the narrative is reversed.
And you have the same right that had celebrated Cliven Bundy and...
No, by summer.
Yeah, by summer.
Yeah, by summer.
But certainly by Christmas.
I mean, by Christmas, there was no ambiguity, because Eric Garner's case is one in which you've got somebody dealing with exactly the same kind of challengers that Cliven Bundy was dealing with, having to do with tax policy.
The difference is that you have this guy who was seeking a subsistence-level living on the streets of Staten Island by selling untaxed single cigarettes, who was literally killed in front of a video camera by a thug scrum of police officers, who begin with an illegal chokehold and then allow him to sit there dying on the sidewalk with his hands cuffed.
This all happens on video, in front of the public.
And for about two or three days after the grand jury decided not to indict Pantaleo for the criminal homicide of Eric Garner, for about two or three days, there was this brief tremor of something very close to decency on the part of the Fox-centered right, where you had people like Bill O'Reilly saying, I just can't countenance what was done to this guy.
And then the party line reasserted itself.
Oh, the problem was he resisted.
He resisted a police officer.
It doesn't matter whether or not what they were doing to him was justified.
It doesn't matter whether or not the tax policy is something that is wholesome or worthwhile.
You don't resist the police.
Well, these are the same people who were cheering when Clive and Bundy's associates were pointing guns at Clark County police officers, Las Vegas Metro police officers, back in April of this year.
And, of course, you've got the left now, quite properly, in my opinion, making this a cause celebre, where they're peacefully opposing and peacefully criticizing the rampant and impenitent violence of the NYPD and other police departments, and yet they're being treated as if they're elements of a revolutionary action.
Some of these people, as you pointed out, Scott, are trying to hijack this issue on behalf of superannuated nostrums of 1968 vintage Marxist leftism.
That much is true.
But you know what?
I don't really care.
If they're making the focus of this, the need to rein in these agents of state-sanctioned violence, then to that extent, I'm comfortable in their company.
But unfortunately, one of the other things that's happening here, this is something we predicted and talked about, is that this is being repurposed into a matter of what is referred to as racial politics in this country.
This is being treated as if the real question here is either white privilege or black entitlement.
You know, somehow this is being transposed into an issue of skin color and melanin content, when the real issue has to be the unfettered criminal violence of police departments acting as agents of the state.
And the real enemy here is the embedded privilege of people who dispense violence on behalf of this murderous fiction that is commonly known as the state.
But neither side is critiquing the state here.
They're critiquing each other.
And that's precisely the conversation that the people who presume to rule us want us to have.
Yeah, it really is too bad, especially when it's just so obvious like this.
But I guess, you know, where I always look at, you know, generally speaking, I know most Americans probably don't identify very well with left or right or even know necessarily what those things are supposed to mean, that kind of thing, you know.
But typically speaking, people who more or less lean left or right, I say about half of them are more or less libertarian and are the good part of the right or, you know, more or about approximately half are more or less the good part of the left.
And it's not even necessarily separated by moderate and radical either, but just principled and not.
I mean, like Glenn Greenwald, he's basically a middle of the road Democrat, except on the Bill of Rights.
He's hardcore.
That's exactly right.
You know what I mean?
But otherwise, he's not a very radical figure.
He's just, you know, he more or less is is, you know, basic democratic politics seems pretty conventional.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Anyway, that's just one example.
But so the point being that, you know, you have I don't know if maybe half is too generous, but you do have portions of the left and the right who see these things more or less the way you do that.
And they say, hey, you know, if if if, you know, Bush's government abused people, then the Obama government shouldn't be abusing people and saying, well, Bush did it, too.
They should be not abusing people the way Bush did, you know.
And so there's, you know, some of the people would are, you know, are closer to the tribal identification and would rather see the power exercise.
But it seems like these are great teachable moments for people like you and me to to say, you know, seriously, we got your local sheriff is carrying an M-16 around like it's the Battle of Fallujah.
What the hell is going on here?
That's not necessarily a racial issue.
And oh, well, I'm sorry.
One more thing.
It's hard for people to address the racial issue, because, of course, the people who are racial minorities who've been suffering police abuse all along, it sure looks like it's a racial issue to them.
Why wouldn't it be?
It's the same racial issue.
It always has been.
Yeah.
There's what's new.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I mean, you know, the cops are beating the hell and killing out of and killing white people, too, now, because that's how out of control they are.
So it's up to all of us to roll them back now.
Anyway, I'm sorry.
I'll let you talk for 10 minutes in just a sec.
Will Grigg, y'all.
Hey, I'll Scott Horton here for the Future of Freedom, the monthly journal of the Future Freedom Foundation at FFF dot org slash subscribe.
Since 1989, FFF has been pushing an uncompromising moral and economic case for peace, individual liberty and free markets.
Sign up now for the Future Freedom featuring founder and president Jacob Hornberger, as well as Sheldon Richmond, James Bovard, Anthony Gregory, Wendy McIlroy and many more.
It's just twenty five dollars a year for the print edition, 15 per year to read it online.
That's FFF dot org slash subscribe and Tom Scott sent you.
All right.
So I'll go back to the show.
I'm Scott Horton.
I'm sitting here laughing.
You guys follow Mitch Lake on Twitter.
I don't know who that guy is, but he cracks me up, man.
All right.
So listen here.
Here's some things that Will Grigg wrote recently.
Why support your local police is a formula for despotism.
Also a law and order Leninism, which is the one we're talking about here.
Who does what to whom?
And then a peace officer defies the blue tribe, the exile of Officer Cariel Horn.
And that's really good.
And it's about some other cops who tried to do the right thing a couple of times, too.
And I got to tell you, Will, he's just such a talented writer.
He's as good as he is at talking with the keypad there.
And I really do hope that you'll bookmark his great blog freedom in our time dot blog spot dot com.
And let me go ahead and mention now, Will, before I turn it back over to you, that there's a money bomb going on for Will that AJ Ellis has set up.
It's a really easy address to get to.
It's just GoFundMe dot com slash J.A. 1140.
That's pretty easy.
Right.
GoFundMe dot com slash J.A.
1140 or just Google Will Grigg money bomb and you'll find it there at GoFundMe dot com and trying to raise a couple of grand there.
It's a good little project by AJ.
I hope that you guys will participate in that.
Get the new year off to a right start supporting independent journalism like Will's.
OK, so I'm sorry.
I loaded a bunch of stuff on you there about the good part of the left and the good part of the right.
And how can we teach them to get it right so we can really do something to roll back these cops?
And what about race?
Because hasn't it always been about race ever since the days of the slave catchers?
And when did it quit being about race?
And and what about that divide, too, within the left and right?
I see there are people who say, stop saying black lives matter.
All lives matter.
And there are people saying, see, black people can't have anything.
Yeah.
You know, you don't even want black people.
It's not like they're saying only black people's lives matter.
They're protesting that black people, black people's lives matter, too.
But even that gets turned into something else by some Madison Avenue white guy PR firm.
You know, I do appreciate the fact that you bring up the slave catchers of the 1850s, because as far as I can tell in the research that I've done, the emergence of the idea of resisting arrest being a crime, what occurred during the 1850s in the context of people who are trying to help human beings escape from people who claim to hold those human beings as property.
And you had U.S. marshals and deputized law enforcement officers treating resistance to their attempt to capture these so-called fugitive slaves and remand them to the custody of their supposed owners as if it were a crime.
And when you see somebody like Eric Garner being arrested precisely for asserting self-ownership, this is the most important part of the story.
It stops today.
You're always harassing me.
Leave me alone.
In other words, he was telling people who presumed to own him.
And that's something that's being peddled now by elements of the right with respect to the Eric Garner case.
He was telling people who presumed to own him that he owned himself and that he was minding his own business and he invited them to mind their own.
And he was being punished for contempt of cop.
There was no reminder here that he had just broken up a fight was what caught their attention.
And as you said, when you mentioned before the right winger saying, oh, he was resisting, resisting in a sense.
But by resisting, what that really means is he put his hands up so as to prove he wasn't a threat.
But exactly.
But he was holding them up there stiffly instead of putting them behind his back.
He was doing something other than rendering immediate and unqualified submission to a police officer.
In the last week or so, Jeffrey Vollmer, who's a police union commissar in Cleveland, has said in so many words that you do whatever a cop tells you to do.
And you've had Rudy Giuliani saying the same thing on Meet the Press over the weekend.
My father told me that whatever a cop tells you to do, you do it, whether it's right or not.
But Rudolf Giuliani's father, as it turns out, was a crook.
He was a petty thief who went to jail because he was ripping people off.
So perhaps Rudy Giuliani's father's perspective on this issue was jaundiced by a bad conscience.
He probably was doing something that would warrant the attention of a police officer, unlike Eric Garner, who, as you said, just broke up a fight acting as a peacemaker while you had undercover police operatives who were tatted out.
The guy, Daniel Pantaleo, who actually killed Eric Garner, had full sleeves of tattoos.
He looked like the sort of a person whose company you'd want to avoid in any circumstance.
And the fact that he was a cop merely accentuates that quality about him.
But they were in the neighborhood trying to find people who were conducting commerce without government permission.
Eric Garner was acting as a peacemaker, and that's what brought him to the attention of those police officers.
He raised his hands in noncompliance, but also by way of showing that he was not armed.
And this is treated as if it were a capital offense on the basis of what we might call the Jeffrey Fulmer doctrine.
He didn't render immediate unqualified submission to a police officer the way that a fugitive slave was opposed to render unqualified submission to a slave catcher in the 1850s.
So yes, there is a very strong racial element to all this.
And one of the things you brought up in the earlier segment, Scott, was the fact that you're seeing what we might call the gentrification of the ghetto here in terms of violent police tactics and the mentality of a military occupation seeping out from the inner city, from the hood into the suburbs.
That's one of the reasons why this issue has achieved a certain saliency over the last two years, is because people of means who have, among other things, the technological capacity to record their interactions with police, have made visible and vivid what has been going on.
And the fact that these casual instances of criminal violence by police are targeting people other than the familiar suspects in the inner city, and that's one of the reasons why beginning about a year and a half or so ago, I said that we're going to be reaching what I call peak jackboot, which is that point in our society's development where we're no longer beguiled by the official line that police are actually protecting us, when actually what they're doing is acting as the enforcement arm of a government that preys upon our persons and property.
And I think that we've reached that point now, but that doesn't mean that things are going to be getting better for the foreseeable future.
Bradley Balko's piece this morning in the Washington Post, which is something he's done before, and it's a brilliant journalistic conceit where you have him making predictions as to how bad things will get by showing that these things have all happened.
That's really the chronicle of a country where people have this increasingly vivid awareness of what our rulers are doing on the one hand, and our rulers becoming more impudent and brazen in doing what they've always done, acting in the serene confidence that there's not a whole lot that we can do to oppose them.
And one of the things that they have done brilliantly, I suspect, is co-opted this tribalism that they have so diligently cultivated for decades now.
And I do think that you're correct, Scott, in talking about the fact that the vast bulk of the American public doesn't consciously identify with the political faction, because most of us are too busy living our lives, and politics, of course, as Oscar Wilde said, would take too many weekends, take too many evenings, I think was what he said.
There are other things we want to do with our time, other than becoming obsessed with the idea of who's going to exercise power on behalf of one faction or another.
But of course, that feeds the field of the people who are most motivated and most eager to exercise power, basically against everybody who's not part of their cohort.
There is a huge what we might call a golden rule constituency in the American public.
I think it's probably a majority.
People who understand that the fundamental maxim of civilized life is do unto others as you would be done to, or at least don't do to somebody what you yourself find to be abhorrent, and politics tends to be an exercise in pursuing self-seeking or self-benefiting exceptions to the golden rule.
And unfortunately, we have this huge industry of talk radio and cable television devoted to facile tribalist controversies in ways that, of course, happen to harmonize with Lenin's dictum of who does what to whom.
And so the political conversation is taking place on one track.
The social conversation, perhaps, is taking place in a slightly different way.
But the danger we confront in trying to teach people correct principles here is the fact that we're going to politicize people's outlooks rather than getting them to think in terms of fundamental principles having to do with individual liberty and dignity and property rights.
So I'm hoping that we'll be able to transcend the political in discussing these things.
And just to get people to look at what's going on with eyes that are not beguiled by official titles and official terminology.
One of the most useful things about social media here is that it has pulled away the veil that had protected what Edmund Burke called the mysteries of policy through which official violence is somehow transmuted into virtue and justice.
You know, when you have a police officer who's beating on somebody or tasering somebody or killing somebody, most people now still see this as somebody who is set apart, sanctified from the rest of society, doing something that is justified because he does it.
But there's a growing understanding on the part of the public that you're seeing one individual commit an act of violence against another individual.
And they're trying to assess it in those terms.
Those terms that have been completely divested of all these artificial categories that would make the aggressor.
And we have to assume that he's the aggressor until proven otherwise.
Make the aggressor somehow the noble dispenser of justice.
Is there a chance you want to do one more segment with me here today, Will?
Sure.
OK, great.
Well, hold on.
It's about seven, eight minutes, this long break for the top of the hour.
OK, so go ahead.
Take a break.
Put the phone down and we'll be back with you then.
It's the great Will Grigg, y'all, on the Scott Horton Show.
Phone records, financial and location data, PRISM, Tempora, X-Key Score, Boundless Informant.
Hey, y'all, Scott Horton here for OffNow.org.
Now here's the deal.
Due to the Snowden revelations, we have a great opportunity for a short period of time to get some real rollback of the national surveillance state.
Now they're already trying to tire us by introducing fake reforms in the Congress and the courts.
They betrayed their sworn oaths to the Constitution and Bill of Rights again and again and can in no way be trusted to stop the abuses for us.
We've got to do it ourselves.
How?
We nullify it at the state level.
It's still not easy.
The OffNow project of the 10th Amendment Center has gotten off to a great start.
I mean it.
There's real reason to be optimistic here.
They've gotten their model legislation introduced all over the place in state after state.
I've lost count.
More than a dozen.
You're always wondering, yeah, but what can we do?
Here's something, something important, something that can work if we do the work.
Get started cutting off the NSA support in your state.
Go to OffNow.org.
All right, guys.
Welcome back to the show.
Check out Will Griggs' great blog, ProLibertate, at freedominourtime.blogspot.com.
Why support your local police is a formula for despotism.
Law and order Leninism.
And a peace officer defies the Blue Tribe, the exile of Officer Cariel Horn.
A shocking but not surprising story there.
Always great journalism at ProLibertate, freedominourtime.blogspot.com.
The great Will Griggs.
All right.
So now, so here's the thing.
I forget exactly where I interrupted you, Will, but I know what I wanted to say next, which is that as much as race is important in all of this, as we discussed, I think, and this was the context in which you brought it up in the first place, I think, was that it's obscuring what's really important here.
And you mentioned basic principle, never mind politics, basic principle.
That's what people need to get back to here.
Innocent till proven guilty.
Fairness, justice, honesty is what's going on here.
I got one.
Accountability.
This is what we're lacking.
This is what does not exist, is accountability for cops.
You know, I got one here.
A cop speeding at night without his lights on kills 10-year-old boy on his way to a sleepover in the crosswalk.
And we all already know he's going to get away with it with not even a slap on the wrist.
We all already know he's not going to be in trouble for this, even though he killed this 10-year-old boy.
And it's all his fault.
And he's a criminal.
And if he wasn't a cop, he'd go to prison for it.
But he is a cop.
And so he will not get in trouble.
And that's a scientific fact.
And we all know it.
And so that's what's got to change.
That's what the left and the right and everybody has got to rally around.
And so how do we do that?
Because I don't think just hashtag accountability is going to quite get it done here.
What do we do?
There are several things that I proposed recently that I think would be not dispositive of the problem you're describing, but go a long way toward making it manageable.
The first of which is that we have to do away with this spurious construct called qualified immunity.
Qualified immunity is that magical property that makes a police officer unaccountable, but a private security officer accountable to the law.
To give you one really good illustration, just last week there were two former private security officers in Dayton, Ohio, who were sentenced to at least four years in prison for an incident in 2012 in which they fired 17 shots at a car carrying a fleeing so-called suspect, a young man by the name of Dante Price.
He was 20 at the time.
He had been trespassed out of the apartment complex these two security officers were patrolling.
They had the right to evict him from the property, but they surrounded the car and ordered him out of the vehicle onto the ground the way the police officers familiarly do.
They do that all the time.
It's something that's not dictated by law.
It's a matter of policy.
It's done in the name of the sacred imperative of officer safety.
They were behaving like police officers rather than private security officers.
Mr. Price refused to get out of the car, and then he put the car in gear and started to flee.
The two of them opened fire on the vehicle, hitting him three times out of the 17 shots that they flung in his direction.
They called 911.
They claimed that they had a violent suspect who tried to run them down.
What happened is that they were actually indicted by a grand jury, and then facing the prospect of life in prison, they took a plea bargain agreement that would result in a four-year prison sentence.
Now, every single one of the facts of that case could be transposed instantly into any one of the number of cases I've written about involving police officers.
The Daniel Willard case in Utah, for instance, is a really good match for this.
The difference is that these two people were employed by Ranger Security Company rather than by the Dayton Police Force, and if they had been employed by the Dayton PD, there's no way they would have faced an indictment.
This would have been immediately ruled justified by the police department, most likely within an hour or so of the incident, and they would invoke their garrity privilege and talk to the Internal Affairs Division to tell what had happened from their perspective.
Nothing they disclosed would have been available for the prosecutors, and they would have invoked qualified immunity, and that would have been the end of the matter.
But because they were employed to protect persons and property rather than to enforce the edicts of the municipal government of Dayton, Ohio, these two individuals were held criminally accountable for an act of criminal homicide.
That's the sort of thing that should obtain when you're talking about any kind of an incident involving any people who are police officers or private security guards.
They should be treated equally by the law.
That's just a fundamental American principle of equality before the law.
The other thing I've suggested is that police officers, as a professional responsibility, an indispensable professional requirement, carry personal liability insurance for any episodes that might involve abuse of a citizen or brutality or something of that sort.
And this would be connected to a third proposal, which would be that any civil judgment involving police brutality or police abuse should be paid out of the pension fund of the union and the department employing the miscreant officer.
They don't have any skin in the game right now.
They indemnify their acts by forcing the tax victims of the jurisdiction to pay for the civil judgments in the form of increased premiums for risk management insurance for the police department.
That's actually driven some cities into bankruptcy.
That happened to Maywood, California a number of years ago.
Well, why shouldn't we require that the professional associations that employ these police officers pay the costs of the abuse of the public inflicted by people who are part of their professional association?
That's something that could be done, and it would be interesting to have that conversation because right now in New York City, of course, you've got the police union actually controlling not only the discipline of the police officers, but the investigation of their misconduct and actually setting policy for the city.
That's why arrests on trivial infractions are down 66% since the murder of those two police officers about a week ago.
They're not enforcing these small, petty, broken windows type laws because that might entail an element of risk, and risk, of course, is unacceptable if you're a police officer.
Officer safety is the highest priority in that profession.
It's not the highest priority, incidentally, in the realm of private security, and these are people who, as I mentioned, don't have the luxury of qualified immunity.
They actually interpose themselves when necessary between the person of their client or the property that they're paid to protect and criminal threats.
When they engage in misconduct, they don't have the shield and buckler of qualified immunity in a police union and usually a compliance and district attorney's office to protect them from accountability.
Even the level of playing field between the government-employed law enforcement officers and their departments, on the one hand, and the much more numerous people in the private security realm who run risks every day and who don't have qualified immunity and who are being paid by the public to provide the protection that the police supposedly provide for us.
If law enforcement actually worked to protect persons and property, we wouldn't have to be paying for it ourselves, but if you want that type of protection, you have to pay for it out of your own personal assets in addition to paying the taxes that support government law enforcement.
I hope that that's going to be something we're going to focus on in this next coming year because that would be, I think, a subject fraught with all kinds of useful disclosures and quite frankly, laden with the type of fights we should be having here rather than looking at each other with suspicion on the basis of incidental characteristics that have nothing to do with the matter of the state and its relationship to society.
Yeah.
No, I mean, that's the whole thing is, like we talked about, where the way they've treated people in the ghetto as though they have no rights that the cops are bound to respect whatsoever, that's creeping now.
It's getting to all of us now.
I guess it's Giuliani reference to the talk that fathers have to have with their sons and all that has been a controversy.
My dad told me, don't you ever mess with the cops if the cops are messing with you, but the way he explained it was, you know, first of all, the assumption was if they're messing with me, I probably did do something wrong or otherwise, why would they be messing with me?
Which probably was a safe assumption because I was a white suburban kid and they mostly didn't have a reason to mess with me.
I mean, I had a skateboard, so that was a little something that didn't quite make me black though, you know, but then the other thing was his idea was they were used to dealing with dangerous people all the time and so you never know what might set them off.
And so they're, they're dangerous guys.
You should play it safe.
But the assumption was that I would make it to the jailhouse alive, you know, and that, right.
So it's a totally different thing.
If he was a black man having a conversation with me as his black son, they're like, you know, these guys might murder you if they get a chance to make it look like somehow it was your fault.
So you've got to be really careful.
That's an entirely different conversation and that's a conversation that people of all races are having with their children now is that these guys are rabid pit bulls and if you do the slightest thing, they might execute you, you know, like the old wives tales about how the crips are looking for someone who will flash their brights at them and then they'll kill you for no reason.
Only no, really, these cops, that's the lesson.
That's the, the, the thing that fathers are teaching their sons now that, that I guess black men have always taught their, their children and, and that and their moms too.
And that we all have to learn now.
So it really has changed and, and I don't know, I really like your ideas and I think that we can build some consensus around them now for the hashtags.
So I'll see you on Twitter.
Will.
All right.
Thanks Scott.
Thanks so much.
Hey y'all, Scott Horton here for wallstreetwindow.com.
Mike Swanson knows his stuff.
He made a killing running his own hedge fund and always gets out of the stock market before the government generated bubbles pop, which is by the way, what he's doing right now, selling all the stocks and betting on gold and commodities.
Sign up at wallstreetwindow.com and get real time updates from Mike on all his market moves.
It's hard to know how to protect your savings and earn a good return in an economy like this.
Mike Swanson can help.
Follow along on paper and see for yourself wallstreetwindow.com Oh, John Kerry's Mideast Peace Talks have gone nowhere.
Hey, I'll Scott Horton here for the Council for the National Interest accounts for the national interest.org US military and financial support for Israel's permanent occupations of the West Bank and Gaza Strip is immoral and it threatens national security by helping generate terrorist attacks against our country.
And face it.
It's bad for Israel, too.
Without our unlimited support, they would have much more incentive to reach a lasting peace with their neighbors.
It's past time for us to make our government stop making matters worse.
Help support CNI accounts for the national interest.org