01/28/13 – Tim Kelly – The Scott Horton Show

Hey everybody, Scott Horton here.
You ought to consider advertising on the show.
Here's how it'll work.
You give me money and then I'll tell everybody how great your stuff is.
They'll buy it and we'll all be rich as Republicans.
Sound pretty good?
Shoot me an email, scott at scotthorton.org and we'll work it out.
All right, y'all introducing Tim Kelly.
He's a columnist and policy advisor at the Future Freedom Foundation, fff.org.
And he's a correspondent for Radio America's Special Investigator, also a political cartoonist ought to check out your cartoon sometime.
Welcome back to the show, Tim.
How are you doing?
Hey, Scott.
Thanks for having me back.
It's an honor.
Uh, well, I'm very happy to have you here and very happy to have you writing these great articles too.
Um, later in this show, I want to ask you about the Corporatist Intelligence Agency.
Mm hmm.
Oh, the company.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Uh, and then, uh, but first three reasons why the charges against Bradley Manning should be dropped.
And you know, I sure am glad to see this and I wonder just how, you know, what percentage of the American population agrees with you about this?
But I think it's a pretty sizable number.
Why don't you go ahead and take us through your reasons that you think Bradley Manning ought to be set free?
Well, the moment the case kind of made news a couple of years ago, uh, it became clear to me that Bradley Manning, the information he's releasing had nothing to do with genuine national security, wasn't releasing nuclear codes or border battle plans, or if I'm good, he was releasing to the public who gets the WikiLeaks, uh, real crimes and also incompetence, stupidity, arrogance, double dealing on the part of the U S government officials, the military, and in that, in that he was a whistleblower and, um, so when the government went after him, um, accused him of aiding the enemy and all that stuff, uh, it was just on his face.
Absurd.
You could, you could see what he was, you know, he, he released the, uh, I guess it can be called as the collateral murder video.
And from what I understand from the room, from the details, he had at first attempted to alert his superiors about this stuff and they had refused to do anything about it.
So he more or less was following, I guess, what were legitimate channels.
You know, when he first tried to alert his superiors of wrongdoing and they refused to do it, they cover it up and he released the information.
Um, so it was clear to me that he wasn't the traitor, the, you know, the, uh, the spy that they're trying to make him out to be, he was just revealing truths to the American people about what the government was doing overseas.
And of course the government was scant at that because they like to be able to operate in secret and not be held accountable for their actions.
So that's a real crime.
And that's why it's being persecuted and prosecuted.
Yeah.
Well, and on that point, let me just say real quick that, um, it's in the, uh, if we accept them and I guess they are widely accepted as now the complete transcripts, or at least what has been released, uh, are legitimate transcripts of Bradley Manning's chats with Adrian Lambo, the rat that turned him in.
And, and Lambo, I think at this point already working for the government and trying to get him in as much trouble as he possibly can, uh, is saying, well, why don't you sell this stuff to the Chinese or the Russians?
And he says, no way I'm giving this to the people of America mostly.
And that really the civilians of the world so that they can use their democratic power to do the right thing.
And he's, he doesn't even know that he's paraphrasing Thomas Jefferson.
Yeah.
Well, yeah, that's, uh, that's what happened.
I mean, it's the purest whistleblower kind of motives that you could get.
I mean, here's, this guy's trying to get him to, you know, uh, you know, tempt him basically.
And he's like, yeah, right.
You can't, no, no, no.
I don't want that.
Yeah.
And then of course, then when he was arrested, he was subjected to, you know, this is what you call torture, enhanced interrogation techniques by, by the jailers.
And that in itself is a case of the strong argument for all the charges to be dropped.
And if he's being mistreated and that happens, there should be some sort of exclusionary rule.
Mr.
Usually is the judge finds that, you know, that the, uh, uh, the suspect had been mistreated.
That's it.
You go in your case, let him go.
You can't do this to people.
And it became obvious to me that there's that, you know, highly, I think it's suggested in the treatment that they're trying to break him so he can be a witness against, uh, Julian Assange, you know, supposedly there's a secret indictment over in Alexandria, Virginia.
I mean, they're, they're, they're searching for a crime.
I don't know what Julian Assange is using with the American citizen.
I mean, he's a journalist really.
So they can grab him.
They might as well go up to the Washington post, New York times and any other news outlets that publish the stories related to the weekly, uh, you know, revelation.
Yeah.
I mean, it really does seem to be kind of a novel legal theory that they're using there.
If they can get Manning to say that Assange asked him to do what he did, then somehow they're going to say, well, now that's no longer a government source leaking a classified document to a journalist, which we all know now it's fair game.
That's the American way.
Nope.
This isn't that this is now an espionage conspiracy.
Yeah.
And also it is a matter of law, international law, US law, that if a soldier is aware of war crimes, he has a duty to reveal them.
So if he hadn't have done, you could argue that he wasn't in violation of his coat.
If he hadn't, the president, you all, he came to reveal his stuff.
That's right.
The extent, because then there's the issue of command influence or command interference, where, uh, you have the president and the chairman of George's staff, both pronouncing the guilt.
That isn't that right there.
It means that he can know he can't, he cannot get a fair trial within the military justice system because the people who will be sitting in judgment of him are career officers.
Are they going to turn around and contradict the commander in chief and the highest ranking officer in the armed forces?
I don't think so.
And so right there, that's number two.
That's why charges should be dropped.
Well, and what's funny there is the, I guess the defense already conceded that they just wanted the judge to decide and forego the jury, but whether, whether you want to, uh, attribute it to command interference or influence or not, which I think you could, uh, she's already decided that the whistleblower defense is no defense in fact, or they, or they limited it anyway, he can say it was a whistleblower only to defend himself from the charge that he was deliberately trying to aid the enemy, but it does not, it cannot be used as an excuse for any other thing he's accused of doing, such as downloading, transferring, uploading, whatever they call it.
And again, what you have here is, uh, when they say aiding the enemy, I think I pointed out, point this out in the article that who do they mean?
The enemy is they've had no evidence.
First of all, the information he believes doesn't aid any enemy.
This will give the U S government a black eye or reveal certain crimes and, and other misdemeanors or whatever.
But so it doesn't really, again, it's just this, this overblown idea of national security, which they use for secrecy and government, I guess in theory you could say, yeah, there is a need for secrecy for some things, but the overwhelming amount of things that they classify and keep to the American people have nothing to do with general national security.
It's everything to do with avoiding accountability and covering things up.
Yeah.
Even Robert Gates said that, nah, this is all a bunch of hyperventilating.
Bradley Manning actually didn't compromise anything after all was, I think you were saying just secret level and confidential level, uh, cables.
It was not top secret stuff.
And when it suits their purposes, they have no problem leaking top secret stuff.
I mean, no one investigates the leaks coming out of the white house.
It looks like a fib when it suits their purposes, right?
No one investigates that, you know, but in this case, when it doesn't suit their purpose, but it reveals that Hillary Clinton was engaging in identity theft, the UN, oh, they all think national security, like, you know what?
I swear, Tim, I saw something earlier that said, I think it was a Democrat in the Congress was basically twisting Glenn Greenwald, so to speak the, the proverbial Glenn Greenwald argument that, well, why don't you do this to the New York times then, you know?
And there was a, I think it was in the, in the Congress, a Democrat was saying, well, maybe we should prosecute the New York times like they're jiggling in his songs and maybe you have a point there.
Yeah.
You don't give them any ideas as if the New York times poses any real threat to the value structure.
But I think it's the, uh, what's that?
The, uh, I think, I think it might be Jack blood.
The, uh, uh, he says number all laws are selectively enforced.
Yeah, that's a very good point.
So when it suits their purposes, they process just like, you know, some cartels allowed to operate.
Some are, you know, you're allowed to operate for a little while.
It's our purposes.
We'll team up with you for a while.
But we can drive you to go out to some other guys.
No, the truth is, thank goodness.
Right.
What if there was total enforcement of all the laws?
This would be worse than any totalitarianism the Nazis could have dreamed of.
You know?
Yeah.
Well, yeah.
Yeah.
And so, you know, I would say that he, he did it.
He, he believes the stuff, but I'm going to say all the evidence I've seen.
He did it for all the right reasons.
And there is no absolute clean for secrecy in this country.
There is no government secrets law.
There's the, uh, you know, you have the government seeks to doctrine, which was procreated by the courts.
Uh, I think it was Edwards versus the United States when it was proven, it was, uh, established regarding a lawsuit over a crash of a B-29 bomber.
And the family sued the government.
The government claimed state seekers doctrine or state speakers privilege.
And the court created it.
Uh, of course the court, I think, assumed the right to determine whether or not it applies or not.
But it was interesting enough.
20, 25 years later, it was revealed that the government was lying in that case.
So the whole doctrine is based on a law, you know, you know, they had nothing to do with national security.
They were, they, they, they invoked state secret privilege to cover up incompetence to avoid accountability.
And they now exclude entire trials rather than just certain pieces of evidence from a trial.
Yeah.
And so, you know, it's when you see the fact that it's just so obvious so obvious don't have to have any real expertise in the law to understand this, that, you know, the case should have been dropped long ago, just for all these, these three basic reasons, the fact that it hasn't, and they're persisting in the prosecution of this man, just shows you that the other corruption of our legal system, our political system, you've had people calling for agents, you know, for, you know, for Julian Sons to be murdered and all this, but these are people that, you know, that supposedly have, you know, right columns, there's opinions on things and they, they, they suggest that he should be taken out.
What does that supposed to mean?
I mean, does he want to live in a country where he can be taken?
Well, we do live in a country where you can be taken out.
If he presented, I think it was, I think it was great.
Glenn Greenwald has said that the thing against the sort of this crusade against WikiLeaks and Julian Sons proves that what happens to you, if you present a real problem to the federal government, you will tolerate me.
I mean, who am I?
Right.
I mean, but the moment, if I were to say something that presented a real threat to them, then I'd be in trouble.
And I think that's, I think that's the truth.
It's the sad truth.
And you can talk about law, try to use the law as a shield.
When it comes down to it, your shield is going to be very little protection against the sheer power of the federal government, you know, and I'd like to think the public opinion would matter, but it doesn't, because it doesn't matter if the media is controlled or manipulated by the powers that be, which it clearly, at least the corporate media is.
That's a sad statement about the state of affairs in our country today.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah.
That the American people are even primed to let the government smear Bradley Manning and, and make him the target of their derision and their two minutes hate for a while or whatever it is.
I mean, we ought to be bulletproof from that kind of thing.
I mean, especially because of, you know, how the fact like we were talking about before, how he really did mean well, he really didn't do anything wrong to anyone, only right.
And come on, man, you know, and they successfully said, Oh no, America, you hate this kid.
He, he almost got you killed somehow or whatever, blood on his hands.
You're helping the enemy.
Well, who's the enemy?
We don't want to say, well, we know who the enemy is.
Cause we find them in Afghanistan and we back them in Syria and we don't want you talking about that.
And I, you know, I think it comes down to the reason why government keeps doing it is not to protect us from our enemies, protect them from us.
They don't want us to know what's going on.
Yeah.
And us means people around the world too.
I mean, you saw widespread consequences from the release of the WikiLeaks in a way, not to argue the government's case for them, but I mean, I think the release of the WikiLeaks really did change a lot of things and really helped push the beginning of the Arab spring in Tunisia and in Egypt, which I guess that was, that change is going to come anyway, but it seemed to have a lot to do with that.
And I think that there have been a lot of scandals and corruptions revealed that have been countered and not that everything's perfect or whatever, but you know, for example, one of the WikiLeaks had a story of American soldiers murdering this family, including shooting their babies and everything.
And then calling in an airstrike in order to try to get rid of all the evidence, but they hit the wrong side of the house.
And so all the corpses were examined and all the proof came out.
And it's a American military document describing all of this.
And that came out right when they were trying to negotiate for immunity to stay in Iraq forever.
And it was at least the perfect cover for Maliki to say, you know what?
I just can't politically, I can't pull it off right now since the truth came out about you guys murdering those babies and lying about it and everything.
And so that was it.
It was right.
The end of November, 2011 clock running out.
And that was it.
And so, you know, if, if you admit that America is a corrupt evil empire, that means to dominate Iraq forever, then you can cry that yes, Bradley Manning cost the empire.
It's Iraq that it tried to kill and steal.
But you know what?
That's not, you can't really call that harm to any interest that you can admit to on TV.
Basically, you have to pretend that, oh, well, we didn't want Iraq anyway, so they can't really call it harm, right?
Even though you really did screw them up bad.
Well, you know, the truth shall set you free.
Somebody anyway.
Well, and by the way, you sort of, you sort of just mentioned it, but I think maybe some people don't know, Tim, about the command influence and the statements made by the president, the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff about Bradley Manning.
Can you fill them in on that, please?
That should be a deal killer right there.
I mean, what did they say?
Take us through it, though.
Well, Barack Obama was asked at a function where by a report, I believe one of these guys, his other one wasn't asking real questions.
Everyone else was just sticker fun.
And he goes, ask about the Bradley Manning case.
And if you press them on the fact that Bradley Manning was a whistleblower and the president pronounced his guilt before the trial, and the president's commander and the chief of the armed forces, he cannot do that.
Yeah, former law professor, this guy.
Yeah.
And then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Dempsey, said the same thing.
He echoed the president.
He said, you know, he's guilty.
He did these things.
And you can't do that.
You got to, I mean, it's a very vicious, you know, to keep their traps shut when they're asked about this stuff.
And despite all that, they're pressing, they're going ahead with the prosecution.
And there's no, like I said, you can cite these, Bradley Manning's lawyers can cite these in court, but the judge simply ignores it.
Law does not stand.
The law is silent, even when we're at war, even if we're really technically at war.
The law is silent.
It's nothing.
It does very little, very weak, very weak shield against sheer political power.
And that's what we're seeing.
That's where we are.
It shows that we're an empire, a lawless empire of illegality.
And you think something so public and so obvious just to vindicate the law would make them follow this and they won't do it.
And there's no consequences for it.
Man, that's a very good way to put it.
Yeah.
You know, the law is a weak shield against political power.
Yeah, absolutely.
Everywhere you look, you have the law and it always loses out against power because the people are ill-informed intentionally on this stuff.
They have a knee-jerk respect for authority, even ill-gotten or illegitimate authority, and they're so easily driven into jingoistic frenzies that they don't know that they're being taken for a ride in this stuff.
And that's the sad thing.
And to me, it's so obvious.
Well, you know what, too?
You talk about they're going ahead with this prosecution, but only sort of, kind of, and you talk about the law versus politics.
I don't know exactly what the law is, but it sure must be weak tea, this military law about what counts as a speedy trial and what doesn't.
Yeah.
I mean, I would like to think, I think I must've learned in elementary school or something that if they, for some reason, don't give you a speedy trial, they got to let you go because your trial is either speedy or not one.
I mean, that's the rules, right?
But here we are almost three years since he's been arrested.
Yeah.
And it's, again, it's pretrial punishment.
That's what it is.
That's the crime.
You don't do that to somebody.
Even if he was guilty, even if he was a spy, I would, I would expect that he'd be given humane treatment.
I mean, that's, that's the difference between civilization and the jungle.
It's too bad the American people didn't elect Ron Paul because he would have pardoned Bradley Manning by now.
What's the date?
The 28th now?
Oh yeah.
He'd have been gone.
Yeah.
Scott free.
Yeah.
Instead of launching drones on the third day in an office like Obama, he'd be sitting there on democracy now, right now talking to Amy Goodman about his mistreatment at Quantico.
Yeah.
Bring the, bring all the federal drug convictions and getting rid of nothing.
But you know, that's a, that's not the country we live in.
Nope.
Afraid not.
All right.
So let me ask you about this other great article that you wrote at FFF, by the way, if you're tuning in later, for some reason you missed it, we're talking with Tim Kelly from the future freedom foundation.
That's FFF.org.
And here's a good one, torture and the rule of law, but more to the point.
The one I really want to talk about here is the corporatist intelligence agency.
And this is really about kind of the history of the CIA and its origins, obviously in the OSS during the war.
But then, you know, who were the characters that put it together and what was their real mission in the world and that kind of thing.
It's a real fun article.
And, and it's the kind of thing that it's the, just the perfect kind of revisionism that I like, especially for a newbie to say to who's first allowing themselves to ask themselves if maybe the government, at least since world war two might've been a corrupt evil empire, you know?
Yeah.
It's kind of like what I heard, I think it was the late Fletcher Prouty, who said the greatest cover story for the central television agency is that it's an intelligence agency.
I might've been overstating the fact that he was there at the beginning.
He saw the presence at the beginning.
So I'm going to defer to him.
Well, it says in the national security act of 1947, and I, this is not an exact quote, but I think it's something like the CIA shall also do other things from time to time as the president shall direct, which there's your loophole, the size of the solar system, right?
Yeah.
Allen Dulles ran with that one.
And that means he was good at doing things like that.
Other things, huh?
I can think of some of those other things.
And you know, it, what happened was basically what the CIA was, was a confirmation of a kind of a unholy alliance, incestuous union between big, big business and government.
It probably started around the end of the 19th century, the 20th century, when you had big business, when you had the formation of corporations and all that stuff.
And, um, you can really see it happening at the Versailles conference where Allen Dulles was actually a very young man.
And from there he went on the wall street and he went on to represent some of the biggest corporations in the country at, uh, Felton and Cromwell.
And, uh, one of them was United fruit, uh, which, uh, benefited greatly from an operation in Guatemala in 1954, when the government there didn't, I'm sorry, weren't the Dulles brothers, the lawyers for chase Manhattan.
That, that too.
Yes.
They were, they were, they were bagging them for the Rockefeller interest, the money's interest, you know, um, and what happened was, um, well, for one thing to say, the draft report to form it was the people that wrote it were a bunch of wall street lawyers and bond, bond traders.
And so, you know, so they got the, I wrote the report and the idea of what to say would do and the Cold War kind of became the cover for their operations.
And these guys kind of had businesses just all throughout the world and they were agents with these business interests.
And so the intelligence world was always closely linked to the business world.
And this is particularly true with the petroleum and intelligence.
Uh, I'm going to start petroleum and insurance industry.
And if you look at the history of AIG and its origins with CV star in Asia, it spells it out pretty well there.
And a lot of it is because it was practical.
And the, uh, insurance companies had information on businesses and cities and.
Ports and all this stuff in Asia, particularly in Japan.
And they utilize this stuff to get information for bombing and espionage and intelligence.
And then the return for that, they were heavily subsidized and because of the large flow of money, they also became used to launder money for operations.
And this is also true with the petroleum industry.
So they were, the lines became immediately blurred.
In fact, they were intentionally blurred, uh, between wall street and the intelligence community in Washington.
And it all kind of worked together.
And this, this is come from that.
And we kind of see the contours of the American empire.
And that's, that's kind of what, what it is sort of a business corporate structure, kind of on the British, British East India company model.
Right.
And, you know, from there you get the drug trade.
And again, you've had during World War II, you had the OSF or working with lucky Luciano to fight fascism in Italy.
And, and as a reward for that, he was released from prison.
And then during the cold war, you had the CIA working with the mob to fight the communists in Italy.
And as a return, they were kind of given the, uh, the heroin, uh, business of, I guess, coming out of Marseille, France.
And then yes, the French connection and all that stuff, the drug, of course, with, uh, with Vietnam, you had, uh, the operations in Vietnam, uh, among people, the non-people and the golden triangle and Alfred McCrory writes about that, you know, Dale Scott's another great scholar in that.
And it's like, he, he kind of expands on that where it wasn't just a communion alliance, they actually actually got actively got involved in drug trade for the purposes of getting, you know, black, black budget money for operations, things like that.
That's much more involved.
And then you have the eighties with the contrary.
And basically everywhere you go, you see everywhere you go, you see, we were, we have intelligence operations.
You see, you know, you know, flowering, you know, prospering drug trade.
And that's not just a coincidence.
And I get into where, you know, a lot of these operations in third world, these are, it's a great, uh, arena for the espionage game, the drug trade and the arms trade.
It kind of takes on a life of its own, no longer really means anything for, in terms of national security.
It's just that, you know, just the business of espionage, drug dealing, arms shipments and drugs.
Right.
Well, you know, it's like when you read a Smedley Butler or something like that, and he goes down the list of, uh, you know, I invaded, um, you know, Honduras for this company.
And I invaded Argentina for that company or whatever.
I don't know the exact list, but, uh, when he goes, I was a muscle man for Brown's brother, Harriman.
Yeah, exactly.
This is the quote I'm thinking of here.
The famous Marine Corps general, it's sort of the same thing going through your article when it's, uh, like, um, Donald Sutherland and JFK going down the list of all the different countries that they overthrew in such a short amount of time and the Eisenhower years, especially, and then into the, the Kennedy years and how good they were.
And then of course, the implication being that they just kept going, including the American president too, because you just can't stop a good thing from rolling on.
But anyway, um, so what's funny about it though, is now that it's 2013 and you go back and you look at that list of coup d'etats or whatever, there's no hint whatsoever that yeah.
Or else the reds really could have got over on us.
Right.
Which was always the excuse, but you would have to be a damn fool in 2013 to think for a minute that that was really what it was about was what they told the American people at the time, protecting them from the reds.
This was just the most cynical, you know, uh, Smedley Butler type, uh, coup d'etats for corporate interests.
Very identifiable, very cynical ones.
Yeah.
It's about control of the world's resources, natural resources.
And that's why if you look at it, you see the, the industry that are involved in like natural resources, agriculture, extraction, tend to be the ones you identify in this as United fruit or the seven sisters, big oil and all that.
I recommend, highly recommend Russ Baker's book, the, uh, family of secrets.
That's the Bush family.
It's so much, it's about so much more.
Um, but it's, uh, he gets into that and he kind of connects the dots and asks him any questions as he, as he answers in that book, that's the way he is actually just kind of investigative reporter.
Um, but yeah, the two instances, I think the three examples I use in that article, I think there's just so obvious that, uh, there's just an obvious example of the CIA's corporate submission was the, uh, the, uh, the coup or the toppling of the Arbenz regime in Guatemala in 54, the, uh, operation in Iran in 53, they do most of that for the benefit of a British and Anglo-American oil interest.
And then the operation in Chile, 73 wasn't, you know, and that goes to show that this, this was after, this is the 10 years after Delos was ousted of CIA more than 10 years, but they're still doing it.
And in all these instances, the primary beneficiary of that, um, of those operations were American businesses, you know, in terms of, yeah, I guess, I guess in Chile, you had ITT and Amiconda copper interest.
And, uh, of course, in, uh, in Iran, you had British Petroleum.
I think it was Anglo-American Anglo-Iranian oil company then.
I'm not sure it was BP yet.
And you had, uh, I think it was Gulf War.
I think primarily been involved with that.
And the guy who ran that operation was Kermit Roosevelt.
And if I'm not mistaken, he was given a vice presidency of Gulf oil after that operation.
You know, it might be another oil company, but basically he got a sort of a signature position.
And just dying day, he claimed he was fighting communists.
You know, what's interesting about all this, Tim is in a way, this is almost like just the communist model of how things work is that if you give capitalists a state, this is what they do world empire, that kind of thing.
And I'll just throw in here to see what you think about it.
Um, and, and you can add whatever nuance you want.
You got plenty of time.
Uh, but, uh, to what I just said, or what I'm about to say, which is that Gareth Porter, who is at least a progressive, you know, fair to say, he's got progressive credentials.
He does not identify any corporate power, whether banks or oil companies or any, or, or Lockheed Martin, or any of those guys as being behind this.
He says more than anything else, it's the Pentagon itself.
It's the generals.
They are the core of that dirty snowball rolling downhill.
It's their interest to keep the national security state and the entire world empire rolling on and never stopping.
That is really dragging everybody else along mostly willingly, but that they're really the core of the whole thing.
The, the military, the highest ranks of the military part of the state itself.
What do you think about that?
I think that's too, I think it's part of it's too narrow, um, explanation.
I think when you talk about the military industrial complex, the interest involved, they're all involved.
It's this corporate military petroleum, uh, you know, uh, company network and it's, they're all intertwined.
That's the problem.
And that's why you can't really blame one person, um, one interest.
One interest, they're all interested.
I mean, it's like blaming war on central banking or central banking on war, which is it, it's, well, they enable each other.
And sometimes when, when you looking at this kind of globalist system we have today, um, it's like, you want to say it's all a conspiracy.
Well, okay.
It's all a conspiracy.
Um, well, it may not be a conscientious conspiracy, but it is collectively, it acts like a conspiracy.
At the end of the day, you get the same result.
So I don't know if that really matters.
Uh, but you, but I think what you do have, again, you have corporations that have, that, uh, acquired global, global, you know, transnational interests and those transnational interests supersede level of country loyalty, and that's why you get things like, uh, in the thirties and early forties, the Rockefellers still doing business with Germany during the war.
You know, it's now known that that standard oil facilitated the purchase of aviation, uh, of, uh, aviation fuel for the Luftwaffe during the war through various, um, subsidiaries channeled through South America and into Switzerland.
Well, that's the fun part, right?
Is the trading with the enemy act.
It wasn't just, you know, your punishment.
If we convict you of trading with the enemy, it was the process for how to get a license to trade with the enemy stamped by FDR.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And they did that.
There's a good deal.
It's not treason.
I have a permit.
Yeah.
It's not treason.
It's just business.
Um, and, and, and, you know, and I guess John Loftus did a book about that.
He, he went down, been over there in Maryland and went into the vaults and pretty much uncovered this stuff and proved that the transactions were occurring during the war and George Bush's, I guess, father, uh, Prescott Bush was involved in this election was cited for it, had his asset during the war, but wasn't prosecuted because he turned around and established the, um, USO Charles Higgins, the best author on this.
I think he wrote two books, American Nazis or American swastika and trading with the enemy, the Nazi American money plot that, that stuff will knock your socks off, man.
It is something in a way, in a way it all makes sense.
If you look at how these people think we, you know, these are, they're super nationalists, you know, they're super national, the transnational, they don't, that's how they operate.
And the governments of the world are kind of their agent.
So maybe that's too simplistic, but they're able to manipulate the government's the world then policy.
They make the, they make the decisions.
And the CIA is a great example of that.
The formation of the CIA and how it operates.
Right.
Yeah.
It's just lays it all bare for you so that you don't have to suffer illusions any longer.
Yeah.
It's an agency.
The question is who, who are they acting for?
You know, that's, that's the question.
And yeah, there's bureaucratic interest too.
That happens too.
But I think overall, if you look at it, if you look at the bigger picture, there's, they are benefiting certain corporations and the three examples I cite in the article are just so blatant.
You know, the, whether it's the Guatemalan 54, Iran 53, or Chilean 73.
Uh, it was all done for the benefit of the United fruit company in Guatemala, the Anglo American oil interest in Iran in 53.
And then of course in 73, it took out IND just so they could secure the, you know, the ITT and Anaconda and other interest involvement down there.
Cause it certainly wasn't a strategic interest to the United States.
I think Henry Kissinger at first said that, uh, if Chile falls as a dagger pointed at the heart of Antarctica, he missed it, but then he probably got a phone call from chase Manhattan, but Hey, that's when he orchestrated, I guess, the assassination of Renee Schneider, who was the chief of staff of the military and refused to orchestrate a coup.
And they had him taken out and then Pinochet was much more willing to do their bidding down there and he did it and be rewarded for it.
So, you know, that's how, that's how the world operates.
And, um, it's pretty obvious if you just wanted to crack a book and it's not really not deep politics, it's not, it's there in your face.
Yep.
There you go.
Right.
At FFF.org, the corporatist intelligence agency, maybe in parentheses, that's all it is by, uh, Tim Kelly.
And also, uh, please y'all check out three reasons, not check out, share this thing, maybe with somebody, you know, who's got a little bit of power and influence somewhere.
I don't know, man, three reasons why the charges against Bradley Manning should be dropped because he's an American hero.
That's why it's Tim Kelly at the future freedom foundation.
Thanks so much for your time, man.
Appreciate it.
Thanks for having me, Scott.
Man, you need some Liberty stickers for the back of your truck at liberty stickers.com.
They've got great state hate.
Like Pearl Harbor was an inside job.
The Democrats want your guns.
U S army die for Israel.
Police brutality, not just for black people anymore at government school.
Why you and your kids are so stupid.
Check out these and a thousand other great ones at liberty stickers.com.
And of course, they'll take care of all your custom printing for your band or your business at the bumper sticker.com.
That's liberty stickers.com.
Everyone else's stickers suck.
Hey everybody, Scott Horton here, inviting you to check out the future freedom foundation at FFF.org.
They've got a brand new website with new and improved access to more than 20 years worth of essays promoting the cause of Liberty and FFF's writers, including Jacob Hornberger, Jim Bovard, Sheldon Richman, Anthony Gregory, Wendy McElroy, and more aren't just good.
They're the best at opposing and discrediting our corrupt overlords in Washington and their warfare welfare regulatory police state.
That's the future freedom foundation's new and improved site at FFF.org.
Hey, I'll Scott Horton here, inviting you to check out wallstreetwindow.com.
It's a financial blog written by former hedge fund manager, Mike Swanson, who's investing in commodities, mining stocks, and European markets.
Wall street window is unique in that Mike shows people what he's really investing in and updates you when he buys or sells in his main account.
Mike thinks his positions are going to go up because of all the money the federal reserve is printing to finance the deficit.
See what happens at wallstreetwindow.com.
And Mike's got a great new book coming out.
So also keep your eye on writermichaelswanson.com for more details.
Hey ladies, Scott Horton here.
If you would like truly youthful, healthy, and healthy looking skin, there is one very special company you need to visit.
Dagny and Lane at dagnyandlane.com.
Dagny and Lane has revolutionized the industry with a full line of products made from organic and all natural ingredients that penetrate deeply with nutrient rich ionic minerals and antioxidants for healthy and beautiful skin.
That's dagnyandlane at dagnyandlane.com.
And for a limited time, add promo code Scott15 at checkout for a 15% discount.
The Emergency Committee for Israel, Brookings, Heritage, APAC, WINEP, JINSA, PNAC, CNAS, the AEI, FPI, CFR, and CSP.
It sure does seem sometimes like the war party's got the foreign policy debate in DC all locked up, but not quite.
Check out the Council for the National Interest at councilforthenationalinterest.org.
They put America first, opposing our government's world empire and especially their Middle Eastern madness.
That's the Council for the National Interest at councilforthenationalinterest.org.