All right, y'all, welcome to the Scott Horton Show.
I am the Director of the Libertarian Institute, Editorial Director of Antiwar.com, author of the book Fool's Errand, Time to End the War in Afghanistan, and I've recorded more than 5,000 interviews going back to 2003, all of which are available at scotthorton.org.
We can also sign up for the podcast feed.
The full archive is also available at youtube.com slash scotthorton show.
All right, you guys, on the line, I've got Cliff Maloney.
He is the president of the Young Americans for Liberty.
Welcome back to the show.
How you doing, Cliff?
Hey, Scott.
Always great to be here.
Thanks.
Happy to have you here.
There's such important news going on, and it's a project across this country that the Young Americans for Liberty is greatly involved in, to y'all's credit.
And it's really taken off.
It's already, I think, a bit bigger success than I would have hoped for, and with the potential to continue to make a big difference throughout at least the rest of this legislative session.
And that is the Defend the Guard movement.
Not just legislation, because that would imply a state or two, but now I'm told there's as many as 20 states that are introducing or have already introduced Defend the Guard legislation in state legislatures across this country.
So I was hoping that you could tell us all about what that's about, how it started, who's doing it, which states, what YAL is doing about it, and what people can do to help you.
So go ahead.
Absolutely.
Well, look, the Defend the Guard Act, I always love it when, not strategies, but kind of ideas come on our radar that work and that are able to kind of reach the mainstream with our principal message.
And so the Defend the Guard Act is taking off in state houses across the country, and the premise is simple.
It's a bill, it's legislation that says state, you know, when you're talking about actually using Guard members, you know, who are from each state in the United States, they are now under some stricter, you know, guidelines in terms of Congress has to actually declare war for them to go into combat.
And you know, at first, when I first heard this, Scott, I want to take you back a little bit.
I mean, I was like, ah, that's kind of wonky.
You know, like, of course, of course, you know, I support that.
I want anything to limit war is going to be a net positive.
But are people really going to get behind this?
And what I realized was, and we can talk about kind of federal versus state, but you realize that, you know, the people, don't forget this, the people are with us on war, right?
The people are tired of war.
The people do not think that we should have these troops in over 120 countries, 800 or 900 bases around the world.
I mean, this is the one thing that Ron always taught us, which was there is a sentiment out there for the anti-war pro-peace ideas.
And so what we realized was when this bill kind of came across and we saw these groups like Bring Our Troops Home, which is this fascinating group in our mind that popped up that is focused on this bill, and you saw some of the other different organizations that were kind of excited about this, I realized there was hope for it, because at the state level, you're not dealing with these huge, let's say, defense contractors that are doling out millions of dollars, right?
You're not dealing with these processes and systems, the military industrial complex, where they've already got Congress, you know, on lockdown.
I mean, aside from like Massey, you know, I mean, there's not, you're not going to get much of a hardcore principled anti-war stance.
Maybe you got five or six people in D.C.
But at the states, if state government, you know, want to stand up and say, listen, you know, these are our boys, our girls, they're going off, they're dying in wars, and we have no idea what the hell they're fighting for.
And so this legislation started to take off, I think, because people at the state level realized it's a good political move, dare I say that, but, you know, politicians are going to make calculated decisions.
And so I think state legislators, those that are truly anti-war, those that are from our caucus, let's say, and even, you know, people that might not be with us on every issue, but with us on this issue, they're using this as a tactic to finally be able to talk about the war issue, which usually is relegated to Congress.
They can talk about it in state legislatures.
And so that's why you're seeing it introduced.
That's why you're seeing it getting some traction.
And I think it parlays very, very well with some of the things at the federal level.
I mean, Trump is saying he wants to end endless wars.
Now I've got a lot of problems with the statistics, how many bombs we've dropped, what we're doing since he's been in office.
And I think it's really been a nice avenue, a nice tactic, a nice resource for us to start penetrating this message, because it's so hard to get a conversation in D.C.
But at the state level, I mean, you said it best, if we can get 20, 25, even 30 states to have to debate this legislation, I mean, to me, having a conversation about the merits of war never happens in D.C.
So we're just following the Constitution and saying, listen, the states have to step up.
They're driving the conversation.
OK, so now clarify for me, how many states have seen this thing introduced so far this season?
Do you know?
Yeah.
So in 2020, there have been six states, Wyoming, Iowa, Oklahoma, Michigan, Georgia and South Carolina, that are, let's say, you know, we have active bills.
The other thing to think about, well, and of course, West Virginia.
So that's the seventh state.
The other thing to think about here is, like you said, I mean, we've got legislators that we've elected that might not have put the bill forward yet because of legislative calendars or etc.
But I'm aiming to have this bill put forward in at least 20 states this year.
Great.
And so now tell us about South Carolina, because there's some news from, I mean, pardon me, West Virginia.
There was some news out of there just the other day, right?
Yeah.
So West Virginia.
So this is I will give a lot of credit here to Pat McGeehan.
So Pat, Air Force graduate of the Academy, he's an Afghanistan vet.
I mean, he's like the real deal and he's super anti-war, super aligned with us on this issue.
And so Pat has been kind of he was the one that I mean, he's the original architect who kind of decided like, hey, I'm going to put this forward.
And to his credit, I mean, he had this idea almost four or five years ago.
And so now it's starting to get steam.
But anyway, he put it up in West Virginia and he was able to get a vote in the Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security Committee and it got out of committee 15 to 7.
But here's where I always tell people, you know, if you think you're not going to have a fight when it comes to government, you're out of your mind.
So the bill, he pushes it now for a floor vote because it got out of committee.
And you know, all of a sudden it was just removed from the agenda.
You know, nobody explained anything.
They couldn't really say why.
And so, look, I mean, the powers that be are not going to make this easy.
But I got to commend Pat.
He got it out of committee and now he's working to get a vote.
They've kind of given him the, oh, we'll make sure it's back on the agenda.
And so he's working that now.
Now he's putting pressure on all the state legislators in the state to bring our troops home.
You know, they're putting out press releases.
They're monitoring this.
They're backing up Pat.
So we're going to try to get this and drive it to a vote.
But this is exciting for West Virginia because they've been stalling this thing in committee, you know, year after year.
And finally, it got through committee and now we've got a chance to actually have a pretty rigorous debate.
And I'll say this, Scott.
I mean, they, even when they tried to pull it from the agenda, you know, they had a pretty intense debate on the floor.
And I'm telling you, the value in being able to at least discuss the merits of war and being able to even have the conversation, because I think that's the bigger problem here is nobody ever talks about it.
Right.
It's just kind of this accepted thing now that we're just going to perpetually be at war.
And so for them to have the conversation, even if it's a floor fight, debating whether they should have a vote on this, they finally are talking about war.
And so I just think there's a lot of energy for this.
And there's kind of an appetite.
I think West Virginia is leading the way, if you will, to push this through.
So I got a couple of emails from Pat McGeehan the other day as this was going on, including, you know, his talk that he gave, one or two speeches that he gave on the House floor there.
And this kind of thing.
And oh, and another one was a radio show that he was on.
They had the video of it, too, kind of thing, you know.
And he's sitting there talking with the guy.
And you know what he's saying?
Sounds pretty radical in terms of just against the status quo and the way things have been.
And yet the guy interviewing him, you know, it's AM talk radio.
The guy's a Republican, you know, typical Republican talk radio host.
And yet he essentially has to concede that Pat McGeehan is a Republican state representative and he's an Afghan war vet.
And as the host put it, he has credibility to speak on this issue.
In other words, no matter who you are, this guy has credibility.
No matter what you think of other people who might agree with him, you've got to listen to this guy.
You can't help it.
He's a Republican.
He's a vet of these wars from this century.
So what's this about now?
His presence demands a fair hearing.
Simple as that.
And you know, I read an article the other day, what, a couple of weeks ago now, about this same legislation being introduced in South Carolina.
And what it was, was it was a very simple news story, right?
Like an AP news brief style, just the facts, brief little thing.
And in there, just the fact that it was introduced by a Republican state representative, it was just so powerful to read it that way.
Just because of how, unfortunately, counterintuitive that seems compared to the common narrative, which is the right likes to fight.
The liberals are all a bunch of hippies and the right likes to fight.
And then you read that and you go, yep, it's a Republican state representative who's saying, we're going to start going by the constitution and that means opposing the way things are now on this most important issue of foreign policy and supporting the troops and determining where they fight and when, and this kind of thing.
And it's just huge.
And it illustrates the potential there of how far this can go in terms of being able to really, and finally change that narrative that, you know what?
The right does like to fight, but right now they're sick and tired of it and it costs too much and it's going nowhere and they miss their son and now they regret listening to Bush and trusting those guys.
And now it's time to call this thing off.
As you said, that's what Trump says.
If that's what Trump says, then that's good enough.
That's what Trump said that got him elected.
That's how Trump walked all over Jeb Bush's corpse right into the Oval Office, was by denouncing Jeb's brother's policy to the Republican base.
And so there it is, right?
It's like somebody just, you're Brewster's Millions, you young Americans for Liberty and the bringourtroopshome.us or something.
Somebody just dropped $300 million into your account for you to spend on anti-war public relations.
That's the equivalent of the potential that you have to disrupt the national narrative here for the better.
That's the deal, Cliff.
Well, and you know, it's interesting to me to see just how much the heads are exploding.
You're exactly right when they see Republican because they're just not used to it.
I mean, you know, the party of Bush hopefully, you know, is no more.
Now obviously I've got, you know, objections to some of Trump's decisions and the rhetoric versus action, but man, it is one of my favorite things to see people kind of poking their head up and saying, man, that is different.
You know, most Republicans is just, you know, of course we support the troops, of course we support the wars.
You know, I mean, it's the John McCain mantra of, well, if we need to be there for a hundred years, we'll be there for a hundred years and nobody batted an eye.
And I don't want to say that party is dead.
The neocons, I mean, you know, they're still, I would say, in power.
The establishment of both parties is obsessed with war.
But man, is it powerful when you have Republicans across the country that are able to put this bill forward and to say, no, you know, this isn't some hippie Democrat, like you said, this isn't some liberal, you know, by the terms of the mainstream media, you know, kind of the supposed anti-war Democrats.
I mean, give me a break.
It breaks that narrative.
And I think it creates a conversation.
And I mean this, Scott, most people agree with us.
I always say this for anybody, you know, that's part of the Liberty Camp and especially on the war issue.
I mean, we're not fringe.
We are the mainstream.
You know, we just have to be able to make people realize that that's what we're representing.
We're representing them.
And so when you break the cycle and you break the system by having a Republican presenting this bill that's the Defend the Guard Act saying, no, you know what, if we're going to send our boys and girls over there to die, we better have a damn mission.
We better follow the Constitution.
We better declare war.
And to do it with some energy, not declaring war, I mean, making the statement, you know, like to do it with some passion, because it is, it's a passionate issue.
And I got to say this.
I mean, look, Pat McGeehan, you've got Marshall Wilson as well in the state that I'm very, very proud to say, you know, part of our coalition of legislators.
You know, you look at some of these other states, South Carolina, you know, home of Lindsey Graham, you know, neocon in chief.
You've got Stuart Jones, hard core Ron Pauler, you know, that we got elected through when at the door.
Up in Michigan, Steve Johnson.
Out in Wyoming, Tyler Lindholm.
In Georgia, Matt Gertler, you know, who's now running for Congress.
Jeff Shipley out in Iowa.
And then you got Nathan Dahm in Oklahoma.
So I just, I don't want to say, hey, I don't want to overpromise and say tomorrow, you know, we're going to have this dialogue.
But I mean, that's the power of what we're doing.
I'm not trying to take over Congress tomorrow and, you know, force a vote, because hell, if they voted, I'd probably be nervous that they'd vote to keep us at war for 100 years, the current people we have there, you know, in Congress now.
But what I am saying is that this is a major part of our strategy at YAL, which is how do we go in and how do we buy microphones that can force conversations?
And when I say buy microphones, I mean work to spend resources to get people in the positions where, sure, we're not going to be the speaker, we're not going to have the majority, but we're going to be able to drive a conversation that so many people avoid and that the establishment and powers that be absolutely do not want to have.
When we connect the dots that show that our position of being anti-war is what the people want, that scares the hell out of the military industrial complex and the establishment of both parties.
Yeah.
Well, and you have this huge comparative advantage, too, in that the wars are all based on ridiculous lies and bogus concepts and all of this stuff.
You know, the position, well, the national government described in the Constitution is not a world empire and it doesn't have a mandate to be one.
And so that's it.
And they don't, what do they got, Iran is going to attack us or something?
They have to make up a bunch of garbage to justify what they do all the time.
This was the brilliance of Ron Paul.
All those years in the House of Representatives, giving those speeches on C-SPAN, he wasn't just giving them the libertarian take.
He was telling them the truth about what's really going on here and why the scary narrative of this week's news cycle is not true and you don't have to be afraid.
And so, and again, especially a bunch of Republicans and a bunch of war veterans talking that way, that's enough to defuse a bomb right there, man.
That's enough to stop a war right there.
And you bring up Iran and Ron, let me make my favorite comparison.
You know, when Ron went after Rick Santorum in one of the debates, you know, and they got into this heated, you know, heat, I mean, you could see the passion in Ron's voice and who could stand up to Rick Santorum.
You know, he wrote all this legislation in the U.S. Senate about war and, you know, served on all these committees and, you know, he's, he's got, he wasn't a vet, which they don't ever bring up, you know, Ron was, but anyway, you know, Ron says, Iran, they don't even have enough gasoline, you know?
And that to me, that is the conversation that I think we're starting when we bring up this Defend the Guard Act in terms of like, hold on, everybody pause for a minute.
Why are we just driving this vehicle at 150 miles per hour down the highway and no one's pulling over to have the conversation?
And those are like the sober moments that I think that, you know, you have to be strategic about it and you have, you know, I mean, Ron obviously was brilliant that he got on a national stage and delivered a pure, pure message of peace, but it's about figuring out how to force the conversation.
So people have to kind of open their eyes and, and open their ears and listen.
And so I'm going to, I'm going to keep driving on that because I think, I think Liberty, the Liberty crowd, anybody anti-war, I don't care if you're anti-war conservative, if you're anti-war left, no one is having the conversation about the effects, both monetarily, morally, the decay of kind of just what these troops are when they get home.
I mean, this is a costly, costly policy, you know, that has real world implications and no one's talking about it.
And so I just, I just want to continue to say that, like, we got to drive the conversation.
You got to force people to have the tough, tough conversations.
Yeah, I think that's right.
And in fact, you know, you look at the irony of Bernie Sanders, the kind of old line communist as the front runner on the Democrat side.
And yet it's almost quirky about him that for a Marxist, he's actually not interested in anti-imperialism at all.
He never has been.
He supported the war in Kosovo and has voted for military appropriations bills over and over as long as he gets the F-35 based in Vermont and this kind of thing.
What's the point of being a communist if you're not even anti-war, man?
And then, of course, Trump, he just wants to say, oh, yeah, wars are bad.
Trust me, I'll end one one day.
But that's not much to run on either.
It sure seems like, you know, a big opening in the conversation there, you know, I think.
And you know what?
I'll go further with that.
I think that Tulsi Gabbard would have done a lot better if she hadn't tried to hedge and compromise and be half pro-war all the time.
If she'd been the anti-war candidate who said, we don't have to do this.
We can call this off.
It doesn't have to be this way.
I think, you know, she would have had and I know it's not the trendiest issue on the left these days.
I think she would have had a lot more momentum.
The thing was, she was anti-war enough to to scare all the hawks away.
But she wasn't a dove enough to impress a real peacemonger.
And so, you know, that was she's she's fascinating to me because, you know, the the folks who agree with her on war, you know, I tell people, I say, listen, I'm going to give a platform to anybody if it's specific to the issues that, you know, we agree on.
If it amplifies our message, of course we should.
But it's it's kind of funny to see the quabbles about, you know, oh, should we give her a platform?
Should we not?
You know, she's horrible on 90 percent of the issues.
I'm like, listen, you guys are missing the boat here.
You have a female veteran who is running for president, who is, I would argue, you know, based on her rhetoric, completely aligned on bringing the troops home and ending, as she calls them, the regime change wars.
And it's like, you know, you know, the parties are going to shut her down.
You know, I mean, you know, like it's I mean, I don't want to say she's getting the Ron Paul treatment, but of course she is.
You know, it's it's the establishment being afraid of of their own shadow.
You know, nobody can get the anti-war message out.
But I think it was.
I think it was the biggest mistake the Democrats are going to make this cycle.
I think that she would have done very well in a general election.
And I think that the Democrats right now, they don't know what to do on war because Trump's rhetoric is pro-troop.
But he, you know, says he wants to, I mean, he is pounding ending endless wars.
Great nations do not fight perpetual war.
And so I don't know what lane they take.
You know, if Pete Buttigieg becomes the nominee, I don't think they can go and say that he is more of a peace candidate than Trump.
So I'm actually pretty fascinated, you know, as a let's say somebody who's interested in the process and kind of the gimmicks and figuring out, you know, how they keep up this charade that is national politics.
I'm always fascinated to see how how they decide to message this.
And I think the Democrats are going to find themselves in a bind because people that like troops and that I would call, you know, a very pro, let's say pro-war individuals, they're going to support Trump, you know.
And the people that are anti-war, they probably like Trump's rhetoric.
You know, we need to scale these wars back.
We need to come home.
So I don't know where their lane is.
And I think Obama probably screwed him on that because, as you know, probably better than anybody.
You know, the guy got away with somehow being this anti-war beacon of light, yet bombed X amount of countries, you know, so many people died, civilians.
I mean, it's that's the Roman numeral for 10, ladies and gentlemen.
Go ahead.
It's and that's I'm showing.
I'm showing how bad the narrative is, where it's like, you know, we don't even care anymore.
I mean, I hate to say it like that.
I got to I got to I got to stop doing that.
You know, actually, as you were talking before, I just started making a new bumper sticker, which is this great, apocryphal quote.
We had a war in Libya.
I love that because we don't even know that we had a war in Libya because they really did tune out and quit caring a long time ago.
Yeah, so I think I think Obama kind of dug them in a hole because, you know, I mean, he was he was the peace candidate.
Right.
And honestly, I think we let him get away with being the peace president like he ended his presidency.
And I still think people say, like, oh, you know, yeah, he was super, super for peace and bringing the troops home.
And I actually think Trump, he hasn't made the connection there because I think he'll get mad if they start to call him out on his numbers of where troops are and how many bombs he's dropped.
But I think Obama has put them in a weird spot because, you know, what are they going to run on?
I mean, if how's he going to run on peace at all after four years of overseeing the expansion of every one of his wars?
And the only one that's right now is the war against the Islamic State.
But that was just because we won.
I think what's going to happen, but the troops are still there in Syria and Iraq, you know.
Oh, I totally agree with you.
I mean, I'm not trying to give him credit for that at all.
No, no, no, me either.
And I know you're not.
I'm just saying I don't know how he's going to spin that either.
Like he's still the anti-Bush candidate when I mean, he hasn't started a new one, but he certainly hasn't ended a single one either.
I think that's what they'll run with.
I mean, listen, Obama got away with being the peace president.
Literally, look at the numbers.
It's like you got to be kidding me.
And I think everything is based on rhetoric and driving a message.
And I think he's going to say he's he's he's not started any more wars.
He's ending the wars.
He's he's working to scale it back.
And I think there's enough fatigue that people will probably buy that.
I'd like to think the American people would rise up and demand more.
But what I'm saying is I don't think the Democrats are going to see this as an opportunity to come in.
I mean, look at what they did to Tulsi.
They are not they want to go the opposite direction.
I think you're going to see the Democrats the first time in four to five presidential cycles where they're actually they're the leading aggression candidate, where they are saying, no, you know.
Trump is weak, we have become weak, our foreign policy is depleted.
I think you're going to start to hear that rhetoric where it is actually the opposite of what you've seen from Democrats in the past and they're going to go all in on war.
Yeah, well, and it depends on on who gets I mean, I think if Bernie Sanders gets the nomination, he's just going to continue to try to ignore the issue as best as he can.
But yeah, I mean, the criticism of Trump on the from the main line Democratic Party establishment this whole time is that he's insufficiently patriotic and and doesn't put national security first like they do.
It's even got him in bed with the Kremlin, according to them.
So, yeah, I mean, if the Democratic Party could be, you know, synthesized into a single candidate, then, yeah, that would be their problem with him is he's not nearly enough like the George W.
Bush that they miss so much.
So, yeah, pretty shameful.
And again, a great opening for any politician who wants to, you know, take up the gap in the argument there and and do something different.
So, yeah, I agree with that.
All right.
Now, I would if somebody really wanted to get on board for this specific project to help to push, whether they're, you know, veterans or they know somebody whose uncle is a state representative or they think they got it in somewhere, something they could do.
Who do they call?
What do they do to get organized and figure out what's the dang deal here?
Sure.
So we'd love for them to get a hold of us, Young Americans for Liberty.
Ted Patterson is our director of policy, and he works with each of the legislators to help get them this model legislation and to get things moving in their state.
The other group I will recommend, Bring Our Troops Home.
They have been fantastic on this.
They have been driving this with us.
But if somebody wants to get involved, come to us.
We'd be happy to connect you.
If you have a state where the bill is not proposed, let's work to get it proposed in your state.
And Scott, the one thing I didn't mention to you, you know, look, we're endorsing candidates and we're helping to get people elected.
But there's a piece here that a lot of people don't understand.
When we are in states looking to endorse folks, you got to realize, like even in 2020 in West Virginia, I've already got eight different candidates that have come to me that have filled out a survey.
I now have those eight people on the record on whether they would support all of our issue areas.
And so the reason I'm telling you this is you think nationally, right, this conversation we're trying to start behind Defend the Guard.
If I get 1,000, that's our number for this cycle, we want to get 1,000 candidates to fill out our survey.
Think of the power in the data we'll have there to be able to go into each state.
And if somebody like Stuart Jones in South Carolina proposes the bill, and we know we have 42 people in South Carolina who filled out our survey on the record and said that they would support that bill.
You don't think I'm going to slap that in their face like, hey, why don't we see you as a co-sponsor, you know, excited to get this bill through.
So we're building that as a way to help lift up these bills and getting people on the record at the state level, which also, in my opinion, you know, you have a lot of neocons kind of hiding in the state level because they don't usually have to deal with these.
Now we get those folks to come out.
So that's part of the power here, which is getting these state candidates, even if we don't endorse them, even if we don't deploy and knock doors for them, getting all of them on the record so that when our bills do come up, like Defend the Guard Act, let's say in West Virginia, you know, maybe we don't get it through, maybe we struggle.
We're building a database here to hold these people accountable.
So they have to support our antiwar bills and our antiwar legislation.
So that's what gives me hope for the future.
I'm not saying it's going to happen tomorrow.
But I'm telling you, like, as we continue to collect this and kind of say own, but hold people accountable to the positions they're taking, there's going to be a lot more muscle when it comes to starting this conversation.
Hey, that's how the Hawks get it done.
Political pressure.
You know, right.
Money, state dinners, threats, whatever it takes.
And so, you know what?
Kids knocking on doors.
That's a good one.
That's some leverage.
We're trying.
You got to figure out a way to make Liberty win.
And that's every day I laugh about it.
But one of these days, I got to give you my quick five minute rundown on what motivates politicians.
I think.
I think you'll laugh, but we build everything here at YAL when it comes to impacting and getting these microphones around that.
And it's pretty sad.
But when you start to understand why these people act the way they do, you realize why there's no principle in politics.
And so I always joke, we do hold them accountable.
We're not the mafia, but we are the Liberty mafia.
And what I mean by that is, you know, we're not looking for any favors.
We're just looking for people to follow the damn Constitution.
You know, you do that, we'll be quiet.
You don't do that.
Expect an army of kids in your backyard telling voters that, you know, you said you're anti-war.
You said you agree with your voters.
You said you agree with your constituents.
Well, guess what?
You didn't support our bill.
So that's the next phase of this.
And it's happening now.
So we're pretty excited.
Hold on just one second.
Be right back.
So you're constantly buying things from Amazon dot com.
Well, that makes sense.
They bring it right to your house.
So what you do, though, is click through from the link in the right hand margin at Scott Horton dot org and I'll get a little bit of a kickback from Amazon's end of the sale.
Won't cost you a thing.
Nice little way to help support the show.
Again, that's right there in the margin at Scott Horton dot org.
Hey, I'll check it out.
The Libertarian Institute.
That's me and my friends have published three great books this year.
First is No Quarter.
The Ravings of William Norman Grigg.
He was the best one of us.
Now he's gone.
But this great collection is a truly fitting legacy for his fight for freedom.
I know you'll love it.
Then there's Coming to Palestine by the great Sheldon Richman.
It's a collection of 40 important essays he's written over the years about the truth behind the Israel Palestine conflict.
You'll learn so much and highly value this definitive libertarian take on the dispossession of the Palestinians and the reality of their brutal occupation.
And last but not least is the great Ron Paul.
The Scott Horton Show interviews 2004 through 2019 interview transcripts of all of my interviews of the good doctor over the years on all the wars.
Money taxes the police state and more.
So how do you like that?
Pretty good, right?
Find them all at Libertarian Institute dot org slash books.
You need stickers for your band or your business?
Well, Rick and the guys over at the bumper sticker dot com have got you covered.
Great work.
Great prices.
Sticky things with things printed on them.
Whatever you need.
The bumper sticker dot com will get it done right for you.
The bumper sticker dot com.
And by the way, you know, let me tell you one thing that Pat told me the other day was that.
The argument was, I forget now, I'm sorry if this was on the radio.
This was on the radio show that he did there.
It was not in the clip that I had and saw, but it was, I guess, later on in the conversation.
And the guy said, but listen, you know, we really rely on a lot of federal dollars.
And if we were to, you know, really pass this, defend the guard legislation, we're risking getting cut off of a lot there.
And Pat just told him, all right, you tell that to the parents of the next kid to die over there in Afghanistan, that that's what they died for is that those federal dollars for West Virginia.
Nothing to do with defending this country by fighting a war over there, but just defending a welfare payment for some company here.
Go ahead.
You tell them that.
And that's the thing, right, is I could say that and it would be a cheap shot.
But Pat McGeehan says that and gulp.
Right.
It matters, you know, and so that guy was, you know, painted into the corner and I don't know exactly how he responded to that, but check and mate, obviously.
Right.
And so, you know, that's what it does come down to.
Right.
Is people got to do the work.
If you show up and do the work, then it gets done.
If nobody shows up to do the work, then it doesn't.
Simple as that.
So now YAL.org, but tell them better than that.
How can they contact you?
Yeah, YALiberty.org, YALiberty.org, sorry about that.
Yeah, no worries.
Check us out on Twitter at YALiberty.
If anybody needs anything, you can always get a hold of me directly.
My email is publiccliff.maloney at YALiberty.org.
We're an open book and.
I'll tell you what, Scott, we might be crazy, but you got to be a little crazy to think you can change the world, and I really mean what I said earlier, I think our ideas are at the gut and the the true instinct of pretty much everyday Americans, and I just think it's up to us.
Like you said, we got to do the work to get people to realize that and we're on our way to doing that.
Yeah, that's great.
All right.
You guys, YALiberty.org, that's Cliff Maloney.
Thank you again, sir.
Thanks, Scott.
See you now.
