03/23/16 – Rob Prince – 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.
Introducing Rob Prince.
He is the publisher of Colorado Progressive Jewish News.
And you might remember I've interviewed him before on the issue of America slash Ethiopia et cetera's war against Somalia, which has really been going on since the very early part of this century and interviewed him before about this article and foreign policy and focus.
WikiLeaks reveals U.S. twisted Ethiopia's arm to invade Somalia in what appears to be another U.S. proxy war.
Welcome back to the show.
Rob, how are you?
I'm good.
I'm really good, Scott.
I would only add that the Colorado Progressive Jewish News has now morphed into for the last year or so into what is now views from left field, as I call it.
So it died a peaceful death, and nothing wrong with that, because today there are really a whole slew of progressive Jewish voices.
At the time that it began, there were far fewer.
So, you know, it's fine.
Anyhow, let's let's go on.
I did want to make that initial point.
Sure.
And you say views from left field, correct?
That's right.
Yes.
Well, it's my views.
Sure.
Occasionally there's somebody else.
But mostly it's it's it's my views and it's mostly articles that articles or talks.
So the articles appear in Foreign Policy in Focus, and there's a Tunisian human rights website called NAWAT, N-A-W-A-T dot org.
It's actually a it's won major awards.
I write I write for them, too.
And on occasion I write for another publication, which is you really should look into.
It's called Algeria Watch.
NAWAT and Algeria Watch, they have articles in different languages, but but the stuff in English is as good as it gets in terms of of North Africa.
And you know, you don't see much that's really good in English on North Africa that's solid, that's progressive, that kind of stuff.
So, yeah, so I write for them and I just had a couple of pieces that have appeared.
And on occasion my stuff does appear in Counterpunch.
I had a piece there a couple of weeks ago.
So that's who I write for.
And then I put it, you know, I basically just put it on the same stuff on the blog.
All right.
Cool.
OK.
All right.
So now back to Somalia.
I think, well, we kind of need to start this interview with a correction, unfortunately, but I think it's all right.
I went hunting for the WikiLeaks in question here and I couldn't find it, Rob.
That's right.
And neither could I.
The original source of it was an article from a publication called the Sudan Times, which referred to a WikiLeaks piece.
And so that was my original source.
And in looking over the WikiLeaks material, I couldn't find it.
Now, I might add that, you know, if you if you go to WikiLeaks and you go to a country, Ethiopia, what comes up is, you know, 10,000 communications.
I've actually gone through a fair number of them, but I haven't found it either.
And so for that, you know, I should have I admit I should have followed up on that at the time.
Well, and the thing of it is that it was quite a credible piece of propaganda when they say WikiLeaks reveals what we already know, basically.
I guess there is a question of just how much America twisted Ethiopia's arm.
But there's no question, even from the very beginning, even in The New York Times and The Washington Post, that this invasion, that in this invasion, the Ethiopian army was accompanied by the CIA and the Joint Special Operations Command in the entire thing.
I mean, that's the official version of the invasion of Christmas 2006.
You know, yes.
If you look in preparation, actually, for this interview, I started rereading stuff on on Somalia.
And of course, there's not a lot, but there is some good stuff.
And I would recommend it to people who who are interested in this one is I don't have a Bible, but as close as it gets on these secret wars is Jeremy Scahill's Dirty Wars and the sections on that in on Somalia.
And there was also a recent piece that appeared, I think it was a week ago or something like that.
Oh, no.
More recently than that.
No, I'm sorry.
July 2nd, 2015, by Ty McCormick, exclusive US operates drones from secret bases in Somalia.
And then some articles that that appear at the Global Research, the Canadian site.
I keep hearing, you know, kind of nasty comments about that site.
But I want to tell you, the stuff that I've seen is quite good, is solid.
So if you look, you know, if you kind of put all these pieces together, what what what emerges is starting with the the the policies that were enacted in the early 1990s, up until up until Black Hawk Down, the Black Hawk Down incident, 1991 to 1994.
And in that period, what you what you'll see is that as the United States moves into Somalia, it begins to set up a pattern.
And that's more or less the same pattern that we see in Afghanistan, quite frankly, in Iraq, in many, in many places.
And that is who is it with whom is it that the US military and here we're talking about CIA, JSOC, these kind of forces, who are they working with?
They're working with warlords and actually shunting aside, if you like, the legitimate or semi-legitimate governments in these in these places.
The reason they get for working with warlords is that the warlords can deal with Islamic terrorists, terrorists, terrorists.
And so doing what they tend to do, what they have done in Afghanistan and here and in Somalia is to strengthen the position of the warlords.
The warlords have gone after some Islamic terrorists, but they've gone after everybody else as well, i.e.legitimate elements.
So that's what we did, created a mess up till 1994.
So then we leave after Black Hawk Down and or drop it more or less the same way we left Afghanistan with a very similar result.
The country basically continues in a state of collapse.
We have we have warlord factions fighting, fighting with one another.
And then U.S. attention rivets after 9-11, first on Afghanistan and Iraq.
And it's only in 2005 and 2006 that the United States once again gives its attention to Somalia.
I would add here, and if I'm going on too long, you know, you cut into me.
But the essence of U.S. policy in Somalia is basically geostrategic.
If you look at a map and you look at the northern regions of Somalia, you'll see that Somalia juts on the southern part of what's called the Gulf of Aden, the Gulf of Aden, which leads to a choke point.
One of what's considered one of the eight important strategic choke points is defined by the U.S. Department of Defense in the world, and it's called the Bab el-Mendeb Strait.
Just north of the Somali border is this little enclave, French enclave, Djibouti.
And there the United States has its what one today would call its acknowledged U.S. military base in Africa.
Then there are the only unacknowledged ones, Camp Lemonnier, which is a very, very important place.
So basically the situation in Somalia, the U.S. interest in Somalia, from what I could tell, has more to do with controlling the sea routes in which a great deal of oil and natural gas and other things flow and controlling access to the Bab el-Mendeb Strait.
In any case, getting back to the story, 2006, the situation in Somalia has completely deteriorated.
Well, how to deal with Somalia?
Well, we're dealing with Somalia according to a model that I was talking about it last night on another show.
I refer to it as the Obama doctrine.
And now it's being applied to the Middle East.
I use your proxies.
So whether it's Turkey or Saudi Arabia or Israel, whatever, to do most of the fighting while you try to control, you know, from the back, so to speak, the overall political direction of what's happening.
Well, I actually started in Africa much earlier, and there are certain key players in Somalia.
Ethiopia is definitely one.
Kenya, Uganda, very, very important play, much more important than people realize in Somalia.
And here, you know, the idea over the years, what had happened because of the complete breakdown of Somali society, which at least in part, in large measure, as far as from what I can tell, is a result of the U.S. supporting these warlords.
Well, the warlords, warlords are warlords.
They're just, you know, thugs.
And and so the situation seriously deteriorated in Somalia to such a degree.
And it was in that deteriorated socioeconomic situation that Al-Shabaab, that actually emerges from what are referred to as Islamic courts, and they have a long history in Somalia, it emerges as a kind of indigenous counterforce.
So to stop Al-Shabaab, to stop the growth of Al-Shabaab, which at one point controlled either different, I've seen different statistics, but anywhere from 75 to 90 percent of the country, the U.S. in 2006 basically put together this alliance, which is called the African, let's see if I can get it right, the African Union Military Presence or something like that in Somalia.
And they invaded 22,000 troops.
The impact of this is, again, I use the example of Afghanistan because it just keeps coming up and up again.
So the U.S. supports military in Afghanistan to turn to turn away Taliban, whatever.
All right.
So what happens?
Yes, Taliban withdraws in the same way Al-Shabaab withdraws.
Supposedly, in principle, today, Al-Shabaab doesn't control much of the country, less than 10 percent.
But it's an illusion.
You know, it's another one of those things where this foreign-installed government controls the cities and that the Al-Shabaab rebels have withdrawn to the countryside.
But their presence is still there and their impact is considerable and they're waiting.
And we know this because a week ago or 10 days ago, the U.S. there was a drone strike at an Al-Shabaab training camp in Somalia.
It supposedly killed, U.S. drone strike, supposedly killed 150.
And it is at least one publication, The Guardian, referred to it as the largest casualty total from a U.S. military attack in the post 9-11 era.
It's a lot of people that they killed, but what I'm looking at and I'm saying, wow, well, they haven't knocked out Al-Shabaab at all.
You know, so they knocked out this base.
What typically happens after an incident like this, Al-Shabaab recruits recruits more.
So in the same way, the Taliban are essentially waiting, you know, for a withdrawal of U.S. support from Afghanistan, Al-Shabaab is biding its time.
In the meantime, it's engaged in a number of terrorist attacks.
If anything, what has happened over the past, if you look and now we're talking over a long period of time, really more than 25 years, that that Al-Shabaab, which was a really in the beginning insignificant grouping, Islamic fundamentalism, even in a country as as conservative from a religious point of view, Somalia had very little, very little support today.
It's got like the Taliban in Afghanistan.
It has significant support and it's seen as an alternative to a foreign imposed government.
The presence of these troops, these other African troops, Ethiopian, Kenyan, whatever, is like any foreign occupation is opposed.
So, you know, once again, we've created we've created this mess.
And it begins, it begins with, well, it doesn't begin, but it intensifies greatly with the 2006 Ethiopian, Ethiopian led, Ethiopian, Kenyan, Ugandan invasion of Somalia.
The most recent thing I would add here is you can see the situation is deteriorated because the United States has got Ethiopia to send another 4000 troops into Somalia.
So once again, we've created we've destroyed admittedly what was a weak but still functioning state.
And and from that, from that destroyed, from that destroyed state, we see a generation, a generation now of of instability, of radical Islamic fundamentalism.
And the sense that I get is that this is this is what they wanted in the first place, a much weaker Somalia that foreign elements could could could dominate and do.
You know, that's the part that puzzles me at all this.
And there's a million different points to follow up on there, Rob, but that's the one that really gets me.
It's page 222 of your Bible here, Dirty Wars by Jeremy Scahill.
He quotes a State Department flunky saying, well, you know, all we really wanted to do was take Sheikh Sharif down a peg.
They didn't really wanted it.
We didn't really want to destroy the Islamic Courts Union, but we just thought that, you know, they were a little too big for their britches and we wanted to to bring them down.
And then, of course, what happened was they kept Sheikh Sharif right after waging this entire war to overthrow the ICU.
They kept its leader and only formed.
You know, he made a deal with Condoleezza Rice that he would be the new leader under the form that the U.S. and the U.N. had created of this transitional national government or whatever.
I forget the exact term for it.
Right.
And then so that was when Al-Shabaab said, well, screw you, old man, we rather keep fighting if you're going to be a sellout and a traitor to the Americans who did all this in the first place.
But in other words, the State Department person admitted that this whole thing basically was for nothing, that they meant to keep the same guy in power all along anyway, which really raises the question.
It really does.
Why even bother winning the war?
You know, the ICU, maybe they had done a couple of things that close a couple of movie theaters or something that maybe got Christiane Amanpour upset or something like that.
But had they in any way, Rob, indicated that screw you, George Bush, we're not going to talk to you.
We're not going to deal with you because I just can't believe that.
I can't believe that anyone in the State Department saw whoever was in power in Somalia as a traitor to the United States.
Anyone in the State Department saw whoever was in power in Somalia as anything but people that they can deal with, of course.
And what's the ICU going to do other than welcome the Americans on bended knee when they come?
You know, when I look at Somalia, look at the look at the they're referred to as failed states, but they're really shattered states.
And and while, of course, in all of these states, there are certain domestic elements that one can look to, the foreign intervention seems to have been key.
So, again, you know, this is no mystery.
Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, where once again, there's talk of a a new NATO led land assault on on on on Libya.
Yeah.
Hillary says stay forever like Korea, Japan and Germany.
Yes.
And quite frankly, I've been reading stuff.
I don't know that it's close to imploding.
But what's going on in neighboring Ethiopia is very disturbing, too, and getting more and more tense.
So so one has to ask, well, what is happening that we have this whole series of failed states or or destroyed states, you know, however you want to put it?
And when we look at when we look at this, you know, I cannot help but but look at the political economy of the region and and how it works in failed states, failed failed states or are much easier to manipulate economically, politically.
They're smaller.
And so basically what we've done is U.S. policy has destroyed old dictatorships or dictator like government.
But these these dictatorships, for whatever their problems were, I mean, think of Iran, think of Iraq, excuse me, before the U.S. invasion.
Absolutely not.
Not a particularly democratic place.
But in terms of of economic and social progress, one really one of the standard bearers of the ad in the Middle East and one that could stand up to foreign oil companies.
In the case of Somalia, of course, it's different.
It's not it's not the resources so much as it is wanting to use the place geostrategically for whatever it is that the United States.
And here one one should one should add, because they've really become a junior partner, France, the policies of the United States and France, not only in the horn, but of all of Africa.
And so we're seeing we're seeing over the and it's been going on for some time now a militarization creation of drone bases of advisers, special forces.
You know, who knows where where JSOC is, is that we find out later we get we get hints of it, of the operations that they're involved in.
And at some point one has to say, what's going on here?
You know, what's the essence of this?
And the essence of this comes back to, from what I can tell, economic fundamentals, the protection or control of natural resources and the wealth of the continent for the for the use, once again, of multinational corporations, U.S. based or whatever.
Plus make work programs for the army and for the industrialists that equip.
Yes, yes, yes, yes.
And wherever they go, wherever they go in the name of fighting terrorism, that these forces have increased the terrorist threat.
There are places that I watch pretty carefully, Mali, little Burkina Faso, Central Africa.
And when one looks at these, I mean, you look at you look at the situation, you look at the situation in Mali, the situation in Mali, you can talk about Mali without talking about the collapse of Libya and the the selling and the the giving of arms to these Islamist Islamist groups.
So so in the name of fighting terrorism.
The U.S. policy in Africa has extended it and no place, no place is a more classic example of that than Somalia, Somalia.
When I talk about the Middle East, I'm on a we do a radio program here in the local public radio station in Boulder, KGNU, monthly and goes goes on for an hour.
And we refer to the U.S.
Middle East policy.
We just call it the train wreck.
And now what we're seeing is the train, the train wreck morphed onto Africa.
U.S. policy in Africa is is is in trouble.
And it's and once again, there's the public policy and then there's what's happening behind the scenes.
So all this nonsense with the CIA, JSOC, AFRICOM, so much of which is secret, but which comes out in bits and pieces.
Again, people like scale is another guy, another book I want to recommend to your readers.
It's really outstanding.
It's really short, too.
This guy is emerging is quite an extraordinary researcher.
His name is Nick Turse.
Oh, yeah.
Tomorrow's the world's best.
Yeah.
I was wondering if you were going to say that.
Yeah.
You know, if I was still teaching, this is the book I would use.
I like 30 wars, but it's long.
Kids don't read long books.
This book says it all in our 150, 160 pages.
So so that's that's what's happening throughout the content.
I want to add something else here, because I'm watching I'm watching these in this kind of post post-communist era that we're living in.
So if you look, for example, you could take the case of of Syria and the case of Somalia.
In some ways, they're different, but in one way, they're similar, i.e.
They have it.
They had in these countries what I would refer to as a legitimate opposition.
All right.
What the goals of the opposition were, classical, you know, greater democracy, more economic independence, whatever.
These movements tended to be there were a mix.
There were secular elements and some religious elements, but they really were what the goal was, was progress in the traditional sense of the term.
But in this current period, these these what this legitimate these legitimate oppositions are weak and they don't they don't have they don't have the political experience.
They don't have they don't they don't have the armed backing, whatever.
And they're and they're easily manipulated.
So what happens in the case of a case of Syria, these Islamic crazies from Saudi and Turkey or whatever come in and and within a short period of time, they infiltrate and literally take over the movement.
So movements that begin with with what one might call, you know, from my perspective, an actually honorable goal in history are are consumed by this Islamist movement.
The same thing happened in Mali a couple of years ago.
So we're seeing we're seeing these patterns.
And so these Islamist movements become ways not only do they piggyback on to legitimate democratic movements of social change, but they infiltrate and they destroy them.
And that's essentially what happened in Somalia.
Well, I just think it couldn't be overstated how much of this is America's fault.
And especially it pisses me off when so much of this is done in the name of this pretended Wolfowitz doctrine of exporting American Enlightenment principles to the world with force and giving democracy good and hard.
And yet they don't mean it.
What they mean is mass murder and regime changing countries where we don't already control the dictator.
That's all they mean, the bastards.
But then they radicalize entire generation of people and push them right into the arms of the lunatic on the street corner who is the only real enemy in the first place, who now all of a sudden is making sense to the average Joe over there because America set the whole damn region on fire.
So there must be something to what the guy who was predicting that is saying, you know?
Well, I want to tell you, you know, we could turn it around.
I could start interviewing you because I agree with you that, you know, the pretext.
Think of think of what the pretexts have become.
They're so they're so cynical and they're so fragile and superficial.
So so, you know, you give the Wolfowitz version of it where we're exporting democracy and it's a wonderful thing, blah, blah, blah.
What's the most recent one?
Military intervention for humanitarian means, right, which we saw, which we saw in Libya, which we nearly saw very close to seeing in Syria in 2000, 2013.
It plays what I can say about it is, of course, it plays well at home, it plays well at home for a population that has been denied access to what's really going on in the world.
You know, what are we doing wrong?
We're bringing them democracy.
We're getting rid of the tyrants, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
All right.
Once you leave the borders of this country, nobody believes that nonsense.
You know, it's it seems for what it is, it's a cynical, a cynical pretext, if you like.
It's it or is as there's a really interesting scholar.
His name is Mondami.
I don't know if you've come across him.
He's he's he's really fine book on Rwanda, on Darfur and places like that.
But basically, he talks about humanitarian intervention and he calls it the back the backdoor to to U.S. military intervention in different parts of the world.
So whether whether it's the Wolfowitz, if you like, pretext or or the Samantha Powers addition to it, we could call it we're coming up with excuses.
And this is, you know, in the old days, it was simple.
Oh, they're communists, whether they were or not.
In in the post-communist era, the United States has had to come up with a new pretext for intervention.
And Wolfowitz and Samantha Powers have have what they've provided is, if you like, the sugar coating.
All right.
On the cyanide pill.
And what what what I was astounded before I'm retired now, by the way, but just before I retired.
I mean, this is what you would hear this stuff at the Korbel School of International Studies, where I was really people into humanitarian intervention, people who should know better and didn't.
Well, maybe they did.
I don't know.
So so, you know, a lot of this in many ways, Somalia is a model case from where I'm sitting, what not to do.
It's also a model case for this, this whole Obama doctrine, have the proxies fighting.
And and it's a it's a tragic it's a tragic model.
Meanwhile, the country is in remains in shambles.
Essentially, it's still it's still a mess.
And as soon as this aid drops off some and it will, as it did in Afghanistan, you watch what happens.
This whole thing is going to collapse again.
Yeah, well, that's how it looks to me.
Anyhow.
Yeah, that's the one big point that that hasn't been made on the show today is about the famine that especially hit in 2011 and 12, where, according to FuseNet, which was an American and British backed NGO that keeps track of this, the famine early warning system.
And I point out that they're American and British back because that makes it against their incentive to rat on U.S. foreign policy for the effects that it leaves.
However, in this case, that certainly wasn't the point they were making.
And I think they went ahead and and told the truth the best they could anyway, it seemed like.
And they said that six hundred thousand people had died in the famine in 2011 and 12.
And that, of course, half of them were children under five years old, dying of starvation, basically in old makeshift refugee camps up and down the side of the highways.
And, you know, the famine, I mean, the drought, of course, hit the entire horn of Africa.
And they had problems, of course, in Ethiopia and in Kenya and other places.
But in Somalia, they had a war.
And so all the old distribution networks of, you know, their very low level market capitalism that they had there were completely broken.
So any farmer who could even actually reap his crop, he didn't have a market to sell it.
Nobody had any money to buy it.
The whole thing completely broke down.
Six hundred thousand people died.
And that's an Iraq war worth of casualties there at the hands of USA and the weather.
But, you know, USA is an equal partner in that, it sounds like to me, it seems like.
Well, yeah, I mean, it all comes together.
And then and then when you have a match, some kind of natural calamity.
So in East Africa, it's the famine in West Africa.
All these policies connect with the Ebola crisis.
And when you look at the countries that were affected by Ebola crisis, there is a nice correlation between between the rise of Ebola and countries that were forced to basically pretty much either weaken or or defund their health care programs where you have a strong health care program in a country or a decent health care program.
It's not likely that a disease like Ebola is going to spread.
So so natural disasters, phenomena combined, combined with these political and social crises to create to create just horrors.
Yeah.
Oh, let me ask you one more thing while I have you here, Rob.
What about Burundi?
I know that Burundi has been involved in the American backed AU occupation of Somalia, and I know they've had a lot of political problems and wherever there's a coup or a counter coup or something.
I suspect the CIA and I also suspect that this is consequence from a previous American policy.
I'm thinking possibly like, for example, their occupation of Somalia.
Can you shed some light on that at all?
Well, you know, Burundi very I can shed some light on it.
Yes.
What you what we're looking at in Burundi and kind of the mirror image of what's going on in in Rwanda is is is basically a political sorry, a cultural ethnic situation that's become politicized once again in the case of Burundi, a Tutsi run government in a in a Hutu with a Hutu majority.
And that government has, as the government of Rwanda has the support of the United States and France in Burundi, in Burundi and Rwanda, you've got to you've got to look at the French connection, too.
And that government is maintained in power as long as it it plays plays along with with the US and French African policy.
It it's it's it's really a.
It's an explosive situation, an explosion, you talk, you know, you were talking about the high number of casualties that existed in in Somalia as a result of the famine.
Well, they don't talk about Burundi very much in Burundi.
There have been a series of clashes where the numbers of dead have been in the hundreds of thousands already.
So so really, it looks like a place on the to me, on the on the on the edge and intensified by the fact that big military, but socioeconomic programs, very weak and economy that really hardly hardly exists, you know, just a formula for for terrible things that could happen.
So it's worth it's worth it's worth watching and calling, calling for some kind of political solution to which isn't, by the way, that impossible to defuse that situation, because when Burundi go again, you know, we're not just talking we're not just talking about the one place we're really talking about the whole great Great Lakes region.
So, you know, Rwanda was the fuse for the events in the Congo.
So first, we have a genocide in Rwanda, horrific genocide in Rwanda that spills over into the Congo, the government of the Congo collapses, Lumumba and all that.
And then we have really one of the worst, most just painful periods in Africa, the number of people that died in the Congo, 1998, 2005, estimated to be somewhere, you use the famous six million figure.
All right.
So if Burundi explodes, you can be sure that the spillover effect will will will affect that whole with affect that whole region.
So, by the way, you accidentally said Lumumba, but you meant to say Mabutu.
Yes, yes, yes, yes.
I knew what you meant.
But I just want to clarify for people, right, right, right.
Of course, Mabutu, Mabutu, my good man.
Yeah, no.
All right.
Well, anyhow, I'll tell you what, man, it's a hell of a thing.
And I guess, you know, plenty of fodder for a lot more discussion, because as the American interventions and terror wars on both sides expand throughout the continent, it's just going to be the excuse for more and more intervention there, whether under Trump or Hillary, I think.
So.
I'm afraid so.
I'm afraid.
So we're not looking at any, you know, Americans don't care because it's Africa.
So by all means, army, go ahead and kill whoever you want and do whatever you want.
That's basically going to be the attitude about this.
We sort of have a history with the Africans here in America.
Yes.
All right.
Well, look, man, thank you.
I hope it was useful for you.
It was very good.
Appreciate it very much.
You take care.
All right.
All right.
So that is Rob Prince.
He's at views from left field dot com.
Hey, I'll Scott here.
On average, how much do you think these interviews are worth to you?
Of course, I've never charged for my archives in a dozen years of doing this, and I'm not about to start.
But at Patreon dot com slash Scott Wharton show, you can name your own price to help support and make sure there's still new interviews to give away.
So what do you think?
Two bits, a buck and a half.
They're usually about 80 interviews per month, I guess.
So take that into account.
You can also cap the amount you'd be willing to spend in case things get out of hand around here.
That's Patreon dot com slash Scott Wharton show.
And thanks, y'all.
Hey, I'll Scott Wharton here to tell you about this great new e-book by longtime future freedom author Scott McPherson.
Freedom and security.
The Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms.
This is the definitive principled case in favor of gun rights and against gun control.
America is exceptional here.
The people come first and we refuse to allow the state a monopoly on firearms.
Our liberty depends on it.
Get Scott McPherson's freedom and security.
The Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms on Kindle at Amazon dot com today.
You hate government.
One of them libertarian types.
Maybe you just can't stand the president.
Gun grabbers are warmongers.
Me, too.
That's why I invented Liberty Stickers dot com.
Well, Rick owns it now and I didn't make up all of them.
But still, if you're driving around, I want to tell everyone else how wrong their politics are.
There's only one place to go.
Liberty Stickers dot com has got your bumper covered.
Left, right.
Libertarian empire.
Police state founders quote central banking.
Yes.
Bumper stickers about central banking.
Lots of them.
And well, everything that matters.
Liberty Stickers dot com.
Everyone else's stickers suck.