05/13/15 – Ray McGovern – The Scott Horton Show

Hey y'all, Scott Horton here for wallstreetwindow.com.
Mike Swanson knows his stuff.
He made a killing running his own hedge fund and always gets out of the stock market before the government generated bubbles pop, which is, by the way, what he's doing right now, selling all his stocks and betting on gold and commodities.
Sign up at wallstreetwindow.com and get real-time updates from Mike on all his market moves.
It's hard to know how to protect your savings and earn a good return in an economy like this.
Mike Swanson can help.
Follow along on paper and see for yourself, wallstreetwindow.com.
All right, here's what you do.
Go to antiwar.com slash blog.
Oh yeah, I meant, hi, I'm Scott.
Welcome back to the show, guys.
Anyway, here's what you do.
Go to antiwar.com slash blog and you can see an interview with Jeffrey Sterling.
It's not that interesting, really.
It's all about his family and a bunch of crap I don't care about.
But then you can also see this great blog entry by our friend Ray McGovern from Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.
And they're called that because they're all former veteran intelligence professional types.
Ray was a CIA analyst for 27 years and he's been trying to truth you out of war ever since, I don't know, I don't know ever since when.
At least this whole century so far.
Welcome back to the show, Ray.
How are you?
Good, Scott.
How are you?
I'm doing good.
The article, everybody, is called Punishing Another Whistleblower.
And it's about this guy, Jeffrey Sterling.
And you know what?
He's already convicted and you're calling him a whistleblower here.
And so we can drop the allegedly.
You can tell he's lying in the documentary where his eyes get all shifty and go different directions every time he denies doing anything.
He should have practiced.
But anyway, so yeah, he did heroically reveal some very important truth.
Tell us all about it, Ray.
What was it?
Well, Scott, it really depends on to whom he gave this information.
And the reason he's a whistleblower and not just a leaker is that he went through channels.
He went to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and told them about this cockamamie scheme and said, you know, they're dangerous here.
If we're really worried about Iran getting a nuclear weapon, this could help them along.
And of course, he got shut down.
So that's the only time we know that he gave information to anybody else outside of CIA.
And that, of course, was all authorized.
That's what you're supposed to do.
You're supposed to go through channels.
And if you know that your own inspector general is not going to investigate such abuse, then you're supposed to go to the intelligence committees in Congress, which are called the oversight committees.
But what they really are, of course, are the overlook committees.
And that's shown in so many instances having to do with, you know, kidnapping, black prisons, torture, you name it.
The overlook committee.
So that's what he did.
It is not known that he went to James Risen, who, of course, is the Bet Noir.
I mean, James Risen is enemy number one of CIA and the whole U.S. government.
Why?
Because he's an incredible reporter, one of the best investigative reporters around.
And he has sources that won't quit.
His sources for this particular chapter of this particular book and the chapter, and I advise people to read it, the chapter is chapter nine, curiously enough.
And the book is State of War.
Incidentally, in case I don't have a chance to mention it, he's got another book out now, Pay Any Price.
Look at chapter nine of that.
It's incredibly damaging.
Not only from a risk point of view, risking U.S. interests, but also from the point of view of making the covert operatives in CIA look like a bunch of clowns.
That's what they don't really like.
That's what Jim Risen has done.
And so the way to get at Risen is to go to people like Jeffrey Sterling, who had the intercepted metadata, so to speak, of his telephone conversations show that he had many telephone calls with James Risen.
Now they have the content of those calls.
Did this operation against Iran ever come up in these discussions?
No.
So it's as though, Scott, you were caught talking to somebody 17 times and that somebody was interested in doing something illegal.
If so, facto, even though the content of these conversations was held from you, you're guilty.
And that's what happened to James, to Sterling, Jeffrey Sterling.
You're saying, you know, they have the audio, but they only used the metadata.
They have the audio.
We know that because all my NSA friends say that's exactly why they're building these huge football sized warehouses out in Utah and the NSA.
You know how much you can fit on a little thumb drive, right, Scott?
Well, the reason they need these incredibly big warehouses is because they have the data.
They haven't necessarily looked at the content.
I mean, you know, you're not saying that you have information that in this specific case, you know that they have the audio of these calls.
I know they had the metadata.
It's a very short...
You're saying they must have had the audio, too, because they have that capability.
Well, yeah.
And they, yeah.
So I just want to make that clear that, you know...
That's an important point.
You can talk to Bill Binney or Tom Drake and those folks and they can tell you exactly how it works.
But, you know, I've heard from all of them that the content is also stored.
Yeah.
You know, Frumkin has this whole new series at The Intercept, too, about how they have what's my dream come true, which is the ability to search audio for text.
So, you know, I have all these archives of interviews with Ray McGovern going back a decade where if only we could search audio for text, we could find out I could have these great quotes, all these things that Ray McGovern told us back a long time ago to prove it or whatever.
But they have that.
They have the audio and they have the ability to do speech to text in a very effective and efficient and automatic kind of a way here, they're claiming.
And so...
They do.
And this most recent capability just recently came to light.
I'm not sure how many years they've been able to search the audio.
What I do know is they had the content of the conversations between those two hijackers in San Diego and that Central in Yemen, the safe house, the telephone switchboard in Yemen, where they were communicating back and forth before 9-11.
Now, the president of the United States has gotten up and said publicly, very formally, in defending this blanket surveillance, he said, now, you know, if we only had this blanket surveillance, scooping it all up before 9-11, we might've been able to find out the telephone number of those people in San Diego.
Well, hello, Mr. President.
Do you know about caller ID?
We knew those numbers.
Then the president said, we might've been able to find out about that one conversation between San Diego and Yemen.
Mr. President, the head of the National Counterterrorism Center said there were six such calls.
Well, yeah, but if we had the, Mr. President, we had the metadata and we had the content.
What I'm saying here is that the president is either woefully misinformed, under-informed, or well, ill-informed, or he's lying through his teeth.
We had the number in San Diego.
We had the content and there were six calls, not just one.
So this is very delicate sort of stuff, but they had Jeffrey Sterling, was a whole bunch of calls between James Risen and Jeffrey Sterling.
And they had an alibi for that too, right?
That, yeah, I was talking with Risen, but it was about something entirely different.
That's right.
And you could be sure that if they could fish out of those conversations, the content of those conversations, any indication at all that they discussed this operation, this cockamamie operation that the operatives in the covert action section of the CIA had mounted, it could be sure that they would have been able to give the prosecution and the judge more than just circumstantial evidence.
In the, as of how it went down, and I was there at the trial, they recruited a jury, all white, all defense-friendly folks from Northern Virginia, right?
Alexandria is where the courthouse is.
And they sold them a bill of goods with the help of the case officers from CIA.
And not only did the case officers, you know, work their wiles on the prosecutor, but also on the judge.
And so even though the evidence as the judge admitted just Monday was very circumstantial, she very defensively said, that's all right, you know, you can, you can convict somebody on just on circumstantial evidence.
It's been done before.
It's copacetic.
Legally, she didn't say copacetic, it's legal, you know.
So from all the coverage, it was clear that they did not have them beyond a reasonable doubt.
It was just, do you believe us?
Come on, let us, let us have a conviction.
And so they got one.
Hang on one second.
We'll be right back, everybody, with more Ray McGovern right after this.
Hey, Al Scott Horton here for the Future of Freedom, the monthly journal of the Future Freedom Foundation at fff.org slash subscribe.
Since 1989, FFF has been pushing an uncompromising moral and economic case for peace, individual liberty and free markets.
Sign up now for the Future Freedom featuring founder and president Jacob Hornberger, as well as Sheldon Richmond, James Bovard, Anthony Gregory, Wendy McElroy, and many more.
It's just $25 a year for the print edition, 15 per year to read it online.
That's fff.org slash subscribe and tell them Scott sent you.
All right, guys, welcome back to the show.
I'm Scott Horton.
It's my show, Scott Horton Show.
I'm on the line with Ray McGovern.
He writes at ConsortiumNews.com and also has his own website at RayMcGovern.com.
And you can watch, you know, when he does video interviews or any of these kinds of things like Press TV.
He's got a brand new one here.
And all of his articles for ConsortiumNews.com, they all run here as well at RayMcGovern.com.
Now, so we're talking about Jeffrey Sterling, who's been convicted and sentenced to three and a half years in prison for leaking the Merlin story to James Risen.
And so now refresh our memory, if you would, please, Ray, about what was Operation Merlin?
Well, the way it was explained by the CIA was a very clever operation where they would do blueprints of the firing device for nuclear weapons.
They would get them all checked out with the National Laboratories, the Department of Energy, get them approved, and then put a flaw in those plans and plant them with the Iranians.
They would give them to the Iranians.
And the cover story, as I've come to believe it is, was that they intended to have the Iranians deceived by this, not notice the flaw.
See, these Iranians, they're not like us.
They're not smart or anything, even though they're nuclear engineers and they're going to find the flaw.
And then all of a sudden, all the centrifuges are going to blow up or something like that.
OK, now, that didn't pass the smell test for me.
Do we have a couple of minutes left, Scott?
About how many minutes do we have?
Oh, we got six, six and a half, seven minutes.
Good.
You know what?
You can do the segment if you want.
No problem, sir.
Well, that would be good because, you know, I'm an I'm an old inveterate intelligence analyst and I like to see other people catching on to the game.
And one of those people is David Swanson, who is an incredibly bright truth seeker and who came and sat with us at the trial of Jeffrey Sterling in January.
Now, I have never in my life, Scott, seen the CIA divulge so many operational cables to prove their case that Jeffrey Sterling did this dastardly deed.
Now, Swanson, to his credit, looked really closely at these cables and found out one that sort of betrays what I think this was all about.
It was not so much about giving Iran plans that would blow up their centrifuges when they got well into following the blueprints.
Well, it was just a fire set.
It wasn't a I don't know if it had centrifuges in it.
Right.
It was the fire set that could be used for different things besides nukes anyway.
But it's far from even a complete nuclear blueprint.
Right.
But the blueprint was what they were seen to have lacked in any case.
However, it was supposed to go down ostensibly.
The real reason was to get these blueprints into the hands of the Iranian officials and then catch them with them and show, well, see, the Iranians are much farther along in getting a nuclear weapon that we thought, look, here are the blueprints now.
That was what Gordon Prather used to say back 10 years ago and said that, yeah, but the Iranians, of course, looked right at it, knew how bogus it was, and obviously just threw it right in the trash, probably burned it on site if they ever even, you know, whenever they put their hands on it, got rid of it.
They weren't going to get trapped that easy.
Yeah.
Not only the Iranians, but the Iraqis.
Now bear in mind, we're talking 2000, right, the year 2000, 2001, when people like Jeb Bush and the other neocons were trying to incite an attack on Iraq.
OK.
Now what was the big issue?
Obviously, that Iraq was working on a nuclear weapon.
Dick Cheney told us so, so it must be true.
They already had a nuclear weapon, says Dick Cheney.
So there was no proof because there weren't any nuclear weapons.
Matter of fact, we learned that later, that they had stopped working on a nuclear weapon in 2003.
In any case, if you could get blueprints of this kind to the Iraqis and then mount a very clever, very courageous clandestine operation to seize them and get them back, you would have the equivalent of the yellow cake materials, which was supposed to have proven that Iraq had sought yellow cake, which is a slightly more enriched uranium from the deepest, darkest part of Africa, Niger, and was somehow getting that up into Baghdad to refine it and to make it into nuclear material.
So what we have here, I think, is circumstantial evidence far better than what Jeffrey Sterling was convicted on.
And here it is.
Those of you who have gotten in the interim the state of war, look on page 207 because Reisen dropped a hint.
He said this operation, which was called Merlin, some officials have suggested that it would be repeated against other countries.
Well, let's get back to the cable that David Swanson looked at very carefully.
Here it is.
It's an operations cable from the CIA, and it talks about consulting the case officers who were working with the labs to get the blueprints together.
And they were asked, would you have any objection to a rather, quote, I'm quoting, to a rather more adventurous current operation?
We want to see how this plays out before and now.
If you know how cables are constructed, there are discrete grids, okay, across and up and down.
The article here is AN, A-N.
So the next word, which stands for country, has to begin with a what?
With a vowel, right?
The only country that fits in there too, actually, Iraqi and Omani.
Now, I don't think anybody thinks that the Omanis are working on nuclear weapon.
So here it is.
Because of the very imperfect reduction here, where they left the AN rather than an A or rather than no article, here's a sentence.
We want to see how this thing with Iran plays out before making an Iraqi approach.
Later in that same paragraph, Iraq fits in where the country is mentioned.
So what are we talking about here?
We're talking about getting the goods, so to speak, in quotes.
Getting the goods on Iran and Iraq by fabricating these carefully constructed blueprints and stealing them back, giving them to Dick Cheney and saying, aren't we good guys?
Aren't we smart?
Look, we can make believe that we stole these from the Iranians and the Iraqis.
There's a cusp of spelling there.
Now we know how far along Iraq is in developing the firing device for a nuclear weapon, which is very important.
So I think that was the reason behind all this.
And that's precisely why James Risen here is really enemy number one here in Washington.
And the general objective of this whole thing, Scott, is to make sure that no one talks to any press people about any things like this and to make sure that nobody ever, ever, ever talks to James Risen again.
It's not working.
James still has his sources and he's continuing to publish to this day.
Right.
Well, and he's, as he said, too, they just made him mad now.
So if he was doing journalism before, look out kind of thing.
Yeah.
He had many sources for this story.
And when in court, the CIA guys were asked, well, how many people know about all this?
And I think they said about 60.
All right.
I'm sorry.
Hold it right there.
We can do one more segment here.
It's Ray McGovern, everybody.
We'll be right back.
So you're a libertarian and you don't believe the propaganda about government awesomeness you were subjected to in fourth grade.
You want real history and economics.
Well, learn in your car from professors you can trust with Tom Woods's Liberty Classroom.
And if you join through the Liberty Classroom link at ScottHorton.org, we'll make a donation to support the Scott Horton Show.
Liberty Classroom, the history and economics they didn't teach you.
All right, guys.
Welcome back to the show.
Just remembered there was a thing by Jeffrey K. I was supposed to read that I forgot about.
Glad I remember that.
OK.
We've also got Ray on the line here and we're talking about Jeffrey Sterling and the Merlin program and David Swanson, the author of War is a Lie.
And I guess that's his website, too.
You're saying he figured out and you agree with him that behind that redaction, it must be Iraq and that the CIA and trying to nail Sterling released so many documents in his trial that they accidentally implicated themselves in a plot to not just frame Iran under Operation Merlin for holding some partial nuclear blueprints.
But they were trying or they were at least planning on framing the Iraqis in the exact same way.
That's exact.
You're right.
And, of course, the yellow cake uranium caper was exactly the same kind of thing.
That was that was revealed before the war, mind you, a month before the war.
The IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, examined those forgeries and pronounced them forgeries before the U.N. Security Council.
And Colin Powell said, well, OK, if they're forgeries, they're forgeries.
One month later, shock and awe.
The thing that I didn't know until I prepared for this little conversation, Scott, was that Risen had that, too.
He's incredible.
He hinted that.
Well, he didn't hint.
He said some officials told him that this was really going to be applied to other countries.
And now we have that cable, which I don't know what happened to the guy who was supposed to redact it.
But it doesn't take, you know, doesn't have doesn't take a lot of knowledge just to go down the grid there and see that the the countries that were redacted fit very nicely as Iraqi and Iraq.
So that was the name of the game.
Let me say something about the sentence.
The sentence that Sterling got was 42 months in prison, so three and a half years.
The government was pushing for 10 times that, OK?
And of course, you know, Chelsea Manning is there for 35 years and the break in Leavenworth.
So what happened?
Well, you know, it's probably the only good thing that General Petraeus has done in his recent life.
But it was because of his wrist slap for divulging far more dangerous information than Jeffrey Sterling ever had access to, to his mistress, to build up his reputation for the biography that she was making up for him.
He gave her eight notebooks full of the highest secrets.
And we have FBI taps on their telephones and they say, Petraeus, I can't give you that, Paula.
Those have code word.
They're the highest.
Those have conversations of me and the president.
And so he delivers them, hand delivers them to her place in Georgetown.
And then he realizes, oh, wait a second, I'm going to be head of the CIA right after Labor Day.
I better get those books back because I'm going to be surrounded by CIA security types.
I don't want.
So he said, Paula, may I please have those notebooks back?
And she said, oh, sure, sure.
So he goes by himself, picks up the notebooks, puts them in a secret place in his house and breathes a sigh of relief that the CIA security types who are coming to protect him wouldn't learn about it.
So what happens is he's quizzed by the FBI, the FBI records and the court documents indicated that they identified themselves as pursuing a criminal investigation.
And he lied twice, knowingly, knowing that he had done what he denied doing.
So how does this all play out?
Well, guess what?
In January, when the trial ended and he was convicted, that is Sterling, the sentencing date was set for the 24th of April.
So we're all set.
You know, those of us who sat through the trial go to the sentencing and all of a sudden the judge says two weeks before, no, we're going to going to put that off until 11 May.
Now, why was that?
You know why it was that?
Because Petraeus, guilty of these heinous crimes, including lying to the FBI, he was going to be sentenced on the 23rd of April.
Oh, gosh.
And what did he get?
Well, he got sort of a little probation.
They didn't even try.
They didn't even mention the lying to the FBI.
And then he got docked one hundred thousand dollars.
Now, Scott, that's a lot of money for you and me.
Right.
But Petraeus makes one hundred and thirty thousand dollars for each hour that he speaks before these well-heeled folks.
OK, so that's what he got.
How to Lose Two Wars by David Petraeus.
Yeah.
So here's a really premium fee for that.
Oh, God.
She says Petraeus is going to get a hand slap, a wrist slap on the 23rd of April.
I can't go ahead and sentence Jeffrey, Jeffrey Sterling to prison on the 24th.
So we'll put it off for what we call in Washington a decent interval.
Right.
And so yesterday or not yesterday, but on Monday, she sentenced him to three and a half years.
Now, is that relatively mild?
Well, she all but said that justice is not very equal, that the government sentencing guidelines are way, way out of scope here.
And indeed, I think she had some pangs of conscience that have having let the charade take place in her courtroom.
It was one of the you know, it would be amusing if it weren't so serious.
But the prosecutor, after he gave his closing statement at the end, he said, you know, I have to tell you, this was really arduous.
This is a really hard work.
But there were pleasures when one of the main pleasures was getting to know the CIA case officers.
What a wonderful bunch.
It was so cooperative.
They're all out bowling together.
What I'm saying is, whoa, these guys, they're stuck in trade.
It's a bull throwing a bull, snow jobs.
They work their wiles on the prosecutor and they work their wiles on the judge.
It was just so embarrassing.
I want to shout out, hey, don't you know what these guys are paid for?
Looks like they did a pretty good job on you, too, which is exactly how it worked out.
Of course, the CIA wanted just as much as the Department of Justice to to hang somebody for talking to James Risen, even though they couldn't prove it.
And that's that's the lesson here.
You know, these Department of Justice lawyers, I'm thinking of the ones that tried Tom Drake or pursued him for four years, four years, and at the end he had a public defender because he ran out of money.
And at the end, the judge in the Maryland federal court said, you Justice Department lawyers, don't you ever don't you ever bring a case like this into my court again based on such fragile, such elusive, such forged information, all felony charges dismissed.
Sure.
Well, it's all just lawless persecution trying to make an example out of these people to the other bureaucrats, of which there are millions, that they better not leak because there's no other way to control them other than to just try to make them afraid.
Yeah.
One interesting aspect of this is that people, you know, the foot soldiers in the Department of Justice and the FBI saw that Petraeus had played fast and loose with the with the most sensitive kind of information, his conversations with the president, United States code word material.
And so they wanted to go after him.
And that's why he was tried.
And in the end, his superiors all said, well, you know, he's such a distinguished guy.
Dianne Feinstein, the senator, the Intelligence Committee says, oh, he's suffered enough.
Well, what about Jeffrey Sterling?
Yeah.
Yeah.
You know what?
I want to if it's possible here and I'm going to end up keeping into this break a little bit, but it's all right for the archive anyway.
I want to ask you about to talk to the people a little bit about the neocon obsession with Iran that's revealed in this story, too.
And for that matter, the CIA obsession.
It's a pretty big deal to try to frame up Iran with a nuclear weapons program when supposedly that's a costus belli around here.
I wonder if you can explain what you think is really behind this, Merlin, as far as they really trying to start a war back then.
I guess I would have to answer that with with utmost candor, and that is that the neocons who came back under George W. Bush, the Wolfowitz's and the Pearls and all those folks that his father, George H.W. Bush, kept at arm's length, OK, because he knew we referred to them as the crazies, OK, quote, the crazies, end quote.
They were back.
They were running the policy.
Now, they are neocons.
And the way I define that term is people who have great difficulty distinguishing between what they perceive to be the strategic needs of Israel on the one hand and the strategic needs of the United States on the other.
Do I criticize that?
Everybody's entitled to their own opinion.
I just don't think they should be running American foreign policy.
And they were during the early years of the Bush regime.
And that's your answer.
The Israelis were after Iran.
They wanted to blacken them, even when it was proven by the intelligence community in an honest assessment that gave me gave me courage or gave me hope that this could be reversed.
An honest assessment in November 2007, which concluded unanimously all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, as they put it, with high confidence, quote unquote, Iran stopped working on a nuclear weapon at the end of 2003, at the end of 2003, and has not resumed work on that weapon.
Now, that has been re revalidated and reaffirmed every year since by the director of national intelligence.
Now, he doesn't always tell the truth, but in this case, the analysts were holding his feet to the fire and said nothing has changed since in 2007.
We have no evidence that Iran is working on a nuclear weapon.
So what's this big charade going on in Geneva and Vienna?
You know, well, that's to satisfy the neocons, to show that, you know, even though the intelligence community says they're not working on a nuclear weapon, well, they could in the future and also so we'll put these big restrictions on them and require them to lift the sanctions.
So, you know, to his credit, Obama is faced into a lot of flak and a lot of fire for doing this.
I hope that he persists.
I wish I could put money on the fact that he'll persist.
But if there's an agreement with Iran, then we will see that Netanyahu and those people that elected him have overplayed their hand.
For once, the U.S. has said no.
Israel's interest here in making Iran the veteran on the flimsy evidence that they're after nuclear weapons when Israel has 200 of the same.
That's not going to work this time.
We're going to do this.
This is going to change things in the Middle East.
Yeah, I like the way you put that.
I'm the only other person I've heard put it that way when I was interviewed by Tom the other day.
And I guess it's the first time I really had the opportunity to construct it that way, to think about it that way.
But that really all that's happening with the nuclear deal is that the Americans are finally admitting the truth and lifting the sanctions and ending the Cold War that's been waged under the excuse of the nuclear program.
And the Iranians are letting them save face by going ahead and scaling back a bit and expanding inspections a bit for the Americans to come back around to the reality.
That's what's really happening here, finally.
Yeah.
And, you know, Scott, the supreme irony here is that we could have had even a better deal back in 2009, 2010.
I'm sorry.
Yeah, that's when Obama came in.
That matter in 2003.
Well, then, too.
Yeah.
But that's right.
Yeah.
When the Iranians gave a blanket overture to us.
But what I'm thinking is that when Obama came in, he said he would talk directly to Iran.
He sent Bill Burns to Geneva to talk to them.
And they laid out the kind of sweeping plan to restrict their nuclear weapons development that they knew Iran would turn down.
And guess what?
Iran said, sounds good to us in principle.
Let me go back.
Sell this to our leadership and we'll meet in Vienna in a month.
Well, long story short, that was sabotaged by a terrorist attack in Iran that killed five, count them, five Revolutionary Guards generals.
OK.
And then later when the Brazilians and the Turks worked out a similar arrangement, that was sabotaged by Hillary Clinton.
So 2009, 2010, we could have had an even better deal, which would have provided for low enriched uranium from Iran going abroad to be refined rather than being refined into higher degree uranium in Iran itself.
So there are many ironies here.
Ende gut, alles gut, as the Germans say, if this ends well, all will be well in terms of progress and relations between the U.S. and Iran, which is a really important thing.
And Israel knows we'll be out of joint, but we'll still give them three billion dollars a year to build those settlements in the occupied territories until they put until they overstep again.
And I hope that will stop before Obama leaves.
All right.
Thanks very much for coming back on the show, Ray.
It's always great to talk to you.
No, good to be with you, Scott.
Take care now.
All right.
So that's the great Ray McGovern, veteran intelligence professional sanity.
He find him at Ray McGovern dot com and at Consortium News dot com.
And for that matter, at Antiwar dot com, where we run virtually everything he writes, including his most recent piece on Sterling, is on the blog there at Antiwar dot com slash blog.
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.
Hey, I'll Scott Horton here.
It's always safe to say that one should keep at least some of your savings and precious metals as a hedge against inflation.
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 dot co.
Hey, I'll Scott Horton here for Liberty Dot Me, the social network and community based publishing platform for the Liberty minded.
Liberty Dot Me combines the best of social media technology all in one place and features classes, discussions, guides, events, publishing, podcasts and so much more.
And Jeffrey Tucker and I are starting a new monthly show at Liberty Dot Me.
Eye on the Empire.
It's just four bucks a month if you use promo code Scott when you sign up.
And hey, once you do, add me as a friend on there at Scott Horton dot Liberty Dot Me.
Be free.
Liberty Dot Me.
Liberty Dot Me.