07/13/16 – Trita Parsi – The Scott Horton Show

Hey, I'll check out the audiobook of Lou Rockwell's Fascism vs.
Capitalism, narrated by me, Scott Horton, at audible.com.
It's a great collection of his essays and speeches on the important tradition of liberty.
From medieval history to the Ron Paul revolution, Rockwell blasts our statist enemies, profiles our greatest libertarian heroes, and prescribes the path forward in the battle against Leviathan.
Fascism vs.
Capitalism by Lou Rockwell for audiobook.
Find it at Audible, Amazon, iTunes, or just click in the right margin of my website at scotthorton.org.
All right, y'all, Scott Horton Show.scotthorton.org is the website.
I got more than 4,000 interviews there in the archives going back to 2003.scotthorton.org.
Sign up for the podcast feed for all the new ones.
And follow me on Twitter, at scotthortonshow.
Introducing Trita Parsi.
He is the director of the National Iranian American Council.
That's NIAC, N-I-A-C, or online it's NIACouncil.org.
They are the peace between us and them lobby group here in the U.S., always doing great work.
Welcome back to the show.
How are you doing, Trita?
I'm doing well.
Thank you so much for having me.
Very happy to have you here, and a couple of things to talk about with you here.
First of all, the National Council for Resistance in Iran, or the Mujahedin-e-Khalq, or the Mujahedin Organization, this, that, whatever you call it nowadays, they've got a few different names, held a gigantic rally in, was it in Paris, France, over the last weekend?
And had people like Newt Gingrich, who's been talked about to be Donald Trump's vice presidential nominee, and other prominent politicians were there.
And they held this big rally all about pushing regime change in Iran, deposing the current government there and replacing them with, well, this group, who they say, I guess, just wants to liberate the place.
So you must be for that, right?
Tell us all about it.
Well, I can tell you that most people in Iran probably would like to see a different regime, but they would like to see a regime that actually is respecting their rights, and they would like to see a peaceful transition.
The problem in the Middle East right now is that regime change tends to mean chaos.
And if you're sitting in Iran, even though you may not like the government, and I think most people don't, you are quite happy that you are not in Syria.
You're quite happy that you're not in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Libya, and many of these other countries.
So stability has a very high value right now in the Middle East.
This group, the MEK, is a terrorist organization.
It is responsible for killing several Americans back in the 1970s.
It is the group that was used by the Israelis to assassinate Iranian scientists just years ago.
It was conducting a major campaign, I think an illegal campaign, frankly, to get off the terrorist list in the United States, spending millions and millions and millions of dollars, sending people to Paris on private jets to speak for them, offering people up to $75,000 if they give a public speech, favoring them and arguing for them to be taken off the terrorist list.
And, of course, these offers were made to U.S. officials.
And many of those U.S. officials were there in Paris again this weekend, probably receiving that amount of money to go out there and chill for this group.
What is interesting, though, is that they also bus in people from Eastern Europe and elsewhere, offering them a free bus ride to Paris, two days of free stay there, as long as they fill that big room so it looks as if it's full.
But if you actually take a look closer, you will see it is full, but it's not full of Iranians.
It's full of people from all over the world that they're busing in because they actually don't have any Iranians supporting them.
All right.
Now, so in this group, I mean, what exactly is the plan anyway?
We saw with the Iraqi National Congress that their plan was to lobby the neocons, to convince them that a war with Iraq would be good for Israel, and so that they would convince Bush that, yeah, let's do it, and we'll invade, and then we'll get our regime changed.
But, I mean, even Bill Kristol doesn't want to actually invade Iran, right?
So does MEK want the U.S. to invade Iran?
Is that what they're trying to accomplish here?
What do they want?
The MEK has wanted the U.S. to go to war with Iran for a very long time, knowing very well it can never get to power in Iran on its own because it has absolutely zero public support inside the country.
The only way it could get into power in Iran is by allying itself with an invading force.
That's why the MEK allied itself with Saddam Hussein during the Iraq-Iran war.
According to the CIA, the MEK was Saddam Hussein's most trusted troops because they had no other choice but to fight for him.
So a Republican insider told us a couple years ago that the plan was to get them off the terrorist list, get a conflict with Iran, and then two years after they're off the list, the U.S. would legally be able to arm and fund them and use them as a front-line group in a potential future invasion.
Amazing.
Well, and just for people keeping score, Iran is, correct me when I get it wrong here, Trita, it's three times the size of Iraq with four times the population, but it's got mountains.
It's not a flat desert like Iraq at all.
Yeah, it's much more of a difficult terrain, and the population, as you mentioned, is quite bigger than that of Iraq, and it also has a very strong history of resisting invasions and a strong history of rallying around the flag, even around a regime that otherwise is unpopular.
In fact, historians argue that Saddam Hussein saved the Khomeini government by invading Iran because Iran actually was in a rather chaotic situation, but because of Saddam's invasion, the country united, and that actually strengthened the regime back then, and there's reasons to believe the same thing would happen today if there was a military campaign.
You know, I'd like to ask you more about that because I actually was writing a bit about the 70s, the 79 revolution and the American reaction and support for Saddam and his war, and I was going back and forth with some different Iranian expats and some actual Iranians that I know, and nobody seems to agree on that point.
Well, some people agree, but there's quite a bit of disagreement on that point, too.
I believe it was Sahimi who said that, well, after two years, they could have made peace, but they decided to keep the war going possibly because it was easier to get rid of the MEK and other enemies that they had, but that they were never really in danger of falling for Saddam's invasion to help them.
What do you think of that?
Well, there's a difference between what happened in 1980 and what happened in 1982.
In 1980, Iran was in a chaotic situation, and there was a campaign to eliminate other opposition groups, and the war actually, I think, did become handy for Khomeini to be able to push that forward.
1982 is a different scenario.
That's when actually the Iranians have managed to push Iraq out of Iranian territory.
The Saudis and everyone else who was funding Saddam's war efforts convinced Saddam that he has to make a truce offer and offered to withdraw from all Iranian territory and actually even pay Iran war repatriation, and the Khomeini government actually rejects that and says that they will continue the war until victory, which was a huge and absolutely idiotic mistake.
At that point, I think it is probably quite accurate to say that the regime wasn't in a danger of falling, and that it didn't need to continue the war for those purposes.
But nevertheless, it did so, and I think this is something that this regime has to share the responsibility for, which is that the last six years of the Iraq-Iran war were completely needless had the Iranians at that point accepted the truce.
Right.
Well, and for anybody who likes to pretend that you're some sort of shill for the Ayatollah, take that.
Anyway, so now let's talk a little bit more about the MEK and why everyone in Iran hates them so much.
You mentioned that they took the side of Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war.
Of course, they played a major part in crushing the uprising that George Bush Sr. encouraged and then betrayed in the Great Bay of Pigs in 1991 after the war.
But – well, and hell, I already know.
I've talked with all these experts about all this.
But tell them a little bit about the cult and – or I don't know.
I guess people quibble over just how communist the MEK is anymore.
But when somebody calls somebody a cult, I actually – I kind of – I'm really hesitant to use that word a lot of times because it's misused about religious groups that really aren't cults.
Maybe they're a little bit fringe, but cult is a term that's used to demonize them.
Like what happened to the Branch Davidians.
They were conflated with Jim Jones or Charles Manson or something when really it was a different animal.
And yet the MEK – I don't know, Trita.
Well, first of all, I don't think there's any religious or even ideological flavor left in the group at this point.
They're just aligning with anyone who was willing to pay them.
So you cannot see religion or a communist ideology playing much of a role in their decision-making or in their actions at all at this point.
In their origins, they were a leftist Marxist group back in the 1960s when they first got formed.
And that was obviously kind of fashionable back then.
But at this point, there's hardly any shred of any ideological or religious tendency.
So the reason why people call them a cult is because if you join them, you really cannot leave them.
You have to flee.
They have forced marriages and forced divorces.
At one point, everyone had to divorce because everyone only were allowed to love their leader.
And this is all well-documented by Human Rights Watch and other human rights organizations.
That's why they have earned the title of a cult.
I don't think it has anything to do with any of their past religious orientations.
The reason why they're so hated inside of Iran, I mean, there's a long list.
First of all, this is the group that introduced suicide bombings in Iran.
It did not exist before that.
It's the first group that starts to use violence in their struggle against the Shah's regime back in the 1960s.
And in the 1980s, they're the first ones who started using suicide bombings as a political tool.
So once they lost the fight against Khomeini, and by the way, Khomeini was extremely brutal against them.
So much of their violence is also a reaction to the violence of the Iranian regime.
But nevertheless, once they lost that, they started fighting back by using suicide bombers, going to Friday prayers, etc.
Getting as close as possible to some Iranian officials and then blowing themselves and 30, 40 other people up.
This happened in the early 1980s.
Then they go and side with Saddam Hussein, who you have to keep the historical context in mind.
There's an Arab army invading Iran, mindful of what happened 1,400 years ago.
That has a very strong, it's a very strong factor in this.
And they side with the invaders.
I mean, you can imagine how popular an American political party would be if they sided with Osama bin Laden.
And then they tried to run for office in the U.S. or claim that they wanted to do regime change in the U.S.
All of these things coming together have created a scenario in which they're complete non-starters inside of Iran.
But for elements outside who want an armed opposition, then they are potentially attractive.
Because there is no other armed opposition.
They're the only ones who have fighting experience and actually have an army.
Now, they claim to be completely disarmed.
That's not entirely true, but nevertheless, that's one of the attractive points for them, for the Israeli Mossad, who have been using them to make assassinations inside of Iran.
Well, and I might as well mention my wife, Larissa Alexandrovna, reported back in 2005 that Cheney Rumsfeld were using them for operations inside Iran, which were, I believe in her reporting, they were just intelligence operations.
She didn't have anything about lethal attacks, but that was just a different story from later.
But that's really something, because he was one of the reasons why they sided to invade.
Look, Saddam is friends with this terrorist group, the MEK, everybody.
President Bush, in his speech at the UN justifying the invasion of Iraq, mentioned that Saddam Hussein was working with terrorists who had attacked Iran.
He didn't mention them by name, but that was the reference, that that was the group that he was referring to.
And at the same time, once the invasion began, the MEK kind of laid down their arms in front of the Americans when they invaded.
And Donald Rumsfeld was arguing inside the U.S. government that the U.S. should use the MEK for patrolling Iraqi streets because the U.S. didn't have enough troops.
And remember, Rumsfeld himself was the person who very strongly argued that there shouldn't be a lot of troops.
He didn't agree with the Colin Powell approach of the invasion, in which it would be a much larger number of troops involved.
I didn't realize that he wanted to use the MEK to patrol Iraqi streets, though.
Holy crap.
That guy is a nut.
I mean, again, OK, this would have been more or less at their height, right?
So how many armed MEK did they even have in Iraq in 2003?
I don't remember the exact number, but they were actually very well armed back then.
But it would still be thousands of men, right?
Probably no more than 10,000, I would say.
It wasn't a completely insignificant number.
They were very battle-hardened because the Saddam regime had used them extensively to persecute Shiites in the south and Kurds in the north.
And again, that's why the CIA called them the most loyal troops of Saddam Hussein.
Incidentally, Condi Rice was the person inside the Bush administration who made the argument, there is no such thing as a good terrorist, and was kind of opposed to the idea that Rumsfeld was putting forward.
And, of course, the great peace offer of 2003 included Iran offering, hey, what if we gave you every al-Qaeda guy we've captured in exchange for the MEK?
And the Americans told them to go to hell.
And that even included one of bin Laden's sons.
Yeah.
And remember, it was a liability for the Iranians holding the al-Qaeda people.
These al-Qaeda folks were fleeing Afghanistan into Iran, the long border.
The Iranians snatched them.
Now they're faced with a dilemma.
If they give them to the United States, then they would turn themselves into major targets of al-Qaeda.
Until that point, al-Qaeda had very little ability to strike Iran inside the country.
If they don't do so, they're sitting on them not really knowing what to do.
So what they wanted is that if they're going to take the risk of handing them over to the United States, they needed something in return from the U.S. But the U.S. was not willing to bargain at the time.
And then later it turned out, I guess in 2013 or 2014, the Taliban kidnapped an Iranian diplomat.
And they were forced, here we were like 10 years out from their offer, and they were forced to turn over one of bin Laden's associates.
I believe it was Attef, who was a serious, dangerous, real-ass al-Qaeda guy, a friend of Osama from the old days, that they released to the Taliban in exchange for one of their diplomats who had gotten seized.
That was someone who could have been in American custody for a decade by then.
Yeah, yeah.
Amazing.
And many of these people, of course, were important intelligence assets.
And these were folks that were extremely hostile to Iran as well.
I mean, they're al-Qaeda, they're Wahhabists, they hate the Shiites.
So there was really a strong congruence of interest between the United States and Iran at the time when it came to fighting al-Qaeda.
The 2003 offer also included that the U.S. and Iran should increase their collaboration and fight al-Qaeda as a terrorist group.
But again, at the time, the Bush administration was not interested in any type of a compromise or any type of a dealings with Iran.
Hey y'all, 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.com slash scottwhartonshow, you can name your own price to help support and make sure there are still new interviews to give away.
So what do you think?
Two bits?
A buck and a half?
There are 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.com slash scottwhartonshow.
And thanks, y'all.
Right.
Yeah, everything was going their way, no problem.
They didn't need any help from anybody.
All right, now, so back to a second to the subject of the cult here.
I had talked with Jeremiah Gulka, who had helped do the study for the Rand Corporation about, you know, just basically to accentuate what you were saying there about where everyone had to get divorced all at once and this kind of thing, where he talked about how they get all their kids taken away too.
You know, they could even call it, well, we're just taking your kid to France to be educated.
But the point is, your kid is now under their control.
If you ever want to see him again, you better stay in line.
And he even talked about how all the adults, they have to raise their hand for permission to speak as though they themselves are children.
And then I guess the closest parallel that I can think of.
Can I just say one thing on that?
Sure.
The story of the children is absolutely true and it's absolutely horrible.
And oftentimes they were telling the children that their parents are dead, that the children wouldn't start looking for them, etc.
You have a gentleman in Sweden right now, I believe he is in the Swedish parliament, who was one of these children.
He's an Iranian.
His parents were part of the MEK.
So he was taken from his parents, put in another family in Sweden at the time of MEK members.
He was shifted through eight different families before he managed to break off from this cult.
And then he's now become a rather prominent politician.
And he's been very, very outspoken against the MEK and clearly quite bitter about the horrible upbringing he had, having been forced to be separated from his parents and then grew up in various MEK families.
It really is crazy.
And the closest thing I can think of, Charles Manson and Jim Jones don't even really count I mean, well, hell, with Manson you had some kind of twisted ideology.
With Jim Jones you had the twisted religion and everything.
The closest thing I can come up with to compare them to, although this isn't really a private army, but just in terms of the way the cult works, is Bo and T from the Heaven's Gate, the comet chasers that all killed themselves in L.A.
Where that really is, as you're saying, that's kind of the extent of the cult is believe in me, your leader.
And that's it.
They really don't have much else to offer than that.
And then now T is dead, right?
Or Bo, whichever is which.
The husband has been dead, and now it's been revealed finally that he's been dead, right?
It's been revealed, and this is really fascinating, because the head, the former head of the Saudi intelligence, a gentleman by the name of Prince Turki, who I happen to know, who also has been credited for being the creator of the Taliban back in the 1980s, he decides to give a speech at this Paris Convention.
This is the first time a major Saudi official is giving a speech there.
It's something that is probably revealing that it was the Saudis, what many people suspected at the time, it was the Saudis that was funding this entire campaign by the MEK to get off the terrorist list, because the amount of money that they were throwing around was just obscene, and the question marks, where did they get the money?
They clearly could not have raised that money from the Iranian-American community, because A, they don't have support in the community, and B, even though the Iranian-American community is quite wealthy, it is not that wealthy that it would be able to spend that type of money.
So now the Saudi prince there is speaking, and he reveals that Massoud Rajavi, who was the original leader of the organization, is now deceased.
Now a lot of people suspected this, but the cult had always denied it, and at their conference he reveals that Maryam Rajavi, which is then Massoud's wife, seems kind of surprised that the prince is making that statement.
Now obviously she knows he's dead, but she's kept it a secret in order to keep control of the cult.
For the prince to say this has been interpreted by people who used to be with the MEK, that it was his way of saying, I completely owe you right now, and I can do whatever I want with this organization.
Yeah.
You know, I was wondering about why he would...
I mean, I'm sure the Iranians know full well that the Saudis bankroll this organization and all of that, but I wondered why Turkey would show his face and make it so obvious that you are the sock puppets of the Saudis, when doesn't that kind of undermine their whole thing that they're the quote-unquote legitimate democratic government of Iran?
Well, they don't even have any pretenses any longer.
I mean, they know very well that they're just a joke, so as long as someone is paying the bill...
Everyone delves into it, but...
Yeah, I mean, and they get Howard Dean and Newt Gingrich and all these people show up, that's good enough for them.
What is interesting, though, is why this was done within the context of the Saudi-Iranian competition and almost open conflict right now in the Middle East.
And there are elements within the Saudi government who does want to try to find some sort of diplomatic solution.
The Iranians have sent a lot of diplomatic signals.
The Iranians have also done some extremely idiotic and illegal things, such as attacking the Saudi embassy about a year or so ago.
But nevertheless, there has been an effort to be able to see if they could reduce tensions, because it is the Saudi-Iranian tensions that is one of the main driving forces of the Syrian war right now.
Obviously, there's many, many factors involved in the Syrian war, but one thing that is fueling it is the Saudi-Iranian rivalry, same thing in Yemen.
And what this did is that it really, really threw cold water on any effort to do so and really increased the temperature between the two countries and indicates that those who actually would prefer a confrontation between Saudi Arabia and Iran on the Saudi side, people in Saudi who would prefer a confrontation with Iran, have ability to push things in that direction.
And they're doing so quite extensively right now.
I'm personally very worried that once President Obama is out of office, because at the end of the day, he is someone who has done quite a lot to avoid getting entangled in that.
But once he's out of office, the Saudis are going to make a major push to try to get the United States to get into this conflict and potentially even end up in an open conflict with Iran on behalf of the Saudis.
Yeah.
Well, you know, I mean, I think we probably even talked about this before, that, hey, look, all things being equal, the Iran deal is awesome.
Here we're taking a nuclear program that's not a nuclear weapons program.
It's already a safeguarded civilian electricity program, but now we're going to double, extra, super verify it beyond any reason, where even the Israelis will have to shut up and concede that there's not a weapons program here.
It's all safeguarded to the nth degree.
And so now we can begin some kind of rapprochement, hopefully.
And I see you have here two articles, one in Foreign Affairs, the Iran deal worked, the other in The Washington Post, it's pointless to be the last country sanctioning Iran.
And so, you know, there's clearly a lot to celebrate.
I talked with Barbara Slavin on the show the day before yesterday about just how well the implementation of the program has been on the Iranian side.
You can talk about the sanctions a bit if you want.
But my point is, Trita, all things are not equal.
What happened was, even though we're securing the Saudis' interests by double, extra securing the Iranian nuclear program more than ever before, it scared the hell out of them because it means to them that they might be losing their place in America's order in the Middle East.
And we could be, America might be beginning to take Trita Parsi's advice and want to, you know, begin to get along with the Iranians.
Well, there's a Saudi reaction to that, which is the crisis you were just describing.
So now what do we do?
Well, I personally think that it's important to make sure that the approach of the United States in the Middle East is going to be to find some sort of a balance, not to take Iran's side, not to take Saudi's side, but being able to be critical of negative things that both sides are doing, but also be able to make sure that we have greater stability there if opportunities to collaborate exist.
I personally think that Saudi Arabia right now is a greater problem in the Middle East because, and in the world, frankly, because the Iranians have done a lot of bad things, but it is not the Iranians that are funding and promoting the ideology that is causing bombs to go off in Brussels, in Paris, in Indonesia, and that is turning the world of Sunni Islam into such a militant and radical world right now.
That is something that the Saudis are doing with their Wahhabi philosophy and ideology, and I think it is something that is really destroying much of the Muslim world right now, and it's spreading to the West quite clearly.
Things are happening in Orlando and in San Bernardino and other places as a result of this, and I think we have taken our eyes off the ball for quite some time when it comes to what the Saudis are doing.
So to address the Saudi problem I don't think is to take Iran's side.
I think that it's something that is absolutely needed, and part of the value of the Iran deal was that it actually would give the United States a greater maneuverability vis-à-vis the Saudis to make sure that a lot of these negative activities ended.
Well, I don't know how much stock to put in it, but there was a piece I read last week about, I'm trying to remember the source.
Well, it wasn't Al-Monitor.
No, it was Al-Monitor, I think, and it was about how they're grooming the young defense minister in Saudi Arabia to become the new king, but they're making him promise that he's going to finally crack down on all this bin Ladenite-type ideology and he's going to do this and that for him and the other thing.
I don't know if you put any stock in that.
You know, reality is that the Saudis at this point, at this point, because ISIS has turned against them, is pushing back against ISIS.
But that was not the case just earlier.
I mean, even Ben Rhodes from the White House, the way he put it is that it is Saudi Arabia that provided the seed funding for ISIS.
So it's actually a typical pattern we've seen now, that the Saudis are turning against the monsters that they themselves created.
The issue is not that, oh, we should applaud that they're now turning against them.
The issue is, I'll applaud them when they stop creating monsters like this.
Well, and, you know, it must drive you crazy, same as me, when you read in the New York Times that they say, they just admit openly, they even talk about the internal discussions in the White House where they all agreed that helping the Saudis with their war against the Houthis could never work.
It's just going to be a long, bloody, indeterminable conflict.
But, hey, we've got to do it as a sop to them because their feelings are hurt because we made a nuclear deal with the Iranians that ultimately protects them.
It's absolutely infuriating, and it's exactly that type of a dependence on the Saudis that is so problematic for the United States because it's forcing the United States to go and not just, you know, protect, but actively support all of these mistakes that Saudi Arabia is committing right now.
I mean, what's happening in Yemen is an absolute disaster.
It was already such a poor place, had so many problems, and now they're destroying what little was left of it.
How anything good can come out of that is completely beyond me.
I know folks in the U.S. intelligence and the military are quite upset about it as well, but because of this alliance with the Saudis, there is some sort of a force that pushes the U.S. to support these kind of things.
Well, yeah, it's the military, it's the arms industry, it's the oil companies, and it's just all the bureaucrats and all the departments who are used to doing business this way.
There's also another factor I have to say, Scott.
It is the fact that one area in which the Saudis tend to support the United States in a way that particularly the neocons find very valuable is that the Saudis actually want the United States to be the hegemon of the Middle East.
They want the United States to have a heavy military presence and be the boss of the region.
That's where the neocons and some of the more imperialistic-oriented folks in the U.S. government have a big problem with the Iranians because the Iranians don't want the United States to be the hegemon of the region.
They don't want to see the United States have a big role or a big presence in the region.
So when it comes to all of these other conflicting interests, the fact that the Saudis actually want the U.S. there and support U.S. hegemony is something that trumps all of these other factors oftentimes, and despite the fact that they're creating all of these other problems, people tend to look the other way because at least the Saudis want the U.S. to stay in the region, whereas the Iranians want to kick out the United States from the region.
But then you have the other perspective that exists that is less explicit at times, but nevertheless I think the President has articulated better than anyone else, which is the Middle East is losing strategic value.
The United States is overcommitted in the Middle East.
The United States is not about to leave the Middle East, but it shouldn't be that present in the Middle East.
The United States cannot fix the Middle East, so why are we spending so much resources on it?
And if you have that perspective, then it's not particularly attractive that the Saudis want you to be the hegemon because that only means that the Saudis are trying to pull you in to be more involved in the region than you yourself want to be.
All right.
Well, thanks very much for coming back on the show to talk about this stuff with me, Trita.
I really appreciate it.
My pleasure.
Thank you so much.
All right, y'all.
That is the great Trita Parsi.
He's at niacouncil.org, niacouncil.org.
That's the National Iranian American Council, and he's got a brand new one in foreign affairs, which I'm not blocked by the paywall or the email wall or anything here.
They're letting me read it, foreignaffairs.com.
The Iran deal worked.
Here's how to make it even more effective, and he's got a new one at the Washington Post as well.
It's pointless to be the last country sanctioning Iran.
That's the Scott Horton Show.
Oh, and that one's with Tyler Cullis as well.
That's the Scott Horton Show.
Sign up for the podcast feed at scotthorton.org and check out the archives there.
Help support at scotthorton.org slash donate, and follow me on Twitter at scotthortonshow.
Hey, y'all.
Scott here.
First I want to take a second to thank all the show's listeners, sponsors, and supporters for helping make this show what it is.
I literally couldn't do it without you.
And now I want to tell you about the newest way to help support the show.
Whenever you shop at amazon.com, stop by scotthorton.org first.
Just click the Amazon logo on the right side of the page.
That way the show will get a kickback from Amazon's end of the sale.
It won't cost you an extra cent.
And it's not just books.
Amazon.com sells just about everything in the world except cars, I think.
So whatever you need, they've got it.
Just click the Amazon logo on the right side of the page at scotthorton.org or go to scotthorton.org slash amazon.
You hate government?
One of them libertarian types?
Maybe you just can't stand the president, gun grabbers, or war mongers.
Me too.
That's why I invented libertystickers.com.
Well, Rick owns it now, and I didn't make up all of them, but still.
If you're driving around and want to tell everyone else how wrong their politics are, there's only one place to go.
Libertystickers.com has got your bumper covered.
Left, right, libertarian, empire, police, state, founders, quotes, central banking.
Yes, bumper stickers about central banking.
Lots of them.
And, well, everything that matters.
Libertystickers.com.
Everyone else's stickers suck.