07/16/13 – Philip Giraldi – The Scott Horton Show

Hey y'all, Scott here.
I think you ought to consider subscribing to The Future of Freedom, the journal of the Future Freedom Foundation, in print or online.
The Future of Freedom features the best writers in the libertarian movement, the fearless Jacob Hornberger, individualist anarchist Sheldon Richman, and crusading journalist Jim Bovard, along with Anthony Gregory, Winnie McElroy, Tim Kelly, Richard Ebeling, and many more.
And the July issue features one by your favorite radio host on America's Middle East Policy, entitled Stupidity or the Plan?
So head on over to fff.org/subscribe and sign up for The Future of Freedom in print or online.
That's fff.org/subscribe.
And tell them Scott sent you.
All right, y'all, welcome to the show.
Back to it, I mean to say.
I'm Scott Horton.
This is my show, The Scott Horton Show.
ScottHorton.org is my website.
More than 2,900 interviews now, going back to 2003.
You can also follow me on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube at slash Scott Horton Show.
Retweet me.
All right.
Okay, next up on the show is our friend Phil Giraldi from the Council for the National Interest.
He's executive director there.
And also he writes for the American Conservative Magazine at theamericanconservative.com and antiwar.com at antiwar.com.
Welcome back to the show, Phil.
How are you doing?
I'm fine, Scott.
How are you?
I'm doing real good.
Thanks for joining us on the show.
I appreciate you writing about Snowden and sticking up for him from the right here.
Phil Giraldi, former DIA and CIA officer, writer for the American Conservative Magazine.
You know a thing or two about national security issues and such like that.
And I know you're a patriot and put your country first here, but somehow that means that you support Snowden rather than want to see him beheaded.
How's that?
Well, that's because the activity that he exposed is basically illegal.
I mean, it's the NSA essentially doing an illegal search on probably tens of millions of American citizens who've done nothing wrong and for whom there's no probable cause.
So I mean, the whole thing is illegal.
And the guy is a whistleblower.
Yeah, but Al Qaeda can read the paper.
The prosecution at the Manitoba says that that means it's espionage.
Well, you know, he did commit espionage.
There's no question about it.
I mean, he took classified information and he exposed it.
And he, you know, as an employee of NSA, CIA, whatever, he signs an agreement to say that he is not going to he's going to protect classified.
So yeah, he broke the law.
I mean, there's no question he broke the law.
But the fact is, he broke the law to expose the government doing something illegal.
So that makes him a whistleblower.
And I also pointed out that this whole fiction about that he gave away the crown jewels to groups like Al Qaeda is ridiculous, because we all know that Osama bin Laden has been aware of the U.S. surveillance possibilities for many, many years.
And he's advised all his people not to communicate by cell phone, not to in fact, himself used to wear a cowboy hat when he was walking around the grounds of his villa because he knew that there was spy satellites overhead.
So this guy is very much aware of the technical capabilities of the United States.
Yeah, I mean, you'd have to be a fool to not know that there's a National Security Agency, especially if you're running around with the license or whoever.
But now so on that point about the espionage, maybe I'm ignorant.
I guess I sort of thought that the espionage was all in the recipient.
And so if he was handed to The New York Times, that makes it not espionage.
Or if he's handed to Glenn Greenwald versus if he's handing it to the government of China.
Well, the Espionage Act is if you it's the Espionage Act of what, 1917, it was written up for the or 1918.
I'm not sure what the date was, but it was basically written up for the First World War.
And it's very flexible in terms of what it says.
And basically, it has been it has only been applied a few times since it was it was created.
And they've gone both ways, actually, they've gone after the people that were providing the information, and also the people who receive the information.
We had a famous APEC case back a few years ago, in which they went after the people who receive the information.
So it's a it's it's kind of a one size fits all type of law.
And there's no question the guy revealed classified information.
But we do have a whistleblower law in the United States.
And basically, when somebody reveals information that's being classified deliberately to enable the commission of illegal acts, then that's a whistleblower.
All right now, but Dick Cheney and Boehner and Feinstein and all these people with political power, they say nah, because what he's revealed here is such a big deal that it by definition empowers all of our adversaries, I guess.
I don't know, I'll try to use their loose language as best I can to justify their position to you.
I don't know.
Well, basically, what they're saying is that he's a traitor.
Now, if you look at the US Constitution, the only law that the only crime that actually is enumerated in the Constitution is treason.
And but to keep it from being used as a political club, the framers of the Constitution very strictly define what treason was.
And treason is collaborating with a country, assisting a country with which the United States is at war.
And of course, the United States is not at war with anyone, technically speaking, because we haven't declared war on anyone since, what, 1941.
Right.
And there are no nation states in the world that are our enemy, other than I guess we pick on Iran a lot, but and poor Syria.
Yeah.
Their enemies, metaphorically speaking, but they're not legally enemies.
And even this stretch where they say, well, al Qaeda and associated groups are enemies of the United States.
Well, there's no evidence that Snowden has in any way spoken to those groups or given them any classified information.
He hasn't done any of these, had no contact with them.
So that's hardly that hardly amounts to collaboration.
And, you know, the amazing thing is some of these congressmen are lawyers and you kind of wonder where they went to law school.
Yeah, right.
I mean, you ought to be I learned in junior college about how well, maybe even before that, about how treason is the only crime defined in the Constitution, like you said, so they can't abuse it.
It's very specific and has to be an overt act.
And if they don't admit it, then you have to have at least two witnesses.
That's right.
That's right.
And the other thing they're claiming, which I also discussed in my article at the American Conservative, is that the this whole idea that they've revealed, he's revealed the technical secrets of how the United States, you know, gets into people's phones and everything like that.
Every country in the world that has electrical engineers and and telecommunications engineers and knows how this stuff works, the thing that the United States does, which nobody else does, is we put millions and billions of dollars of resources into the computers that drive these systems and restore the information and scan through the information.
And we put tremendous effort into into CIA agents overseas, getting into places where there are fax machines and where there are telecommunication hubs and stuff like that to collect this kind of information.
Nobody else does that on anywhere near the scale we have.
But the technology is all well known.
So the claim that Stoughton, the Snowden basically has revealed the secrets that the United States has is nonsense.
All he's revealed is that the United States government is spying on its own citizens together with every friendly and unfriendly country in the world.
Right.
And on civilians and and people who, you know, like when he talked to the South China Morning Post about what was going on in China, he was talking about hacking their universities and stuff, which I don't know how close that may be to the PLA, but he at least was operating under the premise.
He explained that these were not legitimate targets.
That was why it was still whistleblowing is, yeah, they're Chinese, not Americans, but they're still just people living their lives and they're being spied on for no reason.
That's right.
And, you know, it's a I don't know if you saw the piece Kelly Lajo has had in Vancouver today where she was explaining how, you know, this is the huge contradiction that the United States has been complaining all along about people like the Chinese hacking into our computers and systems.
And it turns out that we're the ones that are hacking into everybody's computers and systems and doing it with a whole lot more volume and a lot less focus on what the targets actually are than anybody else.
Right.
Well, and I don't know, what do you think about the public reaction?
I guess it's pretty good to see that despite all the demonization of Snowden, the American people still, by a pretty good majority, consider him a whistleblower.
But what about the backlash against the actual NSA?
Is it enough?
I guess some people are talking about reforms.
I don't know.
Well, I think it might have actually scared our current president into maybe doing something to scale it back.
I mean, there's been a number of statements out of the White House saying that this program has to be looked at and so on and so forth.
But, you know, will it actually happen?
Who knows?
All this stuff runs in a kind of a secret world where it's overseen by this FISA court, which has never turned anything down in terms of doing this kind of stuff.
And so, you know, what kind of protections are there for the U.S. public?
It really has to go to the, this kind of stuff has to go to the Supreme Court at some point and the Supreme Court has to knock it down.
That's the only way it's going to end.
Yeah.
Well, you know, what's funny about it all is, I guess, well, just like anything like Chief Wiggum says on The Simpsons, we're powerless to help you, not to harm you, right?
They can't do their job providing security, you know, well at all, but they sure can kick your door down in the middle of the night for no good reason.
That kind of thing.
They can scoop up everything about everyone who never did anything, but they can't stop the Boston bombing.
They can't stop Ed Snowden from stealing all their documents and giving them to Clint Greenwald, for Christ's sake.
Yeah, that's right.
They, they, they really are kind of a, in some ways a helpless giant, but that doesn't make them any less dangerous.
And I know, you know, you probably are aware, a book has just come out on the militarization of the U.S. police.
Oh yeah.
And, and, you know, there was an incident right here, close to where I live here in Northern Virginia, where this guy had, was engaged in petty gambling and they sent a SWAT team, which kicked in his door and shot him dead.
And there have been other episodes where they'll kick in somebody's door, go in, shoot the two Labradors that people have, take the 89 year old grandmother and tie her up on the floor.
I mean, this is, we're becoming our worst nightmare.
We're becoming the fantasies about what Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany were like.
We're doing it right here and, and nobody is concerned about it because they, this myth that gets quoted all the time about how we're making you safe.
It's incredible.
Yeah.
You know, Mark Twain is quoted here in this piece by Alfred McCoy, who we're going to be talking to a little bit later.
I can't help but bring it up now.
He's talking about the war in the Philippines and he says, by trampling upon the helpless abroad, we're learning, the Americans are learning by a natural process to endure with apathy, the like at home.
That's really what it is, right?
This is exactly, we're all Fallujans now, is basically the moral of the story here.
Yeah, that's right.
And, and I'm sure you've seen some of the stories that have been floating.
I think this one was in the American conservative a few days ago about the, you know, the prevalence of, of, of homosexual rape among the, the Afghan army and the Afghan government officials.
It's considered normal to abduct a 12 year old boy and rape him and have him serve as a, as a dancing boy or a, or a tea server while you're raping them.
And then, then, then when you're finished with him, you throw him out in the street.
I mean, this, we're doing things overseas, we're involved with things overseas that basically are degrading us as human beings and in turn are turning us into savages.
And I, I don't know what more to say about this.
I mean, it's just, it's, it's something I know drives you nuts and drives me crazy.
And it's, it's when are the American people going to wake up to this crap?
Right.
Yeah.
Two things there.
A great footnote for that.
The last point there about the army that the U.S. government is creating, they call it the army in the North, it's the police in the South, but whatever.
It's this great documentary for Vice Magazine that came out a couple of months ago, six weeks ago or something.
It's called, This is What Victory Looks Like.
And it features the excuses being made by the child rapist soldiers like, yeah, of course we rape kids all day.
What do you expect us to do?
Not rape kids all day?
And it goes on like that.
And these are the people that we're trying to put in power there, where the Taliban, they were cruel medieval crazies, but they threw guys like that down the well.
You know, they didn't tolerate that.
And that's who we overthrew in favor of these guys for that.
And also, I was going to say, Guantanamo Bay, the force feeding, all those doctors and nurses helping with that.
They're going to come back to America and be doctors and nurses in our hospitals.
These torturers from Guantanamo Bay, you know?
Yeah.
And they go back to your example of the Taliban.
The Taliban also stopped drug production in Afghanistan.
And now it's the only industry in the country.
And you know, it's like, what is wrong with these idiots in Washington?
They can't see what they're doing.
They can't figure out that they're perverting everything they touch.
Look at Iraq.
Iraq, yeah.
George W. Bush posted two weeks ago that, oh, yeah, they have democracy in Iraq now.
Yeah, well, sure they do.
They have a quasi-dictator.
They also have between 30 and 50 killings every single day for political reasons, either terrorists or counter-terrorists.
You know, it's just incredible.
I mean, when is this going to end?
Yeah.
Well, as soon as the media forces them to be honest, which will be never, I guess.
So now back to Snowden's exile here, do you think that it's just stupidity or is there some purpose behind leaving him stranded in Russia of all places?
Because it seems like it's a great talking point for the Republicans that Obama is such a lousy president.
He's left this guy stranded in Russia, right?
What a great thing for the right to beat him over the head with.
But then maybe it makes Snowden look bad that he's in Russia.
And so it's good for PR against him personally, but they don't really expect Putin to give him up, right?
What are they doing?
Well, I must admit, I think Snowden did not carefully think through his escape plan because going to Hong Kong, which of course has an extradition treaty with the United States, was a huge mistake.
And finding himself then turning to the Chinese government for some way out of that was also a huge mistake because that was quickly portrayed by a number of critics as, oh, yeah, this guy is working with our enemy.
And then going to Moscow from China, another big mistake for the same reason.
So I think he should have gone straight to a place like Brazil, which doesn't have an extradition treaty with the U.S., or Ecuador.
He would have been in some physical danger in those places because the U.S. would have probably tried to kill him in those places.
But the fact is, you know, he should have thought a little bit more carefully about how it would be perceived that he was going to China and Russia because the Cold War has been over for a long time.
But the fact is, the memory of who were our adversaries during those years is still pretty fresh.
Yeah, sure.
And, you know, if he went to Venezuela, they would still try to say, oh, red Venezuela or whatever.
But it wouldn't be quite as believable.
But the thing is, the reason he's stuck in Russia is because Obama stripped him of his passport.
So it's really Obama that's left him in Russia more than it's him that has, I think.
Well, I think that's an oversimplification.
I think, yeah, he doesn't have a passport.
But the fact is, if the Russians really wanted to get him out and wanted to get him somewhere, they could do it.
I mean, they have the resources to do that.
So I think that I suspect that what we're seeing here is that Putin does not want to see a tit for tat on this.
He does not want to see the U.S. suddenly popping up with some Russian dissident who will appear on Russian television or on American television and European television talking about the horrors of Putin and what the terrible stuff he does.
I don't think he wants to get in that kind of situation.
That's why he's not particularly enthusiastic about being too helpful.
And this whole line about, oh, he's not going to tell any more U.S. secrets, well, he's already told all the U.S. secrets he had.
And people have the stuff already and will release it if anything happens to him.
So I don't think that's really the issue.
I think the issue here is that it's become a political embarrassment for everybody involved and nobody wants to get into that tit for tat game.
Well, why didn't Putin just give him a ride to Venezuela and be done with that?
Because at least he can't shoot down a Putin plane, right?
I suspect that will happen.
The laws on international flight are kind of funny.
If you're on a commercial flight, say an Aeroflot flight going from Russia to wherever, there are all kinds of rules that that flight cannot be diverted or it cannot be touched when it's over airspace of another country.
Now, a private jet operates under completely different principles.
That's why the Bolivian aircraft last week was diverted in Austria because it was not a commercial flight.
Anything that's not a commercial flight suddenly becomes subject to the rules of the country you're flying over.
It's a funny kind of thing, but it is true.
And so actually, he's better off putting him on an Aeroflot commercial flight to Caracas or something like that and just let him go.
You know what?
If the president of Bolivia had said to his pilot, ignore that, push on to the Canary Islands and decided to defy, I don't know, the Spanish government or whatever, that would have been, you know, in effect, calling their bluff.
Do you think that Obama would have gone as far as to make his Spanish lackeys shoot him down?
I don't know, but I think, as I recall, the reason why they had the land was so they needed fuel.
Well, I thought it was because they only needed fuel because they were being made to fly all the way around Spain and in France, right?
Yeah, that's right.
They were being denied airspace, so they were flying around in circles, essentially.
They needed fuel, so they had to come down.
Yeah, at that point.
But I'm just saying, if Morales had said, when they were first contacted and told, sorry, you can't come through Spain, if they had said, screw you, and gone ahead anyway, do you think the empire would have gone ahead and blasted them?
No, I don't think they would have.
I think that would have been too embarrassing.
You're right.
I think, probably, if Morales had taken the high ground on the issue, he would have gotten away with it.
But, you know, as it turns out, Snowden was not on the plane anyway.
Yeah, I mean, it made for great PR, the way it worked out, really.
And I wish I spoke Spanish, because his PR, his press conference was just, I could tell whatever he was saying in Spanish, it was something along the lines of, who, me?
I don't know what's going on here.
Can you believe the nerve of the Americans to do something like this?
It's just great, you know?
Exactly, yeah.
Yeah.
All right, well, so what do you think, you think that Obama will eventually, once he gets South America, Obama will just have the JSOC murder him?
Well, I think that's certainly something they will do a contingency plan on.
I mean, if he goes to a place like Venezuela, where there's a high crime rate, you know, and the U.S. has huge influence with neighboring Colombia, and a lot of people that go back and forth across the border, criminals, and there are lots of ways to arrange maybe a hit on him.
I would think if he's in Ecuador, probably maybe a little less so, but Ecuador has crime problems and everything, too, there would be ways to set these things up.
And I suspect they would try to kill him.
What do you think about that journalist who got killed in the one-car accident in San Diego, or was it Los Angeles?
Yeah, in L.A., Michael Hastings, yeah.
Hastings, yeah.
You know, I'm a little suspicious of that one, too.
Yeah, I am, too.
I think that the CIA or the Joint Special Operations Command probably murdered him, right?
Yeah, I think somebody got to him, and it's funny how they're coy about doing an investigation about it, and it sort of smells bad.
I think the whole thing smells bad.
I think we're in an age where the Obamas and the Bushes, basically, they kind of figure they can do anything.
And as long as they go through some kind of legal two-step with some idiot from the Justice Department who will approve anything they ask, they think they can do anything.
And certainly killing people, if you're killing people with drones overseas who are American citizens, how big a leap is it to kill people in the United States who are embarrassing you?
Right.
Yeah, they don't seem to have a problem with it at all.
Yeah, they'd be doing him a favor if they just kidnapped him and brought him back for trial or even sent him to Guantanamo or something, rather than just blasting him.
Well, if they don't want a trial, that's the whole problem.
If it's a trial, he actually can defend himself.
Right.
So we don't want that.
Yeah.
No, the American government never picks on anybody that can defend themselves.
No, no.
And if they were to bring him back, they would probably cite the state secret privilege or they would do a Padilla on him and just hold him for a long time.
And then all of a sudden he goes to Guantanamo or go into a federal prison.
I suspect that's what they would do.
They don't want a trial.
That's for sure.
Yeah.
Hey, we just have a few minutes here.
But so I was reading about how the Americans are sending guns to Syria some more than before.
And so they're ending up in the hands of the Al-Nusra Front.
Who would have thought that?
But they're also ending up in the hands of Hezbollah.
And here they are bragging about their M4s, their crates full of M4 machine guns that they got and other weapons, too.
And then there's this thing in McClatchy.
Lebanese officials say CIA warned them of imminent al-Qaeda attack on Hezbollah.
And what happened here was the spooks called the Lebanese government, which it says here they're not allowed to talk to Hezbollah, really.
And they called the Lebanese government and said, hey, tell Hezbollah al-Qaeda is about to attack them.
And then there's a quote in here where the guy says, but we thought all of al-Qaeda in Syria were CIA guys out to get us in the first place.
Why would they warn us about them?
Maybe they're finally figuring out just how bad these guys really are.
What do you think's going on there?
Well, I think the fact is that they don't know who anybody is.
And so it's like they're so confused.
I mean, look, I've run these kinds of operations overseas and stuff.
You don't know who anybody is, basically.
And you try to build up profiles of the people you're dealing with and everything like that.
But you have no access to public records.
You have no access to the people this guy grew up with.
You have no access to where he went to school.
So how do you really know anything about this person?
You don't.
And the fact is, I think they're in a huge quagmire now where they don't know who the players are.
The CIA's been tasked with identifying the good rebels and just can't do it.
There's no way in hell to do it.
And so, yeah, they're flapping around wildly and doing a lot of crazy stuff because they really don't know what they're doing.
So there's this guy on my Facebook page who's been hanging around a while, listening to the show and that kind of thing.
And he vouched for one of these authors and decried the other.
It's Thomas Hedgehammer and Aaron Zelen at Foreign Affairs, the Council on Foreign Relations journal here, how Syria's civil war became a holy crusade.
And it's about this Egyptian cleric living in Qatar, I believe, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, and how he's just declared, and John Glaser was getting to the particulars of it on the show yesterday, talking about the precise language he used, something along the lines of, you know, all good fighting age males must go and help fight the jihad in Syria, that kind of thing.
Pretty strong language.
A whole other step beyond what the imam said back during the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan.
And so then this apparently, you know, foretells a gigantic escalation on the part of the Sunni insurgency there in Damascus, or in Syria.
So even though they've been losing lately, maybe there's a whole new front coming.
What do you think about all that?
Well, yeah, I've been hearing about that sort of thing, too.
I don't know how you would verify a lot of this information.
That's the problem.
And, of course, they know it's a problem, so it becomes basically propaganda.
But I think there have been definite indications that a lot of young Saudis and some young Egyptians are joining the jihad.
So, you know, as to whether it's going to become even broader than that, and, of course, we know about the Iraqis.
Broader than that, I don't know.
But certainly it's what they see as an opportunity.
Yeah.
Well, and then, you know, they're saying that the Pakistani Taliban, along with the Chechens, and they've said in the past there have been reports of Afghans.
Basically anywhere soon we'll have Somalis and Yemenis in Syria, too.
Everywhere America is fighting al-Qaeda guys, they're all just going to Syria, where we're backing them.
Yeah, because it makes sense to do that.
I mean, the point is they know sooner or later the United States is going to get involved and that the United States will be damaged goods as a result of involvement, because that's what's happened with every previous involvement, even in Cairo right now where they sent Nick Burns over there to talk to some of the different political parties.
Nobody wants to talk to them.
Why would anyone want to talk to the United States?
Right.
So who's zooming who?
America, Obama and his group, they think they're using al-Qaeda to their ends, but it's always the other way around.
Sure.
Those guys are on the ground, and they understand exactly what they're doing and why they're doing it.
We never know that.
We never have any presumption of knowing what the hell we're doing, and that's our biggest problem, the total ignorance that the U.S. gets involved in these situations is what kills us.
Well, that's good for weapons sales and stuff anyway, so that's good, and promotions at the Pentagon and at the CIA.
All right, thanks very much, Phil.
Appreciate it.
Okay, Scott.
All right.
All right, everybody, that's Phil Giroldi from the Council for the National Interest, the American Conservative and Anti-War.com.
We'll be right back.
Hey, y'all, Scott here, hawking stickers for the back of your truck.
They've got some great ones at LibertyStickers.com.
Get Your Son Killed, Jeb Bush 2016, FDR, No Longer the Worst President in American History, the National Security Agency, blackmailing your congressman since 1952, and USA.
Sometimes we back al-Qaeda, sometimes we don't.
And there's over a thousand other great ones on the wars, police, state, elections, the Federal Reserve and more at LibertyStickers.com.
They'll take care of all your custom printing for your bandier business at TheBumperSticker.com, LibertyStickers.com.
Everyone else's stickers suck.
Hey, y'all, Scott Worden here for the Council for the National Interest at CouncilForTheNationalInterest.org.
Aren't you sick of the neocons in the Israel lobby pretending as though they've earned some kind of monopoly on foreign policy wisdom in Washington, D.C.?
These peanut clowns who've never been right about anything?
Well, the Council for the National Interest is pushing back, putting America first and telling the lobby to go take a hike.
The empire's bad enough without the neocons making it all about the interests of a foreign state.
Help CNI promote peace.
Visit their site at CouncilForTheNationalInterest.org and click Donate under About Us at the top of the page.
That's CouncilForTheNationalInterest.org.
Hey, everybody, Scott Worden here.
Ever think maybe your group should hire me to give a speech?
Well, maybe you should.
I've got a few good ones to choose from, including How to End the War on Terror, The Case Against War with Iran, Central Banking and War, Uncle Sam and the Arab Spring, The Ongoing War on Civil Liberties, and, of course, Why Everything in the World is Woodrow Wilson's Fault.
I'm happy to talk about anything else you've ever heard me cover on the show as well.
So check out YouTube.com Slash Scott Horton Show for some examples and email Scott at ScottHorton.org for more details.
See you there.
Hey, I'm Scott Horton here to tell you about this great new project, Listen and Think audio at ListenAndThink.com.
They've got 2 new audio books read by the deepest voice in Libertarianism, the great historian Jeff Riggenbach.
Our Last Hope, Rediscovering the Lost Path to Liberty by Michael Mahary of the 10th Amendment Center is available now And Beyond Democracy, co-authored by Frank Karsten of the Mises Institute Netherlands and journalist Carl Beckmann, will be released this month.
And they're only just getting started.
So check out listenandthink.com.
You may be able to get your first audiobook absolutely free.
That's listenandthinkaudio at listenandthink.com.
Hey y'all, Scott Horton here for wallstreetwindow.com.
Mike Swanson is a successful former hedge fund manager whose site is unique on the web.
Subscribers are allowed a window into Mike's very real main account and receive announcements and explanations for all his market moves.
The Federal Reserve has been inflating the money supply to finance the bank bailouts and terror war overseas.
So Mike's betting on commodities, mining stocks, European markets and other hedges against a depreciating dollar.
Play along on paper or with real money and be your own judge of Mike's investment strategies.
See what happens at wallstreetwindow.com.