07/04/13 – The Other Scott Horton – The Scott Horton Show

Oh man, I'm late.
Sure hope I can make my flight.
Stand there!
Me?
I am standing here.
Come here!
Okay.
Hands up!
Turn around!
Whoa, easy!
Into the scanner!
Ooh, what's this in your pants?
Hey, slow down!
It's just my- Hold it right there!
Your wallet has tripped the metal detector!
What's this?
The Bill of Rights?
That's right!
It's just a harmless stainless steel business card sized copy of the Bill of Rights from securityedition.com.
There for exposing the TSA as a bunch of liberty destroying goons who've never protected anyone from anything.
Sir, now give me back my wallet and get out of my way.
Got a plane to catch.
Have a nice day.
Play a leading role in the security theater with the Bill of Rights Security Edition from securityedition.com.
It's the size of a business card, so it fits right in your wallet.
And it's guaranteed to trip the metal detectors wherever the police state goes.
That's securityedition.com.
And don't forget their great Fourth Amendment socks.
Hey guys, I got his laptop.
Alright, y'all.
Welcome back to the show.
I'm Scott Horton.
You know, I just got a tweet the other day.
I said, hey, Scott Horton Show.
Whatever happened to the other Scott Horton?
And I replied, I think he's got a real job.
But no, apparently not.
He's back at harpers.org.
The great blog No Comment.
The other Scott Horton heroic anti-torture international human rights lawyer.
Former chair of the New York Bar Association's committees on human rights and on international law.
And professor at Columbia and formerly at Hofstra Law School.
And you realize I could go on and on and on like that.
Welcome back to the show, Scott.
How are you?
Hey, great to be with you.
And it's a beautiful July 4th here in New York.
A little muggy, but really a great day.
Well, right on.
Happy Independence Day to you.
To you too.
Alright, so the real insider threat.
Will the NSA surveillance program threaten the Atlantic Alliance?
And this is in regards to, of course, the Snowden revelations at the Guardian.
And also that great piece in McClatchy Newspapers.
You guys might remember we talked with Jonathan Landay about it two weeks ago.
His great piece with, I'm sorry I forget the woman's name that he co-authored it with.
About the clampdown inside the government in reaction to the leaks.
And so, I guess, first of all, if you want to make, I guess, first of all, can we talk about the Bolivia thing?
Where the president arranged with a great many European states to deny airspace to the president of Bolivia.
On the suspicion that Edward Snowden, the NSA whistleblower, was on board.
What do you make of that?
A wild story.
And evidently it's four countries specifically.
It's Italy, Spain, Portugal, and France.
Those four countries, of course, because given the flight plan that the president of Bolivia had filed to fly home from Moscow.
He would have to fly over those countries.
So they all denied him overflight rights.
And he had to turn, just to the point where he was going to go enter into Italian airspace.
He had to turn back and land in Vienna and spend the night there.
And, of course, you hear nothing from the United States or the governments involved about what was behind it.
But behind the scenes, pretty much, it's quite obvious.
The U.S. brought immense pressure to bear on all these governments to block Evo Morales' flight from crossing over.
To interdict the flight, thinking that he had Edward Snowden on board and they would be able to seize Snowden.
So I think we have to juxtapose this with the statement that Barack Obama made when he was in Dar es Salaam just a few days earlier.
When a reporter asked him, so are you going to send up a jet fighter to shoot down a commercial airliner that he's on?
And Obama said, that's ridiculous.
Of course we wouldn't do anything like that.
Why would we do something that would attract so much attention to him?
And here we see in this action, well, they're doing almost that.
I mean, it is, if anything, equally as extreme and absurd.
And while this hasn't gotten that much attention in the United States, around the world, the U.S. is really taking a beating over this.
Because, of course, what was done was flagrantly illegal.
And it's both illegal and stupid because, of course, Snowden wasn't on board the flight.
Yeah, I mean, you've got to just imagine that behind the scenes there was some CIA analyst going, I'm sure, Mr. President, it's 8 out of 10 chance.
Or something, right?
Like there had to be a whole funny little thing of people being horribly wrong there behind that.
But then, yeah, so it's what, the Vienna Convention or something like that?
It's the rules of diplomacy that the various state leaders are supposed to respect?
Well, actually, this is customary international law that goes back to the early Middle Ages.
You know, heads of state have absolute privilege with respect to their travel.
You're always supposed to allow them to go unhindered.
This is far beyond the level of protection that's afforded to ordinary diplomats.
It's sort of one of the fundamental, one of the keystone doctrines of international law.
So for this to happen is just astonishing.
And, of course, what we see is the next day is we see France and Italy issuing their apologies to Eva Morales saying, oh, this is all just a misunderstanding.
Of course, it was nothing of the kind.
Right.
And, you know, I don't know nearly enough about him, but I just love seeing him on TV going, who, me?
What?
This is the most surprising thing that's ever happened to me before.
I mean, I'm paraphrasing him terribly, but he just, he pulls off that regular guy thing so well.
It was great.
You know, for a politician, I liked it.
But now, so what does this mean about the level of panic inside the White House about Edward Snowden at this point?
In fact, let me say one more thing before I turn that question over to you.
I read a thing where a guy was speculating that with the job position that Edward Snowden had, he very well could still have access to a great many NSA systems that they just can't do anything about, and that maybe that's why they're still at panic level nine over this.
It's not just that he's already given a stack of documents to Glenn Greenwald and the Guardian.
Well, I put this on two different levels.
I mean, they seem to have this fixation on him individually as a person, wanting to grab him and goosemarch him back to the United States for trial.
And that, I have to say, is irrational.
Or if there's a reason for it, the reason is all PR publicity.
What they would have a very rational basis to be concerned about are those four personal computers, laptops that he has that contain these data with all the disk drives.
And I would think it would be perfectly reasonable that they would want to get their hands on them.
But from what we see in the requests they're making to other governments, at least as this is being reported publicly, it is all about seizing Edward Snowden and not the disks and materials he's walked off with.
Right.
Well, I read one thing that said that there's nothing on there that would be news to the FSB, for example, that his only value to the Russians is PR to thumb their nose at America a little bit.
But they don't really need him to – they don't need to interrogate him and debrief him.
There's not much he can teach them because they already know all this stuff.
Well, I don't know.
It's hard for you or me to know that because we don't know what he has on the hard disk drives.
We don't know what secrets he has.
I'd say certainly the intelligence service like the Public Security Bureau and China or the FSB and Russia have a pretty sophisticated understanding of what the NSA is up to and what its capabilities are.
But on the other hand, I'm sure they'd love to know the details of the programs and how they're carried out and who's cooperating with them and so forth.
So I'm sure there would be a lot of data that he had access to that would be of tremendous interest to them.
But I think more to the point of tremendous interest to the public and I think particularly not so much China and Russia but more the public of other democratic states that are allies to the United States, which seem to be targets of a tremendous amount of surveillance by the NSA.
Right, yeah, virtually without limit apparently, although I think we already all knew that.
I was just remembering last night, and I don't remember exactly my source anymore or how far back this goes, but it used to be a talking point of mine or whatever that they're filtering for keywords all international calls, all cell phone calls, and up to 80% of regular landline domestic calls are being at least filtered if not saved or whatever.
I don't remember where I learned that, but I used to say that years and years and years and years ago.
And it could have been from Bamford's work or from maybe that's even from the 2005 revelations in the New York Times.
Now, I'm sorry, I don't remember my footnote, but none of this is very surprising other than it's not surprising at all, but it is very detailed.
Oh, this is how they do it.
And yes, it's as bad as you feared, but that's basically the news, right?
I think that's right.
I mean, yeah, you have to start with a lot of people think about surveillance in terms of that Gene Hackman movie, The Conversation.
You know, somebody in a room close by who's planted microphones and is listening in to you, and that sort of surveillance hardly goes on anymore.
You know, we've moved to, you know, generations and generations of more efficient electronic surveillance systems, and what's going on now is a sweeps or trawling, you might call it, where they use very fancy algorithms to sweep through vast databases of Internet communications, telephone communications, emails and other things to pull out from that vast reservoir the couple of things that might be interesting to them to look at.
So that means at one level that they really are looking at everybody's emails and everybody's telecommunications, but that doesn't mean that they're actually sitting down with the person in the room reading every email.
What a boring job that would be.
Right.
Well, you know, as Bamford reported, they were ordered, some of those NSA analysts were ordered to sit there listening to the phone secs of American soldiers in Iraq, talking to their wives back home, and, sir, are you sure I'm supposed to sit here and listen to this?
Your orders are to sit there and continue listening to that and take notes.
Okay.
So, I mean, it does exist.
Maybe, I don't know how many people you would need to eavesdrop on everybody's phone secs, but...
Yeah, I mean, this certainly did go on in Iraq, and it's going on in Afghanistan as well.
Well, I mean, those were American-based, I think in Atlanta, Georgia-based NSA employees listening to the phone secs.
But that is what's called the battlefield security system, which is...
Oh, I see.
That's separate.
...a little bit different.
So when you've got an actual battle going on, then there is this very heavy scrutiny of all the communications going on the battlefield.
There's nothing too surprising about that.
Yeah.
But I think one thing that comes out of this is that the technical capabilities of the NSA are astonishing and really very difficult to get your mind around.
I mean, it is so much more than anyone thought previously was possible.
Well, and now the blowback from this is just incredible already.
As you talk about, you know, there's obviously a lot of cooperation by the European allies.
And yet, as you quote the Dezeit article saying, there are co-conspirators and victims of the surveillance too, and there's a lot of backlash already.
But, you know, your article, you seem to think that there's a real danger, as you would call it perhaps, that this could break the Atlantic alliance.
Really?
I think it's really killing the Atlantic alliance.
I mean, there was already a report that was carried in the German media yesterday about Angela Merkel, the German chancellor's last telephone conference with Barack Obama, which was described as absolutely frosty, where she was presenting the government's consternation about the level of surveillance that was going on on German soil.
And she was demanding that Obama provide an explanation for this, and he wasn't providing much of an explanation.
And I think what you're going to see – I mean, this is going to have repercussions in U.S. relations with its European allies, and it's going to have repercussions about intelligence cooperation going forward.
Does it mean that NATO will fold next year?
No, definitely not that.
But I think what you're going to find is that American intelligence operations are going to have a much harder time securing the cooperation of their European counterparts, and they're going to be subject to a tremendous amount of scrutiny about what they're doing on the ground in Europe.
That's not a good thing for the U.S., and it's not a good thing for NATO.
And now – yeah, I mean, a big part of this was not just that they're eavesdropping on everybody, but they're picking cyber war targets, and in our allied countries, they're preparing for war.
And I guess, you know, everybody's dad would say, well, you know, they've got a plan to invade Canada, they've got a plan to invade pango pango, but that doesn't mean that they mean it.
They just – you know how the Pentagon is.
They just have a plan to invade everybody.
But here they are picking targets in Japan and picking targets all throughout Western Europe for destruction in the event of a conflict, right?
Well, that's right.
I mean, you know, the German interior minister gave a talk yesterday in which he quoted from a Department of Defense doctrine about cyber war where he said certain snooping and surveillance activities would be treated by the United States as an act of war.
And then he paused and said, so it's particularly shocking for us when we see that the United States is engaged in exactly these activities targeting us, an act of war, question mark?
Yeah, you know, it's completely chilling, and I think it makes the U.S. look extremely foolish because of this definition of cyber warfare, because these claims that certain sorts of surveillance activities can be viewed as acts of war.
And then it turns out the United States is engaging itself liberally in exactly these sorts of activities.
I think most of the world expects a leader like the United States to live by the standards that it articulates, and we're not seeing that right now.
And I think it all goes back to total information awareness, this notion that was put up in the early Bush years, which when disclosed led to a decision to dismantle the Office of Total Information Awareness.
But now we discover that actually not one single one of those programs was ever stopped.
They were just given a different name.
Right.
Well, you know, James Bamford's book, The Shadow Factory, talks all about that.
The biggest part of TIA became basketball over at National Security Agency headquarters, which is sort of kind of part of the military, right?
Or it is part of the military, but sort of outside the Pentagon.
How exactly does that work?
Could you explain that?
Well, if you look at the intelligence community as a whole, the totality of it, most people think it's the CIA.
The CIA is, if we look at money expended and personnel, certainly not more than 20% of the total intelligence community.
And I'd say that the bulk of the intelligence community consists of a series of independent agencies, which are subordinated to the Secretary of Defense, but which are not part of the uniformed military.
But they may have special relations with the uniformed military so that officers and noncommissioned officers may work there.
Right.
So General Alexander, he still is very much under the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and all that, just like the Secretary of the Army and whoever, right?
He is a uniformed military officer, and that has been a common feature of the NSA for a long time, as a number of department heads have also been uniformed military people.
But the NSA itself is outside the direct service branch command structure.
Interesting how they do that.
All right.
So now, well, it's worth mentioning the level of hypocrisy there where you say that the foreign states expect America to live up to the ideals we articulate.
And especially today, the 4th of July, it's the day where we recognize that when it comes to talking about freedom and liberty and justice and fairness, our government, they have no equal when it comes to the ability to propagandize like that.
And so the level of hypocrisy here is absolutely incredible, right?
We're not talking about Vladimir Putin's junta doing this.
We're talking about the world's oldest democracy.
Yeah, that's exactly the comparison you get.
I mean, with the Germans, the French, the U.K. right now, they say, look, we've cast our lot with the United States for three generations.
We have the tightest military alliance that's existed in human history with the United States.
We fully recognize the United States as the leader, and we look to the United States as a leader in this process.
And yet we look at all this surveillance business, and we're astonished because we see the U.S. behaving, following behavior patterns that are exactly what we would expect of the Soviet Union, not what we would expect of the United States.
And then when they're caught at it, the comeback is, well, we don't treat American citizens quite this way, which is effectively saying, but British citizens, French citizens, German citizens, Danish citizens, we do treat that way.
That's, you know, I mean, the damage that this is doing to the Atlantic alliance is enormous.
It's causing a real crisis of competence in the United States.
And I think what drives it on the U.S. side is it's really an attitude that goes back to, you know, I'd say the Reagan years and has been consistent since, although it has its ups and downs, of being suspicious of alliances of all kinds, being suspicious of the Europeans in particular, not wanting the Europeans to be any sort of check or limitation on the U.S.'s ability to go wage war.
That is particularly a neocon attitude.
You know, the neocons didn't want to be wedded to the Atlantic alliance because they saw the Atlantic alliance as a check on the ability to do things like invade Iraq and Afghanistan and launch new military ventures all over the place.
And they're right about that.
Well, you know, it's funny, too, because the traditional conservative and maybe paranoid right wing populist rather than conservative, anyway, critique of the U.N. was that they're always getting us into trouble.
And they turn every certainly the libertarian critique.
The collective security means America butting into everybody else's business under the excuse of the baby blue flag of peace and cooperation and what have you like that.
And then the war party, they just turn that right on its head.
Well, they're in our way.
We want to have more war.
And the very same people were like, OK, yeah, that's why I hate the U.N., too, because it's in our way rather than getting us into trouble.
It's preventing us from getting into trouble fast enough.
I mean, you snap your fingers and they turn it around.
The U.N. is one thing in the Atlantic alliance.
Another thing in the Atlantic alliance is a is a group of democracies only.
It's a very exclusive club in that regard.
It no longer accepts members states that aren't real, genuine, functioning democracies.
And democracies all have a formal process of approving going to war.
Right.
It may require parliamentary action.
It may require some sort of popular action.
But you have to have public discussion and decision.
So if you look at the way things function within NATO, you know, that means effectively you've got a very large number of countries that independently have to have this internal debate and decide whether or not to go to war before there can be a commitment decision to go to war.
Right.
So that was viewed as a huge encumbrance by the neocons.
And I guess my attitude is it is it's not really a huge encumbrance.
I mean, look at how they managed to deal with Libya and other military escapades recently.
It's a modest encumbrance.
But that's a good thing.
That's not a bad thing.
Right.
Well, yeah.
And the point is that thank goodness that there's some kind of encumbrance by the people of France checking their part of our alliance, because there's certainly no encumbrance here in the United States where the U.S. Congress on the case of Libya just changed the subject to the phony debt ceiling, like always, and didn't even deal with it at all.
They wouldn't approve it and they wouldn't disapprove it.
They just sat there and let Obama do what he wanted.
But I think that's right.
That's really a core concern for democracy in the United States today is the president's ability to go out and wage wars all the time without involving democratic process.
There's no longer even – there's no longer really even a perception of a need to go to the public and explain to the public what you're doing and build up some sort of approval, much less go to Congress and get Congress's OK.
And I think we saw that the way Obama went into Libya.
And I think we're seeing it right now with respect to Syria, where we read after the fact that Obama, consulting with a half dozen key advisors – and by the way, we still don't even know who they are that he's consulting with – he's persuaded that it's appropriate to begin a covert war in Syria.
So that's all going forward.
And you haven't had any public discussion of this.
You haven't had Congress involved.
You haven't had any authorization given with respect to it.
But the tripwire has been crossed, and the U.S. is actually engaged on the ground in the conflict in Syria, at least when it comes to training and weapons supply.
And this is a decision which strikes me as easy to criticize, because who are they supporting in Syria, after all?
The suicide bombers and the prisoner beheaders and those who have declared their loyalty to Ayman al-Zawahiri.
They're supporting exactly the same people that were battling in other places, and the dissonance of these positions is just spattering.
It really begins to look like intervention for the sake of intervention.
Right.
Well, and you're right to – well, I don't want to get off on that tangent.
It's such a great point, though, about how everybody knows who the rebels are, but we just don't mention that in polite company and all that.
It's fun.
Let me say real quick this – when I talked about you got a real job here, where have you been all this time?
There's this brand-new article in The New Yorker that you sent me here, Buried Secrets, how an Israeli billionaire wrested control of one of Africa's biggest prizes.
And I hope I can have you on the show to talk about this tomorrow or Monday or something to catch up on all that.
But I wanted people to know about that.
Just search Scott Horton, the other Scott Horton, and Buried Secrets to read all about that.
I can't wait to read it.
I haven't read anything but the headline yet.
Right.
It's Patrick Radden Keefe's article, absolutely brilliant article, I figure, in it.
So it's about an investigation I've been running for the last two years, and I think a fabulous read.
Well, I'm at the edge of my seat for real here.
Okay.
Now, the other thing, I want to talk about this quote of you being real smart here on your blog this morning where you say, It's not the dystopia that George Orwell foresaw in 1984, you know, the NSA and all that.
It still has vestiges of Democrat control and oversight.
But one increasingly gets the impression that the intelligence gatherers run the show, while the institutions of government that should provide the checks, the Justice Department, congressional committees, et cetera, neither fully understand what is going on nor possess the political will to exercise meaningful restraint.
And that really is the whole thing.
And I don't know how far down the slippery slope you gauge it, but I think that's really the key, right, is that the national security state, the empire, is the empire.
And all the marble statues and the houses of Congress and the forms of the old republic are simply the window dressing for that, and it's been that way for quite some time.
No?
I think that's right, and I think, you know, the reaction to the Snowden disclosures is very, very telling.
You know, because we're hardly seeing much concern in the American public about all of this.
But, of course, that's largely because the American media aren't really talking about the Snowden disclosures.
They're just talking about Edward Snowden, you know, the enemy of the state.
And if we look at our democratic allies, Germany, UK, France, Italy, Spain, for instance, and the Scandinavian countries, these disclosures have been incredible bombshells and have produced a real shock amongst the public and a very, very aggressive and negative reaction.
And that's a reaction that goes completely across the political spectrum, conservative, moderate, liberal.
It doesn't matter.
People are angry about the scope of snooping they see going on and the lack of limitation on the targeting that everyone's completely fair game.
And I think there's a sense there that the way this is being pursued is fundamentally not consistent with a democratic form of government.
It's some sort of authoritarian state form of government.
And there's just revulsion to it.
And, you know, I think that's a healthy democratic response.
We need to get to that level in this country, but I think that's going to take a while.
Yeah, well, as you say, and as so many of these interviews with you end up, it's the media.
They just, TV especially, they get to set the mood.
And their narrative is that nothing really is going to change here.
Of course, Congress is on board for it, and it's really not that big of a scandal anyway.
And so, yeah, let's talk about Snowden's girlfriend some more.
And as long as that's their opinion, the American people cannot get past that.
I mean, what are they going to do?
March on Tahir Square down in Washington, D.C.?
No chance.
Look at David Gregory, you know, on Meet the Press, asking Glenn Greenwald, you know, why he isn't being prosecuted.
And you think, I mean, this sums up in one single man, you know, the sum of what's the matter with Washington-based journalism in the United States.
Yes, and Tim Russert's chair, too.
Perfect.
That's right.
I mean, it's completely appalling, but it's commonplace.
I mean, there are a large number of Washington-based reporters in particular who think exactly this way, where the entire spectrum of political thought is the space between Mitch McConnell and Barack Obama.
I mean, that's it.
There are no other options.
And if both of those people are speaking and thinking the same way, well, then you just discard everything else.
And this is just completely vapid political thinking, but very commonplace in our country.
Well, you know what?
Here's the one thing that we still got going for us.
Snowden's still on the run, so even though as much as a distraction as that is, it still does keep the story alive.
After all, if he'd just committed suicide on the first day, then they'd just drop the whole thing, right?
It's not like they would just focus on his girlfriend.
They would just not even talk about it at all.
They'd just go back to the racist cook lady or whatever.
So that's going to keep it alive.
And Greenwald says he has months' worth of articles still to publish here.
So there still could be some backlash yet.
That's right.
And he says some of these things will be at least as explosive as some of the initial things that have been disclosed.
And it's like you have a big jigsaw puzzle, and you've gotten a piece here and a piece there.
It's really, with a lot of materials that have been released, that it's filled with all these acronyms and references to other programs.
You have to have many more pieces to really understand even what's already been disclosed.
So, frankly, I'm waiting for a lot more to be out there, and I think it will be a positive thing for it to be disclosed.
Right.
Yeah, me too.
Hey, thanks a lot for your time.
We've got to go.
I sure appreciate it.
All the best to you, and happy 4th.
Yeah, you too.
And I can't wait to read your article.
I'll be emailing you to schedule an interview here.
Okay, take care.
Thanks again.
All right, everybody, that is the other Scott Horton, heroic, anti-torture, international human rights lawyer.
He's a blogger and a journalist contributing editor at Harper's.org.
His blog is called No Comment.
The latest is The Real Insider Threat, and please go check him out there at Harper's.org.
We're over into this break.
We'll be right back with Adam Morrow, live from Cairo, right after this.
Hey, everybody, Scott Horton 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.
But I'm happy to talk about just about anything else you've ever heard me cover on the show as well.
So check out YouTube.com/Scott Horton Show for some examples, and email Scott at ScottHorton.org for more details.
See you there.
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, Wenny McElroy, Tim Kelly, Richard Ebling, 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.
Hey, y'all.
Scott Horton here to tell you about this great new project, Listen and Think Audio at listenandthink.com.
They've got two new audiobooks read by the deepest voice in libertarianism, the great historian Jeff Riggenbach.
Our Last Hope, Rediscovering the Lost Path to Liberty by Michael Meharry of the Tenth Amendment Center, is available now.
And Beyond Democracy, co-authored by Frank Karsten of the Mises Institute Netherlands and journalist Carl Beckman, 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 Listen and Think Audio at listenandthink.com.
Hey, y'all.
Scott Horton 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.
Nothing's bad enough without the neocons making it all about the interests of a foreign state.
Help C&I 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, 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.