08/03/16 – Daniel McAdams – The Scott Horton Show

Hey, Al Scott Horton here to tell you about this great new book by Michael Swanson, The War State.
In The War State, Swanson examines how Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy both expanded and fought to limit the rise of the new national security state after World War II.
If this nation is ever to live up to its creed of liberty and prosperity for everyone, we are going to have to abolish the empire.
Know your enemy.
Get The War State by Michael Swanson.
It's available at your local bookstore or at Amazon.com in Kindle or in paperback.
Click the book in the right margin at scotthorton.org or thewarstate.com.
All right, y'all, Scott Horton Show.scotthorton.org is the website with all the archives there, 4,000 of them.
And sign up for the podcast feed there as well, scotthorton.org.
Follow me on Twitter, at scotthortonshow.
All right, so introducing our friend Daniel McAdams.
He is the director of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.
For many years he was Ron Paul's foreign policy advisor in his congressional office.
And now they run this institute with a great many writers, and they do a daily show called The Liberty Report on YouTube, which you can watch live and all the archives there.
And I wanted to say, Dan, that I want other people, I guess, to appreciate as much as I do the fact of just how important your role has been in being Ron Paul's foreign policy advisor all this time.
I mean, he's really good on all this stuff on his own, as I'm sure you agree.
He knows all of this stuff, but he can't do it all.
And I think having access to you as his foreign policy kind of Jiminy Cricket on his shoulder there, ready to fill in anything he needs to know all this time, has really helped him to keep foreign policy front and center, especially as you all talk about on your TV show or your Internet show that you guys do every day there.
And, of course, that's very important because of the role that Ron Paul plays in our society, of showing that you don't have to be Michael Moore to be anti-war.
And so I want to give extra thanks to you for the role that you play in all of that, and being good enough that he would build an entire institute around the work that you do.
And it's invaluable to all of us.
That's why we run what you write at AntiWar.com all the time, and the rest of your colleagues there.
It's a very important presence on the web you have and all of that.
So extra thanks.
That's all.
Well, thanks very much, Scott.
Very kind of you.
Sure thing, man.
You deserve it.
Okay.
So let's talk about Libya.
Barack Obama is bombing Libya.
Tell me everything you know.
Well, it's open-ended, is what they said, or there's no end in sight.
So we should be assured by that.
But, you know, Scott, I don't know if you watched the whole 37-minute press briefing from Peter Cook, the Pentagon spokesman.
I did because I wanted to see if any of the journalists in that room even remotely challenged him, why are we going back into Libya?
I thought you guys fixed the place.
Why is ISIS there now that you have to bomb them?
They certainly weren't there before.
You're bombing Gaddafi's hometown.
You know, what's up?
You guys messed up or what?
Nothing.
About 34 minutes into it, I think, if I remember right, or 28 minutes into it, there was one journalist that asked the question, well, where do you get your authority to do this?
Pretty good question.
Of course, the answer was, well, the 2001 authorization for the use of military force, of course, what they've been using all along.
Of course, Libya, as we know, had nothing to do with 9-11, and ISIS did not even exist on 9-11.
And furthermore, as you know, Scott, ISIS and al-Qaeda are not exactly bosom buddies.
So what kind of a stretch is that that they're using the AUMF from 2001?
Yeah, and they've been getting away with that for a long time.
It's amazing the way they do that.
In fact, they've used that same authorization for bombing the Islamic State in former western Iraq and eastern Syria as well, right?
Yeah, exactly.
That's what they're claiming.
That's what they claim.
And when pinned down, Obama has said, well, bombing Libya does not constitute hostility, so I don't need to report under the War Powers Act either.
So tell that to the people on the ground.
All right.
So now there's how many governments in Libya and how many of them invited us to launch this war there?
Yeah, exactly.
Here's the whole thing.
You know, Libya has been in chaos since we liberated it and gave them their freedom and democracy back.
There have been rival governments, militias, gangs, genocides of black Libyans, you name it.
Every kind of pestilence known to man has befallen Libya after we've fixed the country for them.
But, you know, there have been two rival governments, one in the west and one in the east.
And, of course, the U.S. has its own CIA guy in there that they want to take power.
So what do you do?
What would be the democratic solution?
Well, the U.N. comes in and cobbles together something and says, this is your new government.
This is your government now.
And, of course, they don't dare to actually go back to Tripoli and rule the country.
So they're stuck in Tunisia for I don't know however many months.
They finally snuck in on a ship from Tunisia, but they had to go straight to a naval base.
They couldn't actually go to the capital.
They slunk around a naval base for a few months.
And I think it was only last month that finally this wonderful new government was able to sneak out from under their rock and so-called rule Libya.
And what's one of the first things they did when they came out in the open is they called up Washington and said, hey, will you please come bomb us again?
That's incredible.
All right.
So now I guess there's been wars and rumors of wars there in Libya over the past few months, right?
British SAS and, I guess, American special forces on the ground preparing the battlefield.
Is that it?
Because you need somebody on the ground pointing laser designators at your targets if you want to hit what you're trying to hit, right?
Yeah, and I think the Pentagon briefer was somewhat circumspect when it came to the idea of whether there were U.S. special forces on the ground.
The answer then being yes, of course, because he wasn't saying.
But you remember, Scott, a couple of weeks ago, three French military, I think French special forces, showed up dead in Libya.
And it caused quite an outcry.
There was a lot of protest in Libya because it wasn't known that French troops were on the ground actively taking part in this ongoing civil war in Libya.
So that caused a stir.
But most definitely the U.S. has been around.
They've even warned that we're going to go back in there to Libya and start bombing again.
There were some bombs.
What was it in, I want to say March or April, the U.S. dropped a few bombs.
But we're told that this is actually a campaign.
This to me looks like the equivalent of what happened in 2014 when Obama announced that we're going into Syria and Iraq for the long haul.
This is what it sounds like to me.
Yeah, even more so than when they originally launched the Odyssey Don war in Libya back in 2011.
There they at least said, and I actually didn't believe them, but it turned out to really be right, that their objective.
I mean they lied to the U.N. and the Russians and everybody.
Don't get me wrong.
But they were really right that once they announced or admitted that their real goal was regime change in Tripoli, but that they didn't really want to invade and garrison the place.
That much was true.
That was my worst prediction.
It's taken five whole years for it to get that bad that they've gone ahead to reinvade, which I thought would have happened much sooner.
I mean it's the same prediction coming true, but just over a much longer period of time.
But yeah, I see what you mean when they say, you know, yeah, open-ended until we're done making sure that what?
Every last man with a rifle in Libya who's willing to fight about it is dead?
Or what?
Yeah, but we were assured by the Pentagon spokesman that this bombing raid was absolutely targeted.
We took out a tank and a couple of trucks.
So, you know, it's how many millions of dollars did we spend on this aircraft and on the missiles?
The missiles are about 50 grand each.
How much did we spend taking out a couple of junkie pickups and probably an old tank from God knows when?
You know, but I'm sure the military industrial complex is happy that we're back in there because it's very, very good for business.
Yeah, well, that much is true.
Although, you know, I was just reading a thing in Bloomberg today about how bad it's been for the oil business and how nobody wants to pull into port and try to pick up some oil and leave with it because of the security situation there.
So it just depends on who's lobbyists got the best stakes or something, I guess.
Yeah, I mean, the interventionists even suck at being colonialists.
You know, they can't get anything right.
Can't even steal oil.
That's what Donald Trump says.
You can't even steal the oil right.
The oil's still sitting there.
Why didn't we steal it all?
Like, you could just pick it up in one big scoop or something.
I don't know exactly what he thinks.
Exactly.
But, you know, I mean, I think the reasons behind why we're going in now I think are all pretty interesting.
And I don't know what your take is, Scott, but to me, I think a couple of big factors.
One is Hillary, and I guess we can get into that.
That's what I would have said first was, yeah, Hillary, politics.
We can't leave Libya as an open issue for Trump.
At least they're doing something about it now or something, you know, try to ameliorate that a bit.
Yeah, I think that's it.
And to turn the conversation about ISIS, not about the failure of interventionism.
So if you are to object to the U.S. bombing Libya to take out ISIS, then you look like you're pro-ISIS.
What the heck is your problem?
You know, that's what they did.
That's what they did with the Yazidis back in 2014 when they wanted to start bombing Iraq and Syria.
Right.
So, you know, they changed the conversation.
It's about ISIS, not about the failure of the U.S. intervention.
And Trump's already on the record supporting bombing Libya right now.
So they're not going to get any trouble from him on that.
So that makes good sense politically.
In his usual way, we got to do it.
I don't know.
We got to do it.
We got to do it.
You know, the guy is without a compass.
But I think the other issue, and I find this slightly more interesting because the whole Hillary stuff is pretty predictable.
And, yeah, they'll kill a few hundred or a few thousand Libyans.
They don't count.
You know, this is all about getting Hillary elected.
And these are only a bunch of, you know, desert rats or something.
But I think what strikes me as more interesting is the idea that the rise in popularity of Saeed Qaddafi, I think, is another very big factor.
Both the U.S. and this coalition government are deathly afraid of the return of the Green Movement in Libya.
And I think the reports of the release of Saeed in April scared the heck out of them.
And it's so much so that the government of national accord even announced in July it's not true.
He's still in jail.
He's not subject to amnesty because he's guilty of crimes against humanity and genocide.
But there is a growing movement in Libya.
People look at how horrible their so-called liberation is.
And there is a resurgence in interest and sympathy for what Qaddafi had.
As our socialist friends will remind us, it was a pretty well-off country.
They did pretty well there.
So I think they've got to head this off.
And I think for the U.S., if Saeed Qaddafi comes back to power and brings the Green Movement back to power in Libya, it's an absolute refutation to the faith of what the U.S. did.
And it's going to cause people to say, what the heck did we waste all that money for and kill all those people for?
Yeah, that's a real good point.
I didn't realize that he'd been sprung and that he had so much support.
But I could certainly see why Hillary Clinton would cut his throat herself before she'd let him get back on that throne.
Yeah, she'd take the knife that killed her father or his father.
I mean, that'd be like Uday Hercuse coming up and taking over Iraq.
And just think about what that would mean for the Bush family, right?
You'd have Jeb do a coup and seize power to reinvade.
Yeah, yeah.
And I personally don't find it shocking that the people of Libya, probably a lot of them bought the lies that, hey, we're going to have our freedom.
We're going to be rich.
We're going to be like Switzerland.
It's going to be great.
We're going to have democracy.
They all believe the lies.
The Ukrainians believe the lies.
So many Syrians believe the lies that are told to them about their color revolutions and liberations.
But, you know, a couple of years later, they look around and see how much worse things are, how horrible it is in Libya.
And I can see them saying, gosh, it wasn't great back then, but, you know, we could eat.
We had jobs.
We had normal lives.
And it's understandable.
Yeah.
Well, and you could see anybody.
Well, you know, you associate yourself with Dr. Ron Paul all day.
Certainly you understand this.
Anybody with an economic understanding at all could see why outside intervention from European and North American powers in a place like Libya is going to create a situation, even if you don't know the names of a single person or faction on the ground whatsoever or anything about them.
It's just a mathematical type thing.
This should be called the Horton curve or something where, you know, when your ignorance is this much, but you invade a country anyway, then you're going to get that much violence as people fight over who's going to inherit the power in this in this huge vacuum.
When huge distortions are created, when the CIA is putting a ton of guns and money in the hands of group, you know, B, G and K or whatever, you know, like on a random basis, their power becomes inflated.
The people who just got overthrown now have all this reason to fight like hell.
People who've been ignored all this time and finally see their chance to make things right for themselves come out of the woodwork that, you know, nobody even knew was there.
And how could it possibly be any other way, Dan?
I guess it's going to be Barack Obama's dream come true in Libya somehow.
Yeah, and it's what my good friend Chuck Spinney calls a self-licking ice cream cone because there's something for everyone.
It's a perpetual circle, you know, for our local for the local governments there.
It's absolute corruption.
Both of these factions are notoriously corrupt.
You know, they're they're piling into their pockets money there, you know, for the military industrial complex.
You know, it's more bombing, more bombs for the for the think tank complex in Washington.
It gives them, you know, more papers to write and on and on and on it goes for the for the USAID types.
They can go in and teach all sort of our social mores to these Libyans and tell them to be just like us, you know, and there's just something in it for everyone.
Intervention is just keeps it keeps paying off to these people.
But, you know, it certainly doesn't pay off for those of us that will pay the bill in our children.
And it certainly doesn't pay off to the thousands and tens of thousands and more who are killed or have their lives destroyed.
Yeah.
All right.
Well, as long as I got you on the line, let's go back and talk about 2011 here.
And I mean, there's so many different aspects to focus on.
But I guess the most important, I think, Dan, would be what Hillary called, according to The New York Times, her bank shot.
Let's take the weapons and the fighters from Libya and let's send them on to Syria.
And now it's the perennial topic.
I guess, you know, my audience must be getting bored about this.
But for me, it's a Rubik's cube that I just can't quite solve, even when I apply all of my worst cynicism to it.
That how could it really be that right at the time they're killing Osama and they've adopted this political position that, hey, the war on terror is over.
We won that.
And so now we can get on to other things.
How could those other things at virtually the exact same time, Dan, be to take the side of Libyan members of al-Qaeda, members of original al-Qaeda from Osama and friends in Afghanistan, as well as veterans of al-Qaeda in Iraq who, you know, fought under Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
And then after the awakening and what have you, hitchhike their asses back home to Libya.
How could they have done this?
What in the world?
And we can read in the in the Blumenthal memos to Hillary Clinton from her emails that she had a pretty good idea of what was going on there.
We certainly know in the case of Syria that one of her emails has her underlings saying, hey, look, boss, AQ is on our side in this one.
When al-Zawahiri endorses the rebellion in Syria.
And I think I've played the clip for you before.
I don't have it handy.
But there's the clip where she explained to CBS News basically the Obama position in the very beginning of 2012.
Why aren't we doing more in Syria?
Well, al-Zawahiri has endorsed the revolution, the rebellion or opposition, she says, in Syria.
Are we supporting al-Qaeda in Syria?
And she means it rhetorically, like if if we're helping allies of al-Qaeda, aren't we in effect helping al-Qaeda?
That's what she's saying.
But then she did it anyway, Dan.
And she'd been doing it for a year.
And so I know she's stupid and I know she's mean and whatever kind of things.
And I know that, as you said, there's a lot of money at stake here.
But at the same time, you know, I don't know.
You worked in D.C.
There's got to be some kind of insight that you can shed on how this works.
You know, as bad as Bush was giving the western half of Iraq to Osama, he never outright fought on their side.
The al-Qaeda guy's side, the way Obama has done.
Hey, I'll check out the audio book 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 audio book.
Find it at Audible, Amazon, iTunes, or just click in the right margin of my website at scotthorton.org.
Yeah, you know, the cynicism and everyone being tied together, you know, is such a thing.
The groupthink is the word I'm looking for in Washington.
It's so strong.
But you say, how could they possibly do this?
But, you know, there are so many precedents.
You know, ask our friend Robert Perry about the U.S. siding with these right-wing death squads in Latin America in the 80s.
We knew they were horrible, terrible scumbags.
But we sided with them anyway because we thought we were so clever.
And these other people are just pawns in the game.
But you could see pretty early on, or I noticed when Hillary came to the Foreign Affairs Committee to do her usual briefings, that she was definitely weaponizing the State Department.
Her vision of the State Department had nothing to do with diplomacy.
It had to do with what they would call soft power.
It had to do with projecting force.
And it was – she totally was about redoing it.
And I think a lot of the Arab Spring was tied up in that, you know, forcefully causing things to happen.
You know, the making history happen is this very sort of Marxist view of history.
But making history happen and using the State Department as the tool to do that.
And I think that all ties in perfectly well with this idea that, hey, we've got all these weapons in Libya and we want to overthrow Assad.
So why don't we go ahead and mix together like a big salad and see what happens?
That will be great.
And, of course, the Israelis and the Saudis are applauding.
Great idea.
Right.
Why didn't we think of that?
Oh, wait, we did.
That's – yeah, that is a big part of it, is that neocon party line.
This was most abundantly clear in 2013 when there was the push for the bombing of Syria over the hoax sarin attack there.
Well, it really happened, but it was Turkey and al-Nusra what did it.
But the part about the neocons is most abundantly clear when it was the run-up when they were trying to push us into the war with Syria over the hoax sarin attack in 2013, which Obama eventually, thank goodness, backed down from doing at the time, which would have really been something.
But right then, there was no one left in D.C. or anywhere who would really push for this thing other than the Israel lobby and the neoconservatives.
All other quarters more or less fell silent.
I mean, maybe the dumbest TV anchors would say, yeah, we're going to bomb them, and that's great, everybody knows that, or whatever.
But as far as interest groups and think tanks and these kinds of things, it was really just the lobby who – I actually kind of theorized at the time that maybe Obama was baiting them, that he knew he wasn't really going to do it, but he decided to encourage them to go ahead and help him anyway just to kind of draw them out and humiliate them a little bit more.
I wish that was true, Dan.
But it is true that they were the only ones pushing for that thing.
It left it pretty obvious, the difference between those who put Israel first and everybody else around here.
Yeah, it was – I was actually surprised because they're not stupid people, the lobby, and they have a great read of policy and when to push and when not to push.
So I was actually a little surprised that they kept pushing it.
I thought they were pretty exposed by doing that.
But it's funny how this lie about Assad gassing his people continues on to this day even after it's still proven false.
I'm sure you saw this the other day, Scott, that Hillary's foreign affairs advisor, when she said that Hillary, when president, is going to reset on Syria, she's going to go ahead and take out Assad because he gassed his own people.
I mean it just takes on a life of its own.
Yeah.
Boy, is that article something else, that that's their trial balloon is.
And of course what that is is come over, Republicans, vote Hillary.
Hillary, that's what she's saying with all of that stuff is, you know, I'm going to hire Petraeus' gal, Flournoy, and we're going to go in there and blast the hell out of them.
Yeah, and to be honest, the left will be thrilled because there's going to be a female secretary of defense.
There's going to be a female secretary of state, Victoria Nuland.
And it's going to be girl power, isn't this great?
What a wonderful thing for feminism.
But in reality, it's going to be an absolutely monstrously war state.
And how many women are going to be killed and destroyed overseas from this?
Just terrible.
Yeah.
Yeah, it absolutely is.
It's unbelievable.
And now, you know, when you mentioned how debunked this is and that kind of thing, and the double thing going on there, there was the recent Atlantic piece of Barack Obama's lengthy interview and the article about it by Jeffrey Goldberg there, where the article literally begins, I think, the first or second paragraph is about how Assad did the sarin attack and sarin attack this and sarin attack that four or five times in the article.
But one of the times it's in there is the anecdote about the day that the national intelligence director told Barack Obama that evidence here is not a slam dunk, which is, of course, a direct reference to what George Tenet had assured George W. Bush about weapons of mass destruction.
Although in his defense, he claims he only meant that he thought that Bush would successfully be able to lie us into war based on that claim.
He never meant to say that the claim was true.
He said it's a slam dunk.
You'll be able to convince the people with this.
That's a different question.
But anyway, Clapper said, hey, I refuse to stand by the intelligence here, Mr. President.
Go ahead.
And in the same article where Goldberg breaks that huge story, he didn't cut it to the floor.
We can thank him for that.
He still goes on and calls.
I think he even calls it an Assad attack after that part later in the article, not just before.
But that's a huge one.
I mean, we knew at the time for filter all these report in the American conservative that there were CIA analysts who were threatening to resign en masse over it.
And that was why they had to put out a government assessment instead of a CIA assessment about the attack.
It's because the analysts refused to put their names on it because they didn't want to get hung out to dry again.
Yeah.
And it's easy to criticize the government as this monolith entity.
But I think it's important to remember that there still are very good and very honest people.
Doesn't mean I love government.
I can't stand it.
But there are very good and honest and honorable people in places like, for example, State Department's Intelligence and Research Bureau and in the CIA, people who stand on principle.
And, you know, there are a few of them that are willing to do things like resign.
You know, we know what about the leverage and people like that who have taken huge risks in their career because they did the right thing.
So they are out there and hats off to them for standing up to these guys.
Yeah, absolutely.
All right.
When the last war led to war in Mali and the spread of jihadism all across North Africa and then drone wars and more missions there and spread on to Syria and all this, you want to make any happy predictions about the future of Libya now that America has gone back to a bombing campaign there?
Well, I think it's all in the statement of the Pentagon spokesman.
You know, there's no end game.
There's no end result.
You know, they have absolutely no plan.
They have no vision of what Libya will look like after they succeed.
And the idea that they're going to do what created ISIS to get rid of ISIS to anyone with half a brain, it makes no sense at all.
And if we had any kind of an opposition party in the U.S., frankly, there would be impeachment going on right now over this whole shipment of weapons.
You know, we're told by Assange that they have 17,000 emails they're about to release that shows that Hillary absolutely knew about this shipment of weapons to the jihadists in Syria and did nothing about it.
You know, she didn't act alone.
She didn't wake up one morning and say, hey, let's do this.
She had to have had, you know, signing off on the very highest level.
So if we really had an opposition party in America instead of two war parties, there would be some heads rolling.
You know, this is impeachable stuff.
Yeah, well, we don't have an opposition party like that.
So I guess it's just going to continue on, unfortunately.
But, you know, I don't know, at least I don't know if you're watching Twitter feed today, but all the Republicans are just going at each other with knives.
It's beautiful.
And at the same time, I mean, really, where Trump's not promising to back the current speaker of the House of Representatives for reelection and all these kind of things.
And and at the same time, Hillary Clinton and she really is this blind, deaf and stupid.
Like, I don't even mind saying it out loud, even if I knew she was listening, because I she still couldn't take the advice.
Right.
She really thinks that running as, you know, Reagan or W.
Bush or something as as the tough guy warmonger is absolutely the smart play.
She even, you know, would attack Sanders from the right in the Democratic primary saying he's a wimp on Iran.
We can't trust him to be tough enough on Iran and stuff like that.
Where how naive of you to say you would talk with them and that kind of thing where politically that was totally the wrong thing to do.
Just go ahead and hold your fire on that, at least to the general.
But she's even attacking Sanders for that kind of thing.
And, you know, this whole thing on Russia and and, you know, all of her positions, as you mentioned, on Syria there and the rest of these things.
She's really blowing herself up in her own campaign.
She's destroying her own campaign so bad here, because if there's anybody left to vote for her in the country, it would be people who really don't approve of these policies.
I mean, you know, you mentioned leftists.
I think most leftists would really oppose it and hate her guts.
Liberals will go for it, but not that bad.
I mean, you can get some at the at the convention to chant USA.
But I saw pictures of the next day she held a rally at a church and there was like seventy five people there or something.
I mean, she is the hero of no one right now.
And she's you know, I don't know if the Democratic Party will suffer as bad as the Republican Party will suffer over Trump.
But, you know, at least there's I wouldn't have ever predicted accountability, for example, the Bush family or especially the Republican Party over the disaster that they had wrought in this form so soon.
I mean, really.
Right.
It's almost like somebody got their I dream of Jeannie to do this for us.
Go ahead and push them over the edge of the cliff.
And there they go.
So, yeah, small consolation for the Iraqis, but still.
Yeah, exactly.
But, you know, it does make you long for a real Republican antiwar candidate who I think could clean up if he were to, you know, Hillary to box itself in, as you pointed out.
You know, if Trump on his very best day, if that was the real Trump, then we could all stand up and cheer.
But unfortunately, the next day, he's completely the opposite.
And, you know, if we only had a Ron Paul going after Hillary right now, it would be time to pop the popcorn, I think.
Yeah, absolutely.
I mean, you know, Gary Johnson's running and every single criticism that he makes of Hillary, he could do, you know, a backhanded compliment of Trump and and score off of both of them.
Right.
Like, hey, listen, everybody knows that Trump supported invading Iraq and invading Libya.
But at least he's learned the lesson and he doesn't want to overthrow Damascus now.
You know, so that's good.
Maybe Hillary can take a lesson from Trump and back off all these regime change.
You know, something like that.
He could be absolutely taking them both to task, using them both against each other and all their contradictions.
What fun.
All he has to do is read Ron Paul and do his best Ron Paul imitation and turn the world upside down the way Ron did in the very best way, you know.
Well, he's much more interested in getting Romney to vote for him.
You know, that's that's his big goal.
You know, he's making a deal with the devil.
You know, when it comes to third parties, the only people are paying attention to is Jill Stein, because right now she's the only one making any sense on foreign policy.
Yeah.
And, you know, I interviewed her one time and she was solid.
You know, I tried to put her through the paces as best I could.
She knew what she was talking about.
She wasn't just principled, but she was informed, too.
And, you know, I got to disagree with her on, I guess, every other thing.
I'm sure she's good on cops and stuff, more or less.
But, you know, economics wise or whatever, I don't care about that.
I only care about the empire.
And she definitely is sound on that.
And I would say worth a protest vote on that basis.
I mean, I don't vote personally, but I wouldn't oppose someone voting for her.
We want to I would like to get her on the Liberty Report.
We can't seem to connect with her campaign.
So maybe if some of her supporters are listening to this show, tell her that we want to have her on this show.
I think it would be I think it would be great for our listeners to hear that there's someone out there who's challenging some of this.
Yeah, absolutely.
Well, I think I have her email from that one time.
So, you know, I'll try to see if I can drop her a line.
All right.
And now, Dan, one last thing is you guys have a big conference coming up in Washington, D.C.
Tell us everything.
We are taking non-interventionism into the belly of the beast.
But as Dr. Paul points out, we're not going to be inside the Beltway.
We're going to be just outside of the Dulles Marriott Airport Marriott.
So just an important distinction.
For him, it is especially.
But it's Peace and Prosperity 2016.
And we've got a super great lineup.
It's our first public conference at the Ron Paul Institute.
But, you know, Dr. Paul is going to be headlining it.
And we've got, you know, I mean, for me, it's been great because some of my favorite people are going to speak there.
We've got Lou Rockwell speaking there, you know, Dr. Paul's first chief of staff.
We've got Bumper Hornberger, who I've known for years, who is terrific, such a great writer, pure non-interventionist.
We have Brian McGlinchey, you know, and this is a great news story.
Here's a guy who thought, how can I get involved?
Hey, I'll start an organization demanding the release of 28 pages.
You know, and there has been some success there.
So he's going to give a little talk there.
And we just announced recently that Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson will be giving a speech at the conference.
So, you know, Colonel Wilkerson stared history in the face.
He stared the neocons in the face.
And he has got such a powerful story to tell.
And I spoke with him at a peace conference in Houston.
We spoke together, and he's just a terrific guy.
He's on the board of the Institute.
So we have a few other names we're going to trickle out as we go.
But, you know, we've had to actually get a larger venue because there's been such interest.
But we still have a few tickets left, and it's on the 10th of September.
And anyone who's interested can just go to our website, and there will be a link at the top on how you can get some more information about it.
Okay, great.
And, again, that's September the 10th, and at what hotel again?
It's at the Dulles Airport Marriott.
And it's super convenient if you fly into Dulles because it's like, boom, shuttle ride, you're there.
Perfect.
And we've got some cheap rooms too, special rooms that you can get a link to get a special rate.
So it's just a challenge.
It's challenging right in the heart of D.C.
It's challenging the interventionist thing.
Here is another way.
That's what it's all about.
Right.
Right on, man.
Well, great luck with that.
I sure hope that everybody listening who's on the East Coast in those tiny county-sized little states, you guys can drive a little bit to D.C.
It's not very far from wherever you are.
And get there and help support this thing and learn a lot.
And find out again all about it at the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity website.
Again, September the 10th there.
All right.
Well, listen, thanks very much, Dan, for coming back on the show.
You do really great work there.
Thanks very much, Scott.
It's always great talking to you.
All right, y'all.
That is the great Dan McAdams.
He is the co-host of the Liberty Report with the greatest American hero ever, Dr. Ron Paul.
You can find him on YouTube with the Liberty Report there.
And I think it's just libertyreport.com.
As well as ronpaulinstitute.org.
And it's not just Dan there.
They've got a great bunch of writers there covering all the most important news for you.ronpaulinstitute.org.
That's the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.
And that's this interview.
Check out the archives at scottwharton.org.
And I've got that very special offer going on, y'all.
Anyone who donates $50 to help support The Scott Horton Show, you get the brand-new Murray Rothbard book, Never a Dull Moment, a collection of lost Rothbard essays, only recently unearthed from 1967 and 1968, published in this great new book.
And it's not out yet, unless you get it from me.
So anyone who helps support the show with a $50 donation, I will send you a copy of Murray Rothbard's brand-new book.
So check all that out at scottwharton.org.
And follow me on Twitter at scottwhartonshow.
Thanks, y'all.
Because everyone deserves to drink great coffee.
Lots of them.
And, well, everything that matters.
LibertyStickers.com.
Everyone else's stickers suck.