06/30/08 – Anthony Gregory – The Scott Horton Show

My friends, welcome back to Antiwar Radio, Chaos 92.7 FM in Austin, Texas.
I'm your host, Scott Horton, and welcoming back to the show my good friend, Anthony Gregory.
He's researched something or other at the Independent Institute.
He writes for LewRockwell.com and StrikeTheRoot.com and a great many other libertarian publications in print and online.
Welcome back to the show, Anthony.
Hey, Scott.
It's great to be here.
Thank you.
It's good to have you here.
And listen, I got to tell you, I'm really disappointed in the Democratic Party after reading Seymour Hersh's new article in the New Yorker magazine verifying what Andrew Coburn wrote in Counterpunch a couple of weeks back about the Democrats giving hundreds of millions, turns out $400 million, to George Bush in order to support al-Qaeda-like terrorist groups in Pakistan.
Anthony, what's the matter with them?
Well, you know, no matter how low our expectations of the Democrats sink, we can still be disappointed, right?
It sure seems that way.
Yeah, and that's what it seems to me, because I know I've not been a fan of Democrats.
I've never voted for a Democrat, ever.
And in the 90s, I certainly didn't like the Democrats much.
But as you pointed out on your show last week, the Republicans have been so monstrous that it's been easy to think that the Democrats were the default Lester of evil.
But what's becoming increasingly clear as we're approaching November, even this default Lester of two evil status seems illusory, doesn't it?
Because it's not just that they aren't doing everything that you and I would like them to do, which is to get out of the way and to totally dismantle the police state.
But the Democrats have been capitalizing off of just how bad the Republicans have been on civil liberties and on foreign policy.
And mainstream America has kind of sensed that the Republicans have taken things too far.
But even with that, you know, political support, there would be public support for more resistance.
The Democrats aren't doing anything to curb even the most insane excesses in the imperial presidency and the warfare state and the police state.
Well, and, you know, they won the election in 2006.
Despite expectations, they took every single election that they were running.
Not a Democrat lost.
And they took control of both the House and the Senate.
And they did so basically by default.
It was kind of a running joke all summer, 2006, that while the Democrats aren't even really running as anything except not Republicans, they're hoping to win by default.
And people apparently hated the Republicans so much that that worked.
And yet they took that anti-war, anti-Bush administration mandate, and they've done jack squat with it.
No, you're right.
In fact, it wasn't very long until after they took the reins of Congress that they began giving Bush all the war spending he wanted and more, so long as Bush would do things like support minimum wage or whatever.
Justin Raimondo points out on antiwar.com a week or two weeks ago, the welfare warfare state.
And he points out that the Democrats don't even demand that much.
What they demand for domestic socialism is pretty minor compared to the huge warfare state that they're willing to support.
And I think that what this means is that it's not really a compromise at all.
They want the surveillance state and the police state.
And I pointed this out in an op-ed for the Independent Institute right after they won in 06.
I said, are they going to save our civil liberties?
Well, no, they've always trashed our civil liberties.
And when they're in power, they like to believe, the grassroots left likes to believe, well, once they get in power, they can do some good.
And now they're saying, well, we have to wait until they get the presidency, and then they can do some good.
But that's just... they're less likely to do good when they're in power.
And Obama's been saying this, in particular, about the surveillance stuff.
He used to say that he opposed it, especially telecom amnesty, and I know you've had the great Glenn Greenwald on to talk about this.
And now he says, basically, he says, trust me, when I'm the president, I'll monitor this to make sure that it's not abusive.
But the whole idea is that it's the executive that's supposed to be monitored when he's surveilling us.
That's the whole point of judicial review of surveillance.
It's not just so a different president can monitor himself.
Well, what does he know about that?
He only taught constitutional law at the university.
Yeah, he probably has less of an excuse, doesn't he, than, say, Bush, who, sure, he's the president, but what do presidents know about the Constitution?
Yeah.
And it is the same, whether it's the surveillance or the war.
They talk a good game, or at least a reasonable-sounding sort of, you know, leaning toward reasonable-sounding argument.
And yet, when it comes down to it, they just continue to roll over for the president.
And, you know, the excuse is, well, we're afraid that we'll look weak.
And yet, what looks weaker than that?
I mean, you look at the poll numbers.
They show that not only do people disapprove of Congress even more than they disapprove of the president.
They disapprove of Congress because they keep rolling over for the president.
It's when they stand up to him that people start to give them a little bit of credit.
Right.
And, you know, you remember in the 90s, people were saying this about the Republicans, people who came from a more conservative kind of pro-freedom orientation.
They thought that the Republican Congress was giving Clinton much of what he wanted, most of what he wanted, but once they had the presidency, it'd be fine.
And, of course, we saw that wasn't the truth at all.
And now, the idea is, if they keep rolling over, they can win, but it can't be just because they don't want to look weak.
It's because they actually want the government to have these powers.
When they have the Patriot Act, in the Senate, all but one voted for it, all the Democrats.
And then later, they try to blame that, just like they blame the war on Bush.
But in both cases, they renew the police powers, they renew the war spending, and their excuses change.
You know, four years ago, the Democrats said, well, we have to keep voting for war money because we need to support the troops, and there's elections, we can't just pull out.
They just keep this going, and the scam keeps going, and people are sick of Iraq, but now, as you pointed out, the war is on the brink of being widened significantly, and it's already been covertly widened a little bit into Iran, and it's quite frightening that there's not more of a stand.
And, of course, Obama doesn't take a stand on Iran either.
Right, yeah, the only stand he takes there is that they're the greatest threat to peace on Earth, and all options remain on the table.
Exactly.
You know, there's an article in McClatchy Newspapers today that Glenn Greenwald pointed to.
It's called, Is Obama Turning Out to be Just Another Politician?
And this goes to that question of, well, what's weak?
Refusing to go along with the Bush administration, or going along with them on things that are supposed to make you look tough, like violating the Bill of Rights from beginning to end.
And it turns out, in practice, Anthony, that compromising toward a tough war party policy hurts Obama, and it makes the people who believed in him, whatever problem they had, I hope they're over it now, look at him now and say, well, wait a minute, I thought you were our guy, now all of a sudden you're just as wishy-washy as John Kerry up there, all you want is power, and you'll say anything to get it?
Well, who wants to support that?
Well, you know, bringing up Kerry is a good point, because I recall in 2004, I mean, I'm not sure if this was a decisive thing, but it was a very close election, and I remember thinking, why is Kerry flip-flopping and trying to run as a war hero, when if he ran, the best he did in actually inspiring anybody, especially in the middle, and disaffected conservatives and liberals, was when he attacked Bush's war policy.
I mean, the closest he came was in that debate, I think, where he said, you know, you made the big mistake invading Iraq, you shouldn't have done that.
And that's what people like.
But it seemed a little disorienting how much he would back away from that, and say, we need to be even harder in Fallujah, and we need to be harder in Afghanistan, which all the Democrats, you know, Obama's for that now, widening that war in Afghanistan, or expanding it.
And it occurred to me, the reason that these people don't want to run on a more anti-war platform is because they don't believe in it.
And they don't want that.
Why would they work to dismantle a police state and empire, or even significantly curb their power, when they stand to inherit this power?
Right, you know, it reminds me of that article that Lew Rockwell wrote a long time ago about trying to decide which was more dangerous, the Republicans or the Democrats, and how the Republicans really are the party of the corporatists.
They're really not the party of the state.
They're the party of the corporations, and they want to get in there and use the government to just completely rape us and everybody else on Earth for four or eight years, if they can get away with that.
And then they turn it back over to the Democrats, and the Democrats are the party of the state.
And they care about the state, and they're professionals about the state, and they want to do everything to preserve the state.
And of course, there's nothing better for expanding state power than waging war overseas.
You can see, I'm against the telecom amnesty bill, and I don't think it's the federal government's authority to grant amnesty in this case.
But it is interesting that that was the one issue that could energize most actual Democratic politicians.
Because amnesty is one of the few things that we might object to, where it actually limits the government's power.
They're now for civil amnesty, which means we can't sue them.
But they might criminally prosecute, but they might also not prosecute.
They like the government just having this wide discretion.
So even in these tiny nuggets of hope that they'll throw us and then take away, they don't want to do anything that actually reduces the police state.
Like, what about amnesty for the actual government?
Why should the government get a break?
Greenwald wrote about how the amnesty part was good for latching onto, because that was good for getting the publicity.
That was good for, you know, this is one particularly egregious part of this bill.
Let's kill this bill.
And now we saw Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold in the Imperial Senate say that they were going to filibuster this, and they were going to stop it.
And now they're backing down from that.
And they're saying, well, we just want to get rid of the telecom immunity part.
But the entire rest of it, where the president can vacuum up any phone call an American happens to make or receive, that includes somebody overseas on the other end, we'll leave that, no judicial check, completely legalizing Bush's criminal surveillance program.
We'll leave all that in there, and that'll be just fine.
It's just the telecom amnesty that we're opposed to now.
You know, I do think that the corporations that are in league with the government are responsible for committing crimes and violations of our privacy.
That's certainly true.
And this is one area where, of course, the right is pretty weak when it comes to holding corporations accountable for actual wrongdoing.
But it's funny that they only want to punish the people that were ordered and requested by the government to commit these illegal spying acts.
You want to talk about amnesty, you know, this whole impeachment thing, you know, that's off the table, right?
And see, I wanted to get to that.
But, you know, what about amnesty for the guy from Quest, the CEO of Quest that refused to help the government tap his customers' phones that they immediately, you know, decided to indict and prosecute for insider trading and mail fraud and whatever else garbage they could try to stick on, you know, persecuting a guy who refused to conspire with them to break the law and violate the rights of his customers?
Well, that's the thing.
The Democrats do like to scapegoat, and there is blame to go around, but they scapegoat the corporate America.
But often, though, the worst leaders in corporate America are the ones most in bed with the state.
They're often big contributors to the Democratic candidates.
And so they'll attack the relatively good big businessmen more than the ones who are actually helping to enslave us.
Yeah.
And now, as far as impeachment, there's a lesson that I learned, I think, in the 1980s when I was a kid during Iran-Contra, and this is something that's just been reinforced over and over again throughout my life, and that is that a president can do anything he wants on the clock, including, for example, directly violate the FISA statute in the case of George Bush, the Boland Amendment in the case of Ronald Reagan.
He can have a secret war against Cambodia and Laos if he's Richard Nixon, but what he can do is commit crimes off the clock, like lie in a deposition about a sexual harassment lawsuit or a Watergate break-in by the campaign committee or what have you.
And this is something I've seen just in the last week, where people are writing about how Bush is a war criminal.
They have the paperwork now to show exactly where Bush, the rest of the principals, and all their lawyers were in on this plot to circumvent the law and have people tortured.
And yet, what do we get?
Well, this is a policy agreement, a disagreement, and we don't want to criminalize policy disagreements.
And so even though these things might technically violate war crime statutes, this certainly isn't the kind of thing you would impeach and remove people from power for, prosecute them in court for.
Because, gee, what if they criminalized our policy differences when we're the ones with the power?
Sure.
And it is torture.
It comes up a little bit, but here's one of these very serious issues that doesn't get much light.
They don't bring it up.
They talk a lot more about gasoline being expensive, which is important, but they don't want to talk about the really nasty stuff.
They don't want to talk about people in prison.
And this is one thing that I realized a while back.
I thought that the Republicans and the Conservatives were worse on things like law and order and the prison state and the drug war.
But in fact, the Democrats, they never make these things a campaign issue.
They never complain about any of the domestic civil liberty violations, either, any of the serious ones.
I mean, here we have the biggest prison population on earth.
We have a staggering incarceration rate.
And they don't touch that.
And actually, they promote it, and they pass laws that make the police state bigger, whether in the name of gun control or drug control.
And they also support building more prisons.
I know that Gray Davis, the governor here in California before Schwarzenegger took over, he was big with the prison lobby.
And if they don't even care about their own constituents, the poor, disenfranchised members of their own constituents being thrown in cages for non-crime, then we shouldn't expect them to care that much about someone halfway across the world being tortured by a CIA proxy.
Right.
And, you know, speaking of foreigners being tortured and murdered and ignored by the Democrats, what about the war in Somalia?
What does it get to take a hearing on that?
Well, no, exactly.
But they don't even want to talk about it, right?
I'd be surprised, I would be surprised, Anthony, if more than a few members of the Democratic Party in the Congress even knew that America had a regime change operation going on in Somalia since December 2006.
No, you're probably right.
I wouldn't want to bet you on that.
I'd be afraid of losing.
Also, you know, as we point out, and when libertarians like to point out that when the government does as many things as it's charged with doing, of course you can't expect legislators or the president or anyone to really keep track of it all.
And yet a war, that's a pretty big deal.
There's no excuse for that.
They should know about the foreign policy.
Now Dodd and Feingold are saying, well, they've succeeded in delaying the FISA vote, so now that they'll have their kind of Fourth of July week off, they'll have time to think about it.
But do you think they spend that time thinking about foreigners being killed in Somalia or Afghanistan, or do they spend that time thinking about FISA and the Fourth Amendment?
Probably not.
Of course not.
They probably don't spend much time thinking about it at all.
And, you know, you're right about Somalia.
There's Afghanistan, where now Americans are dying even more there, right, than in Iraq in the last month or so.
And they want more troops there, but I don't see why.
Well, that's the real war on terror.
Yeah, that's the real war on terror.
But in terms of the supposed goal that Americans rallied behind after 9-11, the goal of catching Osama and the bad guys, that work failed six and a half years ago, right?
Yeah, absolutely.
So ever since then, it's just been, you know, the one reason that Afghanistan hasn't been as much in the newspapers and hasn't been as much of a national disgrace is because we don't have more troops there.
It's still under 500 casualties there, although it's getting close.
Yeah.
Of course, after September 11th, some of the neoconservatives, I guess particularly Max Boot wrote, lamenting the lack of American casualties in Afghanistan.
We need to lose more American lives there so that, I don't know, to make it more worth it or something.
Well, they're allowed to say things like that.
They're allowed to say that a terror attack would be good for their candidate.
Yeah.
I want to play a clip for you here, Anthony.
This was, I think the guy's name was Charles Davis, Charlie Davis, something like that.
Sorry if I got that wrong.
He stopped by the blog the other day and he dropped off this soundbite.
It's a recording of an interview that he got, you know, on the steps of the Imperial Senate with John D. Rockefeller IV, known as J. Rockefeller, the senior senator from West Virginia, or junior senator from West Virginia.
I forget.
Anyway, so this is a clip from last year when Brian Ross from ABC News first broke the story about the CIA and whatever other covert agencies financing Jandala, the al-Qaeda-like terrorist group there in Western Pakistan for use against the Iranians.
And this is John Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
This is what he had to say about his powers of, you know, checks and balances and so forth up there.
Is there anything that you could do in your position as chairman of the Intelligence Committee to maybe find answers about this, if it is in fact going on?
Don't you understand the way intelligence works?
Do you think that because I'm chairman of the Intelligence Committee that I just say I want it and give it to me?
They control all of it.
All of it.
All the time.
I only get, and my committee only gets, what they want to give me.
Is there any way, maybe not you, but somehow, that they can press the administration to find something as they're doing this?
It may be illegal.
Are there any ways to find out?
I don't know that.
I deal with intelligence.
That's it.
They tend to avoid us.
So, there you go.
That's John Rockefeller saying, I'm sorry, you know, whatever covert action America might be engaged in against the Iranians, I have no idea what it is and I'm not even going to bother to ask because they wouldn't answer me.
Well, that's, you know, that's a very, that's pretty humble, isn't it?
He says that he has no power.
He can't even try to subpoena them or anything.
That shows a lot of character on his part, right?
Yeah.
Well, it'd be one thing if these Democrats tried even the least bit, but they, but they don't even try the least bit.
And they're, they're shameless in lying and distorting why it is that they're not doing anything.
Because when they talk about, when liberals talk about the Bush administration, a large part of the time, maybe the vast majority of the time, I agree when they talk about how lawless it is, it's become fascist, it's become totalitarian.
But then the Democrats go up there and rubber stamp it.
And it's, it's all politics.
Very well, you need to, you know, we need to get this housing act or we need to get elected.
But if it's really fascist and totalitarian and all this stuff that they say, why not hold the Democrats to the same standard?
I mean, you don't just, you don't bargain with the Gestapo to get a higher minimum wage.
Yeah.
Well, I wish more people would, would take that point of view.
And, you know, speaking of what bloody handed monsters these Democrats actually are, let's remember that the Democrats, the leadership, you know, the gang of eight or whatever they call it, even when they were in the minority position in the house and the Senate, they were all read in on the torture program.
Nancy Pelosi knew all along that George Bush was torturing people and didn't do a thing about it.
No.
And I don't think they want to run on civil liberties too much either.
They'll do it a little bit, but they don't want to run on it because then they might be held to it at least somewhat.
Yeah.
That and look weak on terrorism.
And you know, this whole week thing to the Democrats credit, they kind of stopped being as much of the leaders of the war party, starting with Nixon, though, of course, the Democrats in Congress didn't do much at all to stop Nixon until, you know, much later they didn't do, they just kept supporting the war, even though they didn't believe in it anymore because the Republican was in charge, but they still supported it.
But, you know, the Democrats have been kind of not the way they used to be.
And there was a time in, in 04 or 05 when Bush gave his second, inaugural address.
And he talked about how America used to be, you know, this great leader in the world.
And we're doing this again, just like world war one, world war two and the cold war.
And Rush Limbaugh was sounding like this, like an old Democrat, as in like an FDR Democrat.
And he was saying, Rush was saying, what happened to the Democrats?
Now they're not like they used to be back when they'd be willing to kill lots of foreigners and torture and put people in the concentration camps.
And I thought, well, maybe the Democrats really aren't as bad as they used to be, which was being lamented by the conservatives.
But now Obama, he switched gears, and he did change a little.
Once he clinched the nomination, he started invoking Truman and FDR and Kennedy.
You know, he invoked the people who gave us the cold war, who created nuclear weapons and nuclear warfare, dropped nuclear weapons on civilians, terror bombed multiple countries, and created the permanent military industrial complex and US global empire.
And this is supposedly what we want to go back to.
We never really left it.
And you look at the people he's surrounded with, like Brzezinski and Albright, and these are the people whose policies led to 9-11.
It was the interventionism before Bush that led to the blowback.
And this is not a golden era to reclaim at all.
They think that the biggest problem with Bush is he's been bad PR for the empire.
And that's a frightening thought.
Yeah, you know, I totally agree with you about that.
The idea that, you know, what we need to do really to look strong is to invoke Truman, who was, you know, the bloody-handed butcher.
Hey, for the people who never heard of it, why don't you tell the people about Operation Keelhaul there, Anthony?
Well, during Yalta, when FDR and Churchill and Stalin were discussing basically how to carve up Europe, and there were discussions then and later on Asia too, but there was an agreement made around that time to repatriate people to their countries of origin.
Now, in the case of POWs, who should have been in Britain or in America, but they were caught somewhere in the middle of Eastern Europe, they did want to be repatriated.
But a lot of POWs and a lot of refugees and a lot of people who had been dissidents and had escaped by the skin of their teeth from Stalin's regime, they weren't so happy about being returned.
And Operation Keelhaul was a allied effort at the close of the war with Churchill, and it was Truman by the time, because FDR died.
So Truman took over, and what they did was they rounded up people all over the world.
There were some in the US, there were some in Australia, and there were throughout Eastern Europe, and they rounded these people up at gunpoint in many cases, or they tricked them, and they put them on boxcars and on ships, and they sent them back to Stalin.
And the exact number isn't known.
The estimates range, you know, one million, two million, but we're talking about lots of people who were forcibly repatriated back to Stalin and who were worked to death, or just shot, or disappeared.
And this is the kind of compromise we expect from the Democrats, you know?
A compromise with the biggest butcher in world history, to send him more people to butcher.
And, you know, Truman's legacy began with this kind of stuff and with Kirishima and Nagasaki, and then it continued with his wanting to create a national security state and build up the military.
The Korean War.
Right, right.
But right before the Korean War, he was trying to find excuses, and then he supported the regime in Greece, and he's the one who, you know, after major wars, usually the US had kind of stopped going to war as much, and had been kind of sick of it.
The Americans were sick of it, but Truman kept it up.
He started his term with a big bang, and he ended it with another war that killed, you know, probably a million civilians or more with the strategic bombing.
And this is another thing the Democrats tend to like, is bombing people.
Clinton in the 1990s sure bombed the hell out of everybody.
I guess that's what you're referring to there with the Madeleine Albright reference.
Right.
The thing is, in the 90s, Clinton didn't really endanger the lives of that many American troops, because he knew there'd be a little bit resistance.
You know, the conservatives didn't want to see this draft dodger sending our boys to die for someone else's war.
Not like George Bush doing the same.
Yeah, it better be a conservative doing that.
But the liberals, they can get away with bombing.
And, you know, some liberals care and some conservatives care, but a lot of Americans, they just don't care that much about it.
You know, it's not, it might be a mistake, or they might think this is clumsy.
They might even think it's a tragedy, but there's something pretty gruesome about this accepted modern practice of dropping explosives on people.
Well, I got to tell you, if Barack Obama holds true to his, you know, photo opportunity so far and brings Madeleine Albright into this administration as his Secretary of State or something else like that, we could be in for some real trouble as you wrote on my blog and I guess just mentioned, this lady was the architect or one of the architects of the policy that got us attacked on September 11th.
And now here goes the soundbite that you and I have heard and everybody who listens to this show have heard.
But most Americans have not.
Oh, I left out some of the people who have also heard this.
Everyone in the Arab world has heard this.
Most Americans have not.
Short clip of Madeleine Albright back when she was the Secretary of State in the 1990s.
We have heard that a half a million children have died.
I mean, that's more children than died when in Hiroshima.
And, you know, is the price worth it?
I think this is a very hard choice, but the price we think the price is worth it.
And now I guess we're supposed to count on Madeleine Albright and the rest of the Obama brain trust to solve our war on terrorism problem here, Anthony.
Yeah.
And to get the Muslim world less upset.
Right.
Yeah.
Should work well.
You know, I believe I'm not positive, but I believe that at the time of that, she was the U.N. ambassador.
Oh, really?
She was made.
I believe she was made the Secretary of State just weeks after that.
So that's how she was rewarded.
Yeah, that's right.
That was her promotion for doing such a great job on 60 Minutes, I guess.
Yeah, you're right.
The Muslim world, you know, they heard this arrogance coming from the Clinton people and they didn't appreciate this either.
And at home, I've heard a Muslim rights activist, for what it's worth.
They actually many of them favored Bush in 2000 because they didn't like that Gore wouldn't talk to them or something.
And Clinton, they weren't crazy about that.
Of course, want to talk about betrayal.
I mean, this guy just rounded right after 9-11.
You and I were talking about this the other day.
They just rounded up a bunch of people.
Right.
The Justice Department did.
Yeah.
And this is one of those many civil liberties, extreme civil liberties violations that it was seems like ancient history, you know, even though, you know, because we all know history started on 9-11.
Right.
So to think about anything that was too close to the origins of of our history would be difficult.
It would strain the modern imagination.
Well, you know, there was that poll that said that what, a third of Americans or something could not identify what year the September 11th attacks took place in.
Yeah, I've seen I've seen stuff like that.
And I saw that older Americans are more likely to not remember, which makes some sense.
And we might have some hope in the American short attention span and that Americans aren't as upset.
And it's only been six and a half years since 9-11.
Yeah.
So maybe maybe their lack of memory skills might help us out.
The panic has subsided a bit quicker than it might have in another society where people actually remember things.
Six and a half years.
You'd think that by now we would we'd have something to say about the Afghanistan war other than we need more troops there.
I mean, this is a really disturbing thing.
That war isn't over.
That war could get worse.
And there's very little hope.
And I still believe that compared to McCain, the Democratic candidate is less loathsome and frightening.
Right.
And it's only because he's worse, not because they're any better, though.
Right.
Yeah.
Well, I think that I think either of them are have a very good chance of being worse than Bush.
Yeah.
And this is something liberals don't want to believe that anyone can be worse than Bush.
Oh, it can happen.
Bush is nothing compared to Woodrow Wilson or Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson.
These people killed millions and millions.
And Harry Truman and Harry Truman.
Boy, you'll never let me leave out Harry Truman.
Automatic president.
Of course, there's one thing those four presidents had in common, that the and they're they're all big D after their name.
Yeah.
And the Democrats, you know, liberals today, they don't want to look back on Woodrow Wilson.
I mean, some do.
And, you know, the story and this is World War one is a war that Americans question if they even know there was a war, world war that didn't have a two after.
Well, I'll just be happy if we can get them to question World War three, Anthony.
Hey, thanks a lot for your time today, everybody.
That's Anthony Gregory writes at the Independent Institute.
Strike the root dot com.
We Rockwell dot com.
Many other places.
Future Freedom Foundation.
Thanks very much for coming on the show today.
Thank you.