Description

Reese Erlich talks to Scott about the war in Yemen and about his latest article on the Russiagate controversy. Erlich thinks we can be cautiously optimistic about Yemen now that public pressure against the war is mounting (a recent poll found that 75% of Americans oppose it), and with the senate passing its resolution invoking the War Powers Act. This resolution doesn’t actually make the war illegal, but politically it may force President Trump’s hand. The same poll that showed public opposition to the war also found that a significant number of Americans didn’t even know the U.S. was involved in a war in Yemen. Scott and Erlich lament the way that the government and the media deliberately obfuscate many of our foreign conflicts so that it doesn’t really feel like war to most Americans until there are significant troops on the ground and trillions of dollars wasted. This keeps people with essentially antiwar sentiments from very actively opposing America’s wars, as does the Russiagate narrative, which Erlich explains pushes Liberals who should oppose Trump for his foreign policy right into the hands of the “intelligence community.”
Discussed on the show:
“Sex, Russia, and Impeachment” (Progressive.org)
S.J.Res.54
War Powers Resolution
“A Middle East Monarchy Hired American Ex-Soldiers To Kill Its Political Enemies. This Could Be The Future Of War.” (Buzzfeed)
“Manafort held secret talks with Assange in Ecuadorian embassy, sources say” (The Guardian)
Reichstag fire
Reese Erlich is a freelance journalist who has reported from the Middle East for decades. His nationally distributed column, Foreign Correspondent, appears every two weeks. He is the author of The Iran Agenda Today: the Real Story of U.S. Policy and the Middle East Crisis. Find him on Twitter at @ReeseErlich or at his website.
This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: Kesslyn Runs, by Charles Featherstone; NoDev NoOps NoIT, by Hussein Badakhchani; The War State, by Mike Swanson; WallStreetWindow.com; Roberts and Roberts Brokerage Inc.; Zen Cash; Tom Woods’ Liberty Classroom; ExpandDesigns.com/Scott; and LibertyStickers.com.

See More See Less

Subscribe

Leave us a review, comment or subscribe!

Meet the hosts

discussions

  • Hello Liberty Lovers, Today, while procrastinating my school work, I started developing a new website called dictatometer.com (don’t bother visiting it because it isn’t up yet) Basically, it measures how close America is to becoming totalitarian. I got the development covered, but I need your help with the content. I basically need a huge checklist of things that a government would do in order to become totalitarian. Here is an example – Complete control over education (i) — Federal Education Agency (y – DoE: http://www.ed.gov/ — Control over curriculum (i – Common Core: http://www.corestandards.org/) — Nationalization of all schools (n) There will be a bunch of very extreme categories (such as Complete control over education) and then subcategories that are incremental steps towards complete control. So, in this instance, there are three steps towards the complete control over education. As you can see, in parenthesis, I indicated “y”, “n”, and “i”. “Y” means that we already have that in America. “N” means that we do not yet have it in America. “I” means that we are in progress of getting it in America, but do not have it in it’s entirety. If you mark anything with Y or I, please be sure to give a brief explanation and a source for why it is so. If you have spare time, please contribute by posting your list here and I will combine them and put them on the website. If you want, I will include your names in the credits. Thank you!   P.S. please note that I am not going to just copy and paste this list onto the website, it will be nicely formatted. I just need the content.

    Jump to Discussion Post 1 reply
  • Hi everyone, We could all use a good laugh these days, so just thought I’d pass along one of our new animated videos. For Liberty, The Wry Guys

    Jump to Discussion Post 0 replies
  • When J. K. Rowling mentioned a petition to ban Donald Trump from the UK, the audience at the PEN Literary Gala applauded. But unlike much of the left, she knows that taking away freedom of speech threatens everyone, including her, and she rebuked the people who clapped. “Just a moment: Now, I find almost everything that Mr. Trump says objectionable. I consider him offensive and bigoted. But he has my full support to come to my country and be offensive and bigoted there. His freedom to speak protects my freedom to call him a bigot.” The people who applauded were doubtless the same ones who objected to PEN’s free speech award to Charlie Hebdo. While they’re not likely to be convinced by any argument, she may have gotten others to think about the danger in today’s spreading hostility to free speech. That’s what counts.

    Jump to Discussion Post 0 replies
  • It took me a while to understand that Trumpism isn’t really about the issues. Not even the issues of anti-immigration and protectionism. It’s about the Chosen One, the Great Leader, the Messiah. When people think things have gone badly wrong, they often turn to someone who will set them right by taking command. The outrageous things he does have only increased his popularity. He boasts, “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.” When this mentality takes hold, there is no right or wrong for the Leader. When he does outrageous things, that merely proves nothing will stand in the way of his will. Caesar, Napoleon, Lenin, Hitler, Castro, Khomeini: They’ve all known the trick of harnessing the tribalist mindset. The specifics they offered didn’t matter so much as the promise that nothing would stand in their way. They can’t do anything horrible enough to turn people against them, except for failing. Telling Trumpists that he’ll do horrible things or that his policies will hurt everyone is beside the point. They expect him to “make America great again” by sheer force of authority.

    Jump to Discussion Post 1 reply
  • Over the past five months or so, I admit I’ve been intrigued—indeed, perhaps obsessed—with the American elections. More specifically, I’ve been fascinated by the Trump phenomenon and by the stunning hordes of people that either support him and hate him. The time I’ve spent learning about American Democracy has made me realize that my previous opposition to statism as a whole, as well as my rejection of voting on principle, was founded on abstract and philosophical discussion alone. I had an utter lack of experience and interest in politics. Throughout my whole life, the political process has seemed hopelessly corrupt and out of reach. It was easy for me to conclude that voting was hopelessly pointless and probably immoral. Today my views have changed, not much, but enough that I feel compelled to talk about my thoughts and not just keep them to myself. This is an exploration of a self-defense case for voting that is consistent with Voluntaryist principles, as well as a discussion on the potential merits of voting for Donald Trump to advance the cause of liberty. Before I make that case however, let me lay down two essential facts that have propelled me to this point. The Voluntaryst Self Defense Case for Voting Trump

    Jump to Discussion Post 3 replies