…young mother and father, and 7-month old baby shot to death in Mexico.  Contrary to the article, the country is not experiencing a “drugs crisis”, it’s experiencing the predictable violence that springs up in a Drug War.  Prohibition incentivizes the creation of powerful cartels who use violence to enforce their market share.  That’s why innocents are being slaughtered.  It’s a failure of public policy, and those with decision-making power over that policy and continue to support that violence-and-crime-inducing policy have blood on their hands.

…in totalitarian California.

Hillary banks around $225k per speech, or $129 million between her and Bill from 2007 to 2014.

Einstein predicted their existence 100 years ago.

Claims the murder left him traumatized, and wants a $10 million payday.  He also killed an innocent bystander in the process of slaying the teen.

Laurence Vance has a set of 50 questions that separate the real libertarians from the posers.

To realize how truly revolutionary the internet is, just imagine what it must have been like to search for information, compile it, write something coherent, and then find an outlet to publish it.  Mind-boggling.  News outlets were Establishment, there was no comments section to voice a dissenting opinion, and no place to discuss the news of the day.  That all changed with the internet.  Just think about how easy it is to start a blog, to hyperlink to all your sources with just a mouse click!  We can rip apart Establishment shills in the comments section of almost every news/opinion piece, and there are an almost endless list of alternative news and opinion sites to visit.  The Establishment gatekeepers have no idea what to do, they don’t have the stranglehold on information anymore.  The internet is the ultimate in “People Power”, all we have to do is use it.  The information that the political class would rather you not learn is out there, ready to be learned, for free.  All you have to do is sit down and learn.

This blurb was inspired by the European attack on hyperlinking.

“Service is the rent we pay for living in this great country.”, said She at a rally in New Hampshire

Ha!  Ha!  This short sentences presumes so much, reveals so much about the brain that emitted it, that it’s difficult to know where to start.

First, who should be serving whom, mac?  Servants serve, so are we viewed as a nation of them, and by Hillary?  The idea of liberty is that, if government is to exist at all, it is to be doing all the serving around here.  Invoking “this great country” to justify “service” to the government that has destroyed it is an insult to those whose wallets are continually pilfered to pay for the ridiculous schemes that she will no doubt enact as President.

Second, this country didn’t become “great” by the grace of gift-wrapped thugs like the Clintons.  It’s greatness stemmed from whatever liberty was allowed to grow during the short years when parasites like Hillary didn’t have access to political power.  It’s greatness is being dismantled by the likes of Hillary and her ilk, all the while chiding you for complaining about it.

Kevin Williamson has a good write-up of this one as well.

Jeffrey Tucker writes on the ugly Eugenics movement of the 1920’s here.

Climate debate has of late veered toward questions of whether a State-appointed scientific elite should handle climate policy decision-making.  BAD idea, if the behavior of eugenics “scientists” are any indication.  These are scientists that are unusually amenable to using government force in sickening ways to achieve their ends.  From panics about “racial suicide”, the immigration of “degenerate races”, and, finally, forced sterilization upon the recommendation of these “scientists”, the Eugenics movement is evidence of what happens when you graft government violence onto “science”.

From Tucker’s article:

“Today we find eugenic aspirations to be appalling. We rightly value the freedom of association. We understand that permitting people free choice over reproductive decisions does not threaten racial suicide but rather points to the strength of a social and economic system. We don’t want scientists using the state to cobble together a master race at the expense of freedom. For the most part, we trust the “invisible hand” to govern demographic trajectories, and we recoil at those who don’t.

But back then, eugenic ideology was conventional scientific wisdom, and hardly ever questioned except by a handful of old-fashioned advocates of laissez-faire. The eugenicists’ books sold in the millions, and their concerns became primary in the public mind. Dissenting scientists — and there were some — were excluded by the profession and dismissed as cranks attached to a bygone era.

Eugenic views had a monstrous influence over government policy, and they ended free association in labor, marriage, and migration. Indeed, the more you look at this history, the more it becomes clear that white supremacy, misogyny, and eugenic pseudoscience were the intellectual foundations of modern statecraft.”

Those among us that clamor for greater government control over our lives are calling for just the sort of official monstrosity that occurred during the Eugenics nightmare.

…war.  War gives a government the excuse it needs to break free of its constitutional chains and run rampant, trampling liberty.  John Adams said it better 200 years ago than anyone could today:

“Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”