Sixty-two years and $22 trillion later, the U.S. poverty rate sits at roughly 11 percent, almost identical to where Lyndon Johnson found it in 1964. The government ran the most expensive social experiment in human history and produced nothing measurable. Bureaucracies perpetuate themselves, and this policy worked exactly as designed. When Washington transfers purchasing power to the poor through SNAP, Medicaid, housing vouchers, and 126 other overlapping programs, it doesn't eliminate scarcity; it relocates decision-making from individuals to administrators. Those administrators develop career interests in perpetuating dependency, because a solved problem eliminates their department. Free market thinkers identified this perverse incentive structure before Johnson signed the Economic Opportunity Act. Every dollar taxed from productive activity carries a deadweight cost before it reaches anyone's dinner table. Capital formation lifts people out of poverty. You build wealth through savings, property rights, and voluntary exchange, none of which $22 trillion in redistributed spending actually produced.

First order of business when the Senate returns from recess must be getting the SAVE America Act passed. This needs to be a priority, above all.

Today is the 5th anniversary of the day that will live in infamy... The suspension of my medical licence based on nothing other than my speech. I promoted early treatment for covid with Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, Vit D, and Zinc and Zinc ionophores. I railed at the lack of scientific evidence for masks and lockdowns ( and the real harms they caused ). Perhaps worst of all ... I defied the gag order of the regulator ... to point out flaws and dangers of the mandated synthetic gene products. The destruction of informed consent, and the abandonment of medical ethics and human rights compelled me. They compel me still! @chrismartenson @cafelockedout @stkirsch @P_McCulloughMD @PierreKory @TopherField @Lighthouse_Dec @ClareCraigPath @CartlandDavid @myletrinh123 @DrTrozzi @FreeWCH @AMPS_RedUnion @realMarkHobart @uTobian @jeffreytucker

I’m just gonna leave this here.

Rome handed out free grain to 40,000 citizens in 73 BC. By 46 BC, Julius Caesar found 320,000 people lining up for their monthly ration. That eight-fold expansion happened in under three decades, and it shows you how welfare states actually grow. No Roman senator stood up and announced a plan to addict a third of the city to government bread. It happened incrementally, through political competition. Each magistrate who wanted votes expanded eligibility. Each expansion normalized the next one. The citizen who once considered the dole shameful eventually expected it, then demanded it, then organized politically to protect it. This is the core mechanism free market thinkers have identified across every era: once you create a transfer program, you create a constituency for that program. Recipients vote. Administrators build careers. Grain merchants who supply the state develop a stake in keeping the contracts flowing. The political economy locks in. Caesar, to his credit, actually cut the rolls back to 150,000 through verification audits. It was one of his more economically coherent moves, though the Senate still murdered him. His successors quietly let the numbers climb again. What did the dole require? Massive grain imports from Sicily, Sardinia, and Egypt, organized through state logistics at state expense, funded by taxation and conquest. When the conquest revenue dried up, the obligation remained. Rome had written a check against future military success, and future military success eventually failed to arrive. The lesson is not complicated. Distribute a benefit and you distribute dependency. Distribute dependency and you distribute political power to whoever controls the distribution. The grain dole didn't weaken Rome overnight, but it made every subsequent reform politically impossible.

Why is this a thing? Was taxpayer monies used? Retired grandmothers waiting on their free ice cream socials ….

Chauvin case is an extreme litmus test. Everyone knows his imprisonment was a flagrant injustice, but most continue with "Yes, but it was a flagrant injustice of great emotional importance to people."