09/06/16 – Jacob Hornberger – The Scott Horton Show

Hey y'all, check out the audiobook of Lew 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 Lew Rockwell for audiobook.
Find it at Audible, Amazon, iTunes, or just click in the right margin of my website at scotthorton.org.
Alright y'all, Scott Horton Show, I'm him, scotthorton.org is the website, sign up for the podcast feed there, and follow me on Twitter, at scotthortonshow.
Alright, introducing our friend Jacob Hornberger, he is the founder and the president of the Future of Freedom Foundation at fff.org, fff.org, for all their great articles, and sign up for the Freedom Daily there, and all that too.
Now, so, there's a bunch of stuff going on, but before we get to the stuff, let's talk politics for a minute.
Welcome to the show, how you doing Jacob?
Hey, doing fine, always great to be back with you, Scott.
Good deal.
Hey, who's more terrifying, Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton?
Yeah, that's a fascinating question, I go back and forth over that one.
I don't know, I mean, they're both equally terrifying, and I think from day to day it's easier to pick one versus the other, and then switch back and forth as each day goes on.
Yeah, you know, my thing is, I oppose both of them more than the other, and hate them each more, and that way I don't have to favor one, but I guess I could see, if people said, Oh man, I'm sorry, I really think Trump is the more dangerous one.
I could come up with probably a hundred reasons why that's correct, but then, the same thing about Hillary, and I guess for me the bottom line is, she's worse on Russia, and in the scheme of things, nothing else matters in the world, other than America's relationship with Russia.
Because if we go to war with Russia, then the rest of the world is cancelled anyway.
Yeah, you know, she's got – I mean, if people like the last 16 years under Bush Obama, then they'll love Hillary.
I mean, there's no question that she's going to continue the crises, the wars, the national security state.
I mean, she is really going to be loyally devoted to the national security establishment, and she's made it very clear that she considers America's role in the world is to continue invading, occupying countries, assassinating people.
In other words, all the things that we've had for the last 16 years, she's made it very clear you're going to get that same thing.
So nothing is going to change fundamentally.
With Trump, at the very least, he doesn't seem as beholden to the national security establishment, but his paradigm of foreign policy is essentially the same.
He's going to fight ISIS, and he has raised some questions about America's allies paying for their share.
But he doesn't question institutions that existed in the Cold War at a fundamental level.
He doesn't talk about dismantling NATO, that old Cold War dinosaur.
And he scares the heck out of people with his Mussolini-type authoritarianism, especially in terms of immigration and trade.
So yeah, pick your poison.
It's one versus the other.
And as you point out, Clinton is all in favor of starting perpetual crises with Russia and China.
I mean, crises are the corn of the realm for the national security state.
Fortunately, the counterbalancing effect of this, I noticed a fantastic poll that I'd never heard of before that was reported in the Los Angeles Times, that the Pew Research Center said that 70% of the American people now take the position that the United States should not be meddling in other countries' affairs and should be minding its own business.
And that's an incredibly positive sign, because as you know, if we were to bring the troops home today from the Middle East and hopefully from the rest of the world, the level of violence in America due to anti-terrorist activity and the world would plummet, which would be a tremendous benefit for Americans and especially libertarians.
Yeah.
Well, you know, isn't it interesting, too, that Hillary Clinton and all of her advisers, too, are just certain, I mean, obviously they know how right they are, but they're certain that we agree with them, even in spite of poll results like what you're talking about, in spite of the fact that Trump went and trounced Bush in South Carolina after denouncing the Iraq War and denouncing the entire Bush legacy, really, when even conservatives, in other words, are pretty much sick and tired of, you know, giving up their sons and giving up the last of their dollars for this empire.
And yet Hillary has no qualms whatsoever.
She has apparently no concern of losing her liberal base if she simply runs as Dick Cheney.
She's given two of these foreign policy speeches now where there's not even the slightest bit of lip service to peace.
You know, it's all about the next great crusade and attacking Donald Trump for even hinting that he would be the slightest bit reluctant to go as far as her on any one of these issues that you just named, Russia, China, Middle East or anything else.
And, you know, I don't know if it'll really hurt her or not, but I tend to think so.
You know, especially all the attacks on Trump for being soft on Russia.
I just don't think that's going to work.
She's the Democrat and he's the Republican can't really.
And I know that it's not it's more brown baiting than red baiting now, but not really.
It's still the Kremlin.
So it's still echoes of, you know, right wing conspiracy mongering from McCarthy era, what have you.
And I just can't see that sticking against a Republican billionaire businessman from New York City.
You know that he's the Manchurian candidate of the Kremlin.
It just makes her sound ridiculous.
But I guess my point being, isn't it interesting, though, that in politics in D.C., in New York and among all her pollsters and advisers, this is the smart bet to run as George W. Bush and let them let the establishment be reassured that nothing's going to change.
Well, that's right.
And it confirms what what we've been saying here for 27 years is there's really no difference between Democrats and Republicans.
They are one effective party, the Welfare Warfare State Party, and they're divided into two wings, much like the National Football League is divided into two conferences.
But it's one party, just like in communist China.
And they compete against each other in terms of these two leagues, the Republicans and the Democrats.
But in terms of how they perceive the world, they all agree on the same thing.
They agree with Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the whole welfare state.
They agree with the drug war.
They agree with the managed economy, regulated economy.
And they, of course, agree with the National Security State apparatus that's now the most powerful part of the federal government and all the foreign interventionism.
So the fact that she's now trying to peel away Republican support doesn't surprise me at all because they're – philosophically, they're on the same page.
And what I find interesting about the Trump campaign is that, okay, a lot of people are attracted to him because of his immigration position.
But I think there are also a large number of people that are attracted to him precisely because they perceive that he's not part of this establishment that Hillary is part of.
And I think people are really, really dissatisfied with the direction this country has taken.
So from that sense, I think there's a positive element to the Trump campaign that he's not part of this machine that she's obviously part of.
And I think libertarians can capitalize on that in terms of moving our country in a freer direction regardless of who's elected.
There's a lot of discontent.
That's what's reflected by the Sanders campaign.
It's reflected by the Trump campaign, and it's reflected by the high numbers that Gary Johnson is getting.
I mean he's 10% in the polls or so.
I mean no libertarian party candidate has even exceeded 1% barely.
And so this is – when people are discontented, we've got a shot.
It's when people are happy with their welfare, warfare state.
That's when we libertarians have problems.
So I see the opportunities arising regardless of who's elected for moving in a free society, especially like with the drug war.
I mean both these candidates favor the drug war, but boy, the movement of the American people is in the exact opposite direction on that one.
Yeah.
Well, politically speaking, I mean I agree with you that I think Trump really is for the first time in my lifetime, and now that I think about it, the first time probably in the last hundred years or more, that someone from outside the establishment really came in to do it.
And Donald Trump is the only one in our country who is rich enough, famous enough, and cocksure enough I guess basically to just go in there and steamroll the GOP and take the nomination the way he has and possibly even the presidency.
I mean he's the only guy who wasn't a governor, a senator or a vice president to get the nomination since Wendell Willkie, and he was just a JP Morgan guy.
He was no real outsider.
And that's been since the 40s, right?
Since 1940.
And yet the problem is, and this is my frustration with him, is one, he's just such a jerk.
And that's, to put it mildly, it means for him it's just a no-brainer to conclude that yes, of course we have to reinstitute torture.
And yes, if I have to get us out of the Geneva Conventions, then fine, screw the Geneva Conventions.
And in fact, by the way, drowning people to the brink of death over and over again, that's nothing.
Just wait until I get my hands on them.
If they can behead our people, then we can behead their people.
And he embraces full barbarianism.
And that's not just politics, right?
He doesn't need to cover his right flank and strut as a macho tough guy in order to really institute some Ron Paul-ian withdrawal from the world.
No, he really is just a barbarian.
He really is just that dangerous, that tortures nothing.
We're going to straight up murder people.
We're going to straight up murder the family members of people that we're after.
That'll teach them.
And, you know, god dang, what a disappointment to have for the first time ever, really, to have someone who's that far outside the establishment steamroll his way in there and then be that horrible on his own terms, too.
Oh, yeah.
No, as you point out, it really is horrible.
I mean, because if he had had libertarian orientation, we could be celebrating even if he wasn't 100 percent libertarian down the line.
But this guy holds an anti-libertarian philosophy.
So he's anti-establishment, but he's also anti-freedom.
And that's what makes him dangerous.
So it's hard to know which one is more dangerous, the one that's going to continue what's been going on for the last 16 years, which will definitely lead to even more loss of liberty at the hands of the national security establishment, or the anti-establishment guy who is authoritarianism is going to lead America in an anti-freedom direction.
Yeah.
Well, and who's, you know, opposite activists?
You know, who's going to cause more unrest?
Hillary?
You know, more disruption and hate and killing in the society?
You know, Donald Trump presidency is going to come automatically with leftist protests all day, every day for, you know, four or eight years, whichever it is.
And then really same thing on the right.
If it's Hillary Clinton and all the Trumpies and all the alt-right kooks and all the, you know, right-wing populists who've come out for their one last chance to have somebody they identify with, not a Bush family poser, but someone that they really can, you know, glom on to.
And they get that taken away from them and they have to live under Hillary Clinton for four or eight years.
That could be worse because, you know, right-wing protester types are, well, usually more likely to carry rifles and, you know, actually, you know, I could see that becoming much more violent even than having a bunch of commies.
But then again, commie protesters like we saw in Sacramento, in California, they had a big fight like it was the 30s.
Fascists versus communists, but it was the communists who started it.
The fascists came to give their free speech for white supremacy and the communists attacked them.
And we could either way, whoever's in charge, you know, it could be really rough, I think.
Well, yeah.
I mean, that's where we just have to keep doing what we're doing as libertarians and try to garner enough support for our position.
And I think that's clearly growing that then all of a sudden an opportunity presents itself where people will consider a paradigm shift here.
And I think that when that happens, when you reach a critical mass in America that wants change, even on particular issues – and that doesn't mean everybody has to become a libertarian, but you can reach a critical mass on libertarian positions like on the drug war – that I don't think the government can withstand that kind of pressure.
I think that's when you bring the sea change into play where the government ends the war on drugs even though they don't want to just because of the mass of public opinion against it.
And I think the same thing can happen with the troops in the Middle East where people say enough's enough, 25 years of killing is enough, bring them home.
And where the government has to comply because the momentum is so powerful, and I think that's what we need to just keep doing is doing what we're doing, causing people to think about ending the drug war, ending foreign interventionism, and of course the rest of the libertarian paradigm.
All right, cool.
Well, let's talk more about that because that is something that you do a lot of at the Future Freedom Foundation besides writing all your great articles all the time is you do these appearances, conferences that you put together, and speeches that you give and all this stuff to try to spread the word.
And it really is great work, and you've got a big one coming up this Saturday that I hope anybody on the East Coast up there within driving distance can make it to come and see you in Dulles, Virginia.
Boy, they named an entire town after those guys.
That's horrible.
What's happening?
Tell us all about it.
Well, it's not actually a town.
It's actually just the Dulles Airport area.
And I guess they have a post office there, so they call it Dulles, Virginia.
But this is the Marriott right adjacent to Dulles Airport.
And yeah, it's a fantastic conference.
I am so excited to be a part of this.
I am honored that Ron Paul would invite me to speak.
It's a Ron Paul Institute conference, and it's on foreign policy, which a lot of institutions don't want to touch because it's controversial and it alienates conservatives who have long supported this kind of stuff.
But Ron Paul has been able to transcend the conservative-libertarian boundary and attract from both sides, libertarians and conservatives, and to a certain extent, the left too.
Oh, that guy, a member of Congress, a senator that was a good friend of his.
I forget the name.
You mean Kucinich?
Kucinich.
That's who it is.
And so he's been able to just cross the ideological and political boundaries.
And so he's having this conference on foreign policy, which I consider the most important burning issue of our time.
I mean this is the biggest threat to our freedom and well-being, as you point out, not only in a possible war with Russia, but just all the money they're spending, all the anger that they're generating overseas, the anti-American terrorism, I mean constant crises.
And so he's having this conference focusing on foreign policy and war, and it's just fantastic.
And so he invited me to speak at it, and I didn't even hesitate.
I mean it's such an honor.
And Lou Rockwell is going to be speaking there, Philip Giraldi, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, and of course Ron Paul.
So yeah, from last I heard, they still have a few tickets.
They have a huge crowd apparently, and it's at the Dulles Marriott.
So it's easy to fly into, easy to drive to.
It's outside the D.C. area up here in northern Virginia.
So yeah, the more people the better.
Like I say, I think this is the most important issue of our time, and it's just so great that Ron didn't just quietly go back to Texas after leaving Congress and finishing his presidential races, but he's still doing these types of things.
You drink coffee.
I drink coffee.
Just about everyone drinks coffee.
So why bother with anything but the best?
Darren's Coffee is roasted at his new shop in Claremont, Indiana.
And coming soon, you can order on Amazon and support the show by using Scott Horton's affiliate link.
Darren'sCoffee.com.
Because everyone deserves to drink great coffee.
Yeah man, and that's really just like what you do with the foundation.
Same thing with Ron Paul and his top priority always.
That's why he created the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.
People might have thought that he would create the Ron Paul Institute for gold money.
But no, what he really cares about the most is the wars, and he talks about foreign policy daily with Daniel McAdams on the Great Freedom Report that they do there, their YouTube show, with Dan who is his foreign policy advisor in his congressional office.
Because first things first.
Just like at the Future Freedom Foundation.
So yeah, absolutely.
You can't be a temporary limited republic and a world empire at the same time, can you?
No, and you point out, you make a really good point that Ron could have done other things.
He could have focused on other issues, Austrian economics.
I mean the guy is an expert on Austrian economics and Ludwig von Mises and the gold standard.
He's done a lot of work in those areas.
But he chose this one which is the most difficult one in terms of fundraising and things like that because so many people really believe in the national security state.
That he showed great courage.
I mean he's one of the most courageous principled people I've ever seen where he starts his foundation that's devoted to peace and prosperity, which means you've got to stop the foreign interventionism.
And that's what a lot of people don't realize is that you cannot have a free society and foreign interventionism at the same time.
So you've got to make a choice.
If you want freedom, you've got to give up on the interventionism.
And if you want to continue the interventionism, then you can kiss your hope for a free society away, and Ron understands that.
Yeah, he showed great courage to start this foundation and to have this conference.
All right, Shell.
So that is this Saturday, September the 10th.
It starts at what time?
Oh gosh, I'm not sure.
I think maybe at 10 a.m.
It's not a lengthy conference, so it's not a big investment of time.
Somebody could actually fly in Saturday morning.
They need to check the website for sure, but my vague recollection is that the speeches start at 10, but I'm not sure.
It could be at 9.
And then it goes to like 3 in the afternoon, something like that.
So it's really doable for anybody that flies in and flies out on the same day if that's what they want to do.
Cool.
So again, that's this Saturday, September the 10th at the Dulles Airport, the Marriott, you said, right?
Right.
And it's Hornberger, Wilkerson, Rockwell, Paul, and who did I leave out?
Giraldi.
Giraldi.
And wasn't Jessica Pavone going to give a talk too?
One of the Pavones?
It could be.
I haven't seen the latest lineup.
This is the initial lineup.
So yeah, I don't know.
They're putting a lot of speakers in there.
They've got panels.
So it's kind of an intriguing lineup too.
They're putting a lot into a short period of time.
Yeah.
Good deal.
Well, I'm sorry I won't be there, but maybe next time.
Okay, cool.
So now we've got some more too.
Let's see.
Northwoods University.
Where's that?
That's in Michigan.
It's a traditionally and historically free market type of an institution.
They've had a great college there for many, many years.
Richard Ebeling, who's former president of the Foundation for Economic Education, taught there.
And they're just a great institution.
And every year they've started a Freedom Week there where they bring in speakers or speakers speaking on the Internet via Skype.
To the student body about principles of freedom.
So I've spoken there once before and it was just a fantastic time.
There was just a lot of passion and enthusiasm among the students.
And so Alex Tokarov, I don't know how to pronounce his name, he invited me back and I said, great, let's do it.
And so I'm going to be talking about the drug war and why we should end the drug war.
And that's going to be on September 13th.
It's only going to be accessible via the Internet to the people there in the audience, but maybe if they record it, we'll post it online.
But the theme of that talk is going to be that the drug war is the second biggest assault on our liberties, second only to foreign interventionism.
And we're moving in a very positive direction there too.
I mean I've never seen so many op-eds and editorials calling for an end to the war on drugs.
This thing is clearly teetering.
To me it's going to fall in the very near term.
So if you look at it, Scott, if we end the war on drugs and foreign interventionism in the Middle East, it's going to be a sea change in terms of the American way of life.
I mean violence will plummet.
There will be no more calls for gun control and so forth.
You won't have all this anti-American terrorism.
You won't have the violence associated with the drug war, the gang cartels, the fights and all this.
All those will be out of business because they can't compete in a free market.
And the overdoses and the AIDS crisis too.
That's the thing.
I've seen this a million times.
I'll use Bob Barr as my scapegoat here because he's so easy and fun to pick on.
When he was running for president as a libertarian and he went on Fox News and they said, what about heroin?
And he said, oh no, not heroin.
And it just seems to me like if a libertarian is going to make an argument about the drug war, I mean depending on your audience, sure, maybe warm them up with pot for a second.
But yes, you absolutely have to go for heroin and cocaine and the worst, most abused drugs, methamphetamines and address, yes, why meth should be legal.
Why it's of dire importance that we legalize the methamphetamine trade yesterday.
Because if we're not willing to confront that, then what are we, not right?
Or what is it?
We have to win the war on the enemy's terms.
And if you're arguing with a drug war cop, what's the drug war cop going to say?
Oh my God, meth makes your teeth fall out.
Meth is horrible.
Meth makes you beat your wife.
So okay, let's argue on their terms.
Meth is a problematic problem, Jacob.
So what is, for example, on this one, I'll go ahead and challenge you.
What does a libertarian say about meth?
Well, libertarians say legalize it all, and basically there's the moral argument and the practical argument.
The moral argument is that people in a free society have a right to ingest whatever they want to ingest.
We may not approve of it.
We may not condone it.
It may be dangerous.
It may be self-destructive.
But that's what freedom is about.
As long as you're not initiating force against another person with murder or rape or burglary or theft, and you're just taking drugs, it may not be the healthiest thing.
But you have a right to do that without being put in jail by the state.
And then there's the practical argument.
It doesn't work.
And all it does is produce horrendous negative collateral consequences like gangs and drug gangs and drug cartels and black markets and bribery of judges and cops and law enforcement people, asset forfeiture.
And look what's happening in the Philippines.
I mean there's your epitome of winning the war on drugs where the president is ordering drug law violators to be shot on sight.
And they've killed – I forget what the number is now – clearly in excess of 1,000 people.
They just killed them, and still with no end in sight.
So yeah, legalize all drugs and then restore the whole thing to a free market.
That puts the drug gangs out of business immediately.
They can't compete in a free market.
And then as you point out about addicts, it encourages addicts to come out in the open and talk about their addiction, seek treatment without worrying about a narc being as part of a group, a narconon or something that's going to turn them in and send them away for 30 years.
This thing has been a total disaster, horrific failure.
It has destroyed so many lives.
And fortunately, a lot of people have now figured that out.
So you've got all kinds of mainstream people that are calling for an end to the war on drugs.
So like I say, I think it's teetering.
You know, another good point that – I'm sure there's probably some really good studies about this too, although it's not exactly my focus.
But everybody, I think, agrees that black families or white families or anyone else, that fatherlessness is the father of crime and poverty – well, poverty and crime in America.
And who needs to turn to a black market to make a living?
I mean, other than people who are just ruthless criminals anyway.
But it's people who are poor and desperate and have, first of all, very short time preferences because they have no future to look forward to anyway.
And big profit margins for high risk factors, simple economics.
And they don't have dads because their dads are already dead or in jail from the violence or the criminalization of that very same drug trade.
And so we talk about welfare for single mothers inadvertently paying people to not get married and incentivizing people to have not necessarily no father but at least broken homes.
But the drug war is such a huge part of that, of people who live in poverty.
And people want to make it about race, but it's the same thing in Appalachia where people grow weed and they have to deal with the very same DEA that poor blacks have to deal with too in the ghetto.
Well, yeah, there's no question that this thing has impacted people of all colors, races, creeds, regular people.
I mean, you've got the enormous black market prices that induce people to get into this.
I mean, it's ironic.
Every Sunday people go to church and pray the Lord's Prayer where they say, lead us not into temptation.
And then they've got a government program that does exactly that.
It tempts people because of the enormous profits that you can make with just one sale.
So you've got normal people, I mean airline attendants or whoever that are just besieged by financial problems or whatever.
And they're tempted to make a big score, and most of them don't get caught.
But a certain percentage do, and those that do have their lives ruined.
But it is a racist war in the sense that its impact, while it does impact people of all color, its impact is disproportionately higher in the black community.
And it gives cops an excuse to harass and abuse blacks because they can say, oh, we're just enforcing the war on drugs.
That's why we stop and search all those blacks, and they expect to be praised for it because they're establishing law and order.
So that would be all eliminated with drug legalization.
You'd stop all this ruination of lives, as you point out, all the people that are tempted to go into it because of the enormous profits that can be made.
And then all the blacks that have to suffer the abuse of bigoted cops.
And I'm not suggesting that all cops are bigoted, but certainly some of them are.
And the drug war provides an opportunity for them to exercise their bigotry legally.
So if you legalize drugs and end the drug war, those bigoted cops, they don't have that excuse anymore.
Well, and I think they figured out the economics of being a municipality is you make a lot more money nickel and diming poor people to death than you do picking on middle class people who could possibly hire a lawyer and fight back, never mind rich people who you can't touch.
And so, you know, you just that it's just a matter of a balance sheet, right?
What are we going to do?
Pick on the white side of town or go over where the blacks and the Mexicans live and collect fees and fines?
And just makes more sense to make more money that way.
Oh, absolutely.
I mean, you see that in the traffic law violations.
I mean, the people in the poor parts of town are the ones that suffer most from the defective taillights and all that nonsense that they're really suffering to pay fines.
You read story after story of where poor families just can't pay these fines and it just hangs over them and the states always harass them.
But at the very minimum, if you ended the war on drugs, that would eliminate a huge problem.
You'd save a lot of money in the overcrowded prisons.
You'd hopefully pardon all those people that are sitting in jail for drug offenses that have no business being there, that have had their lives ruined.
I mean, it's bad enough to be a drug addict, but then to have it compounded by saying, well, now we're going to send you to jail for 20 or 30 years is just – it's a nightmare.
And I think a lot of people have figured that out.
I think we definitely might see this thing end right now in the near term.
I mean, look, you've got states that have legalized marijuana and the feds are not even enforcing their own marijuana laws in those states.
I mean, what does that say when the feds are not enforcing their own laws, but you enforce them in other states?
It's almost half of them or something, right?
I think a bunch of them have it on the ballot this time, but I think there's three.
There's Colorado, Washington, and what's the third one, Oregon?
I'm not sure.
Alaska.
Alaska, okay.
Well, I'm including medical pot.
If you include medical pot, it's like almost half the states, right?
Yeah, no, there's a lot more.
Yeah, I don't know how many, but boy, it's a lot more with medical pot.
So clearly the trend is in that direction and the fact that the feds are not even enforcing their own laws in those states, I'm really surprised that nobody's brought up the constitutionality of that.
That here they are picking out certain states to enforce their laws in and other states are not enforcing their laws in.
I don't see how that can be reconciled with equal treatment under law.
Yeah.
All right, well, listen, so ASU in Tempe, Arizona on September the 20th, Tuesday, September the 20th, so that's two weeks from today then, right?
Yeah, that's going to be a lot of fun.
I'm speaking at two economics classes there, and the theme, there's about like 300 students in each class, and it's a basic economics class, but mostly non-economics majors.
And so my theme is going to be why not dismantle the welfare state?
And so I'm going to be talking about things like opening the borders and no more mandatory welfare, no more managed economy, essentially a separation of economy in the state.
So my hunch is that there is going to be a lot of discussion during the Q&A, especially being in Arizona and saying that the borders should be open to the free movements of people.
And also during the trip, I'm speaking at an old discussion group, a longtime discussion group there that dates back, I don't know, probably 40 years or so that was founded by two or at least one old line libertarian from Milwaukee who retired in Phoenix.
Real intellectual, he was a big supporter of the Foundation for Economic Education, and the discussion club is still going on.
It's by invitation only, and so that's going to be fun because these guys, they know libertarianism like the back of their hands.
So you've got to give them something that they can chew on.
And then finally I'm speaking to the Young Americans for Liberty chapter there.
So yeah, it's an exciting little tour I'm engaged in going out to Phoenix later this month.
Well, the YAL thing, that's the 22nd at ASU in Phoenix, right?
So the first one on the 20th is in Tempe, and then two days later is the one in Phoenix.
And that's the Young American – and what's the subject for the YAL talk?
Just principles of libertarianism.
I'm hoping that they invite some people in that are non-libertarians, sort of use it as a recruiting type thing of what libertarianism is all about.
So I'll just be giving an overview of what we stand and why we stand for it and so forth.
But it's all the same area.
Tempe is just one of the little suburbs of Phoenix.
So it's all just one – it's really just the Phoenix area.
I don't know anything about Tempe except the old skate video from 1986 or something.
Well, the whole schedule is on our website at www.fff.org.
So if anybody is in the area or contemplating being in the area, just go to our website.
It's all there.
If you have any questions, just email us at www.fff.org.
All right, cool.
So this Saturday, the big Ron Paul shindig.
Giraldi and Rockwell and Hornberger and Lawrence Wilkerson and, of course, Ron Paul speaking there.
This Saturday the 10th and then on the 13th, that's a week from today, next Tuesday, that's Northwoods University in what city in Michigan did you say it was?
Midland, Midland, Michigan.
Midland, Michigan.
Okay, and then in two weeks, for three days, Bumper will be in Phoenix, Arizona for you there in Tempe and in Phoenix on the 20th and the 22nd at ASU.
And the latter there speaking to the Young Americans for Liberty.
So that's exciting too.
All right, well, great.
Hey, thanks for coming back on the show.
Thanks for entertaining me on my diversions about the drug war and all the rest of this stuff.
Always like talking with you.
Are you kidding?
Thank you, man.
Thanks for having me back on and always great to do this with you.
All right, good deal.
That is Jacob Hornberger.
He is the founder and the president of the Future of Freedom Foundation.
That's FFF.org.
They've been around since 1989 and online since it was such a thing in 94, 95, whatever.
FFF.org.
He was the first one to get that, so go figure.
Decades of content there.
Great libertarian content at FFF.org.
And check out FFF.org slash subscribe and that's how to get the monthly journal, the Future of Freedom.
And you can get the print edition is 15 bucks a year, which is very affordable and reasonable.
And then I think it's 25 for the print edition, which will fit in your back pocket.
Assuming you're not a little kid and it's a great little thing.
So get it.
That's FFF.org slash subscribe.
Hey, and that's the show.
Check out the website at Skowerton.org.
I have all of my archives there.
4,000 something interviews going back 4,500 something.
Going back to 2003 at Skowerton.org and sign up for the podcast feed there as well.
Help support at Skowerton.org slash donate.
Anybody who donates 50 bucks or more, you get the brand new Murray Rothbard book.
Long Lost Libertarian Essays from Murray Rothbard from 1967 and 68 on LBJ, civil rights, Vietnam, and all kinds of stuff.
It's called Never a Dull Moment.
And yeah, you can get that at Skowerton.org slash donate.
And hey, follow me on Twitter at Skowerton Show.
Thanks.
Hey, Al Skowerton here.
It's always safe to say that one should keep at least some of your savings and precious metals as a hedge against inflation.
And if this economy ever does heat back up and the banks start expanding credit, rising prices could make metals a very profitable bet.
Since 1977, Roberts and Roberts Brokerage Inc. has been helping people buy and sell gold, silver, platinum, and palladium.
And they do it well.
They're fast, reliable, and trusted for more than 35 years.
And they take bitcoin.
Call Roberts and Roberts at 1-800-874-9760 or stop by rrbi.co.
Hey, Al Skowerton here for WallStreetWindow.com.
Mike Swanson knows his stuff.
He made a killing running his own hedge fund and always gets out of the stock market before the government-generated bubbles pop.
Which is, by the way, what he's doing right now, selling all his stocks and betting on gold and commodities.
Sign up at WallStreetWindow.com and get real-time updates from Mike on all his market moves.
It's hard to know how to protect your savings and earn a good return in an economy like this.
Mike Swanson can help.
Follow along on paper and see for yourself.
WallStreetWindow.com www.wallstreetwindow.com