The Real State of the Union

The Real State of the Union

President Obama gave his 7th State of the Union speech  last night, January 21st 2015. After hearing these speeches year after year, president after president I have come to see them not as projections of what the actual state of the nation is, but rather an advertisement for things the president thinks he did well,

“ ...more of our people are insured than ever before...”

Well yeah, they kind of have to be, remember you made them criminals if they didn’t buy insurance.

Not mentioned in last nights remarks is the reality of the real state of the union.

What about the National Debt?

The Outstanding Public Debt as of 21 Jan 2015 at 06:03:20 PM GMT is:

The estimated population of the United States is 319,850,520

so each citizen's share of this debt is $56,565.23.

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of

$2.40 billion per day since September 30, 2012!

Or maybe the amount of new regulations?

A little over 75,000 pages of new burdensome and restrictive regulations were imposed on US businesses. Each one a hinderance to the growth and expansion of businesses.

No mention of the prison population.

More than 1.57 million inmates sat behind bars in federal, state, and county prisons and jails around the country as of December 31, 2013. Many from victimless crimes.

We could go on with the rising tax rates, poverty levels, inflation, wasteful spending, the drug war, real wars and their destructive nature, the rate of returning soldiers committing suicide, the rate of bankruptcy and homelessness, the NSA…. And so on and so on.

The State of the Union has become nothing more than promises of future action and commercialization of past actions, not to give a statistical breakdown of how the nation is functioning.

The End of Same Sex Marriage Ban in Florida

January 6th marks the end of a ban on same sex marriages in the State of Florida. Already there have been multiple licenses issued and ceremonies performed across the state. I want to say congratulations to all of the couples and families now allowed to be seen as "legal" in the eyes of the state. But there are some other things that need to be said.

1. You didn't win anything.
The decision to allow the marriages to take place and licenses to be issued was not won by any group or activism, it was just the failure of government to stand in the way any longer, in essence, they took the boot off your throat. It was the expiration of a law that is allowing this all to take place, for now. It is a highly contested issue and one that very well may come back to the courts and could be overturned.

2. You are still seeking State approval for your relationship.
The act of marriage should not be in the hands of the State as it is (my opinion). There should be no reason any state should be allowed to issue licenses or permissions for two or any amount of people to be in any sort of relationship as long as it is mutual and voluntary.

3. There are county court officials that have taken a religious stand against performing the ceremonies of same sex couples. This should not be seen as a total negative in the issue. Yes those people should be held accountable for their dereliction of duty but the positive is that a government official has stepped out of the way of marriage altogether, now if the rest would follow suit and step out of the issue completely we would be getting somewhere.

In closing I say Congratulations and good luck to you all.

On the US Torture Report

As Americans are hearing now from their government of the "enhanced interrogations" taking place in CIA held facilities. The US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released its "Torture Report", and with it a flood of charges of inhumane treatments, murder, brutality and absolute detestable behavior from government employees and military service members. Of course there is no shortage of those who try and justify the treatment of detainees. Those that clamor for the reduction of the government, it's footprint into the lives and actions of people and claims of fiscal conservatism, have been using their loudest bullhorns to defend the actions of government officials and the military industrial complex, calling these actions "right for the public interest".

I am not sorry to say that any man who wishes these actions to continue or to propagate some idea of immunity for those involved are of the lowest respectable people of this earth to me. The idea that in order for "the good of the public" this evil must exist and be administered to other humans is completely asinine and reprehensible.

"No good can come from this evil,

 no justice can come from torture 

and no light from this darkness."

Torture is Torture no matter the reason or the results.
Torture is not acceptable when those you vote for say it is and those that follow them allow themselves to commit it. Shame not only for the politicians who contrive this action but all those in uniform or suit in the name of the government that facilitated or propagated torture of any other person. No act that is immoral for an individual to do unto others suddenly or miraculously becomes moral with the sanction of a State or central authority.

As Murray Rothbard states "In contrast to all other thinkers, left, right, or in-between, the libertarian refuses to give the State the moral sanction to commit actions that almost everyone agrees would be immoral, illegal, and criminal if committed by any person or group in society...if we look at the State naked, as it were, we see that it is universally allowed, and even encouraged, to commit all the acts which even non-libertarians concede are reprehensible crimes." (Ch. 2, "Property and Exchange")

More "Security" Without The State?

Down with the Police State! No More Police! Things like this get thrown out a lot by social libertarians and anarchists alike, even getting the attention and involvement of a few Republicans and Democrats who see the brutality of the police without noticing the monopoly of force they impose on the regular. There is however an aspect of ridding ourselves of this compulsory reactionary force of police missed by a majority of people; the fact that without the police of today, the ones who are paid for through compulsory and mandatory taxation, without recourse or ability to address grievances, we COULD have more security personnel.

Crazy aspect right? Not really. Many of the advocates of ending the Police State and the obligatory manner in which they are funded and operate are also proponents of private property and the rights of the owners. Under this idea the owners of every property, whether commercial or residential COULD have the possibility to hire their own private security services. Under this model every store you walk into in a mall type setting could have their own security officers, from different service providers. Also, in the residential sense, each home COULD have their own services being provided, not much unlike security systems installed in their homes already, but enlarged or advanced to include property security, investigations in the instance of property violations, and preventative security measures to reduce or preclude any attempt violations of property.

Local story of an prior law enforcement officer starting a private security firm. Click Here.

As the police today are for the most part becoming an aggressive force, one that needs to be checked by the people. Market provided services and funded by voluntary means COULD provided a service of security while ridding the public of compulsory funded, hyper-aggressive and increasingly militarized agents of the government. I stress the word COULD in this because without a doubt, this is only in theory but I feel should be at least recognized and investigated as an alternative. It is also only a COULD because as security is a personal value assessed by individuals, it is up to the owners of each property to make the choice to have security or not.

Stats on Afghanistan since 2001

Since October 7th 2001 the US military has occupied Afghanistan. That is 13 years. 4735 days.

Billions of dollars have been used, wasted. The estimate for the cost of deploying one U.S. soldier in Afghanistan is over US$1 million a year. The total cost from inception to the fiscal year 2011 was expected to be $468 billion.

US service member deaths are 3749 estimated 30000 wounded.

Afghanistan deaths, both military and civilian, have been estimated at 35-50 thousand.

Government according to P.J. Proudhon

To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so.

To be governed is be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped,measured, numbered, assessed,licensed, authorized, admonished,prevented, forbidden, reformed,corrected, punished.

It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, be placed under contribution,drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, funded, vilified harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned,shot deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored.

That is government; that is its justice, that is its morality

P.J. Proudhon 1923

Ending the Federal Reserve may be easier than it sounds.

Ending the Federal Reserve is less about Government policy and more about you and your personal economy. I was asked the other day how I saw the ending of the Federal Reserve being able to be accomplished. I answered that through government action you may see it in the next 100 years or so (don't hold your breath though), but to handle the idea sooner I think it is less about attacking them or trying to destroy them as much as it is to make them irrelevant.

Getting rid of their power is as easy as making their product and/or service as completely irrelevant as possible.
The rise in cryptography and the cryptocurrencies wave of enthusiasts and entrepreneurs is a great starting place for this idea. Since cryptocurrencies work around the federal dollar and international currency as well it decentralizes their monopoly of currency. Once enough people are convinced or shown the amazing technological benefits to cryptocurrencies over the Fiat dollar bill we can start to widen the gap of mandated currency and free market currency. Crypto is not the only way this can be done but is used as a single example of what can be done to end Centralized Banking cartels.

Money is a tool and it is in no way a government invention. Money or currency has existed for thousands of years and has taken countless shapes and forms. Sea shells, cows and chickens, arrowheads, blankets, property, even other human beings have been used as a means of trade and currency between peoples, though I do not condone the use of humans for this it shows the wide array of means to people's commercial ends.

So the real question that needs to be answered is this. How do YOU plan of destabilizing and decentralizing their mandated paper and coin currency? There are ways and means to obtain this goal, one just needs to commit to them in a rational and educated way.

The costs of post 9/11

Today is 9/11/ 2014, 13 years since the greatest attack on American citizens since the country's formation. Under President Bush he used the events of the day to not only wage a Global War on an Obscure Definition of Terror but also to give this day a new name of remembrance. Patriot Day as it is now called has moved from a somber remembrance of events to debate and confusion, statism and a subjective view of what constitutes Patriotism.

What have we lost?

9/11/2001 around 3,000 people lost their lives in the World Trade Center buildings and the flights used as guided missiles. In the aftermath of the buildings collapsing, the total deaths were recorded at 2,996 people, including the 19 hijackers and 2,977 victims. More would succumb to illness caused by the dust and debris in the months and years afterwards, and we can only speculate on those citizens who died as a result of shock at the unfolding of the atrocities of the day. But these are not the only casualties we can add to this. we can also add in the deaths of service members and civilians from America and those of other nations.

According to the website Journalist's Resource "The Brown University project estimated that together, all countries involved have lost a total of 31,000 uniformed servicemembers and military contractors. In addition, the researchers estimated in 2011 that between 152,280 and 192,550 civilians in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan have died as a “result of the fighting at the hands of all parties.” In March 2013, the Brown researchers revised the civilian total estimate to 200,000; and they estimated that 330,000 people had been killed overall as a result of the conflicts, accounting for all soldiers, militants, police, contractors, journalists, humanitarian workers and civilians involved."

These numbers should do enough to discourage any more operations in the areas, but sadly it does not deter those war hawkish members of the political atmosphere nor a number of citizens from the demolition and destruction of these countries, these people and these futures. 

Lives cost a lot, no one is denying that, but let's take a second to look at the economical impact the past 13 years have taken. According to the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) Total spent and obligated through FY 2014 is around 4,374.5 billion US dollars. (2014 dollars) with the Additional Cumulative Interest on Past Pentagon and State/USAID War Appropriations FY 2001‐2013 by 2054 reaching over 7,900 billion. If you are having trouble with converting that, it is 4 Trillion 374 Billion, 500 Million dollars since 2001 and an estimated 7 Trillion 900 Billion dollars. 

All of this is taken directly from increased borrowing from the US Central Bank with loans being paid back with interest by the US taxpayer. That money is being created with the future payments being ladled with interest and being sworn to your children and grand-children and so on. 

Another aspect of what has been lost since 2001.

The rights and privacy lost since 2001 have been explained by many, from Judge Andrew Napolitano to Former House Of Representative and 2008 and 2012 Presidential candidate Ron Paul, from the leaked document of the CIA, NSA, DOJ, DOD and a host of other alphabet soup agencies by the work of Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and Julian Assange, who took personal sacrifice for the American citizens to a new level. 

All the new security you see and experience when traveling, paid for by increased taxation. All the new background checks you go through, paid for by increased taxation. The departments themselves, who have been the subject to their own leaks of inter-office behavior, are entirely funded by the same ones they are spying on. Let there be no mistake about it, the notion that you can be 100% ok with the amount of agencies and securities that have increased since 2001 and also hold a belief in the reduction of taxation is entirely erroneous. Let it also be noted that in any attempt to curb this behavior or increasing security state bubble is met with resistance by those who value their sense of safety over their sense of morality or sensibility. Hell they even used the word Patriot to pass an act of protecting themselves while spying on you; Patriot Act. 

Over the years Patriots have risen, but did you even notice?

We have already gone over Snowden, Manning and Assange, all who have given their freedom for your knowledge of the facts of the government you live under. There are more examples of those who have made a stand for a belief in what is moral and right.

The Burger King Corporation recently set itself into a media firestorm. With the acquisition of a foreign (Canada) company, the BK Corp saw to move its Headquarters to Canada to escape higher corporate taxation. Now the media and those unknowingly ignorant of economic sense call this move unpatriotic. But how so? Wasn't the Boston Tea Party a patriotic act, in the same sense to avoid undue taxation, the hypocrisy is almost deafening. 

Cliven Bundy did his patriotic duty in his defiance of federal officials to turn over parts of his land to federal department control in the name of bogus claims of conservation of a certain species. He, along with other resistors in name and spirit spent days holding off Federal Department of Land Management officers as they took to try and take what they wanted of property that had no right to.

So on this Patriots day let's remember those that gave their lives, their freedoms and their blood, sweat and tears for what is morally right, what can be more patriotic than a man who fights a tyrannous, overbearing, overreaching, overburdening Government? 

Never Forget: Your government sets its means to kill you, capture you, and steal from you. 

Rise up Patriots! 

  

Someone is leaking NSA and Gov docs, but it isn't Snowden.

https://thepatriotpapers.wordpress.com/2014/09/08/new-post-snowden-leaks-reveal-secret-details-of-u-s-terrorist-watch-list/

The US Government is trying to find the source of multiple leaks of intelligence data. Dated and drafted after Edward Snowden was removed from clearance multiple data points have been released to journalists around the world. The US government must now consider every intelligence officer and contractor a risk. It is clear that while the US Government tries its best to contain its own transgressions and discretions it would be easier and less costly to the American Citizens wallet if they refrained from performing breaches of privacy around the world. The aftermath of Snowden has left a divide in the opinions of most Americans, some calling him a traitor and others, a hero.

"Truth is treason in the empire of lies" as someone has said in the recent past rings true in this situation.





Image via http://www.newyorker.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/edward-snowden-580.jpg

Local Police Receive Military Surpluses

This is a short post I will be addressing to a local newspaper. 

These procurements are only for Nassau County Florida. If you wish to find out what Surplus Goods your local Police and Sheriffs Offices have petitioned for and received please follow the link and fill in the drop down menu. 

As events unfolded in Ferguson MO the world watched a militarized police presence to quell riots and looting. I started looking as to what hardware our local police forces were acquiring under the 1033 Program in accordance with Department of Defense and its Defense Logistics Agency. "According to the program's informational website, the 1033 Program has transferred $5.1 billion in military hardware from the United States Army to local American law enforcement agencies since 1997."  

This list was compiled and retrieved from The Free Thought Project website.

REFRIGERATION UNIT,MECHANICAL 1 Unknown $0.00 4/9/2014 FL NASSAU

REFRIGERATION UNIT,MECHANICAL 1 Unknown $0.00 4/9/2014 FL NASSAU

REFRIGERATION UNIT,MECHANICAL 1 Unknown $0.00 4/9/2014 FL NASSAU

REFRIGERATION UNIT,MECHANICAL 1 Unknown $0.00 4/9/2014 FL NASSAU

REFRIGERATION UNIT,MECHANICAL 1 Unknown $0.00 4/10/2014 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

  

RIFLE,7.62 MILLIMETER 1 Each$138.00 12/28/2006 FL NASSAU

RIFLE,7.62 MILLIMETER 1 Each $138.00 12/28/2006 FL NASSAU

RIFLE,7.62 MILLIMETER 1 Each $138.00 12/28/2006 FL NASSAU

RIFLE,7.62 MILLIMETER 1 Each $138.00 12/28/2006 FL NASSAU

RIFLE,7.62 MILLIMETER 1 Each $138.00 12/28/2006 FL NASSAU

RIFLE,7.62 MILLIMETER 1 Each $138.00 12/28/2006 FL NASSAU

RIFLE,7.62 MILLIMETER 1 Each $138.00 12/28/2006 FL NASSAU

RIFLE,7.62 MILLIMETER 1 Each $138.00 12/28/2006 FL NASSAU

TRUCK,UTILITY 1 Each               $39,052.00           04/9/2014 FL NASSAU

Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/military-hardware-local-pd-stockpiling-database-show-you/#JBgmeT4tpXOdtjJK.99

On Police Body Cameras

There is a lot of commentary and discussion coming from the Ferguson MO story that revolves around the idea that Police Officers should be required to wear body cameras while on duty. I want to give a brief account of my own thoughts on this issue as it pertains to the need and the effects of pursuing this endeavor.

In response to the Ferguson story, where a young man was fatally shot by an Officer it has raised new concerns for law enforcement and renewed debate over the role, scope  and authority of the Police in America. In the discussion there has risen voices of both complacency and of concern.

The first is the voice of many people who defend the actions and the means of todays police forces. In that defense many will call for any actions necessary for police to "do their job" and will subjugate others to fund their ideas by the use of government and a ballot box. In these claims, the newest want is that of cameras to be worn by all officers, to record at all times, and the video to be made available to the public upon request. This idea is one of accountability and in that respect I would agree. Transparency and accountability is something that has been too long gone from government, even at the police or local sheriff level. Those that do not agree with the means or justifiable excuses by these departments should agree that accountability is needed and wanted in all government positions.

The other aspect of this idea is that of the economic impact it will have. As the calls for police issued cameras are thrown around an important thought has escaped the discussion altogether. The way police departments and law enforcement agencies are funded is through taxation, and in that, all new equipment purchased will be made through these funds. As someone who advocates for an end to legalized plunder (taxation) this idea goes against my own opinion and belief. I have said it time and again that whatever cannot be done through voluntary means should never be forced upon people. For those who call on their local and state police and law enforcement agencies to be equipped with cameras a fundraiser or donation from concerned citizens would be a rather better way to handle this. The subjective value theory again makes an appearance here. If those who do not see a relative value for the cameras (and other services and products for that matter) the forced extortion of them serves as a punishment by which they are victimized by a majority of people who "want without conscience or consequence". These new victims are the result of a economic fallacy that what is publically funded is publically endorsed, even though those that do not endorse the idea will be subjected to its use against them. When any dissent from the idea or even the forced acceptance and funding of the idea is exposed it is usually met with some variance of the phrase, "it is for the betterment of the community and you get to experience it through safer streets and accountable officers." But with this again the value placed on the idea by one does not always carry over to others. This idea of "social positives" through third parties or alternate means is the same argument made in relations to public schools and public welfare programs.

Another caveat to add to this is a comparison of costs to savings. When a police officer receives a compliant or if an officer has to go to court the ultimate financier is the taxpayer. All legal matters are paid for through their funding by the citizens. If these cameras were to have a positive impact of the number of incidences (meaning the number of incidences declines) leading to costly court battles and time lost, lawyers fees and compensation or settlements in and out of court (also paid for by the taxpayer) , the cost to savings benefit should be considered.

In the case of body cameras for police officers the idea to make these agencies and officers accountable and transparent is a noble goal that loses its appeal in the economic light of forced compliance and mandated funding.

Bolstering Bad Business

There should be a separation of business and government. When, like now, that separation doesn’t exist, bad things can and will happen. It is no secret that government run programs often fall victim to the worst in economic practices. We do not have to look far to see many recent examples of government bolstering bad businesses. With that in mind, two interesting articles came across my newsfeed this week and both are related in effect and cause. The two also show a failure in economic practices, and both deserve to be answered with some sort of rational economic thinking.

The first article I read showed that Amtrak, the mass transit rail program created by Congress in 1970, has been running huge deficits every year, supported by taxpayer subsidies. These subsidies have allowed a failing business to continue to operate on bad principles and creates a form of corporate welfare; all paid for out of taxpayers’ pockets. Altogether, taxpayers foot an average $1 Billion dollars annually into this program and it is only getting worse. One thing is for certain, if the business was made to live on its own revenue, like private business, it would either find a way to rid itself of detrimental wasteful lines or it would have gone out of business long ago.

The other was about the United States Postal Service and their quarterly loss of $2 BILLION. I am sure most of us can remember the price of stamps and services when we were younger, and I am sure we all remember almost every single time they were raised. But what makes this different than just rising with the rate of inflation, set and attempted to be managed by the Federal Reserve, is the annual rise in prices and services is met with an increasing deficit and an increasing annual subsidy from the taxpayer’s pocket.

Simple economics suggests that whenever a business receives bailouts or subsidies from government it is at the expense of not only the taxpayers but also at the expense of the market economy. As anyone should be able to see, the use of government subsidies coming from the pockets and paychecks of the American Taxpayer bolsters bad businesses and deepens a negative effect on sound economic principles. 

Arms exports from United States to Iraq 2000-2013

Arms exports from United States to Iraq 2000-2013

This is a list of all the arms trades made in contracts from the US government to the Iraqi Government.


#Ordered/Designation/Weapon description/Year of order/Year(s) of deliverie/ #delivered/Comments

8 Avenger Mobile SAM system 2012 2013 - 2013 (3) Part of $105 m deal; 'ISFF' aid
5 ISR King Air-350 AGS aircraft 2007 2008 - 2008 (5) Part of $132 m deal
5 ISR King Air-350 AGS aircraft 2008 2010 - 2011 (5)
16 Bell-205/UH-1 Huey-2 Helicopter 2005 2007 - 2007 (16) Iraqi UH-1H rebuilt to Huey-2
7 Comp Air-7SL Light aircraft 2004 2004 - 2004 7 Financed by UAE; assembled from kits in UAE
20 Bell-206/OH-58 Light helicopter 2007 2008 - 2009 20 Incl 10 ex-US OH-58C and 10 second-hand Bell-
206B version; aid
3 Bell-407 Light helicopter 2009 2010 - 2010 3 $6.9 m deal; T-407 trainer version
24 Bell-407 Light helicopter 2009 2012 - 2013 24 $60 m deal; armed version; option on 26 more
3 Bell-407 Light helicopter 2010 2011 - 2011 (3)
(11) Cessna-208 Caravan Light transport ac 2005 2007 - 2009 (11) Including 3 AC-208B armed version
1 King Air Light transport ac 2007 2007 - 2007 1 Part of $160 m deal; King Air-350ER version
1 King Air Light transport ac 2008 2010 - 2010 (1) King Air-350ER version
15 PC-9 Trainer aircraft 2009 2009 - 2010 15 Part of $257 m deal; T-6A version
12 Cessna-172/T-41 Trainer/light ac 2007 2007 - 2009 12 Option on 6 more
3 C-130E Hercules Transport aircraft 2004 2005 - 2005 3 Ex-US; aid
6 C-130J-30 Hercules Transport aircraft 2009 2012 - 2013 6 $293 m deal
43 ASV-150/M-1117 APC 2004 2004 - 2005 (43) $50 m deal; incl 2 CP version
(19) ASV-150/M-1117 APC 2004 2005 - 2005 19
378 Cougar APC 2006 2006 - 2007 (378) $180 m deal; Iraqi Light Armored Vehicle (ILAV) or
Badger version
20 Cougar APC 2006 2007 - 2007 (20) $7.8m deal; Iraqi Light Armoured Vehicle (ILAV)
version
50) M-113 APC 2006 2006 - 2007 (50) Ex-US; aid
27 Cougar APC 2007 2008 - 2008 (27) Iraqi Light Armoured Vehicle (ILAV) version
(122) ASV-150/M-1117 APC 2008 2008 - 2009 (122)
20 M-113 APC 2008 2010 - 2010 (20) Probably ex-US; incl 12 M-577A2 Command Post
version
09 Cougar APC 2009 2010 - 2010 109 $59 m deal; Iraqi Light Armoured Vehicle (ILAV)
version
80 ASV-150/M-1117 APC 2010 2011 - 2013 (80) $85 m deal; incl 8 command post version
(834) M-113 APC 2010 2011 - 2012 (834) Ex-US; M-113A2 version; modernized before
delivery; incl command post, mortar-carrier,
ambulance and other versions

I Oppose Government Education By Eric Herrera

Re-Blogged with permission by the Author.

For more check out http://www.ericherrera.com/ 

I am an opponent of Common Core(2009+) [1], Race to the Top(2009) [2], No Child Left Behind(2001) [3], and all prior federal action in education [4], because Congress has no Constitutional authority to intervene in education, government action always disrupts the voluntary interactions of individuals (the free market) [5], and learning requires inspiration not standards. The teacher motivates and inspires. The student is ultimately responsible for learning.

I believe that individuals taking responsibility for their own learning is far superior to imposed education.

I believe compulsory education is immoral.

I believe that good standards do not have to be forced on people(government action is always coercive). Being in the software field, computing is full of standards that were voluntarily adopted. HTTP for example was not imposed on everyone, yet it is now a nearly ubiquitous standard. I do not believe it requires coercive action to make thousands of professors and teachers agree that the pythagorean theorem is a relation in Euclidean geometry among the three sides of a right triangle.


I included a list of video resources that have had an impact on the way I think about government education.

Ken Robinson: How schools kill creativity
http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity

Ken Robinson: Changing education paradigms
http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_changing_education_paradigms

Dr. Duke Pesta: Common Core
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Si-kx5-MKSE

Salman Khan: Let’s use video to reinvent education
http://www.ted.com/talks/salman_khan_let_s_use_video_to_reinvent_education

Joshua Katz: Toxic culture of education
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnC6IABJXOI

Dan Meyer: Math class needs a makeover
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_meyer_math_curriculum_makeover

Ramsey Musallam: 3 rules to spark learning
http://www.ted.com/talks/ramsey_musallam_3_rules_to_spark_learning

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Core_State_Standards_Initiative

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_to_the_Top

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Education

[5] http://mises.org/daily/1471/The-Myth-of-Efficient-Government

How Conservative can you be?

The typical conservative claims to believe in smaller government, reduced spending and reduced taxation, but their actions go against this supposed belief. Recently I have been hearing Republicans and self-proclaimed conservatives railing against these very stances in opposition to political opponents.

In Florida the governor’s race is seemingly between Incumbent Republican Governor Rick Scott and former Governor Charlie Crist, who while governor was in the Republican party but later switched to an Independent and finally settling with his current party affiliation in the Democrat Party. The campaign ads against Charlie Crist are easy fallacies and half-truths; they are simply hit and run ads trying to come across as something meaningful and worthwhile. The first issue the Republican Party and conservatives are harping on is that under the current Governor the State is spending MORE on education than ever before and calling the Charlie Crist era the worst decrease in educational spending.

Yes you read that correctly, they are saying that reduced spending is bad and increased spending is good.

To Charlie Crist’s benefit I can say this, his time is office was during the greatest recession (some calling it a depression) in our lifetime, so far anyways...

So why does this matter? The Republican Party would like you to believe that what transpired under Crist was solely on his hands, reduced spending on education, high unemployment, record numbers of foreclosures in the state and the number of businesses dropping was not an isolated incident only in the State of Florida, but a result of a National Recession, Housing Market Crash and Wall Street Problems. Another thing to remember in this is that everything the Republican Party of Florida is using for cannon fodder in these ads was passed under a Republican led state legislature. Now that those conditions have cleared up, or have been covered over, whichever you believe, the current Governor, Scott can seem a better alternative to Crist. But anyone who looks at the issue from the stance of the conservatives should clearly see the hypocrisy in the campaign against Crist.

Though not endorsing anyone for this race, if you live in Florida please be aware there are other options, and also consider abstaining from voting at all.

This trend of saying you believe in one thing and acting another way isn't confined to the State of Florida. This mentality is nationwide. It seems to be just the nature of politics and the want for power and control. Republicans and Conservatives will champion a policy of reduced spending, except in key areas mainly Military and National Security. These two areas in particular are the holiest of holies in terms of non-negotiable items to be reformed or reduced. The annual spending in these two areas have been increased in the last few years with many Republicans voting in favor of the increases. Adding to these costs is the added departments and bureaus being introduced and bolstered by increased funding. All of this flies in the face of the stated stance of Conservatives and yet they see no problem with it. Florida isn't the only state where this is happening either, it is a widespread issue.

Now the call for the Border Fence comes in. 

In the past few weeks an increase of people coming to the American-Mexican border has increased. This increase has rekindled the debate for immigration reform and adding more funding to building a border security fence, adding border patrol agents, buildings and in the most extreme cases using military troops to repel immigrants by force if necessary. But all of this costs. It costs money and the only way the government sees to gain this money is to increase taxes to the citizens. This again goes against their stance on reducing spending and lowering taxes.

According to the US Immigration office "It is estimated that between 2000 and 2010, U.S. taxpayers spent $90 billion on securing the U.S.-Mexico border. This includes various expenses such as the cost of deploying 1,200 National Guard troops to the border, which is $110 million per year, the average salary of a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agent, which is $75,000—in 2010, there were 20,000 CBP agents deployed to the U.S.-Mexico border, the cost of an X-ray machine to peer into cargo trains and trucks, each costs $1.75 million—of which the U.S. uses 165. There is also the cost of building fences, employing drug-sniffing dogs, the use of predator drones, and various other incendiaries." 

Foreign Aid 

Foreign Aid costs the American Taxpayers around $23 billion in 2013, or a total of $37 billion if you include assistance to foreign militaries. This is approximately 1% of the total US Budget. Even this being only 1% of total budget  it is still such a large portion of money coming out of the paychecks and purses of every American Citizen. This is another one of those areas where so called conservatives are anything but. The issue facing Foreign aid is the idea of taking money from the people of one country and handing it over to another. 

Intervention costs money

The Neoconservative War Hawks and Pro Interventionists will fail to grasp that their intervention into affairs of other countries and governments will have an economic impact. Any intervention that is proposed costs money to implement. Whether they wish to send humanitarian aid, food, training, military weapons, to impose sanctions or even blockades, this will always costs taxpayers in the end. Just the intervention in Crimea cost the American people $896 Million.

The War on Drugs and the War on Terror are two more examples of a reluctance to curb spending and instead cast themselves headlong into hypocritical action over their beliefs. These two programs have been dismal failures and have cost not only billions of dollars annually but have also cost the lives of countless people.
The War on Drugs has created a situation that the US is facing now in Mexico where the drug cartels are pushing people towards the borders and have taken over as warring monopolies. 

The War on Terror is the Combination of wasteful spending, increasing budgets and the creation of new and expanding departments. Spending billions in an attempt to "Make Peace by War", it is something that never was, and never will be. 

How Conservative can you be when you support these programs and ideas? How conservative can you really call yourself if you tend to spend more money year after year, raise taxes, build a bigger and more intrusive government? These are just a few of the many ways that conservatives have lost their definition and have went full steam in the opposite direction. 

Top Ten Countries and Military Spending

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute these are the top ten countries in relations to military spending. The US is again on top of this list as it has been for years. Even with its steady decline in spending due to budget cuts it still sits at over 3 times that of the number 2 spender China. All of this money is extracted from its citizens through taxation and sits as one of the top expenses in these countries.

Below is the list of the top ten countries and their military spending numbers. Although the Stockholm Institute does not give the break down per capita I have done those numbers and added them underneath each countries stats.

No. 10: Brazil
Military expenditure: $36.2 billion
Expenditure as pct. of GDP: 1.4 percent (tied, 62nd lowest)
1-yr. spending change: -3.9 percent (26th lowest)
Total arms imports: $254 million (24th highest)
Total arms exports: $36 million (12th lowest)
Population: 198.7 Million
Per Capita Spending: 183.00 Yearly


No. 9: India
Military expenditure: $49.1 billion
Expenditure as pct. of GDP: 2.5 percent (31st highest)
1-yr. spending change: -0.7 percent (46th lowest)
Total arms imports: $5.6 billion (the highest)
Total arms exports: $10 million (10th lowest)
Population: 1.237 Billion
Per Capita Spending: 40.91Yearly



No. 8: Germany
Military expenditure: $49.3 billion
Expenditure as pct. of GDP: 1.4 percent (tied, 62nd lowest)
1-yr. spending change: 0.0 percent (53rd lowest)
Total arms imports: $129 million (36th highest)
Total arms exports: $972 million (6th highest)
Population: 81.9 Million
Per Capita Spending: 601.95 Yearly





No. 7: United Kingdom
Military expenditure: $56.2 billion
Expenditure as pct. of GDP: 2.3 percent (34th highest)
1-yr. spending change: -2.6 percent (34th lowest)
Total arms imports: $438 million (15th highest)
Total arms exports: $1.4 billion (5th highest)
Population: 63.23 Million
Per Capita Spending: 903.10 Yearly



No. 6: Japan
Military expenditure: $59.4 billion
Expenditure as pct. of GDP: 1.0 percent (31st lowest)
1-yr. spending change: -0.2 percent (52nd lowest)
Total arms imports: $145 million (34th highest)
Total arms exports: N/A
Population: 127.6 Million
Per Capita Spending: 465.51 Yearly



No. 5: France
Military expenditure: $62.3 billion
Expenditure as pct. of GDP: 2.2 percent (39th highest)
1-yr. spending change: -2.3 percent (35th lowest)
Total arms imports: $43 million (55th highest)
Total arms exports: $1.5 billion (4th highest)
Population: 65.7 Million
Per Capita Spending: 948.24 Yearly



No. 4: Saudi Arabia
Military expenditure: $62.8 billion
Expenditure as pct. of GDP: 9.3 percent (2nd highest)
1-yr. spending change: 14.3 percent (16th highest)
Total arms imports: $1.5 billion (4th highest)
Total arms exports: N/A
Population: 28.29 Million
Per Capita Spending: 2219.86 Yearly



No. 3: Russia
Military expenditure: $84.9 billion
Expenditure as pct. of GDP: 4.1 percent (10th highest)
1-yr. spending change: 4.8 percent (48th highest)
Total arms imports: $148 million (33rd highest)
Total arms exports: $8.3 billion (the highest)
Population: 143.5 Million
Per Capita Spending: 591.63 Yearly



No. 2: China
Military expenditure: $171.4 billion
Expenditure as pct. of GDP: 2.0 percent (45th highest)
1-yr. spending change: 7.4 percent (36th highest)
Total arms imports: $1.5 billion (3rd highest)
Total arms exports: $1.8 billion (3rd highest)
Population:1.35 Billion
Per Capita Spending: 126.96 Yearly



No. 1: United States
Military expenditure: $618.7 billion
Expenditure as pct. of GDP: 3.8 percent (14th highest)
1-yr. spending change: -7.8 percent (12th lowest)
Total arms imports: $759 million (8th highest)
Total arms exports: $6.2 billion (2nd highest)
Population: 313.9 Million
Per Capita Spending: 1971.00 Yearly

As a total these top ten spenders on military combined equals One Trillion Two Hundred Fifty Billion Three Hundred Million, 251,300,000,000 trillion. 

The United States alone spends $100 per person in the WORLD.

These are absolutely staggering numbers. Ones that are unsustainable and unneeded. It is sad to see the worlds citizens be taken for what is a fortune in their own hands, to be taken for the sole purpose of running a governments military. A military that destroys wealth, property, and lives.  

Remembering Aaron Swartz

Aaron Swartz was an amazing person. Inspiring and influential. His impact on this generation and future ones can and will be seen in the ways information is shared and the type of digital world we leave to posterity. His voice resonated around the world, with his message that all information should be free, the new education of people can take shape. It was through his mind ideas like Reddit, Think Progress, Creative Commons and a host of government accountability websites were brought into existence or improved upon. He was an incredibly intelligent person and will be missed by millions, some without even a knowledge of who he was or the impact he has made.

This is a copy of the Guerilla Open Access Manifesto, though not confirmed to be his lone hand that wrote this, it was signed with his name. It's message is strong, it is needed and it should be heard and carried further.

Guerilla Open Access Manifesto 

Information is power. But like all power, there are those who want to keep it for 
themselves. The world's entire scientific and cultural heritage, published over centuries 
in books and journals, is increasingly being digitized and locked up by a handful of 
private corporations. Want to read the papers featuring the most famous results of the 
sciences? You'll need to send enormous amounts to publishers like Reed Elsevier. 

There are those struggling to change this. The Open Access Movement has fought 
valiantly to ensure that scientists do not sign their copyrights away but instead ensure 
their work is published on the Internet, under terms that allow anyone to access it. But 
even under the best scenarios, their work will only apply to things published in the future. 
Everything up until now will have been lost. 

That is too high a price to pay. Forcing academics to pay money to read the work of their 
colleagues? Scanning entire libraries but only allowing the folks at Google to read them? 
Providing scientific articles to those at elite universities in the First World, but not to 
children in the Global South? It's outrageous and unacceptable. 

"I agree," many say, "but what can we do? The companies hold the copyrights, they 
make enormous amounts of money by charging for access, and it's perfectly legal — 
there's nothing we can do to stop them." But there is something we can, something that's 
already being done: we can fight back. 

Those with access to these resources — students, librarians, scientists — you have been 
given a privilege. You get to feed at this banquet of knowledge while the rest of the world 
is locked out. But you need not — indeed, morally, you cannot — keep this privilege for 
yourselves. You have a duty to share it with the world. And you have: trading passwords 
with colleagues, filling download requests for friends. 



Meanwhile, those who have been locked out are not standing idly by. You have been 
sneaking through holes and climbing over fences, liberating the information locked up by 
the publishers and sharing them with your friends. 

But all of this action goes on in the dark, hidden underground. It's called stealing or 
piracy, as if sharing a wealth of knowledge were the moral equivalent of plundering a 
ship and murdering its crew. But sharing isn't immoral — it's a moral imperative. Only 
those blinded by greed would refuse to let a friend make a copy. 

Large corporations, of course, are blinded by greed. The laws under which they operate 
require it — their shareholders would revolt at anything less. And the politicians they 
have bought off back them, passing laws giving them the exclusive power to decide who 
can make copies. 

There is no justice in following unjust laws. It's time to come into the light and, in the 
grand tradition of civil disobedience, declare our opposition to this private theft of public 
culture. 

We need to take information, wherever it is stored, make our copies and share them with 
the world. We need to take stuff that's out of copyright and add it to the archive. We need 
to buy secret databases and put them on the Web. We need to download scientific 
journals and upload them to file sharing networks. We need to fight for Guerilla Open 
Access. 

With enough of us, around the world, we'll not just send a strong message opposing the 
privatization of knowledge — we'll make it a thing of the past. Will you join us? 

Aaron Swartz 

July 2008, Eremo, Italy

To quote Tim Berners-Lee proclaimed inventor of the world wide web...




"We’ve lost a fighter. We've lost somebody who put huge energy into righting wrongs. There are people around the world who take it on themselves to just try to fix the world but very few of them do it 24/7 like Aaron. Very few of them are as dedicated. So of the people who are fighting for right, and what he was doing up to the end was fighting for right, we have lost one of our own. … We’ve lost a great person. But also, we've lost somebody who needed to be nurtured, who needed to be protected. I didn’t work with Aaron as closely as many people here, but I got the sense that all who have known him realized that he needed to be protected. He needed to be held carefully in our hands. He needed to be nurtured. So nurturers of the world, everyone who tried to make a place safe to work or a home safe to live, anyone who listens to another, looks after another or feeds another, all parents everywhere — we've lost a child. And there’s nothing worse than that."
Aaron was a genius in his own way and a brilliant mind, one that we sorely need. His perseverance in the fight for the uninhibited sharing of information and knowledge was amazing and his passion for doing all he could to release the grips of censorship, especially in academia. His devotion to the idea that ideas and knowledge should not be hidden away in storerooms and servers but instead freely broadcast is a brave goal.  His idea was to change the world and in his own way he did just that. 

There are multiple sites to look at his life, his work, those that knew him and those that benefitted from his work. Wikipedia, being a model of like mind to Aaron's is an excellent starting point.

As I was doing some reading on the life of Aaron and his mission, his message and his influence into todays tech culture I found this, a documentary of his life, as he lived it, with those he shared it with and his brilliance and his untimely death. 

To watch the movie "The Internet's Own Boy" a documentary of Aaron Swartz and his life, his accomplishments and his impact go here... 

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/internet-own-boy-story-aaron-swartz/

How the Drug War Drives Child Migrants to the US Border - Mark Thornton

How the Drug War Drives Child Migrants to the US Border - Mark Thornton

Most attentive parents today rarely allow their children to go unsupervised, particularly in public. It starts with the wireless baby monitor for the crib and ends with the ever-present cell phone at college graduation.

This is what makes reports from the US-Mexican border so perplexing to most Americans. It is hard to believe that parents would send their children, even young children, to travel many hundreds of miles, up to 1,600 miles without guardianship, or under the control of “mules” who guide the children with the hope of a safe voyage to the United States.

The journey is both harsh and dangerous. The northern regions of Central America (i.e., Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador) and Mexico are some of the most dangerous areas of the world. The climate can be harsh, roads and travel conditions are mostly poor, and the children are subjected to robbers, kidnappers, rapists, government police and soldiers, drug cartel members, and bandits of all sorts.

As unbelievable as it seems, Central American parents are sending their children, or more often asking their children to join with them in the United States, in large numbers. In many cases the children flee on their own accord without any guardian.

A decade ago US Border Patrol agents apprehended only several hundred unaccompanied children per year. Over the last nine months they have caught nearly 50,000. Official estimates project the capture rate to reach 10,000 per month by this fall. Those numbers actually hide the enormity of the problem because historically the problem was largely restricted to Mexican children who could be immediately returned to Mexico. During the last couple of years, the majority of growth has come from children from Central American countries and these must be processed and turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement (part of HHS).

One suggested reason for the explosion of child immigrants from Central America is the perception and rumors that children from Central America who cross the border will receive a “proviso” which might suggest a permit to stay in the US legally. However, it seems that the proviso is really just a notice to appear in immigration court for deportation proceedings. Whether this gives the children more time in the US, or whether it increases the probability of them being allowed to stay in the US for humanitarian reasons is unclear. In one report, only 1 of 404 children specifically mentioned the possibility of benefiting from US immigration reform.[1]

Even if the proviso rumor was having an impact, it does not explain why the children and their parents would risk such a dangerous journey in the first place.

The Role of the Drug War

The underlying cause for this mass dangerous migration is the US’s war on drugs. Central American countries have become the conduit by which illegal drugs move from South America across the US border. Unlike conventional media sources, who will sometimes vaguely mention violence and instability in Central America as a cause, The Economist[2] quite correctly found the source of the problem in America’s war on drugs:

Demand for cocaine in the United States (which, unlike that in Europe, is fed through Central America), combined with the ultimately futile war on drugs, has led to the upsurge in violence. It is American consumers who are financing the drug gangs and, to a large extent, American gun merchants who are arming them. So failing American policies help beget failed states in the neighbourhood.

The result has been that the drug cartels have a great deal of control over much of northern Central America. The cartels control the governments, judges, police forces, and even some prisons and some of the military through a combination of bribery, threats, and outright force.

As a consequence of this control drug gangs and cartels can operate in the open or they can operate deep within the jungle beyond the reach of the law. In turn, the drug cartels can act above the law and as a result they have created a culture of violence, building on the civil wars of previous decades.

The countries in the northern Central American region, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, have the highest murder rate of any region in the world. The region’s murder rate is 7.5 times the murder rate of the North American region.

Globally, the top murder rate in any given year since the 1990s has been Honduras or El Salvador. In 2012, nearly 1 out of every 1,000 citizens in Honduras was murdered. In addition to murder, there are high rates of other types of violence, crime, and intimidation. A very large percentage of the entire Salvadoran-born population has migrated, mostly to the United States.

In addition to violence, the war on drugs has been a disruptive force for the Central American economies. After reading about the region, is anyone likely to make travel plans to go there, or to consider opening a business there? Obviously, the war on drugs has been highly disruptive for job creation, commerce, and international investment outside the drug cartels themselves. Therefore it would be more correct to say that it is not so much the attraction of opportunities in the US, but the lack of and reduction in opportunities in Central America that are spurring emigration, and that this is directly linked to the war on drugs.

When you try to make sense of parents sending their children on such a dangerous undertaking, just remember it is just another despicable result of the war on drugs with few solutions.

The Economist recommends the repeal of the war on drugs and the legalization of drugs globally as the solution. Its second best solution is for the United States to finance an effort to rebuild the institutions (i.e., police, courts, prisons, etc.) and infrastructure (i.e., military, transportation, and education systems) in the countries of Central America:

Such schemes will not, however, solve the fundamental problem: that as long as drugs that people want to consume are prohibited, and therefore provided by criminals, driving the trade out of one bloodstained area will only push it into some other godforsaken place. But unless and until drugs are legalised, that is the best Central America can hope to do.

In other words, ending the war on drugs is the only solution.

Note: The views expressed in Daily Articles on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.

Comment on this article. When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Comment Policy.

Image source: Wikimedia Commons.

Mark Thornton is a senior resident fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, and is the book review editor for the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics. He is the author of The Economics of Prohibition, coauthor of Tariffs, Blockades, and Inflation: The Economics of the Civil War, and the editor of The Quotable Mises, The Bastiat Collection, and An Essay on Economic Theory. Send him mail. See Mark Thornton's article archives.

You can subscribe to future articles by Mark Thornton via this RSS feed.

Notes

---

[1] http://www.unhcrwashington.org/children/reports, p. 31.

[2] “The drug war hits Central America: Organised crime is moving south from Mexico into a bunch of small countries far too weak to deal with it,” The Economist, April 14, 2011.

You can receive the Mises Dailies in your inbox. Subscribe or unsubscribe.