Posts Tagged ‘Zelaya’

Yanni Rosenthal arrested for money laundering; (Was he Zelaya’s smuggler in 2009?)

October 9, 2015

Yanni Rosenthal has been arrested in Las Vegas for money laundering. I wrote about this guy back in 2009, when he was not the center of attention, except for those of us who followed very closely the events that followed (and preceded) the COURT-ordered arrest of Manuel Zelaya. That order, by the way, was decided by the court and the request came from the “fiscal general” of his own government. That’s the equivalent of the Attorney General in the U.S.

https://trutherator.wordpress.com/2009/10/11/rosenthal-zelayas-man-in-honduras/

Most of my readers probably don’t follow news from Latin America very much. In fact, the national controlled media are reporting much less international news than they did in times past. And what they do report goes through some steroid-enhanced filtering — in essence, censoring, because it is quasi-voluntary statism. Remember the obvious implicit threats that were thrown like darts at the Orlando television station where the Biden was subjected to the humiliation of trying to wiggle through the question asking how Obama wanting to “spreading the wealth around” is not a Marxist vision?

Well, that was domestic but there are also some truths that are inconvenient for statist authoritarians that want to tell us what to think, what to buy, where to buy, and what they will allow us to keep after they confiscate our wherewithal. One truth is Chile’s advance into developed-nation status as a prosperous nation after they threw Allende’s Marxism into the deep blue sea and gave a warm embrace to the freedom for poor and rich alike to do business as they saw fit. The free market made way for each citizen to do business as he wished with whomever wanted to do business with him, for mutual benefit.

Well, Chile isn’t 100% free, but certainly all of us should realize that free markets were the one factor that gets the credit.

Yes, the information czars don’t talk much about that.

They sure did in 2009 when they condemned Honduras for defending its freedom and its constitution against Chavez-Soros sock puppet Manuel Zelaya.

That year, after a very clownish showcase “attempt” to enter Honduras from Nicaragua and getting stopped, Zelaya was successfully smuggled into the country and into the Brazilian Embassy.

The word was among people that it was Rosenthal who smuggled Zelaya back into the country.

It sort of backfired, because Brazil made clear that Zelaya had to leave the embassy immediately upon the inauguration of the next president. Lobo made a show of escorting him to the airport in fact. That was part of the agreement negotiated in Costa Rica, under international pressure.

During Zelaya’s apparently unwelcome presence in Brazil’s embassy, there were visits by a few members of the Congress of Brazil. Due to the politically compliant international media spin, they were astonished at the way Brazilian expats were adamant and enthusiastic in their support for the arrest of Zelaya.

Anyway, I don’t know what happened with the arrest by American authorities of Rosenthal. It is well known in Honduras that Zelaya did business with drug traffickers.

In any case, everything is recorded in the heavenlies. What a man sews he shall also reap. This is a Biblical law and just as sure as gravity.

Advertisements

Is the media orchestrated?

August 16, 2015

Most “traditional” media writers (broadcast, cable, paper-legacy press) don’t realize they are part of an industry and government-media complex.

The truth of the matter became clear to me in 2009 when Honduras deposed the sitting caudillo president. He had won the election by fraud, as he himself even admitted out loud to Jorge Ramos in a Univision interview: “Everybody does it, Jorge!”, he said.

That year, 2009, was when I watched in surprised awe as EVERY SINGLE ONE of ALL the traditional international (Establishment-approved) Media sources, like CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN-Espanol, NYT, Reuters, AP, LA Times, BBC, NPR, the French agency, all of them called it a “coup”, and they said NOTHING about Zelaya taking on the mantle of dictator. That was right after the summit of Caribbean and Central American presidents in Santo Domingo in November 2008 where George Soros was their “keynote speaker”.

And then ALL of the votes in the United Nations, including the Zelaya-appointed ambassador, condemned Honduras for defending itself from a Hugo Chavez-style coup-by-fraud, a criminal runaway president. They dotted their “i”s, and crossed their “t”s, constitutionally, and the Congress recognized his removal from the presidency with a list of his crimes, major thefts of government money, abuses, refusal to obey court orders (from “pipsqueak judges”, “juecesitos”), refusal to abide by laws passed by the Congress and violating multiple sections in the Constitution.

The day after slanderous and libelous CNN-Espanol broadcasts that Sunday, July 28, Hondurans were enraged. Half the adult population poured into all the central city and town plazas to support the transitional government, to protest against the demands to reinstate the dictator, AND TO PROTEST THE INTERNATIONAL MEDIA COVERAGE.

That same evening, one of the news analysts on CNN-Espanol let it out on the broadcast of events that EVERY SINGLE ONE of the massive numbers of emails they were getting from Honduras and Hondurans were in favor of the removal of Zelaya and in favor of the transitional president Micheletti, and she begged for even one that would be in favor of him.

The colossal river of money for leftist organizations has buried the videos on Youtube of those demonstrations in searches but they are there (unless Google has removed them).

The joke in Honduras was that Zelaya had unified the nation, and brought the people together in one cause. Protestants and Catholics, rich and poor, Chambers of Commerce and the unions, young and old, Liberal Party members (Zelaya’s own) and National Party members, men and women, professionals and laborers, doctors and illiterate, they all united in protesting Zelaya and international coverage.

International coverage was unanimous. That was telling for me.

THANK GOD FOR THE INTERNET BECAUSE THAT WAS THE ONLY PLACE YOU COULD FIND THE TRUTH IF YOU WANTED IT.

In one program, NPR had a panel of these “experts” talking about Honduras, and they got one caller who corrected them with the truth. One of these vacant “experts” immediately explained to the audience that Obama simply wanted to stop the American meddling in Latin America. The caller was already gone, so they missed the chance to understand that Obama WAS meddling in Honduras when he condemned its defense against another strong-man dictator. They kept meddling. Hillary Clinton called Micheletti personally to order him to resign. He said “No!” Gretchen later asked him what would it take to get him to resign (and let the socialist back into power) and he said “Only an invasion.”

American officers no doubt said “No way” they were going to invade, if Obama asked them. When Chavez did threaten invasion, American colonels said the Hondurans were an awesome fighting force. But let’s leave one thing very clear. The military stayed out of the political activity then completely and only obeyed legitimate court orders at all times.

Only local media in Honduras reported more accurately. (except for the one apparently owned by leftist diehards).

Brazilian legislators who visited while Zelaya was there, were shocked to discover that his smuggled appearance inside their embassy was a surprise. They were even more shocked to discover that the entire community of Brazilians living in Honduras were outraged at Zelaya and disagreed with the news coverage outside.

Honduras changed history. That’s when Latin American politicians and activists saw that going socialist was NOT inevitable at all! The FLMN-party president in El Salvador shortly announced they would not join the Venezuelan petro club. An ex-president of Guatemala said maybe they should coordinate foreign policy with Honduras. The mayor of Caracas said maybe they should import some Honduran “huevos” to Venezuela. Paraguay later also removed a leftist caudillo strong-man president.

Lobo, the next elected president (elections were maybe the most-oberved, most scrutinized in the history of the world) was Lobo. He immediately asked for input on how to move Honduras out of poverty. The result was the Smart Cities project, which was later scrapped for a much better plan, the ZEDE. (Zonas Economicas de Desarrollo y Empleo). It has begun and we will see how that unfolds now.

Just because you won an “election” doesn’t mean you’re not a totalitarian or dictator. Look at Obama. Even Lincoln suspended habeus corpus, threw reporters in prison, closed down opposing newspapers, sent an opposition (northern) Congressman fleeing to Canada for his life, and had troops fire on anti-draft demonstrators.

United Nations poll: Example of Orwellian Newspeak

August 16, 2015

The New American website wrote about the United Nations poll of some 7 million people where they chose the issues they most cared about:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/21410-halfway-to-hell-public-places-global-warming-dead-last

Here is the list, with their top concerns listed first. Note that “action on climate change” is dead last.

A good education
Better healthcare
Better job opportunities
An honest and responsive government
Affordable and nutritious food
Protection against crime and violence
Access to clean water and sanitation
Support for people who can’t work
Better transport and roads
Reliable energy at home
Equality between men and women
Political freedoms
Freedom from discrimination and persecution
Protecting forests, rivers, and oceans
Phone and Internet Access
Action taken on climate change (Emphasis added.)

There is almost no doubt that the surveyed were given a list to pick from, and “Less government” and “more individual freedom” and “economic freedom” and “respect for private property” and “terminating the United Nations” were NOT on the list.

One of the comments below by a “Frank M. Petelson”, notes that high on the list, and most of the list, are socialist and collectivist concerns:

Of the people polled, most gave socialistic concerns. I wonder how few polled people wanted: Less Government, More Responsibility, and, with God’s help, a better world?

That’s a good question but from my view it’s like this, I said:

There is almost no doubt that the surveyed were given a list to pick from, and “Less government” and “more individual freedom” and “economic freedom” and “respect for private property” and “terminating the United Nations” were NOT on the list.

These opinion and cultural engineers, commissioned by the autocrats’ cabal, would never offer individual freedom, or more free markets, as an option. Political freedom is on the list but by that they have their meanings implicitly buried in the devil’s details, including the political freedom to force a non-conformist to conform. Like the political freedom to force a Christian couple bakery to serve up a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage. That’s their definition.

Or like the “freedom” to tell the world that Honduras pushing back against a socialist “coup by fraud” in 2009 is somehow a “coup” itself.

“Political freedom” is on the list, but “economic freedom” is not.

 

JFK, the Cold War, Krushchev, Allende, and Zelaya

May 11, 2015

In general, as a convinced anarcho-capitalist, I agree with most of what Mr. Hornberger said in his video linked here about the JFK assassination:

http://www.voicesofliberty.com/video/the-facts-of-the-jfk-assassination-and-what-we-should-learn-from-them/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_campaign=VOL&utm_medium=post

Except mainly for one brief glancing comment about Salvador Allende. Not his fault, necessarily, though, considering the totality of the news blackout on certain aspects of the way things were then.

That said, once you learn some facts that are publicly available, and some that aren’t so much, there is no way one can say that Salvador Allende wanted a peaceful coexistence. There are other aspects of those events that say different, most of which were suppressed by the international press cartel for its own reasons, or for the reasons of those who run it. If the same sequence of events were to happen today, there would be a LOT of facts coming to light on all sides of the issues.

If I had doubt about that before, they were all blown away during 2009, when the entire force of the international news cartel Establishment threw its entire propaganda machine into supporting the same story line about events in Honduras, contrary to the truth. Every single official representative of every single member of the United Nations supported the s
ame story color-coordinated story line as the Media Cartel.

In Honduras there were even large demonstrations outside the offices of CNNE (CNN Espanol) demanding they remove their reporter and stop telling lies about events there.

That’s why I did some research about Allende. Most of what’s in the public libraries is tilted in one direction but even between the lines in the leftist shill press there is some truth to be had.

ALLENDE WAS NOT INTERESTED IN PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE.

One connection I discovered between the Honduras and the Chile stories was Jose Miguel Insulza, the Secretary General of the OAS. He was the chief political adviser to Salvador Allende in that regime, which had declared itself loudly as a Marxist government. Not just socialist, but Marxist. They saw the existing economic system of Chile something to overturn.

Allende brought not only Fidel Castro to visit, but he invited Castro-sympathizer revolutionaries from all the countries around Latin America. This was the 1970s when it was clear, without even believing government press, that Cuba was sending material support to violent leftist insurgencies across the country, and that was also with Soviet support.*

Okay, as socialism is ruinous on any economy, and catastrophic if administered as a shock treatment, Allende’s policies and its effects did just that. I can believe they had help from the CIA, but this process needed no CIA help. Socialism did the same thing that government interference has always done throughout thousands of human history, including the Soviet Union, only faster in the industrial age (which would have collapsed within months from 1917 without help from  Western banking capital).

As libertarians SHOULD know but always forget to point out, when the CIA brings down a socialist regime it is only accelerating a political process that occurs naturally, the same as to the USA regime. From what I understand, that’s just simple Austrian economics.

Anyway, Allende and his administrators (including Insulza) was already into his plan to build his own alternative military structure, just like Obama promised he was going to do in 2008. (Remember that?)

Allende’s regime was stockpiling weapons in government warehouses maintained by political appointees. He was importing experienced (violent) revolutionaries from all around outside his borders. Cubans were invited in (like they were to Venezuela even BEFORE Chavez).

THEN THE SAME CHILE CONGRESS that put the winner of the plurality into power of the general election (well below majority) , finally DEMANDED that the military take action to stop the runaway regime. So they did.

What follows was not pretty. But Chile is in a better condition now that it would have been had the military left Allende to execute the remainder of his totalitarian plans.

JFK somewhat before and toward the end sought peace. Apparently Krushchev did too, in my opinion, his removal being one piece of evidence.

But I doubt that of Allende. I also KNOW that Manuel Zelaya of Honduras in 2009 received the same (better even) coverage that Allende got in 1973. I also know that Roberto Michelletti got the same vitriol (worse really) spun at him that Pinochet got for so many years.

And in the usual leftist shill web sites supported by the usual socialist billionaire-foundation suspects, they still use the same lying rhetoric as back then.

(NOTE: Were there atrocities back then? No doubt. There were also full-blast shootouts between revolutionaries and military troops at those clandestine arms depots. The violent revolutionaries wanting to support the planned totalitarian regime change were called “resistance” against the coup, and the military “golpistas”.

Portugal had a peaceful coup. Libya had a peaceful coup and the West blasted away the ONLY middle-eastern nation and its leader that had denounced its own previous policies, and was a blue ribbon success for peaceful change among Arab countries. The ONLY one where Christians felt safe, women were lifted up in public view, prominently.

Honduras restored constitutionality, which you could call a “coup” but only if you count the stopping of a counter-coup that was already in progress, or restoration of constitutional continuity in power rather than presidential continuity in power.

I am an anarchist, but there things that are worse sometimes that the regime that rules in your land. Ask the Cold-war era refugees from Eastern Europe.

<<————————————>>

*–Remember it didn’t take long for the Soviets to remove Khrushchev after that rapprochement either. (And speaking of facts kept out of general public view, the current Rockefeller patriarch of the day had visited Moscow between both events.

It seems both sides of the Cold War (or their manipulators) wanted to keep the threat levels and military production up, but without actually letting any missiles fly.

Go for 100% freedom from aggression and theft but take what you can get.

June 7, 2014

Tom Bell said he is “cautiously optimistic”. With the kind of hell that the world-government-statist control freaks put Honduras through in 2009 when they rebelled against their program, you can’t blame them for wanting to go under the radar.

That, said, I don’t have any illusions about Honduran politicians any more than others, although 2009 was a bit refreshing. I know more than you about them. My wife is from there and was one and wanted out from the first day she got in. And has nothing but an attempt to murder her and the children to show.

I think in 2009 the politicians actually just buckled under the pressure of wives, husbands, adult children, cousins, lots of friends, most of the LOCAL press that refused to march to international orders, ALL the Protestant leaders, ALL the Catholic clergy in the country almost, their chambers of commerce, the UNIONS (except for the Marxist dictated PUBLIC teachers’ union, albeit with great numbers of teachers dissenting, ALL private schools, their equivalent of a bar association (lawyers), and ALL but 4 of the Congressmen.

Congressmen and others involved in the effort travelled to South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, and other places that moved from poverty to prosperity.

Lobo, not so honest himself, had asked for suggestions from various sectors on how to escape poverty. My suggestion to the representative from the expat community that was invited to contribute, was education, technology, gold currency base, and among other things, a study of what was successful elsewhere.

My understanding is that some folks from Universidad Franciso Marroquin, a school that teaches Austrian economics theory, also participated in the planning of the zones.

I say, with Wendy of Daily Bell and many others, preach the actual radical solution of the NAP, anarcho-capitalism, and complete economic freedom from aggression and theft, but take everything you can get. Ron Paul voted for every single tax reduction that came along, including the ones with labels like “exemption”. but we all know he wanted to abolish them all.

 

 

Columbians want to finish what Uribe started

May 28, 2014

The FARC may be protected –I do believe that. After all, for example, Jimmy Carter pushed “Rhodesia” into elections that Muzorewa won, and when the Mugabe gang cried foul (they didn’t win) then Carter pushed Zimbabwe into elections that Mugabe won. And he has not let go since.

The fracking story, same as here in the States, is just another meme that the elites are pushing to keep the gullible agitated about something, fearful about something so that their astroturf grassroots (with the gullible) can then demand more control. Elites to the rescue! After all, they are (this is their term, not mine) our “interplanetary guardians”! (Kid you not! You can’t make this stuff up! Stranger than fiction!)

About *-Columbia-* now, I lived there in Medellin as a missionary when there was a strong cartel presence and strong guerrilla presence both, and I’ve known lots of Columbians here in Miami. One I worked with agreed, that Uribe is a national hero among the people. In the States even alternative media doesn’t get the facts as well as they do with what’s going on here and to some extent in Europe.

Columbians in general were sick, tired, and disgusted with the lame way things were going. Gaviria got elected precisely on a platform of negotiating with FARC, and he was so serious about it he met their demand for a safe zone territory inside Columbia where they would not be bothered. (Probably to the consternation of its inhabitants). But Columbians wanted peace that’s why they elected him.

That was then. This is now. The FARC only used their safe zone to hold their couple hundred kidnapped ransom hostages, and stall, stall, stall, and they kept on killing people and blowing up things, business as usual. This went on for almost Gaviria’s entire one constitutional term. Near the end, due to pressure and embarrassment, he finally declare talks over and gave an ultimatum for that zone.

Biggest embarrassment for Gaviria was when the “paramilitary” groups –which had nothing to do with the military, that word is usually a propaganda trick of the elites, in my opinion. They circled that zone at one point and the FARC broke off talks demanding the government stop them. (OH, the irony! Government could not defeat FARC but stop the other guys). The independent self-defense forces were much more effective against them. (I met one guy who had land who gave us a ride once while hitchhiking). They just wanted to defend themselves.

So when Uribe ran for president, he spoke very clearly about getting serious about shutting them down. I think Columbians knew by then that the civilian politicians were timid about it, and saw Uribe as more serious. And serious he must have been, because during the campaign they murdered his son. Uribe’s next campaign speech after that was furious, and he said they thought they would stop him, but he was more determined than ever.

He proved to do exactly that, and the Columbians awarded him with a change in their constitution (not very easy there) to let him run a second term. They began getting some victories. That’s when Uribe got intelligence that led their forces to a FARC camp inside Ecuador that the Chavista president was obviously protecting. Correa was more angry about Columbian forces violating their territory than he was over Columbian guerrillas violating their territory (oops, maybe he had invited them?) or over Ecuador violating Columbian territory by supporting guerrilla bases.

So the Columbians changed their constitution again! And Uribe got a *third* term!

And my Columbian friends could not say enough good about him! In spite of the worldwide leftist propaganda machine. They indicted some Congresswoman to make it look like Uribe used dirty tricks to get re-elected but Columbians are not stupid. Not all that much.

So yeah. Leftists like Chavez, Correa in Ecuador, Morales in Bolivia, sure corporations can deal with them. They prefer a government that can guarantee them protection and deals. But like Paraguay shows, there are chinks and leaks in the Propaganda Machine. According to Bible passages in Daniel, Revelation and others, the description of the prophesied world government fits socialist regimes. (“Shall by peace overthrow many”, “shall gain the kingdom by flatteries”, “a collector of taxes shall rise up”..) But they also speak of plenty of trouble for his regime, including from many who are not Bible believers.

So for all this, no, I would not be surprised at pseudo-capitalists, fascist-capitalists, working with leftists. At least the elites, the ones that coordinate. No doubt they do. Armand Hammer, Warburg. Saw a Cold-War era movie made in Russia once, about the Swedish capitalists that worked with the Bolsheviks to make great numbers of train cars to save the masses from hunger (according to this movie haha).

Also about the USG helping leftist regimes, I’ve shared many times (my contra-propaganda mission) that the American ambassador Hugo Llorens to (my wife’s country) Honduras (Hugo Llorens) was used in Zelaya’s TV spots as if he endorsed Zelaya’s fraudulent “referendum/survey”. He was at Zelaya’s presidential palace the night before the “survey” would take place that would justify his Chavez-style dictatorship, at the same table as the inner circle of planners. He was “known” in Honduran social circles to be in a compromising relationship with Zelaya’s son.

Hondurans were massively relieved when Zelaya was relieved of his then illegitimate occupation of the presidential palace.

USG intervention was definitely and unequivocally tilted “leftist” in that case. Who knows? Maybe they knowingly cooperated with the phony “coup” in Venezuela. The Chavista Supreme Court cleared the top military brass of all charges and they got full retirement with benefits, very quietly, a year or so later.

Columbia is a beautiful country and are horrified –like it says there– at the prospect of one of these brutal killers getting office. Columbia still has an ongoing amnesty program, and any one of them can just give up at any time. Uribe had them almost wiped out. Columbians are mad that Santos eased off the goal of ending it.

In Guatemala, Efrain Rios Montt put a halt to ranchers-motivated killings of protesting Indians and started a “guns and beans” program. The Indians themselves were armed and trained to defend themselves against the guerrillas and they made sure they didn’t go hungry doing it, and helped them trade too. The result was that the guerrillas lost the war right then in Guatemala, and the “Left” has never forgiven him. Guatemala would have elected him.

Ron Paul says Obama’s Drone Wars Undermine American Values

April 28, 2014

His comments are found at the Daily Bell:

http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/35250/Ron-Paul-Obamas-Drone-Wars-Undermine-American-Values/

One big thing I like about Daily Bell is that they carefully analyze events, look for context, and make clear that what you see –in the regular news media fare- is not always what you get. No WSYWIG there, no sir. And it’s early to call for war crimes tribunals, as there is not sufficient infrastructure (yet anyway) to enforce them. Education will do its job. Ron Paul’s campaign to educate the American body politic is a good example of the greater effectiveness of this. The numbers of both those who are aware, both veterans in forums and publications, and the newly aware, will continue to grow despite the hysterical efforts of the Powers That Be to explain everything in Controlled Media in ways that pretend that there is no liberty movement. As long as there is a sector of the Internet that is free, and it is still possible to spread facts and the real stories at these electronic speeds, it will continue to grow. In fact, it will continue on in some form, even if they implement Lieberman’s wet dream of an Internet “off-switch…like China has.” Like China!

The USA has certainly supported fascists, drug lords and terrorists many places, and “installed” a few. But as a libertarian anarcho-capitalist myself, it is evident to me most left-fascists and libertarians alike, sometimes ascribe too much power to the CIA overseas. I call libertarians especially to telescope to a view of these world events from a higher altitude. I’ll bet you that some analysts within the intelligence apparatus have an inflated view of their own power.

For example, no matter how much Hugo Chavez and later Maduro blamed CIA plots for what Hondurans did in 2009, whatever the CIA did was irrelevant. My wife is from there, and it made me nervous that it might become another Venezuelan vassal state. If they paid out money here or there, they totally wasted all of it, because the overwhelming majority of the people of that country were dedicated to getting rid of the guy they supposedly elected earlier. It was a bit of a surprise even to me, since most of the poor are inclined toward looting the rich. I believe it’s possible Hugo Chavez won the first election, even though in my opinion he’s perfectly capable of committing fraud.

But I realized later that even many of the poor in Honduras are somewhat educated now about events elsewhere, and there is an Internet effect there too. It helped that apparently the media seems somewhat less subservient to the politicians, and some of the local elite families saw socialism as inimical to their own interests. There were probably a few of them also “hedging their bets” and secretly supporting the auto-coup plotter Zelaya, including one famous perennial presidential candidate who was accused very publicly of smuggling him into the Brazilian embassy.

Not all poor people are stupid or ignorant. Hondurans who hate poverty and who are capable of thinking analytically at all, they do NOT want an economy like Cuba’s or Venezuela’s. They know theirs has been corrupt, but they would rather not jump into the abyss of permanent poverty just like that. More so the middle class there.

Hillary Clinton made a personal call to Zelaya and told him to resign, and so open the door for the socialist president that the American ambassador had supported in the efforts to establish his lifetime national socialist Chavista fiefdom. Yes he did. What the CIA does is secret, but in the small-town social environment of a country like Honduras, not everything can be kept secret. Hugo Llorens appeared in some of the televised propaganda for the propaganda cover for the overt stage of the auto-coup, the takeover manifest”referendum”.

The “demonstrations” in favor of Zelaya were padded with paid bodies. Chavez poured so much money in that the lempira rose a full 10% against the dollar for a few weeks while they tried to make a show of it for the world.

The CIA may have been doing its thing there, no doubt, but keep in mind that the FSS and FIS (successors to the KGB and the GRU) are not exactly dead, and Chavez was all about intervention himself. He offered President Micheletti $3 million dollars to resign, poured money in for marches (that never reached the numbers of the pro-Micheletti, anti-Zelaya, anti-Chavez, or even the irate protests against CNN and its reporter, who was distorting the situation there.

Socialism does not need any CIA intervention to collapse under its own destructive weight. The CIA often does, always does, intervene for its own purposes. But let us not kid ourselves. Sometimes it may act in a manner you least expect, also. Moles are not rare anywhere, and the Venona papers of course corroborated the accusations of Senator McCarthy that the State Department was infiltrated by outright Communists that reported to the Soviet Union.

And who can doubt the jubilation of East Germans when the Berlin Wall fell and they were able to join the “more free” market and prosperity of West Germany?

Who can doubt that 90% of North Koreans would seize the chance to migrate to South Korea?

Who can doubt that the United States today just might have more Cubans than Cuba itself? And remember, Cuba cannot blame the embargo either, since every other nation in the world allows trade with them.

And even with the case of Chile, almost nobody ever hears the fact that the Congress in Chile, lacking a constitutional method to impeach and dethrone the dictatorship of Salvador Allende, voted 81 to 47, on August 22, 1973, for a resolution demanding the immediate cessation of Allende’s unconstitutional actions, that he cease arming leftist cadres, and a series of other demands, PLUS they demanded the removal of Allende from office. The military did nothing until the Congress demanded it, because of the economic damage and the violence that the regime had propagated.

This was even dubbed a “trade secret” by leftist journalists in Latin America: That they begrudgingly knew, admitted among themselves, that Pinochet’s actions had resulted in a much more prosperous Chile. And that was before they joined the G-7 club of “developed” nations.

Let me restate here though that I am absolutely opposed to US intervention abroad, all of it.

But many actions seem even engineered to hurt American interests, of which drone strikes are a “striking” example. Even if the orders that go forth for those actions are not purposed to hurt the country, they may be an example of God’s warnings that he would “turn back” the weapons in the hands of a nation under judgment. (Jeremiah 21:4)

Maduro caled for peace in Venezuela? Really? Maduro?

April 6, 2014

This is an open letter to Jacob Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation, in reaction to his article of April 5, 2014, at http://www.lewrockwell.com. I am copying it to my blog at http://www.trutherator.wordpress.com.

His article is found here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/04/jacob-hornberger/us-out-of-venezuela/

Mr. Hornberger,

I’m an anarcho-capitalist that found out with Ron Paul’s campaign in 2008 that my 40-year-old views had lined up with what are called “libertarian”, and as a former missionary that lived since early 1970s in Latin America or in Hispanic-dominated Miami-Dade Count. My ex-wife is from the Dominican Republic and my wife is from Honduras. I plan on retiring in Honduras. I hope it will not be overwhelmed by a socialist regime such as Maduro’s. What they have today would be better, but I hope to add to the libertarian conversation in Honduras.

I have a personal interest against USG and UN interventions around the world. Foreign aid and drug wars are killing men in great numbers in my wife’s country -and killing their economy. Maybe the new special economic regions, designed artfully with the help of some libertarian economists from the US and from the Mises-associated institute in Guatemala will help them. I hope.

No doubt the CIA is around somewhere doing whatever they do, and let us be honest here: Neither of us knows what they are really doing, except in general terms. I used to think we could presume they consistently support American capitalist interests. After Honduras, Libya, Syria, with the evidence from these episodes of the USG helping socialist dictators and its purported Number One enemy to gain power in these places, I’m not so sure. Honduras I know best; and they did not hide their efforts to support the socialist dictator there.

I am surprised and a bit irritated at the reaction to regimes like Maduros’. Especially since I read it on http://www.lewrockwell.com.

Before I get to why, I totally agree with your concluding paragraph:

Leave Venezuela to the Venezuelans. If private Americans wish to involve themselves in the controversy, that’s fine. But the U.S. government should butt out entirely. What happens in Venezuela is none of the U.S. government’s business. Unfortunately, given the secret nature of the U.S. national-security state, the American people will never know the extent of U.S. involvement in the Venezuelan crisis until the CIA’s files on the matter are opened several decades from now.

Maybe they’ll open the files, maybe not, but I doubt that any files that will be available either now or later will reveal anything on the subject worthwhile, and more likely misleading.

But it is an amazing spectacle to see all the well-deserved condemnation of probable USG involvement, and absolutely nothing about what the Venezuelans might actually want in reality independently of both the American government and their own dictatorship.

I don’t remember any such outrage over Obama’s demands and Hillary Clinton’s interventions in Honduras to try to force them to put the socialist dictator Manuel Zelaya.

The American ambassador to Honduras at the time, Hugo Llorens, made an appearance in a commercial aired by the Zelaya regime, propaganda to get public support for his very unpopular effort for his so-called “referendum” (later relabeled “survey”).

Hillary Clinton made a personal call to Roberto Micheletti to resign, which would of course make it easier to force Honduras to take Zelaya back as the dictator he already was.

This “referendum” horrified Hondurans, because they knew three things for sure. (1) One, the thing would be fraudulent. They know their politicians. (2) Two, Zelaya had already advocated presidential re-election (already defined as “treason” by the Honduras constitution because of earlier attempts at lifetime presidencies. (3) Three, and worst of all, it would open up for more fraudulent “elections” to create an irrevocable socialist dictatorship, Chavez style, in Honduras.

There was one piece that circulated on the Internet at the time, how Zelaya “brought the country together”. Every group of any significance at all in those days demanded first his resignation and then supported his removal and the constitutional successor government of Micheletti. Half the population filled the plazas of the biggest and the smallest cities and villages to say so. The Chambers of Commerce, BOTH major political parties, ALL the Congress (elected by the same people that voted for president), the Catholic Church (Zelaya’s mob had to import a priest), all the Protestant churches, all the unions (except the hopeless teachers’ union, that had them on strike more than in the classroom literally by count of days– for the previous three years), and EVERY ex-pat in a forum where I was member.

What’s the CIA going to do there? What can they do? Why would they waste a dime getting the country to get rid of somebody they did not want?

Oh, yeah, because Soros wants power. But no doubt HIS dirty hands were in the pot FOR Zelaya. Keynote speaker at the regional summit the November previous.

Hondurans got panicked at the prospect of fixed elections creating another Cuba or Venezuela in their country. They vote with their feet by getting to the States at the first opportunity.

Why is it so hard to understand that so many Hondurans, or even Venezuelans, hate the serfdom of socialism, along with the miserable poverty it brings?

Maduro bragged in his op-ed in the New York Times about universal health care? Oh get out! The poor have to bring their own sheets into hospitals and sleep on the floor there! We’re already getting our own taste of that bitter poisonous “medicine” in the States!

That was the attitude of most of the Hondurans. Fortunately for them, apparently many or most of the richest and most powerful interests were inclined their way. BUT not all; one zillionaire and perennial presidential candidate was fingered in newspapers and “on the street” as the one who smuggled Zelaya back in to the Brazilian embassy (Surprise, Brazilia!)

And it is relevant that Maduro is the heir of the Chavista regime that has meddled in its neighbor’s internal political affairs and tried its best to save the imposition by external Force of a dictatorship that had no regard for anything but seizing power.

The phony pro-Zelaya demonstrations had some genuine bodies, but it was mostly marching-for-hire. They poured so much money into the country that the lempira went up a full 10 percent against the dollar for those several months!

Zelaya admitted in a Univision interview that he had won the election by fraud by saying that all elections have fraud.

After 2009, I have followed events in Venezuela.

Please note an unsung development in Latin America. It’s hard to see its long-term effect, but it has been noticed by some statesmen “down south”.

Honduras changed history in Latin America with its reassertion of some constitutional order inside its borders, such as it is. Don’t get a smug face about it; they did better in 2009 than the US has done in recent years. Will Obama in 2016 declare a federal election nationwide to vote for a new constitution? That momentum is building, from both the phony “right wing” and the phony “left wing”.

After the 2009 elections in Honduras, the president of El Salvador of the former “leftist” guerrilla party, declared dead the move to join Venezuela’s petro association. The mayor of Caracas demanded the importation of “cojones” from Honduras. Freedom-minded Latins were inspired all over. Honduran ex-pat communities felt relief unspeakable. Brazilian Congressmen went back to Brazil with the news that the entire Brazilian community living in Honduras were engraged at Zelaya’s refuge in their embassy.

No doubt Paraguay had Honduras in the back of their minds when they impeached and dethroned their own dictator aspirant for his dictatorial acts. Venezuela’s caudillo government whined about another CIA-backed coup.

It’s a political safe bet down south (and apparently among some libertarian circles in the US today too) to blame the CIA and the US for all their troubles.

Maybe the CIA is trying for a coup in Caracas, given the atmosphere in Latin America today. Soros has his fingers everywhere. He would love to have a dictatorship to deal with, to give him good deals, good power, after all…

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

P.S. There are videos of the police shooting at protestors there. There is video on youtube of Chavistas shooting into the million-person march (literally) in cold blood that resulted in twelve people dead. A false flag coup distracted the world’s attention from this slaughter of civilians and a de-facto socialist coup ensued thereupon by outing anti-Chavez military to purge them. These “CIA lackeys” and “coup plotters” got no punishment at all, they were cleared by the *Chavista* Supreme Court of all charges, with military pensions and all honors retained. And it was a “CIA” coup?

Can people be more gullible?

 

Economics, efficient war machines are bad things, and the non-aggression principle

January 12, 2014

A thank-you to “uldissprogis”, who provides some cogent and articulate points to ponder. He seems to be almost as wordy as me when he’s emotionally engaged with a topic, as I am. He has given us a lot to answer.

https://trutherator.wordpress.com/2014/01/11/efficiency-and-government/#comments

I understand this passion to help change the world, make it better, help the poor. Even though my father’s weekly sermons, full of all the compassion for the helpless and the needy that Jesus Christ showed in his life, ministry, death and resurrection, must have had something to do with this drive (in my case) to help others, I learned to apply this to Communist thinking. Spreading the wealth.
The following post is context for the article below:
https://trutherator.wordpress.com/2014/01/11/efficiency-and-government/

Eventually though I learned that not everything we are told is believable, whether it be at schools, colleges, from media, and from the pulpits of the land, or from the political class.

I’ll just answer a few concerns.

He was basically in favor of uncontrolled capitalism in private and business lives. I disagree with him [Ludwig von Mises] and believe that the national government has a role to play in private charity.


Point one for this: There is a common misunderstanding about the two approaches to two different spheres of action that we know of as “Austrian economics” and “libertarians”.

Austrian economics is the study of economics. Some who don’t understand it call it “not rational”, whereas its foremost figures study it very rationally, intellectually, and most of all, logically. “Austrian economics” is the study of how economics actually works in the real world. von Mises is one of the best known of these scholars.

“Libertarianism” is the political philosophy most associated with Austrian economics. But its basis and philosophy is different, although I’ve noticed there is tremendous overlap among the followers of each.

The summary definition of libertarian thinking is the “non-aggression principle”. That’s an ethical principle, or moral principle, not a scholarly principle. It’s a guiding principle for human action, whereas Austrian economics is the study of it.

On the other issue, if the “national government” has a role in any “charity”, then by definition it is not a “private charity”, and that means the “hybrid” charities too, for example, the Bush-era government money for “faith-based programs”, which are now the Obama-era “faith-based programs”.

Payoffs from government to do “charity” work tend to subtly influence the “charity” to play nice with government, making them de facto advocates of those who continue and expand them, and against those who would stop them.

It’s interesting that after reading as much of von Mises you did, that you would still hold the idea that somehow government can solve the problems of the poor. I admit, depending on which of his writing you read, it is scholarly and it is a slow-walk.

The principles are clear enough, though, if one takes the time to think.

In my years as a missionary, in which we distributed food directly to the poor in the poorest barrios south of the border, visited with people, distributed clothing, ministered to people in hospitals, prisons, orphanages, I can guarantee you that each of our young 1970s era missionaries did much more good for many more people than the average federally funded social service worker.

Some of them had been heroin junkies themselves, healed going “cold turkey” after accepting Christ right on the beach and joining the work then and there. Another had been a diamond smuggler, another was a drug dealer who had cops on the payroll to keep his corner spot safe for his trade.

All government can do is to steal the resources from somebody’s fruits of his labor or investment to give it to someone else, but of course making sure the tax man (the one that tells you how much to pay, takes his cut. Got to have the enforcers on the take, too, after all.

The best results for the poor abound when the force of a gun (of the law) is removed from the equation. When each person can enjoy the fruits of his labor and invest it as he wishes, then everyone gets a win-win. That way each person gets more value for what he gets than what he gives, because otherwise he wouldn’t deal.

You mention the Internet. Up to now, the USG (government) has let it (kind of) roam free. So far anyway. That’s why we get the convenience of it.

Most monopolies are government-enforced. The AT&T phone monopoly lasted several decades, by federal mandate (dictate). The price was subsidies for local calling.

Phones dialed over land lines. Finally rivals were allowed to sell competing phones.

Then came cellular phones. The market was much more free in the US for cell phones, and we got an explosion of companies, distributors and innovation competing in the marketplace for your dollar, and the result is.. drumroll, please…

Now, you have a proliferation of cell phones in the poorest countries, driven there by the state-dictated phone monopolies over land lines.

And you mention the minimum wage. The dictator Manuel Zelaya ordered a doubling of the minimum wage in Honduras in his 2005-2009 reign, and 150,000 –that’s one hundred fifty thousand of the poorest in that country– lost their jobs overnight. Because the Mom and Pop stores could not afford to pay it as they were barely afloat themselves.

Labor unions push the minimum wage as a recruiting tool and to keep the labor market small. Actually, it’s not so much the unions as the union bosses lining their coffers.

Technological advances are good, and will help all people as long as the government keeps out. (Or gets out at least first).

Before there was government, there was trade.

Then came chiefs controlling their people, then came raids on other tribes and either looting or demands for tribute (another form of looting). Then came empires, built on the force of their own hegemony enforced at the point of a sword. Bread and circuses for the Romans, crumbs and gladiator service and other tribute for the conquered.

As for moral teaching, if you supposedly “realize” (with some reason) that the “new world will be controlled by international banks, international businesses etc. down to the control exercised by the individual who will have little chance of challenging the big corrupt inefficient boys”, then understand that the forced teaching in state-run schools of any moral code at all, whether it’s my Bible-based one or your “secular” one, in reality is going to work against you.

It’s something I realized while I was still a Communist, and it turned me at that time into a “syndicalist-anarchist”. Dictators that rule in a dictatorship, no matter who they are, are not going to give up power “just like that” like a finger snap. I realized at that time: If you can’t trust people to govern themselves, how can you ever trust them to govern somebody else? Forget it. Criminals that do their work by force don’t “live by the rules”, and neither will governments that rule by force “live by the rules”.

When the Israelites finally demanded a government of Samuel the prophet, he warned them. God told Samuel they had rejected God, not Samuel, because now they wanted to be ruled by a man, a king, instead of being governed by the rules laid down for them by God. God had Samuel warn them: A king will put unbearable burdens of taxation on you, he will take your sons to war, and generally ride roughshod over your lives.

That’s exactly what they got. Solomon’s tax burdens were the grievance that split the kingdom and led the northern tribes to idolatry and ruin and captivity, and almost all the kings were abusive.

You probably are already familiar with it, but here’s a thinking man’s source on climate science and a place to find what real climate scientists are saying about it:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/

Note that biodiversity also provides an example of what I’m saying on government and laws and good intentions.

Never mind all the evidence that it’s a sham cause invented to divert attention from the real poverty-making problems like crony capitalism and the marriage of the biggest corporations (i.e., of the U. S. Chamber of Commerce with left-fascism, in their multimillionaire tirade against “tea party” candidates. They will back “pro-business” candidates they say, by which they mean supporters of crony capitalism.

Why are the foundations established by the very richest tycoons always supporting socialist causes, at the same time they support political forces that produce propaganda in favor of more “social justice” and command-and-control government?

In the first half of the 20th century, wood ducks were in danger of extinction in the United States. Long before environmentally oriented laws.

Farmers across the country heard about it and started setting up crooks in the rivers and lakes on their land and leaving them be to attract the ducks and make them welcome. The population exploded and now they are prolific, and have been for decades.

Today, however, a farmer that has no such ducks on his land would be stupid to do such a thing, because if an “endangered” species makes a home on his land then it becomes de facto property under the control of the same government that does everything it can to strengthen Big Agriculture in its struggle against more efficient single family farms, who are struggling against Big Brother dictates like this one.

Farmers in California had to watch their houses burn in wildfires, because they were prohibited from preparing their property to protect the houses, because it would make like more difficult for one particular wild breed of a kind of rat. How loco can this get? You can’t make this stuff up!

And the guy in Louisiana who created a watering pond for his animals, then filled it in when he didn’t need it anymore and was fined thousands of dollars for destroying a watershed. Crazier and crazier.

One more thing. Too many people have had the new rulers’ indoctrination in state-run centers, on history. They left out a lot.

For example. St. Patrick’s effective crusade against slavery than began the cultural shift that made it taboo until later, and something the slavers in more recent centuries had to keep out of sight of Europe.

Patrick’s legacy of literacy in Ireland spawned a voracious literary appetite in Ireland that found its cultural way back the British side of the water and saved the classic literature of Greece and Rome away from the book-hating hordes ransacking the continent.

The practice of Christians during the earliest days led to the saving of many infants from the practice of infanticide of those days. Some of them even waited under bridges where babies were thrown and they would catch them or rescue them, and mothers began leaving them on the doorsteps of a couple they knew were Christians.

Christian monks shamed the Roman public into slinking away from gladiator battles, in at least one documented instance one gave his life, Telemachus.

Again, an inefficient process with libertarian freedom is way much better than an efficient war machine. Technology can be used for evil or for good, although some technologies lend themselves more to one than the other. Cars are generally dangerous, computers and electronic communications are generally benign and beneficial in their applications.

What’s wrong with respecting the non-aggression principle as the working rule for everyone? Nobody is compelled to do anything by force or the threat of force or by fraud (which is a force-by-stealth). Let them do business as they will within that principle.

This is not even as strong an ethic as the Golden Rule.

//

September 30, 2012
Hondurans opposing Manuel Zelaya.

Hondurans opposing Manuel Zelaya. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Commondreams, apparently wanting to spread the poverty around, continues to push big lies about Honduras:
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/09/06-6:

Commondreams pushes common myths, repeating the lies spread by the autocracy-friendly news sources during 2009, when Honduras pushed back against Zelaya’s illegal and unconstitutional auto-coup, and restored its freedom from imperialist intervention by foreign powers.

Myth #1: President Porfirio Lobo—who came to power in a military coup in 2009

Facts #1: There was no military coup in 2009. Honduras is a constitutional republic and Congress is an elected body, and the President is an elective office. As in any people that repudiates dictatorship, the idea is to separate the powers.

In 2009, elected President Zelaya became Self-Appointed Autocrat Zelaya, and dictator in a real sense.

According to the ideals of freedom and constitutionality, the Honduran people did NOT elect the autocrat Zelaya, to make laws, they elected him to run the country according to the laws that were passed by Congress.

Instead, he began issuing his own decrees. He refused in November 2008 to submit the required budget for 2009, as he was constitutionally required to do. The Honduras Constitution says that if for some reason there is no budget for a year, then the default budget is the same as the previous year.

But Zelaya ignored the law and began spending the tax receipts according to whim, no decree to let people pick at. And much of it of course secretly.

No surprise there about corruption. When Jorge Ramos of Spanish-language US-based network Univision asked him about rumors he had won the election by cheating, he didn’t even try to hide it, proudly saying that “everybody does it”! At least that was a moment of honesty.

The SUPREME COURT, not the military, ordered Zelaya arrested after he flaunted his actions and even loudly expressed contempt for court orders to cease and desist from his long series of many illegal activities: “I don’t have to obey any pipsqueak judges”.

The military obeyed the constitutional court orders to arrest him for a list of criminal actions. His open and vocal advocacy for presidential re-election is defined in the Honduras Constitution as “treason”, because they did not want incumbents cheating their way to life-time dictatorships.

The Honduran people were almost unanimous in repudiating him. The Catholics Protestants came together in a way hardly ever seen in the Americas, all the industry groups, Chambers of Commerce and many unions united against Zelaya’s coup attempt, rich and poor. The only identifiable groups that supported his dictatorship were the usual “leftists” who openly advocate centrally dictated planning, and the teachers’ union, who left students without education for those months. Parents in one very poor town took over one school when the principal closed it to sympathize with the strike.

The CONGRESS, not the military, voted to recognize that Zelaya’s actions themselves had already vacated the presidency, according to the Constitution.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Using a quote from an AP dispatch, they spread a lie from a well-funded “indigenous” spokesman:

COMPOUND MYTH #2: “These territories are the Garifuna people‘s and can’t be handed over to foreign capital in an action that is pure colonialism like that lived in Honduras during the time that our land became a banana enclave,” said Miriam Miranda, president of the Fraternal Black Organization of Honduras.

FACT #2: The lands that would be ceded to this project are UNOCCUPIED. This spokesperson is also and advocate of robbing land that belongs to ranchers to give it to other people free of charge.

This is not colonialism because the sovereign government of Honduras and representatives elected by the people of Honduras have enthusiastically invited this foreign investment to come into the country according to principles they see as good for themselves. The Cuban government also has invited foreign investment, and even China sees benefits in allowing Hong Kong to govern itself in a manner friendly to the free market. Heavy-handed dictates are the opposite of the free market.

MYTH #3: Also quoted from AP disinformation propaganda:

Oscar Cruz, a former constitutional prosecutor, filed a motion with the Supreme Court last year characterizing the project as unconstitutional and “a catastrophe for Honduras.”

“The cities involve the creation of a state within the state, a commercial entity with state powers outside the jurisdiction of the government,” Cruz said.

FACT #3: The statement by Oscar Cruz is an oxymoron from the contextual premise. Stated a better way, he contradicts himself. These cities do NOT involve “state powers outside the jurisdiction of the government”, because they are a CREATION OF “the government” and by agreement of the state. This project is constitutional because the Congress amended the Constitution according to rules for amending the Constitution within the Constitution itself.

Which is more than the unelected self-appointed “spokesperson” for the Garifunas can say.

And there is another bigger issue in which both Oscar Cruz and ALL the critics are self-contradictory. These are people and activist organization that very loudly support the organization of communes run by state-appointed personalities for purposes known only to those who institute them. In other words, do they have a problem with political appointees who make the rules for centrally-planned industries?

Obviously they do not have such a big problem turning over the entire country to a self-confessed corrupt autocrat like Manuel Zelaya to run as he pleases. “In the name of the poor” of course.

The whole principle that bothers them so greatly about this project is the free market principle of letting the poor compete with the rich instead of having the state dictate all the outcomes.

Where were these protests when Zelaya simply capitulated and handed over a disputed island territory to Nicaragua?

MYTH #4: This one is from “The Guardian” disinformation propaganda piece:

… the idea has provoked controversy in a country already suffering from one of the worst levels of inequality in the world.

Controversy? Oh really? Because maybe 5% of the country might be opposed, while these same opponents are the same ones that advocated letting Zelaya run the country like a fiefdom?

Well, it’s only a “small part” true, and “large part” a lie. How much controversy is there? You can find a clue in the vote by Congress to create these special administrative zones: 126-1. That’s a real controversy.

No, the controversy is from a handful of well-funded leftist groups that lackey press organizations like the AP and apparently The Guardian run to whenever they know that statist central-planning pushers won’t like something.

Where do those guys get so much money anyway? Who funds them? They always are talking about the rich, are they funded by starving peasants? How long can they kid us and get away with this ruse?

Then there is this precious gem from Ismael Moreno, worthy of a good belly laugh. They present it as an environmental concern but the objection is that it would end up “eliminating the last agricultural frontier left to us”.

But the project will rather open that agriculture, and provide a new market with new demand for the projects of agriculture.

Specialization of labor multiplies production in all economic sectors, but it requires capital investment by investors that have capital.

D’uh!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The land they are talking about using is IDLE and at present I suppose it is government owned land. It apparently has not attracted demands for land distribution from the usual so-called self-described “agricultural reformers”, because they instead sent their small squad of “peasants” to invade lands under productive cultivation by agricultural investors, in an area called “Bajo Aguan”.

This is land that is not generating taxes nor productive activity. There will be property taxes, and that’s more than it’s getting at the present. The agreement includes a requirement for a major percentage of employees to be from Honduras itself.

So if there is any profit in this land its value will go up and there will be tax revenues, and a great number of Hondurans will find productive work, according to as much as they can get based on their productive bottom line. If they are underpaid, it is because they did not find a free market for their contributions but a regulated one.

But if they wanted a regulated one they could just work anywhere in Honduras outside these zones. How has that been working out for them?

I was a missionary and helped the poor directly with food and other needs. It makes you feel good to help people who need it. But you don’t help them by taking them food every day for their entire lives. That’s okay for dogs and cats and pets, but not people.

But I’ve learned that a free market environment is the very best way to help the poor, and to allow the ones that can to create their own new opportunities instead of being shackled to poverty by the paper ceiling of rules, laws, taxes and regulations.

Poor people have a right to buy and sell, too…