FILE PHOTO: A mans walks past a burning barricade during a protest against Haitian Prime Minister Ariel Henry, in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, October 10, 2022.(Credit: AFP / Richard Pierrin)
The US-backed government in Haiti and Kenyan military forces continue to lose territory to gangs and paramilitaries in Port-au-Prince. The inability to restore order is leading Haitians to demand a new government.
According to a report from Human Rights Watch, the Haitian government now only controls 10% of the capital city. “Haiti’s security situation is in a free fall and Haitians are suffering horrific abuses,” said Nathalye Cotrino, senior Americas researcher at HRW.
The Haitian government has struggled to control Port-au-Prince since the assassination of President Jovenel Moïse in 2021. Following his murder, the US supported the rise of Ariel Henry as leader in Port-au-Prince.
Henry proved to be an ineffective prime minister, leading large numbers of Haitians to flee to the US as gangs took over more of the capital. In response, Washington sought a third country to deploy military forces to Haiti to retake control from the gangs.
While the Biden administration struggled for over a year to find a nation willing to deploy soldiers to Haiti, Kenya agreed to send troops in 2023 in exchange for US financial support, as well as Nairobi being named a Major Non-NATO Ally.
Henry’s consent to the Kenyan deployment eventually led to his ouster, with the US then creating a transnational government with Garry Conille as the new prime minister.
Kenyan soldiers began arriving in Haiti in the second half of 2024 with the goal of transferring power to Connille’s government, planning to have about 2,500 troops in the country by the start of 2025. At the beginning of the mission, gangs and paramilitaries were estimated to hold 80% of Port-au-Prince.
In April of 2004, the 9/11 Commission began its tenth public hearing in Washington, D.C., probing the intelligence and law enforcement failures that allowed the September 11 attacks. Over two days, ending April 14, the commission grilled top officials like FBI Director Robert Mueller, Attorney General John Ashcroft, and CIA Director George Tenet, alongside former leaders like Janet Reno and Louis Freeh. The hearings exposed gaps—missed warnings, siloed agencies, and lax airport security—that let 19 hijackers execute their plan, killing nearly 3,000 Americans.
The commission’s 2004 report didn’t just dissect the past; it reshaped the future. Its call for tighter ID standards to prevent terrorist travel birthed the REAL ID Act in 2005, mandating a national ID system through state driver’s licenses. Sold as a fix for 9/11’s vulnerabilities, REAL ID requires biometric data, federal oversight, and links to sprawling databases—tracking where you fly, bank, or even enter a government building. With enforcement delayed time and time, the truth is clear: this isn’t about catching bad guys; it’s about watching and tracking everyone. The War on Terror’s fear machine turned a tragedy into an excuse for control.
The Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania rejects this overreach. The 9/11 hearings showed government failed—not because it lacked power, but because it misused it. Piling on surveillance through REAL ID doesn’t make us safer; it makes us suspects in our own country. Freedom means moving through life without a federal leash, not proving your identity to board a plane. Let’s scrap REAL ID and the War on Terror’s bloated legacy—liberty, not tracking, is our shield.
For your crime of production, you will be ordered to pay a fine.
What really happens on Tax Day?
Martin, Today, if you haven’t done so already, you will provide evidence that you committed the crime of production in 2024. This self-incrimination is not only shielded from your protections under the 5th Amendment, but is mandated by the state. For your crime of production, you will be ordered to pay a fine. If you fail to pay your fine, you will be forcefully kidnapped from society and locked in a cage. Forced self-incrimination, robbery, and kidnapping are all bad, regardless of the aggressor or their title. Being forced to pay for the bombing of innocents in other countries and the captivity of innocents at home makes most Libertarians feel dirty.
On this day, April 8, 1895, the Supreme Court struck down an unapportioned income tax in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust, ruling it unconstitutional. The 1894 tax was sold as a levy on the ultra-wealthy—2% on incomes above $4,000—and promised to spare the rest. The 16th Amendment in 1913 reversed this, opening the floodgates to a tax now hitting nearly every American, funding a government that spends over $6 trillion annually on everything from wars to waste.
It was a classic bait and switch. The bait was “tax the rich”; the switch was “tax us all.”
The Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania decries this betrayal. Income taxes should be minimal or nonexistent—not a blank check for bloated bureaucracy. Pollock’s spirit deserves a comeback.
But we’re constantly told that in order to benefit from modern tech—and the insights that come with it—we have to give up our privacy. That useful data only comes from total access. That once your info is out there, you’ve lost control. That there’s no point in trying to protect it anymore.
These are myths. And they’re holding us back.
The truth is, you can benefit from data-driven tools without giving away everything. You can choose which companies to trust. You can protect one piece of information while sharing another. You can demand smarter systems that deliver insights without exploiting your identity.
Privacy isn’t about opting out of technology—it’s about choosing how you engage with it.
In this issue, we’re busting four of the most common myths about data collection. Because once you understand what’s possible, you’ll see how much power you still have.
Myth #1: “I gave data to one company, so my privacy is already gone.”
This one is everywhere. Once people sign up for a social media account or share info with a fitness app, they often throw up their hands and say, “Well, I guess my privacy’s already gone.”
But that’s not how privacy works.
Privacy is about choice. It’s about context. It’s about setting boundaries that make sense for you.
Just because you’ve shared data with one company doesn’t mean you’re giving blanket permission to every app, government agency, or ad network to track you forever.
You’re allowed to:
Share one piece of information and protect another.
Say yes to one service and no to others.
Change your mind, rotate your identifiers, and reduce future exposure.
Privacy isn’t all or nothing. And it’s never too late to take some power back.
Myth #2: “If I give a company data, they can do whatever they want with it.”
Not if you pick the right company.
Many businesses are committed to ethical data practices. Some explicitly state in their terms that they’ll never share your data, sell it, or use it outside the scope of the service you signed up for.
Look for platforms that don’t retain unnecessary data. There are more of them out there than you think.
Myth #3: “To get insights, a company needs to see my data.”
Traditional “left” was working-class. That is CLEARLY not the case anymore. This accelerated under obama when the corporations (who had ruined the gop under bush) all ran to support the new left under obama. The new left is wealthy, sub-urban, corporate, and huge numbers of highly paid govt employees (both federal and unionized municipal). They are economically regressive (upward wealth transfer) and hide that under the guise of really really extreme far-“left” social issues like the transgender agenda.
“The reality on most college and university campuses differs greatly from what outsiders think. Administrators and professors are open to diversity of race, sex, and sexual preference and pretty much to everyone under the sun except for straight white males. Intellectual diversity is to them like the cross to a vampire. It is evil, sexist, racist, ci-gendered, and all the rest. All those who favor it are considered fascists, Nazis.”
Give credit where credit is due. The campus lefties are now whining, and they are doing an excellent job of it. Nay, superlative.
What is the complaint? It is that elected state officials, governors, and legislators are sticking their snouts where they do not belong. Namely, they have the audacity to dictate what should and should not be taught at colleges and universities and how they should be run.
Specifically, they have all but banned “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) statements as a requirement for hiring and promotions. When our friends on the left attempted to substitute “belonging” for DEI, the politicians gave the backs of their hands to that subterfuge as well.
Nor should we forget the meddling of the Supreme Court of the United States. Imagine! Those friends have banned Affirmative Action, the bedrock of socialist professors. Nor should we forget about grievance studies: black studies, queer studies, feminist studies, and all the rest. These, too, are under the gun by politicians who must be brought to heel.
Perhaps the leading target of this outrage, in the view of the parlor pinks, is Governor DeSantis of Florida, where “woke goes to die,” thank goodness. Their cri de coeur is that faculty in the Sunshine State are eyeing the exits. Well, bad cess to them in their new faculty posts. They will ruin their new intellectual homes as they have done from whence they are supposedly leaving. Their taunt is that inferior faculty will be hired in their places. And, indeed, there is some truth in that charge, at least in terms of formal credentials. The left has been so overwhelmingly powerful at our institutions of higher learning that they have been hugely successful in precluding from the professoriate—so much for “inclusion” —scholars who are not entirely “woke.”
Of course, intellectuals, other things equal, are far better able to determine what should and should not be taught in class than politicians and judges. But other things are hardly equal. This assumption only applies on the assumption that the scholars are open to all shades of opinion. As John Stuart Mill eloquently said: “He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion.” If students have never even been acquainted with critiques of Marxism—and all too often they have not been on campus—they have been cheated.
The reality on most college and university campuses differs greatly from what outsiders think. Administrators and professors are open to diversity of race, sex, and sexual preference and pretty much to everyone under the sun except for straight white males. Intellectual diversity is to them like the cross to a vampire. It is evil, sexist, racist, ci-gendered, and all the rest. All those who favor it are considered fascists, Nazis.
As matters stand, the incursion of these “outside forces” is a vast improvement. The now-embittered economic and cultural Marxists started this intellectual war. When they were in the driver’s seat, all was well. They regard this comeuppance they are now suffering from as totally unjustified. It never would have occurred, had they not been so intent and successful in achieving an all but monopoly over what is taught, published, how hiring and promotion are determined, etc.
But now a word of caution for the “interlopers.” It will do little good, say, to forbid the use of Rawls in class and insist on substituting Nozick. Ditto for replacing Marx with Mises or banning Myrdahl so that Hayek may be read instead. Ditto for substituting Sowell for Kendi.
MCViewPoint 