En el podcast de hoy hablamos de la decisión de Evo Morales de lanzarse a la presidencia por cuarta vez consecutiva, pero sobre todo hablamos del grave problema económico que tiene Bolivia y del que muy poco se habla.

En el podcast de hoy hablamos de la decisión de Evo Morales de lanzarse a la presidencia por cuarta vez consecutiva, pero sobre todo hablamos del grave problema económico que tiene Bolivia y del que muy poco se habla.

En el podcast de hoy hablamos de la decisión de Evo Morales de lanzarse a la presidencia por cuarta vez consecutiva, pero sobre todo hablamos del grave problema económico que tiene Bolivia y del que muy poco se habla.

En el podcast de hoy le contamos todo lo que debe saber para entender la crisis que atraviesa Honduras.

En el podcast de hoy le contamos todo lo que debe saber para entender la crisis que atraviesa Honduras.

En el podcast de hoy le contamos todo lo que debe saber para entender la crisis que atraviesa Honduras.

Ron Paul has been one of a few voices of sanity in our foreign policy in the post 9/11 age. He has long derided our nation-building efforts in the Middle East, and demonstrated how the "War on Terror" has become yet another excuse to expand the size and scope of government, while threatening our civil liberties. But the iconic libertarian's flirtation with non-interventionism can be taken too far as well; particularly when he questions the use of force on the part of our government and military in justifiable situations. Paul recently called into question the Trump administration's policy towards North Korea, and questioned our use of drones to take out dangerous terrorists like American-Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. While fundamentally Paul is correct that our military is too big and its presence too widespread, he is also wrong to suggest that force should not be used when dealing with a brutal megalomaniac such as Kim Jong-Un.

Ron Paul has been one of a few voices of sanity in our foreign policy in the post 9/11 age. He has long derided our nation-building efforts in the Middle East, and demonstrated how the "War on Terror" has become yet another excuse to expand the size and scope of government, while threatening our civil liberties. But the iconic libertarian's flirtation with non-interventionism can be taken too far as well; particularly when he questions the use of force on the part of our government and military in justifiable situations. Paul recently called into question the Trump administration's policy towards North Korea, and questioned our use of drones to take out dangerous terrorists like American-Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. While fundamentally Paul is correct that our military is too big and its presence too widespread, he is also wrong to suggest that force should not be used when dealing with a brutal megalomaniac such as Kim Jong-Un.

Ron Paul has been one of a few voices of sanity in our foreign policy in the post 9/11 age. He has long derided our nation-building efforts in the Middle East, and demonstrated how the "War on Terror" has become yet another excuse to expand the size and scope of government, while threatening our civil liberties. But the iconic libertarian's flirtation with non-interventionism can be taken too far as well; particularly when he questions the use of force on the part of our government and military in justifiable situations. Paul recently called into question the Trump administration's policy towards North Korea, and questioned our use of drones to take out dangerous terrorists like American-Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. While fundamentally Paul is correct that our military is too big and its presence too widespread, he is also wrong to suggest that force should not be used when dealing with a brutal megalomaniac such as Kim Jong-Un.

Lula da Silva rode a commodities boom to economic stability and poverty reduction, becoming the most important figure in recent Brazilian history. The Bolsa Familia program was a cornerstone of his efforts to reduce inequality. Widely lauded by the international community, and used as a model elsewhere, the program is a conditional cash transfer (CCT) that gives debit cards to poor families contingent upon school attendance and vaccination of their children. But is the program ultimately creating a permanent underclass and institutionalizing inequality? Is it really reducing poverty or creating a perpetual dependence mentality? And despite its popularity, will the destitute federal government be able to maintain the program in the future?