Tuesday, September 17, 2019

Little Rock Police Sued for No Knock Raids

Source: The Appeal

It appears Rodrick Talley isn’t the only no knock raid victim to come forward. The Little Rock, AR police are facing bash lash in the form of civil rights lawsuits after coming up empty handed in several no knock raids that victimized innocent people. The lawsuits allege that police not only failed to announce their presence and intention to search the property, with prior authorization from a judge, but that they lied to obtain no knock search warrants and fabricated probable cause to search for drugs that people didn’t have. As I mentioned in When Exceptions to Our Rights Become The Norm, out of some 1,600 warrants that the Little Rock narcotics unit served over the past decade only 80 of them were not no knock warrants and nearly every probable cause affidavit and warrant contained identical language justifying their exemption from the common law standard of knock and announce, likely copied and pasted from previous affidavits and warrants. As I mentioned previously, only five percent of the suspects targeted in no knock raids even ended up in jail.

Like Talley, Derrick Davis and his finance also had their front door blown up and were surrounded by Jackboot thugs threatening to kill them for selling cocaine they never had. It turns out that they searched his home, and nearly killed him, on a false pretense just as they had done to Talley. In another instance, the narcotics unit broke into the Caldwell family home, fortunately in their absence, for some non-existent meth, vandalized it and stole their home surveillance system. In another lawsuit, the narcotics unit arbitrarily decided to search a home near a home they had a warrant for, shot the homeowner in the back multiple times, and then claimed the homeowner, Lloyd St. Clair, had pointed a gun at them (apparently he has eyes in the back of his head). All bogus charges against each of the four victims were dropped.

Wednesday, September 11, 2019

Restoring Aboriginal Title is Key to Reducing Deforestation and Preserving Biodiversity

Sources: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Special Report, Climate Benefits, Tenure Costs: The Economic Case for Securing Indigenous Land Rights,
Queensland extinguishes native title over Indigenous land to make way for Adani coalmine, Thousands of goldminers invade Yanomami territory, Injustice on the carbon frontier in GuaraqueƧaba, Brazil

A matching analysis on the effect of land tenure on deforestation rates in the Amazon forests of Bolivia, Brazil and Colombia concluded that deforestation rates are significantly lower where indigenous communities have secure land tenure compared to areas where they do not have secure tenure, for all three countries. The study specifically found that areas of the Amazon rainforest where tenure was secured to indigenous communities experienced significant reductions in deforestation between 2000 and 2012. In Bolivia, forestlands where indigenous communities held tenure experienced an average deforestation rate of 0.15% while forestlands outside of indigenous tenure experienced an average deforestation rate of 0.43%. In Brazil, forestlands where indigenous communities held tenure experienced an average deforestation rate of 0.06% while forestlands outside of indigenous tenure declined at an average rate of 0.15%. In Colombia, the average deforestation rate was exactly twice as high outside of indigenous land tenure (0.08%) than within indigenous land tenure (0.04%). The total value of carbon sequestered within forestlands where indigenous communities have secure tenure is estimated to be between $25-35 billion over the next two decades and the equivalent of removing between 9 and 12.6 million cars from the roads for a year. The monetary value of additional benefits secured by securing aboriginal title such as more efficient regulation of the regional ecosystem, local climate dynamics, water cycle, pollination, nutrient retention and even tourism are estimated to be between $679 billion and $1.53 trillion over the same time period. The estimated costs of securing aboriginal title and indigenous land tenure to forestlands traditionally occupied and used by indigenous communities is about one percent of the value of the total benefits derived from securing the title and tenure of these communities over the same time period. As I noted in A Conservative Approach to Protecting the Environment, a prior six nation study conducted by the World Bank program on Forests also found significantly lower rates of deforestation in areas where local communities had legal rights to forestland, with government enforcement of their rights, than so called “protected areas” where local communities have been excluded from their forests. Similar results are found in a comparable study of the biodiversity of forests lands and other habitats across the world. A study of 15,000 geographical areas in Canada, Brazil, and Australia concluded that habitats managed or co-managed by indigenous communities had higher numbers of species than government established protected areas.

Local communities have legal rights to about one-eighth of the world’s forest, which contains 37.7 billion tons of carbon - 29 times the annual footprint of all vehicles, but this is only a fraction of all customary aboriginal land. While indigenous peoples customarily have tenure over 50% of the earth’s surface, governments only recognize their legal right to 10% of it. Despite evidence that preserving indigenous land tenure is one of the most effective policies for reducing carbon emissions and protecting the environment, governments are still in the habit of extinguishing aboriginal title (the doctrine of discovery) in favor of extraction industries. In a recent case, the Queensland government of Australia used a divide and conquer strategy to seize 1,400 hectares of aboriginal land for a coalmine. The Brazilian government, infamous for its genocidal campaigns against indigenous Amazon tribes, has allowed thousands of gold miners to seize land demarcated for the Yanomami people. Local communities in the Amazon rainforest have also been forced out of land that they have customarily used for subsistence so multinationals such as Chevron and GM can trade carbon credits. The thin veneer of democracy has lent legitimacy to such claims (as if natural rights can be voted away) and placed the issue of land rights, especially indigenous land rights, on the back burner in popular discourse about climate change and the environment. The left-wing framing of this issue would have us believe that we must make drastic changes and great sacrifices to avoid a future global catastrophe, when in fact there are several simple things we can do to achieve the same end. Restoring and preserving indigenous land tenure is one of them. I have also written about other solutions in previous posts throughout this site.

Wednesday, September 4, 2019

Religious Beliefs Do Not Provide Carte Blanche for Discrimination

Source: Deep South Voice

There’s a viral story circulating twitter this week about a Mississippi wedding venue business turning down an interracial couple because it supposedly violated their deeply held religious beliefs. The owner of Boone’s Camp Event Hall, LLC, located in Booneville, Mississippi, refuses to host both same sex and interracial marriages on faith based grounds. While Mississippi’s religious freedom statute, HB 1523, gives businesses that provide wedding services a pass to refuse their services to same sex couples it does not sanction racial discrimination. In the past, Mississippi, like all southern states had anti-miscegenation laws that made it illegal for whites, defined under the blood quantum laws as at least 15/16 White European, to marry spouses of other races. Of course, these laws were overturned by the ruling in Loving v. Virginia; thus, any government agents or companies that attempt to enforce a ban on interracial marriage are doing so under the color of law. As I have already explained in a previous post, companies that offer their goods or services to the public at large have no right to discriminate on the basis of any federally protected class.

While discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is still a legal grey area in many states racial discrimination is not. If Boone’s Camp Event Hall advertises its services to the public at large, engages in interstate commerce, and enjoys certain legal benefits under state law, such as limited liability, then it is a place of public accommodation subject to federal civil rights statute, especially title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Only private clubs, that only provide services on a membership basis, religious organizations and private citizens that sell goods and services through word-of-mouth networks are exempt. While faith based discrimination has been limited to wedding services, Mississippi’s religious freedom statute, and similar laws passed by other state legislatures, could set a dangerous precedent that allows faith based discrimination for services that have nothing to do religion, perhaps even allowing denial of medical care on religious grounds. The line must be clearly drawn between those circumstances in which religious objections are material and those in which they are not. For instance, while it might be impermissible to allow bakers to refuse service to gay customers they should be allowed to refuse to decorate a cake specifically tailored to a gay wedding and only offer a plain wedding cake. In other words, they should be given discretion over the types and designs of the products they sell. This would strike a balance between civil rights of gay customers and Christian bakers.

Friday, August 30, 2019

You Shouldn't Need The Government's Permission to Make A Living

If you are a citizen of the United States, finding employment, either through yourself or another, is one of your unenumerated civil rights. It is also your natural right to earn a living so you can satisfy your basic human needs. Unfortunately, like most of our rights, even those explicitly mentioned in the constitution, local and state governments violate it with impunity. This has been recently illustrated in the case of a South Carolina florist who was arrested for selling floral arrangements without a business license - a permission slip to earn a living as your own boss. Unlike some criminal offences, this man’s actions, continuing to sell his products after his license had been revoked for unpaid taxes, were not immoral. The only harm done was to the city of Columbia’s coffers because they decided to draw their revenue from the wages and capital investments of workers and businesses instead of the rents of landlords and mortgage lenders; a just tax scheme would place the burden on the latter and leave the business owner and workers with their full earnings. While I’m not exactly sure how you sure how you create a wealthier more prosperous society, I’m pretty sure making it more difficult for people to find work or make work for themselves is not how you do it.

Monday, August 26, 2019

March For Our Lives Release Plan for an American Police State

If you want more military style policing, warrantless surveillance, warrantless searches and seizures, and mass incarceration then the parkland kids have the perfect plan for you. Their plan includes creating a director of gun violence prevention, a federal gun registry, an assault weapons ban (read: scary looking semi-autos with pistol grips), red flag laws, and a mandatory buy-back (i.e. armed robbery) program. Just like all authoritarian ideologies this peace plan is based on a number of false premises and lies. For example: mentally ill people are inherently violent (an old eugenics lie), you can infer causation from correlation data (post hoc fallacy), and apparently our constitutional rights are optional and can be discarded if they become an inconvenience to power hungry psychopaths.

The bill of rights is not a buffet where you can pick and choose which one’s you’ll uphold at your own convenience. They are all inextricably linked; you cannot compromise one without compromising the others. Gun grabbers have already demonstrated this with such awful proposals as red flag laws and no buy lists, which not only removes firearms but also the right to due process and 4th amendment property protections. We have already witnessed the erosion of our constitutional rights with the war on drugs and the war on terror. The war on drugs gave us civil asset forfeiture, which is more often than not used to rob legitimate businesses of their hard earned money, Anti-Structuring Statutes, which allows LEOs to wipe out your bank account for making multiple deposits under an arbitrary amount, stop and frisk, an unconstitutional policy even gun control leftists protested, has allowed police to force college students to become informants and has led to the gutting almost all of our 4th amendment protections against searches and seizures without probable cause or a warrant. The war on terror has resulted in warrantless and suspicionless surveillance through the prism program, National Security letters, infiltration of minority communities, and cell site simulators. The war on terror has allowed the Feds to add Americans to a no fly list or FBI terrorist watch list and deprive them of certain liberties without their knowledge or ability to challenge their decision. Arming local police departments and sheriff’s offices with military grade weaponry such as .50 BMGs, mine resistant MRAPS, and tanks, things you would only need in an actual war zone, has been another perhaps intended effect of the war on terror.The war on terror has been the single most overused excuse for expanding the scope of executive power to allow the president to commit atrocities that we could only imagine a tin pot dictator doing such as extrajudicial execution and indefinite detention of American citizens. It is beyond naive to think a war on “gun violence” would not produce similar results. Of course, gun grabbers are really only concerned about private violence. State violence both as it currently exists and as a means to disarm American citizens is perfectly acceptable to them. If their plan came to fruition, you wouldn’t hear a peep from them about the people killed and maimed in no knock raids to seize weapons, as they currently do with drug raids, or the number of additional lives ruined in our injustice system for the heinous crime of possessing a firearm without the government’s permission. They don’t care that their plan would create a national police state where federal law enforcement agencies, like the FBI and ATF, have absolute power. Jack bootlickers like David Hogg wouldn’t care about these unintended consequences as long as it doesn’t personally inconvenience them.

The Real Solution to Gun Violence

As I’ve already pointed out in a previous post, mass shootings and other forms of violent crimes are positively correlated with higher levels of economic deprivation, income inequality and low social mobility. This is a better starting point for dealing with something as nebulous as gun violence than trying to make causal inferences from isolated case studies that use correlational data. While the level of income inequality, and the mass shootings it predicts, cannot be directly reduced we can take small steps in this direction by relieving local and state tax burdens on lower income people, providing more affordable housing options, access to cheaper credit, higher education, and more lucrative job opportunities. Reforms in taxation, city planning, higher education, and occupational licensing, would also be needed to encourage greater social mobility and narrow the distance between social classes.

Friday, August 23, 2019

Federal Student Loan Debt is A Policy Choice

On Wednesday Trump signed an executive order directing the department of education to forgive $750 million in federal student loan debt for 25,000 disabled veterans. While this is only a drop in the bucket compared to the almost $1.5 trillion in total outstanding federal student loan debt it demonstrates a remarkable point about the tenuous nature of both federal student loans and our entire monetary system as a whole. Despite evidence to the contrary, most Americans still think of our money, federal reserve notes, as some tangible commodity that must be extracted from the private sector and not, as the very term ‘fiat’ currency implies, a credit created by a monopoly on legal tender that only holds value via force of law i.e. mandatory taxation. Without an antiquated sound money view of the dollar, they would easily see that federal student loans and the inevitable debt crisis it created are both policy choices. The program itself drove up the cost of tuition by allowing universities to charge more than what most students would have otherwise been able to afford on their own. Just as cheap money from the federal reserve inflates stock and bond values, cheap money from the federal government to universities inflated college tuition costs. The resulting $1.5 trillion in outstanding student loan debt, 90% of which is federal student loan debt, serves no other purpose than being a drag on the economy. Forcing all other borrowers, who aren’t disabled veterans, to pay back their federal student loans does not create any additional wealth or add any value to the economy; the industry itself is rent-seeking and parasitic in nature. Instead of building actual equity by taking out home mortgages, borrowers have to delay home ownership until they pay off loans that do nothing except contribute to the tuition bubble the federal government created in the first place. They money loaned to them was not extracted from taxpayers, as many falsely believe, and they are not paying back taxpayers. The federal government, and its agents like Sallie Mae, simply credited student borrowers, and debited their accounts later at a set rate of interest. All student loan debt could be cancelled without raising taxes because taxes do not fund federal spending in the first place, they drive aggregate demand for federal reserve notes and curb inflation by taking these very bank notes out of circulation. The effect of canceling all outstanding federal student loan debt would be to redistribute money from the public sector to the private sector, by allowing borrowers to spend more on consumer goods and home mortgages rather than give more to Uncle Sam. Ignorance of fiat currencies and modern monetary theory is the only thing holding this country back.

Thursday, August 15, 2019

Mass Immigration is not Necessary for Economic Growth or Funding Social Security Benefits

Mass immigration, a staple of modern left wing politics, is not necessary for future growth or funding of social security benefits. Case in point: Japan, despite shrinking in population by 3.5 million people over the past decade, is still experiencing economic growth albeit at a very low 1.2% rate. Of course, everyone understands that increasing the labor force isn't the only way to raise labor productivity; things like automation and artificial intelligence can do this just as the industrialization of farming at the turn of the 20th century raised crop yields while also shrinking the agricultural labor force. At the turn of the 20th century about 40% of Americans were still employed in agriculture, today it is less than 2% (and could be even less without the farm bill). The same is true of manufacturing, which at it's peak employed more than 1/3 of the American labor force, but now employs less than 9% of the current labor force. Even though employment in both sectors declined steadily labor productivity in both sectors also grew. Much of our aging work force will not need to be replaced by younger workers because their jobs will likely by automated. Perhaps as much as 47% of current jobs, mainly low skill and blue collar but some white collar jobs as well, will be automated in some capacity in the next 25 years. Why import more people to do jobs that won't exist? More importantly why import unskilled labor from countries like Guatemala and El Salvador, people with less than a high school education, when almost all future job growth is in fields that require either a four year college degree or vocational school education?

A separate but equally false claim peddled by the pro-mass immigration left is that we need more immigrants to pay into social security to support our ageing population. This claim rests on the false presumption that social security taxes fund social security benefits. This type of thinking is a remnant of the gold standard era. Taxes do not fund spending at the federal level; they drive aggregate demand (for federal reserve notes) and curb inflation. If the federal government needed taxes to fund spending it would have already become insolvent by now; our entire national debt exceeds both net federal revenue and GDP. The national debt is the private assets of federal reserve banks and foreign countries not something our grand children will pay back in the future to god knows who. Furthermore, the current array of programs for the elderly such as SSI, medicare, and medicaid could be replaced by a basic income guarantee for senior citizens without needing to tax the wages of the working age population or fulfilling a multitude of applications and eligibility requirements.

Saturday, August 10, 2019

Income Inequality Linked to Mass Shootings

Sources: Income inequality, household income, and mass shootings in the United States and Socioeconomic factors and mass shootings in the United States

Several regression models of strain theory reveal a positive correlation between income inequality and mass shootings as well as an interaction effect of higher median household income and higher income inequality with higher incidents of mass shootings. Strain theory posits that communities which experience relatively high levels of economic deprivation and a lack of opportunity for social mobility create hostile environments conducive to high rates of violent crime. Several previous studies have found a significant relationship between income inequality, class salience and violent crime without specifically focusing on mass shootings, operationally defined as shootings involving four or more victims and excluding gang and drug related shootings. The particular model in this study found that a one standard deviation increase in income inequality (using the post-tax Gini Coefficient) and a 0.53 increase in household income predicted a 0.46 increase in incidents of mass shootings. Demographic controls such as population density, median population age, and proportion of minority population were also positively associated with incidents of mass shootings.

Using this assessment, we can see that the availability and ease of acquiring firearms is not the sole risk factor for mass shootings, and thus should not be the be all end all of the discussion. In order to properly address the mass shooting epidemic we really need to address widening disparities in social class, economic deprivation, and the policies that create it. Much of income inequality stems from the government's fiscal and land use policies: regressive taxes at state and local level (e.g. sales taxes, property taxes and court fines) and rents outpacing wages, making the poor poorer, due to artificial and natural scarcity in housing stock and a lack of diversity of housing options (due to exclusionary zoning). Combine these state and local policies with low interest rates, which being inverse to stock and bond prices make the rich richer, and you have a recipe for growing income inequality. Of course, remedying the causes of growing income inequality would not completely prevent mass shootings, but it would eliminate environments that foster these incidents.

Tuesday, August 6, 2019

Tennessee slaughterhouse owner charged for employing illegal aliens

Source: NTD News

James Brantley, owner of Grainger County slaughterhouse near Knoxville, Tennessee, was charged with tax evasion, wire fraud, and hiring illegal aliens to work in his meat packing plant, after an ICE raid on April 4, 2018 led to the arrest of 86 workers (97 in total) who had entered the country unlawfully and were employed in the plant without authorization. Brantley was given a lenient sentence of only 18 months in prison and 3 years of probation. The motive for employing illegal aliens was obvious: cheap labor. The plant owner was able to save millions in overhead costs, for the past three decades (since at least 1988) by skirt labor regulations and paying starvation wages under the table to illegal aliens. In fact, Brantely saved $1.3 million alone just by avoiding payroll taxes. This case isn’t an isolated incident either. In 2018 alone, the Homeland Security Investigations department of ICE, which is in charge of work site enforcement of immigration laws, arrested 800 employers and 1500 illegal aliens, a 640% increase from the previous year.

Document fraud, social security fraud and other forms of identity theft are not the only damage caused by illegal immigration. Undermining American workers by paying illegal aliens below minimum wage, under the table, is yet another and perhaps even greater problem. Illegal aliens are less than 5% of the workforce, but constitute 24% of agricultural workers, 24% of maids or house cleaning workers and 15% of construction workers and contractors. No American can comfortably live off of six dollars an hour, as the workers in this slaughterhouse were paid; there is no county in this country in which that would afford a minimal standard of living unless they were accustomed to living like peasants in crowded and sub-par housing barely suitable for human habitation like most Central American migrant workers. The survival of low skilled and blue collar labor cannot be protected without cracking down on employers who knowingly or unknowingly hire illegal aliens Making participation in E-Verify mandatory and giving longer prison sentences and steeper fines to employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens would remove much of the incentive for illegal immigration itself.

Wednesday, July 31, 2019

How Congress Created Our Obesity and Mental Disorder Epidemics

You are what you eat. Food is fuel for the body and it turns out cheap food high in saturated fats and refined carbohydrates isn’t good for your body or your mind; who knew?. A recent study in the field of neuroscience has found that typical diets in Western countries, especially the United States, are linked not only to obesity and other physical diseases, but also mental health disorders such as depression, anxiety disorders, and dementia (Jacka, Cherbuin, Anstey, Sachdev, & Butterworth, 2015). A longitudinal study published in BMC Medicine Journal found that unhealthy dietary patterns, characterized by high concentrations of saturated fats and refined sugars and a lack of nutrient dense foods, are independently associated with smaller left hippocampal volumes in older adults compared with dietary patterns characterized by nutrient dense foods (Jacka et al., 2015). A similar rodent study found that diets rich in fats and sugars results in memory impairments due to cognitive impairments affecting the hippocampus (Wu, Ying, & Gomez-Pinilla, 2003). Nutrient rich diets containing vegetables, fruits, whole grains and fish ( and other Omega 3 fatty acids) are associated with reduced risk and prevalence of depression disorders (Jacka et al., 2015). Of course, since the hippocampus has a major role in both memory and motivation, declines in this area of the brain should be expected to have much more detrimental results then what has been uncovered. Given the prevalence and convenience of eating unhealthy diets in the U.S., high in saturated fats and refined sugars, it should be no surprise to us why, according to the CDC, over 70% of Americans are overweight and nearly 40% are obese, including 1 in 5 adolescents. It should be no surprise why 1 and 5 adults experience some mental illness in any given year, with depression being the most prevalent disorder (NAMI, n.d.). Our eating habits are making us fat and miserable and we have good reason to believe that the new “fat acceptance” movement and the mainstream discourse about mental health have grown out of this.

If you think obesity and its associated diseases are just a matter of poor individual dietary choices, then you’re dead wrong. There is no area of our lives that government policy does not touch and this includes our diets. Sure, the government does not force you to eat certain foods, at least not yet, but they do control which kinds of foods are the cheapest and most available. This is mainly done through the annual farm bill used to provide a plethora of subsidies (such as crop insurance) to our agricultural industry. More than half of the daily calories Americans consume are derived from subsidized agricultural commodities (Siegel, Bullard, Imperatore, Kahn, Stein, Ali & Narayan, 2016). Current agricultural subsidies are focused only on a handful of commodities, mainly corn, soybeans, wheat, rice, sorghum, dairy, and cattle (Siegel et al., 2016). Much of these are used to produce high fat, high sugar processed foods, refined grains and soft drinks. For instance, 50% of domestically grown soybeans are used to produce oils, such as hydrogenated oil prevalent in fast food, and 5% of domestic corn is used to produce high-fructose corn syrup, used to sweeten soft drinks and junk food (Siegel et al., 2016). About 70% of the fats and oils we consume are produced from soy oil and another 8% are produced from corn oil (Wallinga, 2010). In 2002, the USDA concluded that the primary factor contributing to the growing obesity rates was a 300 calorie increase in average daily consumption between 1985 and 2000 (Wallinga, 2010). Out of the extra 300 calories, 24% came from added fats, 23% came from added sugars, and 46% came from refined grains. In a 2007 follow up, the USDA found that the average daily consumption was 400 calories more than it was 2 decades earlier, and 600 calories more than it was 3 decades earlier in the 1970s (Wallinga, 2010). Most of the extra calories came from refined grains, especially corn (Wallinga, 2010). Since almost all of the extra calories Americans have consumed over the past few decades have come from only a handful of subsidized crops and commodities, it should not be surprising that higher consumption of foods produced from subsidized agricultural commodities is associated with a 14 to 41% probability of cardio metabolic risk (i.e. the lifetime risk of developing cardiovascular disease) and other conditions and diseases associated with obesity (Siegel et al., 2016).

The current glut of cheap crops that are being turned into cheap processed food is the result of a 1974 USDA policy that encouraged overproduction of cheap commodities so U.S. agriculture could dominate global markets (Wallinga, 2010). As with most federal policy making, the unintended consequences were out of sight and out of mind. The intended overproduction of these commodity crops resulted in low prices that drove many small farms out of business (Wallinga, 2010). The emergency payments to farmers, which predate the Trump admin, is a result of these cheap food subsidies that encouraged overproduction and plunged prices (Wallinga, 2010). Another unintended harmful consequence of this policy is that Americans consume 24% fewer servings of vegetables daily then what the USDA recommends (Wallinga, 2010). Of course, vegetable and fruit production does not qualify farms for emergency payments and is prohibited in some farm bill programs (Wallinga, 2010). Obesity was not a problem in the 1970’s, so it’s easy to see how they would not have foreseen it, but it does demonstrate how disastrous a simple minded approach to policy making can be. Any decision at the federal level will always have not only one intended effect, but several unintended effects. Since the link between cause and effect is so disconnected and blurred at this level, it’s difficult to spot bad policies unless you study them in depth.


FastStats - Overweight Prevalence. (2017). Retrieved July 30, 2019, from https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/obesity-overweight.htm

Jacka, F. N., Cherbuin, N., Anstey, K. J., Sachdev, P., & Butterworth, P. (2015). Western diet is associated with a smaller hippocampus: A longitudinal investigation. BMC Medicine, 13(1), 1-8. doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0461-x

NAMI. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.nami.org/Learn-More/Mental-Health-By-the-Numbers

Siegel, K. R., Bullard, K. M., Imperatore, G., Kahn, H. S., Stein, A. D., Ali, M. K., & Narayan, K. M. (2016). Association of higher consumption of foods derived from subsidized commodities with adverse cardiometabolic risk among US adults. JAMA Internal Medicine, 176(8), 1124. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.2410'

Wallinga, D. (2010). Agricultural policy and childhood obesity: A food systems and public health commentary. Health Affairs, 29(3), 405-410. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0102

Wu, A., Molteni, R., Ying, Z., & Gomez-Pinilla, F. (2003). A saturated-fat diet aggravates the outcome of traumatic brain injury on hippocampal plasticity and cognitive function by reducing brain-derived neurotrophic factor. Neuroscience, 119(2), 365-375. doi:10.1016/s0306-4522(03)00154-4