Weekly Poll Results: 11/24/2007

Democrat Idiocy Has REAL Consquences

I am sure you have been following all of the news simmering in the background of the Presidential campaign about Pakistan. The basic situation is that General Pervez Musharraf, currently serving as the Pakistani President, declared a State of Emergency in early November, has arrested political opponents, and is interfering with the upcoming elections in January. General Pervez Musharraf, head of the Pakistani military, seized power in Pakistan in 1999 through a military coup. Despite the fact that he is a military dictator, he has been a major ally to the United States in the War on Terror. Today, the Times Online reports that General Musharraf has announced he will resign as head of the military. This will allow him, according to a recent Supreme Court ruling, to continue in power legally for another five years. However, this will most likely not placate rival political factions and protesters. Overall, it seems as if the political situation over there has become unstable to say the least.


Now, this story got me to thinking about when I first started hearing about the political problems for General Musharraf. I have known for the last few years, through my studies in college, that General Musharraf was already balancing a tense situation. He was essentially being pressured by three factions. On one side was the army, who he had to feed and keep happy in order to maintain his rule. On the other were the madrases and other terrorist networks who, despite fostering hate and anti-Americanism, were actually providing social services to his people, making them rather popular. Add in the United States, calling for increased democracy and a crackdown on terrorist activities and you can see why the General's job was so tough. Advances were slow because they were so heavily dependent on US aid to offset the power of the Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations over the Pakistani people. So what was the match that set this powder keg aflame?

"As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

Portion of a Speech by Senator Barack Obama at the Wilson Center
August 1, 2007 - Washington, DC

These remarks by Senator Obama, which came seemingly out of the blue, set off a firestorm of debate. In fact, there really was no need for him to lay down the law for General Musharraf in such a way, since the leader had in fact been assisting the US greatly in our hunt for Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. And regardless of whether or not the Senator claims that he actually was making a threatening remark, it was taken as such by the Pakistani government.

"A top Pakistani official on Friday called Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama 'irresponsible' for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes in Pakistan against al-Qaeda. Protesters chanted anti-U.S. slogans and burned an American flag in the street." - Associated Press, August 3, 2007.

Hmm, protesters? Social unrest? That would need police action to quell, would it not? And wouldn't that police action create further conflict, etc...? Not to mention the political fallout in the United States, which included statements from Senator Edwards, Secretary Rice and President Bush. These of course must have affected the Pakistani situation further, given the added US pressure and the impact of the statements on the government and its dissidents. And when President Musharraf declared a State of Emergency in order to regain control of his country, he was slammed even further... leading to today's resignation as head of the military.


Could the Senator's remarks have begun a chain of events that unraveled the delicate political situation in Pakistan? I believe so. Senator Barrack Obama was engaging in his usual anti-war rhetoric and demanding that the United States withdraw from Iraq and refocus it's anti-terrorism efforts on Afghanistan. Except this time, he included Pakistan in his remarks and agitated what was already a delicate situation. His comments, regardless of the idiocy of their content, have now resulted in General Musharraf resigning from the Pakistani military. And when the Pakistani government falls apart and we are forced to intercede in order to prevent the establishment of a terrorist state, I am sure that Senator Obama will be among the first to point their finger at the Bush Administration for blame. Who knows, he may be against military action in that instance as well.

Now, I am not trying to defend General Musharraf's actions or to say that his government does not need reform. I am merely trying to illustrate how idiotic statements by the well-intentioned Democrat party can have very real and last effects that impact millions. Let's think about that as we are considering presidential nominees in the coming months.

FBI Raids Liberty Dollar, Steals Gold and Silver

Consent of the Governed has a chilling post today about a recent government raid on the headquarters of the American Liberty Dollar, a private currency backed by real gold and silver. Apparently, the headquarters was raided, and all of the gold and silver used to back the currency were confiscated by the FBI and the Secret Service. The government claims that Mr. Bernard von NotHaus, creator of the Liberty Dollar, is in violation of U.S. Law in that he is circulating a "current currency." However, Mr. von NotHaus has never claimed that the currency is legal tender or that it is backed by the federal government. Quite the contrary, he explicitly states on his website that the Liberty Dollar is a private currency. The gestapo-like tactics of the federal government in attempting to shut down a competing private corporation and their currency (based on the values of precious metals) should enrage freedom loving Americans everywhere. As Capitalists, we believe in trading value for value, which is why a gold standard is essential to trade and why I support the American Liberty Dollar. I urge you all to support Mr. von NotHaus as his lawsuit against the Federal government unfolds. You can read more on the Liberty Dollar and what you can do to help at this website!

Boston Repeals the 2nd and 4th Amendments

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

- Amendment II to the US Constitution

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

- Amendment IV to the US Constitution

Well, forget all that if you're living in Boston. The Boston Police have decided to throw out the 2nd and 4th amendments of the U.S. Constitution with a new program to go door to door in high-crime areas, searching for guns in children's bedrooms, according to a story by the Boston Globe by Maria Cramer. The program, called Safe Homes (how sickening sweet), was announced by Police Commissioner Edward F. Davis on Friday.

"The program, which is already raising questions about civil liberties, is based on the premise that parents are so fearful of gun violence and the possibility that their own teenagers will be caught up in it that they will turn to police for help, even in their own households... The officers will travel in groups of three, dress in plainclothes to avoid attracting negative attention, and ask the teenager's parent or legal guardian for permission to search. If the parents say no, police said, the officers will leave... "

My concerns are the same as those raised by former Boston police lieutenant Thomas Nolan:

"I just have a queasy feeling anytime the police try to do an end run around the Constitution... The Constitution was written with a very specific intent, and that was to keep the law out of private homes unless there is a written document signed by a judge and based on probable cause. Here, you don't have that."

And, we all know how intimidating the police can be, even if they are in plain clothes. According to the story, 98% of parents in the St. Louis program gave police their consent to search their homes. Was that true consent or a consent borne of fear and coercion? Besides, once you let police officers in for one thing, they can use the opportunity to search for other illegal activities. Anything found would be possibly admissible in court, since the homeowner allowed the police officers into their homes, even though no warrant was obtained. As more proof to that end, check out this quote from the news story:

"If officers find a gun, police said, they will not charge the teenager with unlawful gun possession, unless the firearm is linked to a shooting or homicide."

Commissioner Davis said:

"This isn't evidence that we're going to present in a criminal case..."

Hmmm... It seems like they might be a little afraid to present this information in a criminal court due to the shaky legal means in which it was obtained. So then what's the point of the program? Why do in the first place? The answer lies on page 2 of the story:

"This is a seizing of a very dangerous object..." Said Commissioner Davis (shown at right).

The Boston Globe story continues, "If drugs are found, it will be up to the officers' discretion whether to make an arrest, but police said modest amounts of drugs like marijuana will simply be confiscated and will not lead to charges."

So here is the real aim of the program: to further criminalize gun use and to seize drugs without a warrant. Massachusetts already has the toughest gun laws in the nation. So, why bother with those pesky civil rights, when we can just knock on people's doors and take their guns away from them. And while we're at it, let's search for other illicit activity as well. Then, check this out:

"Police will rely primarily on tips from neighbors. They will also follow tips from the department's anonymous hot line and investigators' own intelligence to decide what doors to knock on."

So, Bostonians, your neighbors are going to rat you out. Boston residents are going to call the police because they suspect their neighbors have a gun. Police will show up at the house and ask to search the premises, confiscating weapons. I recall similar things happening in Nazi Germany and Communist Russia. Doesn't this all sound like the actions of a totalitarian Police State?

How far will all of this go? When will police decide to press criminal charges as a result of these searches? Why should we think that this program will remain restricted to only high-crime areas? Are the suburbs next? And what if you refuse a police search, will you be put on some sort of watch list? Will failure to allow police into your home be considered "probable cause" to obtain a warrant or used as evidence against you in court? Where does the slippery slope end?

But don't worry... It's all for the children. And people ask me why I left Massachusetts... HA!

Monday's Success Story: Salt Water Fuel

I know this story has already made the news rounds, but I thought the magnitude of the discovery deserved to be recorded as one of Monday's Success Stories. The YouTube link below gives the whole story behind John Kanzius's amazing discovery that salt water will burn when exposed to radio waves.



This story only illustrates how freedom and human ingenuity inevitably lead to discoveries and inventions beyond our wildest imaginations. How many years have government agencies been using taxpayer money to fund alternative fuel research while this one person, following his passion for cancer research, stumbled across a possible answer to the world's fuel problems in his basement? Not only that, but discovering a new fuel using the most abundant renewable resources on earth. Now it will only be a matter of time before corporations figure out a way to use this knowledge to create a profit off of products that use this new clean fuel. When that happens, and the fossil fuel based economy goes the way of the dinosaur, we will have the free market to thank for it. A terrific capitalism success story!

Welcome Back!

Hey everyone!

It's good to be back, and of course the Capitalist League is bigger and better. We've added a new feature to the site: The Free Market, the official online store of the Capitalist League, where you can get all the gear you need to show off your Capitalist ideas with pride.

We will continue to feature your favorite blog posts, including news analysis, Monday's Success Stories, Thursday Theory, And Another Thing..., and the occasional cartoon. I look forward to continuing our conversation on the most important issues of the day (and some other fun stuff as well)!