Saturday, May 3, 2008
Mount Vernon schools to hire investigator in Bible case
Mount Vernon schools to hire investigator in Bible case
Exactly the reason why government does not belong in the school system. By doing so, it by default has to rule and choose for the people on topics such as this. And by doing that, you are also by default not allowing the people freedom in their education.
I personally probably wouldn't want such a teacher for my kids. However, I certainly wouldn't mind a teacher who was religious and along with the lesson taught things of spiritual/religious natures. Of course, that might not be another person's cup of tea, and thats fine. I wouldn't want to impose my beliefs on them, and I don't want them to impose their beliefs on me by not allowing such a teacher, due to laws made up in response to teachers such as in this example. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe you are wrong. But what right does either of us have to impose our rights and wrongs on other people? Is the ability to control our own lives simply not enough anymore?
It is impossible to meet the freedoms of everyone in a system that only allows 1 thing. And that is what we are seeing today. By default people are being divided on these things. Which is understandable because by default you would be infringing on the freedoms of 1 or the other. Currently things tend to be majority rules, except where people are allowed to make a constitutional argument. Of course the reason we have a republic of limited government rather than a democracy of limited rights is because such broad democracy is merely just allowing a majority to rule over the minority. As long as you can get the majority of the people, you can basically do anything. Even when the majority of those people likely have no clue what exactly is going on, and a biased media doesn't even give the majority a chance to do so.
If we had a government today which operated on a constitutional basis, this kind of a topic wouldn't even be an issue. It would be handled on a local level, as the parents not the government would have direct control over their kids education. Rather than the parents having to deal with politicians who are elected on any number of issues, not a single issue who might bring change 2 years from now, you the parent would have the power to go to the school and say NO. You would have merely your local community to deal with, and on a local level these kind of issues can be solved quicker, without affecting 300 million people. If you live in a community where they wish to allow this to happen, then it's probably in your best interest to move, and not over the single issue, but because likely their are other things which you disagree with. This is how a real community is formed. There are literally thousands of communities in the US, and most likely a community with laws and things you agree with.
And this goes beyond education or religion. It's not about the issues themselves. It's about living in a system that works and handles the problems without infringing on the liberties and freedoms of other people. The founding fathers worked and died to bring about such a system, and that system is today being tested. Not because the system itself is broken, the constitution works just as well in a modern society as it did 200 years ago, only we have the ability to make it even better. But it is up to the American people to learn and educate themselves on what it means to be a free people. Otherwise the people will neither deserve their freedom, nor will they have it. And that is wisdom the founding fathers knew even back then. Why do we as a modern society fail to grasp these concepts?
Friday, May 2, 2008
The US government is in breach of contract
I have a bit of a confession to make. I did not file my taxes this year. For all I care, the government can keep their $600. But I'm not going to pay my taxes anymore. I outright refuse to do so. You hear that IRS? I am not scared. I do not care what you think you can do to me. I would rather die in prison. Atleast then I will not have people to argue if I am free or not, nor will I be living under an illusion that I am a free person.
The constitution is a contract between the American people, and the US government. Failure of the citizen to keep up to their end of the deal will result in fines, imprisonment, harassment or worse. Failure of the government to follow the constitution/contract results in a loss of rights for the citizen.
When this election started, I told everyone - I think Ron Paul will win. And to this day I still think he can/will. Now, some might find that a bit crazy considering the circumstances, however it is what lead to those circumstances that has resulted in this post. You see, up until this election I actually believed this country had a fair and free election. I actually believed that elections were as advertised.
So why would I think Ron Paul would win? Well, lets look at the positions for a minute. #1 most obvious is the Iraq war. Today, GWB has the lowest approval rating of any modern president. And support for the Iraq war is also at an all time low. If you look at the recent elections, and republicans won that presidential election, then it seems that at least half the American people are conservatives. You look at the foreign policy GWB ran on in 2000, and most Americans seem to want a humble foreign policy. If you assume that all democrats want to end the Iraq war, then you also based on polling come to the conclusion that more than half the conservative base also want us out of the war. The conservative base has shrunk considerably in the past few years, losing the house and senate because of this issue. As we all know, the voice of the American people has been ignored and we are still in Iraq.
So obviously, in order to win a general election, the candidate will need to be in favor of getting out of Iraq. The 2006 congress elections proved that much. It would be near impossible for someone to win the general election with a position that atleast 70% of the population(registered voters) were really against. So, here we have an obvious +1 for Ron Paul, and an obvious -1 for the other candidates.
So, we look at other conservative issues. Here again, Ron Paul stands for them strongly. Has voted for 20 years over a 30 year period for these basic principles. There isn't a single candidate who has a better voting record on the issues. In all this time, he has never voted for an unbalanced budget or tax increase. He's pretty much a conservatives dream candidate. Again another +1 for Ron Paul.
He seems like the logical and best candidate for the GOP to me. He was the only person bringing in new people to the Republican party, something that was obviously extremely needed due to a lose in the republican party in the past elections. He was steadily pulling democrats into the republican party, something none of the other candidates could do. He drew bigger crowds by himself than the other candidates could muster between them all. John McCain has even called him the "most honest man in DC".
How could such a person lose? In a fair election, he wouldn't have. But what did happen was corruption. Corruption of the worse kind, and what you would except to hear from 3rd world countries. So, lets take a look at that.
From the start of the election, he was considered not a serious candidate. This was sited in the media as being due to his fundraising and his polling numbers. Fine Ron Paul supporters said, we filled his bank account with record numbers. Easily worthy of media attention, and proof that his candidacy was real. Did we see fair coverage after this? No. Instead it was pushed off as being internet only. To imply that people on the internet are not real people. Which is absurd, behind every "internet" person, is an "offline" person as well. Did we ever see this FACT brought out? Why didn't Ron Paul get "into the mainstream"? Because the media refused to cover him fairly.
After winning straw poll after straw poll, other than the ones where Mitt Romney was paying for votes and people were allowed to vote mulitple times. Or when the local GOP just outright canceled the straw poll when it was apparent who would win. Did this change anything? No.
Of course, then comes the actual elections, where the voting in itself was at times questionable(Part 2). Record turnouts they said.
But the corruption doesn't stop there. Now comes time for the GOP state conventions. Where delegates from the states are elected, and party issues are discussed change. However, when things don't go as the establishment scripted them to go, and Ron Paul might win a majority of delegates, they resort to just walking out without a vote. In other cases, the GOP simply ignored the people and read the script and left. In this case, the GOP completely changed the delegates that were elected at the smaller elections for people who weren't even present. When a point of order was called for to clarify this problem, it was ignored.
And that pretty has done it for me. It is now apparent that free and fair elections do not happen in this country. I don't know if they ever did, some people even defend the system, and encourage backdoor deals that ignore the will of the people.
It is now apparent to me that this country will not be allowed free elections. That the US government constantly ignores the constitution, and that those in charge are guilty of treason and are traitors. It is no longer a government which protects the rights and freedoms of it's people. It engages in unethical practices.
This government is in breach of contract. And there is atleast 1 US citizen who isn't going to put up with it anymore. I haven't given up on Ron Paul. I still have hope that the American people will wake up and see what is going on. But I am very near to giving up on this government.
The constitution is a contract between the American people, and the US government. Failure of the citizen to keep up to their end of the deal will result in fines, imprisonment, harassment or worse. Failure of the government to follow the constitution/contract results in a loss of rights for the citizen.
When this election started, I told everyone - I think Ron Paul will win. And to this day I still think he can/will. Now, some might find that a bit crazy considering the circumstances, however it is what lead to those circumstances that has resulted in this post. You see, up until this election I actually believed this country had a fair and free election. I actually believed that elections were as advertised.
So why would I think Ron Paul would win? Well, lets look at the positions for a minute. #1 most obvious is the Iraq war. Today, GWB has the lowest approval rating of any modern president. And support for the Iraq war is also at an all time low. If you look at the recent elections, and republicans won that presidential election, then it seems that at least half the American people are conservatives. You look at the foreign policy GWB ran on in 2000, and most Americans seem to want a humble foreign policy. If you assume that all democrats want to end the Iraq war, then you also based on polling come to the conclusion that more than half the conservative base also want us out of the war. The conservative base has shrunk considerably in the past few years, losing the house and senate because of this issue. As we all know, the voice of the American people has been ignored and we are still in Iraq.
So obviously, in order to win a general election, the candidate will need to be in favor of getting out of Iraq. The 2006 congress elections proved that much. It would be near impossible for someone to win the general election with a position that atleast 70% of the population(registered voters) were really against. So, here we have an obvious +1 for Ron Paul, and an obvious -1 for the other candidates.
So, we look at other conservative issues. Here again, Ron Paul stands for them strongly. Has voted for 20 years over a 30 year period for these basic principles. There isn't a single candidate who has a better voting record on the issues. In all this time, he has never voted for an unbalanced budget or tax increase. He's pretty much a conservatives dream candidate. Again another +1 for Ron Paul.
He seems like the logical and best candidate for the GOP to me. He was the only person bringing in new people to the Republican party, something that was obviously extremely needed due to a lose in the republican party in the past elections. He was steadily pulling democrats into the republican party, something none of the other candidates could do. He drew bigger crowds by himself than the other candidates could muster between them all. John McCain has even called him the "most honest man in DC".
How could such a person lose? In a fair election, he wouldn't have. But what did happen was corruption. Corruption of the worse kind, and what you would except to hear from 3rd world countries. So, lets take a look at that.
From the start of the election, he was considered not a serious candidate. This was sited in the media as being due to his fundraising and his polling numbers. Fine Ron Paul supporters said, we filled his bank account with record numbers. Easily worthy of media attention, and proof that his candidacy was real. Did we see fair coverage after this? No. Instead it was pushed off as being internet only. To imply that people on the internet are not real people. Which is absurd, behind every "internet" person, is an "offline" person as well. Did we ever see this FACT brought out? Why didn't Ron Paul get "into the mainstream"? Because the media refused to cover him fairly.
After winning straw poll after straw poll, other than the ones where Mitt Romney was paying for votes and people were allowed to vote mulitple times. Or when the local GOP just outright canceled the straw poll when it was apparent who would win. Did this change anything? No.
Of course, then comes the actual elections, where the voting in itself was at times questionable(Part 2). Record turnouts they said.
But the corruption doesn't stop there. Now comes time for the GOP state conventions. Where delegates from the states are elected, and party issues are discussed change. However, when things don't go as the establishment scripted them to go, and Ron Paul might win a majority of delegates, they resort to just walking out without a vote. In other cases, the GOP simply ignored the people and read the script and left. In this case, the GOP completely changed the delegates that were elected at the smaller elections for people who weren't even present. When a point of order was called for to clarify this problem, it was ignored.
And that pretty has done it for me. It is now apparent that free and fair elections do not happen in this country. I don't know if they ever did, some people even defend the system, and encourage backdoor deals that ignore the will of the people.
It is now apparent to me that this country will not be allowed free elections. That the US government constantly ignores the constitution, and that those in charge are guilty of treason and are traitors. It is no longer a government which protects the rights and freedoms of it's people. It engages in unethical practices.
This government is in breach of contract. And there is atleast 1 US citizen who isn't going to put up with it anymore. I haven't given up on Ron Paul. I still have hope that the American people will wake up and see what is going on. But I am very near to giving up on this government.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
What my plan would be for Iraq.
Ron Paul says he would immediately bring the troops home. I completely agree with him. For a number of reasons.
Honestly, the job being done currently in Iraq isn't even a job for the military. You are trained to kill and take over objectives in the military for the most part. It's not a function of the military to be a police force in another land.
The job of the military was done years ago in Iraq. And they did a great job. They did exactly what they are paid and trained to do. And they did it in record time as well. When Bush landed on that aircraft carrier with "Mission Accomplished", that was basically the truth. The military had accomplished it's goals and purpose.
But now they have stayed and are asked to do jobs that are not a function of the basic military. Sure, they have MP's and some specialized troops. But it is not what they signed up for, and it's just not what they do. Saddam was a bad guy, no doubt about it. But obviously, the goal of the administration was not just to get rid of the bad guy. It was to get rid of the bad guy, and then replace him with the people/government of our choosing.
And that is going over about as well as milking a bull. Sure, you might get a little out of it, it might look similar to what you want in smaller amounts, but it's nothing you want to put your lips on. And why would it? Do you think we would let China or Russia come over here and tell us what government we can have, and which leaders we can and can't have? I certainly hope not.
By staying, we are only causing more people over there to be angry. As we are a foreign country, our presence alone is the #1 recruiting tool for more terrorists. Terrorism in itself is a tactic. You can never defeat a tactic. The best you can do is make the tactic ineffective, or defend against it. Thats just the plain truth of the matter. Every day we stay, we recruit and invite people to kill our troops. And for what? And we have spent over a trillion dollars for it, meanwhile our own borders are wide open and our country is going broke spending all our resources on Iraq. We are borrowing money from China, then turning around and giving billions away in foreign aid, weapons and such to countries like Pakistan. It's just downright insane.
I think most people realize this today. Hindsight is 20/20. And the most popular response I see is - If we leave now it will cause more troubles. I on the other hand feel if you want to heal a wound, you must first remove the item that caused it. And while sometimes a knife/surgery may be needed to remove something like a tumor, when the job is done you remove the knife so the wound can heal.
It will take atleast 90 days before our troops could leave the area safely I've heard estimates mention. And I'd venture a guess that an ideal withdrawal would maybe take a little longer. However, the day we mention we will be leaving, the people will start to see that the knife is leaving, and they will not have a reason to push it out any longer.
This is what we can do physically to help. But as we are leaving, we should leave the Iraqi people a copy of our constitution. Explain to them how it works - the limited government way, not the general welfare clause loophole way we have now. And then suggest they form 3 separate states.
If they adopt a constitution like ours, then by default the bulk of the power of each state goes to the people themselves. So you no longer have the problem of 1 faction gaining rule over another, which is a big factor for a civil war. However, you still have the Federal government of Iraq to provide defense and help commerce between the states etc.
It's a great system I do believe. And one people have died to fight for, and one people have put their lives in danger to escape too. If you offer it to the Iraqi people, and they are smart they will take it. If not, then they will have to work out their own way. But it is there responsibility to do so. With freedom comes responsibility, and that means the people have to stand up. I personally think they will.
And speaking of why it is such a great system, I think the fact that our own properly function government would solve the problems of the middle east easily, is all the more reason we as Americans need to stand up and protect it. How stupid would we have to be to let it go?
But as far as I can tell, we are more worried about getting people we like in power there. Which I find a bit odd. Lets assume another Saddam type person does come into power there. So what? It took us all of 2 weeks to take over the country, and we lost alot less lives in doing so. And it's alot cheaper as well. Plus, if it's a bad guy like Saddam, they probably will like us - if we leave after it's done.
Personally, I find the excuses for staying in Iraq to either be scare tactics, or down right lies and exaggerations.
Honestly, the job being done currently in Iraq isn't even a job for the military. You are trained to kill and take over objectives in the military for the most part. It's not a function of the military to be a police force in another land.
The job of the military was done years ago in Iraq. And they did a great job. They did exactly what they are paid and trained to do. And they did it in record time as well. When Bush landed on that aircraft carrier with "Mission Accomplished", that was basically the truth. The military had accomplished it's goals and purpose.
But now they have stayed and are asked to do jobs that are not a function of the basic military. Sure, they have MP's and some specialized troops. But it is not what they signed up for, and it's just not what they do. Saddam was a bad guy, no doubt about it. But obviously, the goal of the administration was not just to get rid of the bad guy. It was to get rid of the bad guy, and then replace him with the people/government of our choosing.
And that is going over about as well as milking a bull. Sure, you might get a little out of it, it might look similar to what you want in smaller amounts, but it's nothing you want to put your lips on. And why would it? Do you think we would let China or Russia come over here and tell us what government we can have, and which leaders we can and can't have? I certainly hope not.
By staying, we are only causing more people over there to be angry. As we are a foreign country, our presence alone is the #1 recruiting tool for more terrorists. Terrorism in itself is a tactic. You can never defeat a tactic. The best you can do is make the tactic ineffective, or defend against it. Thats just the plain truth of the matter. Every day we stay, we recruit and invite people to kill our troops. And for what? And we have spent over a trillion dollars for it, meanwhile our own borders are wide open and our country is going broke spending all our resources on Iraq. We are borrowing money from China, then turning around and giving billions away in foreign aid, weapons and such to countries like Pakistan. It's just downright insane.
I think most people realize this today. Hindsight is 20/20. And the most popular response I see is - If we leave now it will cause more troubles. I on the other hand feel if you want to heal a wound, you must first remove the item that caused it. And while sometimes a knife/surgery may be needed to remove something like a tumor, when the job is done you remove the knife so the wound can heal.
It will take atleast 90 days before our troops could leave the area safely I've heard estimates mention. And I'd venture a guess that an ideal withdrawal would maybe take a little longer. However, the day we mention we will be leaving, the people will start to see that the knife is leaving, and they will not have a reason to push it out any longer.
This is what we can do physically to help. But as we are leaving, we should leave the Iraqi people a copy of our constitution. Explain to them how it works - the limited government way, not the general welfare clause loophole way we have now. And then suggest they form 3 separate states.
If they adopt a constitution like ours, then by default the bulk of the power of each state goes to the people themselves. So you no longer have the problem of 1 faction gaining rule over another, which is a big factor for a civil war. However, you still have the Federal government of Iraq to provide defense and help commerce between the states etc.
It's a great system I do believe. And one people have died to fight for, and one people have put their lives in danger to escape too. If you offer it to the Iraqi people, and they are smart they will take it. If not, then they will have to work out their own way. But it is there responsibility to do so. With freedom comes responsibility, and that means the people have to stand up. I personally think they will.
And speaking of why it is such a great system, I think the fact that our own properly function government would solve the problems of the middle east easily, is all the more reason we as Americans need to stand up and protect it. How stupid would we have to be to let it go?
But as far as I can tell, we are more worried about getting people we like in power there. Which I find a bit odd. Lets assume another Saddam type person does come into power there. So what? It took us all of 2 weeks to take over the country, and we lost alot less lives in doing so. And it's alot cheaper as well. Plus, if it's a bad guy like Saddam, they probably will like us - if we leave after it's done.
Personally, I find the excuses for staying in Iraq to either be scare tactics, or down right lies and exaggerations.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
I'm still voting for Ron Paul
Well, I'm still voting for Ron Paul. Why? Because I don't want to waste my vote, thats why. Is there a single viable alternative? The simple answer is no.
I'd rather vote for something I wanted, and not get it, than vote for something I didn't want and get it. That is what I call not wasting a vote. Because the only difference between the other 3 candidates is how they present the same ideas to you.
And that isn't by accident in my opinion. Ever played a game of chess by yourself? So is it really amazing that you win every time? By putting yourself on all sides of the contest, you are guaranteed victory. So it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that you can control the politics of a country by playing both sides, nor does it take one to see and understand it. However, it does take people who actually pay attention.
The current candidates don't offer anything different than a king or queen would in history. The king and queen generally handled things differently from 1 to another, just as our politicians do today, but that all agreed on a few basic principles. Namely, they were in control of the issue, and the citizens were not.
And the United States represented a country and government directly opposed to this principle. Offering instead that the people of the country itself were more than capable of taking care of themselves. And that is what we call Freedom. But today, politicians have managed to keep those basic principles silent in the debate. And rather than even argue over who should have control of the issue, it's only a debate on who should be in control, or who/what they should give money to. That is all we do anymore, is elect someone to manage our own money for it. And the American people are soaking it up and asking for more.
But not Ron Paul. The real reason Ron Paul has been censored and why he has the support he does is because he brings up those basic principles(otherwise known as liberty). And there isn't a single politician out there who will debate him on the level, because once the people see - hey, we don't have to let these people control everything, the game is over. And that is exactly what this "revolution" is about.
It's not just about getting 1 man elected. It's not just about getting certain people into the government. What is needed today is educating the citizens to how a proper government works, and why it is the best system. Because what good would it do if Ron Paul were elected, and the citizens didn't understand things? The fact of the matter is that a person like Ron Paul getting elected is the result, not the real action here. And it's important not to forget that.
As 1 said, the people will not get the best government possible. They will get the government they deserve. And that couldn't be more true today. Because quite frankly, if the American people don't understand Freedom and liberty, then they don't deserve it. And they won't have it either, just as Ben Franklin said over 200 years ago.
There is still 9 months until the election. And that is plenty of time for things to change. This isn't a time for giving up, it's a time for punching through the wall that is present, and showing what you are made of.
So despite all the negative reporting lately, and claims of Ron Paul dropping out. I will still do my best to educate people on proper government and liberty. I have $2300 waiting to send Ron Paul for the general election donations as quickly as I can. And I will be writing Ron Paul in if I have to come election time.
After all, every revolution starts out with defeats. Even our own revolution to found this country started out as such. But it was the people who believed in what they were fighting for who carried on, and others who woke up and joined them rather than just accepting the things being pushed on them. They deserved their freedom and liberty, and they got it. How long until we as Americans deserve it once again?
"If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom." -- Dwight Eisenhower
"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." -- Winston Churchill
I'd rather vote for something I wanted, and not get it, than vote for something I didn't want and get it. That is what I call not wasting a vote. Because the only difference between the other 3 candidates is how they present the same ideas to you.
And that isn't by accident in my opinion. Ever played a game of chess by yourself? So is it really amazing that you win every time? By putting yourself on all sides of the contest, you are guaranteed victory. So it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that you can control the politics of a country by playing both sides, nor does it take one to see and understand it. However, it does take people who actually pay attention.
The current candidates don't offer anything different than a king or queen would in history. The king and queen generally handled things differently from 1 to another, just as our politicians do today, but that all agreed on a few basic principles. Namely, they were in control of the issue, and the citizens were not.
And the United States represented a country and government directly opposed to this principle. Offering instead that the people of the country itself were more than capable of taking care of themselves. And that is what we call Freedom. But today, politicians have managed to keep those basic principles silent in the debate. And rather than even argue over who should have control of the issue, it's only a debate on who should be in control, or who/what they should give money to. That is all we do anymore, is elect someone to manage our own money for it. And the American people are soaking it up and asking for more.
But not Ron Paul. The real reason Ron Paul has been censored and why he has the support he does is because he brings up those basic principles(otherwise known as liberty). And there isn't a single politician out there who will debate him on the level, because once the people see - hey, we don't have to let these people control everything, the game is over. And that is exactly what this "revolution" is about.
It's not just about getting 1 man elected. It's not just about getting certain people into the government. What is needed today is educating the citizens to how a proper government works, and why it is the best system. Because what good would it do if Ron Paul were elected, and the citizens didn't understand things? The fact of the matter is that a person like Ron Paul getting elected is the result, not the real action here. And it's important not to forget that.
As 1 said, the people will not get the best government possible. They will get the government they deserve. And that couldn't be more true today. Because quite frankly, if the American people don't understand Freedom and liberty, then they don't deserve it. And they won't have it either, just as Ben Franklin said over 200 years ago.
There is still 9 months until the election. And that is plenty of time for things to change. This isn't a time for giving up, it's a time for punching through the wall that is present, and showing what you are made of.
So despite all the negative reporting lately, and claims of Ron Paul dropping out. I will still do my best to educate people on proper government and liberty. I have $2300 waiting to send Ron Paul for the general election donations as quickly as I can. And I will be writing Ron Paul in if I have to come election time.
After all, every revolution starts out with defeats. Even our own revolution to found this country started out as such. But it was the people who believed in what they were fighting for who carried on, and others who woke up and joined them rather than just accepting the things being pushed on them. They deserved their freedom and liberty, and they got it. How long until we as Americans deserve it once again?
"If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom." -- Dwight Eisenhower
"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." -- Winston Churchill
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
If they hate us for our freedoms...
If they hate us for our freedoms, as the bulk of the presidential candidates running will tell you, then are we not surrendering by giving up our civil rights?
Time and time again, I often see the reason for this war and our foreign policy is that they hate us for our freedoms. And at the same time, these same people tell us we need to give up our freedoms. You are suddenly un-American if you don't give up those freedoms?
And since 9/11, we have had the biggest lose in freedom and civil liberties than any point in our history. If we tear down the base of what we stand for, then we have already lost. No wonder we need troops in Iraq for 100 years as John McCain says, they will be over there working for someone else. Because we have already lost this war, and we lost it the moment GWB signed the Patriot Act. And it's not going to stop until the American people wake up and realize this.
Of course, we all know this really isn't the reason so many in the world hate us. But sure, there are a small minority of people in the world who probably do hate us for our freedoms. And it does appear to me that for whatever reason, we are losing those freedoms. But it doesn't seem to be another country that is taking them, we seem to be happy to give them away.
So tell me America, why have we surrendered? Whats really going on here?
Time and time again, I often see the reason for this war and our foreign policy is that they hate us for our freedoms. And at the same time, these same people tell us we need to give up our freedoms. You are suddenly un-American if you don't give up those freedoms?
And since 9/11, we have had the biggest lose in freedom and civil liberties than any point in our history. If we tear down the base of what we stand for, then we have already lost. No wonder we need troops in Iraq for 100 years as John McCain says, they will be over there working for someone else. Because we have already lost this war, and we lost it the moment GWB signed the Patriot Act. And it's not going to stop until the American people wake up and realize this.
Of course, we all know this really isn't the reason so many in the world hate us. But sure, there are a small minority of people in the world who probably do hate us for our freedoms. And it does appear to me that for whatever reason, we are losing those freedoms. But it doesn't seem to be another country that is taking them, we seem to be happy to give them away.
So tell me America, why have we surrendered? Whats really going on here?
Sunday, January 13, 2008
The Real Ron Paul on racism
The man speaks best for himself.
A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.
The collectivist mindset is at the heart of racism.
Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. Bigotry at its essence is a problem of the heart, and we cannot change people's hearts by passing more laws and regulations.
It is the federal government that most divides us by race, class, religion, and gender. Through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, government plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails. Government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility among us.
Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism.
The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence - not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.
In a free society, every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)