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?

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.

Ron Paul detractors - who do you support?

As Ron Pauls popularity has been increasing, so of course are those against him waking up that he is the leader in the republican primaries at this point by the majority of ways to measure, and has recently shown up as the biggest chance to win against a democrat in the latest Zogby blind poll.

Over the course of these hit pieces, I have noticed one common factor among all of them. I never see anyone offered up in response as a better candidate than Ron Paul. The current hit pieces have the theme of "libertarians are leaving Ron Paul". Which I personally find very curious.

Rarely do these articles talk about issues. They all have one major goal in mind, character assassination. Which in my opinion, only goes to point out that this election really is Ron Paul vs the status quo.

Because of course, when you compare Ron Paul, side by side to any other politician running, these so called claims made just don't hold water. As if because you don't agree with him 100%, you suddenly can't vote for him. Obviously there is likely no candidate you can find you agree with 100%.

If you can show me someone I'd rather vote for than Ron Paul, then I'm am all ears. Please, show me the candidate I agree with more, has an established voting record backing it up, has consistent values and can explain their position in detail, and has taken up the fight to returning our foreign policy to what it should be.

Where is this candidate who understands the constitution so much better than Ron Paul? Who is it that doesn't need lawyers to decide for him, and understands that domestic issues on the whole, belong on the state level. Which other candidate understands that the general welfare is defined in the preamble of the constitution as the amendments themselves, and the general welfare clause is what gives congress the power to uphold those amendments.

Because I must say, I have spent the last 7 years looking for this candidate after it was clear GWB wasn't going to hold up to his promises. I had all but given up hope, and Ron Paul, and more importantly, the support he has gotten, has renewed my hope for this country.

So how is it all you that post articles that don't like Ron Paul actually support? And why if you feel so passionate about that candidate, you never mention it? Just because the major media likes to tell you the American people are stupid, doesn't mean it's true. We aren't that dumb, sorry.

Re: Attention you politics-hating coders

So, taking a break from my norm of talking about the constitution to post a little reply to this article:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/ip-telephony/?p=2046

I would like to state, that yes I am a programmer, and yes I make my living on the internet. I am also 100% against net neutrality, or any other regulations on the internet.

The big issue the writer of the previous article throws out is CHOICE. Yes, choice. If an ISP were to start charging websites(like the one I work for), then I would have 2 choices. I could go ahead and pay the charge, or I can refuse the charge, and not get traffic from that ISP.

But are those the only choices? Not by a long shot. If an ISP were to stop allowing traffic to certain sites, then their users are not going to be happy. I personally use AT&T(they bought out SBC) for my internet. If AT&T were to introduce such charges, then I the customer will not be allowed to visit sites that don't pay. Thus, I would immediately change to an ISP who didn't do such things.

Likewise, if a website wanted to charge an ISP, then I would simply not go to that site. I seriously doubt any website would do such a thing, as it goes against everything about being an internet based business.

What do government regulations do? They remove that choice. They instead use FORCE to make everyone do something. Under regulations, I will no longer have a choice of using a better ISP, as all ISP's will be made to follow the same rules. Let me be very clear on this - NO THANK YOU.

The author himself starts out saying - money decides things in politics. He even goes to use this as a fault for Ron Paul. Well, given this information, then who do you think this law is for?

So I have looked for a candidate who will leave an OPEN internet, VOID of regulations, and that candidate is Ron Paul. However, that is hardly even close to the real reasons I'll be voting for him.

May I however suggest that you start looking at things beyond the name of a bill. Net Neutrality is about a neutral internet as much as the Patriot Act saved our liberties.

Capitalism vs Corporatism

While visiting peoples blogs, sites and listening to opinions, I am often faced with people who blame capitalism for todays problems. And why wouldn't they? They've always been told we had a capitalistic market.

But is that really the case? Do we really have capitalism in America? Do we have a free market? In some places, yes we do. The best example would be the internet. Where pretty much everyone is given free reign to do business as they please. Obviously, there are still laws that must be obey'd, such as theft, but is free of government regulations. But that isn't the case for the heavier markets. Those markets are heavily regulated.

Why are these regulations bad? Well for starters, regulations are introduced because they feel someone is doing something bad, or that the possibility for someone to do something bad exists. On the outside, it would appear these regulations help the American people and businesses. However, in reality these regulations punish everyone. Even those companies who would never do anything bad to begin with. And not only that, but most likely the act that would cause the regulation in the first place is probably already illegal. In instances where companies must prove they are obeying the regulations, this assumes that everyone is guilty and they must prove otherwise. This is completely against the ideals this country was founded on. Yet, companies are forced to deal with these all the time.

And now that the government is involved in these industries, in come the lobbyist. Big corporations with alot of money are able to persuade politicians into passing laws and regulations that help their business. These are added as little pieces to bills, and by adding them congress is able to get votes on bills and makes changes that otherwise would never fly. Of course, the smaller companies of the industry are rarely represented. A recent well known case of this is the internet gambling law. Clearly not a law the American people wanted.

But that happens with just regulation, what happens when government is really involved with an industry? Such as healthcare, education, etc. Now you have companies who will use lobbyists to get government contracts. Because getting those contracts guarantees you business, funding and customers. And these companies waste money like crazy, and charge the full amount they can for everything. Haliburton was a good example of a company who has been abusing the American taxpayer. Meanwhile, other companies who could perhaps do the job on smaller levels or who don't have good ties are never given a chance. This is passed off as a "free market" or capitalism.

That however just isn't the truth, and goes completely against the definition of a free market and capitalism. When corporations are using money and influence to pass laws, regulate the markets as they see fit and other things, that is corporatism. Some people call it fascism, but I personally believe corporatism is better way to describe it.

So for anyone who says we have a free market and that it doesn't work is wrong. When we had a free market, our economy was thriving. You are right when you say the current system isn't working, but it's corporatism, not capitalism which has lead to the problems and corruption of today.