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.

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

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.