This is more of a rant then anything else on how I feel about the topic of alcohol. America has a big alcoholic problem and that is really no debate and it is especially a problem among the young people. As a personal choice, I have chosen to abstain from these destructive habits including drugs and tobacco. However, I have also grown to see that what is for me, is not for everyone else so, I respect other people's decisions to engage in that activity.

I don't criticize anyone for drinking, but it is ridiculous that I am heckled for not drinking. I have never engaged in it and plan to never to do it. I have seen the destructiveness with my own eyes and wish no part. It seems that no one can have respect that I do not do it.

Today in one of my classes, the topic of alcohol was brought up and my professor along with others seemed to have no problem with underage drinking and/or to use of alcohol to socialize or to get drunk.

Here are some interesting and discouraging facts about alcoholism among young people:

  • The average age when youth first try alcohol is 11 years for boys and 13 for girls. The average age at which Americans begin drinking regularly is 15.9 years old.
  • It has been estimated that over three million teenagers are out-and-out alcoholics.
  • The three leading causes of death for 15 to 24 year olds are automobile crashes, homicides and suicides -- alcohol is a leading factor in all three.

It pains me to see young people engaging in destructive activities. It is sad that it is now "cool" to get drunk and/or drinking. The problem here in does not lie with the government but, with the parents and no amount of government intervention can solve the problem. Parents have failed this generation miserably.

I am proud of myself for standing up in the face of temptation and sticking to my principles. And, even though I am one of few that does not engage in alcoholism, it is nice sometimes to be the few and strong.

In this week's Fort Wayne Reader Michael Summers wrote an article about the Seven Wonders of Fort Wayne which can be read here. It was very interesting to read some of the history behind some landmarks in Fort Wayne. However, I can not let something that disturbs me every time i read something of this sort, pass without bringing it up.

It is in regards to the Lincoln Museum, when he writes that, "In 1905, when a Fort Wayne life insurance company decided to call itself "Lincoln" after our 16th president, they knew what they were doing. What better representative for a life insurance company than someone who is an icon of honesty and integrity?"

Integrity? Lincoln had very little. He was a tyrant who was hellbent on keeping the Union together despite the Constitutional right to succeed from it. He denied the right of the South to leave and in thus, created a much bigger, centralized government and started a bloody war over it. Lincoln also suspended Habeas Corpus in the time of war. Sound familiar?

Lincoln did not free the slaves. Nor did he care to do so. The Civil War was not fought over the abolition of slavery, it was fought over the preservation of the Union. Lincoln did not care about the rights of slaves and the quotes below should show as significant evidence for my case.

"My paramount object, is to save the Union, and not either destroy or save slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing the slaves, I would do it. If I could save the Union by freeing some and leaving others in slavery, I would do it. If I could save it by freeing all, I would do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because it helps save the Union."
"I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man."
It is sad that the real Lincoln is distorted by a Lincoln that we all like to believe -- one that freed the slaves and was for justice.

I am currently writing a paper for a history class in which I chose to watch the movie the Patriot. I am to examine and discuss a few issues at hand in the movie. I am going to write about [1] the role of the slave in the Revolutionary War, [2] British brutality in the Revolutionary War, and [3] what exactly defines a patriot and what the entitles.

I am very excited to get this opportunity and can not think of a better time than to use a Ron Paul quote in the paper that will greatly show what exactly a patriot is. The quote I am going to use is,

"The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility and out of self-interest for himself, his family, and the future of his country to resist government abuse of power. He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state. Resistance need not be violent, but the civil disobedience that might be required involves confrontation with the state and invites possible imprisonment."




Iranian President, Ahmadinejad, is heading to New York City to address the United Nations Assembly. However, he also is making a speech at Columbia University and is also wanting to visit Ground Zero to pay his respects.

Before I start, let me first say that in no way do I support comments made by Ahmadinejad regarding a lot of subjects. However, the President and city officials are planning on denying him access to visit Ground Zero, even though, according to his visa, he can visit anything within a 25 mile radius of the United Nations.

Why are we denying him a fundamental right that is given to every other American? If you visit America, you should be granted the same rights as if you lived here. It is not American to suppress people of their rights.

I can understand the emotion, even though Iran had nothing to do with 9/11. I can understand the frustration however, I do not believe it to be right. We have been told that all Iran does is propagandize, but what about the United States? Do we not use propaganda?

It is ignorant to believe that the United States can do no wrong. It is time we step back, review our recent actions concerning other nations, be understanding, and correct those mistakes.

Hope for America

The more and more I hear of Ron Paul, the more I see him speak, and the more I read his writings, the more I love this guy. He is, the Thomas Jefferson of our day.

While our government is seeking more power and all the while taking away our rights under the name of patriotism and safety, a quote comes to mind -- author unknown, "You are like men in a mist, seeking for freedom and know not what it is." The leaders of our day speak under the name of patriotism, calling descent of any kind unpatriotic. How quickly we fail to remember history. Not to mention, which I will write about in the next post, the president has established a new department which will participate in domestic spying using satellites which can peer into houses and use infrared to detect people and movements in houses.

I just watched a video on Ron Paul speaking about his faith. He points out that Jesus was a man of peace -- turn the other cheek, for example -- and the Christians of today fail to realize this or, if they do, don't understand and practice the text.

It is great that we still have freedom of speech to some extent, but it is fading and we better use it while we can to reverse this trend.

For those who do not know of Ron Paul, I encourage them to check him out at RonPaul2008.com

Personal Update

So I am in a bit of a rut and I probably won't be posting anything within the next few days, but who knows.

To save some the details, I have not had the best few days and it seems to be getting worse for me to handle. I know I need to get a grip on things and I am trying my best to do so. I can't bring myself to do anything, from school to even eating. I went to work today and came home sick -- low blood sugar, high blood pressure -- from not eating anything in the past few days.

Everything just came so sudden and completely unexpected and I hope things will turn out the way I want them in the future. I can't recall me ever being so upset about something, not even my parents divorce which still upsets me to this day. I know what I want from this, and I will continue my fight to win even though I face rejection again.

Encouraging words are always welcomed. It may not seem like much but it means a lot to me.

Hillary Clinton announced today her plan to introduce universal healthcare here in the United States. The presidential candidate claimed that her plan is not government-run however, it will cost the government (or, the American people) $110 billion a year to run. This $110 billion increase in the Federal budget will come from higher taxation among the wealthy, Clinton claims.

According to Clinton, individuals who receive their healthcare through their work will be allowed to continue to do so and businesses, on the other hand, will be forced to offer insurance to their employees or, pay taxes to a government-run healthcare pool for those who do not have healthcare.

I am not sure how this plan is not government-run. Sure, the individual can choose to keep their own healthcare, but everyone will be mandated to have insurance. Not to mention the force which will be used to ensure that businesses are giving their employees healthcare. It is not totally socialist but pretty damn close.

I do not understand the concept that the rich should be forced to pay for the poor. I do not understand why I am forced to pay for some other persons inability to provide for themselves. Health care is not a right, it is a privilege and, until we understand that, our medicine and hospitals will continue to decline in efficiency and productivity.

I do not welcome this idea at all. Government programs only create more problems and we should have learned this from other countries that have already tried and failed at socialized medicine. We should have learned that socialized anything will ultimately fail.

In a small town in Louisiana, one can be fined $500 and put in jail for six months for simply sagging their pants low enough to see their boxers or underwear. In Trenton, New Jersey, one can be fined and be forced to see a city worker to be assessed on the direction of your life and where it is headed. Similar laws are being sought after in other major cities across the United States such as Atlanta.

Are we really headed in the direction where the government can regulate clothing? Of course, some cities and states have regulated dress in strip clubs, but now the private individual is now being told that he can not sag his pants or wear them comfortably -- which is, I am sure, the reason for some.

As far as I am concerned, they are fully clothed and no law enforcement (the government) has the right to enforce such ridiculous mob-ruled laws such as these. I am sure that for these cities, similar crackdowns in the future will be enforced upon women wearing tight jeans or short skirts.

I support the right of the private institution to regulate dress and even though I personally do not like sagging pants, I will forever protect the right of those who like to do so. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, "It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

Troop Withdrawal

President George Bush's announcement last night of the withdrawal of 30,000 soldiers from Iraq seems to be more of a political ploy than any real strategy. It seems to be that this announcement is to ease tension within the Republican Party and even the Democratic Party.

But, does this withdrawal of 30,000 soldiers really mean anything? Not at all, or, in the words of Ron Paul, it is totally irrelevant. These are the soldiers that were put there as "surge" troops a couple of months ago. And now that the President says the "surge" is working -- which does not seem to be accurate -- these soldiers will be brought home. However, we will still have 150,000+ soldiers left there to continue an endless and unconstitutional conflict.

When are we going to consider it alright for the rest to come home? What are the goals? It use to be that we establish a democratic government but, that passed and we still see corruption. It use to be until we stabilized the region, but now that seems unlikely. So what unrealistic goal is next?

The Democratic Party failed the American people when they were elected to end this war and failed to do so. What will happen next? I feel that we won't see any reduction in our soldiers in Iraq until the next president were to take office and then, that all depends on who takes office.

I found myself doing something that I rarely do -- reading the News Sentinel. The following is a letter that outraged me. It was sent in by Anthony Gabriel of Fort Wayne regarding racism and a festival:

"I recently attended the blueberry festival in Plymouth. There must have been about 10,000 people there. I noticed that there was not one black person.

I have to conclude that racism has not improved but is still the same. Is this happening only in Indiana?"


How preposterous. You concluded that it is racism because you did not see any blacks there? Are there not other factors involved? What about the day you were there? or, the time? or, the location? Maybe it just didn't appeal to the black community? What about the population of blacks in Plymouth? In fact, Plymouth is located in Marshall County and according to the Indiana Natality Report of 2004, Marshall County only had 256 blacks compared to its 45,772 whites.

Enough said.

The issue of abortion is one of the most pressing issues in our society today. In my opinion, the Libertarian Party is very hypocritical when it comes to the issue of abortion as the party's stance supports the right of the woman to choose. The following is by Gary Cherone from Libertarians for Life:

If one person felt "terminating pregnancy is not an easy thing"
but was the right of the individual to make that decision

Is the life within the mother's womb a human person?

If the answer is no, it is not a human person
Why would one person feel "it is not an easy thing" to do?

If the answer is yes, it is a human person
Why would one advocate terminating it?

If the answer is I don't know, if it is, or isn't a human person
How many more "decision(s)"
would one make in an uncertain "situation?"

If the unborn is not a human person
No justification for abortion is necessary
However...
If the unborn is a human person
No justification for abortion is adequate.

Nearly all arguments for abortion
are based on the faulty premise
that the unborn are not fully human.


If the unborn inside the mother's womb is considered life, why would the Libertarian Party advocate using force to terminate that unborn? The non-aggression axiom is one of the basic tenants of the party and is thus, breaking this principle by allowing the "right" of the mother to choose.

On another note, I believe that life does not begin at conception, rather, it begins when the unborn develops a heartbeat. If we consider a person dead when there is no heartbeat, it would be rational to believe that life begins when there is a heartbeat.


I wrote this about a month ago on Facebook due to the number of people I saw joining groups related to how "evil" the gas companies were because of their link with the price for a gallon of gas. I am tired of these people continually blaming gas companies and not the real crooks -- the federal government.

It is a shame that many do not educate themselves and blindly follow others.

The fact is, is that the state and federal governments make a higher profit on a gallon of gas than the gas companies do. How so? Through taxation; something the government does best.

In the state of Indiana, the state government taxes at a rate of 18 cents per gallon plus, a 6 cent sales tax on every dollar. Along with state taxation, the federal government taxes 18.4 cents per gallon. Altogether, taxes cost nearly 20% of the whole price you pay at the pump -- not to mention, other taxes that occur during the process of refining and transportation of oil.

What else is involved in the price of gas? Well, around 50% of that cost alone is for the barrel of crude oil that the companies buy. To refine this crude oil, it costs around 12-14% and another 9% is used for distributing the gas to various parts of the country. That leaves the gas companies with a profit of 7-9% profit.

The government makes a profit nearly double that of the gas companies. If the government stopped its taxing, you would see around a 50 cent drop in the price of gas.

Another thing to mention, the reason gas prices are rising this month is due to the hurricanes that occur in the Gulf of Mexico which disrupt the production of oil thus, making a shorter supply and with high demands, raises the price per gallon.

According to a recent Pew Global Attitudes poll, nearly two-thirds of the Turkish public believes that the United States of America is the biggest threat to the future of their country. And yet, our government can not grasp why anyone would hate this country -- besides the popular notion, "they hate us because of our freedom."

As the situation in Iraq worsens and rumors of war with Iran continue, we can only expect to see the hatred of the United States to deepen.

And yet, the politicians in Washington continue their quest for world domination -- trying to spread democracy by the sword, something that is totally contrary to the ideals of freedom.

Every day, we become less safe than the day before. How can we expect their to be no blowback from a failed foreign policy? We are expected to continue the mistake as was mentioned by, all but one, Republican candidates in the FOX News debate last Wednesday. Continuing this mistake makes no sense. It is time for a change in our foreign policy.

FOX News did not surprise me tonight in the Republican Presidential Debate. A news channel that prides itself on its self-proclaimed fair and balance stance, sure did not live up to those principles tonight.

Not only did the first question to Ron Paul not occur until each candidate had received almost two questions, but the personal attacks on him where ridiculous and uncalled for. Laughing in the background to his responses showed the lack of integrity for the news channel that is suppose to have so-called conservative values. When the first vote counts came in for their text message poll, where Ron Paul came in first, I believe a muttered “hear we go again” was stated, referring to the last Presidential Debate when Ron Paul came in second overall and was passed off as nothing more than a small bunch of people constantly texting for Ron Paul.

Once again FOX News, you have shown America what true journalism is not. And because of the news channel’s lack of integrity and fairness, is why I continue to choose to get my news from the internet and MSNBC.

In the past few days, I have been thinking about the phrase, “money is the root of all evil.” This simple and well known phrase had been pounded into my head since I can remember with little explanation as to why I should accept this as truth. And now, I completely reject this phrase. In fact, I will go as far as to say that “money is the root of all good.”

One could make an argument that money is evil because it drives men to commit horrendous acts of violence on one another but, it is not money that drives man to commit those acts, it is man himself that is responsible.

Money is the only way for man to fully interact with one another. Without it, men would resort to acts of barbarism in using force to obtain what he desires, including the act of slavery. The following is a quote from Ayn Rand:

“Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to become the means by which men deal with one another, the men become the tools of other men. Blood, whips and guns — or dollars. Take your choice — there is no other.”