¡Viva la secesión!

For as long as I can remember, Texas secession has always been a joke of sorts thrown about when Texans got tired of Washington. Growing up I remember seeing what was mostly pick up trucks with bumper stickers reading 'SECEDE'. Of course you could chalk that up to me having lived in Rockwall, the last bit of civilization east of Dallas and a decidedly I <3 Texas locale. However, Texans in general seem to all have the same idea: We don't need Washington.
Lately, Washington has been for lack of a better phrase, a CF. I'm not going to sit here and pretend that it was all Obama's fault because admittedly it wasn't, but he hasn't helped matters. Additionally, he has at nearly every chance he has gotten been a belittling bully to conservatives, a great many of which make up the Texas electorate. In light of his recent reelection, people from all 50 states have signed petitions asking to be granted peaceful secession from the Union. This is all completely ridiculous. Colorado seceding? It's landlocked by the  US of A and technically, but not really, has legalized weed. Just toke it up and chill out. You're not going anywhere. Rhode Island is going to secede? Really?
Texas on the other hand has a shot in hell at making it if it were to secede. For one thing, Texas has done it before. Granted it was 166 years ago and only lasted on its own for just under ten years, but what has South Dakota Fanning ever done that awesome? Nothing, and it never will. Texas again tried to pull off the whole riding solo thing (kinda) when it split from the Union to join the Confederacy. A month after Robert E Lee had surrendered at Appomattox, Texas was still fighting and not losing ground to the Northern Aggressors because they were a bunch of BAMFs.
Texas currently possesses 1/4 of the nation's oil reserves, 1/3 of the natural gas reserves and 95% of the country gets oil and gas from pipelines originating in Texas. Despite the recession, Texas has added one million new jobs, has more Fortune 500 companies than any other state and were Texas a country, it would have the 13th highest GDP in the world. Impressive, right? Texas has the Texas Guard, the Texas National Guard, the Air Guard and the Texas Rangers.

But legally can Texas secede? No. According to the 1845 Texas Annexation Agreement, Texas can if it chooses split itself up into 5 states, but who would want that? In the 1869 case of Texas v White, the Supreme Court decision held that no state had the right to secede from the Union. So... there goes that theory.
The basis of this is that if the petition were to get >25,000 signatures in the allotted time, the President's administration would be forced to adress it. Since it has, now Obama has to deal with that and Petraeus and Clinton leaving and Libya and the fiscal cliff and Sandy relief, etc... Almost feel sorry for him... Syke. All this did was put front and center to this administration that they may be in for a second term, but a lot of people are not happy about it. You can only bully, ignore and degrade a significant portion of the population for so long before they get completely fed up, and now we are.  Most people are not legitimately looking to secede. Governor Perry even lambasted the petitions aims, but you know even he got tickled at the idea of being the President of the Republic of Texas. I mean look at this guy, total bad A.
And finally, to all of those saying that anyone who signed these petitions should have their citizenship stripped, I am unfortunately Facebook friends with a fair number of you and I am well aware that you are the same people who tout like a badge of honor your I <3 illegal immigrants beliefs. I love a good slice of irony, don't you? It's a joke. This entire thing is a joke. Texas isn't going anywhere, and I don't want it to.  ** Currently, the petition for texas to secede has about 106,000 signatures and still has until December 9th to be signed by more people.

5 Signs the Stock Market Will collapse in 2013

If you haven't seen this, it's worth a look.
Pretty scary...
http://w3.newsmax.com/a/aftershockb/video47.cfm?promo_code=109C0-1

LOL

My response to Tuesday night...

After Obama won reelection, (Vomit, I don't want to discuss it. However I did in my daily campus article if you care to read it. I pretended to be a lot more positive about him winning than I really am. We're screwed.) the United states moved to back a UN arms treaty that would allow for tighter restrictions on arms trade worldwide. Basically, there was a draft of an international treaty that would regulate the $70 billion world wide arms trade. The expectation was that the matter would be resolved before the election, but it was delayed due to Sandy. Once the Obama's knew their spot in government housing was safe for another four years, Obama through his weight behind the treaty. United States support for this treaty initially fell apart in July when the United states claimed, along with Russia, that they had issues with it and wanted more time. Definitely had nothing to do with Obama's campaign...
What the US support did was call for a new round of talks, March 18-28 so while it is not officially in effect yet, this is a step in the direction of making this treaty a reality. This treaty seeks to rectify the rampant illicit trading and proliferation of illegal arms while protecting the sovereign rights of states to trade arms. The Obama administration stressed this treaty would not effect Americans' right to bear arms in anyway.

 

This wouldn't even be an issue had the Untied States, who is responsible for 40% of the world's arms trade, not done a complete 180 on its stance on the matter in 2009 following Obama coming to office. countries that did not participate in the vote included Russia, Saudi arabia, Syria, Sudan, Belarus, Cuba and Iran. While china would be expected to not support the treaty, in a shocking turn of events China chose to back it. 

Why does this make me LOL? Because as previously stated, the United States is responsible for "40%" of arms trade in the world. Why the quotes? That number is comprised of the legal arms trade the Untied States engages in. Even with that number alone, Barack Obama is currently the top arms dealer in the entire world as the President of the United States. However, the United States is also a huge contributor to te illicit arms trade.

There are certain countries the United States canot be seen providing arms to but who it is advantageous to deal to. A prime example of this would be a variety of countries in Africa to be sure, but the United States involvement with the Soviet Cold War in Afghanistan is perhaps the most well known. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan  terrorizing the people and causing an obscene number to flee their homes lest they be killed. The United States took a good long while to get involved as they had their own problems with the Soviets. Once the scope of the human rights violations was made aware to Congressman Charlie Wilson, he made sure that the United States intervened, but on a clandestine basis. Were the United States to be seen as contributing to the Afghans, it is all too likely that the Cold War would have been quickly thawed by a nuclear bomb. Because of this, the United States was tasked with convincing Israeli arms dealers to arm those fighting against the Soviets. The issue? Those fighting against the Soviets were partly Afghanis, partly Palestinian as the Mujahideen (Soviet fighters) were located in Palestine. Anyone who knows anything about the Middle East knows how popular fo an idea this was. Long story short, the United States bankrolled this, the Israelis gave arms to Mujahideen, they fought back against the Soviets and eventually the Soviets retreated. This would be an example of arms trade not counted in that 40%. (In one fiscal year the United States spent $300 million on this covert operation.)
Also on a side note, the top arms traders in the world are the United States, Britain, Russia, France and China. They are also the only permanent members of the UN Security Council.
I understand that there is a great deal of violence in the world that could be absolved in the absence of weapons, but there is no way to not have weapons. Making them illegal or restricting the trade on any scope is only applicable to those who follow the law. African warlords won't feel obligated to adhere to this treaty, they'll find the guns from somewhere with or without it and the United States will I am sure play a significant role in them getting their hands on them. Additionally, the UN has really no legitimate way of enforcing its rules unless a member country or countries takes it upon themselves to enforce it. This treaty is yet another step in a long line of Obama's disarmament goals, but in the end all it is is a feel like a good person while actually doing nothing measure. LOL.

Election Day

Today is the day we have all been waiting for: Election day. Today America has the opportunity to send the Obama's on a walk of shame in January. Today America has to opportunity to elect the 45th president of these United States. I have a test this evening, classes to sign up for for next semester in less than an hour and am so anxious I cannot begin to stand it, so I will make this short:

Vote for Mitt!!!

On another note, just as in 2008, members of the New Black Panthers have been spotted outside of a Philadelphia polling location today. Last go around, there were two of them and one of them was carrying a club. This time, there is only one Black Panther and he doesn't have a club. Huge progress. Their goal is to intimidate voters in a swing state (Pennsylvania). As they have no direct involvement in the political machine, I find it completely inappropriate for them to be there at all. I would LOVE to walk by this idiot dressed as I am today and rub in his face that I most certainly did NOT vote for Obama. A Black Panther hitting a white girl just won't happen. Can you imagine the fall out from that? These thugs are there for intimidation purposes and have no legitimate power or place in the voting process.


Update:

This lovely painting greets voters at a Philadelphia voting location. In general, during an election a candidate or a candidate's representatives are not permitted to be within 100 feet of a polling location. Many states do not permit voters to wear political pins into the location and many also forbid the wearing of politically charged shirts while voting. This horrific mural cannot be kosher. If that is not a persuasion tactic then I don't know what is. 

I went to public school (sad I know) and when we took that God awful TAKS test the teachers had to dismantle the room of everything that could potentially help/ influence us on the test. Anything that couldn't be taken down was covered up. If this school is not willing to paint over this, the least they should do is cover it up. My question however is whether or not this is a school that pushes liberalism on the children who attend. True it is Philadelphia, and most of the children probably come form democrat backgrounds, but if there si not a paining of the previous 43 presidents and they do not plan to put up a shrine to Romney should he win, I find this inappropriate. Elementary school children should not have anyone's doctrine shoved down their throats. Period. 

4 More Days

It's been a good while since my last post. Between midterms and the impending election, there has never been a dull moment in my life! The following are some political related happenings in my life in the last few weeks:

I tweet

Pre Boulevard cup representing!

At the Mitt Romney fundraiser at the Frontiers of Flight Museum with Congressman Pete Sessions and two members from the SMU College Republicans

"Mitt Romney" at Halloween block party on Oak Lawn

Josh Romney!!!!

Romney/ Ryan tent at the SMU Boulevard

Target practice at the ranch

Glenn Beck at the Mitt Romney fundraiser

"Mitt Romney", his binder full of women and "Paul Ryan"

Snapshots from the old ranch house

Congressman Pete Sessions

Now, down to business. We are a mere four days from the election that will decide the course of this country from here on out. If you have not early voted by now, please be sure to vote on Tuesday. As I said, this election is of monumental importance and the outcome will have serious ramifications on the future of this country. Obviously there is no way to exactly predict who will win, and with the polls all so out of whack with one another it's hard to know who is doing what, but political savante Karl Rove has been doing his own tracking and the Rasmussen Report is highly reputable for those looking to for early signs of a winner. These two currently are showing a pretty much neck and neck race with no clear cut winner, which is quite annoying to a lot of voters, me included. By several accounts, analysts are predicting Romney will take North Carolina and that Obama is looking shaky in Michigan. Also, during my phone banking for Romney last night, I got to call voters in Ohio and was pleased when of the over 60 calls I made, not one said they supported Obama. 

But remember if all of this political and election talk has you down: 

These Debates Are Turning Into a Joke

I love my friends:)

Notice Michelle Obama clapping as the moderator interrupts Romney in her husband's defense despite the fact that the moderator is supposed to be unbiased and you are not supposed to make any congratulatory or detracting sounds during the debates? Classyyyyyyy.

While finding someone with absolutely no political bias is tricky if not impossible, it is obvious that the Commission on Presidential Debates was barely even trying to find someone who fit that criteria. "To hell with looking for a media figure lacking a blatant liberal bias", I imagine they said.
Jim Lehrer (PBS): Liberal
Martha Raddatz (ABC): Liberal (Obama was a guest at her 1991 wedding and the groom, now ex husband and former classmate of Obama, is the chairman of the FCC)
Candy Crowley (CNN): Liberal
Bob Schieffer (CBS): Liberal

Jim Lehrer was ineffectual and as a consequence was verbally run over by the two much more vigorous candidates. Martha Raddatz allowed the round table format debate to turn into something like The View with Biden playing the role of Joy Behar and Ryan the Elizabeth Hasselbeck. Raddatz was for all intents and purposes Barbara Walters. This is an oversimplification of course, but it denotes the bitch-fest Raddatz allowed the debate to devolve to.
Then there was Candy Crowley. Honestly going into this I had barely heard of this woman, but knowing she came from CNN, my hopes weren't high for her moderation.
Even with the little hope I had instilled in this woman, she failed miserably. It is not the responsibility or the right of the moderator to interject her opinion on a matter or to correct a debater for facts that she deems to be incorrect, but interject she did. Everyone was waiting for this debate to see how the candidates would debate on the matter of Libya but once it was brought up, she couldn't help but to get involved.  Romney pointed out that it had taken 14 days for this administration to acknowledge to September 11th attack in Benghazi as an act of terror with nothing to do with an inflammatory video. She inappropriately countered with the assertion that he called it 'an act of terror'. In the post debate she admitted that Romney's main point was correct but she thought in the way he went about saying it he made it wrong. Um none of your beeswax lady. You're the moderator. If his point was not factual, which it was, it was Obama's job to expose that.
However these candidates answered in regards to questions on Libya, foreign policy and national security was sure to make waves, but Following one week of ineffective moderation and one week of biased moderation, it would have been prudent for the CPD to at least try to make sure their latest moderator was a touch less obvious in her bias. Here's hoping Bob Scheffer is able to be a little more subtle next week.

Also, as some of you may have noticed, I no longer accept comments. This is mainly due to people like this being the main commenters:

Hollywood's Obsession with Objectifying Women

The idea of objectifying women generally is in regards to the exploitation of their bodies for sexual purposes, but I would venture to say the liberal left could be charged as being equally guilty of objectification. They are using women and their bodies as a divisive political issue and as a means to attack the Republican party with oversimplifications, scare tactics and out right lies. Currently, 46% of women consider the economy to be their most important issue going into this election. Less than half of that number, 20%, consider healthcare to be the most important. While both issues are of great importance, the former is a concept that most in Hollywood are not capable of fully grasping. However, Hollywood women do apparently care a great deal about women's rights as we have all heard ad nauseam. Today this jewel of an advertisement for the Obama campaign was released:

First of all, having Eva Longoria as a California Co-chair for you reelection campaign makes about as much sense as having Sylvia Plath be your life coach.

Second, let's break down why these women would be better served statutory raping teenage gardeners on prime time soaps and being felt up by Isaac Mizrahi.

Mitt Romney is for ending money to Planned Parenthood:Scare tactic. Mitt Romney has said that if elected president, he would cut funding to Planned Parenthood. This is true, but in February the House had already voted to cut federal funding to PP (240-185) with 7 Republicans voting against it and 10 democrats voting for cutting funding. Planned Parenthood is prohibited from using federal funding on abortion services, so the cut would effect family planning and birth control services. The big rub most people find is that this would effect many women's ability to receive preventative cancer screenings. The following chart from Planned Parenthood shows that 70% of their business covers the treatment of/ testing for STD's and contraception. Only 1/6 of the entire business covered by PP is cancer screenings.  Federal funding does make up 1/3 of its total revenue but a company that also receives state and local funding, private donations and is partnered with organizations such as Susan G Komen in addition to requiring payment (at reduced cost) for services should, if managed responsibly, be able to more than cover breast cancer screenings. (Susan G Komen donates an average of $680,000 a year to the organization but when they cut funding to them, PP received $400,000 from donors in two days and then Komen decided to once again donate to them.) As far as the abortions are concerned, true it only comprises 3% of their total business, but in that 3% were 329,445 abortions. I do not view abortion as in general an issue of women's health. There are cases, select cases in which abortion needs to be an option, but being irresponsible is not one of them. Suck it up and be a grown up. If you are mature enough to have sex you're mature enough to deal with the consequences. Side note: Next person who says to me "I'm pro-choice not pro-abortion" gets hit. No one is saying you are chasing pregnant women around with coat hangers...

And just because the whole abortion issue really gets to me, in Texas you can get an abortion up to 15 weeks. This is what a baby looks like at 15 weeks:

Yeahhhh definitely not a baby or anything! I absolutely loathe Planned Parenthood.

He said he'd overturn Roe v Wade: Incorrect. According to his campaign website, Mitt Romney's official position is that "He will protect the right of healthcare workers to follow their conscience in their work." In other words, if you are a private doctor who would like to perform abortions, he would not work to stop your doing that. Abortions under Romney would still be provided by doctors in practices which do not receive federal funding. The price at these locations would be up to the doctor. With an issue as divisive as abortion does it not make sense to not force people through taxes to fund an institution in anyway that performs abortions, even if that money does not directly fund abortions? This assertion is incorrect and a scare tactic.

Republicans are trying to redefine rape: Oversimplification. This is obviously in reference to Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin saying that according to some doctors he's spoken with, legitimate rape causes a woman's body to shut down and prevent her form getting pregnant. This statement has been condemned by people on the left and right alike. Mitt Romney called the comment 'inexcusable' and suggested that Akin 'exit the race'. You cannot generalize an entire party by the thoughtless comments of one wayward member. If that were the case, Biden would have long ago completely screwed the democrats. 

Forcing women to undergo invasive ultrasounds: Scare tactic and oversimplification.This is in reference to laws in many states, including Texas, which require a doctor prior to performing an abortion to perform an ultrasound on the woman, show her the fetus and describe its size and any visible limbs and organs. Abortions rights activists have likened the placing the probe inside of the woman (the same probe used for ultra sounds for pregnancies in general and as a means to diagnose a number of medical issues) to rape. Obnoxious much? The goal in this is to show the woman what is inside of her so she can make an informed decision about the life she is ending and not  in the future realize the traumatic consequences of an uninformed decision. It's not a mole you are getting rid of, it is a life and anyway to make the mother more aware of this, lest they come to regret it down the road, should not be considered bad. 

They end this by urging you to vote for Barack Obama as OBVIOUSLY he knows/cares more about the vajay than Mitt Romney. Whatever. Apparently women are not buying this as being the leading issue in this election because as was stated above, women consider the economy to be their top issue this election. In fact in swing states Romney is currently getting a huge boost from women. As in virtually every other area, the Republican party, in regards to women's health, is in favor of personal responsibility. Want an abortion? Pay for it. See the life inside of you and be resolute in your desire to end it.  As for the cancer screening, to say that federally defunding planned parenthood would keep women from receiving cancer screenings ignores the massive amounts of money PP already receives from other sources, including the patients themselves for a variety of services. 

The dems can say and do whatever they want, today the Gallup poll showed Romney pulling ahead by 5 points. What whatttt!:)

Despite my views, the following is HILARIOUS and SO true:

Big Week of Missteps for the Obama Campaign

Number Five:
Las Vegas Review Journal Endorses Mitt Romney

While not technically the fault of the Obama campaign per se, it does speak volumes that any publication coming from Las Vegas would prefer a conservative candidate. I mean seriously, it is "Sin City". Prostitution is legal there, gambling a plenty, booze flowing like the Hoover Dam just burst. Why would a city such as Las Vegas endorse a Mormon who is probably aghast at a lot of what goes on there? That is it right there. He is Mormon. Thanks to stringent laws in Utah which prosecute for polygamy, many Mormons have moved to neighboring Nevada, namely Las Vegas. This is because Nevada is less inclined to prosecute them for their lifestyle choices than Utah because let's face it, LV has way bigger problems to worry about. Next to a kid with a cracked out stripper mother, a kid with 7 moms in prairie skirts is doing pretty good. As Nevada is a swing state that went blue in the last election, Obama should be worried about losing it (Florida ain't looking too good either...)

Number Four: 
Obama campaign accused of threatening NAACP official

Whether of not this is true remains to be seen, but the leader of the South Suburban branch of Chicago's NAACP David Lowery has filed a police report against the campaign for allegedly receiving threats. Lowery has stated publicly that he does not support the president as he does not believe he has done what he promised for the black community. He says in a recent phone conversation a campaign official told him, "You know what? I know everything about you. We've been watching you, and since you don't support Obama, we'll deal with you." The campaign responded by saying there was a miscommunication between the official and Lowery.

Number Three:
Obama campaign found to be soliciting illegal contributions

In order to donate to an election in the United States directly or indirectly, you must be a citizen. However, the Government Accountability Institute has found that the Obama administration has been illegally soliciting foreign donors via social media outlets. 20% of visitors to the Obama campaign owned my.barackobama.com  "originated form foreign locations"and at no point are donors on said website asked if they are legally allowed to contribute to an American campaign. It goes against federal law to "solicit, accept or receive" donations directly or indirectly from a foreign national so we shall see how this plays out in the coming days.

Number Two:

$5 trillion number inaccurate

Taken from Snoop Dogg's Instagram

The Obama campaign concedes that their allegation of Romney's $5 trillion tax-cut, a point on which a large part of their campaign is based, is not true. Note this is CNN, a network that while more balanced than Fox or MSNBC, still tends to lean liberal.

Number One biggest gaffe of the week:

Obviously, the debate from hell. 

As of today, thanks in large part to Obama's dismal debate performance on Thursday, Gallup is showing a 5 point boost for the Governor. Obama was sitting at a 50-45 lead, a gap that has since been closed leaving both candidates at 47%. Rasmussen Report similarly shows each candidate receiving 48% of the vote in polling. It is clear that the lead had by Obama pre-debate has narrowed if not having closed due to his Thursday night performance. Since then, he has been on a whirlwind delayed comebacks tour as he comes up with clever quips to put Romney in his place.

Politics Can Be Funny

In the interest of lazy Sunday, I give you some of my favorite politically themed skits (mostly from SNL):
 

President Bush Reacts to Osama Bin Laden's Death with Will Ferrell from Will Ferrell

 And of course, no list of politically themed skits would be complete without:

Ron Paul and The Great Debate

Anyone who watched the debate last night can agree it was a classic case of the tortoise and the hare. The main stream media and even Romney's own camp downplayed the likelihood of Romney doing well in this debate as he is not the great orator that Obama is. The arrogant Obama clearly did not see Romney as a worthy opponent and because of this came off as unprepared. He seemingly sought to play it safe as he currently has a slight edge in generally every poll. He played it so safe in fact, that he spent the entire night playing defense to Romney's relentless attacks on the last three and a half years and Obama's vision for the next four.

The anchors and analysts of MSNBC were in a state of panic as they attempted to spin a dismal performance into a positive for the party, but even Obama's greatest cheerleaders found themselves  incapable of doing so. It has been widely stated that on all accounts, Romney owned Obama last night. He had the facts and figures, oratory skills, debate competency and vigor that Obama lacked. Romney alluded to his desire to do away with PBS, the home channel of the moderator right to his face. He gave himself a degree of likability in his proclaiming his love of Big Bird.

What does this mean? Currently, polling on who won the debate shows Americans predominantly thought Romney won. How the debate effected voters opinions on candidates is still unknown as there has yet to be a substantial amount of definitive post debate polling on the issue.

Next up, the VP debate. Let the bloodbath begin... Mwahahahahaha

Sorry for you little baby ears, but I'm not going to mince words. If you vote for Ron Paul under the guise of "wanting what's best for America", you're an idiot.

America currently has a two party system, democrats and republicans. Hate to break it to you, but this will not be the election that brings in a third party or ousts one of the two main parties. There is no end in sight for the two party system.

While as a libertarian I like Ron Paul, he does not have a shot in hell at winning. His refusal to formally step down and ask his followers to endorse Mitt Romney for the sake of getting Obama out of the White House in all honesty makes me question his character. Ron Paul forsook his customary party, the Libertarian Party, for the Republican party believing that by going with one of the two  main parties he would have a better shot at a legitimate nomination. However, in the Republican primaries, Romney obtained the votes of 1,462 of the delegates, Santorum 234 votes, Gingrich 137 and Paul only 122. While the number of votes he received is not a lot less than the number Gingrich received, Romney received nearly 12 times as many votes as Paul. (These were all hard counts) Since his loss, Paul has been the only primary candidate, including those who did not make it to the official GOP primary, (Perry, Bachmann, Cain, Roemer, Huntsman) to not fully endorse Romney.

Anyone with a legitimate desire to get Obama out of the White House would have asked their followers to endorse the Republican party's official candidate once they were no longer in the running. But not Ron Paul! Ron Paul does not care about getting Obama out of the White House or the GOP reclaiming lost ground. No, Ron Paul cares about Ron Paul and about getting himself elected. Despite his aligning himself with the Republican party, he has made it clear that he does not care for party unity and has this created a small faction of americans rallying behind their fallen angel.

Lat me be clear, a vote for Ron Paul (or Gary Johnson or really any third party candidate) is a vote for Barack Obama. As of today, polling still shows Obama with a slight lead (this is due in large part to what is thus far a lack of post debate polling) and Romney cannot afford to have what would otherwise most likely be a Republican voter writing in another name.

Most of my Facebook friends touting the Ron Paul 2012 agenda reside in Texas, a state which can afford a small number of voters and their dumbass-ery as there is no way Texas will go blue. However, swing states cannot afford this. For anyone who does not fully understand, this is how the electoral college works:
It is what is called an indirect election. What happens is that based on congressional voting membership (435 representatives- House, 100 senators- Senate and 3 from the District of Columbia),  there are 538 'electors' who will, based on the popular vote of the state from which they are elected, will vote. (Article II Section 1 Clause 2 of the constitution details how many electors each state gets. Each elector is technically expected to look at how his or her state voted and vote the same. Forty eight states operate under the 'winner take all' system in which the winner in the state receives all electoral votes form the state. However, Maine and Nebraska have what is called the 'district system'. What the district system says is that the candidates that win the state receive two votes and all other votes cast go by district. For instance, in Obama won Maine at large, he would automatically receive two votes, however, the remaining votes could be divided if Romney won districts that Obama did not. Confused yet? Me too. As far as the 'winner take all sates', it is entirely legal for electors to not vote in accordance with the popular vote of their state which causes a great deal of frustration in the American voter. Texas for this election has gained 4 more electoral votes form the last election (34 in 2008, 38 in 2012) which is great as Texas is a definitively Red State so that there is a guaranteed 38 votes.

Now, on to why a vote for Paul or any third party candidate, is idiotic. According to the Rasmussen report, as of polling done predominantly pre-debate last night, Obama has 49% of voters, Romney 47%, 3% are undecided and 1% are for a third party candidate. As Paul's positions are generally considered conservative (excluding in terms of the war, legalization) it is safe to assume those voting for Paul would vote Republican if they had to choose between Obama or Romney. Because of this, you are losing a chink of voters form Romney, Obama is largely not losing anything by your Ron Paul vote. In fact, he is gaining an edge. Take for instance the swing ste of Florida. This is a complete fabrication and not based on any numbers, but say Obama gets 50% of the vote, Romney 49% and Paul/ 3rd party candidate receives 1%. Technically the expectation would be that the electors form Florida would vote Obama because that is how the popular vote went, even with such a minuscule margin. Because of those going with the third party, Romney would lose that state. (The chance of a margin this small happening are like slim to none.)

It is imperative that we oust Barack Obama from the White House and to do this, party unity is a must. It is reckless and irresponsible for Ron Paul to not advocate for party unity in the face of such a close election.

Not to be a fatalist, but a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Obama.

Legalize/ Decriminalize

Ohhhhhhhh my Godddddddd Hunter Parrish let's get married now and have all kinds of beautiful, blonde babies...

The other day I was talking with an old friend on a WIDE range of topics, but as he seems to be the male equivalent of me in nearly every way, the conversation eventually turned to politics. While both of us consider ourselves to be devout conservatives, he made the remark that I was "a bad republican". At first I was somewhat taken aback, but then I began realizing he was kind of right. Most of my friends would be shocked that anyone could say this about me or that I would admit it about myself. I mean seriously:

That took me all of 3 seconds to find on my Facebook. I am solidly in the fold of the right, except on a couple of issues. First of all:

I LOVE the gays. Love 'em. Love each other, get married be as miserable as straight people twenty years in. I like boys, why shouldn't you?

Secondly, and perhaps more surprisingly, I am for the legalization of marijuana. I cannot personally tell you what the draw to the stuff is or why someone would want to walk around life stoned out of their mind, but it's a plant. The idea that lighting a plant on fire and inhaling it is illegal and that people are killed over it just blows my mind. LEGALIZE it. For one thing, the stoners will finally shut up, something I know we all desperately want. Secondly, tax it. There's a sin tax on alcohol, candy, gambling, cigarettes, etc... make those pot heads pay a little tax. Lifting the prohibition on marijuana would save the government approximately $7.7 billion a year in prohibition enforcement and would raise $2.4 billion a year if taxed normally or $6.2 billion if taxed as alcohol and tobacco are (much more likely). Third, other synthetic forms of marijuana are showing up in the hands of our youth and having dire consequences. Ever heard of the substance K2? Yeah it's been known to cause myocardial infarctions (heart attacks) in some cases and is now largely illegal in the United States.  Would you not rather people were smoking a plant and hitting up Taco Bell than having heart attacks from using the synthetic form of a plant which according to the bible:

The hemp plant (scientific name: cannabis, slang: marijuana) is one of the many useful herbs "yielding seed after its kind" created and blessed by God on the third day of creation, "and God saw that it was good." (Genesis 1:12)

So..... yeah. Apparently marijuana isn't THAT bad. However, I feel it is my moral obligation to remind you that regardless if and when it is legalized, "It is one thing to spark up a doobie and get laced at parties, but it is quite another to be fried all day. Do you see the distinction? "

Does my advocating for the legalization of marijuana primarily on the basis of its economic advantages make me a bad republican? No, most would say it makes me an ideal republican: seeking the economic exploitation of nature. Whatever, hippie. However, this next statement kind of does make me a bad republican:

I think we should decriminalize the possession and consumption of all drugs. 

I know, Nancy Reagan would die if she heard me say this. Personally, I'm just saying no, but I'm all for your right to say yes. Blame it on my being more of a libertarian than a true conservative, but I think you have the right to succumb to social darwinism if you feel so inclined. 

Basically, I believe that what has been implemented in Portugal is a much more logical response to drug possession. In the face of swelling prison populations due to drug related crimes, the Portuguese government sought to replace prison time for small amounts of narcotics  with drug rehabilitation. A few years out and the results are even better than expected. The number of teens beginning to use has gone down, there are fewer new cases of HIV as people are not sharing dirty needles and more than twice as many people are seeking help for addiction than before.

Currently the United States is mostly ignoring a burgeoning problem in the south as our borders are repeatedly and violently being breeched by drug cartels. Americans are dying over the importation and distribution of drugs and the decriminalization of such products would do a great deal to curtail such unnecessary violence. Putting a heroin addict in prison for a balloon (I've seen Pulp Fiction:) ) does nothing to help them fight their addiction. Drug rehabilitation rather than criminal action being taken against the user would do much more for the person and society as a whole.

*I cannot stress enough I am advocating for the decriminalization not the legalization of cocaine, heroin, meth, etc.. There is a big difference. 

Here is a few clips of some typically Hollywood liberal TV shows about drugs that I actually enjoy. Weeds may or may not be the best show ever created. 

Sandra Fluke: Belle of the Liberal Ball

Side note: Never in a billion years thought I'd need to say this, but please do not tell anyone you write for this blog. I, Hailey Dunn, am the sole creator and thus far writer. Especially do not tell prospective grad schools because when they contact me I will tell them I don't know who the hell you are and what is I'm sure an already weak resumé will quickly become as weak as a watered down cranberry vodka. Also, this blog is quite minor so to act like this is your claim to fame is sad to say the least...

Anywho, as I said before, I'd planned to do a piece on Sandra Fluke and now, as many mustangs surely know, is quite an appropriate time to do so. Sandra Fluke... shall I compare thee to a summer's day? No, I won't. You are more like an engorged leech. First of all, I think it's valid to point out that while the subject of human rights should not now or ever be put aside due to other important matters, I think it is the height of stupidity to be focusing so much attention on the care of women's "reproductive health" right now. If we get our economy back up and running your odds of being able to pop Yaz like pez and dance around with a Nuva ring you paid for will be significantly greater. 
This woman was a nobody really when she was projected into the public eye last winter. She sought to testify in front of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on the importance of insurance covered birth control during a birth control mandate discussion, but was blocked from doing so by the big, bad republicans. (It has been stated that her name was submitted too late to be included, but democrats disputed that claim.) She ended up with an audience of democratic House members. Some people heard of this as it was a small scale scandal, but most Americans did not. Rush Limbaugh ended up being the one to catapult her into the public eye and make her smarmy little self the new champion of the feminist movement. On his Feburary 29th show, Limbaugh had this to say about Fluke:

"[Fluke] essentially says that she must be paid to have sex—what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex."

His words, not mine. I'm not saying she's a slut, but her demanding that institutions who object to coverage that includes contraception  on moral grounds be forced by the government to still provide it is repugnant. As a student of Georgetown University at the time, her complaint was that a number of students, along with her married friend and polycystic ovarian syndrom having lesbian friend, could not afford to  take birth control they needed due to the stringent requirements placed on the dispensing of contraception by the university's health plan.  Through her lamentations of the Jesuit college's discrimination of women and woeful assertion that her possessing ovaries should not constitute having to choose between healthcare and education, a vulnerable down trodden picture of a beleaguered graduate student was painted. What this comes down to is freedom of religion. While I personally know few Catholics as I come from a largely Baptist town, I can say the ones I do know are quite earnest in their convictions. It is not their legal responsibility or moral imperative to provide or provide access to a service or product that is in contrast to their own beliefs.
Part of her testimony adresses the inability to get free or discounted birth control as free clinics are being downsized and shut down. A quick google of Planned Parenthood, the name brand free clinic if you will, will tell you that there are currently 820 locations and as of the fiscal year 2008-2009, it had a budget of $1.04 billion. From July 1st 2009- June 30th 2010, it was reported that PP received $487.4 million in "government health services grants and reimbursements"(coming from tax dollars) and performed 329,455 abortions. Let us all take a moment to mourn the hard times of Planned Parenthood. 
Interesting fact, Fluke, prior to attending Georgetown, was a women's rights activist and stated that she had examined the health insurance policy of the university and decided to attend with the purpose of taking on the coverage it carried. Basically, she knew what she was getting into, knew it was a Catholic institution that did not believe in administering contraception for non-medical purposes and jumped in with both feet to start trouble.  She was also initially billed as a 23 year old coed, but we now know that she is in fact 31. I don't know about you, but rather than an impassioned student activist, she's kind of starting to come off to me as a liberal pawn.  Also, not sure when this was updated but according to US News, to be a full time law student at Georgetown costs $46,865 and part time costs $33,500. Unless you have a hefty scholarship, that's a lot of money to be paying for school and you can sit there and tell me that you don't have $100/ month? (That's what according to her testimony her PCOS having friend needed for her prescription) Georgetown is also ranked #13 in the US in terms of law schools.  While that is nothing to scoff at, that means that if you are so in need of contraception coverage, you have 12 other even better schools to choose from that probably don't care if or why you're "on the pill". Lucky you!
I have much more to complain about in regards to this vile woman, but this is a good start. I don't take kindly to someone going to great lengths to be painted a victim and as far as I'm concerned, that's exactly what she did. She has since ridden the wave of her "poor little me" routine all the way to being a speaker at the DNC where she proved that you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. 

Narcissism and Lies From the Obama Campaign

No, that is not a kindergartener's finger painting or the picture from a crime scene. This my friends is a new print made by Ross Bruggink and Dan Olson of Studio MPLS. They are legitimately trying to sell this to people for $35 a pop. Never mind the fact that it is the height of narcissism and disrespect to replace the field of stars representing the 50 states with a campaign symbol, but it's ugly as hell too.

Anyways, congressional budget analysts came out yesterday and said that 6 million people, mostly residing in the middle class Obama claims he wants to help so much, will face a tax penalty for not having medical coverage. The average penalty is projected to be around $1,200 in 2016. The non-partisan office projected 4 million people would be effected when the analysis was originally done in 2010, but they now admit they were off by about 2 million people. No big deal or anything.

This is a pretty substantial blow to Obama's campaign as he has repeatedly vowed to not raise taxes for who he deems to be the middle class (individuals making less than $200,000/year, families making less than $250,000/year) However, 80% of those being penalized would make $55,850 or less for an individual and $115,250 or less for a family. Smack dab in the midst of the middle class. The penalty, when it goes into effect in 2016, is expected to raise $6.9 billion.

If you remember back to this summer, the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare and its corresponding penalties by saying it was constitutional as it was within congressional power to levy a tax. However, one of the major points made about the bill was that this would be a penalty, not a tax. Oops, it's a tax. It is expected that a number of people will opt to simply pay the tax come 2016 as the average health insurance for a family costs $15,800 and the average cost for a single plan is $4,300. Comparably, the tax/penalty/whatever the f it is, is relatively cheap.

This is the latest broken promise form Obama and his administration. I can't say he has at any point promised anything for me and mine, but to a number of his supporters this is a slap in the face. Raising taxes under the guise of a penalty is deplorable and people will realize and are realizing what he is doing. Will this hurt his poll numbers? Stay tuned.

Political Drinking Game

Blame it on my 3 day Nyquil bender, but watching the above clip made me realize that it desperately needed a drinking game. Basically, take a sip every time he says "uhh" and finish your drink when he says "I believe in the redistribution of wealth" because let's face it, once you hear that you'll want to finish your whole drink. 

Definition of redistribution of wealth: The transfer of income, wealth or property from some individuals to others caused by a social mechanism "such as tax laws, monetary policies, or tort law"

Definition of communism: A sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless society structured upon communal ownership of the means of production and the end of wage labour and private property.

Definition of socialism: A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole

Gone are the days of the "Red Scare", now we elect people with these ideologies to be our president. Terrifying

Media Bias

Today as I lay in bed missing class and succumbing to the flu and what I was sure to be my untimely death, I took a little time to do a cross-study on the articles popping up on Fox, CNN and MSNBC. As an avid Fox viewer, I am inundated with my friends complaints of blatant bias on this channel. While admittedly there is a bias, I can safely say the main bias in this country is not in favor of the right. Reading the articles posted on the latter twos' websites, Yahoo, etc.. I was absolutely livid. Some of these articles all but said Obama had already won.

This comes in the face of the whole Mother Jones scandal. If you're not aware, Mother Jones is an allegedly independent political website that posted a video of Mitt Romney making some off the record remarks to financial backers. One of the 'offensive remarks was this:
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what."

Is that wrong? No. 46.4% of people in this country pay no or negative taxes. The fact of the matter is that Obama supports government programs that Romney does not and getting voters who are habitually dependent on these programs to vote for a candidate not whole heartedly for them just won't happen. As it stands, Democrats receive 63% of the welfare recipient vote, 67% of food stamp recipients vote, 74% of the vote of those on Medicaid, and 81% of those in public housing. The GOP has all but had Kanye West come out and say, "Republicans don't care about poor people" and this identifier has been a hard one to shake. Personally, I find this completely ridiculous. Romney's above quote is indicative of the position of many people who identify as aligning with the GOP and Romney's campaign in particular. He is not disparaging people who are down on their luck and need temporary governmental assistance. What he and his party are advocating for are personal responsibility. 
The three inalienable rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is the responsibility of the government to provide you access to those free. Nothing more, nothing less. People living significant portions of their lives receiving food stamps, collecting unemployment and living in government housing are blatantly taking advantage of a system Obama is supporting and as Romney said, he can't do anything to win that vote. Why try? 

But I digress... The media is so obviously biased it is sickening.

So as I lay there now angry and still sick knowing the end was imminent for me, my connect to a power source window popped up. My charger was of course out in my car so I got up breathing like Darth Vader and looking like a Walking Dead character to go get it. When I was walking to the garage, I bumped into one of the maintenance men for my apartment. Upon seeing me, he suggested I go to the doctor. I told him I was trying but I was having trouble getting an appointment until Thursday. His suggestion? Go to the ER, tell them I don't have insurance  I'll get seen in a couple of hours and "it will probably be free. Someone will pay for it but it don't gotta be us. Haha" Are you effing kidding me? We're all screwed. And I'm still dying. The end. 

The above two "polls" are from ABC's website. Clearly according to them Obama has been ahead the entire time and Romney doesn't have a shot in hell

This poll comes from the Rasmussen Reports and shows bumps in popularity corresponding with conventions, scandals, etc.. 

This banner is from the top of ABC's website. As you can see, of the eight political figures ABC deemed important enough to merit inclusion, only 3 of the 8 are Republicans. In the middle is Romney and Obama, on either side of them are their wives followed by Obama's VP and inexplicably the current House minority leader (Where's Romney's VP?) Followed by Senate majority leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House John Boehner. While this may seem insignificant, this is a classic example of a subliminal message by a liberal media outlet.