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.
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.
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.
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:
