New domain

For anyone following the "blogspot" blog, I am moving my blog to a different domain and using WordPress rather than Blogger. I hope to make the website much more than 'just' a blog.

You can find the new blog at www.brianronk.com. Don't forget to follow me there. I promise I will be updating that one much more than this blog. This one will be deleted within the next few days.

See you there!

Book Review: Economics In One Lesson

You're never going to believe this. I actually finished a book.

I know what you're thinking. "Economics? Sounds....riveting!" Well, no. I don't think that I could say "riveting" is the right word, but it did keep my attention for the most part.

With my recent decision to leave the Marine Corps at the end of my current enlistment, I've been forced to actually look at my future. Crazy, right? I had to go back to the 3rd grade question of "What do you want to be when you grow up?" While being an astronaut still sounds intriguing (If only to say that I walked on the moon), it is clearly not my passion. If you know me at all, you know I'm passionate about politics.

If you could wait on the public trial and hanging, that'd be great.

That passion I have leads me to believe that I have a future in politics, so I plan to run for office upon departing the military. I still have 2 1/2 years to go, which may seem like a long time, but it is a relatively short time to prepare myself to run for an elected position. These 2 1/2 years will mostly be spent nailing down principles that I believe to be important for our state and/or country.

Two areas of politics that I am admittedly poor in (for now) are economics and international affairs. Now is the time to fix that - hence the reading of this book. It also ties in nicely with the theme of this blog - apathetic no longer.

Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt covers the very basics of economics and dispels many of the current myths and beliefs of economists and politicians today. The opening sentence in the preface is "This book is an analysis of economic fallacies that are at last so prevalent that they have almost become a new orthodoxy."

Some of the topics Hazlitt covers:
The Broken Window Fallacy
Government Price-Fixing
Minimum Wage Laws Also here and here.
Rent Control
Unions
Inflation
Much, much more...

The book is very easy to read and is intended for newbie economists such as myself. I would highly recommend this book for every person as a citizen, and you could probably stop there (unless you want to go further, which I will). It is clear and concise enough that will help you understand the danger and harm of feel-good laws that are intended to help those in need. Be an informed citizen and voter!

Best of all, you don't even have to buy it. It's free right here.

Are You Pro-life? Are you sure?

Do you label yourself pro-life?

The majority of Americans who vote for the guy with an "R" next to his name would probably answer yes to this question, but that's also assuming that "life" only refers to the unborn child.

Conservatives are known for being pro-life in the abortion debate - at least when it comes to the ballot box or the comments section at the bottom of a Yahoo! article. Unfortunately, conservatives have joined alongside their liberal counterparts, relying on the government to point everyone's moral compass to the same direction as their own. The belief that "if we just make a law" will stop the murder of innocent children is as fallacious as believing that the prohibition would stop people from drinking.

(Side note: Yesterday in 1933, the 21st amendment was ratified, repealing the 18th amendment - alcohol prohibition within the United States)

Now don't get me wrong, I am not against creating laws to make abortion illegal. I think the only just laws are the ones that protects a person's life, liberty, and property. Murder just so happens to deprive a person of their life. If the litmus test for a just law is protecting a person's life, liberty, or property, then a law against abortion is a just law.

But do you think you're doing enough to end abortion by voting for it?

Consider this quote from, you guessed it...

   "Law reflects the morality of the people. Ultimately, law or no law, it is going to 

    be up to us as parents, as clergy, and as citizens-in the way we raise our 
    children, how we interact and talk with our friends and neighbors, and the 
    good example we give - to bring about changes to our culture toward greater 
    respect for life."

                                                                                           - Ron Paul

...toward greater respect for life...

This brings me to the actual point of this post and my reason for possibly questioning your pro-life stance. You see, those same Americans that usually vote for the guy with the "R" next to his name, are usually very excited and proud to see the young men and women of this nation march off to another war - to kill. They exalt people like Navy Seal Chris Kyle who is known as the "American Sniper" with over 160 confirmed kills. 

"Yay for the people that kill a lot of people - except for the people that kill unborn babies. They're evil."

Do we see a disconnect here? The killing of unborn babies is demonized (which it should be) while the rejoicing of killing people in other countries is celebrated? Oh wait, I know. They are fighting against Americans, so their death is justified -which explains why they believe American's deaths are justified for the sole reason that we are their enemy. Plus, what about the civilians over there that are killed? Maybe we don't exactly rejoice over their deaths, but we sure don't care about them.

Can we see why people think the pro-life labeled groups are hypocrites? Channeling Jeff Foxworthy:

If you are against abortion, but for more war - you might be a hypocrite.

If you are against abortion, but celebrate the troops that are used to kill in offensive, interventionist wars - you might be a hypocrite.

If you are against abortion, but vote for candidates that support endless wars - you might be a hypocrite.

If you are against abortion, but couldn't care less about non-Americans being killed - you might be a hypocrite.

Here's the bottom line:

The pro-life label must mean what it says. Be pro-life. Be for life. Celebrate life. ALL LIFE. Americans or non Americans, black or white, baby or adult. Life is a precious gift from God and should be seen as such. Does the way you live your life reflect your respect for life, or only your ballot?

Happy Tax Day!

"Could America exist without an income tax? The idea seems radical, yet in truth America did just fine without a federal income tax for the first 126 years of its history.

Prior to 1913, the government operated with revenues raised through tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes, without ever touching a worker’s paycheck. In the late 1800s, when Congress first attempted to impose an income tax, the notion of taxing a citizen’s hard work was considered radical! Public outcry ensued; more importantly, the Supreme Court ruled the income tax unconstitutional. Only with passage of the 16th Amendment did Congress gain the ability to tax the productive endeavors of its citizens.

Yet don’t we need an income tax to fund the important functions of the federal government? You may be surprised to know that the income tax accounts for only approximately one-third of federal revenue. Only 10 years ago, the federal budget was roughly one-third less than it is today. Surely we could find ways to cut spending back to 1990 levels, especially when the Treasury has single year tax surpluses for the past several years. So perhaps the idea of an America without an income tax is not so radical after all.

The harmful effects of the income tax are obvious. First and foremost, it has enabled government to expand far beyond its proper constitutional limits, regulating virtually every aspect of our lives. It has given government a claim on our lives and work, destroying our privacy in the process. It takes billions of dollars out of the legitimate private economy, with most Americans giving more than a third of everything they make to the federal government. This economic drain destroys jobs and penalizes productive behavior. The ridiculous complexity of the tax laws makes compliance a nightmare for both individuals and businesses. All things considered, our Founders would be dismayed by the income tax mess and the tragic loss of liberty which results."

-Ron Paul

May 7, 2001 “case against the income tax.”

Your kids are not yours, they're "ours"

A message from your dear friends at MSNBC


So THIS is what we've been doing wrong all this time. Silly parents thinking that they should train their children. They should know it's not their job. If they would just hand them over to society, then everything would be A-OK!

Luther's Insults

Today I ran across a website that will solve all your future insult problems. No longer are insults such as "poopy head" and "I don't like you" sufficient, let alone appropriate.

Using Martin Luther's random insult generator, you will never have a lack of insults to throw at the next person that cuts you off or makes fun of your tie dye shirt.

Some examples:

"If you who are assembled in a council are so frivolous and irresponsible as to waste time and money on unnecessary questions, when it is the business of a council to deal only with the important and necessary matters, we should not only refuse to obey you, but consider you insane or criminals."

From Defense and Explanation of All the Articles, pg. 80 of Luther's Works, Vol. 32


(Why isn't Martin Luther in Congress right now?)

"You are full of poisonous refuse and insane foolishness."

From Against Latomus, pg. 140 of Luther's Works, Vol. 32

Your words are so foolishly and ignorantly composed that I cannot believe you understand them.

From Explanations of the Ninety-Five Theses, pg. 87 of Luther's Works, Vol. 31


And of course my personal favorite that I've come across so far:

"I was frightened and thought I was dreaming, it was such a thunderclap, such a great horrid fart did you let go here! You certainly pressed with great might to let out such a thunderous fart - it is a wonder that it did not tear your hole and belly apart!"

From Against the Roman Papacy, an Institution of the Devil, pg. 344 of Luther's Works, Vol. 41

He really has a way with words, doesn't he?

Let me know your favorite insult! There's a lot of good ones!

I Can See Clearly Now

These are all great men, and do you know what they have in common?

That's right, fashionable eyewear.

Well today at my physical, the optometrist figured that now is a good time for me to join the ranks of these great men, and join them I shall with great dignity and pride.

All I need is help figuring out what style suits me best. I sort of like the Teddy Roosevelt style, but maybe it is a tad old fashioned.

Using the latest photo editing software (Word), I did my best to give you some options to judge:

Well?

Mr. Paul Goes to Washington

History is happening. Are you watching?

At this very moment, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul is conducting a traditional (aka "talking") filibuster on the Senate floor. At the time of writing this. he has had the Senate floor for 10 hours and 43 minutes. For up to the minute information on how long he's been going, check this site.

The premise of the filibuster is the recent admission from Attorney General Eric Holder that the President has the authority to carry out drone strikes on American citizens on U.S. soil, without any trial. 

If you remember your constitution, the 5th amendment clearly states that Americans can not "...be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law..."

This is what we call "assassination." Do you believe that the President has the authority to assassinate Americans on U.S. soil?

Click here to watch it live (if it's still going)

It is also live on C-SPAN2.

Update: Just hit 12 hours!

Gun Control Informational Forum 2/27

Last night I had the opportunity to attend a gun debate between 4 student groups on the UW campus.

It was quite interesting, but if you follow the gun control debate, it was much of the same talking points, just done in a much less professional manner. Here's how I would sum up the talking points of the debate:

College Republicans: Guns are good. They help save lives. Here's some statistics.

Socialist Alternative: THE WHITE MAN AND CAPITALISM ARE CAUSING ALL THIS GUN VIOLENCE! Here's some statistics.

Young Americans for Liberty: We have a right to have guns, all guns. Here's some statistics.

Young Democrats at UW: People are dying right now because of those evil black assault rifles that are only designed for mass killing as well as those evil magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Here's some statistics

The debate in itself was poorly done. It was only one hour long and the first 30 minutes was taken up by opening statements. There was only one planned question, then time for two audience questions before closing statements. I may only be a little bitter because they didn't ask my question.

Before closing statements, the word "constitution" was used only once, and it was used within the word "unCONSTITUTIONal." If there was any reference to the the constitution, or "rights," it was spoken of briefly and the argument ended at "it's our rights, so there." If you can believe this, my question was on the purpose of the 2nd amendment. I was assuming that the answers would sound something like this:

College Republicans: The 2nd amendment was designed so that citizens could protect themselves from bad guys.

Socialist Alternative: THE 2ND AMENDMENT WAS DESIGNED FOR THE WHITE MAN TO OPPRESS THE SLAVES AND IT SHOULD BE ABOLISHED! CAPITALISM IS BAD!!

Young Americans for Liberty: The 2nd amendment was designed so that citizens could fight off a tyrannical government.

Young Democrats at UW: The 2nd amendment was designed so that Americans could keep single shot, muzzle-loading muskets locked in a safe with a trigger lock. There's no real purpose behind it.

Alas, I was never able to affirm my predictions. Maybe next time.

Washington Senate Bill 5737

Somehow I have yet to talk about guns on my blog (unless you count a video about shooting cops), which is very interesting. I'm not sure why, because I like them and think they are very important. Here's something that you should at least know about.

Washington State Senate Bill 5737 (SB 5737)

This bill is your feel-good legislation in response to the national outcry against gun violence. Somehow, the legislators in Washington think that by banning "assault weapons" from law-abiding citizens, we will all be safer.

Because I don't know who actually reads this thing, I don't know where you as the reader may stand on the gun issue. Either way, this is an important bill to be aware of.

Here's a link to the entire bill (it's actually pretty short, it wouldn't hurt you to read a bill, you know)

Here's a quick summary of the main parts of this bill:

First, the definition of an "assault weapon" is any semi-automatic pistol or semi-automatic or pump-action rifle or shotgun capable of accepting a detachable magazine, and also includes - a number of things that almost every semi-auto weapon has. (Read section 1 (20) for all the info)

If you are unfamiliar with what semi-auto means, it basically means that only one round is fired for every pull of the trigger.

This bill says that you may not manufacture, possess, purchase, sell, or otherwise transfer ANY "assault weapon." The exceptions to this are those that were legally owned prior to the bill (if signed), but in order to keep them, the weapons must be registered and remain on the person's property or at a licensed firing range. That's it.

Now, the good news is that the bill has a very rare chance of passing, and if it does, it will most likely be quickly seen as unconstitutional thanks to the Supreme Court case D.C. v. Heller.

Where I Get My News

Often I'll ask people if they watch the news. If they say no, then I know that they are most likely uninformed. If they say yes, then I know that they are most likely either misinformed or still uninformed on important issues.

I would highly encourage you to get your news from the internet.

"But...but...but...You can't believe everything you read on the internet"

Yes, yes. I know you can't. But you're implying that you can believe what you see on TV, and if you believe that, you're fooling yourself.

The internet is a wonderful thing because you get news from EVERY angle and you can make your own conclusions, rather than the talking head on TV telling you what is happening. Also, most mainstream news websites look something like this:


Kim Kardashian Wore a Red Dress to the Oscars!
Obama uses executive order to destroy the 2nd amendment while Congress increases the debt ceiling for the 75th time this month while Ben Bernanke claims that we need to do away with the debt ceiling all together because it serves no useful purpose.



So, without further ado, a list of where I get my news from (These are all currently on my bookmarks bar):

1. The Drudge Report

This is by far the best "all around" news site. This website doesn't write any of their own news article, but scours the web and posts links to important news articles. If I could convince you to check just one website once per day, this would be it.

2. The Daily Paul

This website is my addiction. This is one of the biggest forums formerly dedicated to Ron Paul. Notice that this is a forum, not necessarily a news site, but the owner of the website, Michael Nystrom, posts all the "newsy" things and posts them on the homepage. I will also point out that the "Paul" in the title of the webpage is written "P.Au.L" - which stands for "Peace-Gold-Liberty."

3. Reality Check / Full Disclosure

The name Ben Swann may ring a bell. I posted one of his videos back on November 17. He works for a local news station out of Cincinnati, Ohio and does a segment called "Reality Check" where he digs through everything to find out what people are saying are true or not. Think of it as snopes for journalism. He is a true voice of reason in investigative journalism. He recently started his own side show sort of thing called "Full Disclosure." You'll notice that "Full Disclosure" site is a FaceBook website, which as you know I don't have. The Daily Paul always keeps me up on what Ben is up to and all his latest videos. If you do still have Facebook, "like" him (Ben Swann WXIX) to get all his updates for both Reality Check and Full Disclosure.

Fun fact about Ben Swann: He was home-schooled through what is called "accelerated education." His mother home-schooled all 10 (yes, 10!) children with this method which resulted in all 10 (yes, 10!) children graduating high school at 11, getting a college degree at 15, and a master's at age 16. Read more about it here. (It really is interesting)

4. Lew Rockwell

This is similar to the drudge in the sense that it is a bunch of links to others' blog posts, but still good stuff. Lew Rockwell is the chairman/CEO of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. This is a heavily leaning libertarian/Austrian economics website.

5. Yahoo

That's right - yahoo.com is on my bookmarks. This is my "what's the mainstream news saying" website. If you scroll to the bottom of the page, you'll find the comments section. You should read those.

So there it is. I occasionally will glance at the other mainstream news just to see what's being put out there. To my conservative friends, please stop watching FoxNews. To my liberal friends, please stop watching MSNBC.

Any places that you would add to get news from?

When Should You Shoot A Cop?

If that title doesn't grab your attention, I'm not sure what will. This is a great video I found that I highly recommend you watch before you answer "NEVER!"

"When evil is 'legal,' become a criminal. When oppression is enacted as 'law,' become a lawbreaker." - Larken Rose

Note* -There is a "bad word" written (not spoken) at 7:42
 

More to come on the upcoming gun legislation, it's coming quickly.

Why I'm Leaving FaceBook

As the new year approaches, everyone has their own resolutions like working out at least once every three hours or only eating lettuce for the entire year.

I have a few goals myself, but I also understand that I will never be able to accomplish some of them if I continue to waste time on the internet - FaceBook being one of the main culprits. I do "waste time" on other sites, but they are for the most part informational - news, 'how-to's, etc. Those don't bother me as much.

With that I give you my 5 reasons for deleting my FaceBook account:

1. It's a waste of time.

For me. It may not be for you. I'm not telling you that you need to delete yours, but I do think that you should at least consider it. I can't tell you how many times I've needed to get something done and somehow keep ending up on FaceBook. If I want to accomplish certain things, I need to remove needless distractions.

2. It does not cultivate close relationships

I have a good friend that will occasionally call 'just to chat' and 'see how I was doing.' When he first started doing it, I thought it was kind of weird. "Can't you see what I'm up to on FB?" Well, come to find out that we actually have a good friendship because we actually talk (crazy, right?) rather than just look at each others' profiles. Relationships can be deeper than online, and I would like more of them. So if you'll miss me on Facebook, call me. e-mail me, come visit, we'll go out to lunch...something of that nature.

3. I don't care what you ate for breakfast
    I don't care that you're going to bed
    I don't want to play a game
    I don't want to look at the latest funny cat picture/video
    Need I expand on this?

4. It's dangerous

Not to sound paranoid, but I don't like the fact that Facebook tells the world where you're at, or where you've been. The whole world can see that you're on vacation for a week and won't be home at all. Oh, cool.

5. It's creepy

Not to sound paranoid again, but does no one else find it a little creepy that all the ads always seem to relate to the last thing you googled or they relate to common web pages that you visit? You have absolutely no privacy on Facebook. The world wide web does not need to know where I'm located at a certain point in time and it does not need to know every detail of my life.


I am in no way trying to persuade you to do the same. I understand there are some good aspects to FaceBook, but for me, the cons outweigh the pros.

Happy New Year!

Blessed Are Those Who Mourn

For those that are unaware, last Monday Keri and I were informed that we would no longer be able to have our own children.

Four days later, and I'm still not sure how I'm suppose to react.

My first reaction to the news was tears, then quickly became "God is in control, and he has a reason for this." I truly do believe this is true, so how can I be sad about God's plan? Is there a contradiction there?

Can we be sad about God's plan, and yet still trust it?

Well if we believe that God is sovereign over all, and we shouldn't be sad about God's plan, then that would mean that sadness and mourning would be wrong.

Obviously this can't be the case:

Matthew 5:4 - "Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted"
     
Job 1:20 - "Then Job arose and tore his robe and shaved his head and fell on the ground and worshiped."
      (I did shave my head on Tuesday, but it wasn't as a sign of mourning)

John 11:35 - "Jesus wept"
      In response to his friend, Lazarus', death, Jesus Himself wept for him. Why would he do that if 1) He could have kept him from dying and 2) knew that He was about to raise him from the dead?


So here's my bottom line: I'm sad, and yet I trust Him.

When starting a family, Keri and I always said that we would have kids until He stopped us, thinking that we'd probably end up with our own TV show and a sponsorship from Pampers; but here we are, done after two kids.

"Hey all you kids waiting to be adopted: Watch out! We're coming for you..."

Well, gee...

Looks like my wife let the cat out of the bag that I had a blog going. Sorry, but you probably won't find any recipes or preschool ideas here if that's what you're looking for.

I sure do love that woman though...

Mawwiage

Being only my 14th post, I can assure you that this will be the most controversial post to date.

I'm going to do my best to NOT share my opinion on this, but only to make you think and re-evaluate what many of you have thought about marriage.

A lot of talk about defining marriage has been in circulation because of Washington's vote on R74 (Washington's referendum on allowing same-sex marriages). Should we redefine marriage to allow same-sex couples or should we keep the Biblical view of marriage.

(I'm going to share my opinion here:) Yes! I believe we should have a Biblical view of marriage.

Here's the kicker, though...

America doesn't have a Biblical view of marriage. Oh, really? I must be missing the part of the Bible that says "Whosever desireth to marry a woman musteth taketh his application to his government and upon being granted a license to betroath his wife, may arrange a public ceremony in order to sign the legal documents. Upon review by a man who doth practice law, the man and the woman shall be hereby married."

As one comedian put it, (who I will censor greatly): "If marriage [in the present day mindset] didn't exist, would you invent it? Would you go "Baby, what we got together, it's so good we gotta get the government in on this. We can't just share this commitment 'tweenst us. We need judges and lawyers involved in this, baby."

So can we just call it like it is? Marriage, as currently defined in America, is a contract. Now hear me out. I am not married because I signed a legal document. I am married because I made a commitment to God and to my wife. What those legal documents get me is a few social benefits. Hmm... sounds like a contract to me.


Here's an added bonus that will most likely become another post some day:

To those in the church (universal) and those that claim to be Christians: Have you ever wondered that maybe people see us as hypocrites when we criticize homosexual marriage because we suck at marriage? The divorce rate in the church is just as high, if not higher. And let's face it, a lot of Christian marriages are just boring, dry, and look miserable. Why would people want to emulate that?? We're setting the example, right??

But I digress...

So this is all just for you to think more about. Stop thinking that America has a Biblical view of marriage. We don't. Maybe you could say that we have a traditional view, but there's nothing Biblical about government paperwork declaring a marriage. Why are we petitioning the government to define what marriage is or what marriage isn't. Who gave them a say in the matter? God instituted marriage, did he not?

If you want to have the argument about whether same-sex couples should get married, at least understand that you're not talking about marriage. You're talking about a social contract.

(If you want my actual personal views on all this, feel free to contact me privately)

To Be AND Not To Be.

Can you be for and against something?

Well, sort of... I'll give you an example first before I explain.

I am in favor of legalizing marijuana, but I am against the use of marijuana.

When I put my politics hat on, I consider myself to lean heavily to the libertarian mindset. For those of you unaware of what libertarianism is, it can be summed up with: Everything should be legal up to the point that it causes others harm. In the case of marijuana, or any drug for that matter, if it does me no harm, I don't think there should be a law against it. 

Now when I switch over and put my moral hat on (I am in no way suggesting that you can't wear both hats at the same time), I am extremely anti-drugs. I believe they are harmful for the body and they don't have any benefit to them (this is not always the case as there is much research on the benefits of cannabis in cancer patients and other medical conditions. I am more speaking in terms of recreational use).

So is this hypocrisy speaking? Can I say that I am against something, and vote opposite that belief?

I'll get even more controversial and bring religion into this:

I was raised with the notion (and many friends still believe this) that since this nation was founded on Christian principles that we are a Christian nation. Because of that, we should make laws against immoral things. Well, should we?

I direct your attention to the 1st amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I find it interesting that the amendment starts out with religion first. And why doesn't it establish one if it was founded on Christian principles? Wouldn't we be out of this dilemma if the founding fathers just said that we are a Christian nation and our laws will be based off of the Bible?

Think of how dangerous it is to have a government dictating what religion you must or mustn't be. In order for me to have the freedom to worship in the manner that I choose and I believe to be truth, I must afford that same right to others. 

So while I will politically argue for individual citizens to have the freedom to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't harm others, I will simultaneously encourage people not to exercise those freedoms for moral and religious reasons.

To state my argument much more eloquently, here's one of Ron Paul's best debate answers (in my opinion) about this:

I'm sure there's a lot of differing views on this, feel free to comment and I have no problem discussing it (In fact, I enjoy it).

The Mess Around Benghazi

You may or may not be familiar with all the craziness happening around the aftermath of the September 11, 2012 Benghazi attacks. This video will be more interesting to you if know a LITTLE bit about what's going on.




As always, Ben Swann does an excellent job digging through all the facts.

Succession from the Union... in 2012?

If you're paying attention to the news, and scroll to the bottom of the page in tiny print, you may find a link to an article about a few states signing petitions to secede from the United States.

So what's all this about? Are we on the brink of another civil war?

Well, probably not.

And do I think that states are really going to secede from the US?

Nah.

Here's 3 questions we'll look at:
1. What's the point of the petitions?
2. Should it even be allowed?
3. Is it even possible for a state to secede?

What's the point of the petitions?

Well, first of all, I didn't write the petitions. Louisiana was the first to start a petition and it's up to 21 states now. Most of the petitions are simple and read something similar to this: "Peacefully grant the State of _____ to withdraw from the United States of America and create its own NEW government." Read the actual petitions on the White House website here.

I do not know the intent of the creators, but I find it difficult to believe that people are legitimately trying to secede from the US. It is most likely a drastic approach to show the Obama administration that citizens are not happy (to put it simply) and they want change (not "hope and change") and go back to constitutional principles that we have been drifting away from for far too long.

Should it even be allowed?

Short answer: Absolutely.

Long answer: Watch this video :) Only 4:30 long.




Is secession traitorous? I hope you don't think so. We celebrate hot dogs and fireworks secession every 4th of July. Remember that document called the Declaration of Independence? Here's how it starts:

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's god entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

Shortly after that, it says this:

"That to secure these rights [unalienable rights], Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government..."

It then continues on to list the "repeated injuries and usurpations" done by the king.

(When's the last time you read the Declaration of Independence? It takes less than 5 minutes.)

So answer this question for yourself: Is it traitorous to petition to secede from a government that has usurped powers that were never intended for them to have and infringed on the rights of the citizens?

Is it even possible for a state to secede?

Not likely, but not impossible. Interestingly enough, the only state so far to reach the number of signs needed to have the white house consider it is Texas. Texas' petition reads as follows:

"The US continues to suffer economic difficulties stemming from the federal government's neglect to reform domestic and foreign spending. The citizens of the US suffer from blatant abuses of their rights such as the NDAA, the TSA, etc. Given that the state of Texas maintains a balanced budget and is the 15th largest economy in the world, it is practically feasible for Texas to withdraw from the union, and to do so would protect it's citizens' standard of living and re-secure their rights and liberties in accordance with the original ideas and beliefs of our founding fathers which are no longer being reflected by the federal government."

As I write this, Texas' petition has 47,544 signatures, just 3 days after it was created. Only 25,000 were needed by December 9th. Here's a printscreen from whitehouse.gov

If any state could do it, it would be Texas.

Pay attention to this, it should be interesting:

The Problem With Electronic Voting Machines

Throughout this last election, I've heard so many people that are disgruntled with our "old" and "out of date" paper voting system. Here in Washington State, we are an all-absantee ballot system where everyone either mails in or drops their ballot into a drop box before 8:00pm on election night.

So why don't we just all go to electronic voting? Heck, why don't we all just vote from a "Voting App." In theory, it would be great. It would be easy to get everyone to vote and we would get instant results. No more long nights of political pundits making bold predictions based on 3% of the votes that had been counted.

So what's the problem, you ask?

1. There is no way to track and verify. There's a reason that the military still does everything with paper. It leaves a paper trail that you can always go back to verify and double/triple check. A mark on a paper can not be changed. A vote for a certain candidate based on a touch screen whose results go off into electronic land...? Who knows? You can never prove otherwise.

2. Electronic voting machines have faults that accidentally input the wrong thing. Don't believe me? Here's a video from the most recent election. Now issues like these are determined to be calibration errors, but they are still errors that could be missed by a voter. Would you appreciate your vote going to someone else because of a "calibration error?"




3. Legitimate hacking is also a problem. With anything electronic, it can be hacked. Now I'm sure the security measures on these machines is probably state of the art, but hackers are always one step ahead. Look at the group "Anonymous." (If you don't know who they are, I'll do a post another day about them.) If a hacker could break get into the system, how many votes could they change?

4. The system could be rigged from the start (conspiracy theory alert). Fox 19's Ben Swann does a great video on the company behind the voting machines. I highly encourage you to watch it. It's only about 4 minutes long and it makes some connections that are interesting to see, and you won't see it on other news channels.

(Can't figure out how to embed the video, but watch it here)

Now I know it sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory, but paper ballots would remove all doubt.

As a side note that ties along with this - voter fraud is not something that only 45 year old men living in their parents' basement wearing his tin foil hat think happen. It's a very real concern. So much so that we had a UN partner here in the United States to monitor our elections. Read about it here. Does it not seem wrong to anybody else that we have an international group monitoring our own elections?

Paper trails are important. So what can you do to make sure they stay paper trails? Vote. No no... Not for the President. Research and vote for the your state's Secretary of State. They are in charge of the election process within the state. When researching, watch out for people that are looking to "streamline" the "out of date" process. If you see a pro-electronic voting stance, don't vote for them. There is usually a candidate that will talk about the importance of paper trails and voting validity. That's the one you're looking for.