Conservative Badlands

2008 and 2009 Elections Compared

paul@marstonchronicles.info (gemimail) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000

It seems appropriate to take a look at what happened one year ago. Based on all previous trends in elections, McCain should have won in a landslide 310 to 228 electoral votes. Obviously, that is not happened and the question is why? From a distance of one year after the fact, the answer is now clear. Historically minorities and the under 30 age groups have a very poor record of turning out to vote assuming they are even registered to vote in the first place. It was clear that black voters were going to turn out in record numbers to vote for a black candidate. There was no reason to assume that Hispanics would do that or that young people would bother to vote. However they did do just that and that made a crucial difference in the battleground states. Thus the Democrat turnout (always heavily supported by minorities) reached record proportions.

Still that might have not made the difference in states like North Carolina, Ohio and Indiana if it were not for the Republicans turning out lower than normal. Likewise, many Republicans actually voted for Obama in the interests of proving that America's abysmal racial record was a thing of the past. In this they were disappointed because the matter of race is now more of an issue than it has been since the days of Martin Luther King. Finally a lot of Republicans stayed home because McCain was too liberal or too conservative depending upon the state the voter resided in.

At this point, this is all ancient history so why care? The question is whether the 2008 election was a total upheaval or merely a one time anomaly. The elections on Tuesday provide us with an answer to this crucial question. It was a one time anomaly since the partisan turnout on Tuesday returned to historical norms. The minorities and the young folks went back to not caring much any more about who wins elections. The result was not only Virginia voted Republican but even New Jersey did which it seldom does. This was caused by the independents switching from going 2 to 1 for Obama to going 2 to 1 for Republicans.

What does this mean for 2010? In Virginia, the Republicans carried 9 out of 11 congressional districts on Tuesday. Right now there are six Democrat congressman from Virginia and only five Republicans. Unless things change, there will be 9 Republican congressman and only 2 Democrats from Virginia after the 2010 election. It seems safe to predict that the Democrats will lose virtually all of the seats they gained in the 2006 and 2008 elections. If that happens, the Republicans will regain control of the House of Representatives. See Charles Krauthammer's article, Myth of '08, Demolished, coming to the same conclusion.

We Cannot Just Say No

paul@marstonchronicles.info (gemimail) — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 23:58:00 +0000

If those of us who are opposed to the current administration and Congress let those same folks ingrain the idea in the body politic that we are merely obstructionist, we are doomed. To just say no is to say we support the status quo and are convinced that since nothing is broken, nothing needs fixing. There are many things in America that are broken and need fixing and everyone should agree on that. The argument is over how to fix what is broken.

Liberals think that the government can fix all these broken things if we will just give them the authority to do so. The rest of us know better because what has government ever done right? History shows that government screws up everything it touches beyond all reason and belief. Civil servants have no vested interest in getting things right. They are only interested in covering their asses so they can keep their position at the public trough. Individuals and competitive profit making business have a vested interest in getting it right.

We need a forum for our proposals on how to fix what is broken. General principles can be done easily such as the ones at: PUMA Coalition Positions. The problem is that philosophical positions are not grabbers with the general voting public as opposed to political activists. To convince the non-activists to join us requires that we have specific solutions to solve known problems. We are going to take a stab at offering some fairly radical ideas on providing these fixes in the order that they are important to the American People as delineated by Rasmussen Reports.

These are: Gov't Ethics/Corruption, Economy, Health Care, Nat'l Security/War on Terror, Social Security, Taxes, Education, Immigration, War in Iraq and Abortion. Each of these problems is laid out along with our proposed solutions at www.marstonchronicles.info

What is this Big Deal About Freedom?

paul@marstonchronicles.info (gemimail) — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 01:57:00 +0000

One thing that makes it a big deal is that the degree of freedom each individual should be allowed to have under the American system of government is what determines whether one is a liberal, conservative or libertarian. Supposedly the United States is a "free" country but we all know that this is no longer true because the federal and state laws fill several bookcases and the case law books based on these laws fill a whole library. These do not hold a candle to the rules and regulations implementing these laws since that is another whole library right there. Each one of these laws, rules and regulations diminishes our freedom by dictating what we cannot do and what we must do.

If government diminishes our freedom that much then why have a government at all? The original idea was that government is necessary because without societal order everything falls apart and the strong run roughshod over the weak. The ideal behavior is encoded in the so-called Golden Rule. Of course, the Golden Rule is not a rule at all but rather is a principle. The Ten Commandments are rules saying do this or do not do that. The problem with rules are that they do not provide for reasonable exceptions. Thou shall not kill is a good idea but what about in case of war or self defense? Doing unto others what we would want done unto us provides that necessary flexibility. Ideally ever law, rule or regulation should be tested to see if it needs to be enforced because not everybody follows the Golden Rule.

As governments grow more centralized and more powerful, it always departs from this test and starts promoting what is good for you as opposed to the minimum necessary to enforce Golden Rule behavior. The extent to which government is allowed to do this determines one's political philosophy. Those who insist that government should only do those things necessary to enforce Golden Rule behavior are called libertarians (Goldwater Republicans). They are not interested in what is good for them or even what seems to be fair but only what is necessary to maintain societal order. Liberals on the other hand are more interested in equality than they are in freedom. They are quite willing to harness the power of government to make everyone as equal as possible even if it requires more laws, rules and regulations to produce the desired result.

Perhaps you thought that conservatives were the ones most resistant to governmental control over their lives. That depends upon the issue. Where conservatives depart from libertarians is where religious views come into play. Most conservatives are pro-life and oppose abortion and euthanasia. To them life is more sacred than freedom whereas libertarians feel that freedom is more important than life. They say that if the government has the right to force a woman to have a baby she does not want and feels she cannot properly care for than we have given the government far too much power already. The same goes about "pulling the plug" for a person who is vegetative. Strangely enough, this argument between conservatives and libertarians really comes down to different religious views. A libertarian feels that God's greatest gift to us is free will and we should treat it as such and only give up the bare minimum of freedom to government required to maintain civil order. The conservative view is that God's greatest gift is life itself and that is what should be guarded "religiously" even before freedom.

The average liberal is not much for organized religion because he or she is well aware that organized religion has been competing with government for several millennia over who is in control of the people. Liberals have decided that since democracy has become the prevalent form of government that it should have the control as opposed to the narrow secretarian views of organized religion. Strangely enough liberals if they belong to any church at all tend towards Unitarian churches that have a minimum of rules. Liberals do want freedom from religious dictation but are more willing to give up freedom to a democratic government. Conservatives tend towards hierarchical churches such as Roman Catholic or Baptist churches because they are more willing to give up some freedom to a church than a government. Libertarians say a pox an both your houses and are not willing to give up much freedom to either of them. Liberals want to harness the power of government to provide the greatest good for the greatest number. If this requires giving up more of their freedom to government it is all in a good cause. After all you cannot make an omelet without breaking some eggs.

Thus the big deal about freedom is how much of a big deal it is to you. If it is a very big deal to you then you are a libertarian. If it is not that big a deal to you, you are a liberal. If your view is somewhere in between, then you are a conservative. Strangely enough few people seem to really understand these differing views on the role of government and freedom. What say you?

What Makes Obama Tick?

paul@marstonchronicles.info (gemimail) — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 22:25:00 +0000

We have been watching the actions of President Obama trying to figure out what really motivates him. We did not support him for the Presidency, not because he was black or even a Democrat, but rather because his previous history indicated that he was not really supportive of the America we know and love. Still when he did get elected, we looked at the bright side and felt that at least we had proved that skin color was no longer a barrier to political advancement in this country. There is no way he could have gotten elected without a great number of white votes so we felt that at least white guilt would be a thing of the past and race relations in this country would improve. No such luck.

We slowly began developing a theory that could explain his actions. For a minute let's just assume that an individual who was raised as a Muslim in the most Muslim country in the world and attended Muslim schools also retained this childhood conditioning. Let's further assume that this person moved to the United States and eventually became President. What would a true Muslim do in such a case? He could not admit to being a Muslim so he would have to be ostensibly a Christian. Does this explain why Obama could be a member of a church with a rabid race baiting minister and not be bothered about it even when his mother was white?

What kind of politics would such a person be attracted to? Wouldn't he pick associates no matter how horrendous their background and who actually hate this non-Muslim country? Wouldn't he be attracted to a politics that was the most dangerous to the United States? Wouldn't he surround himself with people most likely to accept a black person and actually push him based on his race? Wouldn't such a person resort to dirty tricks to eliminate political opponents, even those who had supported him in the past? Is it just some coincidence that most of Obama's opponents were forced out of his races giving him a free ride?

Wouldn't he campaign as a person who strongly favors a "help the oppressed minorities and adopt a message of peace and good will towards all mankind" while pushing the hope that he could right all of the evils in this world? But is that what he would do when he actually got elected President? Obviously not. The first thing a closet Muslim would do is totally ignore the gays who overwhelming supported him because his Muslim beliefs caused him to think that they should really be executed. The next thing he would do is slowly and steadily pull the rug out from underneath Israel and ignore the American Jews who overwhelming supported him because he really hates them.

In foreign policy matters, he would be a total wuss. He would encourage anyone who is opposed to the United States by letting him know that he will not stand in their way if they make quiet but still overt moves against our interests. He would make nice with the most dangerous Muslim countries like Iran. Since Muslims are not particularly interested in democracy, he would quietly support dictators of all sorts such as Castro, Chavez, and their like. He would alienate our allies and slowly but surely strip them of any defense against Muslim aggression. He would bow to a Muslim king and give a speech on and in the Middle East to let Muslim leaders know they had a friend in the White House without being so obvious that anyone one not on the right wing would protest.

While campaigning on the idea that Afghanistan was where the real war should be waged, once elected he would do nothing to support it and stall as long as possible on military requests for assistance. In the end, he would do nothing so that the Taliban could win and give not only the United States but also give its NATO allies a black eye. After that betrayal, why would the West be interested in combating terrorism? He would even rename the War on Terrorism to further trivialize the effort.

He would push programs that would devastate the economic welfare of this country by running up massive deficits. He would favor laws that profess to do something about global warming but would actually make the current recession much worse. He would push for more expensive entitlement programs that would inevitably bankrupt this country. He would keep pushing these programs even when a rising opposition caused his poll numbers to go into free fall. Such a person would not care about political damage to himself or members of his party or getting them or himself re-elected because he would need to do as much damage as fast as possible. Does any of this ring a bell? We just cannot come up with any other theory that explains all of Obama's actions. We greatly fear that Obama is a Muslim wolf in Christian sheep's clothing. We truly hope we are wrong but we do not think we are.

See http://www.resistnet.com/profiles/blogs/islams-stats-from-the-cia comment number three for Obama's sister's confirmation of this theory.

How to Get Rid of Pelosi Before the Next Election

paul@marstonchronicles.info (gemimail) — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 00:55:00 +0000

This may come as a surprise to you but the Speaker does not have to be elected by his or her own party. It is possible to form a bipartisan coalition and elect a Speaker who is more satisfactory to the minority party. That is what happened in Arizona in 1964 in the State House of Representatives. Ever since achieving statehood in 1912 Arizona had been a typical southern state with segregated schools and Democrats in charge all along. As always happens when one party controls a state for too long, corruption was rampant. Republican members of the legislature could not serve on committees or even introduce bills. As more and more people moved to Arizona from Republican areas of the country, the segregated schools were done away with (before the desegregation decision) and Democrats from the urban areas became an endangered species.

The highest priority of most politicians is the get re-elected and these urban Democrats were in a world of hurt. That is when the Republican minority leader went to what today we would call Blue Dog Democrats and proposed a deal. The Republicans would vote for one of these urban Democrats for Speaker in return for the minority Republican leader becoming the majority leader and being given committee assignments and being allowed to introduce bills. Since these Democrats were well aware that their districts were becoming more and more Republican with every passing year they agreed with this proposal. Yes, the Speaker was still a Democrat but one the Republicans could live with since they were all now part of the majority.

There are 48 Democratic Congressmen from districts that McCain-Palin carried in a horrible year for Republicans. What will happen in 2010 to these folks? A lot of them are going to be toast and they know it. Since the Republicans only need to pick up 40 of these 48 seats to regain control of the House even that is a possibility in a good Republican year. So here is how it works, the Republican leaders approach the Blue Dog Democrats and offer to vote for their choice of one of their own for Speaker in exchange for a Republican becoming Majority Leader. Since the House will reorganize itself in January, there will be a new vote for Speaker then. If a PUMA coalition can be formed by then, Pelosi will be out and a more conservative Speaker will be in. What would that do to the Obama legislative agenda? This is the only hope for survival for a lot of the Blue Dog Democrats because they can go back to their districts and say that they are no longer going along with the leftist agenda but have become bipartisan so why elect a Republican in their place?

Do the country a favor and start behaving like Americans instead of Democrats and Republicans and we will love you for it. Are any of you House Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats ready to do that and save your own job in the process? If you do not do this, we will all be stuck for Pelosi as Speaker for years to come. Do we really want to have this San Francisco socialist become President if something happens to Obama and Biden? In case you have forgotten your civics, the Speaker of the House is third in line to become President. Many people are asking how we can do worse than Obama as President and here is your answer.

Britsh Government Claims Obama Knew about Lockerbie Bomber Release in Advance

paul@marstonchronicles.info (gemimail) — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 01:01:00 +0000

A British newspaper, The Daily Mail, claims that a British government aide told them that the Obama Administration knew about Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, being released way in advance and did not object. The articles quotes a Whitehall aide on the subject:

"Downing Street has hit back at Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for attacking the decision to release the Lockerbie bomber.

President Obama and the US Secretary of State fuelled a fierce American backlash against Britain, claiming Abdelbaset Al Megrahi should have been forced to serve out his jail sentence in Scotland – but a senior Whitehall aide said their reaction was ‘disingenuous’.

British officials claim Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton were kept informed at all stages of discussions concerning Megrahi’s return.

The officials say the Americans spoke out because they were taken aback by the row over Megrahi’s release, not because they did not know it was about to happen.

‘The US was kept fully in touch about everything that was going on with regard to Britain’s discussions with Libya in recent years and about Megrahi,’ said the Whitehall aide.

‘We would never do anything about Lockerbie without discussing it with the US. It is disingenuous of them to act as though Megrahi’s return was out of the blue.

'They knew about our prisoner transfer agreement with Libya and they knew that the Scots were considering Megrahi’s case.’

Mr Obama said Megrahi’s release on compassionate grounds was a ‘mistake’ while Mrs Clinton phoned the Scottish administration to complain in person."

If there is the slightest truth to this "leak" from the British Government, it casts serious doubt an the competency of the Obama Administration to manage foreign affairs very well. What is more it implies that the Obama Administration lied to the families of the victims of this bombing. At the very least, the Foreign Relations Committees of both houses of Congress should hold a hearing on this subject. It is vital that we find out who knew what and when did they know it on this matter. Of course, when one political party controls both houses of Congress and the White House, such investigations never seem to happen. The Republican pressure on Van Jones forced his resignation after belated news coverage on his background. This is even more important because it is seriously damaging our relationship with our foremost ally.

Ideologues Make Poor Politicians

paul@marstonchronicles.info (gemimail) — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 01:09:00 +0000

It does not matter whether they are ideologues of the left or the right or even libertarians. An ideologue is by definition a person who believes that his or her views are the only true and correct ones. This is also true of religious ideologues or zealots. The reason why they make poor politicians and even worse statesmen is that anyone who disagrees with them is either stupid (left wing and libertarian ideologues) or a traitor (right wing ideologues). This means they cannot respect opposing views and find it extremely hard to compromise because they view this as compromising their principles.

When an ideologue gets elected to a public office, they adopt a "my way or the highway" attitude. They insist on a whole loaf of bread or none at all. The practical effect of this is that the ideological politician stands firm on principles on the deck of a sinking ship and never jumps into the compromise lifeboat. Now this is not to say that one should never stand on moral principles because some things should not be subject to compromise. A real politician knows when to stand firm and when to give a little to get half a loaf rather than none at all.

We see this syndrome all the time in politics. Some Republicans stayed home and sat on their hands because McCain was not conservative enough for them. How do you think Obama is working out for these folks? Likewise, far left Democrats are insisting on a public option in healthcare or none at all. They seem oblivious to the fact that trying to jam through something that the independents will not support is political suicide. Now some ideologues are so determined to have their way that they are quite willing to commit political suicide. In this, they are true fanatics kind of like suicide bombers only most of them are not willing to resort to violence.

There simply is no way to govern without compromise. One third of the voters are centrists and want nothing to do with either the extreme left or right. Whenever the far left or right extremists tries to jam through their agenda, the independents balk and say we are not willing to to go to that extreme. Politicians who ignore the wishes of the independents will soon find themselves on the outside looking in. If the far left Democrats do not heed this fact of life, they will be hanging those members who are in districts that voted for McCain-Palin out to dry. They will find themselves in a similar boat to the one that the John Birch Society wound up in. Whatever happened to them anyway?

We Now Know When the Next Terrorist Attack Will Come

paul@marstonchronicles.info (gemimail) — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 21:27:00 +0000

How can we possibly know that? Because it is already in progress. Consider how you would plan things if you were the head of Al Queda. While 9/11 showed that Al Queda can inflict damage on the western civilization, in the long run it was not serious damage. It did greatly enhance recruiting more terrorists, but it also seriously damaged the command and control structure of Al Queda. Now every leader always has his ears alert for the sound of a cruise missile headed his way. That is precisely why there has not been a follow up overt attack because it is counterproductive.

What Al Queda needed was a better plan and they got one. Consider what the easiest way to take down western civilization would be. The clear answer is to destroy the United States first and the rest would be a piece of cake. To do that you need an operative in a high ranking position who could destroy the country from within and from the top down. Consider what such an operative would do if his goal was to destroy the United States. He would promise to end the war in Iraq to appeal to the antiwar groups but then fail to keep his promise so he could keep the troops tied down on the other side of the world. He would create a huge civilian group totally loyal to him and who could be armed quickly. Then he would have his Attorney General go on a witch hunt against the CIA to hobble it so it could no longer function as a counter-terrorist organization. On the domestic front, you would want to destroy the American economy by running up an totally unsustainable debt that could never be paid off except by debasing the currency by printing worthless pieces of paper. That would lead to hyperinflation and make the United States no more powerful than Argentina.

Of course, you would need this operative to be a silver tongued orator who could sell refrigerators to Eskimos. You would also need one who could persuade groups of people who ordinarily do not bother to vote to suddenly do that. Someone who would appeal to the under thirty crowd and an oppressed minority would do very nicely. But where would you find an operative who could attain such a position? You would need one who had at least one parent who hated the United States and who was raised in a foreign country during his all important formative years to have no love lost for the USA. Indeed, someone who was raised a Muslim in Muslim schools in the most Muslim country in the world would do nicely.

We all know that this describes President Obama perfectly. So is he an Al Queda plant? Absolutely not. They should be so lucky but then they did not need to do their own dirty work when someone else was quite willing to do it for them. So who really is behind this attempt to destroy the United States? How about those thirty odd so-called czars Obama has appointed that are really running the country and needed no Senate confirmation? Add to that more that he did not dare appoint like William Ayers and Reverend Wright and you get the picture.

Congratulations, Osama bin Laden, because you are no longer the most dangerous man on the planet. The President of the United States has unwittingly taken over that dubious honor.

Would you spend $100 to stop Pelosi?

paul@marstonchronicles.info (gemimail) — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 20:39:00 +0000

No, not to defeat her for re-election, but to prevent her from becoming Speaker again. The way to do that is to help elect people who will not vote for her to be Speaker. There are 45 Democratic house seats in play for 2010. Each of these districts need $100,000 injected into an opponent's race against these incumbents to have any chance of success. That comes to 45,000 people willing to pony up $100 to stop Pelosi and the left wing juggernaut.

So why not just donate the $100 to the Republican House Campaign Committee? That committee will use part of the money to protect incumbent Republicans. If an incumbent Republican cannot win re-election in 2010, their cause is already hopeless. All that is required is to set up a Stop Pelosi Political Action Committee that is committed to spending its money in these 45 districts and nowhere else.

Of course, money alone will not do it. We need to recruit top notch candidates who can win and lots of volunteers to help them. Having been a congressional campaign manager a few times, I can assure you that offering a potential candidate $100,000 start up funds is one heck of an encouragement. Not only that, we can approach the Republican House Campaign Committee to match that $100,000 the minute the candidate files or wins any primary election as the case may be. They are willing to put money into campaigns that are going somewhere.

For an analysis of why these 45 districts are in play, see: http://www.marstonchronicles.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=85&Itemid=187. Look up your state and see if you can help win these districts. If you live in one of these and know a lot of people, consider running yourself. At least you can volunteer to help out a winning candidate. For some reason, the table is spaced way down the page.

State	District	Incumbent Democrat	2008 Margin	McCain Margin	Took Seat
Alabama	2	Bobby Bright	0.62%	26%	2008
Alabama	5	Parker Griffith	3.58%	23%	2008
Arizona	1	Ann Kirkpatrick	16.45%	10%	2008
Arizona	5	Harry Mitchell	9.58%	5%	2006
Arizona	8	Gabrielle Giffords	11.90%	6%	2006
Arkansas	1	Marion Berry	No Rep	21%	1996
Arkansas	2	Victor F. Snyder	No Rep	10%	1996
Arkansas	4	Mike Ross	No Rep	19%	2000
Colorado	4	Betsy Markey	12.39%	1%	2008
Connecticut	4	Jim Himes	3.97%	-20%	2008
Florida	4	Suzanne Kosmas	16.09%	2%	2008
Florida	8	Alan Grayson	4.03%	-5%	2008
Florida	22	Ron Klein	9.34%	-4%	2006
Georgia	8	Jim Marshall	14.49%	13%	2004
Idaho	1	Walt Minnick	1.21%	26%	2008
Indiana	9	Baron Hill	19.36%	2%	2006
Louisiana	3	Charles J. Melancon	No Rep	24%	2004
Maine	1	Chellie Pingree	9.80%	-23%	2008
Maryland	1	Frank M. Kratovil, Jr.	0.79%	18%	2008
Michigan	7	Mark Schauer	2.31%	-6%	2008
Michigan	9	Gary Peters	9.45%	-13%	2008
Mississippi	1	Travis W. Childers	10.59%	25%	2008
Nevada	1	Dina Titus	5.14%	-12%	2008
New Hampshire	1	Carol Shea-Porter	5.89%	-7%	2006
New Jersey	3	John Adler	3.31%	-5%	1984
New Mexico	2	Harry Teague	11.92%	1%	2008
New York	20	Scott Murphy	0.45%	-3%	2008
New York	24	Michael Arcuri	3.94%	-2%	2006
New York	29	Eric Massa	1.93%	2%	2008
Ohio	1	Steven L. Driehaus	4.94%	-11%	2008
Ohio	15	Mary Jo Kilroy	0.76%	-9%	2008
Ohio	16	John A. Boccieri	10.73%	2%	2008
Ohio	18	Zack Space	19.75%	8%	2006
Pennsylvania	3	Kathy Dahlkemper	2.47%	<1%	2008
Pennsylvania	4	Jason Altmire	11.72%	11%	2006
Pennsylvania	10	Christopher P. Carney	12.66%	9%	2006
Pennsylvania	11	Paul E. Kanjorski	3.25%	-15%	1984
Pennsylvania	12	John P. Murtha	15.70%	<1%	1974
Tennessee	8	John S. Tanner	No Rep	13%	1988
Texas	17	T. Chester Edwards	7.48%	35%	1990
Virginia	2	Glenn Nye	4.94%	-2%	2008
Virginia	5	Tom Perriello	0.23%	2%	2008
Virginia	9	Frederick C. Boucher	No Rep	19%	1982
West Virginia	1	Alan B. Mollohan	No Rep	15%	1982
Wisconsin	8	Steve Kagen	8.10%	-8%	2006

Democrats Commit Political Suicide

paul@marstonchronicles.info (gemimail) — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 20:50:00 +0000

From The Marston Chronicles

After watching the Republican Party commit political suicide over a span of twelve years, it is a bit amazing to see the Democrat Party do the same thing in just four years. The Republicans went from the Contract with America to a pale imitation of the Democrats in that twelve years. Naturally the voters said why have a pale imitation when we can have the real thing? Now the Democrats think they have a mandate to tack sharply to the left in a centrist country. The political polls unequivocally tell us otherwise and to continue on this course is to commit political suicide.

There is every sign that the Democrats have misread the political tea leaves. They seem to think that electing President Obama and a Senate majority large enough to get by the 60 vote cloture rule is a mandate from the voters. Their solid control of Congress is largely due to Republican stupidity and not due to anything the Democrats have accomplished in the last four years. Indeed, one can well ask just what accomplishments can they point to with pride? The election of President Obama had a lot to do with a determination of a lot of white voters to prove that America is not a racist country any more. To read into this election a mandate to turn this country into a pale imitation of Europe is nothing but folly.

Already the generic vote for Congress shows a remarkable trend to the Republicans in the last two months. Polls from NPR and Rasmussen who poll likely voters show the Republicans ahead. If Pelosi and Reid do not sharply curtail this leftward drift, they soon will be minority leaders again. Instead they are pushing government control of the health care system against the wishes of the American people as clearly demonstrated by the political polls. They do this at their own peril.

Hillary Clinton tried this route fifteen years ago and helped give the Republicans control of Congress. Her husband was politically astute enough to see the need to tack to the center to repair the damage. There is no sign that a Democrat leader sees the same danger now. Now matter how much a politician thinks a certain program should be adopted as a matter of political ideology, if the American public does not agree with you, then do not go there.

Who would have believed six months ago that President Obama would be less popular now than President Bush was at this point in his first term? What is even more remarkable is that no one is even commenting on this (except us). Of course, the fact that the mainstream media fawns all over the President explains this in part but where is the rest of the media on this?

Another part of this dramatic turn around is playing the race card too often. Having proved that America is no longer a racist country, the race card and harnessing white guilt has lost its steam. Proof of this is that it did not work in the Professor Gates incident. White voters looked at this issue and discovered that an arrogant Harvard professor mouthed off to a cop with predictable results. Any person of any race doing the same would have been arrested. When the a black president of the country, a black governor of Massachusetts and the black mayor of Cambridge called this racial profiling because the professor was black, it just did not sell. The overwhelming response was that the professor needed to get a life.

Obama Less Popular Than Bush??

paul@marstonchronicles.info (gemimail) — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 20:52:00 +0000

The table below shows that suddenly President Obama is less popular than President Bush was at this point eight years ago.

From The Marston Chronicles

A Historical Perspective

Bush Approval				Obama Approval
Poll Date	Approve	Disapprove	Unsure	Poll Date	Approve	Disapprove	Unsure
7/19-22/01	56	33	11	7/17-19/09	55	41	4
5/18-20/01	56	36	8	5/29-31/09	61	34	5
4/6-8/01	59	30	11	4/6-9/09	64	29	7
3/26-28/01	53	29	18	3/27-29/09	64	30	6
3/5-7/01	63	22	15	3/5-8/09	65	28	7
2/19-21/09	62	21	17	2/20-22/09	62	29	9
2/9-11/09	57	25	18	2/9-12/09	63	26	11
2/1-4/09	57	25	18	1/30-2/1/09	64	25	11

Source: USA Today/Gallup Source: USA Today/Gallup

In my 45 years of experience in politics as an elected official and a campaign manager, I have never seen such a precipitous fall in popularity for a President. Sure presidents have gotten themselves in deep trouble before but not in the space of a few weeks. Obama pushing for nationwide health care has to be the major cause of this sudden decline. People are also starting to put their economic problems on this President's doorsteps and no are no longer blaming Bush.

Obama Popularity in Free Fall

paul@marstonchronicles.info (gemimail) — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 21:25:00 +0000

From The Marston Chronicles

It is hard to draw any conclusion from the polls other than that President Obama's approval rating is in free fall.

2010 Generic Congressional Vote

Poll	Date	Dems	Reps	Spread
RCP Average	6/4 - 7/5	39.7	35.0	Democrats +4.7
Rasmussen Reports	6/29 - 7/5	38	41	Republicans +3
Quinnipiac	6/23 - 6/29	42	34	Democrats +8
Diageo/Hotline	6/4 - 6/7	39	30	Democrats +9

Source: Real Clear Politics

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as President?

Poll	Date	Sample	Approve	Disapprove	Spread
RCP Average	6/23 - 7/8	--	56.5	38.5	+18.0
Gallup	7/6 - 7/8	1547 A	57	36	+21
Rasmussen Reports	7/6 - 7/8	1500 LV	51	48	+3
Quinnipiac	6/23-6/29	3063 RV	57	33	+24
CNN/Opinion Research	6/26-6/28	1026 A	61	37	+24

Source: Real Clear Politics

It is hard to draw any conclusion from these polls other than that President Obama's approval rating is in free fall. The approval spread among Likely Voters has dropped 23 points to an all time low of 3% since the end of January. The RCP average has dropped 26.7 points to 18% in the same time period. It would appear that the President's determination to try to do so much so fast is starting to cut into his popularity and is starting to show up in the generic congressional results. The Diageo/Hotline poll has dropped from a 24% spread for the Democrats at the end of January to 9% now. Since politicians avidly watch these polls, some Democratic Congressman may well begin jumping off the bandwagon.

Perhaps you have noticed that there are wide disparities in these poll results. How can the Presidential approval spread range from as low as 3% to as high as 24%? Do not make the mistake of thinking that this is deliberate on the part of the polling companies. The difference is caused by who is being polled. An "A" after the sample size means that the pollster is asking anyone who is 18 or over who answers the phone the various questions. These least interested people give President Obama an approval rating spread in the low twenties. The "RV" after the sample size tells you that the respondent has to admit that he or she is registered to vote. These people are at least interested enough to register, but now the spread is also in the mid-twenties. Finally we have the "LV" group which is the likely voters which is done by Rasmussen. Notice that the spread is now approaching zero.

Those most interested and most likely to vote have the least support for President Obama. Notice also that only Rasmussen shows the Republicans ahead in the Generic Congressional poll because that is also a likely voter sample. The other factor is the sample size because larger samples have smaller margin of error in the sample selection. So in terms of what the actual people voting are likely to do, look at the "LV" samples.

Obama's Creative Illegal Immigration Policy

TheAlienPatriot@gmail.com (Alien Patriot) — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:06:00 +0000

crossposted on the Alien Patriot

I'm surprised to say that, but I think that Pres Obama has the best immigration policy that I have seen for years.

Why do people want to come to America? Because they want to live the American Dream. Because they are looking for a better quality of life, the chance to get out of the poor environment that they currently living in or just because they are politically suppressed, have no freedom or speech or are persecuted for some other reason.

So one way is to seal up the borders, try to catch all these guys and spend billions of dollars on building a fence, use expensive surveillance equipment and personnel to execute this task.

The problem is that people will always find a way to get it, will always find a way to smuggle drugs into the country.

But what if there is no incentive to come into the country anymore? What if the alleged country does not seem to give you much more opportunity than your own country.

Many years American presidents tried to increase the standard of living not just in the US, but at the same time also provide financial aid to support other countries to be able to provide better life for its citizens and freedom.

President Bush saw his goal in providing democracy to many countries in this world, be it through money or war.

But Pres Obama is so brilliant, that he understands that there is no way to actually bring up the standards in all these countries. He is more than anybody else for the equality of the world. He is a world citizen.

He is much more creative - He knows that the only way to achieve this goal of reducing illegal immigration is by letting the American economy collapse and the Dollar devalue so much, that nobody wants to come into the country anymore.

The all countries are in the same sh#$ and nobody wants to go somewhere else, because it is just as crappy there. Excellent.

He understands that Germans never wanted to move to Poland or the Czech Republic 10 or 15 years ago. There was just no incentive. Who wants to be worse off than they are now?

Bravo Mr President you truly understand the dynamics of illegal immigration and we are grateful that you will put an end to it!!

The Alien Patriot

Barack Obama as the president of the world

TheAlienPatriot@gmail.com (Alien Patriot) — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 11:40:00 +0000

crossposted on The Alien Patriot

Don't we sometimes think, what a guy is doing after he was President of the United States? What's with his ambitions, with his eagerness to rule?

I mean last year I was surprised that we even found somebody who would like to have that job. Barack Obama is not even 50, which means he is still quite young when he will get out of office, which I assume will be after his first administration.

Don't we sometimes think, what a guy is doing after he was President of the United States? What's with his ambitions, with his eagerness to rule?

I mean last year I was surprised that we even found somebody who would like to have that job. Barack Obama is not even 50, which means he is still quite young when he will get out of office, which I assume will be after his first administration.

He is moving with the speed of light to change things around in this country. He does have a bigger vision about the world. He is all in for globalization. He believes in world citizen's rather than Americans, Europeans etc.

Even the UN gets excited about the fact that globalization seems to be possible in many areas in the light of the global meltdown of the economy. UN Climate Change plan would 'reorder' world economy. I agree with Rick in his post, where he says:

The loss of sovereignty represented in that document will never fly in the US Senate no matter how many Democrats are there. Signing off on a "Copenhagen Agreement" that contains such draconian reductions in emissions as 20-40% by 2020 and 90% by 2050 according to a paper by a former British government official will never make it into law. We would have to destroy our economy to do it.

And maybe that is what is necessary for a global community. There are many things we didn't believe are possible just 3 months ago, which Barack Obama has already changed. So why is it inconceivable that he will let the Us economy tank for the greater good.

He would definitely be a contender for a world government role and maybe that is his vision. He seems to be driving strong and determined and I don't believe that his vision necessarily only points to the economic success of the US.

I have always been critical and remain so seeing Barack Obama as a person I cannot trust. A true politician. The reason why I left Europe and found my new home in the US was because of the unique features of the American Constitution.

But now I feel that Barack Obama tries really hard to change America into just another part of Europe. I believe he likes the idea of central world government and everybody should be on their toes and watch every step he is taking and protest this President tries to De-Americanize the US.

TAP

Earmarking GOP Hypocrites

noreply@blogger.com (Critical Thinker) — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 16:41:00 +0000

TaxPayers for CommonSense has put together a fantastic data base on the Omnibus spending bill, the states which receive the most earmarks and the worst government offenders.

From TaxPayers for CommonSense,

Cochran (R-MS.), Wicker (R-MS.), Landrieu (D-LA.), Harkin (D-WI.), Vitter (R-LA.), Bond (R-MO.), Feinstein (D-CA.), Inouye (D-HI.), Shelby (R-AL.), and Grassley (R-IA.)

Six out of the ten worst offenders are Republicans. If you are going to talk the talk, then you are going have to walk the walk. They are HYPOCRITES and there is no getting around it.

Of course, for the Mississippi and Louisiana delegation, there is the argument that Congress has been holding back or releasing Katrina money for assisting homeowners to rebuild. This has left these Senators with little choice but to seek out extra money to help in the effort to rebuild their states. You can decide that one for yourself, to me there is no excuse.

Republican leadership and some constituents are indignant about the Obama's spending and earmarks, his hypocrisy is inconsequential. Anyone who is politically informed should know that he would say one thing and do another, eternally campaigning.

Nevertheless, the GOP is another story, the leadership has chosen to stand under the banner of fiscal conservatism in an effort to reunite the party and to have a chance to stand against the Democrats in 2010. The question is how can you preach a certain standard, talk about Obama's inadequacies, and then not live up to that standard? This equates a recipe for defeat. So, until the GOP cleans up its own house you should get used to hearing Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid.

Democrats Throw Catholics Under the Bus

paul@marstonchronicles.info (gemimail) — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:50:00 +0000

From The Marston Chronicles

Catholics in general and Roman Catholics in particular present a study in contrast in politics. Most of them are social liberals in that they are vehement in their support of so-called safety net. They are very sympathetic towards the poor and the downtrodden. Since that category tends to have a high percentage of minorities, they are also very emphatic in their support of civil rights. This makes a lot of such Catholics in America Democrats because they see Republicans as skinflints who are not sympathetic to these groups. Republicans help this view along by short changing funding for challenged individuals in just about every state that they control.

Where Catholics depart from liberal ideology is on the issue of the sanctity of human life. Liberals are somewhat inconsistent on this subject in that they are opposed to the death penalty but generally do not have a problem with exercising the death penalty on not only an unborn fetus but even one that is half born. To put it mildly, Catholics see this inconsistency very plainly. This is one issue which can cause a Catholic to vote Republican. Another one is the issue of gay marriage. Perhaps the Democrats should take another look at what happened with Proposition 8 in California. There is a limit to how much of the far left agenda they can foist off on the American public.

A case can be made that because of the Catholic sympathy for minorities, Obama would not be President without the support of Catholics. In the key marginal states, they voted for a black man over a white one to make clear that America is not a racist country any more. They did this in spite of serious reservations about Obama's position on the sanctity of human life and the known tendency of the Democrat Party to be vehemently pro-choice. So how have the Catholics been rewarded for their support? They have been run over by the bus of the far left wing of the Democrat Party which controls it. You cannot say that President Obama has welshed on his campaign promise regarding this subject because he never made much of a pretense of being sympathetic to the sanctity of human life.

Clearly, President Obama and the Democrat Party have come to the conclusion that they no longer need the support of traditional Catholics. They have not only done everything they can to promote abortion on demand not only in America but abroad as well. They do not seem too concerned about the moral implications of forcing a Catholic to pay taxes to support abortions on demand here and abroad. They do see the moral implications of forcing an anti-war taxpayer to fund the war in Iraq and Afghanistan or maybe that was only the case when Bush was President. They view funding embryonic stem cell research as "sound science" and that "ideology" should not be allowed to interfere with science. The ideology they clearly were referring to certainly includes the Catholic point of view.

We suspect that this callous attitude towards Catholics and this undisguised contempt for their views will come back to haunt the Democrat Party in 2010. The party in power almost always loses seats in the mid-term elections. While Bush made an exception to this rule in 2002, 9/11 had a lot to do with that. Now that the Democrats have managed to find some missing votes in Minnesota for Al Franken, they will have a bullet proof majority in the Senate with the help of Maine's two RINO Senators on a lot of issues. A few more excesses like this of insulting their core supporters should make 2010 an interesting political year.

Attack on Catholic Church in Conneticut

TheAlienPatriot@gmail.com (Alien Patriot) — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 22:53:00 +0000

The Bill started actually with the words "With respect to the Catholic Church ...." The sleaziest attack so far on the constitution and the first amendment. People need to stand up and check their reps, because there is no limits set by this administration as to what government can do. I'm glad to see the Catholic League reacting.

I can't believe that those loons in CT tried to strip the rights of the Catholic Church. This is not just an attack on the Catholic Church (which I'm not a member of), but actually an attack on all religious groups. The Constitution states that the rights of every American are given to them by God. If the government takes away the right of self governing for religious groups, it actually takes the place of God, by telling people which rights they have. This is not just a violation of the 1st amendment, but the spirit of the constitution as a whole.

And they try to do this silently. Good that they were caught

How to Turn a Recession into a Depression

paul@marstonchronicles.info (gemimail) — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 02:00:00 +0000

From The Marston Chronicles

Many of you have gotten a notice from one of your credit card companies that they are cranking your rates on all new purchases up into the stratosphere. You had a rate of under ten percent and now it is pushing eighteen percent. Capital One just did this in their bid to make things worse. Of course, if your credit card company was also heavy into real estate loans, they have already cranked most of their rates up to around twenty-four percent. If that company was in really big trouble like Washington Mutual was, they made that rate for not only new purchases but outstanding balances as well.

Economic cycles are just what the name implies: the economy can be in an upward cycle or in a downward cycle. Up to a point, each of these cycles are self sustaining. When things are spiraling upwards, everyone jumps on the bandwagon, increasing demand and prices. But eventually, the "too good to be true" syndrome sets in and you start to hear scare stories about unsustainable bubbles. Usually government steps in and promptly makes things worse as it is wont to do. A downward cycle is driven by fear so everyone pulls in their horns and also promptly make things even worse.

A prime example of this is the reaction of the credit card companies as outlined above. Then Chase Bank bought out Washington Mutual so one would expect them to lower the rates down to something reasonable. Guess again friends. Chase has to pay for buying out the ailing Washington Mutual so they cranked the rates to around thirty-three percent. Jesse James had a gun so what is their excuse? What happens when credit card rates are cranked drastically upward like this? People stop making new purchases because they are now paying much more in interest. Fewer purchases means less economic activity, more unemployment and no job creation. It drives the economy into a further tailspin. Way to go, credit card companies. You just did your part to turn this recession into a full blown depression.

So how did we ever get into this mess? Actually it was very simple. Certain folks in Congress demanded that banks make shaky loans on homes to people who simply could not afford the payments. The Federal Reserve lowered the rates to historic lows setting off a housing bubble. That same board then cranks the interest rates back up faster than the economy could absorb it and causes a housing crash. The two things together put the squeeze on the banks. Then the idiots in Congress adopted the mark to market accounting rule which in the face of a housing crash caused perfectly sound banks to appear unsound on paper and setting off a selling wave of mortgage paper.

The banks reacted by simply refusing to loan money to just about everyone for just about any purpose. The sudden drastic curtailing of credit caused the economy to come unglued since no one could get credit to buy anything. Then they added insult to injury by cranking credit card rates plugging the last remaining source of credit. So what did the federal government do about this mess? They loaned a trillion dollars to those same banks who covered their loses with it and still won't loan a dime to anyone. Talk about money down the toilet. Did they ever repeal the mark to market accounting rule which would have made loaning the banks a trillion dollars unecessary? Of course not. These are the same folks who caused the mess in the first place.

So there you have it, my friends. A short history on how to turn a recession into a depression in a few easy steps. Can this still be turned around? That is highly doubtful. The absolute first step is to repeal the mark to market accounting rule. Seen any push for that outside of the financial community? Not happening. The feds will continue to pour another trillion dollars down the rat hole which will do nothing to stem the tide. Batten down your hatches, folks, because it is about to get a whole lot worse.

A New Era of Irresponsibility: FY 2010-2019 Budget

noreply@blogger.com (Critical Thinker) — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 06:56:00 +0000

Cross posted and Politics and Critical Thinking.

Here is the sorted tale of "A New Era of Irresponsibility." Enjoy your future, it's gonna cost.

Deficit:

Click on image to enlarge. Press back button to return to post.
_______________________________________________________________

Mandatory Spending:

Click on image to enlarge. Press back button to return to post.
_______________________________________________________________

Taxes:

Click on image to enlarge. Press back button to return to post.
_______________________________________________________________

Discretionary Spending:

Discretionary Spending Continued:

Click on image to enlarge. Press back button to return to post.
_____________________________________________________________

Summarizing the information, we have a national debt projected to climb to $6,969,000,000,000 over 10 years, in addition to the $10,840,000,000,000 of existing debt. Just a sidebar, this is a topic I very rarely hear the administration or Congress speak about.

Social Security spending rising from $662 billion in 2009 to $1.14 trillion by 2019. Medicaid spending is getting somewhat under control, rising from $209 billion in 2009 to $468 billion by 2019, total spending $3.5 trillion. However, this article from the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services tells a little different story. Medicare spending rises from $425 billion in 2009 to $872 billion in 2019, total spending is $6.4 trillion.

Income taxes rise from $958 billion in 2009 to $2.15 trillion in 2019. Social Security payroll taxation rises from $662 billion in 2009 to $1.05 trillion in 2019. Medicaid payroll taxation rises from $191 billion in 2009 to $308 billion in 2019.

The numbers paint quite a different visage than the President is presenting.

The President is touting his claim that the yearly deficit will be halved by 2013. Unrealistic or not, what is being glossed over is that by 2019 we will reach yearly spending deficits close to $1 trillion dollars. This is wagering that the stimulus does exactly what they predict it will and no more spending is required.

However, as you have seen, spending does not take a sharp downturn, as expected. In fact, it increase dramatically in most areas, fueled by increasing the tax burdens. The wealthiest of American will only be able to bear this brunt for so long. Eventually, in the not so distant future, taxes will have to be levied against the lower income brackets to support these vast government expenditures. The numbers are showing a trend of doubling over ten years in income payroll tax alone.

To understand this problem and how pandemic this budget is, the most important factor is the amount of debt the country will be carrying. If these estimates are accurate by 2019 we will have expanded, not cut, the overall debt of the United States to about $18 trillion dollars, not counting interest.

While engaging in this sort of deficit spending and debt acquisition, you have one of three options as we saw by using California for our model; raise taxes, cut spending, and sell off debt. Raising taxes is inevitable, there are too few spending cuts to make a difference, and Hillary Clinton has been attempting to woo the Chinese into buying more American debt.

As the debt grows in percentage of GDP it will soon overtake the output of the country, it is quickly reaching unsustainability. Sobering isn't it?

Related articles:

Washington Times-LAMBRO: Obama's budget to raise small-business taxes

Glenn Beck: Conspiracy Theorist or Realist?

noreply@blogger.com (Critical Thinker) — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 16:50:00 +0000

Cross posted at Politics and Critical Thinking.

Glenn Beck's Friday performance about current real world scenarios going apocalyptic has met with fierce criticism, as well as some considering his points. Either way, even if you think he is nuts, the main part of his message is worth considering.

Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com, has taken issue with Beck's segment on Friday called the "War Room." Here is Beck's opening statement of this segment.

This is Beck's explanation of why he did such a potentially controversial show.

Is Beck a "nut" as Greenwald points out? I personally don't know, but this judgment isn't just reserved by the Left, there is also criticism coming from Little Green Footballs and somewhat from Hot Air.

What is interesting is in Greenwald's world when a person analyzes the bleak situations surrounding us and says "be prepared" or have some "situational awareness," automatically there is a parallel drawn between that person and a group of right wing militia types hold up in, as Allahpundit puts it, lead-lined bunkers. I see no criticism, from Greenwald, of the White House for their usage of these same tactics and strategies for getting the stimulus package pushed down our throats.

Nevertheless, will any of Beck's claims translate into civil war or New York turning into Mexico City? I don't profess to know. What I do know is this is starting to extend far past just economic fears. According to Rasmussen, only 28% of Americans feel that the country is headed in the right direction. The psychology of the Middle American public is radically different than it was 40 years ago, they are under economic siege and they know it.

The first signs of dissatisfaction and anger are starting to appear. As noted here, 6 states have issued legislation relating to reaffirming states' rights under the 10th Amendment, Rick Santelli and traders at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange are expressing virulent outrage towards the White House for their economic strategy, to a standing US Senator warning abut civil unrest and violence, and gun sales skyrocketing.

Crazy? Maybe, but definitely worth considering. Our little plastic world is quickly melting down and where it's going to take us is anyone's guess. Admittedly, Beck forms some pretty far reaching scenarios that borderline on paranoid, but, the idea of being prepared is the message I got the most out of. And I don't mean hunkering down in the mountains of Montana, learning survival techniques, and grabbing every weapon in sight. Right now, the best course of action is stay educated, think logically, but creatively, and stay focused on what is important; your family, friends, and yourself (If you believe in God, then add Him to the list, too). Don't get to caught up in apocalyptic scenarios, but ponder all the situations that are possible, and above all else have a plan. Remember, these are trying times and luck favors the prepared.

Related Articles:

Newsbusters-The 1990s are back, Glenn Greenwald is Worried About Angry White Racist Militias

Al Capone ain't got nuthin' on the government

noreply@blogger.com (Critical Thinker) — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 08:43:00 +0000

The Highway Robbery Act of 2009 is now history. President Obama signed The Porkulus Maximus into law this past Tuesday in Denver, Colorado, going into warp speed with the spending and gearing up the government expansion.

A couple of days ago we used the state of California and how they are handling their innumerable deficit as a benchmark for what we can expect when it comes time to pay the piper for Obama's luxurious use of a Presidential pen. Some more information is starting to leak about the exact cost of all this "legislation," as far as debt held by the public and everyday gub'ment cheese expenditures (i.e. The Omnibus)

First the CBO's prognostications on the debt. This is a lot to digest, I am not going to lie.

By 2010, after the stimulus, the federally public held debt as GDP will be 54.2%. You will notice that in 2007, when everything was getting ready to go down the proverbial tubes, as GDP, the publicly held debt was 36.9%. What does this increase mean for you? From Republican Office, Committee on the Budget.

This correlates with WashingtonWatch.com's findings which we presented in our earlier post and is actually worse once you take interest into account. Concerning the cost of temporary programs, I would say based on past experiences with "temporary programs" becoming extended, the likelihood of the $20,880 estimate is highly probable.

This is the CBO estimate for the long term effects of our legislator's present habits with spending.

You will notice the Alternative Fiscal Scenario is increasing almost exponentially after 2012. You reach critical mass, with publicly held debt, a little after 2022 and then the race is really on. The Extended-Baseline Scenario is a little less frightening since we will all be dead or drooling on ourselves by the time the tsunami of fiscal irresponsibility hits.

What is the AFS and the EBS? From the CBO,

CBO-"The extended-baseline scenario, which adheres closely to current law, follows CBO’s 10-year baseline from 2008 to 2018 and then extends the baseline concept in its projections for the rest of the 75-year projection period, to 2082."

"By comparison, the alternative fiscal scenario deviates from CBO’s baseline projections even during the next 10 years, incorporating some "changes" in policy that are widely expected to occur and that policymakers have regularly made in the past."

My reasoning for going with the alternative fiscal scenario might be sophomoric, but, since "change" is the keyword there, I think it's the most reliable.

Onto the Omnibus. According to Fox News, after our vaunted lawmakers return from a haranguing week off, due to President's day, (Why do the rest of us only get a day off?) they will vote on a $410 billion omnibus package to keep the gub'ment afloat till September.

This bill was not being voted on Oct 1st because then President Bush said he would veto the legislation.

Progressive wish list.

Labor, Health and Education: $153.1 billion
State Department and foreign operations: $36.6 billion
Agriculture Department: $20.6 billion
Commerce, Justice and Science: $56.9 billion
Energy and Water: $33.3 billion

This goes beyond partisan politics, this shear disregard for the well being of our country and is organized crime at its best. I think investigations into blatant abuses of fraud and fiscal misconduct by our Congressional leadership, and otherwise, are in order. Anyone who attempts to say this garbage is necessary should be tarred and feathered, among other things.

I guess all I can really say is, "Yay!" :)

"Happy Hunting."

Related Articles:

Western Experience-History on our national debt and what government hasn’t learned from it

Associated Press: Analysis: Democrats self-destructing over ethics

Associated Press: Poll: Public fears about troubled economy growing

I will stand on the side of the egg…What?

noreply@blogger.com (Casey) — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 11:20:00 +0000

Cross-posted at Casey's Critical Thinking

Japanese bestselling author Haruki Murakami recently went to Israel to accept an award. In the true words of a genius, he said, “If there is a hard, high wall and an egg that breaks against it, no matter how right the wall or how wrong the egg, I will stand on the side of the egg.” The Jerusalem Post had to clarify the comments for its readers placing the explanation “Israel is not the egg” at the top of the article.

Yes, the Japanese author was referring to Palestine as the egg. The problem is that it’s not Israel versus Palestine. It’s Israel versus the entire Arab world. How Israel can be described as the wall is beyond me. Furthermore, let’s go ahead and forget about the rest of the Arab world and pretend that the only players in the conflict are Israel and Palestine. Hamas sends rockets into Israel on a daily basis. These rockets target Israeli civilians. Are the Israelis really expected to live like that? I think President Obama put it nicely when he said, “If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I’m going to [sic] do everything in my power to stop that. I would expect Israelis to do the same thing.”

Hamas is deliberately targeting civilians with these rockets. Despite this utterly despicable behavior, Murakami is going to side with the “egg?” He’s going to side with the perpetrators of reprehensible acts because they are the “little guy?” How morally blinded can you get? Will he choose the side of justice if Israel should one day become the weaker of the two after years of terrorism and proxy wars with Iran and Syria? Does he really have to wait until then to condemn terrorism?

It was the Palestinian people that elected Hamas. Hamas terrorists hide themselves among the civilian population to increase casualties. Is Israel supposed to refrain from retaliating because the terrorists use women and children as shields? That’s an easy thing to suggest, but as Obama pointed out, if you’re in that situation, you’re going to do everything in your power to stop the terrorism and protect your nation.

The violence can end overnight. All that has to take place is for the Palestinians to quit engaging in terrorism against Israel. Israel does not engage in unprovoked attacks. Every military action by Israel is a reaction. If the violence on the Palestinian side were to stop, the conflict would be over just like that. They could then begin negotiations on a peaceful two-state solution. That’s going to be quite hard, though, since Hamas refuses to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist.

Some NH Natives are Getting Restless

paul@marstonchronicles.info (gemimail) — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 06:18:00 +0000

From The Marston Chronicles

If one were to take a look at the present political climate and find resistance to an incredibly expensive and ever more pervasive federal government, one might expect to look in fly-over country. So it comes as something of a shock to find the resistance in the midst of the solid blue states of New England. Granted that New Hampshire is less liberal than the rest of New England, but it did go for Obama after all. So how are some of these New Hampshire natives getting restless?

It seems that a some members of the state legislature, called the General Court there, decided that enough was enough. They introduced House Concurrent Resolution 6 that effectively tells the federal government to take a hike. The meat of the resolution minces no words and states:

"That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, -- delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress; and

That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations, slavery, and no other crimes whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” therefore all acts of Congress which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory; and
That it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitution, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people;” and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated, rather than the use be destroyed. And thus also they guarded against all abridgment by the United States of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises, and retained to themselves the right of protecting the same. And that in addition to this general principle and express declaration, another and more special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the Constitution, which expressly declares, that “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:” thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press: insomuch, that whatever violated either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, and that libels, falsehood, and defamation, equally with heresy and false religion, are withheld from the cognizance of federal tribunals. That, therefore, all acts of Congress of the United States which do abridge the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, are not law, but are altogether void, and of no force..."

So how do you like them apples, federal government? Not only do your laws suck, but they are null and void, so there. This should keep legions of lawyers busy for a long time should this Resolution be adopted. Anyone else want to jump on this bandwagon?

We Will All Go Down Together

paul@marstonchronicles.info (gemimail) — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 02:02:00 +0000

From The Marston Chronicles

We have watched with amusement as we read comments from our World News section here on The Marston Chronicles. Several snide news articles and comments have been made about how the American economy has slid into recession. Usually they accuse us of spending money like drunken sailors not just at the governmental level but at the personal level as well. One must wonder just what they think has been keeping their own mostly socialistic economies afloat lo these many years.

Now that the American consumers have reacted to the layoffs, credit crunch and home price deflation by being more frugal in their purchases, they are buying far fewer foreign imports. No more American tourists on a fling in foreign lands. The end result has been that other countries are feeling the economic pinch far worse than the United States is. Just what made these folks think that we could crash and burn economically and that they would still be peachy keen?

Here is just a sample of how wrong they have been:

China's migrant workers hit by economic pinch as 20 million lose jobs - Times Online
China’s economic downturn has cost the jobs of 20 million rural migrants, prompting a call from the Communist Party’s security chief for efforts to calm possible unrest.
British workers strike as economic unease spreads - Los Angeles Times
O2/03/09: Hundreds of British workers walked off the job Monday, part of a rising tide of industrial unrest sweeping Europe as the continent's economic downturn worsens.
More Protests for Greece as Farmers Continue Blockade
02/03/09: Greek farmers demanding more aid from the government are the latest to protest in the European nation, as the ruling party’s popularity slides.
As Economy Sinks, Russians Protest
01/31/09 NY Times: Protesters held demonstrations throughout Russia on Saturday, offering largely subdued, but pointed criticism of the government’s economic policies as the country continues to sink deeper into an economic morass.
Europe's Economic Protests May Be Contagious
NPR.org, January 30, 2009 · As the global economic downturn sinks in, some people in Europe are expressing their economic pain in the form of strikes and protests.
The Associated Press: France's big general strike hobbles services
Jan. 29, 2009: More than 1 million protesters took part, with tens of thousands of youths, retirees and unemployed people marching across towns and cities, police said.
Iceland Protesters shoved by Central Bank Economist
This is a link to an Iceland news broadcast (in Icelandic) that shows just how tense the situation in Iceland is becoming. It appears that Olafur Orn Klemensson (and associate), an economist at the Central Bank of Iceland pushed protesters.
Iceland banking crisis video and more 2008 and 2009
An outstanding and frequently updated blog about the Iceland economic crisis by a native Icelander. Chock full of videos and information about the current state of economic affairs in Iceland. This blog is a must read!
Baltic Riots Spread to Lithuania in the Face of Deteriorating Economic Conditions
N.Y. Times Article: Riots broke out once again in the Baltic states on Friday, this time in the Lithuanian capital, Vilnius, where a group of 7,000 gathered to protest planned economic austerity measures.
Latvia Is Shaken by Riots Over Its Weak Economy
N.Y. Times Jan 14, 2009: Violent protests over political grievances and mounting economic woes shook the Latvian capital, Riga, late Tuesday, leaving around 25 people injured and leading to 106 arrests.
Ariz. police say they are prepared as War College warns military must prep for unrest; IMF warns of
Ariz. police say they are prepared as War College warns military must prep for unrest; IMF warns of economic riots

FAILED STATE ON OUR SOUTHERN BORDER?

paul@marstonchronicles.info (gemimail) — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 01:43:00 +0000

From The Marston Chronicles

We invite you to think about the consequences to the United States if this headline became a fact. It is rapidly becoming a fact. Just take a look at this news from Mexico. Mexico has always had its problems with corruption. It began with one political party controlling Mexico for many decades, an open invitation to corruption. The second cause is the abysmally poor salaries paid to government employees, including the police. We have our own problems with "dirty police" when this happens. But let's face it, what is causing Mexico to crash and burn is our own insatiable appetite for illegal drugs. The drug cartels are now the dominant force in Northern Mexico.

So what can we do about this? If you are a realist, you have to know that there is no way our own government can prevent drug use in our country. It has poured billions of dollars down this black hole to no avail. No government can pass a law that a sizable portion of its citizens refuse to obey. You cannot build enough jails to hold all the people. We already have over one percent of our adult population in jail, the majority of whom are in there on drug charges. At some point, the cost of jailing so many people leaves too few of us left out of jail to pay the taxes to keep all those people in jail.

We tried outlawing one chemical and all that was accomplished was to make organized crime incredibly rich and powerful. It also caused official corruption to become rampant. We are still dealing with the fallout from that experiment in social engineering. Now we are repeating the same mistake with another group of chemicals. Why do we insist on adopting a policy we know from experience is doomed to failure? So far, while our own problems with drug gangs are bad enough, most of the damage is being done in countries that either produce or are in the path of the drug routes to our country. Columbia is already very close to failed state and Mexico is on the same path.

We are not suggesting that encouraging drug use is a good idea nor is it a bad idea to discourage drug use. What clearly is a bad idea is to make drugs illegal. It is clearly a recipe for disaster. What is it going to take to wake us up to this fact of life? We are close to having drug gangs making raids across the Mexican border already. When we are forced to station an army division along that border, will that wake us up? Perhaps it is time for an experiment. Marijuana was legal in this country not that long ago. Let's try decriminalizing it and see what happens. It presents no worse of a health hazard than tobacco. The sale can be restricted to stores that can keep it under lock and key and who severely card young people to prevent them from getting access to it. It is hard to see what we have to lose by trying this at this point.