New Mexico's Complex Gay Marriage Laws

New Mexico is the only US state with no laws regarding same-sex marriage, it does not ban them, nor does it make them legal. The lack of clarity surrounding same-sex marriage means that it's up to individual county clerks to decide whether to grant marriage licences to same-sex couples. Although some country courts have demanded that their clerks issue the licenses. At the time of writing six counties in New Mexico issue same-sex marriage licenses, representing just over half of New Mexico's population. So far Bernalillo, Santa Fe and Taos issue them under court order whilst Doña Ana, San Miguel and Valencia are issuing them at the discretion of their county clerks. 

Naturally everyone in New Mexico wants some clarity on the law, and soon. This is unlikely to come from the legislative branch as although Democrats control both houses of the state legislature, the governor, Susana Martinez is a Republican and opposed to same-sex marriage. This means that all eyes are on the state Supreme Court to decide this issue. Yesterday New Mexico's 33 county clerks voted unanimously to seek the guidance of the state Supreme Court. A ruling could be several weeks away. The decision whether to make New Mexico the 14th state to legalise same-sex marriage now rests with the five justices on New Mexico's Supreme Court. 

Proof that Birtherism = Racism

When Obama became President, a "scandal" started brewing, people started to believe that Obama was not eligible to be President. The idea was that Obama was born in Kenya, rather than Hawaii and therefore, according to the constitution, could not be President. These people, known as 'birthers', were labelled as racist by much of the left as many felt it wasn't a coincidence that the first black president was the first to have his eligibility questioned. Eventually Obama relented and released his birth certificate, this didn't stop the birthers who claimed it was fake.

Recent murmurs that freshman Senator Ted Cruz might run for President in 2016 has re-ignited the birthers in a different way. The Tea Party had always been associated with the birther movement, due to the overt racism of much of the Tea Party. Now the Tea Party is getting excited that Cruz might run for President as he is radically conservative and would push their agenda. But wait! Cruz was not born in America. Cruz was born in Calgary, Canada and he admits it. So the same people who insisted that Obama was ineligible for President for being born in Kenya (or so they say) insist that Cruz is eligible despite being born in Canada. How do they justify this double standard? Well Cruz's mother was American, so that makes him eligible. This argument falls through when you realise that Obama's mother was also American, she was born in Kansas and raised all over the US.

So let me get this straight, Cruz was born to an American mother and a foreign father (he was Cuban) and is eligible for President. Yet Obama, who was born to an American mother and a foreign father is ineligible. To many this proves that the birthers are racist and they only opposed Obama because he was black.

The Old World Order - Canada

Population: 35 million
Area: 9.9 million km2
GDP: $1.7 trillion
GDP (per capita): $42,000

Of the seven countries that I am reviewing, Canada is the one with the most hope in its future. Canada is massive, it is the second largest country y area and has a wealth of resources. Canada has the third largest proven oil reserves (175 billion barrels) and the third largest uranium reserves (485,000 tonnes) as well as the 13th largest coal reserves (6.5 billion tonnes) and the 20th largest natural gas reserves (1.75 trillion m3). So it is easy to say that Canada is resource wealthy and considering that much of Canada is under permafrost and unexplored, it will only get wealthier.

When you combine the extreme resource wealth with a (relatively) low population of only 35 million, screwing up the Canadian economy would be an achievement. The population is expected to be 41 million in 2050. Largely I have included Canada on the list for two reasons; first is that I wrote about all the other G7 nations so I may as well do Canada. Secondly, Canada faces a very serious threat; not existing. Or at least not existing in its current form. As in the cases of Britain and Italy, Canada has a strong secessionist movement. Quebec. The Québécois have always been different to the rest of Canada, their heritage is predominantly French rather than British or Irish and most of them speak French rather than English. Two referendums have been held over the question of Quebec independence, in 1980 independence was voted down by 20%, in 1995 the referendum was much closer with 49.42% of the electorate voting for independence and 50.58% voting against.

Quebec breaking away would create problems for Canada. Quebec is 15.4% of the area, 23% of the population and produces 20% of Canadian GDP. It also contains significant proportions of Canada's natural resources. It would also have the added problem of effectively splitting Canada in two, with the four smallest provinces of Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador, effectively isolated from the rest of Canada.

So Canada's future as a powerful nation is largely secure, as long as it can hold itself together.

The Old World Order - USA

Population: 315 million
Area: 9.8 million km2
GDP: $15.6 trillion
GDP (per capita): $50,000
UN Security Council Veto?: Yes

America is undoubtably the world's leading power and with a GDP of $15.6 trillion and higher military spending than the next 10 countries combined, it's easy to see why. Although I am predicting a decline in American influence, I certainly do not believe that it will be as extreme as other countries. America is the third largest country by population and still growing, the 2010 census showed America's population rising by 9.7% since the 2000 census. By 2050 America is predicted to have a population of around 400 million people, 100 million more than today. The US also has a wealth of resources with over 20 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, the 13th largest in the world. It also has plenty of land ripe for renewable energy.

So nobody is in doubt that America will remain powerful, just not the hegemon it currently is. The main rivalries will likely be China and India.

So what is America's biggest challenge? The economy. Like almost all Western nations, America's economy is still hurting from the 2007/2008 crash and things are looking dangerous ahead. The situation in the bloated banking sector has gotten worse not better, the "too big to fail" banks are now 30% bigger than the were pre-crash. America also has the most public debt in the world, over $16 trillion of it, which is a lot. This has major consequences for America as it means, China, the largest single holder of American public debt, has undue influence over it. This could become particularly problematic when China and the US negotiate deals in the future. Another, very new, problem is American governance: it's broken. Rapport between Democrats and Republicans is at an all time low, neither side trust each other and will often refuse to negotiate with each other. This is particularly true on the Republican side, currently it is controlled by the radical Tea Party base who treat compromise as a cardinal sin. All this hyper-partisanship is really problematic when both parties control at least one of the vestiges of power (the House, Senate or presidency), as all three have veto power.

If America does not get its finances and system of governance in order, it's in for a seriously rocky road in the future. 

Republican Senate Screw-Ups - Delaware

Without a doubt Republican action in Delaware in 2010 ranks as the most idiotic of the 2010 and 2012 campaigns. Of the races I've written about so far a lot of the really stupid stuff the candidates said came after they won the primary. Delaware is a very different situation, which is why it takes the title of dumbest Republican moves in 2010 and 2012.

Michael Castle
source: www.wikipedia.org

In the Republican primary in 2010 the voters were faced with two choices, a moderate Michael Castle and a Tea Party radical Christine O'Donnell. Considering the deep blue nature of Delaware you might think it doesn't matter who the Republicans choose as they are going to lose anyway. Well Michael Castle was not just any moderate Republican, he was extremely popular in Delaware. In fact he had won 12 statewide votes prior to 2010, never losing. In 1980 he won the lieutenant governorship and the governorship in 1984 and 1988. He then went on to win Delaware's At-Large district from 1992 - 2008. The lowest percentage he got as representative was 57% in 1992. He was so popular in the state that in 2008 when Republicans were being obliterated nationwide and when Obama won 71% of the vote in Delaware, Castle still won, also with 71% of the vote. So what sort of résumé did Christine O'Donnell have that the GOP chose her over Castle? Well in 2008 when running for the same Senate seat, O'Donnell lost to Biden by almost 30%. If it doesn't seem stupid enough already, early polls showed Castle beating Democrat Chris Coons by 20%.

If that's not bad enough, O'Donnell also said some pretty crazy stuff. She said masturbation was the same as adultery, there were weekly school shootings after prayer was removed from school (it was never in schools), insulted Castle's manhood, claimed that God audibly spoke to her and told her of his support, evolution is myth and that the government is 50% of the economy. Despite all these crazy comments and beliefs, I've saved the best two for last.

At one point O'Donnell admitted to having dabbled in witchcraft and that one of her first dates took place on a Satanic Altar. These comments led to the creepiest campaign advertisement of all time. Watch it here.

My personal favourite O'Donnell quote was on she said to Bill O'Reilly on his show whilst they were discussing monkey cloning.

" American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains."

Yeah, she seriously said that!

O'Donnell eventually lost to Democrat Chris Coons by 17 points in a race they were sure to win if they had chosen Castle.

Christine O'Donnell
source: www.theaustralian.com.au

Republican Senate Screw-Ups - Indiana

The runner-up to the worst mistake of Republicans in 2010 and 2012 is that of their actions in Indiana.

Republican Richard 'Dick' Lugar had held the Indiana Senate Seat since 1976 and was highly popular in Indiana. In fact the lowest percentage he won the seat by was in 1982 when he won only 54% of the vote. The last time he won the seat was in 2006, this was a year Democrats knew they were going to do very well in as the Republicans were very unpopular. In the 2006 Democrats managed to defeat six incumbent Republicans. Despite the unpopularity of Republicans, Democrats knew that they had no hope of defeating the extremely popular Dick Lugar and didn't run anyone against him. In the 2006 election Lugar won 87% of the vote.

Six-term Senator, Dick Lugar
source: www.wikipedia.org

 The only problem for Republicans, he was a moderate. Lugar had a history of bi-partisanship, always prepared to reach across the aisle to Democrats. His votes to confirm SCOTUS nominees Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, both liberals appointed by Obama. His support for the DREAM Act and START Treaty further infuriated the Tea Party base. Not helping Lugar was his anti-gun record, epitomised by his F rating from the NRA.

These votes and his friendliness with Democrats meant that Tea Party backed Richard Mourdock decided to challenge him in the Republican primary. Mourdock was successful, garnering 61% of the primary vote. Unlike Alaska in 2010 when Joe Miller beat Lisa Murkowski in the Republican primary but Murkowski went on to win the General Election as a write-in candidate, Indiana law prevented Lugar from doing the same.

Republicans probably thought that their gamble would pay off, but to their disappointment the Democrats found a strong candidate in Joe Donnelly. For most of the campaign Donnelly and Mourdock were tied, until Mourdock torpedoed his own campaign in a debate. Just weeks before the election Mourdock was asked about abortion he said the following:

"Even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."

A lot of people took that to mean that God intended for a women to be raped. Opps. His campaign bombed after this and he went on to lose election by 6%. You can watch the video here.

Failed Senate candidate, Richard Mourdock
source: www.globalsolutions.org

Republican Senate Screw-Ups - Missouri

Missouri is placed third in my rankings of worst Republican mistakes of 2010 and 2012, behind only Indiana and Delaware. Despite Missouri placing third, it is probably the best known political gaffe in 2010 and 2012.

Before 2012 many people identified incumbent Senator, Claire McCaskill, as the most vulnerable incumbent in the 2012 cycle, representing a state that had gotten redder since she won her seat in 2006. Then Republicans made the same mistake they made all across the country and chose the weakest candidate, Todd Akin. But here's where the race differed to others, McCaskill and the Democrats helped Akin to win! They identified Akin as the weakest candidate and ran ads calling him a "true conservative", which helped him to win the Republican Primary.

Despite being the weakest candidate, things were going well for Akin, who was steaming ahead in the polls. Some polls even showed him to be up by 11 points! Then came the now infamous interview on the 12th of August when he made hideous comments concerning rape and pregnancy:

"If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

As well as being just plain wrong, Akin unleashed upon himself the fury of the female voters. Many Republicans recognised that he had just torpedoed his own campaign and called for him to resign. If Akin stepped down before a certain date then Republicans would be able to install someone else in time for the election. Akin refused and as the date approached they got increasingly vocal in asking him to step down but he stood firm. This was hugely problematic for Republicans as they were now stuck with a candidate who would lose an unloseable seat. Their vocal calls for him to step aside were also not helpful as it meant that everyone in Missouri knew what he had said.

Claire McCaskill went on to beat Todd Akin by 15.5%. Not since 1994 has someone lost the seat that badly. Opps.

If Akin hadn't made those ridiculous comments, he likely would
be a US Senator right now.
source: www.nymag.com

Republican Senate Screw-Ups - Nevada

In 2010 the Republicans had a brilliant opportunity to humiliate the Democrats by defeating their Senate leader, Harry Reid. This is one of the screw-ups when you can't blame Republican primary voters. At the time Reid's approval rating was below 40%, so it was hard to see how he possibly could win. Immediately following the primaries, the Republican candidate Sharron Angle was leading Reid by double digits! The failure of her campaign is entirely on her.

Angle was a Tea Party hardliner who decimated the Republican Party's chances of taking Nevada. During the campaign she said some crazy things, and as people looked deeper you found out that this wasn't a new thing. During the campaign she was notorious for avoiding the press, much to Nevadans' annoyance. Considering her experiences when talking in public, it's not surprising. She claimed that it was not her job to help Nevada. Seriously. She also claimed that the towns of Dearborn, Michigan and Frankford, Texas had been taken over by Sharia Law and said that she opposed unemployment benefits. In 2009 she mocked covering autism in health insurance and claimed that the 9/11 terrorists came from Canada! Yet in my view her most outrageous remark came at the expense of Harry Reid. The quote is:

"I hope that's not where we're going, but you know if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out."

This sent shock waves through Nevada as people saw that comment as an attempt to get someone to assassinate Harry Reid! Angle's crazy comments proved too much for the people of Nevada and Reid won re-election, beating Angle by 6%.

Sharron Angle messed up a certain Republican win
source: www.alan.com

Republican Senate Screw-Ups - Colorado

During the Republican wave of 2010, Colorado was in the firing line for Republicans who hoped to take the seat from incumbent Michael Bennet. Unfortunately for Republicans they chose a Tea Party radical, Ken Buck, which is a very dangerous thing to do in a purple state.

The primary cause for Buck's defeat was his inability to attract female voters. During the primary campaign he told a crowd of people that they should vote for him because "I do not wear high heels". The comment was seen as an attack on the fact that his opponent, Jane Norton, was a woman. Bennet did an excellent job of attacking Buck on his pro-life stance. Buck had said that he opposed abortion, even in the cases of rape and incest! Going hard on reproductive rights helped Bennet beat Buck by 17 points amongst female voters! Buck is also bizarrely opposed to the 17th amendment, which makes Senators directly elected from the voters rather than from the States' Houses of Representatives.

In the General Election Bennet beat Buck by less than 2%. Considering how radical Buck was, it is easy to see how Republicans could have won the seat. It they'd only chosen someone less extreme, like Jane Norton, this seat would likely be theirs.

Ken Buck made sure Republicans lost Colorado in 2010
source: www.huffingtonpost.com

Republican Senate Screw-Ups - Maine

In many ways Maine represents something going on in the Republican Party, the chasing out of moderates. The incumbent Senator was Olympia Snowe, a very popular Republican, despite Maine's blue nature.

Snowe was eager to pursue bi-partisan measures and was always prepared to compromise with Democrats. For this reason Time magazine rated her as one of the top 10 US Senators. During her tenure she voted for Obama's stimulus, against Bush's 2003 tax cuts and voted to end the filibuster of Obamacare which led to it becoming law. This put her at odds with the Tea Party, who pledged to primary her in the 2012 election. Eventually Snowe decided that she'd had enough and announced she would not be running for re-election. She cited the hyper-partisanship leading to a dysfunctional congress as the reason she was retiring.

So the Tea Party drove Snowe out of the Senate. Snowe had won re-election in 2006 with 74% of the vote. If they hadn't driven her out, she would have almost certainly won re-election. Instead the seat is now held by Angus King, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats.

Olympia Snowe epitomises the exodus of moderates from
the Republican Party.
source: www.dailykos.com

Republican Senate Screw-Ups - Ohio

Republicans should have been able to defeat incumbent Senator Sherrod Brown in 2012. Ohio is a purple state, which means it tends to like moderates from either party, rather than those who are on the more extreme edge of their parties. Brown is frequently named as one of the most liberal Senators, which puts him to the left of his state. This gave Republicans an excellent opportunity to pick up the Buckeye state.

Unfortunately for Republicans they chose a rather weak candidate in state treasurer, Josh Mandel. This race is the only on I will be reviewing in which Republican attitude to rape and abortion did not contribute in a major way to why they lost. One of the major reasons for Mandel's poor performance was his "casual relationship with the truth", as Politifact put it, and his refusal to back down. Mandel largely came across as totally inexperienced compared with Brown's 37 years as an elected official.

To be honest another reason for Mandel losing is how he looks. Mandel looks like he's just finished school, despite being 35, which would have put a lot of people off voting for him by thinking he's younger and more inexperienced than he actually is. I know it appears mean of me to bring up how someone looks, but we all know that in politics, image is everything.

Brown went on to beat Mandel by 6% in the November election.

Republican Senate Screw-Ups - North Dakota

I've decided to post about North Dakota first as I believe that the Republican screw-up  was less severe than in other races. The fact that Republicans lost the seat was more to do with the strength of the Democratic candidate, Heidi Heitkamp, than the weakness of the  Republican candidate, Rick Berg. Nonetheless Berg wasn't without fault. Following the Todd Akin scandal in Missouri, the local Fox affiliate in North Dakota decided to ask Berg what his abortion views were.

Berg said that he was pro-life and that the only exception would be the life of the mother, not even rape. This infuriated many North Dakotan women who felt this was a horrible position. When the host asked Berg what punishment women would receive if they had an abortion Berg wouldn't give an answer. He said that the punishment would need to be worked on in a legislative process. Berg seemed to forget that he was running to be part of the legislative process and that he sort of needed to give an opinion. The question made him look weak and a fool.

Berg also took hits because of his extraordinary wealth - he's one of the wealthiest congressmen and that came back to haunt him. He became linked with a property management company with a dubious record.

In the end Berg lost to Heitkamp by only 0.92%, which corresponds to 2,936 votes. It's easy to see how, if he'd just been a little better, he would have won in red state North Dakota.

Heitkamp (left) narrowly beat Berg (right) in the North Dakota Senate Race
source: www.bigstory.ap.org

Why the Republicans Don't Control the Senate

If you'd asked any political pundit in January 2010, they would have told you that Republicans would have control of the Senate by the end of the year, and in 2012 they would expand that lead. It seemed like a logical assumption, Republicans were riding on a wave of popularity in 2010, so were sure to pick up enough seats in 2010. 2012 was going to be a good year also for Republicans as there were a large amount of red state Democrats. So what went wrong? Republicans have only 46 seats to the Democrats' 54 (this includes two independents who caucus with the Democrats). What could have happened to screw up Republican hopes so badly? Well largely Republicans shot themselves in the foot, in several races they chose a candidate who made crazy comments and ended up losing. Over the next few days I will analyse eight Senate races in 2010 and 2012 and explain where the Republicans went wrong in each race. The states I will analyse are as follows:

1. North Dakota - 2012

2. Ohio - 2012

3. Maine - 2012

4. Colorado - 2010

5. Nevada - 2010

6. Missouri - 2012

7. Indiana - 2012

8. Delaware 2010

Zimmerman Found NOT Guilty

If you live in America you will know of the Zimmerman trial, if not then I can only assume you've been living under a rock for the past year and a half. If you are from outside of America you may be wondering why the shooting of a teenager is getting so much media attention considering that in 2012 over 9,000 were killed with firearms in the United States. The reason for all the attention is that people believe that racism played a part.

If you don't know what happened, here's a rundown. Trayvon Martin was a black 17 year old who was staying with his father and his father's fiancée in the fiancée's house. The house was located in a gated community where George Zimmerman also lived. On the night of the 26th of February 2012 Trayvon went out to buy some skittles and iced-tea, on his way home he was spotted by Zimmerman who thought he looked suspicious. Zimmerman called the police to report the 'suspicious figure'. Zimmerman then preceded to follow Trayvon despite the police dispatcher telling him not to. A few minutes later Zimmerman and Trayvon would have a confrontation which would leave Trayvon dead. One witness reported to see Zimmerman on top of Trayvon during the confrontation, another phoned police when she heard screaming; that call has since been released to the public and you can clearly hear the screaming cut short following a gunshot - implying that it was Trayvon screaming.

What really set liberal America off though was the fact that police did not initially arrest Zimmerman. It was made worse when it was revealed that the police had performed a toxicology report on the victim, rather than the perpetrator, and looked into the victim's criminal record, rather than the perpetrator.

Eventually on the 11th of April 2012, Zimmerman was finally arrested and charged with second-degree murder. Today the jury found Zimmerman not guilty.

Racism is alive and well folks, don't be fooled.

Trayvon Martin who was shot and killed
at just 17.
Source: www.wikipedia.org

Victory For Gay Rights in America

The Supreme Court of the United States has issued some historic rulings this week, two of the biggest were on gay rights. The two cases the Supreme Court dealt with were United States vs Windsor which concerned the Defense of Marriage act (DOMA) and Hollingsworth vs Perry which concerned California´s Proposition 8. The court ruled 5-4 in both cases in favour of gay rights.

DOMA was probably the more significant ruling as it has national implications. DOMA was signed into law in 1996 by President Bill Clinton (who has since disavowed the law). The law banned federal recognition of same-sex marriage, even in states like Massachusetts that have legalised it, this meant thousands of federal benefits were denied to same-sex couples. Edith Windsor, who married her partner of 40 years in Canada in 2007 was landed with over $300,000 in extra taxes following her partner´s death due to the federal government refusing to recognise their relationship. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4, with Justice Kennedy siding against DOMA, that the law was unconstitutional. Scalia wrote a scathing dissent, claiming that the Supreme Court had no right interferring with a law.

The Prop 8 ruling is very important to California as it now means that same-sex couples will be allowed to marry once again. The Prop 8 case finds its origins in early 2008 when the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples had the right to marry. Almost immediately the anti-gay side tried to undo the court´s ruling. They managed to gain enough signatures to put the question of same-sex marriage to the voters and in November 2008 Californians voted by 52% to ban same-sex marriage. A challenge was launched to Prop 8, claiming the law was unconstitutional. A Californian judge agreed, as did a majority of judges on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, then the Supreme Court of the United States decided to take the case. The ruling was rather bizarre as the justices ruled against Prop 8 on the grounds that those defending it had not suffered harm or injury. This meant that the judge´s ruling would stand. More bizarrely was how the court ruled, three of the four liberal justices as well as conservatives Roberts and Scalia ruled against Prop 8, whilst moderate Kennedy and liberal Sotomayor ruled in favour! The big surprises are Sotomayor and Scalia, considering how they normally rule in the opposite direction.  The decision effectively doubles the total population of US states that have legal same-sex marriage.

The Watchful Eye of Government

By far the most egregious scandal to come out of Washington in the last few months is the revelation that the US government has taken a drag net approach to internet surveillance. Given the codename 'Prism' the program takes all the information stored on certain internet giants for storage by the US government. The following companies hand all their data to the US government. (brackets indicates when they joined the program):

Microsoft (2007)
Yahoo! (2008)
Google (2009)
Facebook (2009)
PalTalk (2009)
YouTube (2010)
Skype (2011)
AOL (2011)
Apple (2012)

It's terrifying to think that the US government effectively knows all of our data that's owned by any of these companies. Every photo you have ever uploaded on Facebook, every email you have ever sent through gmail, every video you have watched on YouTube and all the audio and video that you have sent through Skype! It gets worse. Seriously! Remember that email you drafted but never sent and that sentence you typed on Skype but never sent? They have that too. This is an affront to liberty and goes completely against the US constitution. Particularly the fourth amendment:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

How is taking all the data on these websites possibly fit with the constitution? It doesn't, mass data collection in this form, is blatantly unconstitutional.

The funny thing is, all the companies are denying any involvement in the program, claiming that the information was seized without their knowledge. This is a complete pack of lies, the US government has already confirmed the program. Also, why would Twitter not be one the list? Twitter is a massive website with millions of users and a record for protecting its user's privacy. Also why did it take the government until 2012 to get all of Apple's data?

The political class in Washington has naturally tried to quell the scandal. After all, if you're not doing anything wrong, then why fear Prism? This is a fool's argument, I don't want the US government poking into every detail of my life. There's other things we do online that are just embarrassing, such as watching porn of other such legal activities. Ever heard of J. Edgar Hoover? He was head of the FBI from its foundation in 1935 to his death in 1972. During that time he amassed huge amounts of information, enough to make even Presidents quake. Through the medium of blackmail he kept opponents in line. If that can happen then, it could happen now.

The US government most stop this unconstitutional program if it wishes to retain any credibility. 

The Gay Marriage Avalanche

Gay marriage legalisation is rapidly becoming an avalanche as country after country passes same-sex marriage. It's hard to believe that it was only 12 years ago that the Netherlands became the first country to legalise same-sex marriage. Up until this year 11 countries had passed same-sex marriage as well as sub-national jurisdictions of Mexico and Brazil as well as nine US states plus DC. Since then the pace appears to be quickening, already this year same-sex marriage has made great progress. In the United States it has already passed the Illinois state senate and is now pending in the house. Delaware and Rhode Island have both legalised same-sex marriage and Minnesota seems likely to be the next. In the UK it passed a vote in the House of Commons by a massive majority of 400 - 175! In France it has passed both houses and faces a few procedural hurdles. In New Zealand and Uruguay it has been signed into law and Colombia may join soon. Six Brazilian states have also passed it in 2013.  At the beginning of this year I made a prediction, that the total population of the countries and jurisdictions that had legalised same-sex marriage before 2013 would be less than the total of those who passed it in 2013/2014. Prior to this year the combined population of everywhere that has passed same-sex marriage was roughly 363,310,000. It's difficult to gauge exactly where will pass same-sex marriage within the next two years, although we can already be certain of a few. Already in 2013, 42,930,000 extra people live in areas with it legalised.

Here are a list of jurisdictions I believe are highly likely to pass same-sex marriage in 2013/2014

France, England & Wales, Scotland, Luxembourg, Andorra, Colombia, California, Illinois, Minnesota and Rio de Janeiro. Total population: 241,250,000

Here are jurisdictions I believe have a chance of passing same-sex marriage in 2013/2014:

Finland, Germany, Ireland, Nepal, Taiwan, Vietnam, Oregon, Ohio and Michigan. Total population: 257,280,000

I am finding it difficult to find reporting on Brazil (other than Rio) but I would be surprised if no more states were to pass it in 2013/2014 as, of the 13 states that have passed it, six have done so this year alone. For my prediction to come true, countries with 363,310,000 people would have to pass same-sex marriage. Of the jurisdictions I think have at least a chance of passing same sex marriage (541,460,000), only those worth 2/3 of the total would have to pass same-sex marriage! The above countries all currently have supportive governments, but there will be elections in the mean time; some supportive governments will be voted out in favour of opposing ones. Fortunately the opposite can work too and we could see other countries added to the list of same-sex marriage supporters. I am confident that my prediction will be proven with time. 

2014 Gubernatorial Races

In 2010 Republicans swept to power in the states, making a net gain of six governorships. This means Republicans have a natural disadvantage as they have to defend more governorships. Of the 22 governorships controlled by Republicans, nine of them were won by Obama twice. On the other hands the Democrats only control one governorship in a state won by Romney and McCain. Of the remaining races 13 Republicans are up for election in McCain/Romney states, 12 Democrats are up for election in Obama states and there is one independent, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island.

Although 2014 is looking bright for Democrats, they shouldn’t get their hopes up. How people vote in federal elections can be very different to how they vote in state elections. So here I will outlay all the states and what ways they are likely to go.

2014 Gubernatorial Races - Republicans Defending

Alabama:

The solidly Republican state will likely elect Republican Robert Bentley to another term in office.

Alaska:

Another solidly Republican state unlikely to elect a Democrat. A PPP poll in February showed incumbent Sean Parnell beating all likely Democratic opponents by large margins. Parnell has not declared if he will run or not.

Arizona:

Governor Jan Brewer is not eligible to seek election to a second consecutive full term, but is trying to see how she can get around the ban. Arizona will probably remain Republican regardless, but Richard Carmona, who ran for Senate in 2012 could put up a worthy challenge.

Florida:

This will be one of the most hotly contested races in the country as incumbent governor Rick Scott is quite popular. Charlie Crist, now a Democrat, will likely attempt a challenge for the governorship. All polling done so far shows Crist beating Scott by wide margins.

Georgia:

With Democrats eyeing up Georgia’s open Senate seat, the governorship will likely stay in the hands of Nathan Deal.

Idaho:

The Democrats have little hope against Butch Otter in 2014. He is a popular Republican in a very red state.

Iowa:

Democrats will have their eye firmly on the open Senate seat. If Republicans manage to flip the seat then it could hand the senate to Republicans! This takes the heat off Governor Terry Branstad if he decides to run.

Kansas:

If Governor Sam Brownback decides to run then it will be a cake walk for Republicans. If Brownback doesn’t run, it will still be a cake walk. Kansas is seriously Republican.

Maine:

Along with Florida, Maine could be one of the most interesting races of 2014. The unpopular Paul LePage was elected in 2010 in a competitive three way race. A repeat of that could mean that he might eke out a victory. If it’s only a two way race then LePage would probably lose.

Michigan:

Michigan is another Republican controlled state likely to go blue. Governor Rick Snyder is deeply unpopular with a disapproval rating of 54%! According to PPP, Snyder is beaten by every Democrat they polled on.

Nebraska:

Although incumbent governor, Dave Heineman, is ineligible for re-election, things are unlikely to turn blue in this red state.

Nevada:

Incumbent governor, Brian Sandoval, is highly likely to be re-elected according to current polling.

New Mexico:

Despite the highly Democratic nature of the state, New Mexico looks likely to re-elect Susana Martinez according to polling!

Ohio:

Although it is looking OK for John Kasich at the moment, Ohio could become a battleground as the election draws closer.

Oklahoma:

It would be a massive surprise if Oklahoma turned blue in 2014.

Pennsylvania:

Governor Tom Corbett’s position is looking worse by the day with Democrats beating him by large margins in a recent PPP poll. Pennsylvania is looking increasingly likely to turn blue in 2014.

South Carolina:

It may surprise you but in 2014, South Carolina could be a close race! Nikki Haley is not popular in South Carolina and a PPP poll in December showed her actually losing to Democrat Vincent Sheheen! Yet there were a good few people who were undecided, so this race will still be difficult for Democrats.

South Dakota:

There’s little question that Republicans will keep South Dakota red in the 2014 race, regardless of what incumbent Dennis Daugaard decides to do. Democrats are much more focused on the Senate seat which will be vacated by Tim Johnson. As in Iowa, control of the SD senate seat could determine who controls the Senate.

Tennessee:

Republican Bill Halsam will almost certainly win re-election in 2014.

Texas:

Governor Rick Perry could run again in 2014 and would be favoured to win another term.

Wisconsin:

Unless he really screws up, Scott Walker will likely win re-election. In 2012 Democrats tried to recall him but he managed to cling on, winning 52.3% of the vote.

Wyoming:

The Democrats have no hope of winning extremely red Wyoming.

2014 Gubernatorial Elections - Democrats Defending

Arkansas:

Despite the Republican tide of 2010, incumbent Democrat governor Mike Beebe sailed to re-election winning 64.4% of the vote. Unfortunately for Democrats, Beebe is term limited, leaving this race wide open. There has been very little polling done so far, but what has been done suggests a Republican pickup thanks to Asa Hutchinson.

California:

Incumbent governor Jerry Brown is eligible to run for re-election in California. So far no polling has been done but it is likely that the California governorship will remain Democratic.

Colorado:

John Hickenlooper is the incumbent governor and has very good approval ratings (54/33) and a bid for re-election would likely be a success.

Connecticut:

Despite poor approval ratings at the beginning of his term in office, Dan Malloy has rebounded in popularity. A PPP poll in November 2012 found him leading a potential Republican challenger by 11 points.

Hawaii:

Democrats are highly likely to keep the state Democratic, regardless of whether Neil Abercrombie decides to run.

Illinois:

Despite the Democratic nature of this state, Illinois could end up upsetting the Democrats in 2014. In a poll from November, declared Republican Kirk Dillard beats incumbent Pat Quinn by seven points. All is not lost for Democrats though, Lisa Madigan, who is favoured to win the Democratic nomination beats Dillard by nine points.

Maryland:

The state will have an open race as Martin O’Malley is term limited. No polling also makes this race difficult to predict, yet due to the Democratic nature of the state, I would put Maryland into the likely Democrat category.

Massachusetts:

Deval Patrick has decided not to run for a third term, which could place Massachusetts in the situation of possibly going Republican! Scott Brown, the former US Senator, could enter the race and really challenge any Democrat who steps forward to run.

Minnesota:

Mark Dayton has declared his intention to run for re-election and will likely succeed. PPP polled him against four Republican potential candidates and beat them all by over 20 points!

New Hampshire:

The incumbent Democrat Maggie Hassan beat Republican Ovide Lamontagne by 12 points in 2012, which puts her in a good position to win in 2014. Yet it is way too early in her term to be able to assess her likeliness to win in 2014.

New York:

Andrew Cuomo is the highly popular incumbent governor and is almost certain to win the governorship in 2014.

Oregon:

The incumbent Democrat John Kitzhaber currently beats all potential challengers in polls done so far and would likely win re-election if he decides to run.

Vermont:

Currently the incumbent Peter Shumlin is likely to win, especially as the most competent Republican, Jim Douglas, has ruled out running.