Marks Blog

Okay, so Bill Ayers was just some guy in his neighborhood who Obama happened to share board membership with?

Oh, my! Notice the Obama spokesperson continuing to dig the hole...

Oddly, this is reported on the Controlled News Network (commonly referred to as CNN).

Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama is in favor of allowing ex-felons who have served time in prison to regain their right to vote.

Obama has co-sponsored a Senate measure that would allow all ex-felons to vote, but his campaign isn't directly targeting ex-felons for registration. His campaign does include relevant info on its Web site and educates volunteers so they can explain state laws to those who may not realize they have the right to vote, said spokesman Kevin Griffis.

Excuse me??? “All ex-felons“??? Look, there is a whole lot involving restitution to the victims and favorable completion of parole that must be taken into account before restoration of voting rights should even be considered. If some drunk killed your mother and was sentenced to two years in prison followed by 5 years parole and family victim compensation of, say $300 thousand dollars, would you want the offender voting after serving 1.8 years in prison and not fulfilling the remainder of the sentence requirements?

McCain has said states should decide whether felons have voting rights. But he personally believes ex-felons should forfeit certain rights when they commit a serious crime and that the right to vote should be restored only on a case-by-case basis — much like Virginia's process.

McCain has it correct. Let the ex-felon fulfill all obligations imposed by the judge regarding the conviction. Vermont and Maine fail such a test. I advise anyone who dislikes crime to avoid these two states. I further advise anyone who doesn’t understand the obligations of the “ex-felon” to learn the facts before jumping on this bandwagon.

People can change. I personally believe that if felons (with the exception of those who have committed murder, battery, kidnapping, terrorism, or rape - all of these proving an inability to assimilate with society and thus an incompatibility with basic reasoning) complete ALL parts of their sentence (not just time behind bars) they should have all rights restored. If they fail to complete even one aspect of their sentence, they cannot have all rights restored.

Voting is often misinterpreted as a right to all citizens. Tell that to the Soldiers and Sailors across the oceans of this world who will be unable to vote this cycle because their state requires all absentee ballots to be received by election day. This is impossible when requests for absentee ballots must be received no earlier than 1 month before an election, and the processing of such requests take 3 weeks.

If Obama were to focus on people who have proven their love of law and country - and subsequently Obama ensured their ability to vote, I might not think this ex-felon drive is political…

With the passage of the $700 Billion socialistrescue bill today, who would be better at administering such a monstrosity: Republicans or Democrats? Obviously Democrats are much more schooled on the subject of socialism, therefore having the distinct advantage of knowing how the Soviets failed, how Cuba failed, how Venezuela is currently failing (along with Bolivia and several other Central- and South-American countries) and how China is thriving when instituting policies designed to spread miseryeconomic equality to the proletariat. Naturally the ruling class will continue to be first-among-equals in such a system, since the working-class louts can’t even reliably vote Democratic.

Thus, Barack Obama - having a very clear understanding of this system of government - is the logical choice to try to make this system workable. After all, it was Barney Frank (D-MA) who stymied the needed reforms to Freddie and Fannie because any responsible reform to those government sponsored enterprise programs meant unqualified people could not get home loans. This status quo ballooned into the jumbo loans that people making minimum wage somehow qualified for so long as they took the variable APR rate. But hey - they got their home!!!

John McCain, the maverick who likes taking sides that cause serious conniptions among his fellow Republicans (McCain-Feingold, Comprehensive Immigration reform, Cap-and-Trade) has a problem understanding what socialism entails. Therefore, he would be the wrong choice for ruining the United States.

Partially switching gears, I would like to remind Senator Joe Biden that Article I of the US Constitution deals with the Legislative branch of government. You know, that august body that Joe belongs to in the upper chamber. The Framers - our Founding Fathers - rightly determined that the true power within this country is Congress. Laws govern the United States, and Congress writes them. They can place anything into legislative form, but if such runs afoul of the Constitution the Supreme Court can nullify the legislation (um - Joe, that would be Article III of the Constitution).

The Framers concluded that the Executive branch was of less consequence than Congress. How could they think this? They thought this based on origination. Legislative bills arise in either chamber of Congress; however, spending legislation only originates within the House of Representatives (Question: Why is the current socialistrescue legislation lawful? It originated in the Senate…a legitimate question I would be interested to hear either answers or theories from anyone).

It is this that reminds me that Democratic Speaker Tip O’Neill declared President Reagan’s proposed budget was “DOA” every year Reagan proposed his initiatives. Congress subsequently was cajoled into some of Reagan’s program proposals, but at such an expense that we are still feeling the effects from those years because Reagan granted Democrats so many of their pet programs.

Reagan was committed to burying the “Evil Empire”, and ultimately was vindicated. Subsequent Administrations have failed to quell the enthusiasm Congress has for their own initiatives - excepting Congress from 1995 to 2001 (run by Republicans who had not at that point sunk into the cesspool of corruption) - thus we continue our march toward government-controlled economic success. I hope Obama studied Marx, the Soviet collapse, and the rise of China with equal zeal. Making a centrally-planned government economy work has sunk many more nations than it created.

I just watched the Senate pass some form of bailout for Wall Street. While I am not privy to the details, I am quite certain that our future is at stake in the passing of this legislation. Where I am uncertain is how necessary this particular legislation is to the benefit of our economy. I’m guessing that this is important, but I can’t put my finger on what is bad (other than we taxpayers are on the hook).

If Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) is right, we have the possibility that this will fix the toxic lending anchor that dragged our economy down. I’m not certain we have a proper answer, but being stupid is the proper forte for Congress. Thus, we get something I cannot fathom in any way.

This leads me back to a subject some of my long-time readers might recall: How to reign in Congress! In order to change Congress, we have to call for a Constitutional Convention. Why? Because we will never change Congress via Congress (we tried that in 1994 and 2006, only to get probed by aliens), the only way Congress can be changed is by Constitutional Convention.

Given the fact Congress passed into Democratic hands in 2006 and nothing changed - in fact our government accountability worsened as evidenced by this horrible bailout - I find zero reason to worry why a Constitutional Convention is any worse than another Congressional session chaired by either party.

Am I wrong? How so?

Looks like members of the GOP have an open invitation to commit political suicide. I like the wording:

Minority Leader Rep. John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, "I'm encouraging every member whose conscience will allow them to support this."

As all of us (um, those of us who understand business versus government, at least) know, the idea that we could sustain such endeavors as "Government Sponsored Enterprises" (GSE's) without the attendant corruption and cronyism found so often in government enterprises - whether simply regarding Congress as the benefactor of particular projects, or government administration of said projects - is simply head-in-the-sand/pie-in-the-sky ignorance. Our media does a significant disservice by failing to report the timeline (and rogue players) associated with the Freddie and Fannie debacle. Quite simply, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA). End of story. For a review of how and why, read this.

And let us hope that our market can survive this shock. If it can't, I'm certain we will be embracing Marx very soon. Senator Bernie Sanders (Socialist - Vermont) should be proud - if he isn't cheerleading already. There are already rumblings in favor of nationalizing even more of our markets (the auto and medical industries spring to mind)...like Freddie and Fannie - already nationalized markets even before this meltdown, and at the center of fault. 

Some of my old commanding officers, specifically RADM Robert P. Hickey and VADM D.V. [listed as Denny] McGinn - two people who signed a number of documents during my career including some significant awards - have joined together in a force of 300 plus to endorse John McCain. I think Obama is sitting on 16 former flag officers endorsing him, none of whom I know personally - not that such is important - but 300 to 16? Okay, maybe Obama has more than sixteen. Twenty? Whatever...

On the debate tonight, I saw nothing that was particularly bad for either candidate. Obama did seem like the proverbial deer-in-the-headlights at times, but he is inexperienced. Perhaps if he runs another campaign or two against real candidates like McCain he will find his way...

I don't know about you, but I would avoid this hospital in the future.

I wonder what he will name the baby?

I've been watching the government attempt to prop up Wall Street with not just a little bit of interest. My money is there, thus I, probably like many of you, have an extremely keen interest in this mess. After hearing the "plan" that has come out of Paulson/Bernake-land, I am satisfied that there is a plan, that government is making an attempt to right the expensive and expansive wrongs of two administrations (Clinton-Bush), and that it will change the course of our government in a way that should wake America up to the fact that our elected officials in Washington are running our nation into the ground.

Please, don't insult my intelligence by telling me either Obama or McCain will right those wrongs. The only people who can effect change are found in Congress. Every law, whether spending, civil or criminal statute, and state mandate originates in Congress. Presidents suggest laws, then Congress promptly declares those suggestions "dead on arrival" and create legislation they feel is the best way to get reelected. Not reelection for the president, but themselves.

After reviewing the cost of this upcoming bailout, it is clear that our government will be saddled with $1 trillion or more in new debt overnight. Just to make it a visual, check out our current debt here. Within two weeks, there will be a new trillion added to this total, and make no mistake about it: When we roll over the $10 trillion milestone, this should lead us to realize that our public debt will rise from an estimated 60% of GDP in 2007 (Gross Domestic Product is all goods and services produced by a country) to 78% of yearly GDP. 78% of GDP? That means, based on my read, in order to retire our debt, you and I would need to be taxed at a rate higher than 78%. Indeed, since the federal budget is $3.1 trillion (and rising every year), an additional $700 billion will be added to that total, thus approximately 82% of our collective income would need to be taxed in order to retire that debt within one year. This is the breaking point. From this point on, additional debt raises the fact that we cannot pay the bill if our investors feel inclined to demand their money today or tomorrow, as opposed to 20 years from now.

America likes their pet projects. A Department of Education? We need it because of our children. A Housing and Urban Development Department? Sure, home ownership is important and why shouldn't the federal government fund this important program? Department of Transportation? Hey, we need highways, and every congressman loves to fund a new turnpike in their district. Department of Labor? Sheesh, we need someone to keep greedy businesses from employing underage workers.

Face it, folks. Our current federal focus is outdated. Education should be the purview of the states. In the US Constitution, the Tenth Amendment says: 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.

Housing and urban development sounds like something States should deal with as well. Labor laws have not been substantially changed in decades, and we already have laws on the books for business processes. Why can't the Department of Justice handle matters of enforcement? Oh, they do already. So what does the Labor Department do? HUD? Education?

Our government is both broke and broken. If we continue with status quo, it will remain so, and the next bailout will cost more than just money.

Congress is the why, and the solution is to get rid of those in Congress who cannot find any reason to reform our government for the betterment of our financial future. Indeed, they continue to feed upon our future, eating our young, so to speak. Our financial crisis is based solely within our obligated debt. Our Dollar sinks faster than our debt rises, meaning inflation will be smacking us in the head in the coming months.

When I bought my house back in 2000, my realtor attempted to sell me a house for $250K. I told her I am not about to go back to eating Ramen Noodles for dinner every night like I did in the Navy. I lived in Southern California and rent was atrocious. It ate up my paycheck faster than the IRS could audit me (trust me on this, the IRS audits very quickly, it is the aftereffects that are lingering). I gave my realtor my maximum asking price, and she reluctantly adhered to my wishes. It is obscenely obvious that our present crisis is fueled by a mindset that clouded reality.

I am not going to make this a partisan issue. If you feel either presidential candidate is better qualified on this subject, perhaps you should read Peggy Noonan's latest article. My point (and I believe Ms. Noonan made it) is that neither matters in this crisis, because we have literally run out of options. Our way of life is about to change, and it is probably not for the better no matter who wins in November.

Yet Congress runs on cruise control...does the American public?

My best guess is "Yes"...

Decided to take a day off and headed to the golf course. Talk about a perfect day for it! Couldn't get any better than today's conditions.

I've taken two lessons so far (with two more to go) and found myself improving from the tee - my drives now average 200+ yards and relatively accurate fairway placement - yet my subsequent club selection for the second shot seems to add strokes. Not to mention my typical 3-putt on the green. My wedge shooting is exponentially better than when I started.

So, I need to work on my second shot, with woods and irons. But three-putting is killing me. Back to the driving range...

My question has nothing to do with golf:

When you take a day off to relieve stress at work, what do you do?

Wow! Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has earned the enmity of liberal women's groups in the US! This should (perhaps counterintuitively) put women everywhere firmly into Palin's camp.

I knew Palin was a real woman after having five children, but it took the endorsment for Democratic candidate Barack Obama to actually confirm that real women are not in control of liberal women's groups...

"It's extremely disappointing that an organization that purports to be an advocate for all women not only opposes but feels compelled to go out of its way to criticize and make negative comments about the only ticket in the presidential race with a woman on the ticket," Palin's spokeswoman Maria Comella said in an e-mail.

Well, women really should be voting for Democrats anyway, right?

Just to rub salt on a wound:

Fully 47 percent say Obama lacks the proper experience — an even worse reading than the 36 percent who had the same criticism about McCain running mate Sarah Palin, serving her second year as Alaska governor after being a small-town mayor.

Why? Executives know how to make decisions. Barack Obama has been the executive of his presidential campaign - something which seems to be imploding right now. Governor Sarah Palin has an astounding 80% approval rating for her state - a state she has been running for two years (the same length of time Obama has run his campaign).

Democrats can blow it, and have a track record to prove it. I would almost bet on it, but I remember further history. One never really knows...

Title is taken from Sun Tzu in "The Art of War"

Judith Warner of the New York Times finally comes to terms with reality. In her storyline, she cites the following conclusion by Jonathan Haidt, Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Virginia. Republicans and Democrats think differently. While that is one of the most obvious statements I have ever written, it bears a certain merit to dwell on the how and the why.

[In] “What Makes People Vote Republican?”, [Haidt reasons] that it’s liberals, in fact, who are dangerously blind. Haidt has conducted research in which liberals and conservatives were asked to project themselves into the minds of their opponents and answer questions about their moral reasoning. Conservatives, he said, prove quite adept at thinking like liberals, but liberals are consistently incapable of understanding the conservative point of view. “Liberals feel contempt for the conservative moral view, and that is very, very angering. Republicans are good at exploiting that anger,”

We see this every day here on the blogs. Whether it is someone posting the same stuff from Daily Kos or the Obama campaign, it is done with intent to project contempt.

I recall when it was revealed that Sarah Palin's17 year-old daughter was pregnant, the first action on the blogs were references to how conservatives would react. When we reacted with our staid and heartfelt empathy, certain people on the left decided to project upon us what they assumed to be our hypocrisy.

It completely missed the point. We know people make mistakes in life (and sometimes those mistakes turn fatal - resulting in the deceased perpetrator being nominated for Darwin awards). It is a natural process. No one person is completely suited to bringing up a child in this age of instantaneous gratification and selfishness.

Where conservatives typically look to societal aberrations (Hollywood is a favorite target) and say "See, I told you so!" - a line which is certain to confound and enrage those who believe such societal aberrations are merely cultural differences which should be promoted - the idea that family values is a political issue should cause anyone to think upon the why of it and the subsequent consequences in society. In Professor Haidt's dissertation above, it certainly seems one liberal has found the answer, and perhaps with that we can stop talking over each other on issues that concern us all.

On the other hand, as Charles Krauthammer noted years ago, the key to understanding US politics as related to the Democrat vs. Republican dialogue (such as it is) is to remember that Republicans think Democrats are stupid, while Democrats think Republicans are evil.

On reflection, no wonder Democrats get their clocks cleaned by Republicans during presidential elections. They cannot truly know their enemy...

Hmmm...looks like this year is shaping up to be much more competitive for Republicans than conventional wisdom suggested just weeks ago. While this may simply be the typical bounce expected after a national party convention, it is not likely to be unrelated to the media response to John McCain's running mate; Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. I see her as real, the media views her as a puzzle that must be deconstructed, if not simply destroyed. Why is that?

In one fell swoop (and with the help of hurricane Gustov), McCain effectively separated himself from President George Bush. Yes, he is still a Republican, as is the current President. But in choosing Palin, McCain went in a very different direction than any recent presidential ticket has: McCain picked someone who is of the middle class. Oh, and she is a woman...during the year that featured a woman running for the presidential nomination of the Democratic party. That woman, Hillary Clinton, nearly won the nomination. That woman, Hillary, was passed over for the second slot in her party's nomination in favor of a man who has spent 36 years learning how to hide government salami from taxpayers. McCain has never been one to avoid a fight on the issue of exposing government largesse with taxpayer funds.

Is this a long-term trend? I'm speaking about the "bounce" and not the above paragraph. In this presidential election of firsts, where we saw McCain go from worst-to-first in the primary, Obama defeated a more experienced Hillary Clinton and became the first person of African-American heritage to be nominated by one of our two great (proportionately speaking) political parties, and a woman who accepted the vice presidential nomination for the Republican ticket - Hollywood couldn't have scripted a political movie with this many twists of historic proportions and political animals such as myself are either enjoying or fretting, depending on the candidate/party of choice - I can't say. Tomorrow is another day, next week is an eternity in a political race.

I will attempt to place this election in context with other elections. That may be a mistake given my previous paragraph, but here goes:

The United States is essentially center-right in their political affiliations during most recent presidential elections. During the 2004 presidential election, the Democratic party nominated an obvious liberal named John Kerry. Kerry turned out to be easy fodder for Republicans due to his long record of anti-war activity. Some of that anti-war activity occured before he resigned his US Navy Officer commission. This is not something easily reconciled with those who have served, or have had family members who served in the military. That, and the fact that Kerry was viewed as something of an elitist (oh, my - there's that word again) prevented him from winning the election.

Here is why Obama is not winning, in breathless liberal talking points:

 1) Iraq should be more of a factor in this election! Yes, but not in the way you might think. We are in better shape in Iraq, and the Iraqi government has determined that Iraq will shoulder the majority of responsibility for Iraq within a matter of months. Eventually, and relatively soon, combat troops will leave at multiple-battalion levels per-month.

2) The economy is certainly going to doom McCain! Well, that is problematic as well. The economy has continued to expand each quarter. Based on what all economists who actually pass Economics 101 (that would evidently not include any of Barack Obama's economists), a recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) contraction. The only issues right now are energy prices (primarily gas prices) and unemployment data. We recently moved into the 6% range in national unemployment, and gas prices will be rising due to hurricane Ike. The issue of jobs might play into Obama's themes (marginally), but gas - and by extension oil - falls firmly in the McCain-Palin purview.

3) Gas costs over $3.50 per gallon! Which is why energy plays well for Republicans. How can "all of the above" not be the best policy for the United States? Drill, make big windmill farms, build nuclear reactors, invest in "real" biofuels (this means, stop giving corn biofuel subsidies - corn has a net-zero, or worse - carbon reduction because of the high energy wasted to produce ethanol from it), hydroelectric (has the Mississippi been tapped?) and natural gas.

4) America deserves better! I absolutely agree...which is why I will be voting for McCain-Palin, and not Obama-Biden. I'm sick of old ideas repackaged into new-sounding trial runs. I know when government largesse runs amuck I am losing money...