Monday, August 31, 2009

Founders' vision of religous freedom...

I remember watching a part of The Contender where the Vice Presidential appointee insisted that the Founders' intended for a "Wall of separation of church and state" to prevent the government from being taken over by "religious" "fanaticism" and my brain popped open at that moment.

I mean, the American government being taken over by Christian fanatics is a bad thing and I say that without sarcasm or irony intended.

Yet the historical inaccuracy given to empty-headed trusting American movie-goers just fills me with blind rage and astonishment.

My point is that there is a book about God, religion, and the American founders that some day I wish... to own it. From Potemra:
Muñoz himself articulates a view... a system he summarizes as “no legal privileges, no legal penalties”: The state would be allowed to acknowledge religion in symbolic fashion, but not in such a way as to “affect individuals’ rights.”

Jim DeMint and the Public Option

Jim DeMint takes on and takes out the notion of "the public option" in terms of American health care, tackling the then-still-living Senator Kennedy's poorly-conceived ill-thought notion that public health-care, or an individual's health is "in the public interest".
Kennedy says the best way to guarantee universal access to quality care is “by giving Americans the option of enrolling in a public health-insurance plan, where coverage is provided in the public interest” (emphasis added). There’s only one problem: Health care isn’t public; it’s personal and private. It can’t be provided in the public interest for the simple reason that no doctor has ever cared for “the public.” Doctors care for patients. And health care, under any recognizable definition, can be provided only in the patient’s interest.
So for the government the definition between the individual and the collective in regards to rights and benefits as well as detriments and denials may well be blurred.

Never mind that I have never adequately explored my view of how private health care as a system of intersecting businesses with customers, patients, and a service industry... I'll do that later. Essentially though "government health care" or "universal health care" involves to some degree the United States government taking over something that already exists, and involving themselves in a sector of life where various individuals' already have established interests.

Unamerican United States versus Honduras

The Hondurans did not engage in a military coup, rather its military acted to prevent a coup by then-sitting-President Manuel Zelaya who attempted to eliminate term limits, violate the Honduran constitution, and stay in power. The U.S. State Department, or its staff, in turn, has
recommended that the ouster of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya be declared a "military coup," a U.S. official said on Thursday, a step that could cut off as much as $150 million in U.S. funding to the impoverished Central American nation... Washington has already suspended about $18 million aid to Honduras following the June 28 coup and this would be formally cut if the determination is made because of a U.S. law barring aid "to the government of any country whose duly elected head of government is deposed by military coup or decree."
I think our own government officials need a civics lesson as to what "duly elected" means. Anyway so far in this episode of world history President Obama has taken the side of the anti-constitutional Honduran President and not the innocent Hondurans. So we as a nation stands in the way of freedom.

I can see where this is going.

Ted Kennedy versus Ronald Reagan

I claimed earlier, reinforced by the opinions of others, that senator Edward J. Kennedy would let an innocent die for the benefit of his career and goals but it is a far cry to say that he would betray this nation's interests and undercut the American President against the Soviets, that he would help the Soviet Union in order to undercut President Ronald Reagan to increase his own political capital.

I make the far cry.

Senator Kennedy attempted to work with the Soviets (in 1983) in order to undercut President Reagan to put himself into a position to challenge the Great Communicator for the American Presidency (in 1984). I do not know how he intended for this to work.

Perhaps I should simply call the post "Ted Kennedy versus the United Stats of America" or "Democrat Team-Up starring Ted Kennedy and Our Nation's Enemies!"
  • In any case where Ronald Reagan attempt to build up deterrents against Soviet nuclear proliferation Ted Kennedy sought to undercut these attempts, to help Soviet nuclear proliferation. Sweetness and Light presents the KGB letter detailing the Senator's request to the Soviets. There is no reason for the Soviet's legbreaking security bureau to lie about this matter in an internal memo. It was released in 1992.
  • Neal Boortz details how Senator Kennedy offered himself "as a PR agent to the head of the Soviet Union" on his radio show and draws out a narrative regarding his buddy John Tunney meeting with the Soviets. On the radio show (today) he emphasizes how Ted Kennedy "is not a traitor" and does not fit the proper definition of treasonous, although Jane Fonda definitely does. His blog post emphasizes how ted Kennedy did his jolly best to work against the country in exchange for his own benefits.
  • What would Kennedy get in return? The memo makes vague references to the Soviets helping him challenge Reagan in the 1984 elections.

    I guess we'll never learn what type of help Kennedy was seeking from the Soviets; and that would be because Andropov went Tango Uniform about 8 months late... and the Democrats didn't seem all that interested in running Kennedy anyway.

    Quite a guy, our Uncle Ted. Offering to help our enemy, the Soviet Union, gain a propaganda edge in the United States ... all to boost his own chances to become president.
    The Talkmaster's ultimate point is that while the American media lauds Senator Kennedy as the "Liberal Lion" and a champion for the interests of many Americans, he was often the opposite and "the media paid no attention... after all, the Liberal Lion had to be protected."
  • and Peter Robinson have more details. As it is now is the best time to not sweep this stuff under the carpet and now is the best time to analyze the stuff since people are so insistent on telling why this dead politician was so impacting and significant.
    Why bring all this up now? No evidence exists that Andropov ever acted on the memorandum--within eight months, the Soviet leader would be dead--and now that Kennedy himself has died even many of the former senator's opponents find themselves grieving. Yet precisely because Kennedy represented such a commanding figure--perhaps the most compelling liberal of our day--we need to consider his record in full.

    Doing so, it turns out, requires pondering a document in the archives of the politburo.

    When President Reagan chose to confront the Soviet Union, calling it the evil empire that it was, Sen. Edward Kennedy chose to offer aid and comfort to General Secretary Andropov.
    Yet I think Neal Boortz is correct in saying that Ted Kennedy was not a traitor.
  • Go chase Google
Now is the best time to speak ill of the dead not because I wish I have partisan viewpoints that I sit upon as a foundation that sees him as an evil creature. I think we glorify some and run over others after death, eulogizing them unfairly, in the media. Senator Kennedy's life is rife with examples of what not to do. Many forgive him for his weaknesses and failures because he was earnest in his actions; he believed that his policy choices, votes, acts of legislation, drive, was the right thing. It is best to treat individuals as individuals and even assuming that his Democrat Party policy platforms are the best thing for the country, his methods were not honorable at least more than once and he should not be lauded given that at the time the Soviet Union was our enemy.

The London Times exposed the letter in 1992 and published it. All my sources refer to it. Paul Kengor wrote a book that included this. Everyone else credited it too. By "everyone else" I of course am not referring to the American common media, that glazed over it out of simple favoritism, fanboyism, partisanship, and bias.

Robert Schindler died on August 28th

Terri Schiavo was dead for a long time and we did not know that her brain had liquefied until they destroyed her body's ability to house life. Defending her shell was a waste of time, money, energy, and burned the spiritual and physical health for her parents, including Robert Schindler. Her body-death was pushed by a selfish husband who had little use for her. In simple principle to be applied beyond the one individual, erring on the side of caution for individuals trapped in a "persistent vegetative state" could be the best way to save the lives of fully sentient, aware, living individuals trapped in a frozen, pseudo-comatose body-shell. Assuming that every individual whose condition resembles Terri Schiavo's condition actually is another case of a "persistent vegetative state" or is a brain-dead individual is a tragic act and ultimately inevitably leads to living people being neglected, mistreated, and tortured. Starving and dehydating an individual is a great way to make that person suffer and it is good that Terri Schiavo was already dead for some time while her body was being willfully dessicated. If she was still alive when that process was started her death would have been excruciatingly painful and her suffering unto death would have been immense. Acting out of guesswork could have been incredibly cruel and monstrous for a husband, lawyers, and doctors. Good thing they were right.

As inaccurate as he was, Robert Schindler witnessed his daughter's body-shell ravaging and entrenched in his vain hope that his daughter was alive under all that flesh and blood
His health was broken by the ordeal of trying to save his daughter’s life and he never fully recovered from the horror of watching her dehydrate to death.
He died August 28th, 2009 of "heart failure", rather a broker heart. Wesley Smith, who writes about this, is something of a bioethics specialist.

Did Ted Kennedy kill an innocent for his own prosperity?

  • Melissa Lafsky declares Mary Jo Kopechne and her life, as well as its end at the hands of Ted Kennedy, to be of minuscule importance compared to Ted Kennedy, in fact it is only a "footnote"; to that end she declares that it is a good thing that Miss Kopechne died, that her death is a beneficial driving force for Senator Kennedy's life and career and that ultimately in regards to what Mary Jo Kopechne might think about it that "maybe she'd feel it was worth it". I wonder what the Kopechne clan would think of Miss Lafsky. Is she a disgusting human being, leftist or no?
  • Shawn Macomber of the American Spectator blog thinks that Melissa Lafsky is "demented" and places himself in the role of sacrificial lamb for the sake of role-playing.
    I know my personal dream has always been to be martyred for the sake of increasing the political power of a braying narcissist who somehow found a way to jeopardize his seat on the nepotism gravy train. That's cool right? What more can the little people hope for, really, than to play a small part in the Great Man drama around them?
    I made this point on Facebook a few days ago that Ted Kennedy killed a woman for an even more unholy reason than most dictators kill. Stalin and Hitler killed for respective causes in their -isms. Ted Kennedy's -ism was narcissism. I am not comparing the Massachusetts Senator to the dictators but I am saying that he had a reason to leave a woman trapped in a car he crashed and that reason had nothing to do with a quasi-common political ethos.
  • Slightly unrelated to the above, Ted Kennedy was aware of his weaknesses and flaws and thus reveled in self-deprecation for several reasons. Mike Potemra briefly eulogizes in the Christian fashion that I am obligated to repeat in words and spirit.

President Obama hurts friends to play nice with enemies, all with missiles

President Barack Obama uses missiles, dedicated defensive technology, as political symbols of reconciliation with distant foreign powers rather recognizing them as instruments of practicality in the hands of needful allies. He would trade the practical realities (and political commitments) for invisible abstract static that is untenable and not useful. This constitutes broken promises.

Strategically speaking the missile defense of European NATO allies has little impact militarily for the United States' forces and our foreign policy leans towards increasing friendly relationship with the increasingly malevolent Russia. This foreign policy is literally irrespective of the needs, desires, and best interests of our genuine military allies in NATO, the ones that would be most at the mercy of Russia if the larger military power becomes expansionist.

What our President seeks to remove in order to placate his own friends is not a sytem designed for the United States to attack Russia but something for the true allies of the United States (who are not President Obama's friends) to defend themselves.
the Obama administration is going to scrap the "third site" anti-missile system scheduled to be deployed in Poland and the Czech Republic. Missile interceptors in Poland and a radar station in the Czech Republic were scheduled to be deployed by 2013. Now the plan appears to have been shot down.
Also as the Washington Times points out, this disgusting move to make nice with our not-yet-friends in the Russian government (and look more "peaceful" and "respectful" on the so-called world stage and various old world American media outlets) leaves Eastern Europe at the mercy of Iranian weapons, which is pretty ironic considering how little use people in Warsaw and Prague likely have for world opinion and American newspapers.

speaking ill of a dead Kennedy because he makde light of killing someone

During an interview on the Diane Rehm Show in the wake of Senator Ted Kennedy, his old friend and political ally (Newsweek editor) Ed Klein waxes nostalgic.

Essentially Mr. Klein either stepped in it, knew it, and desperately attempted to backtrack, or he really thinks that revisiting the preventable horrific innocent death of Mary Jo Kopechne in such a manner is a virtue. Mark Hemingway of National Review Online takes a much more serious view.
EXCUSE ME? If that's true, it makes Kennedy kind of a monster. The odd thing is that if you listen to the whole show, the tone of everyone involved is nauseatingly hagiographic and reverential. Klein apparently let his guard down a bit; after he lets it slip Kennedy liked to joke about the woman he killed you can actually hear in his voice that he's trying to backpedal. The show actually cuts to a break as he's trying to explain himself, and I seriously wonder if it wasn't the producers trying to do Klein a favor. But I'm sorry, there appears to be little to that could explain this. It goes way beyond "you had to be there."
Whether or not even joking about the Chappaquiddick incident in general is in question taste or not it is certainly beyond a mere vulgarity to joke about the time you tore someone's life from this mortal coil.

I subscribe to that double standard. I do not feel bad about

Thursday, August 27, 2009

Monday, August 24, 2009

I'm sure this will be useless

If these people really had job openings they wouldn't wait until after September 17th to fill them!

Employers to Recruit at 2009 Fall Job Expo

Auto-Owners Insurance Company
Capital Area Michigan Works!
Career Quest
Cornerstone University
DELEG Michigan Rehabilitation Services
Dimondale Nursing Center
Fox 47 WSYM TV
G C Services
International Trucking School
Lansing Community College--Aviation
Lansing State Journal
Mid Michigan Radio Group;;;
Modern Woodmen of America
Peckham, Inc.
Quality Dairy Company
Speedway SuperAmerica LLC
Sircon, a Vertafore Business
Spring Arbor University
U. S. Army Recruiting
University of Phoenix
Veteran Services DELEG

The Fall Job Expo will be taking place on September 17, 2009 from 2:30-6:00 p.m. at the Lansing Center. If you're an employer interested in securing a booth at the Fall Job Expo, please contact Teri Sand at or 517.492.5516.

Last updated: 8/11/09

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Pac-Man isn't as simple you think it is

The Pac-Man Dossier

Morton Blackwell certainly was warm for Jesse Helms

The following is stolen from Morton Blackwell and his Leadership Institute.

Why Jesse Helm's is the Country's Favorite Conservative Senator
by Morton C. Blackwell
Jesse Helms Testimonial Dinner
May 24, 1994

Why has Sen. Jesse Helms for so long been our country's very favorite conservative senator? Why do we love him?

Let me count the reasons:

  1. In every word and deed, Sen. Helms embodies solid conservative principles. No one else in the Senate, no one at all, comes even close to his reputation for selfless, steadfast adherence to every tenet of our conservative philosophy. Name the issue, and I can tell you how he will vote. Name the issue. Free enterprise. Limited government. Strong national defense. Traditional values. Name the issue. Jesse Helms is predictable.

    That is why we admire and love him. And that is why he's the conservative liberals love to hate.

  2. Sen. Helms forces votes on issues the liberals don't want to vote on. Time and again, year in and year out, Sen. Helms has been the only conservative prepared to make the Senate vote on conservative issues where most politicians are on the opposite side from the American people. Think about all the liberal senators who have been defeated by more conservative challengers since 1972. It's a fact. Jesse Helms made every one of those liberals vulnerable. He gave them all voting records their challengers could run against. Jesse Helms makes democracy work.

    That is why we admire and love him. And that is why he's the conservative liberals love to hate.

  3. Sen. Helms is powerful because his word is good. In business, anyone with a good credit record finds it easier to get things done. In politics, anyone who keeps his word finds it easier to accomplish important things. Sen. Helms is trusted when he merely nods his head affirmatively. Too many other politicians can't be trusted, even before a notary public. No amount of pressure ever forces Sen. Helms to break his word.

    That is why we admire and love him. And that is why he's the conservative liberals love to hate.

  4. Sen. Helms is a great expert on the Senate rules. He uses those rules assiduously to protect conservative values. Just a hint from Sen. Helms about extended debate works wonders in the legislative process. I can tell you from my personal experience inside the Reagan Administration that a high percentage of the conservatives who won appointments in the State Department got their jobs because of Sen. Helms. Uncounted times, he held up the nominations of liberal pets until conservative appointees were cleared. He used his skill and clout as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee to inject conservatives into the resisting bureaucracy in Foggy Bottom. In fact, more than any other senator, Jesse Helms got conservatives policy jobs in all parts of the Reagan Administration.

    That is why we admire and love him. And that is why he's the conservative liberals love to hate.

  5. Sen. Helms is a great communicator. Yes, I know some media liberals say he talks as if he had a mouth half full of oatmeal. But he talks over their heads, directly to the American people, in language they understand. He moves people's hearts and minds. He speaks out for the permanent things the late Russell Kirk revered. Sen. Helms can tell a moving story and move a crowd to tears. He can inspire a crowd to patriotic fervor, even after they have been numbed by years of liberal propaganda.

    That is why we admire and love him. And that is why he's the conservative liberals love to hate.

  6. Sen. Helms has been instrumental twice in electing conservative colleagues to the Senate from North Carolina. In fact, Sen. Helms is generous with his time and efforts in behalf of conservative candidates all across America. If you're a solid conservative, he'll help you, without asking in return anything more than that you stay conservative if elected. In 1976, Sen. Helms breathed life into a dying Reagan presidential nomination effort, keeping that effort alive until the national convention and paving the way for the nomination and election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. And he helped President Reagan revitalize the American economy, strengthen our national defense and bring about external defeat of international communism and the internal collapse of the Soviet Empire.

    That is why we admire and love him. And that is why he's the conservative liberals love to hate.

  7. More than any other American politician, Sen. Helms helps grassroots conservative organizations get started. He serves on good advisory committees. He speaks at fundraising dinners. He signs fundraising letters. He recruits hundreds of thousands of new conservative activists. He defends conservative groups against attacks on the floor of the United States Senate. There would have been no conservative movement worthy of the name without Sen. Helms.

    That is why we admire and love him. And that is why he's the conservative liberals love to hate.

  8. Sen. Helms takes special interest in young conservatives. Some of us in this room knew him long before he was elected to the Senate. He spoke to us and inspired us at College Republican, Young Republican and Young Americans for Freedom meetings when we were young. He retains that focus today and gives special help to groups which today are training a new generation of conservative leaders.

    That is why we admire and love him. And that is why he's the conservative liberals love to hate.

  9. Sen. Helms is a modest man. He's immune to Potomac Fever and Statesmen's Disease. He's a living example of an exception to Stan Evans' Law that when our people get where they can do us some good they stop being our people. He lives simply. He can't be bought off by an invitation to a White House state dinner. He doesn't care if the liberal media attack him when he does the right thing.

    That is why we admire and love him. And that is why he's the conservative liberals love to hate.

  10. Finally, Sen. Helms is good for business for the nation's dentists and doctors. Liberals gnash their teeth to the gums as, election after election, Jesse Helms wins and wins and wins and wins. Dan Rather, Bryant Gumbel, Ted Kennedy and now Bill Clinton get such heartburn thinking about Sen. Helms that Maalox will do them no good. They have to go to their personal physicians for prescription medicine.

    That is why we admire and love him. And that is why he's the conservative liberals love to hate.

    In fact, of course, we love him far more than liberals hate him.

    And I'm sure, in their heart of hearts, the liberals do respect him. Jesse Helms would ask for nothing more.

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Chris Trampel has a blog

Someone remind me to add Chris Trampel's blog Nous Mon to my roll.

a swath of absences across talk radio today?

I cannot speak to the presence of Fred Thompson, Neal Boortz, Mark Levin, Hugh Hewitt, Dennis Miller, Paul W. Smith, or Michael Savage (among others) at this point in time, but almost every AM talk radio show host that I know of has vanished from delivery or his or her respective shows. Sadly Sean Hannity is an exception and remains on the air.

I am extremely disappointed that I missed all but one hour of Mark Steyn's excellent substitution for Rush Limbaugh today. Rush was gone for the entire day but I missed the first two hours, not knowing during those two hours that Mister Limbaugh was taping for a role in a Family Guy episode.

When I turned on The Glenn Beck Program this morning shortly before 10 AM I found a guest host and Laura Ingraham also had a host host for her program. I turned to Frank Beckmann of WJR and found a guest host for him as well. Mark Steyn filled in for Rush. Jerry Doyle simply aired a "Best of Jerry Doyle" rerun. I am confused. This quite large to be merely a coincidence but too disparate to be related.

Saturday, August 15, 2009

Dell Printer 720 driver for Windows Vista 64-bit

Go fetch. It is 36.9 MB in size.

It is called R149373.exe

Thanks very much for your post. I was ready to give up on my ol' Dell 720 because other drivers just weren't working. R149373.exe is exactly what I needed. Dell should hire you!

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Cost of Government Day

In 2009, Cost of Government Day falls on August 12. Working people must toil 224 days out of the year just to meet all costs imposed by government - a full 26 days longer than last year.

In other words, in 2009 the cost of government consumes 61.34 percent of national income.

Head over to Americans for Tax Reform's Cost of Government Day website for a full report and explanation of the day we're celebrating, mourning. To be fair the exact Cost of Government Day is different for every state, depending on respective state income taxes, property taxes, business taxes, payroll taxes, and other various fees that some states have and others lack.
Every year, the Americans for Tax Reform Foundation and the Center for Fiscal Accountability calculate Cost of Government Day. This is the day on which the average American has earned enough gross income to pay off his or her share of the spending and regulatory burdens imposed by government at the federal, state, and local levels.
Only after this point in time does a man's earnings (or a woman's earnings, as the case may be) can be dedicated wholly to whatever cause or goal, duty or obligation, as he wills it. For to not pay the country its due is to end up in prison. I say a man must pay taxes but I believe the state abuses the citizen.