MizGoofus's Blog

It's amazing that I haven't heard a lot more about Michael Nifong, the prosecutor who got fired, disbarred, and sued over misconduct in the case he brought against the LaCrosse players at Duke University.  Remember him?  He managed to stir up a lot of racial animosity and ill will as the accuser was a black woman and all the players were white.  Another woman was there when the alleged rape took place and she denied it happened, but Nifong ducked his head and blasted away full speed to gain the publicity for his political run.  What he gained was not publicity, but notoriety.  It is amazing that he was in the news so much re this case, but when a judge threw it out, we hear nothing more about Nifong.

Had you heard that he filed bankruptcy Jan 15, 2008?  Do you see much about it whatever news you read or watch?  He lists debts of $180,300,000.00 and assets of under $300,000.00.  Most of that debt is in the form of judgments against him from lawsuits those young men he had charged with rape.

Don't know about you folks, but it seemed obvious from the beginning that this gal was lying.  She even told different stories about the "rape" and her girlfriend denied it happened.  The press sure smothered those young men with horrid comments for weeks, but now that all is well, nothing from the press.  It's as though the press has sworn not to report vindications as loudly and long as they do accusations.  What the heck is going on in this country?!?!  I hope those young men get every one of the $30,000,000.00 each sued for and were awarded!  If you'd like to read more about this go to:  http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601079&sid=aC
Zsc7aJFP5k&refer=home

I'm sure you've heard the thousands of commercials played about the show Ted Koppel plans to do about overcrowded prisons and trouble in the air.  I've heard them enough that they now make me nauseaus.

Well, don't blame the public if the prisons are overcrowded.  If idiots didn't commit crimes, there would be no overcrowding.  If people who have been sentenced to the death penalty were actually put to death in a reasonable time frame, our prisons would be less crowded.  If laws were actually thought out well before willy-nilly passage, we'd probably have less crowded prisons.  If we weren't so politically correct, we'd have fewer people in prison.  All that said, in my opinion, it comes down to "so what?"  I couldn't care less if there "is no privacy".  I for one think crimes against persons should be housed like Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona houses them - in tents in the desert, wearing pink bloomers, and eating food not of the finest.  These people have earned nothing, and they have cost the rest of us a bundle.  They are abscesses of humanity and deserve exceedingly few things. If they were housed in tents behind barbed wire, our solid prisons wouldn't be so overcrowded.

Don't know about you, but my TV is a pretty good one and I don't want to break it by throwing something at it, so I won't be watching it Koppel's show.  It sounds so 'yesterday'.  If there is anything of substance about it, someone please let me know about it - heck, I may even write a retraction.

I read a blog this morning that set me thinking about something else and I can't get it out of my mind.

I would love to know how you define well-off.  Do you see yourself as poor, O.K., well-off, wealth, etc.? And why do you see yourself that way?

Me?  I am a retired widow who receives an annuity from my husband's pension.  In order for me to receive that annuity, he  authorized deductions from his retirement pay.  My annuity by some standards would seem pitifully low, by some it would be a king's ransom.  I can't go out nilly-willy and buy everything that suits my eye, I can't afford to have expensive elective surgeries (such as face lifts).  I live in a house that is 50 years old, and it wasn't really well built from the start.  I have no formal clothing, I do not go to the beauty shop regularly, I never attend concerts or movies, I don't drink or smoke, and I do minimal traveling.  My home is paid for and comfortable and I have a decent car, and so far I am able to pay for the gas to make it go.  I have no outstanding debts.  My health is pretty good.  I have no complaints.  When I choose to, I eat out.  When I need a new appliance, I can buy it outright.  Sure sounds boring, doesn't it?  It may surprise some of you to know that I am supremely happy and content.  I have hobbies, great friends, and as active a life as I want.  I am a wealthy, wealthy person.

Would I feel this way if I just "had to have a new house"?  Would I feel this way if I were jealous of what others have?  Would I feel this way if I had no respect for myself?  Do I feel inferior to others?  Nope.  Do I feel superior to others?  No, I don't, but that isn't to say that I am not selective of people I will be in close proximity to at all times. (that's another topic for another time).

I'd love to hear how you see yourself.

Exactly what is it that the American public wants, who can provide it, who will pay for it, and why does the public want it?

I realize I may be very different from many in that I tend to blame politics, if not politicians for most of the problems in this country though I fully realize politics is not the sole reason for unrest.  Since I openly say I blame politics, I'd like to stress that I am trying as hard as I can to post a blog that is biased against no party or party affiliation.  People and philosophies may be mentioned, but not parties.  The reason for this is that for me it is a serious subject that I hope all will read, and I don't want any substance in it to be blown off by complaints by the paranoid section of bloggers.

Some people just want to be left alone, not bothered, not interfered with, not burdened.  In and of itself, there's nothing wrong with that - if in their isolation they stay informed about the world around them.  If they do not stay informed, they are not doing their duty as good citizens, and because of that, they are harming the rest of us.

Then there are those people who want "my way or the highway".  The problem with this type is that their way is sometimes the wrong way, and in addition it stifles serious thought.  Make no mistake about my meaning - I believe people should stand their ground on moral and religious issues.  I don't believe people should bend to political correctness in any form whatsoever. To bend to PC is weakness, it is an admission that one is scared of the consequences of not being politically correct.

Then there are people who just talk the party line.  I think far too many people fall into this category.  That's fine if the party line is correct.  That's unforgiveable if the party line is incorrect.  These people usually believe in the things their party supposedly believes in.  What people who do not stay informed don't seem to know is that party line is sometimes wrong, sometimes deliberately so.  We, as individuals, need to do our own research, make up our own minds, tell the parties to take a leap, and vote for what we truly and honestly believe is right.  So, O.K., where do we research?  That's a tough one as so many TV news programs, especially national syndicates, and so many newspapers print more opinion than news in the news section.  I believe one has to go to many sources in their research.  Read differing opinions than make a rational decision from your own brain.

Next we have the people who are just mad about something they can do nothing about - it might even be their love life - but they can vent about politics and people love them for it.  It may be satisfying, but adds nothing to solutions we probably all want.  It is hard to respond to irrationality in a reasonable tone.  Anger makes others want to strike back.  There is far too much anger going on in politics of today - it has become malignant - grows unreasonably.  Anger should be dealt with as it eventually leads to hatred, and I think that is a large part of America's problems today.  Most people who are angry about the war aren't really angry about the war - they are angry at President Bush, or they are angry at one of the parties, etc., etc.  I can't prove this, but I'll bet I'm right.

Then there are problem solvers.  These people try to assess what the problems are, then how to deal with the problems.  This requires some intense thinking, an open mind (not so open that your brains spill out, but open somewhat) so that a good idea can be grasped and held onto rather than discarded in the waste bin.  Our politicians are not going to solve our problems, folks.  It's going to take us, you, me, all of us who care to get this nation back on track.  Politicians can't solve the problems primarily because they have created many of them, and their interest is in the next vote, the next election, and they don't live in the same world as the rest of us do.  It will mean we need to be able to converse civally.  Are we, the public, up to the task, or do we just roll over and play dead until we actually are?  Or perhaps we don't really care at all?

 

People say they are sick and tired of business as usual in Washington DC and want "change" - to use a much over-used word that in itself is meaningless.  What I never read is what specific changes Americans want.  In news stories the implication is always without fail that Americans are sick and tired of President Bush's policies, sick and tired of "President Bush's war", sick and tired of "this administration's management of foreign affairs, homeland security, FEMA, etc. ad nauseum.

I can't speak for everyone, but I can speak for me.  I, too want change in Washington DC.  I think it is the cesspool of America.  I think it's a dirty, nasty little place (Sodom comes to mind) with an ego far, far too big.

Let me tell you the things I want changed.

I want to see a Senate that has at least an idea what is in our Constitution.  I want to see the Senate do the job they were sent to DC to do - and I don't mean "bring home the pork".  I want to see either decent legislation or NO legislation at all.  I want to see serious legislators, not those with quick little schemes to make the evening news and win raves from the me, me, mes.  Tell me, folks, do you consider a legislator serious who decries big salaies of corporate America after he has lined his pockets with gold by chasing after ambulances and succeeded in driving our insurance rates sky high.  This is John Edwards(D)  Is a legislator serious who drives into a river, manages to get out of the car and to dry land and leaves his girl friend in the car, goes home to get legal help and some 8 hours later reports the incident to the police - and never really has to answer for his crime.  Could you get away with this without serious questioning?  You bet your sweet a__ you couldn't.  Then why should Edward Kennedy(D)?  Is a Senator a serious legislator when he leaks classified information to the media during times of conflict?  Could you get away with this?  NO, you could not!  So why does Patrick Leahy(D) get off without even a hand slap?

Classified documents - could you steal them by stuffing them in your bloomers and socks, lose some of them, deliberately destroy some of them, get caught - then suffer only a teeny monetary fine and loss of privileges to be in the nationa archives until President Bush is out of office?  Ask Robert Hansen about it.  He'll tell you that Sandy Berger (D) got off practically scott free.  Sandy isn't a congressman, but works for Hillary and worked for Bill during his administration.  Would I expect to lie, lie, lie again while under oath, then obfuscate a bit before I went back to lie, lie, lies interspersed with saying "I don't remember, I don't recall, I'm not sure" and get out of it all without any punishment.  I WOULD NOT!  Hillary(D) and Bill(D) both did - for those who are not familiar with politics, Bill was our former President and Hillary was his lovely wife. and made him happy while he chatted on the phone with his Secretary  of Defense.  (I'm not trying to insult anyone.  I know people who don't have a clue about any of these people).  Oh, and did I say both Bill and Hillary are Democrats.  Neither of them has spent even a night in jail yet, and probably never will.  The media loves them.

Would I get away with stealing one-third of your income?  I don't think so.  But Washington DC does and liberals love it.  It is stolen from my pocket so it can buy votes for legislators.  The votes are most often purchased via pork barrell projects that senators "bring home" to their flock.  Now, folks, I don't have a lot of money and what little I have I'd rather use to re-do my 50 year old house than pay for a bridge in Alaska that comes from and goes to NOWHERE.

And our Department of Justice may as well be abandoned as it has succeeded in abandoning all pretense of distributing justice.  Why hasn't the Justice Department taken care of our illegal alien problem?  They have had the wherewithal to do so for decades and decades.  I place the blame squarely on Justice Dept. for our current alien invasion.  Why do illegal aliens have more rights than I do?  And why can new immigrants get inexpensive government loans and I cannot? Why aren't politicians who commit treason treated the same way other traitors treated?  Why aren't thieves who happen to be congressmen arrested as you and I would be?  Well, they aren't, you see, because almost all Senators are lawyers, all judges are lawyers, and they hang together to prevent being hanged separately.  There are so many horrible things about our government in DC that I can't even name them all, but precious few have to do with President Bush or the war on terror.  I have said many, many times that the U.S. Senate is the worst enemy the U.S. has and I'll stick with that assessmet - they've done nothing to make me feel differently.  

Yep, I'm ready for change.  I want to toss every politician out and start over.  I want to tell them to act like reasonable intelligent adults instead of like petulant pre-teens.  I want to tell them to get out of the nanny state mentality and start doing their jobs.  I want to see political reporters study honesty and see if they can manage to do honest reporting.  I want to tell politicians and judges to return to the U.S. Constitution, and I would remind them that by behaving in such irresponsible ways as we've been seeing, they are paving the road to anarchy, and if it should come to pass, I only hope the public has the good sense to be angry at the proper parties.

I wish that part of the registration/bio for these blogs required some information that could give us a clue as to where that person may be coming from.  Now wait a minute.  I know what some of you are thinking - that I want to weed out those less educated, those who are children, those who don't have a nifty high-paying job.  NOT SO!  The reason I'd like to see such is so I know to whom I am talking.  Does it really matter?  I think it does.  We have one or two children that blog here, and I for one don't feel comfortable arguing with a child, and I don't tolerate anyone who is nasty, discourteous, crude, and snide, and especially if that potty mouth is a child. I love a good argument, but only with sane people, and the way some people here talk, I do in fact question their sanity.  I don't want to argue with an insane person as something said could cause him to go ballistic, and I don't want that to happen.  I also don't want to argue with a drunk, a murderer, or a non-thinker.  There are some wonderful posters here, people who could actually get something done for this bleeding country, but it's hard to have a serious discussion with all sorts jumping into the fray and dragging the debate down to infantile level.  Am I alone in this thinking?  I'm not trying to stop people from voicing their opinion, just that when they do I have an idea where they're coming from.

From Bloomberg.com news today:

"Dec. 14 (Bloomberg) -- Senator Edward M. Kennedy raised the possibility it may take a special prosecutor to get to the bottom of who was behind the CIA's destruction of videotaped interrogations of suspected terrorists. "

I have a few questions:

What will it take to get to the bottom of Mary Jo Kopekne's death?  The newsies don't spend much time on that - never did.  Since Kennedy has the gall to even suggest a special prosecutor to try to hang someone doing the necessary work, is beneath contemptable.  No one should give him the time of day, not to mention tapes!

How can Edward Kennedy, the biggest sleaze-bag in Congress have the gall to call for a special prosecutor on interrogations of terrorists?  He, himself, is a long-standing member of the biggest terror organization I have ever known:  The U.S. Congress!

How smart does even a Senator have to be to know why no tapes should be turned over to the Congress by the CIA or the FBI?  There are one or two really good reasons NOT to give Congress anything politely:  the heretofore secret info would have been leaked to the press within seconds of Congress receiving it, probably by old Leaky Leahy; it is not Congress' job to investigate the CIA or FBI.  If they'd get off their fat rumps, shut up for a minute or two, and do what they're sent to DC to do, that'd be great.  But they don't!  Instead they just try to mess up all the other kids toys!  What will it take to get to the bottom of the morass that we civilized people call the U.S. Congress?!  Could Senator Kennedy from the "great" state of Massachusettes tell us?

I lifted this post from lucianne.com - it's an excerpt from Investor's Business Daily - I think it's hilarious!  These global warming doom-sayers want it every which way but gone!  lol ~


Chilled By The Heat


Investor's Business Daily, by staff   Original Article





Climate Change: The Midwest is frozen stiff, but global warming alarmists won't cool off. Not bound by clear thinking, they can aver that blistering hot and bitter cold are both caused by man burning fossil fuels. If the zealots are right, global warming is the cause of just about any earthly ill or phenomenon. Hotter weather? It's caused by global warming. Colder weather? Global warming again. More rain? Global warming. Drought? Global warming.

Please, someone assure me the entire planet hasn't gone completely crazy!  The excerpt that follows was originated in Australia, and posted on www.lucianne.com.  This is something our democrats won't be able to pass up.  Excerpt:

Baby tax needed to save planet, claims expert news.com.au, by Jen Kelly   Original Article Posted By: smokehouse - 12/10/2007 7:48:03 AM    Post Reply A WEST Australian medical expert wants families to pay a $5000-plus "baby levy" at birth and an annual carbon tax of up to $800 a child. Writing in today's Medical Journal of Australia, Associate Professor Barry Walters said every couple with more than two children should be taxed to pay for enough trees to offset the carbon emissions generated over each child's lifetime.

Excerpt from the S.F. Chronicle When big government goes bad

Debra J. Saunders

Sunday, December 9, 2007

"It does seem to me like the government overreacted here," Judge E. Grady Jolly of the federal 5th Circuit Court of Appeals remarked Monday according to the Associated Press. Grady is on a three-judge panel considering an appeal filed by two Border Patrol agents serving 11-year and 12-year sentences for shooting at and wounding a drug smuggler fleeing across the border. The trial judge's decision to bar questions exploring the smuggler's other dealings, Judge Patrick Higginbotham opined, "strikes me as relevant."

No lie.

Finally, a ray of hope for Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean.

(end excerpt)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Just maybe Ramos and Compean will be home for Christmas.  The article states that if the appeal goes through, the men either go free or the government must re-try them.  Hopefully at this time President Bush will issue a pardon.  I don't know all the particulars, but on the face of it these men were railroaded and received nothing I could call justice in my wildest dreams.  C'mon, President Bush.  Pardon, PARDON, PARDON these men.  They are owed release.

When I got this in my email this morning, I just couldn't wait to share it with all of you, though you may have already seen it.  It describes so much better than I ever could the importance of what America is doing and becoming.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You Ain't Gonna Like Losing

(Author Unknown)

Face it.  Everyone is in denial.  Our present course is gonna take us straight down the toilet the same as with all of the old Great Nations in History. We'll wise up just before we get to the great falls, but too late then. The rowers can ship their oars and let the current do the rest.

 You Ain't Gonna Like Losing,  President Bush did make a bad mistake in the war on terrorism. But the mistake was not his decision to go to war in Iraq .

Bush's mistake came in his belief that this country is the same one his father fought for in WWII.  It is not.

Back then, they had just come out of a vicious depression.  The country was steeled by the hardship of that depression, but they still believed fervently in this country.  They knew that the people had elected their leaders, so it was the people's duty to back those leaders.

Therefore, when the war broke out the people came together, rallied behind, and stuck with their leaders,whether they had voted for them or not or whether the war was going badly or not.

And war was just as distasteful and the anguish just as great then as it is today.  Often there were more casualties in one day in WWII than we have had in the entire Iraq war.  But that did not matter.  The people stuck with the President because it was their patriotic duty.  Americans put aside their differences in WWII and worked together to win that war.

Everyone from every strata of society, from young to old pitched in.  Small children pulled little wagons around to gather scrap metal for the war effort.  Grade school students saved their pennies to buy stamps for war bonds to help the effort.

Men who were too old or medically 4F lied about their age or condition trying their best to join the military.  Women doubled their work to keep things going at home.  Harsh rationing of everything from gasoline to soap, to butter was imposed, yet there was very little complaining.

You never heard prominent people on the radio belittling the President.  Interestingly enough in those days there were no fat cat actors and entertainers who ran off to visit and fawn over dictators of hostile countries and complain to them about our President.  Instead, they made upbeat films and entertained our troops to help the troops' morale.  And a bunch even enlisted.

And imagine this: Teachers in schools actually started the day off with a Pledge of Allegiance, and with prayers for our country and our troops!

Back then, no newspaper would have dared point out certain weak spots in our cities where bombs could be set off to cause the maximum damage.  No newspaper would have dared complain about what we were doing to catch spies.

A newspaper would have been laughed out of existence if it had complained that German or Japanese soldiers were being "tortured" by being forced to wear women's underwear, or subjected to interrogation by a woman, or being scared by a dog or did not have air conditioning.

There were a lot of things different back then.  We were not subjected to a constant bombardment of pornography, perversion and promiscuity in movies or on radio.  We did not have legions of crackheads, dope pushers and armed gangs roaming our streets.

No, President Bush did not make a mistake in his handling of terrorism.  He made the mistake of believing that we still had the courage and fortitude of our fathers.  He believed that this was still the country that our fathers fought so dearly to preserve.

It is not the same country.  It is now a cross between Sodom and Gomorra and the land of Oz.  We did unite for a short while after 911, but our attitude changed when we found out that defending our country would require some sacrifices.

We are in great danger.  The terrorists are fanatic Muslims.  They believe that it is okay, even their duty, to kill anyone who will not convert to Islam.  It has been estimated that about one third or over three hundred million Muslims are sympathetic to the terrorists cause...Hitler and Tojo combined did not have nearly that many potential recruits.

So...we either win it - or lose it - and you ain't gonna like losing.  America is not at war.  The military is at war.  America is at the mall.

According to the Alliance Defense Fund which fights the ACLU's runaway agenda, homosexual indoctrination accelerates in high school, where normal, healthy heterosexual students receive subtle - and not to subtle - suggestions that they may actually be "homosexual".  A GLSEN (gay lesbian and straight education network) questionnaire asks:

What do you think caused your heterosexuality?

Is it possible heterosexuality is a phase you will grow out of?

If you have never slept with someone of the same sex, how do you know you wouldn't prefer that?  Is it possible you merely need a good gay experience?

 

A health textbook for high school freshmen in Massachusetts goes even farther:

"Testing your ability to function sexually and give pleasure to another person may be less threatening in your early teens with people of your own sex .... You may come to the conclusion that growing up means rejecting the values of your parents."

Did you know your tax dollars were being spent this way?  Do you care?  Personally it makes me mad as hell!

I received a flyer from the Alliance Defenxe Fund, the topic being the homosexual agenda, "Taking Away Parents' Rights".  I do not condone homosexual behavior, neither do I condemn it per se, but I strenuously object to the ACLU's agenda of having it ENCOURAGED in our public elementary schools! 

***

Excerpted from the flyer:

The ACLU efforts are bolstered by allies like the National Education Association, the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network.  Some elementary schools now present:

A lesson plan and school assembly for children as young as 7, titled "Cootie Shots" which depicts a young boy in his mother's high heels, declaring he will behead anyone who laughs when he is "queen."

Mandatory "diversity" assemblies that often include presentations by advocates of homosexual behavior and even clergy, who claim that the Bible strongly supports same-sex relationships.

"Family life education" and "respecting differences" workshops, which include having children participate in role play depicting same-sex families. 

More later~

Our elected officials are terrified of real change.  We have the greatest country in the world, but there are some things within the government that could use a tweak or two, things I doubt will ever happen.

I suggest something along these lines.  Toss out IRS.  Make states responsible for their own needs.  Determine what is needed by the federal government to function, not to squander.  Determine what each state needs to function.  Each state would determine how much it had to collect in taxes, in whatever form their citizens would sit still for.  The federal government would get a percentage of the state's collected taxes.  The state would collect from its citizens then send the federal gov's share to DC.  The federal government would handle no grants, no pork, no catering to special interests, no "holding up" necessary spending, no caterwallering in the halls of Congress.  The full Senate and the full House of Reresentatives would meet for one month every three months to pass necessary bills.  Absences would not be acceptable.  All campaigning would be done during their time not in session.  Both houses would act as a government, not as two parties.  Everybody gets term-limits.  No federal elected official would receive retirement benefits nor retirement pay.  The federal government would be responsible ONLY for protection of our citizens, such as military, Border Patrol, FBI, CIA, communication, etc.  My etc. does NOT include any money for environmental issues, civil rights issues, smoking issues, drinking issues, drug use issues, sexual issues, other behavioral issues, health issues (except in cases that may include terrorist activities).  These are all things each state would decide whether or not to meddle in). No elected official would have tax dollars to fund more than 3 assistants such as secretaries, etc.  Other necessary people to help the elected officials would be pooled - helping John Doe today, helping Joe Blow the next day, and the size of that pool should be severely limited.  The Supreme Court Justices would not sit until death do us part, and may or may not receive retirement benefits, but not unless sitting for more than x number of years.

This is a really, really rough draft of what I'd like to see in an overhaul of the federal government.  It would put the states back in control of their own destinies, it would cut out federal level pork, it would save billions of dollars, it would put some fresh thinking in Washington and remove some of the criminal element from the Senate, and it would take some of the hot air out of those bullies in the US Senate.  It would be wildly unpopular amongst the electeds - which tells me it could be a great first step.  What do you think?

From today's Washington Times by Donald Lambro:

DEMOCRATS PARTY OF RICH (excerpt)

"Democrats like to define themselves as the party of poor and middle-income Americans, but a new study says they now represent the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional districts. In a state-by-state, district-by-district comparison of wealth concentrations based on Internal Revenue Service income data, Michael Franc, vice president of government relations at the Heritage Foundation, found that the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional jurisdictions were represented by Democrats."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I cannot imagine why this would surprise anyone.  The only wealthy people in the Republican Party are a few business owners, a few CE-Os, a few landowners, and that's about it.  Most jet-setters are Democrats.  Most performers are Democrats.  Most "old" money is in the hands of Democrats.  It's not difficult to understand:  Wealthy people really have no dog in the fight re social programs.  They will still be well-off after much is taken from them for social programs.  We who are not so financially secure will be bitten deeply to pay for more and more social programs that we do not need.

It's amazing that for so many years Democrats have gotten away with beating the Republicans over the head for being the un-caring WEALTHY.  How does this strike you?