Michelle Moquin's "A day in the life of…"

Creative Discussions, Inspiring Thoughts, Fun Adventures, Love & Laughter, Peaceful Travel, Hip Fashions, Cool People, Gastronomic Pleasures, Exotic Indulgences, Groovy Music, and more!

  • Hello!

    Welcome To My OUR Blog!


    Michelle Moquin's Facebook profile "Click here" to go to my FaceBook profile. Visit me!
  • Copyright Protected

    Protected by Copyscape Plagiarism Checker
  • Let Michelle Style YOU!

    I am a "Specialist in Styles" Personal Stylist. Check out my Style website to see how I can help you discover, define, and refine your unique style.
  • © Copyright 2008-2023

    All content on this site are property of Michelle Moquin © copyright 2008-2023. All material posted on my blog becomes the sole property of my blog. If you want to reserve any proprietary rights don't post it to my blog.
  • In Pursuit Of…

    Custom Search
  • Madaline Speaks

    For those of you interested in reading an Earthling Girl's Guide to a better Government, and a Greener world, check out the blog:
  • Contact Your Representatives and Senators Here!

    To send letters to your representatives about any issue of interest, Click here


    To send letters to your Senators about any issue of interest, Click here


    Get involved - Write your letters today!
  • On The Issues

    Don't be uninformed! Click here to see how every political leader on every issue voted.
  • Don’t Believe The Lies – Get The Facts

    FactCheck.org is a nonpartisan, nonprofit “consumer advocate” for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics. They monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews and news releases. Their goal is to apply the best practices of both journalism and scholarship, and to increase public knowledge and understanding.

    Click here to get the facts.

    Pulitzer Prize Winner Politifact.com is another trusted site to get the facts. Click here to get the facts.

  • Who’s Paying Who?

    On The Issues is a nonpartisan guide to money's influence on U.S. elections and public policy.
  • Blog Rules of Conduct

    Rule #1: "The aliens can not reveal anything about anyone’s life that would not be known without the use of our technology. The exception being that if a reader has a question about his or her health and the assistance of alien technology would be necessary to answer that question.”

    Rule #2: "Aliens will not threaten humans and Humans will not threaten aliens."

    Rule #3:

    Posting Comments:

    When posting a comment in regards to any past or archived article, please reference the title and date of the article and post your comment on the present day to keep the conversation contemporary.

    NOTE: You do not need to add your e-mail address when posting a comment. Your real name, an alias, a moniker, initials...whatever ...even simply "anonymous" is all you need to add in the fields in order to post a comment.

    Thank you.

  • *********

    Yellow Pages for San Francisco, CA
  • Meta

  • Looking For A Personal Stylist?

    Michelle has designed and styled for the stars! She can be your "Specialist in Styles" Personal Stylist too. Check out Michelle's style website
  • Recent Posts

  • Michelle’s E-mail:

    E-mail me! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  • Care To Twitter? Come Tweet Me!

  • Disclaimer: Adult Blog

    I DO NOT CENSOR COMMENTS POSTED TO THIS BLOG: Therefore this blog is not for the faint hearted, thin skinned, easily offended or the appointed people's moralist. If you feel that you may fit in any of those categories, please DO NOT read my blog or its comments. There are plenty of blogs that will fit your needs, find one. This warning also applies to those who post comments who would find it unpleasant or mentally injurious to receive an opposing opinion via a raw to vulgar delivery. I DO NOT censor comments posted here. If you post a comment, you are on notice that you may receive a comment in language or opinion that you will not approve of or that you feel is offensive. If that would bother you, DO NOT post on my blog.

    27Mar2011
  • Medical Disclaimer:

    I am not a doctor nor am I medically trained in any field. No one on this website is claiming to be a medical physician or claiming to be medically trained in any field. However, anyone can blog information about health articles, folk remedies, possible cures, possible treatments, etc that they have heard of on my blog. Please see your physician or a health care professional before heeding or using any medical information given on this blog. It is not intended to replace any medical advice given to you by your licensed medical professional. This blog is simply providing a medium for discussion on all matters concerning life. All opinions given are the sole responsibility of the person giving them. This blog does not make any claim to their truthfulness, honesty, or factuality because of their presence on my blog. Again, Please consult a health care professional before heeding any health information given here.

    27Mar2011
  • Legal Disclaimer:

    Michelle Moquin's "A Day In The Life Of..." publishes the opinions of expert authorities in many fields. But the use of these opinions is no substitute for legal, accounting, investment, medical and other professional services to suit your specific personal needs. Always consult a competent professional for answers to your specific questions.

    27Mar2011
  • Fair Use Notice Disclaimer

    This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance the understanding of humanity's problems and hopefully to help find solutions for those problems. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. A click on a hyperlink is a request for information. However, if you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from me. You can read more about "fair use' and US Copyright Law"at the"Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School." This notice was modified from a similar notice at "Common Dreams."

Wonderful Women of The World

Posted by Michelle Moquin on June 29th, 2016

Bookmark and Share

 

Good Morning!

Hi, Devin: Of course. I had a feeling this was your thing. Would love to hear more, so yes please.

Hi, Lin: I HOPE to as well. I don’t see it being a problem as long as we women stick together and make it happen. Speaking of making it happen…wow. You girlz really went for it, supported each other, rallied together, and succeeded in getting your first female leader. Amazing! So happy for you! I’m speechless. I hope the women here are reading and can get excited enough to do what you all did together. YOU are the inspiration. Thank you for all the wonderful wishes and support.

I can’t help but dedicate this write to you, the rest of the girlz, and all the readers who commented on this victory for women. It shows that when women succeed, things happen. Lots of wonderful things happen. Social Butterfly: I gave gratitude. Nice, Ruth, AF: I agree!

Wonderful Women of The World is usually a write reserved for Sundays, but you can bet this year I will be including them on any day that I please. Here’s a WWOTW Stephanie Toti featured in a write from the Huff Po:

This Lawyer’s First Supreme Court Case Just Decided The Fate Of Abortion Rights

56cde5b91500002a000b09c4

Stephanie Toti, 37, is arguing the biggest abortion case of the decade before the Supreme Court next week.

In February, The Huffington Post profiled Stephanie Toti as she was preparing to lead the oral arguments in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. On Monday, the Supreme Court handed Toti a victory in the case, striking down both Texas regulations that made it more difficult for clinics to provide abortions.

Read our original story about Toti below:

The night of Nov. 7, 2006, Stephanie Toti slept on the sidewalk in front of the Supreme Court.

It was pouring rain, but the Capitol Police would not let the 26-year-old and her colleagues pitch a tent. So they laid in sleeping bags on the concrete, miserable, huddled together. The next morning, they stood in line in their soaking-wet clothes, hoping to get seats for oral arguments in the most important abortion rights case of the last decade.

After camping in the rain all night, Toti and her co-workers — junior employees at the Center for Reproductive Rights, a legal advocacy group that defends abortion rights around the globe — managed to nab a few spots in the last row.

“Some of our colleagues who had tickets to the arguments came around in the morning and brought us suits so we could change our clothes after we got into the courthouse and be appropriately dressed,” Toti said. “I remember sitting in the back and thinking, ‘Wow, this courtroom is so big!’”

Toti’s side lost. In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the high court upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act — a federal law passed in 2003 that prohibited a specific kind of surgical abortion procedure.

Now, a decade later, Toti is preparing to argue her first Supreme Court case — the most significant abortion trial of this century. On March 2, she’ll take the lead in oral arguments on Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, a case that could determine whether women in Texas and across the country will have access to abortion services in their communities.

The case challenges the constitutionality of two Texas abortion restrictions passed in 2013 that were designed to shut down most of the clinics in the state. The decision will not only determine the fate of abortion access in Texas; it will also send a signal to other states about the appropriateness of similar laws.

Most litigators who argue big cases before the Supreme Court are white men who have done it before. An elite group of 66 lawyers — only eight of whom are women — argued nearly half of the cases before the high court from 2004 to 2012, according to a 2014 Reuters analysis of 17,000 attorneys. Some of those attorneys have argued dozens of cases before the court, and nearly half of them are graduates of Harvard or Yale law schools who clerked for Supreme Court justices after graduation. That narrow representation turns the court into what the Reuters investigators described as an “echo chamber.”

But in the most consequential abortion rights cases, the reproductive rights movement has repeatedly turned to relatively inexperienced women.

Sarah Weddington (WWOTW!)was 27 when she argued and won Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that legalized abortion throughout the United States. Weddington had no previous experience with the high court. “Because I hadn’t been able to get a job with a law firm, I didn’t have any real experience,” Weddington told Ms. Magazine last year. “I had done one adoption for my uncle, some divorces for people with no real assets to divide up, a couple of wills for people with very little money. I had not done Big Law.”

In 1992, reproductive rights advocates chose Kathryn Kolbert (WWOTW!to represent them in the case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which challenged a Pennsylvania law requiring a 24-hour waiting period and spousal notification before a woman could obtain an abortion. Kolbert, then a 40-year-old attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, had only argued one case before the Supreme Court, but she claimed a narrow victory over Pennsylvania’s Republican attorney general. The court ruled that states can regulate abortion, but cannot place an “undue burden” on the right to obtain one. 

Being underestimated is “frustrating, but motivating,” Toti said.

Toti, who is now 37, has argued dozens of abortion cases in district and federal courts, and she briefly clerked for U.S. District Judge Nina Gershon in New York in 2005. But she has never argued before the Supreme Court. She lives in a modest walk-up apartment in Brooklyn with a roommate and occasionally attends Catholic mass with her sprawling Italian-American family on Long Island.

She is humble and soft-spoken in our interview in her office in Manhattan, which is filled with cards bearing supportive messages from her co-workers: “Uteruses before duderuses” and “Ovaries before brovaries.” Her nails are painted bright purple — her favorite color, and also the color of the marketing materials for Whole Woman’s Health, the chain of Texas clinics she represents.

Toti’s opponent, Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller, argued two cases before the Supreme Court in 2015, and clerked for Justice Anthony Kennedy — the justice expected to be the swing vote in the case.

Keller’s team doesn’t appear to be taking its less-experienced female opponent seriously. As the case wound its way through the lower courts, Toti repeatedly had to remind the Texas attorneys that she is the lead counsel on the case. But they consistently directed communications to her co-counsel — a taller, slightly older man from the international law firm Morrison & Foerster. “They would always reach out to him and not even ‘cc’ me,” she said. “I would get back to the lawyers and say, ‘Here is our position,’ and the next time they would go back to him anyway.”

Toti’s co-counsel, Alex Lawrence, said the Texas attorneys are ignoring his colleague because she’s a woman. “I feel bad about it, but yes, it’s true,” he said in a phone interview. “They’re not comfortable with it completely. Maybe it’s a Texas thing, or maybe it’s just a man thing.”

Being underestimated is “frustrating, but motivating,” Toti said. And she needs the boost — the outcome of her first Supreme Court case will determine whether millions of American women will still be able to access abortion in their states.

“I definitely feel the pressure,” she said. “So much hangs in the balance.”

 56cdef2a1500002a000b09d1

T-shirts on display at Whole Woman’s Health of San Antonio. The Supreme Court will soon hear the organization’s challenge to Texas legislation that requires all abortion facilities to meet increased requirements by becoming ambulatory service centers. 

In the 2010 midterm elections, a new crop of ultra-conservative Republicans swept statehouses across the country, bringing with them a fresh determination to rid the country of legal abortion. Over the next five years, these lawmakers passed an unprecedented number of abortion restrictions that shut down dozens of clinics across the country. Their strategy was simple: Instead of passing outright bans on legal abortion that would be difficult to defend in court, states passed so many new regulations on abortion clinics and doctors that few providers would be able to meet the requirements and stay open.

In 2013, Texas enacted two of these so-called TRAP laws (“TRAP” stands for Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers). The laws mandate that all abortions take place in ambulatory surgical centers, or mini-hospitals, and that all abortion providers must have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. The extensive renovations required to turn a clinic into a mini-hospital, such as specific hallway widths, large janitors’ closets and new ventilation systems, are too expensive for most clinic owners to undertake. And hospitals in Texas often refuse to grant admitting privileges to abortion providers for political or religious reasons that have nothing to do with the doctor’s experience or safety record.

By the middle of 2014, 20 of the state’s 42 clinics had shut down, forcing many women in poor, rural areas of the state to travel up to 300 miles to the nearest clinic. Women’s health advocates complained that the restrictions did not appear to be medically necessary — abortions are already remarkably safe, and in the event of an emergency, hospitals have to admit women whether the doctor performing the abortion has admitting privileges or not. “These laws don’t provide any material benefit to abortion patients,” Toti said.

In August 2014, the Center for Reproductive Rights — with Toti as lead counsel — sued Texas, arguing that the new restrictions were irrelevant to women’s health and imposed an unconstitutional burden on their access to safe and legal abortion. Toti won in district court and lost in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In November, the Supreme Court agreed to take the case.

Toti’s task in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt is to convince the court — specifically, Kennedy — that the new regulations are not medically necessary, that lawmakers passed them with the sole intent of eradicating legal abortion in Texas, and that the rules do indeed impede women’s ability to exercise their constitutional right to an abortion.

Her team has taken a novel approach in its argument, submitting a document to the court in which 113 female attorneys share stories of their own abortions and explain how access to the procedure allowed them to break the cycles of poverty, abuse and teenage motherhood in their families and rise into successful careers.

The state of Texas will argue that the clinic regulations are necessary to protect the health and safety of women. “The state has wide discretion to pass laws ensuring Texas women are not subject to substandard conditions at abortion facilities,” Ken Paxton, Texas’ attorney general, said in a statement when the Supreme Court agreed to review the case last November.

The death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia earlier this month does not change much about Toti’s case. If Kennedy sides with Whole Woman’s Health, the Texas restrictions will be struck down. But if he sides with the state, that will create a 4-4 tie, which will mean that a lower court decision that upheld Texas’ abortion restrictions will stand.

As she prepares for next week’s oral arguments, Toti is trying to avoid psychoanalyzing Kennedy. Instead, she is practicing with experienced Supreme Court lawyers who shoot rapid-fire questions at her in moot courts, interrupting her as the justices will. These dress rehearsals can be humbling.

“There have definitely been moments of remorse,” she said. “Everyone’s jumping in and asking these really hard questions, and I reach a point where I’m like, ‘When is this going to end?’”

At the gym or at the grocery store, Toti listens to audio recordings of past oral arguments on her headphones. Sometimes a dream about the case will wake her up in the middle of the night, and she’ll jump out of bed to scribble down the ideas cycling through her head. The notes rarely make any sense the next morning. “I’m not going to give you a specific example,” she said, laughing, “because I don’t want to tip off the other side to the kind of nonsense I’m coming up with.”

When the Supreme Court agreed to take the case, Toti’s bosses briefly considered replacing her with a more experienced Supreme Court lawyer. She lobbied to keep the case, noting that she had already taken the lead in district and appellate arguments. She convinced them. When she found out she’d argue the case, she was “really excited,” she recalled. “And then, you know, a moment later, slightly terrified.”

Lawrence, her co-counsel, isn’t as worried.

“Stephanie knows the case backwards and forwards,” he said. “Every nook and cranny of the case, she knows. That is an asset that cannot be undervalued.”

“I would not have wanted anyone else to argue this case,” he added. “Including myself.”

*****

Readers: The story may be out about the SCOTUS decision to reject Texas’s attempt to block access to abortions to women in its state, but the story to be told about the woman who argued it before that court deserves my blog time too. Talk about commitment to her fellow sisters. This woman has got it going –  Toti is focused and tenacious even in the face of men not respecting her position as lead counsel. I so applaud her for her efforts, for her “dream ideas,” for hanging in there under intense pressure. Yes, millions of women counted on her and she didn’t disappoint.

As usual it takes a female to make clear the negative impact laws men pass to impede the equality of women and their right to determine their own health care. Since no man can truly walk in a woman’s shoes, he can certainly try to obstruct progress, and unfortunately he has in the past, but he can’t understand the negative impact of his laws, nor will he care as much about them because those laws don’t affect men.

The proof is in the fact that three relatively inexperienced women have argued and won the three most important cases in America history. 

This is a more staggering feat than one would imagine on first blush until one learns that there is an elite group of 66 lawyers who have argued nearly half of the cases before the high court from 2004 to 2012, according to a 2014 Reuters analysis of 17,000 attorneys, and only 8 of them have been women.  I believe my point about men not truly understanding applies here too. This is where sympathy ends and empathy takes over.

Can you imagine what women could do for women, for the country, if we were in power positions? I can. 

If women wake up, they will see why all the more this demands a woman get her chance to not only change the often draconian laws men have passed to the detriment of women, but to promote new legislation that will right the ship. I for one am ready for it, and am planning on doing my best to ensure that our girl Hillary is our next president. I KNOW there are plenty of women who will join me. I’m counting on all of you. The time is now and there is no better time than now. #I’mWithHer.

Herbert: How lucky are you?! I wish I could’ve been there to see our President. It would’ve been one of the highlights of my life.

So nice to hear all about PRIDE from so many of you! Janice: Wow – so many films being shown. Cool. I didn’t know about that. Thanks for letting me know. Please Brittany et al: Send me notice of your PRIDE events ahead of time and I’d be happy to include them in my write next year! Karen: Thanks for the heads-up for Oakland in September.

Patricia: I love the idea too. He’s got my vote.

Ohh. I love ending on an up note. 

Your turn, Blog this BABE. 

Lastly, greed over a great story is surfacing from my “loyal”(?) readers. With all this back and forth about who owns what, that appears on my blog, let me reiterate that all material posted on my blog becomes the sole property of my blog. If you want to reserve any proprietary rights don’t post it to my blog. I will prominently display this caveat on my blog from now on to remind those who may have forgotten this notice.

Gratefully your blog host,

michelle

Aka BABE: We all know what this means by now :)

If you love my blog and my writes, please make a donation via PayPal, credit card, or e-check, please click the “Donate” button below. (Please only donations from those readers within the United States. – International readers please see my “Donate” page)

Or if you would like to send a check via snail mail, please make checks payable to “Michelle Moquin”, and send to:

Michelle Moquin PO Box 29235 San Francisco, Ca. 94129

Thank you for your loyal support!

All content on this site are property of Michelle Moquin © copyright 2008-2016

me

“Though she be but little, she be fierce.” – William Shakespeare Midsummer Night’s Dream 

" Politics, god, Life, News, Music, Family, Personal, Travel, Random, Photography, Religion, Aliens, Art, Entertainment, Food, Books, Thoughts, Media, Culture, Love, Sex, Poetry, Prose, Friends, Technology, Humor, Health, Writing, Events, Movies, Sports, Video, Christianity, Atheist, Blogging, History, Work, Education, Business, Fashion, Barack Obama, People, Internet, Relationships, Faith, Photos, Videos, Hillary Clinton, School, Reviews, God, TV, Philosophy, Fun, Science, Environment, Design, The Page, Rants, Pictures, Church, Blog, Nature, Marketing, Television, Democrats, Parenting, Miscellaneous, Current Events, Film, Spirituality, Obama, Musings, Home, Human Rights, Society, Comedy, Me, Random Thoughts, Research, Government, Election 2008, Baseball, Opinion, Recipes, Children, Iraq, Funny, Women, Economics, America, Misc, Commentary, John McCain, Reflections, All, Celebrities, Inspiration, Lifestyle, Theology, Linux, Kids, Games, World, India, Literature, China, Ramblings, Fitness, Money, Review, War, Articles, Economy, Journal, Quotes, NBA, Crime, Anime, Islam, 2008, Stories, Prayer, Diary, Jesus, Buddha, Muslim, Israel, Europe, Links, Marriage, Fiction, American Idol, Software, Leadership, Pop culture, Rants, Video Games, Republicans, Updates, Political, Football, Healing, Blogs, Shopping, USA, Class, Matrix, Course, Work, Web 2.0, My Life, Psychology, Gay, Happiness, Advertising, Field Hockey, Hip-hop, sex, fucking, ass, Soccer, sox"

19 Responses to “Wonderful Women of The World”

  1. O-O Says:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFg0FCx4FGs

  2. Beverly Says:

    Love this woman. She showed that if a woman persist she can compete very well against white men who have their positions because of the affirmative action benefits given to them when they controlled all branches of government.

    Make no mistake, white men aren’t in their positions because they are the most intelligent or even the most qualified. They are grandfathered into these positions because of the affirmative action benefits they engineered into law for themselves.

    The other reason they maintain their coveted positions is because they actively collude to exclude anyone but white men.

    The fact that only 8 women have been able to break through both the discrimination should be looked at seriously.

    Especially since those 8 women have kicked the men’s asses almost every time. The only lost came with the bought and paid for idiot scalia. That is one POS, who didn’t die soon enough.

  3. Jillian Says:

    This victory has already changed the restrictive laws that closed most of the abortion clinics across the country. Miss, Wis, Ala have stopped and there will be others.

  4. Ruth/AF Says:

    Go to this link to hear Stephanie Toti speak about her case.

    http://www.democracynow.org/2016/6/29/meet_the_attorney_who_just_won

  5. Heidi Says:

    I listen to my brothers salivate over the stupid things that Trump says. They are behind Trump’s saying we have to torture the enemy.

    My three never been in uniform brothers don’t care that Trump is giving the enemy the right to torture our military personnel if they are caught because that scenario will never occur to them.

    They are such tough men when they strap on their concealed weapons before they leave the house. 22, 24, and 26 year old white boys looking to use their weapons on any hispanic or black that crosses their path here in Tampa.

  6. Gwen Says:

    Heidi@5, white Evangelical Christians are statistically the biggest supporters of torture among all Americans. But then- look at what they worship.

  7. Nathan Says:

    Scalia’s death is the gift that keeps on giving- and while Alito might want to replace the other Italian Catholic judicial thug, he apparently lacks the personality and intellect.

  8. Deirdre Says:

    All the conservative Justices are Catholic. It’s just down to four now. How that was ever allowed to happen, I will never understand.

  9. Steve Says:

    I would argue that most Atheists practice some degree of Humanism which is infinitely more ethical and moral than Christofacism. The suggestion of archaic writings springing from some Deity would be laughable if it weren’t for the fact that these very writings have been the singular tools of grifters, aggressors, mad men and genocidal despots for the last 2000+ years.

  10. Hamel Says:

    We need progressive Dems in Congress.

  11. James Says:

    “So if Justice Scalia were still alive, it is likely that this case would be heard by the justices’ next term.”
    RIP Antonin Scalia–the gift that keeps on giving.

  12. Ricardo Says:

    CLUELESSNESS is the realm of all Republicans.
    They have elevated this to an ‘art form’…

  13. Nicole Says:

    Any honest question is a liberal journalism trap for a lying piece of filth like the idiot trump. Of course there are plenty of reasons racists white boys support Hair Drumpf; they’re like trump, rats in a sewer.

  14. Zen Lill Says:

    Agreed. It’s time for women to stand up, step up and show them how it’s done…to me Hilary is already a done deal. I’m choosing to believe that all the women who openly speak with their hubbys nonsensical version of trump reality will actually get in the booth knowing what to do.

    This woman is tenacious and I love that she responded to the emails coming from the other side, it’s perfection is the face of an imperfect situation.

    I’m very excited that many of the women I know that I thought were repubs lockstepping with Hubby are saying that there’s no way in freaking hell they’d vote for trump but they want peace at home so they just let their peacocking man spew his theories on why trump would be the best choice and smile and nod and silently say/think “yeah right, you’re joking” (< or something way worst)

    Luv, Zen Lill

  15. Martha Says:

    I’m with them Zen Lill. I just let the moron support the moron. It keeps the peace.

  16. Lourdes Says:

    Love the acronym R.A.T. for the SCOTUS rats.

  17. Salazar Says:

    Zen Lill I feel the same way about Hispanics who tell me they are supporting anyone in the republican party.

    My first silent response is “WTF are they thinking?”

    Then I take a deep breath, relax and realize, they aren’t.

  18. Jager Says:

    In what democratic country but the USA could an idiot like this get to be the nominee for head of their State?

    Oh, yes, the UK.

  19. Peter/Guam Says:

    Hafa adai

    This is only 24 seconds, http://www.kuam.com/story/32341708/2016/06/30/guam-resident-captures-rare-meteor-sighting

    But is it a meteor or did we catch a UFO uncloaked, cloaking? Howie where are you?