Good morning!
I started this blog 9 years ago on this date, July 13th 2007. I used to celebrate it here calling it an “Anniversary.” But when I woke up this morning, I decided I wanted to celebrate our blog’s birth instead. 🎂
Thanks to all of you, my readers and especially to the ones who have been here with me from day one. But more than anything thank you for coming back after such a long hiatus. I can’t tell you how thrilled I am that so many of you are here with me. I’ve said it before but I’ll say it again…I realize that you have a choice to read many blogs out there but that you choose to read and be here with me and everyone else. And yes, it is still uncensored and will remain that way as long as I am blogging.
I still strive for us to see each other and come together as “World Citizens” even though the social and political environment is tumultuous – Yes, I still have lots of HOPE. It is just the way I’m wired. If I didn’t I wouldn’t be here everyday. And my guess is, you do too or you wouldn’t be here.
I wrote this at the 5 year mark and I decided to repost it because I feel the same way today.
I am honored, humbled, and grateful to be in the company of so many diverse, intelligent, talented, admirable, funny, informative, savvy, courageous, inspiring, astute, witty, empathetic, brilliant, beautiful, complex, emotional, strong, tenacious, intuitive, vulnerable, passionate, enlightening, loving, and so many other wonderful things…”World Citizens”…and yes there are a few not so positive traits, as well as some downright sick ones that I can mention too, and that is a part of the diversity of this planet that we are all working on.
Let’s continue together to make this planet the best it can be for all.
Now back to business to do just that…
Mark: Yeah, I saw it.
Before I get into critiquing this piece of shit, of course I mean Rand Paul, not my ex, let me suggest that you read my reasons why I can understand how some people can be easily duped by this slick video. This is especially true if the people watching this video are weak in their understanding of civics. Of course if you’re weak in civics you may not understand what I mean, how our government, which is a republic, is set up with their checks and balances and the rules governing how laws and statutes work.
I’m not a lawyer and I’m not giving legal advice, however, as the commercial says, I’ve ben doing this blog for awhile and I’ve seen and heard a thing or two. So this tired simplistic BS by Rand to manipulate the public is a no brainer for me to critique.
In all transparency, because I am constantly learning, let me admit that I too learned a helluva lot about civics, which I probably slept through in class too, while researching how our forefathers set up these checks and balance for the Three Branches of government. I will also admit that I learned a great deal about how one can deliberately misread a statute in order to LIE. (That’s a nod to you Rand.)
The FBI did not deliver a “scathing” rundown of Hillary Clinton’s wrong doings. That is the demagogue’s putting words into the Director’s mouth. Comey cited errors in judgment he felt Hillary committed. Errors, I might add, that did not rise to the legal description of a violation of the Classified Secrets Act. No amount of effort by this idiot to rewrite the statute will change that.
The FBI didn’t show clearly, or in any other way, that Clinton violated classified procedures which rose to the level to make those violations criminal. Again Rand’s opinion has no weight of law because it is a slick attempt to manipulate people who don’t understand how one legally reads a statute. To determine if a person has risen to the level that they can be reasonably charged with a violation of that statute, one must abide by rules stated in the statute. Rand didn’t. Instead, like a slick used car salesman, Rand is playing upon that lack of knowledge by the public because he clearly ignored the first part of the statute which says this:
(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information— See link: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798
Rand’s use of hyperbole in claiming Clinton, “carelessly and recklessly endangered national security-and did so repeatedly, over 100 times,” again is a slick attempt to inflame the listener. There is no proof that national security was endangered. And more importantly he fails to mention that he was talking about 100 out of more than 32,000 emails that were sent across Clinton’s server. In that light a 100 mistakes isn’t that much. But he doesn’t mention that because it would make his exaggeration seem petty.
The FBI Director announced that he would recommend to the Justice Department, who he is the investigative arm of that department, that in his investigation he found no violations of the law, as he understood it to read, that would require the DOJ to peruse a criminal case against the accused. So what you’re hearing from Rand is that he can read the statute that applies in this case better than, Comey, the man the Senate confirmed to do that job and do it INDEPENDENTLY for his 10 year appointment. I don’t think so.
The POTUS who appoints a Director of the FBI and the Senate confirms that appointment. However, the FBI is an Independent Administrative agency NOT an executive agency. It is designed that way to enable the FBI Director to be INDEPENDENT in his judgment doing his job as the Chief law enforcement officer of the nation.
(http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Independent+agencies+of+the+United+States+government)
The head of an Independent Agency cannot be removed by POTUS except for causes set forth in the statute. Rand knows this, but he subtly implies that the decision by the FBI director was somehow influenced by the Obama administration.
If one is ignorant of the civics which govern the appointment of the director of the FBI, then he/she can be conned into taking Rand’s bullshit as truth. Let me add, one should not be too embarrassed if you don’t know this, because I didn’t know until I researched it. So Mark, give Doug some slack.
Now that the Republicans didn’t get the inditement that they hoped would knock Clinton out of the race, he manufactures a crisis to give the republican controlled Congress an excuse to hold hearings to use tax payers money to campaign for the republican party against the democrats nominee for POTUS. This charade is nothing more than a political scheme to get Trump elected. The republicans are notorious for doing whatever it takes for their party to be in control, even putting a narcissistic, pretentious, etc., etc., etc.. man like Trump at the helm.
Sadly civic challenged people like my ex Doug bought into the ruse. Perhaps a quick civics reminder may help. Doug: If you’re reading…I included a few links to help you. I know you’ll be excited about his because we worked so closely together on the statutes and laws during our suit against Well Fargo Bank.
The Federal Government was comprised by our founding fathers of Three Independent Branches of government. Each was empowered with distinct duties and powers that would give them the checks and balances to prevent any particular branch from usurping the powers of the other and thereby instituting a dictatorship.
This link provides a simple break down of those three branches. Once this simple background is mastered then a visit to this link would be appropriate to truly understand what I’m talking about when I suggest that Rand is attempting to use the oversight function of Congress to politic against the democratic nominee for POTUS, Clinton, to benefit the republican nominee for POTUS, Trump.
However, when the investigation didn’t go his way, he declared it an “outrage.” Then he went on to declare what he thought the penalty should be for his assessment of guilt.
Notice how he picks certain facts about a case and then declares it to be on point with Hilary’s case. Then he declares that since the fact are on point, the penalties should be the same. This creep owes his election to gerrymandering and lies, but that doesn’t stop him from declaring how important the letter of the law should be. I would call him hypocritical but he’s just a plain LSOS – By the way, if he’s not already there, let’s add him to the list of Lying Sacks Of Shit. (Rand: I hope you’re reading.)
The LSOS actually tries to make General Petraeus case similar to Hillary when he knows that the case is markedly different because Petraeus knew he was leaking classified material and admitted it. (And Doug: Snowden also knew he was leaking classified material) The creep shamelessly brings up the pains of others to make a false point that their cases were similar to Hillary when he knows that the only thing they have in common is all the cases involve Classified Materials.
He claims that the absence of intent is not necessary in the plain reading of the law. What was the creep reading then? Certainly not the law since “intent” figures prominently in its reading. Click here if you want to read more about Classified Material.
18 U.S. Code § 798 – Disclosure of classified information covers the disclosure of Classified information. Again, the opening statement reads:
(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
I may not be a lawyer but it says “knowingly…” unless my english is as bad as Rand that goes to intent. If you know you are doing something, then you intend to do that something. I guess Rand’s “plain reading of the law” is different from the rest of us.
So Rand goes on to change the statute to read gross negligence is the standard rather than “knowingly and willfully…” What would you expect from a guy who would shut down the government and then accuse the other party of doing it. The republicans have a history of denying the very thing they are doing as if we, the people, are stupid.
Even on the gross negligence part of the statute he would lose because he lies again and tries to imply the number 100 implies gross negligence. That might work as long as the people whom he is lying to don’t learn that he is talking about 100 negligent acts out of 32,000 transmissions. Just a disgusting LSOS.
Then he makes the leap from convicting Hillary Clinton to declaring her unfit to run for the office of POTUS, which was his intention all along. I would’ve been astounded that Doug would fall for this blatant political partisan pitch until I did my research and realized that, but for my instinct that republicans are LSOSes, I would’ve given Rand’s video some serious consideration.
To recommend or suggest this is a video that anyone should take seriously shows a level of political naiveté that could be dangerous at a time when less informed people are attempting to select a POTUS that will change the course of our lives well beyond her term in office. That to me is scary. Please Doug, in the future, if you ever feel something a republican is saying has some validity, before you slap yourself, Google it.
Since I can see how the uninformed could be misled by this BS of Rand’s, I reluctantly have to say that Doug has been seriously mislead. This is NOT a video that suggest anything close to what Doug thinks it does. I would think that anyone hearing this demagogue claiming that people have gone to jail for far less breaches of classified material would have done a little homework and checked. After all, Google is not only free, but readily available. My usual refrain when this happens is big L, little a, little z, y are you so goddamn Lazy?
Lazily merely accepting this creep’s assertion is just idiotic. I supposed it is easy to miss the familiar refrain at the end when the creep said “Director Comey and the Obama Administration…” a refrain denigrating Obama that every republican talking point has if you are too Lazy to check the creep’s facts.
Then he ends by declaring that America’s faith in the Justice system is in jeopardy, really, this coming from a party that ensures that money and anyone who has a lot of it gets special treatment. Really, Doug, did you just suggest that everybody should listen to this blatantly bias political propaganda video, thinking that it had something to offer the public other than its blatant political advertisement for the republican party agenda, which is to defeat Hillary Clinton for POTUS?
Mark: I trust this answers your question about Doug not getting the message. I also hope you’re not jealous of Doug’s big dick and the fact he can be a helluva lay. In the future when you preface or end a question with such incendiary remarks I also hope you can prove that you’re not doing it because you lack the attributes you’re knocking the other for having.
Don’t bother commenting with claims you do, send references, Doug has them.
Thoughts anyone?
Blog me.
✌🏽&❤️
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
“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"
