Good morning!

Bernie Sanders Exposes the 26 Billionaires who are Buying the 2012 Election

In his new report, America For Sale: A Report on Billionaires Buying the 2012 Election, Sen. Bernie Sanders named names and called out the billionaires who using Citizens United to buy our democracy.

In front of a Senate panel today, Sen. Bernie Sanders outed the 26 billionaires who are members of 23 billionaire families that are using Citizens United to buy elections. Sen. Sanders estimated that these 26 billionaires are the tip of the iceberg. “My guess is that number is really much greater because many of these contributions are made in secret. In other words, not content to own our economy, the 1 percent want to own our government as well.”

Sanders explained how the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision put the government up for sale, “What the Supreme Court did in Citizens United is to say to these same billionaires and the corporations they control: ‘You own and control the economy, you own Wall Street, you own the coal companies, you own the oil companies. Now, for a very small percentage of your wealth, we’re going to give you the opportunity to own the United States government.’”

Sen. Sanders also did the last thing the billionaires wanted. He called them out by name.

According to the report, America for Sale: A Report on Billionaires Buying the 2012 Election, here are the 26 billionaires who are trying to buy your government:

1). Sheldon Adelson, owner of the Las Vegas Sands Casino, is worth nearly $25 billion, making him the 14th wealthiest person in the world and the 7th richest person in America. While median family income plummeted by nearly 40% from 2007-2010, Mr. Adelson has experienced a nearly eightfold increase in his wealth over the past three years (from $3.4 billion to $24.9 billion). Forbes recently reported that Adelson is willing to spend a “limitless” amount of money or more than $100 million to help defeat President Obama in November.

2. The Kochs (David, Charles, and William) are worth a combined $103 billion, according to Forbes. They have pledged to spend about $400 million during the 2012 election season. The Kochs own more wealth than the bottom 41.7 percent of American households or more than 49 million Americans.

3. Jim Walton is worth $23.7 billion. He has donated $300,000 to super PACs in 2012.

4. Harold Simmons is worth $9 billion. He has donated $15.2 million to super PACs this year.

5. Peter Thiel is worth $1.5 billion. He has donated $6.7 million to Super PACs this year.

6. Jerrold Perenchio is worth $2.3 billion. He has donated $2.6 million to super PACs this year.

7. Kenneth Griffin is worth $3 billion and he has given $2.08 million to super PACs in 2012.

8. James Simons is worth $10.7 billion and he has given $1.5 million to super Pacs this year.

9. Julian Robertson is worth $2.5 billion and he has given $1.25 million to super PACs this year.

10. Robert Rowling is worth $4.8 billion and he has given $1.1 million to super PACs.

11. John Paulson, the hedge fund manager who made his fortune betting that the sub-prime mortgage market would collapse, is worth $12.5 billion. He has donated $1 million to super PACs.

12. Richard and J.W. Marriott are worth a combined $3.1 billion and they have donated $2 million to super PACs this year.

13. James Davis is worth $1.9 billion and he has given $1 million to super PACs this year.

14. Harold Hamm is worth $11 billion and he has given $985,000 to super PACs this year.

15. Kenny Trout is worth more than $1.2 billion and he has given $900,000 to super PACs this year.

16. Louis Bacon is worth $1.4 billion and he has given $500,000 to super PACs this year.

17. Bruce Kovner is worth $4.5 billion and he has given $500,000 to super PACs this year.

18. Warren Stephens is worth $2.7 billion and he has given $500,000 to super PACs this year.

19. David Tepper is worth $5.1 billion and he has given $375,000 to super PACs this year.

20. Samuel Zell is worth $4.9 billion and he has given $270,000 to super PACs this year.

21. Leslie Wexner is worth $4.3 billion and he has given $250,000 to super PACs this year.

22. Charles Schwab is worth $3.5 billion and he has given $250,000 to super PACs this year.

23. Kelcy Warren is worth $2.3 billion and he has given $250,000 to super PACs this year.

The thing that these billionaires love most about Citizens United it is that it allows them to operate in total darkness. The American people couldn’t fight back because the billionaires were giving their money anonymously. This same cloak of invisibility is what made ALEC so effective for years. The conservative billionaire cabal works best in private, behind closed doors, far away from curious eyes.

With his report today, Sen. Sanders has made it more difficult for thieves of liberty to keep operating in the night. We now have a list of names and we know what they are trying to do to our government. Sen. Sanders is one of the few federally elected officials who has the courage to talk about these people in public.

Most of the members of the House and Senate are too afraid to speak of, much less take on, the billionaires. Even those decent members of Congress who might speak out against them have been terrified into silence by threats of multimillion dollar negative ad buys that will run against the incumbent back home.

Bernie Sanders is displaying a brand of political courage that is sorely lacking in American politics today, and he needs you to stand with him to protect our liberties, our freedoms, and to battle to return the government back to the American people.

*******

Readers:  Kudos to Sanders. Click to Stop Citizens United.

Sandra: I have been thinking about your comment, and how I wanted to address what you said. First of all I want to thank you for being a loyal reader and for the kind compliments toward my blog, me and my mother. With respect to the comments you have heard from school friends, all I want to say is thank you for informing me. And I HOPE at the next gathering you will make yourself known and say hello. I would enjoy that.

Peace out.

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 2008-2012

“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"

Good morning!

The full question is: During Mitt Romney’s speech at the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), did Romney call President Obama a “corrupt” president?

Romney said,  “A healthy American economy is what underwrites American power.  When growth is missing, government revenues fall, social spending rises, and many in Washington look to cut defense spending as an easy way out. That includes our corrupt president.” 

Romney’s campaign denies that he said the word “corrupt”: Spokeswoman Andrea Saul saying in an e-mail that he “said ‘current,’ as was written in his speech.”

After seeing the video there is no question in my mind that he said the word “corrupt”.  Chris Matthews from “Hardball”, seems to think so and got Michael Steele to admit as much on his show last night. What is everyone else saying?

The Las Vegas Sun is reporting he meant to say “current president.” I don’t think so – He said exactly what he meant to say. I find it interesting how most of the white pundits want to err on the side of Romney by saying he meant to say “current.” Obama would never be given such consideration were he to say something as derogatory as that about Romney. Notice too that there is no news of this in the Huff Po – at least nothing I can find.

Remember all the hullabaloo when a member of Obama reelection committee suggested that Romney could be a charged for lying on his tax return? Here he calls the POTUS corrupt. This has never been done by a candidate but they, the white media, will look the other way because this is a white man dising a black man. Putting him in his place so to speak. Telling the rest of the world and America’s OTWs they are not quite equal to a white man even if they hold the highest office in the land.

And did you notice nobody is complaining about this? Sickening.

Here’s the video. You be the judge. But I’m sure you’ll agree with me that he said the word “corrupt”, not “current”, and in my opinion, he meant it.

Readers: What are your thoughts? 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 2008-2012

“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"

Good morning!

There has been a lot of talk about the “crazy” man that swept his way through the theater in Colorado killing many and injuring more. And of course my readers are very verbal as well.

I just have to speak my two here too, because the logic of the law escapes me. How is saying that you can buy any gun you want, but you cannot be allowed to buy an assault rifle, interfere with your 2nd Amendment rights? I think it is perfectly fine to want to own a gun.

I will quote Barbara because I like what she said: “Most of the rest of us support the right to bear arms, but reasonable arms, NOT weapons that are bought just for the purpose of killing a lot of people, or to support a small penis neurosis.” So yes, you might just want to buy a simple handgun to protect your family, with no thought whatsoever to buy an assault gun.  Okay, that’s reasonable. But why would you ever support the purchasing of a gun that is anything more? You may own a gun and not want to do what the killer in Colorado did, but there are people who want to and do, and we are supporting that by allowing these assault weapons to be sold.

I don’t know what goes through your mind but my mind says that you have to have the smallest dick in the world to want an assault rifle. And in my opinion, the smaller the dick the bigger the gun they want. (And yes, maybe even a huge truck to go along with, following that same path) They have to make up for it in some way, and that seems to be the chosen way for many who decide to buy such a weapon. Yeah that makes you a big man doesn’t it?  And don’t get me going about the women that go for this kind of man. I won’t go down that path. You know what I’m talking about. The logic just escapes me.

Let me take a side leap for a bit and then I’ll be back.

I think there should be a new title for the republican party: “The Paid To Play Party” – Simple, they are paid to play: The PTP Party. The Politician’s hand is out saying, “Pay me and I’ll play like I am your politician.” Whatever they need to say, so that the people who pay them will be satisfied and all the stupid people will listen and go along, hoping to somehow get big enough…rich enough so they can pay politicians to play their game too. The promise is there, but as we know, they won’t ever make it.

So if the rich people want to have more money they pay for the politician to play the game that suits their needs, their interests…you know the things that brings them the big bucks.  Who cares what morals you speak…what you believe in. You are paid to play…to think and vote with the highest bidder who bought you. Just make sure that you can convince the stupid people to go along with you. And as you can see, many of our politicians do.

Now back to the movie massacre in Colorado.

You can call the guy “crazy”…you can say “he was motivated by the movie – let’s outlaw the movie”…”he would’ve found another way even if he didn’t buy the assault guns”. Or whatever else you want to say. Well, let him find another way, but don’t make it easy. We’re making it easy by not making these types of guns, these assault weapons illegal to buy.

Then to add to it, we find out that this killer is making bombs in his home. Okay then, we make it illegal to buy these kinds of things that make it easy to make these bombs.  It can’t goon how it is; we have to start eliminating something.

I mean really, why in the world do we have allow these types of guns and bomb making ingredients legal to purchase in the first place? Do we really need to have these available? Who needs a rifle with 6000 rounds of ammunition? Simple. No one except a killer. And he doesn’t even need an ID to buy it.

Look, the bottom line is, it doesn’t matter if the guy was crazy, upset, or whatever. And we certainly don’t need a shrink to tell us why the guy did it. Who cares what reason he had to do it,  or how crazy he is. He did it because we allowed him to buy assault weapons so that he could carry through with his plan. Take away that ability and you take away the opportunity.

If he couldn’t buy the guns in the first place he wouldn’t be able to do what he did. Why is that so hard to understand? No other arguement matters. If it was against the law for this killer to buy these kind of assault weapons, he wouldn’t  be able to shoot anybody because he wouldn’t have been able to buy them. Now as it stands, he can buy it on the internet, without a background check, and without an ID.

The lack of an ID to purchase a gun makes me think. We’re coming up on what I feel is going to be the most important election to date. So…think about this fact: It is easier to buy an assault rifle than it is to vote. How inane is that? You have to have more identification just to exercise your right to vote. But no ID to go out and buy an assault weapon.(!)

Thank you NRA. Is the NRA a group that is for the people, or are they for the group that are making and selling the guns? It’s obvious who they support. And yes, it is obvious that the PTP Party are bought by the NRA, because really, the solution to resolve this issue is simple. The PTP Party knows the solution, but they don’t want that solution, because that solution is against what they want to do politically, against what they are getting paid to play,  to advance, what they are paid to do politically.

So they lie about the solution. The solution is simple: Make it illegal to sell these types of weapons. But no, their thought is “Let’s ignore the real solution and let’s pretend there is something else we can do”. The PTP Party are LSOS’s.

I’m done. I like what Moyers has to say:

Bill Moyers: NRA ‘Enabler Of Death’ (VIDEO)

PBS’ Bill Moyers had blistering words for the National Rifle Association in the wake of the deadly shootings in Colorado.

Moyers placed partial blame for the murders in the NRA’s lap in a web video posted over the weekend, calling it “the best friend a killer’s instinct ever had.”

He said that the lobbying of the NRA had made it easier for people like James Holmes, the alleged killer in the Colorado shootings, to obtain their weapons.

“Every year there are 30,000 gun deaths and 300,000 gun-related assaults in the U.S.,” he said. “Firearm violence may cost our country as much as $100 billion a year. Toys are regulated with greater care and safety concerns than guns … we have become so gun loving, so blasé about home-grown violence that in my lifetime alone, far more Americans have been casualties of domestic gunfire than have died in all our wars combined.”

He finished by calling the NRA “the enabler of death — paranoid, delusional, and as venomous as a scorpion.”

Though they did not express themselves with quite his vehemence, Moyers is one of several to call for stricter gun control laws in the days after the shootings.

******

Readers: What do you have to say? 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 2008-2012

“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"

Good morning!

I really have so much more that I want to say about yesterday’s topic and I am tempted to respond to the comments, but I think it is best if I refrain and just say this:

I know that the best thing for me when I want to be successful in something, is to find out all I can about that particular thing I am interested in. Men included. Here we have a man who is telling women how men think. It is coming straight from the dog’s mouth, and put into print for women to read. I don’t want to get into the details of the book because I haven’t read it yet, but I can’t help but just say one thing. Why would a man, knowing that men want to get lucky every night of the week, suggest you wait 90 days before you have sex, if it wasn’t something that he knew women would benefit from?  Why tell? Why inform women, when it obviously doesn’t benefit men who want to get lucky every night of the week, for women to know this? It’s really that simple.

Obviously some women don’t see the value in that nor the book. That is perfectly fine. If that is your thoughts, don’t read it. If it sounds interesting, read it. It seems like it won’t take much of your time if you do. And if the advice sounds good, and Harvey’s logic makes sense, try it. If not, throw the book away. It’s your choice. It’s really that simple.

Me? I plan on reading it. Now that I am single, and yes, my status is now “officially and legally single”, I think the book is especially worth reading. And I intend to read it. I praise this dog for writing this book. I am grateful that his lips are flapping because I am still blown away at some of the actions of men. So yes, anything I can learn from a man who informs me of what’s going on in the big heads of men, I want to know. It’s really that simple.

So enough said from me, onto today’s topic:

I wanted to post a write “Texas to Test Voting Rights Act in U.S. District Court” after Anonz’s comment over a week ago, but other things came up. If you’re interested in reading that particular write, click here first because I think it is a good article to read.

However, if you happen to have read it, here is the latest on the same subject:

Texas: State voter ID law does not discriminate

WASHINGTON (AP) — Lawyers for the state of Texas argued Friday that a contentious voter ID law should go forward because it doesn’t limit minorities’ right to vote and, therefore, does not violate the federal Voting Rights Act.

Justice Department attorneys argued just the opposite, saying the law requiring voters to show valid, government-issued photo identification at the polls is exactly the type of statute that the act, passed in 1965, was designed to prevent.

Both sides gave closing arguments Friday after a weeklong trial about the Texas law, passed last year by the state’s Republican-controlled Legislature. Texas currently only requires voters to show their voter registration cards, which do not have photos, or another acceptable alternative form of ID such as a driver’s license or utility bill.

Texas’ voter ID law is similar to laws passed by GOP-controlled legislatures in Georgia and Indiana.

The Justice Department blocked the Texas law in March, citing the Voting Rights Act. Texas sued the Justice Department, sending the case to federal court in Washington. A three-judge panel is set to decide the fate of the law.

It’s not clear when the judges will make a ruling. The presiding judge, Rosemary Collyer, said they would try to have a decision in “quick order.” The judges have said they would like to rule before November’s elections.

Attorney John Hughes, who argued for Texas, said the state had met its burden, showing through expert witnesses, social science studies and its own dissection of the Justice Department’s evidence that there was little cause to believe any eligible voter would be unable to vote because of the ID law.

“People who want to vote already have ID or an ability to get it,” Hughes said.

He said if the Justice Department’s argument that thousands would be disenfranchised by the Texas law were valid, the courtroom would have been full of witnesses testifying in support of that point.

Hughes also reiterated other arguments Texas had made throughout the week: that public opinion backs voter ID laws, that Texas lawmakers had the integrity of votes — not the suppression of minority voters on their mind — when they passed the law, and that other states that have passed ID laws have not seen a drop in turnout.

The three judges hearing the case seemed skeptical of Hughes’ arguments, interrupting him repeatedly with questions. Judge Robert Wilkins asked Hughes how Texas could require some rural voters to drive more than 100 miles to get a new voter ID card when under current law a person cannot be required to travel more than 100 miles for a subpoena.

Matthew Colangelo, in the Justice Department’s closing argument, said Texas’ law should be thrown out under the Voting Rights Act because of a number of factors, including the atmosphere in which the law was passed, statistical evidence about its effects and the fact that it creates new barriers to voting.

“It’s exactly the kind of law Congress had in mind when it passed the Voting Rights Act in 1965,” he said of the act, which was passed as a safeguard on minority voting rights.

Colangelo noted that the ID law in Texas was passed against a backdrop of “tremendous population growth” in the state’s Hispanic community. Texas added 4 million people to its population between 2000 and 2010, he said, and 90 percent of them were Hispanics.

“Texas has acted to take away Latino voting strength as it’s on the verge of growing” he said.

Colangelo cited testimony that Democrats in the Texas Legislature gave earlier in the week. They said normal rules were suspended to speed along the voter ID bill.

He also argued that the law simply made it more difficult for people to vote, calling it “a new barrier that will disenfranchise.”

The judges also interrupted Colangelo at times during his closing argument, pressing him to clarify his points. But they didn’t ask him as many questions as they did Hughes.

Closing arguments also came Friday from lawyers for several intervening groups who have joined the Justice Department in opposition to Texas’ law. One of the attorneys, Gerald Hebert, said the law would hurt the poor. He referred to it as “merely a pretext, a cloak for voter suppression.”

“It will harm the poor, the downtrodden, the destitute,” he said. “How mean-spirited, how callous can you be?”

******

Readers: I have blogged about the disenfranchisement of voters, especially OTW voters. This is not a time to be silent when it comes to our right to vote.

Now, this girl has got to go. Your turn. What are you thinking? 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 2008-2012

“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"

Good morning!

Just a follow-up from what “From the desk of…” posted yesterday.

Did the Conservative Justices Make ‘The Mistake’ on Purpose?

On the very first night of coverage of the Supreme Court’s decision on the Affordable Care Act, we pointed out “The Mistake” by the dissent on The Young Turks. They accidentally left at least 15 references to the “dissent” in the case when referring to Justice Ginsburg’s concurringopinion. This indicated that Justice Roberts switched late in the process so that Justice Ginsburg’s opinion changed from the dissent to the concurring opinion when she became part of the winning side of the argument.

Since then, this has gotten a lot of coverage and CBS News seems to have confirmed the switch. But what hasn’t gotten a lot of coverage is what Salon writer and constitutional law professor Paul Campos also said that first night — the conservative justices might have left the mistake in the opinion on purpose to send a message that they were stabbed in the back. Watch here:

Having gone to law school, I know that you don’t even make that kind of mistake in a law review article. Let alone repeatedly. Let alone on the Supreme Court. Let alone on the most watched case in a long time. That’s not an accident.

CBS is reporting that Chief Justice Roberts made the switch about a month ago. The army of law clerks at the Supreme Court didn’t catch that error in a month of editing and reviewing? And that mistake wasn’t made once, it was made 15 times.

The justices can’t speak about what happens in their deliberations, but leaving an error like that in the dissenting opinion speaks volumes. It is meant to tip off conservatives — this guy screwed us and jumped ship.

*******

Readers: Thoughts? blog me.

Dawn: “Teapublicans”. I like it.

Peace out.

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 2008-2012

“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"