This cannot be good for William Jefferson Clinton. A time for atonement should only be for those among the still living of statutes of limitations, and yet with death bed conversions. Any he or she of these many years, such as of WJC & HRC politics, should have no way out until them of late atonement by death bed conversions! At least when WTC initiates its curatory of the mission of the Ground Zero Museum it again will seem too late for the Clintons to come clean; It seems just for the CRUSADING of FLOTUS HRC whence JIHAD will stick with her like BENGHAZI to her grave. And, too, there is WJC.
The songs of the Clintons have coy misdirections and are simply of too much political escapism that can not resonate as of TRUTH.
The tone of the pre-Clinton early 1990s were of proportions of great storms and fears of a predicted end of the world by fire maybe ablaze initially near Mesopotamia, newly. The heralding of a right and wrong and the alignments of parties and as States/Nations were of such time of a call to tables for proactive discourse as to common and/or general mores.
This cannot be good for Hillary Rodham Clinton. Though it seems wrong that her admitted culpability about the BENGHAZI failures should be regrettable it seems there are more regrettable than such for her to regret more as of her duty and time as President Barack Hussein Obama’s Secretary of State. Secretary Clinton seems to have failed the first black President quite as per the BENGHAZI attacks and so as such seems to have revealed that she didn’t understand before, during, or after much of the essence of the realm of Al Qaeda & JIHAD (still).
The songs of the Clintons are fraught with over-lays of discord hidden by beats set “POP” and yet still there in an inappropriate as their harmony is dishonesty in a tagging of others as at JIHAD without incriminating their own CRUSADING.
What can be honestly known? How can the dishonesty of WJC & HRC now be more broadly known? What is the still unknown about the hands Clinton that people everywhere should table of the unleaven and leaven dough to kneed for parity?
The tone and beat downs of the imperialist FLOTUS HRC were wrenched upon peoples consciousness as if by a trespasser of brash dictates while violate of sovereignty as a visitor on foreign turfs. WJC & HRC are those of CRUSADES now far more concurrently, still of the unsettled, otherwise now oddly yet as if transference upon PM Tony Blair & President George W. Bush were warranted.
“It is broached…” is apropos to the CRUSADES of WJC & HRC as it seemed impolite and imperialistic (and of a CRUSADES BEAT) that so regularly broached Secretary Madeleine Albright of a tonage as if of the phonetics of the era as if the import was a dictate so of “WOMEN / MADAMS @ LINES TO ALL BRIGHT” missionary positions post warring on Christ-o-for Secretary Warren Christopher days preceding. It was broached as if of a CRUSADES but without WJC or HRC of limiting principles even for any statute of limitations for a righteous prosecution of Saddam Hussein for United Nations sanctions violations nor his many known crimes.
What should be better said of Prime Minister Tony Blair as per CRUSADES? Is it not more honest and truthful that President George Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair inherited a CRUSADES - is it not more so that they did not build a CRUSADES?
There seems no way out for WJC & HRC as atonement for JIHAD has passed a reasonable however a statute of limitations may concur. It seems wrong and now dangerous to persist in a “POP” beat ignorance as the songs of WJC & HRC are base in a cacophony for all times. It seems so wrong to allow the Clintons to yet posit triangulated transference, and especially per any CRUSADE, upon any others “leaders” and even, yes, too if upon President George Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair.
There is a guilt by association locked into the culpability of HRC as per BENGHAZI as too of a incrimination of WJC and all of the Clintons’ years of executive decidings. Now it would be as inappropriate as how they lifted a statute of limitations for the murders by Saddam Hussein for them to escape themselves from the foibles of their so evident CRUSADES.
To meter any innocence upon either WJC or HRC there is the atmosphere of the tune of their times (too Tony) as per the conduct unbecoming a President of the Monica Lewinsky scandals, and so as such became Nixonian as a scandal too as by cover-up and lies; there is that the message in the scandals also the times of the conduct unbecoming as those of concerns about our Middle East engagements as of times newly sensitive to grand and common holy mores. The notation of WJC must be measured for it that his conduct unbecoming a President was even more dangerous as of a time when infidels/infidelities were the leading politics of tables international.
Right!!! As HRC was violate of peoples’ sovereignty with her imperialistic crusades of feminist dictates towards respecting women more equally even so regionally in those Islamic domains so of known radicals it yet was that WJC was domestically beset begetting controversy about disrespecting mores and women, specifically. But yet how flawed WJC was is minor to the current JIHAD expose, generally, and too personal, and too specific of subjective marital infidelity.
What incriminates them the most? How are they most culpable yet? Whom is implicated by JIHAD curation when the Ground Zero museum is open and of the mission in curatory but WJC & HRC and also a cadre of “Middle East Leaders” of their 8 years and an associated guilt? As it seems any CRUSADE was not made by President George Bush & Prime Minister Tony Blair it is yet tony how they have been of a triangulated transference of supposed guilt from WJC & HRC politically - generally.
The missionary positions of the CRUSADES of the Clinton 8 however more as of WJC or HRC begot terrorism and JIHAD. It is their former National Security Counselor Philip Bobbitt whom with his TERRORISM OR CONSENT proffered from his experiences with the Clinton 8 that like a White House that works too closely with Hollywood begets terrorism. But how tony now the pomp of the past triangulations in coy misdirections whence a mission in curation begins with an opening of WTC doors of the Ground Zero museum? What can be said to be JIHAD? Whatever JIHAD is to be said as of whom? If it be JIHAD, however, was it successful or yet was it that the attacks by Al Qaeda succeeded while there expectations of a general Justice in JIHAD did fail? Is it that the JIHAD element of the attacks so now to fore as failed could yet succeed by improper fidelity to truth and mores if to a presentation of the coy and deceptive “history” notations of the Clintons yet endure?
President George Bush & Prime Minister Tony Blair, though they inherited a time beset of unnecessary imperial crusading, did work in a general Welfare objective jurisprudence of engagements in prosecutorial and principles of statutes of limitations along the lines of offering a policing devoid of religiosity and sectarian bigotry. Any “lies” these two “leaders” said supposedly of as if of coy misdirections yet otherwise metered to a more honest than those of WJC & HRC. The Clintons’ 8 left fewer to no good options for objective and prudent enforcement of United Nations sanctions endeavorings; The Clintons left these two hardly any way to execute a prosecution of Saddam Hussein even by his people as his peers but as if in a HOLY WAR JIHAD their own if not by heavy specifics at calling out SH by bluff.
After the CRUSADING of WJC and by FLOTUS HRC there was little if any way to civilly proceed with a albeit late enforcement of the United Nations sanctions left for President George Bush & Prime Minister Tony Blair.
But for these days now necessary of a new predicating as per JIHAD and how any curator must proceed at the teaching of 9/11 Al Qaeda attacks we must look to whom is associated in a guilt as the Clintons CRUSADES are extant and justifying. It seems that the Ground Zero museum must offer a querious to ‘HERE FOR HOW MUCH THE CLINTONS GOT WRONG IN THE 1990S’ and be girded to an apropos associated implied guilt for “leaders” of the Middle East at least as from agreements and promises made to President William Jefferson Clinton in early 1993.
The songs of the Clintons howbeit by them coy and of misdirection are yet of over-laid tunes that set a more tony for President George Bush & Prime Minister Tony Blair of a resonance in innocence. As JIHAD a tag upon the house of Clinton rightly and without escape but maybe by death bed conversions it is that the museum of 9/11 attacks by Al Qaeda do implicate WJC & HRC and some Middle East “leaders” of promises made circa 1993 that the Clintons then were unjustly to persistent dogging through their 8 until 2001 for a “contractual” keeping of promised to much like “lies.”
The United States may now endure the opening and curatory of the Ground Zero museum as per JIHAD and CRUSADES as it remains a general Justice consideration that as long as such (compromised) (former?) Middle East leaders of such past political and partisan pressures from the Presidency of the Clintons remain silent as to the culpability of the Clintons it follows that they are more guilty as per a knowing prior to 9/11 attacks than WJC & HRC.
The United States may now be of a safety even in Governor Sarah H. Palin as of “waterboarding” a “baptism of terrorists” and all the while it more historical and yes tony that President George Bush & Prime Minister Tony Blair are of less culpability and real guilt than at least those of the Presidency of the Clintons. A curation of 9/11 as of JIHAD now will implicate both WJC & HRC and too any so whence held to their improper promises to like just blame Republicans and be in agreement to not attack The United States during the Clintons’ 8.* (*This is as I recall when first viscerally to such concern circa 1993 as whence WJC first trespassed a general prudence with a like worst of used car salesmen convenient coy “politics”!)
There is that President George Bush & Prime Minister Tony Blair enforced the United Nations sanctions, however controversially, and yet as such would better to have been limited to a statutory period say of that of the first term Clintons’.
There is that President George Bush & Prime Minister Tony Blair are less culpable than either WJC or HRC as per JIHAD and as it seems too logical that if Al Qaeda was of 9/11 attacks as successful in effecting retribution it yet is considerable that Al Qaeda seems to have (for now) failed at JIHAD Justice.* (*This still fits with my said first visceral as per missteps of the Presidency of the Clintons and so as I of my tale that on the eve of 9/11/2001 as September 10th so as so many years of concerns shared since 1993 I was yet to telling myself I must have been wrong all those years to have been preoccupied with concern and so that the next morning I should wake up and move on - and to maybe avoid personal bankruptcy. Yes, this is the same tale of mine as having been in DC and driving up 17th Street by the White House and Old Executive Office Building then unaware such was at the same moment that the first plane struck. Yes this is still the same tale mine that had me so likely the last thought of NSA C. Rice before her assistant notified her and so as such was as she a recent former client & I thinking to a professional referral and like a passing of the gut felt visceral of concerns from the Clintons political improprieties.)
A curation of Al Qaeda as at JIHAD by the Ground Zero museum will necessarily implicate WJC & HRC and as well those Middle East leaders so of the Clintons worked impropriety political at partisan blaming promising. For now the USA can be of teaching Al Qaeda as at JIHAD and unsuccessfully as it seems highly set in reasoning Justice that Middle East leaders still too quiet as to implicating the Presidency of the Clintons will be to assumptions of greater guilt/culpability upon themselves and peoples of their own faith.
Right!!! My tale is of years since hearing Clintons’ NSC counselor Philip Bobbitt speak to an open group at the venue Yale Law School in about 1997 having been to faxing the White Houses of the Clintons and George Bush of concerns that there were real threats we were not as a nation yet seeing. When I heard, and then also joined some of such group for cocktails Philip Bobbitt whence I was so of publicly asking near “what about the threats we do not see?”.
For the tony of any tune for Justice by JIHAD must implicate WJC & HRC mostly and yet too a cadre of (past) Middle East leaders of their worked promise and held to promise keeping. It was imprudent to have a Secretary of State so phonetically as “warring Christ of fors” and too one as if “madams to lines in all bright”! Yet the mores of morality of Justice by JIHAD seems honestly only possible if an injustice lives in a spirit realm as unsettled and known to the like high priests as Imams too.
It seems for any and all museum curation as per JIHAD such has to give rise to the heights of culpability of the Presidency of the Clintons and too, if not specifically to those of said recalled Clinton partisan shenanigans as “leaders”, to those as the keepers of the faith of Islam. It seems Al Qaeda cannot have been successful if at JIHAD if the keepers of their faith were not yet keepers of a sense of injustice for a Justice rendering yet.
How tony is it to be that a greater innocence and morality of purpose seems keyed for the legends of President George Bush & Prime Minister Tony Blair and as the coy misdirection of political and partisan over-laid of WJC & HRC notations so implicate more than just themselves as per JIHAD & Justice?
Despite the fallen President Barack Hussein Obama it should live in an eternal that his election did say a lot good about the people People’d of The United States of America. There seems no way out! for either he or Mrs. Clinton a trapped! though 2008 brought a rising around the Obama the Obama has brought a fall about The Obama! he can only blame Mrs. Clinton so much!
How it yet can be reasoned or intelligible that the first election of President Obama should forever speak well in its extant as a People’s act will so remain, if to accomplishments, to be pared and disputed - for accolade - for discernations - for judgements! at the core of “The Obama” will live a storied in contrast between a fallen messianic and a risen messiah! as an Obama by the color of his election rises a nation, a People, in voluminous said of them at a good! as a The Obama by the color of his administering Obama has let it be done and written - into the records - his Law is a lesser Law!
A starting point to any “making an example” of Mrs. Clinton, however, tis at the black & white - at the good & bad - at a fallen Obama at these times refreshed of a risen Lordly. These are not the times to be at making the record in a praising or burying of “women” of “Mary.” A brutality can be judiciously writ lay at the “man” of “Obama” - The Obama - a honest can be so scribed presumptuously at the feminisms.
To get to any common core of the fallen and risen apropos The Obama messianic (lost) needn’t these days, after the Sunday of Easter wrap of Lenten, be fore cast in a retro interpretive as if a new prophetic? apropos these days newly prudent to considerate interpretives of just the meanings of some of the Word of the words of 1Corinthians? apropos these days to yet mark a conscious twain of the depths of Corinthians and so Christianity in the risen? apropos these days to discern a smartly & rightly core understanding of peculiarities in speciality’s usage of just “fornicators” and “prophets”? apropos these days to decide a catholic v Catholic, however parochial, to a meant of “prophecy”?
We should not negatively judge or prejudge The Obama for the color of President Barack Hussein Obama but in the safe general Welfare as that the act of the People so as the act of the election of a first black will forever, despite any judgements to a lack of later sufficiency in character, forward forever as the save rule for the people of the People that such act will forever speak well of the People’d people secured so Constituted. It would not be well predicated to reason forward if now any rash in prejudgement of The Obama as by a prima facia black while it remains still too much possibly of a great untold more reasoned about how Mrs. Clinton is just a white female Obama and his he so too like just a male black Mrs. Clinton. It is too soon to proceed to any crucifying of the Black of The Obama as the fallen still may be for poorly shod footings of the wheeling and heeling of politics more of the legs of Mrs. Clinton - more of a culpability in the White - a negative and a feminine more Clinton!
There is still an “honor thy father” aspect “it’s complicated” about any The Obama and too here of myself in a discourse masculine and historical at the Hogan feminisms inter-yarned in any timely associating of a political example being made of just Mrs. Clinton. To honor my father betwixt this attempt at a lasting parity I need to pine diamonds and averages of humanity pass-times of The Union of the U.S.C. constituted! to broached a feminisms I can honor my father by speaking of his shortcomings in “modern” albeit “inventive” feminisms with his oldest his first daughter born!
I can and should honor my father, too, and respect the honest truths of shortcomings witnessed his while he as of attempts to a good at bat average as a progressive Christian People’d person - and as a father of (liberated) eldest a daughter yet with his oldest son of the male of Corinthians writs as his oldest born also to be of the head of Christ! There is an interesting trinity just in how since the late 70s due my own competitive in a Presidential oratory my father, my oldest sister, and myself have all three known of the Obama of Hawaii now know as The Obama of the Obama, and as nearer the age of my oldest sister than myself (though of my same birth date but four years precedently), and for too then as one of an interest in the airs about (Presidential?) oratory.
To make a due example of the flaws of Mrs. Clinton as of the “Mary” and “feminisms” I should avoid a discoursing here at any “honor thy father” of the The Obama The Obama per father and son - due a general ignorance - due too great a need to be if so at so such of assumptions and presumptions, too much. But for myself these are the days to speak to honoring my father by assessing his at bat average of the “masculine” & “father” at feminisms and Mary! and for myself it seems associated to baseball as too about human expectations and too of Corinthians - its “fornicators” and “prophecy” suggestives preparatory for a scoring about the Risen!
And for myself, it is I am, as to honor my father, that I should celebrate his attempts to be good, modern, and of the Risen, albeit with an oldest a daughter! it is I am, and yet his oldest son, so named too of his name, as his father’s name - too! and for myself as per a study of The Obama and any “Mary” and/or “feminisms” of his he and his Mrs. Clinton I necessarily must parse a parity and relativity to honor my dad for his good average and yet with a discussion of mishits and fouls, at least! and to honor my father there is a duality here necessarily of me his son a writer duly at explainatives best not to be over-simplified - I best, it seems, need be to a personal attempt at erudity familial about the “Mary” and any “feminisms” while her prudently to timely airing of The Obama, irrespective of the color of his skin.
And so in a humility of the keep of the past-times of baseball it is I while prudently to a making an example of the flaws of the Clintons as evidence against a pure guilt for The Obama it is that I here tee-up a sport of honoring my father not to a “what he got wrong” for here I try at a uniformity apropos Christianity yet of a duality where I attempt to be at “what he didn’t also get right!” - and still so at the “Mary” the “feminisms” the “fornicators” the “prophet” the “prophecy” of at least Corinthians structured recipe writ for homing it of Risen.
When my oldest sister so was born President of The Obama was already born of his father and mother - of his black & white - of his good & bad - of his ebony & ivory yet of the romance as a Soviet Studies love child spice’d of his Kenyan’ patriarchal. When my oldest sister was born President John F. Kennedy Jr. and his Attorney General brother Robert Kennedy were risen of the Catholic Risen and yet still alive as their pedestrian People’d office holdings. When my oldest sister was born men still had Camelot and women had the Mary of The Jackie and chauvinisms were more alive than feminisms. Things did change! things really did change, say since Barack Hussein Obama was born! When my sister was born I yet, however appropriately, hadn’t also been born in the old fashioned as the Christian oldest son of the oldest son also of the name of the father of the father.
This to me has some potential in a comedic extant though of years too Jobian - more Jobian of struggles - more of times at times needing 2x to 3x the energy and dedication of/with my “individual” “individuality” - my separate “purpose” - because! It seems that “fornication” by Corinthians is meant more of an existential comparative in contrast to “prophecy” and so to a structure to built a complexity in the Risen of a pedestrian consciousness about “man” and “woman” and sex versus love - of sex versus love as of living of temptations or tricks of the moment of the flesh and that in a spiritual forward concerned shared contemplation between men and women - as of man and women equal but yet of the man thee of the head of Christ.
And, of the head of the woman the head of her man, married, as her head as the head of Christ we have to now too discuss the apropos of the fallen of Obama at The Obama as of his at a Mary and feminisms! he too would be of attempts to be prudent, seems, if to taking swings too at making an example of Mrs. Clinton by an attempt at reasoning her of any feminisms and however of her of a Mary! the Obama has a fallen The Obama it seems for of a partisan political selective secularism too akin to writs in socialisms contrary just to Corinthians structured of a neighbor wrong if to the police or Saints over a neighbor “neighborly” dispute if to them before firstly attempting a “neighborly” resolute with such neighbor so of conflict.
What is something my dad and sister may have not also gotten right in the decades since Camelot and chauvinism still reigned even for “Barry” of his father and too of Hawaii is some what may help explain his rise and his fall as of them of a trinity that conflicted the Trinity of the family of father and son! How my dad tried to be modern of the at bats for the new feminisms for my sister - et al professionally in the plying of Law - is of the partisan of the Democrat Party divide between just the The Obama and the The Clinton!
It is of this that I am familiar to those also of a kept memory of the extant Hawaiian B.O. of oratory crossroads passions in speechifying as a father yet progressive in their politics as also of the Democrat Party as he of The Obama of the Obama all the while yet myself since the earlier 70s of having taken to the structured more reasonable problem solving potential yet of Republicans. It was too late when I realized Senator Obama at 2008 was yet he kept welcome in the family intra-party hopes for a better Union so many decades and of a compromised strategy for protecting People’d people not from one of his color but from one of his Democrat Party “character”! it was too late into 2008 contest at the Presidential selective process before I properly associated the long known “B.O.” of Hawaii whence as he then as a convenient alternative to the known of the Clintons The Clinton of its experienced flaws.
Motion Picture Association head Christopher Dodd did for ten years rule as my sister’s, so, boss, while he a Connecticut Senator! this is historically of my politics and powers at contemplative politics as a “prophecy” as basically as in Corinthians - as it seems (now) - and of that of the 1992 & 1994 specificities about my guidance by poetic forward and backward renditions of my THE CHARGE OF NEW FEDERALISM pro-active attempts at national and local problem solving! as that I struck home uns with my #TCONF in its private and strategic limited sharing is of my average maybe an honor to my father and yet while at least for that decade as a better average than his at progressive feminisms - not just of the Mary! my sister is of a complex “it’s complicated” intermixed past politics tale of times of profiting with Senator Dodd from my marketing at bats in attempts to be good at needed “prophecy” - at pro-active political and language problem solving.
There is to be separated from my making the due example of the The Clinton when while at least to the due making an example historically of the experienced Mrs. Clinton! separate from the fall of Obama as from team work with the Clintons is yet a Mary of the feminisms I am familial of and original about while as a Rosebud Architect of the pre-Clinton Clinton 90s recovery! there is that I was (unnecessarily) of a need to be 2x to 3x of the effort to a better “average” in “prophecy” so akin too and so for the complexity of being progressive too for my sisters in a Mary and the People’d Union about feminisms while masculine and as it when told more fully, also of an honoring of my father, yet to be of discussing a political need like for Senator Dodd to let my sister be liberated from politics as like of a “Peter Principle” for such progressions in equality so that I could keep working greater improvements for her than she so was proving able to work while I had gotten to working them so well, and firstly, more broadly precedently!
To honor my father in the Risen and the Mary I will necessarily be to discussing the fall of The Obama still while the rising of the Obama eternally to speak well of the people of the People’d Ordered Union! it for now is premature for me to while making the due example of Mrs. Clinton in her negatives, and, while so in the spirit of judging The Obama not for the color of the inherited skin from his father but for explainables due his character and her character, and, while so in a historical still confused of a thought progressiveness in feminism as if it had become time for an oldest daughter to get to be the senior head of Christ in a family hierarchy and to a right to profits actually accruable from the (progressive) (general) (general Welfare) of the worked at prophecying only some in its whole as of the Politics of a younger brother - a brother still born named of the father of his father!
Of my Corinthians recent reading I am puzzled still and of the Risen even of these of their rising and falling! I am still he that has watched his sister be able to profit since liberated from a Peter Principle like time best to have parted from Senator Dodd’s politics respects yet however in accruing as so many too have profits from my original endeavors even so when more at timely worked “federalisms” more secular in yet a pro-active akin to what seems a “prophecy” common of Corinthians!
So it seems we are all now predicated some to a preparedness to discuss the fallen of the Obama of The Obama and objectively and even spiritually without confusing the Clinton WHITE with the Obama BLACK, and specifically as we are prudent to gird ourselves (in our faith) for the duration forward in making the due example of the The Clinton of Mrs. Clinton - the The Clinton endemic of the The Obama - of the The Obama now politically passed at bats remaining, effectively, and a political or historical save by righteous hails at Mary! it is apropos (and of a proper) actually such is far more complicated of the feminisms I am so akin yet while honoring my father, and in speaking to his averaging about Marys as of the Union and Law - progressive!
YES! THIS LASTLY CLOSED OUT WITH A LONG HANG TIME FOR YOU TO MAYBE CATCH!!!
Some days you are asked to think - Yes, some days one is asked to think more than even the day before - even in days before.
As it has become re-established as a spectacle of faith like of the founders as new apostles as by 1Corinthians4, 9 of the body of the Constitution as beset to beget a morality in accompaniment with the New Testament we newly need be wary of thresholds however concordant and extant to dangers in generalized pontifications, however set “political.” And, still, as of older whence, it best we be thorough of such concords with a pre-set and reset wariness in harvested of bearing of false witness, however set “political.”
Maybe we should start with Noah. As “Ila” now the newest Biblical character, of it at least a morality play, we have that in play is the “fornication” of 1Corinthians5, yet moderated from a forced Oedipal. Seems! (I have a new Bible app - I am not a theologian nor a Bible scholar.) For Emzara not to be violate herself of such “fornication” “Ila” needed to be born? Of Noah of three sons originally Emzara could hardly be a Susan B. without “Ila” in modernity so evolved, supposedly? Let us be wary enough prophylactically in meditations to not generalize to a tri-poli - a three briefed - when a singularity enough to broach any “false witness” impropriety — let us not rush.
There are gray areas of concern, to be brief, that syllogisms of metaphoricals in visual graphic renditions can forewarn and inoculate as if by use of drawing out the Clintons by their “design” and “examples.” For the purposes of morality it may now to proceed as if at lessons by way of making an example - making examples - of the Clintons. Whether firstly to thinking of Susan B. Anthony or the Clintons’ protege Anthony Weiner it is most concerning that the Clintons’ permanence is set so in Polshek parlance so suggestive to be Rorschach-esque so of the racks of their library Freudian in a phallic too as ready “gun” shape too publicly banded as a public visage in a gray, a gray said too suggestive as if a Confederate Gray.
The apple of immorality seems to have been handed from mentor to protege - from “Bill” to “Anthony.” To be brief, yet still to adequately cover, the chief courting of this treatment is to be to a rendition to concordance by making an example of the examples of the Clintons, courtly — Have you yet heard of Ohioan Steven Driehaus? It’ld be prudent to not generalize, and precious to check the too generalized. To cover yet the “feminine” & “morality” of Susan B. Anthony, perchance with/to success, by comparative scoping of Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton, however, citizens may need not just an entire book but a movie - but movies. There should be trepidation in presumptions at ‘”Hillary” a “Susan”‘ for “fornication” besets a uncovering of improper nepotism in her example — Wasn’t it wrong in a “feminist” & “human resource” propriety that Mrs. Clinton was so subjugated as a subordinate of the Clintons’ West Wing at least as per nepotism in a work place?
It is already established, and long self-evident by the tombs of history extant as of historical public documents, at least, that the Clintons are of the lies - are known to lie - are said to be even “Big Liars.” We can move from the brevity of them of their lays of lies to snare their lairs like as monsters of complex duplicity in clever triangulated transference as well of trichotomy’s grays. As it is largely a matter of established public record that the Clintons are known liars they are the tools best now to ply a morality discerning by ways of making an example by way of making an example of them.
How wrong is it to bear false witness? How wrong is it to be violate of civil truth firstly as if of “campaign rhetoric” and secondly when to lies yet spoken as if “official speech”? Do you know how The Supreme Court of The United States of America should now rule upon the soon to be heard standing in relevance as by Susan B. Anthony list v Driehaus? Aren’t lawyers trained supposedly to be forewarned and disciplined away from the dangers in generalizing, at least rhetorically? What are the minimum standards even albeit as “double standards” like now a false flag bearing by the Clintons pols?
How wrong is it to bear false witness? Minimally: What is a lie? How important be the lay of any lie? How important be the general concern of a public lie if a “campaign” falsehood? How important be the laid lies if whence from any “allowed” campaign falsehood to altered historical extant context as if a lie no longer a lie for it spoken as “official” speech? Due the purview of S.C.O.T.U.S. as their duality conflict rises in standing soon with such pertinence of such so laid about Anthony it is like now impossible to separate President Barack Hussein Obama example from this ‘making example’ of his “rivals” President William Jefferson Clinton and his Mrs., however whence “officially” appropriated.
How wrong is it to have born false witness - how wrong is it if/when a known politician is known/unknown of a laid lie?
It is already established that the Clintons, however indivisible or divisible as a B.O.G.O. “two-fer” political power couple, are of the public record, at least, as known to be long of laid lies, and too as “Big Liars!!!” from ‘em thought to have been their friend(s). So to be brief and prudently at the immorality embedded in the Anthony v Driehaus: How and when is a generalization a premeditated with malice intentional itself a born false witness and improper lie? When if to three when only two be moral is the spreading to an embedding in a tri-political not but a triangulated transference as if of smoke and mirrors allowances/arrangements?
The Clinton “Presidential” Library begets an interesting prima facia read - enough to make many really blush if caught unprepared for its net gross bottom line contextual. Steven Polshek must be the go to expert in his rendered permanence of the Clinton public visage parlance - needn’t he be? If at first blush one is exposed the a Rorschach of a gun shape phallic & Freudian, and secondly to a visceral disgust that it also be in gray - and especially in Confederate Gray - the remaining concern must be that it is laid already foundationally that the pac’ runneth with Mrs. Clinton, however, so that it behoove us to be already saddled up of a queried to if such is how we are supposed to see the “permanent” Bill Clinton, President how is the vessel of a Hillary Clinton, President, already figured to be a yet architecturally & yet paired also public visage and yet in a feminine?
To be respecting of Susan B. Anthony we need contrast with the nepotic example of, at least, the Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton and her public examples. To be respecting of the progress of women we should consider that the “example” of Mrs. Clinton has been devolutionary to Ms. Anthony. How can women reason - how can any woman reason a appropriate “officially” for Hillary Rodham Clinton - Mrs, William Jefferson Clinton, however previously appropriated - for her submission as if apropos feminism and work place parity and reported insistence that she as a FLOTUS need be formally subjugated as a West Wing subordinate to her spouse and so of her example that staffers should be tolerated however they are sleeping with their “boss.” To any Anthony legacy mustn’t women, at least, be to reason - be somehow to discerning for themselves that Hillary got her healthcare West Wing job at least through improper nepotism?
Bear with me, please, this is supposed to be simply reasoned for the standing of Anthony now set up for the orals duality soon upon the honorable Justices and across their thresholds, and too their tolerance(s) at least of the logic and syllogisms allowable of laid lies in “politics.”
Surely there is much to be relatively concerned hidden behind such effrontery by just the Clintons and in their not yet public enough permanent records of the stowage of the embedded that can wait, for now. We have that Anthony v Driehaus ushers us past so much that may yet spill out from later of due course as per politics versus lying - we have simply, to be brief, that we can reach easily a concordance thoroughly of civil disobedience by examples of dangers from generalized rhetoricals. Literally speaking we can be plain and simply at a conclusive dispositive however a lie is supposed by making an example of Presidents Obama & Clinton.
To keep a fidelity of and to Susan B. Anthony we can yet avoid too much, for now, the transgressions of Mrs. Clinton - women themselves can especially be so set and fashioned. We - the all of us, of man & woman electric shared humanity extant, need not only the men to reason it — but too we needn’t reason Mrs. Clinton’s reasons as we can considered the core of even Corinthians as the common core of the founders as of bearing false witness enough to expose a bad of President Obama and as at a cover-up of the bad just of the lies of President Clinton. It behoove us though to not fail to ask: What is Mrs. Clinton’s figured inevitable presidential library supposed to be in a public visage & yet apropos supposedly as a Freudian “vessel” a vessel Clinton too graphically suggestive too as?
So to do justice to Susan B. Anthony and as well so if by a prudence (re-established) of Steven Driehaus as of the founders’ of bearing false witness establishments ordained to in their People’s Order as a more perfect Union “done” under God in the Christian calendar unanimously: We can expect it simplest to make an example of dangers from civil disobedience in laid lies at least as per the example of President Obama by ways of cover-up perils from imprudent generalizations as falsehoods premeditated.
As a matter of soon newly courtly it is considerable the literal traditions of fallen from transgressions of disobedience. President Barack Hussein Obama is necessarily also on trial for lies of campaigns as of exercised premeditated falsehoods and yet as one a Harvard Law trained disciplined to be forewarned from dangers in generalizing and too in cover-ups. We can for now leave any reasoning of Mrs. Clinton out of this example that seems more fittingly of President Clinton and President Obama, and still be thorough enough for Justice. We need be wary of generalizing and smoke and mirrors of fogs of triangulated transference political gray areas so it seems prudent to separate out any “false witness” of/by Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton for a clarity and parity in process - in civil and due process. We need be wary of thresholds though between civil disobedience simply housed and such as would yet be mounted as of saddled whence sufficiently to be across the tolerable to criminal politics.
For process and a fidelity to prudent procedures we have that it for now behoove us to separate the men from the women and Ms. Anthony from Ms. Clinton. Susan B. Anthony list v Driehaus standing for orals assuaging judiciously seems to rest on whether a morality can be a morality if not yet perceived as extant in a the moral forest — it seems the courtly of supposedly just “Bill Clinton” is pertinent as it seems as per a politics of laid lies besides a premeditation there is the existential that firstly need be discerned as to whether a “morality” is amorality if “morality” isn’t yet publicly contested as if not a “morality.”
There is an apparent jeopardy beset to be begot by the Justices though that should give real fright to President Clinton and President Obama. They both, and their spouses, were supposedly judiciously disciplined away from bearing false witness - perjury, at least — and to the dangers in generalizing. Simply to keep this as contextual as grossly briefed as for recourse by making just an example of the Clinton(s): However corrupted by President Clinton President Obama was as the yet unsworn newly elected President so that he was willing to transgress from “campaign” rhetorical of convenient yet ridiculous generalization at his ‘IT IS ALL BUSH’S FAULT’ as if dictates truthful it is that such as a generalization is also a laid lie simply proven, however, the honorable Justices might find tolerable political falsehoods.
There is an apparent jeopardy beset to be begot by the Justices though that should give real fright to President Clinton and President Obama. We for now are best to limit our process to procedures about the jeopardy of laid lies and the duplicity, however, yet of triangulated transference by grays of trichotomy’s doorways. It is that how Senator Barack Hussein Obama may have thought it allowable to so ridiculously bear false witness upon the People with “campaign” assertions that an so involved “it” could be an “it” so as an “it” of their “IT IS ALL BUSH’S FAULT” he crossed what seems the clear and still present criminal trespass point of no return when he said like proffered the same as if then newly rendered “truthful” with it so orated and posited with his posturing in his first moments so sworn of the Constitution as the new President and so of his First Inaugural of he of carrying a “campaign” laid lie into the “official” realm jeopardy for impeachables whence he seemingly voluntarily spoke the impossible truth - the unreasonable proposition - the ridiculous assertion - the simply dumb syllogistic not ever capably beyond a hypothetical.
Right to be brief and yet of a fidelity to Anthony as of these mis-stressed ‘politics’ as to what can and will be of the forest of “morality” we can for now skip the contrasts between Susan B. Anthony and Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Right to be brief: But we cannot abide still not being beset to the begot amorality known of Clinton of the public records and generally already known. President Barack Hussein Obama has gone farther than “campaign” falsehoods and seemingly imprudently as to attempt a historical rewrite to specifically benefit President William Jefferson Clinton and Mrs. Clinton, however still appropriated. As he generalized to the ridiculous President Obama is of a jeopardy from the Justice possibly expressly refreshed by the Justices as per any campaign falsehoods however yet they are standing alone and yet uncontested, otherwise.
If it criminal for a politics to be of premeditated laid lies in campaigns it must be criminal that once President President Barack Hussein Obama transgressed the People by his orations in inaugural literations with “ALL BUSH’S FAULT” as still an impossible truth — mustn’t it be of an amorality that at least just President Clintons asked President Obama to be of, and as if smartly to a needed cover-up?
We are gathered now at a congested crossroads in the evolving of The United States of America of President William Jefferson Clinton’s innocence a great danger - a clear (hardly) and present (really) danger. There are hazards in any “sport” of WJC. There are traps and boundaries of enervated Americana violated in a ‘moral hazard’ of the innocence of WJC.
Though this has to be of his displacement of blacks from Harlem by gentrification it must be more essentially more global and even of the Ukraine so undermined by the old shifty economics of WJC as by “Clintonomics.” It seems for President Barack Hussein Obama to escape what seems an inevitable tagging by the Clintons’ new political machinations as by prejudiced IT IS ALL OBAMA’S FAULT he too must now be willing to flex some push back against rising dangers of a WJC innocence.
It is possible that WJC has driven more blacks from Harlem than any past selective service politics of a draft did. As it has been reported his gentrification of Harlem has affected a near doubling of rental rates his efforts may be yet more permanent to some than however removed from home by government drafts. Yes if we have to discuss an errant innocence for any as of a culpability for the Crimea & Ukraine ‘economics’ it should be to flush out WJC as if an American Putin. It is yet a presumption of innocence for WJC and his times as the Constitutional top decider that now obstructs an necessary understanding of the roots of the Ukraine dilemma as in the failure of his guidance and national administering.
It doesn’t help the current congested civic mindedness to be however at a “IT IS ALL BUSH’S FAULT” exclusivity as it really is hardly reasonable that Bush’s “fault” can but be more than near half of the real story with it that WJC at least must not be of the innocence his, oddly still. Though BHO did in his 2nd Inuagural actually take the USA USC Constituted oath of office again for the office of the President, and then orate an addendum lacking a fidelity, we are of trying crossroads now for thinking too much of a WJC innocence, even though the roots of BHO’s 2nd’s addendum like as “I WON’T FEEL BEHOLDEN TO THE OATH OF OFFICE I JUST SWORE I WOULD” are of the politics and economics of the Clintons’ Presidency.
WJC like invented the infidelity to the Constitution that BHO now postures still as the moral hazards rot the games of life possible by fidelity and honesty to freedom at least of the jurisdiction of the Constitution. WJC’s greatest Constitutional infidelity likely has to be in the still too untold story of the scope of the trials of his monkey business about Saddam Hussein and Iraq. The Crimea is nearly a neighbor of Saddam Hussein’s old Iraq; The global economic collapses were set up by selfish partisan politics of WJC during the Clintons’ Presidency; The current day problems with the Ukraine economy likely wouldn’t now exist if not for how WJC rowed and waded in with derivatives like his own bastard child & as to gamble away known risks of his politics at economics by having a surplus from cuts when spending was needed to make his housing bubble viable.
WJC greatest infidelity has to be, it still seems - still seems as since like 1993, to the First Amendment prudence and so to the Constitution as per his foreign policies and interpretive renditions of a post-Consitutional rationalized. It seems our moral hazards have us already of civil congestions and new crossroads dangers growing. It seems we are now of growing dangers now so specifically of a President William Jefferson Clinton innocence. It seems we are running out of time as the low information voters are now maybe too long seated and stilled believing it even possible that “it” could have been all of GWB’s fault even though there are still the eight years before GWB of WJC and his many great infidelities that better assuage a guilt to his ship of state tacks. Yes even though BHO pledged a fidelity to the oath, and then pulled a Clinton, as if his swearing wasn’t legally a swearing, it is now still too much that WJC innocence is the infidelity to be arrested - arrested firstly.
When foreign orations arose after 9/11 attacks about “American Infidel” too few considered a mass of citizens were being tagged as guilty by association unawares mostly with the WJC monkey business scope of his infidelity to just the Constitution of The United States of America and with just his decidings about Iraq and Saddam Hussein. It is hard to render that the WJC innocence can long endure now unless innocent Americans don’t defend themselves from guilt by association with the years of the Clintons’ Presidency of the leader WJC as an “American Infidel.” The Cold War geo-political justifications for engagements in Iraq changed when Kuwait was invaded as more like a secular crime, but really they became more dangerously left to be more about sectarianisms and religiousity when Afghanistan became the Gettysburg turning point of The Cold War with its defeat of expansionist Soviet communism. The Clintons were the new USA administration so firstly to having to handle Iraq and the Middle East otherwise than as of Cold War secular geo-politics and as to a new engagements more respective of the USA USC establishments ordained for matters of Law pertaining to religiosity.
The WJC deciding was, it seems, mostly of the dangerous infidelity to the Constitution as if rightly an “American Infidel” by personal and selfish choice; President William Jefferson Clinton is remembered for like whining about President George H.W. Bush having like “left him a war - left him the Bosnia - Herzegovina War” and then to having played loose with the imports of the Constitution and the First Amendment so that he could decide as of a ‘I don’t want to so won’t’ per Saddam Hussein and not row a due wade prophylactically in a ’should/shouldn’t’ conscious consciousness.
Poor BHO, as now with Mrs. WJC on his tail, and on the trail, she, so as WJC’s spouse, isn’t spousally supposed to incriminate her spouse, and nor so their deciding days as the Clintons’ Presidency. It seems Mrs. WJC now has to run of cover as if it like “ALL OBAMA’S FAULT” and much because she really quite is hardly allowed to posture any other bias as near any other claims would be like violate of her marriage union and their oath to be one together forever to like have and hold so no government can set asunder until death. It seems Mrs. WJC must still posture the above aforementioned WJC “innocence” even though such hides truths of the public ways so as not to incriminate herself, unnecessarily, nor her spouse.
Poor BHO, as it seems Mrs. WJC must run, as if it wasn’t all her fault, and even, however, she whined before Congress of a “what difference does it make…”, and postured that she should accept some culpability for her following her President boss’s orders. It seems Ukraine now cannot be explained but with a full rendition of the Clinton “two-fer” however they seem to have their eight years like out of the way as like a “the missing years 1993-2001. However the Clintons’ innocence now is a late congested politics we are on this infidelity necessarily as though it may be that per Iraq and Saddam Hussein there is the “greatest” of WJC deciding we must fathom how it is twained and marked that their economics were failures that best mark an understanding of these crossroads in politics of Crimea as risen from the failures economic and political of the moral hazards in Clintonomics.
Poor BHO, as really Mrs. WJC has a simple case at a righteousness basis in his example to it more his fault than her fault for she and Mr. WJC didn’t make him attempt the failed cover-up rewrite of history that they seemed to necessarily yet have asked him civilly enough to attempt to drive over truth and greater truths. I don’t know if BHO should think he owes black Americans more truth and specifically, and now so lately, an explanation to how it was the Clintons, besides the gentrification of Harlem and its displacement of blacks, whom through too political and selfish ‘economics’ did both set up the housing collapse in the years of the Clintons’ Presidency, and then trigger it, with their Vice President Al Gore, as Hillary and Al were like synchronized, and as domestic insurgents both at undermining GWB, and, as globally at imprisoning GWB, and most Republicans, in false insinuations of improper guilt.
Long they seemed at such complicated efforts to camouflage the “American Infidel” President William Jefferson Clinton with an all powerful cloaking as if a new suit of innocence. But, mustn’t it be the failure of President William Jefferson Clinton so taggable as an “American Infidel” for his too effecting and too selfish political decidings in foreign policies pertaining to a jurisdiction around Saddam Hussein that should be his “GREATEST INFIDELITY”? We now are too stuck and so BHO for of the:
‘If he had been more to “should/shouldn’t” and away from a wrongly convenient seeming “don’t want to so won’t” so much could have been remedied more civilly with less global economic congestion, and worse, by ways some how otherwise more prudently of a Constitutional fidelity albeit if so then to a new Nuremberg Trials for the criminal Saddam Hussein!’
If one is a lawyer, and still yet to a consideration of supporting Hillary Clinton to a new ‘inevitability’, one must now be worried more than ever before, and, one must be worried for Clinton BOGO of so many double standards long of the Clintons’ skirting.
One may say they can only heel the reaping of a boatwright sown coursing of vessels against a double jeopardy inconvenient jurisprudence and politics; there can not be a ship-shape of the Clintons as of a multi-tasking harried if their politics need their vessel keeled to be in two places, or two directions, simultaneously.
However: The house of Clintons is not in Order, nor order. Rather: Things be much amiss in the possible of the Clintons sheeting and questionable tacks; Their planks are too short to be seen as obviously too long of knots or too thin of rings of Power established for their is as the is our is; There is a double jeopardy in the double standards as already navigated and journaled of the trip tix of the spousal’d set husbandry of the Clintons as two-headed.
As plebes of a harried it may be the rookies of the seas and/or the cadets of the air and land can spot an infractious Constitutional viscerally when uniformly to patriotic posturing of the keep in constitutional vicissitudes civil procedures. The Clintons ‘windward’ and/or ‘high ground’ supposed ‘advantage’ may be neither, and never, as of a natural set in Bernoulli’s principle. There is a problem, incidental to the lives of the Clintons, that there ups & downs of multi-tasking that undermines their own sheeting, however of tack and a ship shape helmsmanship.
What is the shape of the Clintons’ breastworks, political, so seen only yet as of an above the surface #GotGame?
How threatened are the common defenses of the Constitution and its bulwarks against nefarious broadsides however campaigned?
Aren’t now the greatest threats to the People’s order, and Order so ordained and established, now of these times, in the Year of founders’ Lord two thousand ten and Four, but coy, and coitered in banded threats, as more probable of the domestic girth politically electric than a gathered massing hemmed in a foreign engirthed?
These are times anew to consider the evolutions and devolutions of civil society and its procedures; These are times anew like those of whence thence of the Pilgrims as born from the rising to Oliver Cromwell and Rene Descartes ponderances writ from the netherland shores from which the American Mayflower literally departs. The #GotGame of our days newly fitting the philosophical extant of the Founding Fathers’ and to a prefaced predicated posture to the #THINK of federalism and if evolving or devolving, and, how if threatened now is threatened either by a domestic or foreign machinations, and, how if threatened is specifically (still) threatened by Clintons and their empirical too autocratic wants.
They cannot hide from Obamacare as politically like the most costly way of every state being to having their own Romneycare.
They cannot hide from climate change tacks as it common sense that if man made increases in carbon pollution can cause global warming there is that reductions made (at least too quickly) in greenhouse CO2 levels in the United States of America can too cause weather disturbances and climate change logically by the cooling to be expected whenever a greenhouse is removed.
They cannot hide from the D.O.M.A. and Same Sex Marriage struggles for equality in “marriage” and be not assaulted per their own marriage seeming posited and predicated as if for politics and Power as a marriage not a marriage (Union) of two inseparable under Law.
They cannot hide from their own double standard of fronting Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton as a feminist and as if able to stand on her own (though irreconcilably of one soul in marriage) and independent while they together sheet their vessel tack duplicitously contrary to trichotomy of Constitutional Law and as they bosom her in the maximus of the said too chauvinistic institution of First Ladies protection. It is long the double standard of the Clintons’ politics that Mrs. Clinton supposed to be an independent feminist and yet too fully protected by the traditions and institution for the First Couple as that the spouse is supposed to be a political untouchable.
They cannot hide how they the Clintons have long been of attempts in such a skirting of parity with their maximus to her like of a Commodus right to ascension to be of the glory of the pomp and circumstance protectorate of Presidential spouses, and yet while such broaches a jeopardy of nepotism.
>>> LEGAL LOGIC PUZZLER: Two logic circles over lap some to much but not none at all as united Lawfully in marriage Union. Two logic circles so as one, even so looking phat like an eight, still be as one, though of two. Bill Clinton is one circle and Hillary Clinton is the other circle - they are by Law inseparable as Married in Union. As one in ‘housed’ as at ‘home’ the other is always there of shared assets in residence, Legally in a unit-ified lingua. This is much like ‘nesting’ environmental humanity protections and quite apropos the consumer protection laws around home improvement contracting, and especially such contracts voidance if three days not respected post signing(s). By home improvement laws around consumer protection prudence and evolved jurisprudence in many ways spouses are and are not interchangeable halves. By the wisdom of the 22nd Amendment of term limits marriage Unions may not be set asunder by a more convenient ‘interpretation’ of ‘united’ in ‘marriage.’ By the wisdom of the 22nd Amendment it is arguably criminal for Hillary Clinton as logic circle to be “elected” to any holding of office of the Office of the President; Hillary Clinton is one with Bill Clinton — as when he was “elected” she was to a holding of office by election as they are inseparable over lapping logic circles. So legally the Clinton Union is not now again able to have any part of it for infinity past their eight by election able to have Bill Clinton returned to any holding of the Office of the home office of The White House of the Office of the President. The puzzle is in the Clintons’ trichotomy of a double standard for their own marriage and Union — Hillary Clinton as a logic circle is not allow Constitutionally to run for a holding of the Office of the President on her own as she is inseparable from Bill Clinton and such would by an election of her (if possible) be to a return to some holding of office by election of President William Jefferson Clinton. But is this Legally more concernedly of a TREASON than just a wonton indiscriminate double standard like only convenient to the Clinton Union? It is that simply it would violate the language and seeming original intent of the Eightieth Congress to not see a First Couple as inseparable and that an election of one isn’t an election of the other as a half but a ‘by election’ effecting to a holding by a conjoined one, of soul, in coitered & consummated marriage.
>>> BACK TO THE MANY MIS-STRESSED:
How the Democrats mis-stress GLOBAL WARMING…
How the Democrats mis-stress GLOBAL WARMING begets confusion like against a Constitution state as if too Descartian but of an ability to render a duplicity of course to the constituted writ large language as Law. The ship of states is different from the ship of State — there should be no double jeopardy nor double standard convenient to an autocratic helmsmanship as the Clinton seem heeled and tacked.
How the Democrats mis-stress GLOBAL WARMING begets confusion like a roused rabble of political nonsense yet convenient to a campaign duplicity. The greatest threat now from any man made climate change is it seems clearly that a continued rush in rash partisan politics of limited solutions cozy capitalism to ’solutions’ as proffered by too false naratives over even New York Times data points is from the dangers in new atmospheric hemispherical altitudinal thermals resultant naturally from a politics to poorly and negligently affected irregardless of it common sense that if man removes some or much “greenhouse” effect from one place the thermodynamics and atmospheric winds will likewise re-route at least as long as a “greenhouse” effect stays constant or grows elsewhere, at least in a shared hemisphere.
How the Democrats mis-stress GLOBAL WARMING begets confusion like a Montesuma’s Revenge of marines not timely even to Tripoli at least as Mrs. Clinton still Constitutionally compromising as Secretary of State too nearly a new Commodus as the import of the original intent language of the 22nd Amendment seems flushed as mis-stressed, itself.
How the Democrats mis-stress GLOBAL WARMING begets confusion like to for federalism and new state ‘new normal’ adaptive evolutions in budgeting locally for said more predictable unpredictable, however Acts of God, storm costs. If climate change is more than of man made damage from increasing pollution levels and too as common sense supports as from any lowering of carbon levels we at least are at Senator Barbara Boxer’s “evidentiary” of like: “97 percent of scientists agree that carbon pollution is “pollution”"!
How the Democrats mis-stress GLOBAL WARMING begets confusion like remembering that the Senate is supposedly a ‘club’ of the 100 most ambitious people of the Union by the People’s Order so ordained, established and subscribed as “done” more perfect Union — it is just as confused to posit that: “Only 2 percent of Senator Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton’s peers didn’t vote her out of their own political way - out of their club — only 2 percent of her peers didn’t vote her out of their Senate.”
How the Democrats mis-stress POLITICS OF #MARRIAGE & #UNION begets confusion! It seems by throwing the campaign foul flag of “DOUBLE STANDARD” Mrs. Clinton, however, has called for a review of all times Hillary Rodham and Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton from days shared as FLOAR, FLOTUS, SENATOR, SECRETARY OF STATE, & now like First Lady of the #CGI CLINTON GLOBAL INITIATIVES.
How the #CLINTONS mis-stress #POLITICS of #MARRIAGE & #UNION begets #CONSTITUTIONAL confusion!