hogan
Categories:

Archives:
Meta:
December 2018
S M T W T F S
« Oct    
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  
09/19/12
SAY IT ISN’T SO?
Filed under: POLITICS, IRAQ, TREASON, #MORALS, COVER UPS, SANS SCRIPTS
Posted by: J. P. Hogan @ 12:44 pm

It is the word most on the tips of tongues these days around the world — TREASON? - or: It is TREASON?

For Americans now oddly more “subjects” than “citizens” we are still necessarily to a concern about details - details like:  If treason and judged so must it be punishable by death?  and,  If treason is there a statute of limitations that might offer a former President protection or eventual immunity?

“Treachery” and “treason” or “treasonous” has been in the political air of the United States of America current contestations.

With the Arab Spring as it is a post Operation Iraqi Freedom movement, and, with the new TEA PARTY activity in the USA these are the times at least trying souls over what can or cannot be said as “treason” or “treasonous” - and Constitutionally speaking or of speaking to or for a new or amended Constitution.

For the sake of simplicity for such a dire and complicated consideration we may move to strike up conversation and dialogue most civilly and peaceably by organizing an enlightened and full diatribe at least on an earlier time and an earlier Presidency even.  It is likely to close to the Presidency of the Bush administration for such years to offer enough distance and objectivity.  It is not seemingly too early or too late to decide we all could focus an in depth full consideration of what is or is not “treason” upon President William Jefferson Clinton and at least all of the eight years of the Presidency of the Clintons.

If we set up a month long public discussion now to look at TREASON from all angles and all sides at home and abroad and to even hypothetical discussions of some or all possible real or imagined assaults or consequences and do so just with a focus on WJC and the Presidency of the Clintons it seems we can look ahead without fear of finding a shortage of material for discussion.

It does seem unfair that there could have been a “HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT” campaign legally without the thirty years of protection of an administration’s records being first waived for the Presidency of the Clintons.  That said - we may now have to consider more hypotheticals as per the Presidency of the Clintons just to be fair to other administrations before and after the Presidency of the Clintons.   It would be logically and morally wrong to start here and if for a month with a ridiculous and preposterous hypothesis that a following administration could be “all at fault” if the previous administration isn’t even look at.

What is TREASON?   What is TREASONOUS?   And, in America where the head of our Executive Branch is, it seems, not immune from charge(s) themselves of treason while in office or afterwards there after but for a how long so, maybe.

Where though should we start such a month long full study of such a concern so dire it comes it seems only with a death sentence, and, so about WJC and his Presidency of the Clintons?

Should we softly step forward by going just as far back as the inaugural speech of President Barack Hussein Obama and so to a motivating query possible since PRESIDENT HOPE AND CHANGE shouldn’t have needed to commence officially more a divider than a uniter and so on the defensive for the Democrat Party?

How did PRESIDENT HOPE AND CHANGE so make his first steps so defensively that he became a partisan divider from day one though of having run as a uniter?   How did PHAC specifically try to offer defensive politics like as if a necessary cover-up for the Presidency of the Clintons so from his first moments?

Did President Barack Hussein Obama have any choice but to go officially on the defensive from day one to an extreme partisanship because moving forward with a freedom of innocence wasn’t possible or reasonable for an admin or a party then still embracing or defending the Presidency of the Clintons?

Where though should we start such a month long full study of such a  concern so dire it comes it seems only with a death sentence, and, so about WJC and his Presidency of the Clintons?

What is TREASONOUS to citizens of the USA now too considerable as “subjects” of a “Post-Constitutional” era than necessary?

What is TREASONOUS to freer peoples of the Middle East now of or near an Arab Spring, and/or competition with Iraqi people to see if they in their own country might as well be capable of writing a new Constitution their own also better than the Constitution of the United States of America?

What is TREASONOUS just if of actions or inaction by a seated Executive of the office of the President of the United States, or by such as they, as Clinton may have, while he after being thought term limited, are/is of efforts to bend to near breaking the wisdoms writ large as Amendments to check post office Powers?

Where though should we start such a month long full study of such a  concern so dire it comes it seems only with a death sentence, and, so about WJC and his Presidency of the Clintons?

If one is of saying we are necessarily of and to a “Post-Constitutional” new normal should we ask:  Why - and if so how so?

If one is of saying we are necessarily of and to a “Post-Constitutional” new normal should we ask:  What is in it just for them?

If one if of saying we are necessarily of and to a “Post-Constitutional” new normal should we ask:  But if you don’t proceed to alter our existing Constitution for new times by prescribed processes aren’t you essentially acting to be disloyal and of an actual betrayal to our Constituted ways and so arguably of a “TREASONOUS” corruption?

Where though should we start such a month long full study of such a concern so dire it comes it seems only with a death sentence, and, so about WJC and his Presidency of the Clintons?

It would be fairer and easier to discuss all the possible “treason” of the Presidency of the Clintons if we had required upon HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT itself a Constitutional conservatism for best practices with checks and balances that they do release all the protected and secured records of the Presidency of the Clintons.

It does seem it would be unfair and illogical to start with a discussion about the Presidency of Bush 43 without first looking thoroughly at the Presidency of the Clintons and all that might best explain the problems that have arisen it seems from it.

And, again:  Why did PRESIDENT HOPE AND CHANGE start off so defensively though he had campaigned selling he could be more of the freedom of innocence and as a uniter not a divider?   What is it - was it - that he had to sacrifice his own administration with to attempt to cover-up?  I mean it must have been HUGE - right?

Comments are closed.