hogan
Categories:

Archives:
Meta:
June 2018
S M T W T F S
« May    
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
04/16/14
WITH FIDELITY TO ANTHONY
Filed under: POLITICS, WAR ON WOMEN, #FEMINISM, #MORALS, COVER UPS, RIVAL LEGACIES
Posted by: J. P. Hogan @ 10:09 am

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?

Comments are closed.