Filed under: — @jphoganorg @ 10:36 am

Today is December 31, 2010.

How abused were your senses this past year, especially your political senses?

Do you know whom is actually running The White House, the admin supposed to be of an evangelizing and "personality" governance of President B~~~ O~~~? 

Do you think the Clinton "two-fer" has hindered more than helped as it jostled President at most moments he attempted to show his "personality" superior to theirs?

Did it all fall to Pres B~~~ O~~~ "personality" of a young "dude" on an Hawaiian beach smoking a cigarette in a cigarette holder in surfer casual or "surfer nonchalance" with "what’s another trillion, dude/dudette?"

It has just been WRONG with a capital W, a capital R, a capital O, a capital N, and a capital G!   It is wrong how the former first lady’s "popularity" is maintained for "Hillary."   It was wrong that she was allowed to campaign with the full protection of the secret service provided a term limited First Couple, and the tradition and expectations of "pomp and circumstance."

How abused were your "traditions" and "respect" naturally extended all past First Ladies as near like royalty not to be dissed or "touched"?   Do you mind her inflated "popularity" that starts each morning with professionals likely first "reminding" as many as possible to first present her a such a "do not touch" former First Lady as grand as the history of our Country and Presidency permits?

Like we aren’t even supposed to ask: "Who is Hillary?"  as "WHAT?" is what we are encouraged and nudged to only considering and in the grandest possible "tradition" for her benefit without "personal" consideration.

Like what would her campaign have looked like if not of the full pomp and circumstance with full protection allowing her to be more "the office" than a "person"?  Would she have hired a private army of campaign storm troopers if otherwise left to her own devices?

Like dude/dudette, she would be less "popular" than Sarah Palin if each morning she wasn’t "reset" to the non-partisan tradition of "hands off" our past first ladies.

How abused were your senses this past year, especially your political senses?

And, so with so many missed ops more in the legacy of "Hillary" of failures in governance and encouraging to a near two "Big Mac" with large fries a day habit for America such that a "doctor friend" of their (reportedly, sorry don’t remember his name) was on a TV talk show a couple years ago with statistics showing America could save a trillion dollars in healthcare costs if it could just get back to the "average national weight" from before 1992 or 1993.

And, so with so many hard earned dollars now spread around the world to a new "popularity" the Madam Secretary of State Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton method while in collusion naturally and intimately with CGI?   Remember Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is our primary agent with full duties and responsibilities to a listing of activities of CGI as of "material support to terrorists" or not, and while supporting "upstarts" highly debatable.

How abused were your senses this past year, especially your political senses?

Do you mind that "Hillary" as Secretary of State has basically been to buying popularity around the world and at a rare time in our history where we finally had more leverage to get other countries to help fund a larger share themselves?   How much have we lost taking the easy and now arguably less effective "diplomacy" of "buying popularity"?

How abused have Pres B~~~ O~~~’s senses been so with Clinton "two-fer" wanting and demanding their own space?

How many jobs could such have provided here at home, how many new schools and books?

We are now less, though still some, a nation adjusting to a new world order which found us to a single superpower status not of our original design or purpose.  We were designed to be a loose federation of small states in a confederated republic towards a preservation of individual rights.

How much has "buying popularity" weakened America and U.S.A. everywhere in light of such a rare opportunity now maybe missed that President Bush was more towards "diplomatically"?

And so we still are adjusting to a new world order after becoming something we hadn’t been designed to or for - so accept Clintons as a necessary autocracy of elite lawyers and their daily reset and recrafted "personality"?   So let the lawyers run everything, even if that "personality" thing hasn’t been working for Pres B~~~ O~~~?

Today is December 31, 2010.  

Tomorrow is a good day to start asking anew if really we do not need to restore more power and responsibility to our states and as best for our security and diplomacy and designed basis in a governance of laws not of men/women as of their "personality" and whimsy.

Where did President John Fitzgerald Kennedy’s "ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country" go?  How are we now to a ask, ask, ask, again and again, to a national spending spree and so as witnessed severely lacking in sufficient debate and discussion and transparency around "if should" so spend and spend and then call for "necessary" tax increases?

How abused were your senses this past year, especially your political senses?



Filed under: — @jphoganorg @ 7:11 pm

Tom Cruise, call me I think I now finally know a Hearst entertainment professional to have deal with your seeming interest in my November blogging at http://myblog.jphogan.org with such BEATRICE BOXER AND THE BEAVER WARS.

Really I do not yet know where I am going with this today and such a day so near a New Year celebration.

Could it be time to offer advice to Kennedy/Shriver clan towards overcoming the damage to their image done by Clintons?

I know whom Bud Connolly was and how he was the son of Joseph V. Connolly Sr. who supposedly turned around the Hearst empire after the passing of its famed founder — I know him as a passionate passed percussionist in drums, still, as JVC Jr.  He called me a "summer son."

So I didn’t know there even was an Austin Hearst and one maybe not a grand daughter in Hearst concerned with honor and agility as much as an elder "director" in "entertainment" might be of his own fingers.  So I didn’t know an Austin Hearst might be one most interested in knowing/learning that Tom Cruise seemed most interested in my November blogging a new serious with BEATRICE BOXER AND THE BEAVER WARS series.



Filed under: — @jphoganorg @ 3:53 pm

It is hard to argue against the START treaty consideration after "RESET" misspelled as "OVERCHARGED" silo instrument panel and moveable launch vehicle control panel "symbolic" gifting.

Yet Hollywood has gone and made nuclear weapons sexier and "space ready" explosives necessary to a future of great NEO threats.

What can Steven Spielberg do but agree with his people - What would Gene Roddenberry have thought?

What was Speaker for a few more days, Rep. Nancy Pelosi thinking asking Mr. Spielberg for help after "the Dark Side" suffered massive and fair electoral defeats?

What about GLOBAL WARMING >>> WARNING <<<  >>> WARNING <<< ***ALARMISM*** and without a public <<< STAND DOWN >>> or "RESET"?






I was of tweeting "it is better to get gifts in a COAL bag than coal in a gift bag/stocking."  Or was it "status" "sharing" on facebook?

Can soon to be Minority Leader Pelosi be thinking the people hadn’t defeated THE DARK SIDE? Such story does beg an asking.

Are the people against BIG GOVERNMENT?

Are the people against too centralized and distant government?

Are the people against too distant and elitist guidance by dictate?

Are the people happy not to be "small people" again?

Did we have no choice, no choice in past couple years?

Did we have no choice now whence START recommenced?

How many mislabeled silo and launch vehicle buttons did Sec of State get sold to modern Russia?  How many control panels now have brotherhood of Obamanomics with new American Made mislabeled "cancel launch" in "launch" button spot?

What can Steven Spielberg do?  Lose half his audience and fan base?  Rewrite the morality, "FORCE" and "metachlorine" symbolism for just a few?

Secretary of State Clinton did have only one button, hers, made for the Russian people, right?

!!!  ~~~ THE EARTH IS SAVED ~~~ !!!

!!!  ~~~ I HAVE SAVED THE EARTH ~~~ !!!

!!!  ~~~ THE EARTH IS HAPPY ~~~ !!!

And, yet still, we the people of the Obama administration with the foreign policy of the State Department of Clinton and it collusion and cooperation with CGI (Clinton Global Initiative) are still to our first steps with "we won’t make human rights a priority."???

Mr. Spielberg, you did get the limited edition coffee mug I sent you after my couple days in extra "acting" with you in AMISTAD, yes? No?

Henry Lee’s I dropped off personally at his University of New Haven office as I did the one I left for James E. Burke in New York Partnership for a Drug Free America office in Chrysler Building.

Well to the new year with the YOUNG GUNS >>> A CRISIS OF VALUATION their "inheritance" and charge.

So Speaker Pelosi legacy more to that as a female Darth than a champion of the people Princess?

And now unless "THE EARTH HAS BEEN SAVED" proclamation to "reset" our economic to a new and lasting "revaluation" necessary for our CRISIS OF VALUATION. 

To our "YOUNG GUNS" and We the People… people as "People":  Seems Republicans less for BIG GOVERNMENT regardless of the cost can move us with ‘CUT-GO’ spirit into and through a new year with a wise reconsideration of much and considerate to how technology may allow "cuts" now without loss of service across all Federal spending not better returned to states, and where states too with less expensive new technology can do more work with the same number of people for more people and without BIG GOVERNMENT AT ANY COST as constraint to better government.

What are our states actually capable of?  Alone and individually?

What are our local leaders and Governors supposedly not capable to or deserving of from WASHINGTON - at least as much as foreign leaders are respected to though of smaller responsibilities?

Really, our America economy, domestic and foreign, has a severe CRISIS OF VALUATION, GLOBAL, across near all aspects still.

I really should get to my new media concept for a citizenrosebud.com for Americans as participants in a loose federation within our confederate republic.

What are our states actually capable of?

A community lending renaissance of IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE localism?




Filed under: — @jphoganorg @ 3:13 pm

Live, from Hawaii?

It is simple, and it is complicated, and it has obvious outliers.

Inescapable is that William Jefferson Clinton has some character from those used car sales days, he so in - familiar.  (Please avoid stereotypes as much as possible.)

Inescapable is that Hillary Rodham Clinton, Senator, did announce a start extreme, so extreme in anti-business attitude, and most greatly with her proclamation that she would SEIZE oil company profits, like entirely.

Add to such the obvious for it so EXTREME - the Al Gore GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISM - where he alone may hold the most responsibility indirectly but near negligently for a "Dem Leader" of not "fully considering outliers from his "expertise" for the housing mess and "near depression" economic arguably near first indicated to about the time his ALARMISM scared the oil and gas prices above four dollars a gallon and so much that transportation and production costs spiked and shrunk demand and spending, and specifically the little "safety net" so many had in bubble economy of Clintons "fast and loose" play such that soon they couldn’t afford their risky loans.

So who did it?

Bill more/most?

Al more/most?

Hillary more/most?

Obama more/most?

How did the couple of the Whitewater failed housing development record be left to attempt a ‘housing bubble’ economy - similar to…?

Was it too much the "familiar" to used car sales in Bill that had him hoping banks could play fast and loose with the housing markets and to a new way, a new way to attempt to gamble away the risks in the looser housing he wanted to push but not spend to support?

Was it just the "anti-business" of the "inevitable" that scared demand and supply and started a shrinking of an economy with fear and yet while Dems expected growth on their "popularity" all the while telling our children of school age most that their parents were killing the earth and spending too much and driving too much while saving too little and eating too much?

Really there is little if any reason to mention Bush administration around our down economy - he couldn’t put enough of the necessary spending back into our government fast enough after the Clintons’ gross unfundings in their last years of taking near/at least a trillion out too much and the other trillion they cut still arguably too quickly and poorly considered — See the Pelosi Congress was of blocking most attempts to reverse the "popularity" of the Clintons’ SURPLUSES even as restoring necessary spending the best way to SAVE the economy.  There are enough acts and pressures by the Democrats to explain how the economy tanked such that mentioning Bush really is hardly necessary when studying to figure out a way forward, corrective.

Was it Al Gore and his GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISM that killed the housing before the "banking regs" for it most guilty in driving gas prices above $4.00 or was it Senator Clinton as candidate Clinton loud to BIG SISTER proclamations to corporate invasions to seizures well beyond "taxation"?

Clinton/Gore did it?

Hillary and Gore did it?

Obama and Clinton and Pelosi?


Could it have happened without Clintons so "fast and loose" and Bill so of a "familiar" to used car stereotypes?

Without $4 + gasoline production and transportation costs wouldn’t have taken the ’safety net’ out of households economics that had them then without enough money from earnings to get to work and pay the bills and mortgage!  

Saving the Polar Bears was suddenly more important than sound economics and debate.

Saving the Polar Bears or just the "GREEN" PLATFORM became more important than you?

It wasn’t the banks at first just pinched with past acquiesence to "used car sales Bill" or their so concieved new gambling around dirivitives but much more simply the next steps of Al or Hillary (Dems together united) adding irresponsible politics into an economy without a sufficient safety net.   When gas prices topped $4 people stopped being able to afford to pay all that they had been encouraged by Democrats and some Republicans to over extend into.

Democrats aren’t just allowed to "lie" they are expected to lie, Mr. Spielberg?  No "judgement" nor Judgement Day like another round of impeachment hearings - for Dems?

Even if Republicans had some fault and Bush too all of the above still active economic involved variables much to a negligent and naive.

What about our children and those mostly of school age that were engaged and sworn to a near full allegiance in GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISM and adjusted lesson plans to invovle them to lobbying their parents to a economy with less consumption, more saving, and less eating, and, maybe even no deserts?

So who are the "Democrats" in the Senate we should watch most closely in new year to "shifts" in party allegiance, and rightly?   Governors?  Representatives?

Impeachment has to be on the tables, and at least a call to a reasonable "blame" upon more deserving like Secretary Clinton!   How can fair partisanship return and break the polarizing expected with the "inevitable" election thought a done deal for Senator Hillary Clinton.  

Is lying now the new norm?  Is it our new lower standard?  Will new Congress let themselves all suddenly swear to co-corrupt without any call for "justice"?

Live from Hawaii?

>Oh, Tony dear, Tony Rezko old pal, yes Michelle and I cannot bring ourselves to buy you out from the most depreciated remainder of the side lot to our Hyde Park house with four car garage - please be a dear and keep up the taxes on what appears to be our side yard in full and not just the sixth or fifth of such you sold us so below market and standard pricing, so that we could save on Chicago property taxes.  Happy Holidays, Best Wishes,  Pres B~~~ O~~~.

{At the time of this writing it is my best understanding that the Obama’s have not bought out the Rezkos for what appears to most to be their grand side yard and fitting to a home their size with a four car garage, and therefore that they are still to letting the Rezkos eat the loss they took dividing their property to their holding remaining a sub-lot of much lower value but maybe to tax rolls.  It is my understanding that at least no stories have yet been seen or read to suggest that the Obamas have shelled out for the Rezko portion of what still appears to be their side yard.}

[Pres B~~~ O~~~, is it fair, is it now fair to conclude that some of Dems policies ok, but not some of them together and certainly now so obviously with all of them together at once, so self negating and contradicting in indicative?]

[[Pres B~~~ O~~~~, best now to suggest a job sharing program and future and even to a job per household as necessary to save our Earth and to a new dawn where husband and wife, regardless of sex, to an expectation to share one job with same skill set and worked out flex hours?  We are near you maximum reasonable and safe number of jobs, for now during such ‘crisis’ right?]]



Filed under: — @jphoganorg @ 10:02 am

{note: I expect this to be only presented as a first draft and with me already with too much coffee, so with some "slips" and "misspellings" more likely.}

[Judith Herman, I believe is the remembered author of TRAUMA AND RECOVERY, and such as the doctor author who had me upon reading of a feeling to as if I had written it some to much, with my years reaching for more self awareness to useful understandings, and new understandings.]

(Clintons and Dems of nineties and now of such but without an necessary understanding of integrations with political and business change prudently protected as of "too sensitive" and "personal" roots.)

The Clintons had no to just very few rights to use much of an integrated marketing concept withing THE CHARGE OF NEW FEDERALISM from the early 90s and such as even so that George Clooney was cast to play the fictional alter me on larger stage than my neighborhood and "circle" of concern.   See it was Jamie Tarses then to an asking for NBC for "one more show idea, and for Thursdays at 10" that had me extending myself further than I thought wise, but carefully so.

Such is a story of growing up in the seventies and eighties with stories of Vietnam mixed with stories of feminist reaching, and with me in a neighborhood of Veteran Administration Hospital practicing professionals an one that let me use his Park bicycle wheel truing stand for personal and "neighborhood" bike maintenance projects.

It can be posited that "Hillary Clinton" in such history is actually "BAD" for lasting feminist cause.

The first Doctor White I ever met was the near "scariest" friend of my father I had ever been dragged across a public space to meet.  Doctor Augustus A. White, then returned to New Haven to practice with Yale had been and likely still was a physician to the Black Panthers.   That I do not think is what was most scary of our meeting that day when I near five years old - My dad said "I think I see a friend" and then at high speed started dragging me somewhere I couldn’t guess at completely until he kept adjusting and turning towards, and again towards, the near largest black man I had ever seen - but that was the curious of such not the scary and not as scary as finding out that humans actually let such a huge black person have the last name "White."  I was about five and so when comfortable in "I think I see a friend…" pursuit even too the largest black man I had yet met/seen so it was more when he was to telling me as with "Doctor White, at your service" like that he ’scared’ me as most doctors do a five year old. 

My dad I think met and friended Augustus A. White M.D. while those days involved much in New Haven and Connecticut Jaycees.

Some psychiatrist professionals socially in my network are actually still late to such ‘evolution’ around PTSD and for others so "in network" of egos not wanting to admit it wasn’t them.  Professionally they likely have been on top of their game yet socially still to inadvertantly supporting false sense of selves among some and of their stories and gains.

Some even chased the wrong "heroine’s" of stories and near crashed on rocks much of attempts to lasting positive change for most.   Some of such was unavoidable at least as theories got pushed for their first advance and then refreshed to be checked again under similar circumstances and jurisdictions and "oversight" but then to a broader level.   The Clintons could be said to have been of "malpractice" if they had been licenced as medical professionals and not just as lawyers deserving of legal disbarring.

I have forgotten most of what I knew as regards my usefulness with such and now as hoped can maybe just lean upon "new" and "improved" SCIENCE socially and through ’study’. 

I haven’t forgotten how though the Clintons were of a ride around such and too selfish in their personal set to have discerned to a more wise and considered cooperation.

Yes, the Harry Potter books was a challenge to J.K. Rowling to write seven books each of a curriculum advancing useful and appropriate as a professional lesson plan, and as a whole as like a Penicillin drip of time release effectation, and as part of the second wave of such in "feminism" and PTSD concern.

Yes, "Dumbledore" got his character and existence from the front purple double door (Doubledoor) a Dutch style door where top could open separate from base and such as the front door then for our nations premier Pediatric Neurosurgeon whose son Peter "Rowe-ling" Duncan was of a studying of magic and with round black glasses and a posse of friends, also bike clients and neighbors, much of look of original cast.  These were the "Rowe-lings" umbrellaed under Pete Rowe M.D., founder and proprietor of Yale Student Health Clinic, his grandfather, and also another bike client, and neighbor, then that didn’t want me to move away "for they had fun while I was around" that had me to considering them as to "Rowe-lings" I hoped would not be like wards to grow up more as warts under my Hogan skin.

Yes, it is a reasonable posit that "Hillary" and her story is not good for lasting "feminism" gains.



Filed under: — @jphoganorg @ 11:06 am

So we had another option in 2008 election, and one other than the other of the "other Dem" earlier thought the "inevitable"?

What would the economics of McCain/Palin have been? 

Would Bush’s record and compassionate "transition" help with new Obama Admin to be have been as successful for a McCain/Palin transition?

Would Bush’s admin have also done so much for McCain/Palin to prevent another "depression" and so generously without demands for "full credit"?

And it so came to be that President Bush was so generous to a new admin elect and with so much of the "save" his and his admins and of their doing it at near the earliest moment the Democrat Party was willing to allow.

This new year brings us all a new dynamic, a new Washington cast.

2009 brought us one once likely nonchalant and beach bound/cast with dreams of "what’s another trillion dude/dudette?" lightness in being and wave considering.  Did such speak so and express much such in Hawaiian "surfer" nonchalance?

>Socialism or bust?

>Socialism, but how? 

>Is it just that we haven’t had the technology for socialism to work and I am as good to be a grand socialist as any other and now to be better equiped to success?

>Where is my FDR like cigarette holder?

And, so President Bush did effect the save for America from another "depression" and at the earliest moment the Democrat Party would allow - after Republicans had lost election along line: "it is the economy, stupid."?

We had another option, and now seem to see that such was the better ’economic’ for our times, so with a spoken to need to shift more responsibility and focus back to our states.

The economics:  Our system of revenue basis for government collections and dispersements actually very well designed and considered and such that liberal media now full of surprises for not being to more state’s rights and louder so.

What is another trillion, dude/dudette?

Why hasn’t the main stream media gone state’s rights and state spending since 2009 and as proud "socialists" and "experts" so of a knowing that they need their ideology so based with a wealth and property taxation revenue redistribution and not an income or profit variant stream?

Even the liberal media should have been on board with McCain/Palin and especially with Governor Palin then the most "socialist" Republican Governor, right?  Socialism can work, right, but it needs to be based on wealth and property taxation and not "work" and "productivity" with income/profit basis?

Our system of taxation across our federation in confederated republic is designed to work and adjust, and especially with it of a leaving our national government to have spending quantity tied to GDP (Gross Domestic Product) and such economic variables.

Our system of taxation works better within social science and sciences of politics with it in down times calling of states and their wealth and property basis into renewed governance and debate/discussion and reconsideration of fair and proper allocations within "communities" as designed with our federal government basis on variable economic basis of revenue to less "community" based concerns.

We had another option in 2008, and one that still would have had President Bush likely preventing another "depression" at near the earliest moment the Democrat Party would allow - we had another party candidate/ticket calling us to a renewed timely adjustment as "designed" to shift focus to states in down times and to so therefore a more appropriate in "redistribution" and "socialism" of occassional need more community based reconsideration.

What’s another trillion media - and, how the heck have you all not been the loudest champions of states’ responsibilities and rights with your ideology so?

What would the economics of McCain/Palin have been - state based socialism - a renaissance in the nick of time, and rightly based upon wealth and property taxation with community level basis and fair and completely considered need based governance anew?

Would the "economics" of McCain/Palin have actually have prevented much of the great economic slide and only partly for them of a more even keeled consideration not itself such a global alarming around global warming "crisis", convenient?

Should our new Congress on inauguration day host a classic car rally on Capitol Hill? 

And so now until President Obama declares "Earth is saved" - "Earth has been saved from GLOBAL WARMING" can he "morally" in his own standard and charge be to encouraging any new consumption or production to new jobs?  How many children have already been instructed to a new "concern" and now of new more conservative solutions themselves, and now proud of their own efforts, rightly and patriotic, in reducing consumption and production in order to find ways to live more "green"?

What is another trillion when saving the Earth already the call to the people and while also of admonishing big brotherish of "you/we are spending too much, and eating too much, and using our cars too much."?  



Filed under: — @jphoganorg @ 2:58 pm

And, how the thought "Liberal Agenda" nearly destroyed America:

This Holiday season be sure to try to look at America as the Middle East and Muslim World once stared down.  Try to look at our history in a different order, a less wise and good order.

The way the "Liberal Agenda" wanted it to work as they had it conceived and prioritized?

What way could this be and how is the "gay" though as much a Republican issue?

Where was Iraq and Iran and Saudi Arabia and region of Persian Gulf plus back in 1992?

How much was unsettled?

How much was unfinished?

How much was left and abandoned by a United States thought more for equal justice and rights for all?

This Holiday as you sing of and for "gay times" and "gay cheer" with a new "politics" an evolution of sorts for government of and by the people - Peace be with you - Happy Holidays & Merry Christmas.

Please do consider such as "progress" only maybe because it didn’t happen sooner and earlier before some other more concerning politics.

Please consider that now "GAY" officially to "equally grumpy" of "equal rights to be professionally less "gay" though "GAY" and that luckily we effected OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM finally.

And, please consider some rational concern that we are furtunate that we didn’t attempt OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM with some of "LIBERAL AGENDA" before it.

And, please consider how we might have been greeted in MIDDLE EAST and Iraq and by Iran in Iraq if we attempted a just entry into Iraq for a belated prosecution of macho Saddam Hussein only after pronouncing our Armed Forces of The United States as a "Gay Force" needed to liberate but not occupy.

Yes, this is just another HUGE problem with the "fault" still lying within "the Clintons’ eight years."

Equal rights to be "professionally" not "GAY" and tasked to the unhappy and hopefully unecessary though "gay"?  And, "lesbian"?

Republican and conservative "priorities" have actually been better for "gay" and "lesbian" agenda than the otherwise attempted "Liberal Agenda"? 

Anyone?   Anyone?



Filed under: — @jphoganorg @ 10:21 am




























Filed under: — @jphoganorg @ 8:44 am

Where to start?

With the problem?

With the issues around the apparent problem collateral damage?

With the solution?

With the fastest solution?

With the best solution?

With the easiest solution?

With the best solution for some?

With the best solution for all?


So President Obama an administer with a "too partisan" problem and from his own choices, politics and specific subjecting and blaming.

So President Obama and near all Democrats of past two years of Washington politics have been of an "all not the fault of Clintons" with "none the fault of Clintons" postulating in hard partisan and very personal blame game politics with all the fault of Bush’s administering.

That simply limites his options now - very POLITICS 101 - HILLARY MUST GO, HE HAS TO OFFER THEM SOME SHOW OF "GOOD WILL."

It stopped being (clean) politics of keeping "middle ground" available not necessarily when President Obama on his first day in office was to making "all the faults" those of the "other" party.

It stopped being (clean and reasonable) politics of keeping "middle ground" alternatives available for reasonable compromise and "backing down" without him now needing to feed the Republicans his Secretary of State.

It stopped being (clean, reasonable and just) politics as of day one left foot foward with a partisan blame game based upon the proposition that Clintons’ had no "guilt"/"fault."



Clintons’ both should have been of Ken Starr hearings around "disbarrable" practices of the allegiance and corrupted cohorting of the Clinton "two-fer." 

Such seems a certainty now - "How long have they been corrupted - not if."?

It is unreasonable to think that President Obama can fix the "partisan" divide now without removing "Hillary" for she is a road block to its progress, and one "supposedly" so skilled in "politics" that she already should have resigned by now, as such is an "inescapable" in just Politics 101. 

Such seems a certainty now - unless other than having failed her way to this level and of having been of a record as "statesman" like as Richard Holbrooke and so with a record that spoke to her even slightly "irresplaceable" - a turning of a cheek by any Republicans now would quite be a "corrupting" with a "knowing" accomplicing.

It actually would be "INSANE" if "Hillary" disagreed with such in schools of basic "diplomacy" or "politics" at even Politics 101 level - Just INSANE!




Clintons may even think of now trying to downsize to one home to free up money and assets for legal defense funds.  How else does a too partisan president get past such a left foot forward so heavy and first and loudly? 

The Clintons, both, are supposed to be the "EXPERTS" on such basic politics - If they have an "answer" otherwise it cannot possibly still be as simple as the "is" definition as "is"?

How would any Republican on their swearing in not be of a "knowing" and "wilful" "corruption" themselves if to then be of accepting "Hillary’s" and "Clintons’ ‘two-fer’s’" lowered standards - Such would only be a proclamation of accepting to the postulated to "none of the fault of the Clintons’ years."



Filed under: — @jphoganorg @ 10:47 am

A "soldier" has fallen, the "war" goes on.

Again:  One might gather a sense for the size and mass of a "crime" by the size of an attempt to "cover-up."

RIP Richard Holbrooke. 

A "soldier" has fallen, the "war" goes on.

What has "feminism" got to do with it?  Some?  Much?  A bit?  A bit too much?  A bit way to much?

The man of Steele was right;  Mr. Steele was right in Connecticut during campaign to have declared that Afghanistan "was a war of President Obama’s choosing."   Quite right, let us not miss the import and details needed though to keep "placed" for proper understanding.

What has "feminism" got to do with it?  And, what does the past "avoidance and inaction" by President Clinton have to do with it still?   And, what does the past of FLOTUS "Hillary" and her crusading, at times quite radicalizing and incendiary and in such regions of and around Afghanistan still have to do with it?

A "soldier" has fallen,  an unecessary war continues?

What has "feminism" got to do with it?

I have been a "soldier" in past feminist wars, all the time a citizen, just a concerned citizen, but never a soldier in "Hillary’s wars" abroad to feminism so polarized and flared;  Hillary lost me long ago on her special approaches to otherwise "good" concerns.

RIP  Richard Holbrooke.   Hillary, you should still resign;  more wrongs don’t make you more right.

Vietnam wasn’t a "war" was it?   Can Afghanistan be a "necessary WAR"?

To cover aspects of Nobel Peace:  President Obama in his own "acceptance" remarks was of a warning to "dangers" from "inaction" and "avoidance."   President Obama seemed erudite and lucid on "negligence" of the Clintons’ eight years of "inaction and avoidance" that has us now necessarily "in Afghanistan" but not as otherwise orated to "Afghanistan as a necessary WAR."


The Hawk, and, The Dove – The "Hillary", and, The "Bill" - The dangers too of spouses of attempting to create a reality as a movie for each of them and their different characteristics/politics and with a scheduled separation with PEACE DIVIDENDS and avoidance and inaction appropriate to "The Bill" as "The Dove" for "Hillary’s" "Bubba" and "Afghanistan a necessary WAR" for radical activist feminist "The Hawk" as The "Hillary"?

Ok, I should/we should consider that may be going "too far."

RIP Richard Holbrooke.  We should get back to Afghanistan as a necessary "operation" of "conflict" best to an active ‘re-entry’ during Clintons’ eight years and away from President Obama’s "Afghanistan is a necessary war" and like a war "more necessary" than President Bush’s "unnecessary war in Iraq" of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

What has "feminism" got to do with it?  What has "feminism" got to do more with it now than it did during the Clintons’ eight years of justifying PEACE DIVIDENDS as a moral option?

Did the Clintons use the CIA to lie, did the Clintons use the CIA to lie about "peace" as existing around the world in ways it didn’t really and couldn’t really be rationally said to?

Soldiers have fallen;  President Obama’s "war of choice" goes on unnecessarily so, so as a "war" when a "conflict" or "operation" the more appropriate "box"?

President Obama was right.  President Obama was maybe most right then as with any oration yet of his administration, then while speaking in acceptance of a Nobel Peace Prize with his erudite oration warning to "DANGERS" from "INACTION" and "AVOIDANCE."

Looking to 2012 Mr. Steele’s old controversial comments from campaigning in Connecticut of near "Afghanistan is a war of President Obama’s choosing" are now maybe the most important and correct and prescient for our times and times of a calling to restore a sense of sanity and comity anew in common sense and federalism discussing.

I, personally, have been involved enough in "feminism" issues and actively so and less "radical activist" than "Hillary" and so much so that I have to laugh at times I might rather cry, and not for a "soldier" fallen but a "rediculous" rendering again as "feminist" success.   My goals were to help females in their feminist reaching, but my expectations so with my clever "support" wasn’t that such would then get back to me as an "all femine" success with tellings of another women as a role model for such as I was helping without such realizing I had helped that other female so such that such would be there as a "help" for the other.  It never gets so silly as when even my sister and her friends are of such "pride" in "femine" yet with a pride of pack so of from my rendering of creative support as a "male" for such specific ends.  I have to laugh at "success" though with a desire to "cry" for "anonymity" designed by myself into my assistance in more "dovish" wildcatting.   I had loops of support looping around other loops of support and still some, and more of not making others success but helping level the playing field as fast as I could around people I thought shared my ambitions more thoroughly. 

Hillary too "HAWKISH"?   Bill, a "necessary Dove" or a portioned "Dove" by Dem deciding?

Mr. Steele wasn’t saying that President Obama "chose" to "a necessity" for American troops in Afghanistan.

Mr. Steele was though of remembering and refreshing and maybe a "reseting" of "war talk" to a necessary re-educated parsing between "conflicts" and "operations" and "war" and "necessary wars" and "peace keeping."

What has feminism got to do with it?   What do "Hillary" specific past crusading and polarizing professing quite radicalizing and incendiary have still to do with it?

Soldiers have fallen.

Was Vietnam a "war"?

How right was Mr. Steele, when from Connecticut so of a reminding of President Obama having been of a declaring that Afghanistan was a "necessary war" and a war more "necessary" than President Bush’s "unnecessary" "WAR" of Operation Iraqi Freedom?

Mr. Steele didn’t say President Obama "chose" that we needed to be "in" Afghanistan;  He was of reminding that President Obama was of changing an "emphasis" from our having been in the theater of Afghanistan at war against Al Qaeda in a "War on Terror" to a declaration that we were better to be "AT WAR" with Afghanistan, with Taliban.

Soldiers have fallen.

President Bush was right to have stopped "avoidance" and "inaction" of Clintons’ eight years and for a prioritizing to more necessary to effect in Operation Iraqi Freedom than such of President Obama to an otherwise counter declaring to Afghanistan his own choice as more necessary and as to a "war against" not just warring "within." 

What has "feminism" got to do with it;  how did Clintons manage so much "inaction and avoidance" those years we had sufficient justification to return to both Afghanistan and Iraq and while our absense then seeming to make matters worse than our staying likely would have?   Did the Clintons use the CIA to lie about "peace" to justify and irrational "PEACE DIVIDENDS" in their time? 

Could they have sold us on their gross underfunding without such being so?  Were/are they "popular" for a style, and style of governance but one that was inappropriate for such a time as theirs?

We needed to be back in both Iraq and Afghanistan within the Clintons first term for a "better solution" to have been possible! 

Mr. Steele was more right than most people realize, we/you should ask him more about it.




Filed under: — @jphoganorg @ 10:08 am

Once upon a time - in a land of reality…

Senator John McCain was of commentary about "sailors" and sailors and their socially responsible drinking maybe especially around the Holidays and Holiday lighting preparations maybe even for a parade of lights for decorated sailboats in Annapolis in days after sail boat racing went from being sponsored by Mount Gay Rum to be a Goslings’ event.

What was it Senator McCain was of saying of "sailors" and their candor while partaking of comaraderie and socially responsible holiday nibs, of full strength grog, or something, maybe? 

So now to remembering some more in my fact/reality is stranger than fiction footaging and foraging, and Arctic Terns and those days in eighties and one in particular real in unexpected thoughts of playing basketball in Alaska with three women benefiting from Title 9 and with HEATH, CONN, & BUSH like agressive sugar plum fairies in my thoughts.  Hi "Title 9"  it did help to give you a nick-name after that day in New Haven, now seeming better remembered for its oddity in a reality now stranger than fiction.

For those late to the party, I will get to "Gosslings" - "Arctic Tern" - and "sailor commaraderie around decorated ‘dancing elephants" - but first:  I have finally seen an episode of Sarah Heath Palin’s ("Title 9’s"- as I was to calling her back whence to avoid confusion with a local, Sarah Heath, another.) TV show and now a mini-biathalon of sorts of three, consecutively.   In so doing I also found myself seeing my first in TV Kate Gosslings (sp?) and some other previous "sugar plum fairy" encountering furied to fit.

Have you ever been like to a stepping out "clipped in" and waxed up with appropriate "glide" and "step" wax in a rare New Haven snow storm enough to herald to an expedition upon your Rossignol CARIBOU cross-country skies?

Once upon a time - in a land of reality with enough snow on the roads, but how did I get to trying to play basketball against three women, and in Alaska, while trying to step and glide in a continuous straight line past a local Heath family home on Everet Street, near Cold Spring.  Hi "Title 9"  I hope this gives you "blog lag" as you tend to more in evenings but now in your early morning.

Hello Senator John McCain,  about touching commentary around sailors drinking and drinking socially and responsibly around a holiday decorating of an Arctic Tern and the captain of such vessel, a "dancing elephant" in a white parka, but not a "John" nor a "Kate."

Kate, not Winslet of TITANIC from earlier days mine around wondering to a romancing around the Leonardo DaVinci exhibit I was much to helping with volunteer hours and crafty skills at nearby New Haven alternate learning center to be then more a new museum of Eli Whitney, and of those days of my writing my DRUMS ROLL poem as a code in Federalism Charge anew in DaVinci, yes Kate G. of reality TV:  Do you realize my parents are a "John and a Kate"?

My old sailor friends of socially responsible nibs and spirited gatherings and sailboat racing may not have realized they were like all of "eight is enough" to consider "H" their captain, their captain of Arctic Tern, as like a Holiday toast and spiriting to lasting entertainings, and from that day of pooring out some Black Seal Rum rations.   Last night was my first sighting of game matriarch of "reality" eight, so with her in a white parka resembling another.  Hi "Title 9" again.  Early isn’t it?

Yes, years ago I gave Leonardo DiCaprio a copy of DRUMS ROLL from my collection of political poetry from days of crisis managing spin doctoring "suggestings" collected as THE CHARGE OF NEW FEDERALISM.   He was in DC being directed by Sir Ridley Scott in BODY OF LIES, when we met and so with my also meeting Russell Crowe once more just of MASTER AND COMMANDER.

And so my strike goes on, and so as long as "Hillary" still holds to excess power grabbing in the anti-Washingtons’ Clintonesque it so goes on as from day she first announced "Hillary for President."

I cannot abide such power grabbing for the sake of power grabbing and especially it so historic as ancient to Clintons’ law school days of thinking themselves smarter than the Republican Congress (80th) the writ out and worked through the 22nd Amendment.  It just wouldn’t be right.  It just wouldn’t be right to embrace their irrationality in a unhealthy aires and "high" from so living a wrong thinking themselves smarter than our "term limits" Amendment.   It just wouldn’t be right in any time to embrace an acceptance that "Bill" just needed to find a way to being the "top dog" again without being again "elected to holding…" again - like through a coup.

So one foggy day in Annapolis, around a Holiday spirited decorating of an Arctic Tern, soon then past the Mount Gay Rum sponsor move to Goslings Black Seal Rum, I was to a spirit pooring out of rations and with some lightening thoughts as a captain like a mother of a convenient "8" of "dancing elephants."  It took me awhile to reconsider and likely just for my strike and "avoidance" of most reality shows.

I was to have worked to "Bill" still as "top dog" but not returned to more terms with an "electing to holding of office of President" if with a "faux" President Clinton and a concerning "real" AMBASSADOR TO THE WORLD BILL CLINTON - TOP DOG AGAIN.

Once upon a time - in a land of reality…

Happy Holidays to many and especially to FEMA - friends and others may be their when you need them.

You can at times judge the severity of a scandal in the size and mass of the attempted "cover-up"?


Hillary, please remember and consider I have known you since you and "Bill" were law students of your canvassing me a child at play in a school yard in New Haven and with your plotting then in the air with your polling so of your canvass with "can we both become president some day?".

Hillary, please maybe finally realize that "Bill" lied to you about my answer as my answer shifted from your hesitancy to willingness in embrace witnessed and as my answered changed from a "yes" to two law students unmarried in equal rights and with your change with "Bill" effecting my edit to of then of "but ‘NO’ if you actually marry each other, for then the term limits laws likely will prevent."

Hillary, please realize my first impressions of you were quite disappointing and negative and haunted me then and still for such "plotting" and especially for your "Bill" of lying to your face "in my face" about what my answer had been that you heard but didn’t hear for you were of "what did he say?" to "Bill" and to the getting of his lying about what my truthful answer had been and you to the witnessed eating up of whatever he would say to you.

Don’t remember to support FEMA, they may be there and trained when you need them.

Yup, that about sums them up — Clintons years of a ‘high’ thinking they were smarter than the Republican Congress that wrote and Constitutional 22nd Amendment as to the "trick" being to work a return to "top-dog" essential "power" by coup so to avoid another "electing" of forbidden addition "election to holding of office of president."

So, now I guess I may have Senator John McCain to thank and "reality" TV for now to a remembering that I was out stepping and glidding on my Rossignol Caribou cross-country skies still a wondering if with "correct" waxes for the weather, that day I was of a pondering if another "Sarah Heath" existed in the world I should be considering if I chose to use the teachings of another in photography and darkroom processing for a career in photojournalism.

Please remember to sail and drink responsibly, especially around the Holidays.




Filed under: — @jphoganorg @ 5:16 pm

Most of the time, here, with these mostly quite "first drafts" I am to a chosing of a "title" first and then to a sticking with the title.  Today I have no idea how to title thoughts, yet.

And, now I have figured out a way to title an untitled.

And, now I have figured out that is what I was/am to a writting to - "untitle the titled?" - "title the untitled?"

Quite an oddity and yet an "oddity - in character, for Clintons" could still be said to be such that I may have heard the best speach from the Senate floor by no other than Senator Hillary Clinton as speaches about President Washington’s wisdom and prudence to leaving presidency for to mark and key our United States of America away from fiefdoms and royalty.

Entusiastic!  To the point!  And classic in "Clintonesque" to the opposite point in its erudition.

So, so, so, odd.

I wish I now knew a link for such from days so long ago that Madam Secretary Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton was still Senator Clinton and President Clinton was still of as much an expectation from her to subjugate herself and her career to himself and his, as again pressed yet now from on high in erudite as President Clinton from The White House podium.  Such speach on wisdoms of Washington given maybe in memory of another may still be the best yet from the floor of our Senate yet on points not writ to clever "counter-point" oddity so "Clintonesque."

So, so, so odd!   A Clinton of high oratory best of and for the opposite of their practice and hope(s).

How the "envy" had to be tempered so, how the "greed" and "power" reaching "covered up"?

President Obama cannot "pull a Clinton" - now way - no how!

President Obama shouldn’t "pull a Clinton" - now way - no how!

To be titled.

To be Titled?

President Clinton for "smaller government better government" still a contradictory useful "Clintonesque" oddity?

What would Perry Mason think?  What would Perry Mason argue?

What would Citizen Kane think!  What would Orson Welles ink/print?

What will Big Sister Hillary say?   What did George Orwell think?

Take: SMALLER GOVERNMENT BETTER as CLINTON SPEAK:   A lesson from the MIRACLE ON 34TH STREET:  For a Clinton to say such is like a Macy’s Santa saying "Go to Gimbles…" but not?

Sure Clintons played Santa Claus for eight years but really where was the "morality" and "prudence" in such?  Sure Clintons said "smaller government better" but wasn’t such only as long as it would be "better for them" and to "holding of power" past Washingtons’ prudence and sense?

Now still basically still in "first draft":  To Be Titled:

Yes "Washingtons’ prudence and sense" for where would we all be without Martha Washington.

Oh, Madam Secretary Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton should be absolutely furious.

Oh, Gloria Steinem can speak for herself - have to imagine she should be as furious.

Oh, President Obama wasn’t that some clever politicing so parading "Bill" Clinton now past HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT - CLINTON TWO-FER to like expectation that HILLARY JUST AS CAPABLE.

Yes "Washingtons’ prudence and sense."

Oh, but the oddity of erudition to "Clintonesque"?

"Smaller government better government"  like "shop at Gimbles" - but from Corporate Macy’s?

If you are going to write you should be dedicated and even to attempting such as a "pursuit of happiness."

To be titled?

What can feminists say now, now with President Clinton called for a parading in humility before The White House Press Corp, such a slam to Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State?

What can feminists say now of "Hillary" but like ’still willing to subjugate herself and still put her husbands career and needs before her own.’? 

What can feminists say now, again with "Bill" up in "Hillary’s" career and "space" meant "her turn"?  Why did he do it?  How could he do it?  Didn’t he agree it was her turn?

Such another "Clintonesque" oddity, though now far less successful in the counter-point erudite to an oration less successful in alternate "or"?  

A definition of "is" now less "triangulatable"?

And so to conclude:  "Go big or go home" as secret to the rise and fall of Clintons for the selling to "go big" sold on emotions of electorate and global markets to political vultures hooked for such brought a big promise to a "big fall"?  

And so to conclude:  "Go big or go home" so Clintonesque in the "go big" and "go big the otherway simultaneously" and again and again simultaneously against modern economic science and general prudence?  To where is the fall we "stayed tune" for - it should be huge?

And so to conclude:   I have no idea why or how the Jets could have let Danny Woodhead go.

And so to conclude:   President Obama shouldn’t attempt a "Clinton" nor a "1984" for the charm initiative of Clintons was all so unrealistic "go big" - "go big…" as mentioned and with "smaller government better…" as a clever way of such career politicians as Clintons to be base in agreeing for it would conclude "them better" while their method and practice all one sided but "Clintonesque" in contradictory better not contrary administering, as the one side not one side of an issue but just "their side" in their selfish hoarding and power grabbing.

We have seen the coming of the Clintons,  we have seen it as the coming of Obama.

We haven’t seen their promises balanced though "balanced" and to irresponsible "popular" "go big" also to surplus such that near half of their two trillion cut in a mere few years was spending necessary and not to be undone, at least if you buy into the "morality" or "need" if any of Obama priorities.

So, so, so odd!  

So many classic Clinton moments effected to the opposite of presented somehow and someway, selfish even in "smaller government" a embrace practicle simply to "better if we are still in power and gain powers."

So, so, so odd, and sorry I don’t have a link to the maybe best speach I have yet heard from our Senate floor on the subject here too to why Clintons should be better respecting Washingtons’ prudence and sense of state, and especially after 90s when such an "example" made more appropriate for the globe, yet lacking, alas, for the Clintons and their reaching and reaching.

Maybe we haven’t all been robbed of the "great fall" we expected from all the Clinton hyping and hyping, and hyping even higher.  

That podium parading, a first indicator?

If Madam Secretary of State Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton even going to use "Hillary" any more?   Has she finally escaped her "cover" of "feminism" now and can stop trying to hide her true self and grit to a willing and wilful subjugation to her man and for her man, first and last?

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton?



Filed under: — @jphoganorg @ 7:38 pm

Something was definitely missing.

He came - he met - he spoke.

Something was definitely missing.

Was it an obvious pining for his like "missing limb" of old WAG THE DOG power?

What was missing, something was definitely missing.

It just doesn’t add up.

Could it be that President Clinton was invited just to help Democrats get past a lingering "denial" of last November results?

Could it be that President Clinton was needed to show people that they had been defeated and let them see it on his face as happened?

Something was definitely missing - but what could President Obama have hoped for, really?

Surely he realized that on the economy President Clinton couldn’t admit to have been holding out on President Obama with a selfish hoarding of "economic solutions" and especially with Secretary Clinton a "lady in waiting" hopeful for a rise in rank.

Surely he realized that on the economy President Clinton was so already of "Clinton two-fer" selling to a "buy one get one" package deal with "Hillary" his equal and so really he should expect nothing of President Clinton that Secretary Clinton shouldn’t already have willfully and expertly provided.

Surely he realized that on the economy President Clinton if elected was to have had the identically same economic team likely assembled as he, President Obama did and with most alum of the other in Clinton "two-fer" and couldn’t now be revealed to have been holding out as a conspiring "two-fer" with designs and hopes to "overcome" President Obama especially in "apparent" powers.

So maybe this was all just President Obama of a necessary parading of President Clinton to help Democrats get over the loss from last November and their lingering denial.   President Clinton did look enough defeated, right?

Something was definitely missing.  

How was "Hillary’s" "Russian Bear" hubby so paraded by President Obama meant?

Did President Obama need to help President Clinton get over his own "denial" and missing of old WAG THE DOG powers?

Maybe the Clinton "two-fer" was now two years to subterfuge and covert coup plotting and President Obama has finally convinced them it was going no where and with such a parading today of an obviously sad "bear" in "Hillary’s Big Russian Bear" hubby?  But, why wasn’t the complete "two-fer" paraded so?

Something was obviously missing, and again around these partisan days of near gridlock due to President Obama from day one of attempting further covering up of Clintons’ "two-fer" eight years and much near "negligent" in its now historical record.

What could President Obama have hoped to gain and after Clintons of selling America nearly to his job and as an intimate "two-fer" of one as good as the other and no better?

He came - he met - he spoke!

Something was definitely missing.

What could President Obama have been hoping for after two years of pursuing an economics as the Clintons’ "two-fer" were to have done themselves and with the same team largely of Clinton "alum."   What could he have been to expecting after past two years have been to showing that it likely the Clintons don’t know and there didn’t know how the economy in their eight years was to such working.

Something was definitely missing, by the way where was the equal other half of "two-fer" - Feminists must be furious.

He came - he met - he spoke.

Feminists must really be furious, right?

Something was definitely missing, but was this a necessary step for President Obama to move the Democrats past their denial and to a realization that last November really was decisive to a deciding past a discovery that Clintons mustn’t have known how their economy had gotten to working so and/or mustn’t have been realizing that they couldn’t hold back on President Obama in hopes to a successful coup.

Such really was set and joined in the tense of "impeachable Nixonian" and now we may never really know quite how so much it was.  

At least now Democrats are together in admitting to last November election results as really a judgement upon Obama-Clinton economics even past the variables involved about the dishonesty in their hard line partisan "blaming" of "the other party" as a (necessary?) further cover-up of Clintons’ in intimate and equal of "two-fer" and its negligence in guidance and governance during the 90s.

Are they now ready to speak like grown ups and around how contradictory Obama spending has been with messaging conjoined with "message" also about Clintons’ economics and cutting as also right? 

Has the President by inviting President Clinton to a parading brought his party to more rational and constructive adult speak where now we can move past being asked to believe that it is possible to spin Obama spending necessary "morally" while at the same time spinning that Clintons’ un-spending on same programs also "morally" right?

Something was definitely missing.

Again, why was the other half of the Clinton "two-fer" needed unless their was actual subterfuge about?

Feminists must be furious.

He came - he met - he spoke - he got paraded.

And now maybe we can all get past the irrational and childish "it is all Bush’s fault."

At least inescapable now is a conclusion that Clintons still don’t know how the economics were to working as their’s once.   Was it just an ‘economics’ of a rare time or was another, and maybe one more a Republican actually of such effecting?



Filed under: — @jphoganorg @ 11:38 pm


By early reporting of a "scheduled meeting" for tomorrow the train may have left the station.

Now struck and joined so such as presented like in active tense of "impeachable Nixonian" tomorrow now to "who or whom" but not "what."


By early report to a schedule "meeting" at the Obama White House with President Clinton and as "reported" set,  it now maybe just a matter of whom and when.


Where is Woodward?  Where is Bernstein?  Where is Frost?   Tomorrow has been set and writ to a conspiring (criminal necessarily?) in the "if a President says it is legal, it is legal" in tense of "impeachable Nixonian."


Whom?  All the Presidents’ men/women?  Just all the President’s men/women?


As prefaced the reported meeting at Obama White House tomorrow with President Clinton can only as so currently "rumored" be to an agreement to subvert and pervert our Constitution and our President’s oath of office.   Such a meeting can only be to "how" - how to effect "if a president says it is legal it is legal" conspriracy to subvert and pervert.


If President Clinton even shows up in the attitude of current rumors for such a meeting in such a place it would be better for President Obama to have him arrested before President Clinton has President Obama arrested.


The reported rumored to be scheduled meeting at the Obama White House with President Clinton in the air of "all the fault of past eight years" is to necessarily a (criminal) conspiracy to subvert and pervert the intent of our Constitution and our Presidents’ oaths of office.

Seriously President Obama better check President Clinton and all of both their men and women and subjects for listening and bugging/taping devices, for President Clinton quite likely to hear active orations in the tense of "impeachable Nixonian" at least as they still are of perporting.

The purpose of such a meeting as rumored or reasonable in such current politics can only be to conspire to subvert and pervert in aires most likely past reasonable in "if a president says it is legal then it is legal."



If they do meet and meet where reported to be rumored to be scheduled to meet it may be best that President Obama has President Clinton arrested on at least a willingness to conspire to subvert and pervert their oaths of office, and quite better that he have President Clinton arrested before Presidents Clintons have him arrested.

But, you know if President Clinton doesn’t actually manage to get a recording of President or his men or women or subjects President Obama would just be of President Clinton’s word against his word so would be a bit safer.

No really, as long as President Obama offers a willingness to protect Clintons’ eight years with his "all the fault of the Bush’s eight years" then such a meeting as reported rumored scheduled to be joined can seriously be thought to actually be quite set to in the active tense and clearly with intent to in the "impeachable Nixonian" structure of old.



Filed under: — @jphoganorg @ 8:48 pm

Are you really a student of United States of America history and politics?

Are you even really just a novice enthusiast?

Tomorrow is now rumored/reported to be a mere "meeting" at the White House with…& …about???

What is rumored to be scheduled is farthest from a "mere meeting" than maybe ever in our history as a union of states of one republic.

Dems and President Obama have announced a schedule "move" and "piece play" for tomorrow that has consequence and as yet unknown or even predictable significance.

On the face it may seem innocuous and "minor" so of having President Clinton to the Obama White House, but that would be a mistake.

Scheduled as announced around talk of President Obama trying to "pull a post 1994 Clinton" tomorrow is nothing short of a very dangerous throwing down of a gauntlet.

See, just by trying to play such piece around such "politics" means that if Republicans stay silent and even to below "loud and protesting" then Republicans likely are responsible for 9/11 and feeling a need to stay silent on "all Bush’s fault" and "inherited it from Bush" like never before.   Tomorrow cannot pass without protest from Republicans on "historical perspective" or "historical accuracy" and "intellectual honesty" as now scheduled with White House of Obama without a Republican "silence" an admitting of "fault" or "mere involvement".  

Some times a action just has to have its equal and opposite reaction.

So tomorrow may now be on, and on to becoming the maybe most pivotal day in all of our young confederate republic’s history.

Tomorrow ends if so "scheduled" any "leeway" for Clintons with Republicans like those days past the "Clintons’ inheritance" left Bush/Cheney of 9/11 and the soft shoe tapping to distract and entertain protective of Clintons with an official allowance that the Clintons and their deputies would be allowed "room" to spin to "we just did what the people asked us to do" and well that old simple "blue states said do this and red states said do that" chorus.   Tomorrow, politically, if scheduled so ends with such "gauntlet" play any future reason for Republicans to co-operate with Democrats unless Clinton(s) actually do a mea culpa us.

Even Senator Reid may suffer as never before for he buffer from involvement in what was a corporate save and take over of Las Vegas under his watch is now on the table as much as major corporate and private efforts about the same time to save Time Square, and with both private and maybe non-government efforts completely to remarket America away from that undefended gap Saddam saw a way to drive through like a global conquerer of superior PR + war waging.

See, tomorrow if so scheduled at Obama White House as rumored/reported with a "saving" visit by President Clinton, then all Republicans may have to erupt in protest and self defense even if "involved" or "fault" Democrats charge is merely from their fight to prevent a global establishment of an un-Constitutional to merely "extra-Constitutional" AUTOCRACY OF CLINTONS and with tomorrow if so scheduled a calling to such as a past reality but popular as sold by Clintons in their popular cultural warring in "two-fer" fog to a necessary new global reality and necessity.

So even if Republicans have some "fault" around 9/11 as long accused though to far worse "fault" tomorrow they cannot stay silent.

So even if Republicans felt called to "respond" and "fight back" against the Clintons’ drive and charge to end the two party system and Constitutional basis of our United States of America if not to their perferred goal of a Clinton Global Autocracy and to just a lock for one party and Democrat Party domination with a shadow government of a Clinton Global Iniative (or something), and, to a need to be "global" and "equal" to such threat and its realness and depth and "fog" then tomorrow is a day they at least have to be loud in such and with such as their "DEFENSE".

"IT IS ALL THE FAULT OF THE PAST EIGHT YEARS" can only stand if tomorrow some to most Republicans just roll over and stay silent without any protestations.

It is not possible to allow that 9/11 wasn’t "all the fault of the Clintons’ eight years" at least as maybe a call to 9/11 as a defense of our Constitution.  

Republicans cannot dare stay silent tomorrow without such being an willing and freely exercise confession of much guilt and wrongness, and such as not at least half the fault of the Clintons’ and their eight years as at least "negligent" years.

So even if the Republicans had nothing to do with 9/11 a silence tomorrow will slay them silently and virulently with guilt.

So even if 9/11 had some as yet unexplainable willful "invisible hands" within tomorrow cannot pass without such being called out and as it must have been as a necessary "DEFENSE" of our Constitution and from maybe even the Clintons of a holding of next presidency "hostage" and "highjacked" to hold onto to new Clinton global autocracy as much as they were able to establish.

President Obama,  if President Clinton is even willing to show up tomorrow you may want to arrest him.  He cannot be of help to you, within any "reasonable" rationale I have yet considered.

To understand what Clintons were effectively to in the 1990s and with a full considering around what they decided not to be up to and that such really wasn’t "them just doing what the people had asked them to do" as profered many many times as their "defense" around 9/11 with a projection and transference to like "it was the American peoples fault…" may take just a personal asking of yourself about that/this Clinton Global Autocracy reaching with a hope to at least effect to a Clinton Autocracy and lasting power grab at home enough to effectively silent our two party system.


Filed under: — @jphoganorg @ 12:02 pm

And so it came to pass, that a great opportunity was left to wither on the Dems’ "vines."

We had the technology - we had the economics - we had a NEW "house" on a good foundation!

We just needed like "new Alcoa Aluminum" gutters for a "Certificate of Occupancy" and "TEXT… TO…"!

But, alas, they came to say "we need a new foundation" - but why, but how?

"We just needed the new Alcoa Aluminum seemless gutters and a new key can be passed properly C.O.’d:  APPROVED!"


Why still to: "we need a new foundation" and in old big government "GUILTING" to record new SPEND AND TAX?

TEXT "C  A  S  H" TO … (CAUSE HERE LINKED)  TO SUPPORT WITH A TEN DOLLAR DONATION ADDED AND PAID THROUGH YOUR PHONE/WIFI BILL IN PLEDGE TO > CITIZENS AGAINST SELFISH HOARDERS <  > CASH for short?  [old canvassing joke, from days of winter door to door citizen action canvassing chit chat.]

A new "foundation" wasn’t needed nor new BIG GOVERNMENT anew in GUILT TAXATION and GUILT justifications.


We can rebuild it!  We can rebuid it!  We can rebuild it?

And to a new tech solution that allows less BIG GOVERNMENT GUILT and more happy citizen cohorting and socializing with flocking around "pop" and "hip" new "solutions" where dollar for dollar a dollar given to go further?

[I think the old canvassing joke started as:  Hello, my name is _______________ and I am here tonight canvassing on behalf of CITIZENS AGAINST SEAL HUNTING — PLEASE GIVE!  AND PLEASE JUST MAKE YOUR CHECK OUT TO "C.A.S.H." (CASH!!!) - Thank you.]

So no need for Million Dollar Man solutions most days you walk down the street - your street - and see a pot-hole or a broken water main?   No instinct even to think past what bus or "how many blocks to walk" to find a doctor and medical care?   So when and where are you in your daily trapsing where you actually do think you need to call Washington first even because of a pot-hole - and while remembering seeing a "Hot-Patch" at local lumber yard on sale for less than $20 and sufficient for such?

{Hard to blame this one on just Clintons – but then "Mr. President" Bill Clinton did seem to hold newly elected President Obama "hostage" on first official visit (or near) to New York City with a political power play of insisting President Obama visit his Harlem Fiefdom and with Press and CAMERAS for a "bowing" to President Clinton with a broadcastable "President Obama of saying ‘Mr. President" to President Bill Clinton with enough respect and "aires" of like "well I can never be as great as you - Mr. President Clinton"?}

{Hard to blame this one on just Clintons – but then near first move of new Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was to a proclamation that she would take her "guidance" from same place Dante did (meaning I think God and not the Devil) and as Presidents Clintons had and so as most clever "insubordination" and to obvious "subterfuge" yet maybe ever witness in Executive Office Cabinet Level Politics.  See "Hillary" seemed outright from day one to be saying she wouldn’t be listening to President Obama for her sense of "duty of charge of office."}



Filed under: — @jphoganorg @ 12:20 pm

Whose jurisdiction is it anyways?

She who smelt it - dealt it?   She who smelled it - cast it?  She who smelt it cast it?

It is inescapable now.    The beat goes on, the heat must be brought to cast still anew.

The Clintons a poor "alloy" of poor and inferior "metallurgy"?

Whose jurisdiction is it anyways?

The "rich" - the "evil capitalists" do not have to work, but have, and have been to generating to income and profits into a federal revenue stream.  

Whose jurisdiction is it anyways?

Our communities and states have the power to tax weatlh and property, rightly.

Whose jurisdiction is it anyways?

Our federal government and its primary revenue justification of a basis more "democratic" in productivity and "work" and as yet another way to "express" or "vote" upon current policies and politics.

Whose jurisdiction is it anyways?

And, now with our state’s Nation Guard units "combat ready" for "globe wide theaters" able maybe soon to return home ready to defend just their home states?

And, now so with a celebration of our states and such uniqueness and comparative advantages with a specific "quartering" program?

And, now with our federal government of attempting a taking of state’s rights beyond the practicability of our federal government’s revenue structure and "taking" method in it’s basis on income and profit/gain?

Whose jurisdiction is it anyways?

The wrought of the Clintons of faulty "alloys" and "metallurgy"?

The wrought of the Clintons with "Hillary for President" a conundrum to a lesser American essence?

The wrought of the Clintons with "Hillary for President" not just a call to vindication of "Bill" for his history of infidelity but also a call to celebrate "Hillary" as the empowerer and enabler? 

The wrought of the Clintons with "Hillary for President" still an unthinkable beat of a calling to celebrate infidelity and at our highest levels more than as just a favor to Clintons?

Whose jurisdiction is it anyways?

As the stink and "ode o’ Clintons" wafts anew?

As the era of Clintons of a recent attempt theirs to a vindication haunts anew in still poor "metallurgy"?

As the policies and politics of Clintons now of the same poor cast anew as Obama’s?

Whose jurisdiction is it anyways?

The rich do not have to work,  cannot be told to work to "income" or "profits" and can use not working as another way to "vote"?

The rich do not have to work,  and especially while Washington politician of a saying Americans have a right to not work, or at least not work to have comfortable living and benefits once of a needing of all to be working?

The rich have as much right not to work and to embrace Federal Government wanting to take care of them, and yet the Federal Government’s revenue stream isn’t of a taxation jurisdiction to fund such so?

Whose jurisdiction is it anyways?

Because of our tax structure across different levels of our Republic mustn’t some conclude it is not our fed’s jurisdiction to run programs that necessarily need a basis in wealth and property taxation - for fairness?

Oh, my what is all this "stink" - the ode o’ Clintons exposed rediculous and rude?

Shoot, what are all these "faults"?

Shoot, whose are all these poor casts?

Question authority?   Live our preparedness for our own states now even globally ready for "combat" with a "good" from the Clintons’ years a new emphasis also on our states’ National Guard uniquenesses, and each to their own "readiness" for global competitions? 

Quarter authority?   These are "COMMUNITY" issues not "BIG GOVERNMENT" necessities?

Question quartering?   Our federal revenue flow dependent on the will of the taxed and their "motivations" and "common sense" calling them to "adjust" to less productivity and profits whence a sense of "immoral" or "irrational" pervades into our national politic?

Whose jurisdiction is it anyways?

And, now with "Clintons are BIG LIARS" more to a "Clintons are bad liars"?



Filed under: — @jphoganorg @ 10:17 pm

So where are we?

Are the lines of "war" drawn and drawn clearly enough?

Are the "socialist" "fronts" not "flanks" of one front but two or many?

Held "hostage" now are the "capitalists"!

So where are we?  Is it only a "domestic" front "socialist" of "all threats, foreign or domestic" now really a concern?

Are the "socialists" of China nor the "socialists" of Ba’athist original idealism nor the "socialists" of former Soviet states not too concerned with their own "capitalist" futures now to be a "concern"?

So where are we, where are with this December 7, 2010?

A possible "reset" to Soviet Socialism by an independent Russia?

Where is "Hillary’s" "infamy" where or what is "Hillary’s War"?

Is someone Clinton Global Iniative of funding and even quietly funding with their less traceable unbanked "commitments" really to have been on any other Secretary of State’s "terrorists" lists and CGI of "material support of terror" so from such a secretary of having actually done their duty and asserted to such a wise and necessary "new" addition to such lists their "jurisdiction"?

So where are we, again this December 7th?

Joining a warring commencement to a fight against "socialists" over "human rights" is out, and has been out from near day one of "pronouncements" of this administration.

Join to a war over water, over fresh water supplies?

Go to war with China as "Hillary" has suggested we may soon need to and as spoken about as a war for water?

Where is "Hillary’s Infamy" - what can be "Hillary’s War"?

A "RESET" with Russia - as a joining to their old causes - but then whom are we to wage battle against, but ourselves?

So where are we? 

This administrations war could still be over oil and to a protecting of fair oil profits, but wouldn’t that look foolish now, unless some "cause" expounded to justify American oil as bad?

So some "socialists" in a war against "capitalists" and "capitalism" - but where - but how?

Seems "capitalists" are now being held hostage as an evil axis in capitalism, so now what for "socialists" so engaged and embattled and their rude economic bridging?  Has the first shot been fired - can it have not been now with so many "capitalists" held hostage?

So where are we, again this anniversary of "Day of Infamy"?

War with China but not for or "over" human rights?  But the Chinese are seeming more "capitalist" - so how can such further such "socialists" "socialism"?

War over water and soon with China has "Hillary" suggested soon to become necessary?  But how to fight such without such a win for "capitalism"?

If we fight the Chinese as "socialists" as "socialism" our banner and standard wouldn’t we need to battle the Pennsylvania Amish first?

So where are we?

How can we even join to battle against Chinese even over just fresh water and not also justify having in past having been of a need to fight with and for others to secure oil supplies to those embattled in freedoms and fairer markets for oil and gas?

So some to many in "socialism" not flanks of a united front nor of or near China’s reaching to a "capitalism" as our administration reaches more for an older Chinese socialism.

So now but how?  Old Soviet Socialism with expansionist mantra or old Chinese ways still as modern in "acceptability" with Chinese "socialism" still of letting Chinese live as they lived even three thousand years ago and this of their "governance" in their "socialism"?

So where are we?  Even the Chinese didn’t like this administrations tax policies, right?  Even they with their "governance" of letting many Chinese live as they did three thousand years ago, and like some in Afghanistan may still too of more "capitalist" tax solutions?

But if we are here now in "socialism" our "front" and "capitalists" our "hostages" seems the Chinese would be wise to not copy old Soviet Socialism nor its "expansionism" even in a "capitalism" market based governance for like us in America of decades now in a lesser "socialism" are of finding it is a method of governance of a tendency to collapse upon itself.

So where are we now?  Copy the Chinese "socialism" now maybe even more "capitalist" than our current "executive dogma" and deal with their sense of "socialism" as a allowance that so many of its governance jurisdiction to a living as they have basically for thousands of years?

To join to such a battle otherwise would call for use to so "socialize" the Amish too, right?

Well at least someone somewhere must have realized you cannot join to such a battle in our United States of America and market based economics with a federal revenue structure based upon "income" or "profit/gains"? 

Where are we now, now that some more than some one to a realization that the policies and economics of this our current administration was needing of a federal revenue structure with a basis in "wealth taxation" not "income" or "profit/gains"?

Surely they these "socialist" warriors of holding "capitalists" "hostage" aren’t thinking a "ransoming" a better way to tax? 

Surely they now just want to find a way to get their hands on their "wealth" now that their joined plans to their "income" and "profits/gains" cause a natural contracting and securing to our current reduce economic activity once of a greater good?

So where are we now?  Have you read AXIS OF EVIL CAPITALISTS?

So the Chinese have realize that if to become "expansionist" it best to copy old American Spirit in free market than to join to a "reset" too to old Soviet Socialist structure and its tendency to collapse upon itself, or to a falling to at least six smaller parts?



Filed under: — @jphoganorg @ 7:56 pm

When it isn’t because they were too "Chicago":

President Obama just announced an extention of Bush tax cuts on condition that unemployment benefits be also extended.

President Obama didn’t have much choice.

Without putting a firing of Hillary Clinton on the table he limited his own options on tax cuts for the top two percent.

Without offering up a balancing with a firing of Hillary Clinton he still sat at tax table as "polarizing" and of a new low in "blame game" politics.

Without presenting a firing of Hillary Clinton as an option in tax cuts for top two percent of Americans President Obama was still of a specific labeling and tagging of such as evil capitalists of all the blame.

Maybe the economy didn’t start shrinking and collapsing as soon as Hillary in "for President" jack booting was of proclaiming an attempt to seize profits of evil capitalists as of her "platform."

Maybe the prospect of President Hillary didn’t really while seeming the "inevitable" future so directly cause the economic shrinkage that then led to the housing crisis from a shrinking economy so shrinking household incomes.

Maybe it was just all the Democrats in unison and jack booting to a polarized politic against a evil axis of capitalists.

So we are here now, and the banking and housing crisis was not where it started but where it manifested the most after the fact.

Would an offering up of a firing of Hillary Clinton been enough to placate the top two percent of American tax payers with an offering to them only half responsible and half as guilty with such an offering orated specific to a more reasonable blaming of half of all these problems on both the Clintons?

Sure all Democrats set out to demonize capitalism and the top tax payers but really it was "Hillary for President" proclamations to a "seizing" of oil company profits well beyond here to fore standard taxation methods of government taking that alone might not have been near half as bad but for the Al Gore Global Warming ALARMISM that can be analysed to an effecting to the spike in gas prices with injection of a new subjective in gas demand and supply pricing normality.

Yes our down economy may have started with "Hillary’s" declaration of an intent to seize profits of oil company capitalist profits but such a crashing of economy to causing the housing crisis probably needed the Al Gore Global Warming ALARMISM in conjunction/unison.

Was President Obama’s only chance to get a concession on tax rates for top two percent from a peace offering of a reduction in "blame game" politics and a reduction to half a blaming with an offering up of Clintons as at least half as responsible as evil axis of capitalists?

And, while worrying about Clinton’s reputation as "polarizing" are we at least now with President Obama have a second string Diplomat so that a failing on Koreas by Clinton a call for a back up Diplomat and not an immediate call to war?

So without extending tax cuts even for the top two percent the general rule around tax increases unwise during a recession necessarily had to hold, but only maybe in these economics for Dems of a demonizing of the "haves" as an axis of evil capitalists.

Not extending the tax cuts would only have been a further counter-productive jobs policy as yet of another blaming of a part of our economics more historically involved in job creation, especially in times of economics and politics when they were being told they were bad to create jobs and needed to be told to create jobs, because they were evil and of an evil axis of capitalists.

So as long as it is "all the Bush’s fault"…

Oh, and well as long as Dems were of thinking the order to fix "problems" wasn’t to immigration then jobs/economy and then healthcare and so to their much more expensive and counter-productive with carrots of healthcare and jobs before immigration…


Filed under: — @jphoganorg @ 11:00 am

About the best thing Hillary Clinton has going for her is that Republicans if successful in 1992 Presidential race were likely to have been worse.

That said, and said as now relevant again not to a "re-litigation" of past but to a "re-prefacing" to the Bush years after 2000 election:  1992 was no 1994!

1992 Republicans were an abhorration of American "melting pot" sensibilities, even an aberration, though not necessarily President Bush, specifically.

1992 was no 1994!  In 1992 race a Christian right was more dominant to quite excessive, to quite excessive in a pride.

1992 wasn’t writ for President Bush so it seems for his party wanted to exceed his prudence and betray American "melting pot" history to a prideful claiming to American Christians saved the world.

We had what we thought was an end finally to the Cold War and a clear triumphing of capitalism over socialism.   We had the fall so of the Berlin Wall and grand coalition of international states united to acknowedge and enforce a treaty with Kuwait.

1992 was no 1994!  In 1992 run up the Clintons’ look like a necessary "balance" to a excessive to un-American pride march of the right, and more specifically the Christian right beyond Bush prudence might still be able to check.

That said, and said as a defense of Clintons - 1992 was no 1994 and by 1994 doubts already present that maybe Republicans not the greater of two evils as thought in 1992.

A "New Covenant" for America?  -  A good start thought to other ends?

The Clintons in their intimate "two-fer" and political plotting then not the better alternative less than fifty percent were of thinking?  Then by 1994?

What does "Hillary" bring now to the tents of diplomacy?

What does "Hillary" bring now to these tents of diplomacy as we see she wasn’t really "ready at 3 am" for all she claimed?

Sure, to remember 1992 not to a "re-litigation" of a not yet truely "litigated" administering not as prudent as to say "re-preface" the 2000 year deciding and with a reflection and meditation to the race of 1992 when Senator Al Gore the thought "A-Team" to "inevitable challenger" to again lead all Democrats was himself to his like > I will not run… President Bush deserves a second term.

Sure, you could even say that 2000 court deciding was a Constitutional "conflict" that Senator Al Gore created himself back when announcing he wouldn’t run in 1992.  Senator Al Gore acted "Parliamentary" not "democratically" as the inevitable A-Team Dem front-runner expect to shoulder party and charge and so set up the 2000 conflict so when of his proclamation in leadership of a declaration that > President Bush deserved a second term… so I am not running.

About the best thing Hillary Clinton as going for her is that Republicans if successful in 1992 Presidential race were likely to have been worse.

And that said, again, and after commentary around how Senator Gore set up the Consitutional conflict of 2000 deciding himself with his extra-constituional - from on high - proclamations to President Bush deserves a second term… so I am not running, "leadership":  "W" picked up the "sword" of his father years after the Christian right had made the Clintons a seemingly lesser evil in 1992.

So Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hasn’t brought near what she promised to our tents of diplomacy, and still hasn’t seemed to learn the lessons of the nineties from just Saddam Hussein to a thinking he would be able to keep Kuwait once he took it.

So to re-preface the 2000 elections and troublesome aftermath "an inheritance" from Clintons, yet not "re-litigate": 

> In 1992 the United States of America was of a world of dramatizations of fears that the world was about to end "by fire."   We were proud for having our capitalism seemingly of a victory over Soviet Socialism and creditable so for a winning of the Cold War, it seemed finally.   Saddam Hussein with Cold War ending and peace supposedly breaking out was instead to an expansionist grabbing of Kuwait, and seemingly with a thinking reasonable to a "keeping."  At home our Religious right was to an extreme and a reaching to claiming credit of such global change as "specifically" an American Christian success, and away from a more prudent America as a "melting pot" and Reaganesque "pulling together" to a shining city on a hill, for all.  The Clintons shouldn’t have been to a "confidence" they could or should win in 1992, and especially after their leader Sen. Gore, the inevitable front runner, was of a proclamation from on high that President Bush deserved a second term, and so much so that he deserved annointing to such more than a democracy restoring fight over a campaign season.   But to have started with a New Covenant and then lead to a "blue and red" polarizing of the globe and solicitations to "blame" to "blame just the Republicans" for much that was to the victory in the Cold War?   To have started so with a New Covenant and then to have been of bigoted bias against Shia people especially in Iraq with regular ‘Iraqi Shia are not capable of governing themselves’?   To have started so and now present in "tents of diplomacy" attempting to build a better future with the Clintons’ own past a dangerous haunting more than a blessing?

 So it may have been worse to have re-elected President Bush in 1992, but now Clintons’ "legacy" really challenges such a "conclusion." 

Why did Saddam Hussein think he would be allowed to keep Kuwait - he must have been of thinking he would be able to keep Kuwait?

Why when Saddam Hussein was finally found in a sandy ditch/hole was he described as having been "found in a HOGAN"?  Was he "radio-active"?

So "Hillary" said she would be "ready from day one" and "best at 3 am" and now how and to what?  

Her argument was she already knew all the dictators and tyrants so had a shorter "learning curve"?

And, then it started, and started with "we will not make human rights a priority!"



Filed under: — @jphoganorg @ 12:19 pm

I read or viewed somewhere once that a signer of a signature that loops backwards to the left is of their signature representing their own "living in the past" or like "having issues."

So President Obama wanted to bring in new FDR social programs progressivism to much worse and so such may be in President B. O. signature as much as his choice to live also in a "Hyde Park."

But of the BIG "B" like a huge crash to a big "O" with his "B" always signed looping big to past (left) and then swinging/cresting tsunami like with small little waves to the big "O"?

Anyone?   Have we gotten the President of his signature?



Filed under: — @jphoganorg @ 3:46 pm

     "The goddess of freedom promises to enlighten the world with freedom, but then she has this tablet of law, reminding us that there are strict precepts.  There is no absolute freedom, but rather limitations."

     "But doesn’t the tablet say 1776, not 1787?"

     "Yes, it clearly invokes the Declaration of Independence."


     "The tablet is suggestive of the twelve tablets of Roman law as well as the Code of Hammurabi, but in Western society, the great symbol of the law is Mosaic.  So to me, the tablets symbolize constitutional law."


     "The significance of the Statue of Liberty holding a tablet of law has not been lost on commentators over the years….   ‘Liberty carried the Tables of the Law in her left arm, while her forehead shone with light like the prophet’s on Mount Sinai.’"


     "In Exodus 24, God summons Moses up Mount Sinai and promises to give him ‘the stone tablets with the teachings and commandments which I have inscribed.’"


     "Was Bartholdi aware of this lineage"  Did he puposefully connect Liberty’s nimbus to Moses?"

     "’I'm not sure where he came up with this idea,’  Moreno said.  ‘Was it the Hebrews, the Greeks?  But it seems to me that he probably got it from Judeo-Christian sources, because the nimbus constantly resonated in European thought.  Even if Bartholdi himself didn’t go to Rome to see Michelangelo’s Moses, his friends did.  And they were sharing ideas.'’

     "The statue’s most unusual symbol may represent its most direct link to Exodus.  Traditional depicitons of Roman Libertas show her left arm down at her side, holding a broken jug, signifying the slaves’ release….  The final statue shows Liberty holding a singular rectangular tablet, inscribed with July IV,  MDCCLXXVI, or July 4, 1776.  Tablets were not common in classical art and were  introduced into European art in conjunction with one story,  Moses carrying the Ten Commandments down Mount Sinai."


     "… I started with the chains and shackle at Liberty’s feet."

     "Ostensibly they symbolize independence from England, but secretly they mean other kinds of servitude — slavery, tyranny, any kind of oppression in the world.  That’s why immigrants and refugees legitimately saw the statue as a symbol of their freedom."

     "…But the notion that light should envelop the head of an exalted figure is introduced in the Hebrew Bible, predating all of these uses.  In the first sentence of Genesis, God is associated with light as he utters the earliest words ever spoken: ‘Let there be light.’  God later appears to Moses in an illuminated burning bush, and he appears to the Israeilites encamped at Mount Sinai as ‘a consuming fire on the top of the mountain.’  The first human being to have his presence infused with God’s light is Moses."


     (Of Moreno)  "He never left.  A first-generation polyglot American and a sponge for languages, Moreno was a perfect Boswell for Liberty.  He has since written one book and one encyclopedia on the subject in English and was cowriting another in German, and in order to examine all the immigrant documents that came into the library, he had managed to learn French, Italian, Spanish, Arabic, Dutch, Swedish, Norwegian, Afrikaans, Romanian, Portuguese, and Catalan.  ‘They’re all related,’ he said nonchalantly, as if the task was as simple as collecting his mail."


     "Barry Moreno was not what I had expected.  On the phone, the chief historian of the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island sounded like a pencil pusher who wore a green visor and toted a tuna fish sandwich to the island every day.  I would have pegged him for balding and fifty.  In person he looked like a backup singer for Madonna.    He wore fashionably flared jeans, trendy shoes, and a yellow, polka-dotted dress shirt with unbuttoned French cuffs.   The son of an Egyptian mother and a Cuban-Italian father, he also has long, lithe fingers that he bends back in the manner of  a yoga instructor."


     "On a gray approach from Manhattan, the Statue of Liberty doesn’t quite stir the  soul as the postcard images would suggest.  Her mint color seems more chilly than star-spangled.  She faces south, meaning that for much of the ride you’re viewing her from behind."


     (And still from Bruce Feiler in his AMERICA’S PROPHET - Moses and The American Story with a use of an "&" to signify that his works are being presented in a reversed order:)

     "The ROSEMARY MILLER, a small coast guard vessel, docks at the  pier, and a half-dozen commuters walk up the short plank and gather in the open air at the stern.  Many carry brown-bag lunches or crumpled plastic sacks.  One wears a hard hat.  Ignoring the wind, a few are trying to talk on cell phones or listen to Ipods.  These workers are taking the morning commute to Liberty Island, and as the boat pushes off from the shore, all of them are leaning against the rail or huddled in small groups, looking north.  The statue is south.  I had been invited by the monument’s chief historian to take the staff boat to the island, and my first impression is that if you are exposed to the statue often enough, even the country’s beacon of hope can become a mere backdrop.  As the boat splashes into the harbour I risk exposing myself as a newbie when I defiantly look south."

     "At the close of the Civil War, the country’s most profound shock may have been the damage to its self-image as a chosen people, selected by God to create a biblical kingdom on earth.  Even more destabilizing, the closing decades of the nineteenth century brought a dizzying barrage of intellectual movements, economic transformations, and scholarly invention that collectively constituted the biggest threat to the Bible’s authority in its nearly two millennia of influence.  Charles Darwin published THE ORIGINS OF SPECIES in 1859, initiating a direct assault on the biblical idea that God created the world in six days.  Also, literary critics exploded the traditional view of who wrote the Bible.  Custom held that Moses wrote the books that bore his name; David wrote the psalms; and the prophets wrote their books.  Scholars now argued that different authors composed the stories, often long after the events described.  Educated people were force to accept that the Bible may contain the word of God but also contains the work of scribes.  Overnight, everything known about the Israelites was open to question.  Did Moses really turn the Nile into blood?  Did he really part the Red Sea"  Did he even esist?  And what about God."

     "…  The ‘age of belief’ gave way to a ’scientific revolution.’  The grip of evangelicals gave way to wave after wave of Catholic and Jewish immigrants.  By 1900 it became clear that if the nineteenth century had been America’s Protestant century, the twentieth century would be something else entirely.  And that raised the question:  If America’s focus on the Bible was diminishing, would its attachment to Moses lessen as well?"




Filed under: — @jphoganorg @ 9:06 am

On December 5, 2009 a shadow of its former self reared itself back into the news.

Remember all the czars?

A shadow of its former self, now, and wrapped up "presidential" with a record number of new czars?

Remember all the Tsars?

A shadow of its former self, now, and wrapped up "presidential" with a record number of few Tsars?



A time to dissolve the United States into six separate regions and so as well to a shadow of its former self?

Remember Ukraine?

Remember if still federated with Ukraine Russia could be two thirds the size of U.S.A. and not nearer one third.

Remember a new Russian temper - remember Georgia separatists?

A czar for every region?  A Tsar for just one from many - RESET?

Remarkably, maybe we should have bombed the old U.S.S.R. super architecture of days gone by of global expansionism in Soviet communism, just to help with some "ghost-busting"?  How haunted are these old Russian halls of spirits expansionist of Soviets of a by-gone era?

START treaties to an America fallen to six separate regions, and nothing to consider?

On Georgia Russia had it right, maybe.

On Georgia and Separatists Russia may have had no other "move"!

On Georgia a geo-politic and geo-mapping quite live in Fruedian "separation" and "modern" in prophylactics/non proliferation, nuclear.

On Georgia and "Separatists" how cruel they were, how cruel they were to have treated their separation in geo-nuclear concerns as a bodily "removal" and not a "non-proliferation–prophylactic removal and discarding"! 

You do remember what Georgia’s shape is and how the new Russia with fewer Tsars was near a effecting to a rotation "graphic" on "borders" to another anatomically correct rendering?

You do remember that as U.S.S.R. split and to parts large in size but smaller in populations than many states including Iraq, and, some small in size and of recognizable shapes?

RESET?  Wasn’t an option for Georgia so behaving "Separtists"?

Yes Georgia before Russian protests and now again does look like a discarded prophylactic, a weapon in nuclear non proliferation.

Yes Georgia during uprising was becoming more a "Russian derriere" and with word play to assert a different type of "separation" for a new Georgia.

Yes it was re-established in presidential federation politics without Georgia having to face a missing "tip" to unwanted proliferation concerns.

What is politics today?  Should the U.S.A. fall apart or disolve into six separate regions?

What is politics today?  Are we not too big to fail?

What is politics today?  A czar for every social issue and then some with a new expansionist America in neo-colonialism, just so that those we defeated feel less defeated?

On December 5th, 2010?

On December 6, 2010 > "Condoleezza Rice Goes "NUCLEAR" While Co-Hosting The View"?

On December 7th, again a somber reminder of expansionist governance?

Why is "Russia" even at the START table?  RESET to what?

RESET?  RESET to the days before Obama/Clinton "political" take-over of Afghan conflict and their rush to just add more troops with out defined mission or goals that had them exercised to an "accidental" widening of Afghan theater with a broaching of Pakistan and its politics?

RESET?  RESET to days of U.S.S.R. before Afghanistan became the Gettysburg of the Cold War and so the pivotal "turning point" to Reagan’s defeat of Communist Menace?  Reset to days before Russian governance couldn’t bring Afghanistan to their socialism?

So "Speaker" Boehner and party hacks:  Is our current state of problems with Washington that of "socialist" domestic expansion now past its prime and needing a dissolution too? 

So "Speaker" Boehner and party hacks:  Were not our federalized socializings in welfare and medicare and such for our forgotten youth and elderly but a short term "socialist" experiment also impossible to lasting "solutions" and "temporary"?

So "Speaker" Boehner and party hacks:  Afghanistan was the "Gettysburg" of the Cold War of the "turning point" away from a greater spreading of Soviet Socialism, right?  And, Iraq embrace of Ba’athism a reported "perversion" of conception of "Ba’athism" as to a United Arab Socialist State? (Alan Hart in ARAFAT - TERRORIST OR PEACEMAKER)

So fellow members of these united socialist states of America:  Have we gone too far?  Was nationalization of any part of "welfare" and "healthcare" but a short term socialist "patch" needed until more "American" local solutions could be worked, and worked more locally, even to six separate "new" regions for our United States?

So fellow members of these united socialist states of America: Have we gone too far?  Has socialism run its full course of usefulness in America too?  Regardless of whether Russia should be at START, would Pakistan be speaking Russian now if not for Afghanistan as a new "Gettysburg"?

So fellow members of these united socialist states of America:  Have we gone too far?  Or did we just not go far enough - how did we let old Soviet grand halls stand to become so haunted by expansionist ghosts, and even pining for such maybe of "Hillary"?  Did we just not go far enough > Is President Obama destined to be the leader of a united socialist new global state and now when "internet" and computing now finally here as tools necessary but once missing, as like Hitler needed punch card processing to organize, but, more of a new evangelizing to a new "BIG BROTHER"? 

Have we not gone far enough?  With Moscow home to "more billionaires than any other city" has Obama and Clinton failed us not for pushing for a new expansionist socialism but for pushing for such globally without a seizure too of all of Moscow’s billionaires wealth, and not just those from "oil profiteering"?

Remember all the czars? 

Remember the original intent, the founders?

Remember the Constitution?  Our Constitution of our United States of America and its experiment in individual rights "under God"?

For December 5, 2010:  What is a "measured response"? 

For December 6, 2010:  What is a "presidential federation"?

For December 7, 2010:  Are we ready for presidential terms of just two year increments with a max to eight years still?



Filed under: — @jphoganorg @ 2:03 pm



I haven’t had time to study such, time kept moving on too quickly.

But - now with the "community organizer" as President and to as the "un-community" president?

But - now with the "internet sav campaigner" now President and to missed new tech opportunities?

I do not know how much I put of my thinking as Reagan’s or from Reagan Revolution that may have been more of my own considerations to maximizing opportunities in furtherences from such especially if new orders became present with a becoming by America into a "sole superpower" role.

With so much now attempted as new better directions in policies and politics I have had to consider fewer were of my thinking than I once was of pondering.

So now we have Debt Commission "findings" concluded and voting approaching.

What have we forgotten to consider?  Where have we forgotten to look back to?  How have we forgotten to synthesis and reconsider what may be right in front of our eyes anew?

Simpson and Bowles?   Have we forgotten a sociological considering of our communities as per?

Simpson and Bowles?   Have we ignored how much of welfare and medicare are of a pre-internet era where technology wasn’t available to "enforce" or "police" cheaters in a local healthcare providing?

Have we forgotten to look at Healthcare as a national issue as now an unecessary consideration because of the internet and even the welfare and care for the elderly once with "national" arranging a fair alternative to prevent unbalanced providing by localities, and with over-burdening on any "locality" that dared attempt an improving on their own first?

Is it not true that we started providing welfare and healthcare at national level simply because too many could cheat any other method without much fear and that now local solutions in new "internet world" of interconnectivity could allow a more local construct?

Do we just bring about devastation upon our community structures in natural sociological and economic sense by now attempting to add "healthcare coverage for all" to national jurisdiction instead of now considering at least for a reasonable period that even welfare and medicare (national caring for young and elderly) could too now exist soundly at mere county levels?

So we did become the world only SUPERPOWER, and after I had considered for at least a decade how such transitioning could be used to max towards renewal around federalism issues and discussions and common sense, American style.

Yes the problem used to be that a city, county or state didn’t dare make first moves to "better care" for young or elderly for fear that mass migrations would happen into their jurisdictions so presenting a unmanageable burden beyond the "fit and able" ability to provide.   Such is now a manageable concern not needing continued "nationalization" maybe to quite really so, and much due to computers and internet.

A nation wide solution may still be needed but now with a "national solution" not necessary.  A competitive county based system would keep a working within "sense of community" necessary for communities to still be "communities".

We couldn’t have reached this point without the reaching in old federalism debates around the 90s moves in community policing "decentralization" and so also with then "liveable cities initiatives"  and we couldn’t have taken such far enough for such without computers and the internet such that what was once a rediculous proposition now to quite plausible and doable.

Will President Obama become the "un-community" President?   Can he avoid such "tag" but with a considering of how many "national solutions" once the "only solution" now have new more local and community centric posibilities?

Yes, it once in the days before computers and community policing was an idea with a near impossible considering, but one now quite advanced past - too many would have been able to cheat a local improvement too easily and too many other towns would see a "benefit" in not improving so that their "needy" would move out instead, and to an area "providing."

Will President Obama become the "un-internet" President?   Will he miss completely all the opportunities of and from such just for an ideology towards centralized nationalism, to socialism? 

How have we gotten so far from healthcare as a community based socio-economic of integral to sense of community and sense of survival for and of community once more of either raising its own to become future doctors for others of their own community or just thinking about what is needed to have a doctor want to be in their community as an integral member of such community and its fight and competitions to be better or at least as good as most other communities around the globe?

It just is dangerous to think that because we have cared for likely to be forgotten youths and elderly at a national level we should then move to covering all healthy and able, and especially after members of our societies have invented and created, and studied and perfected to new ways such that what was once our nations only option as "nationalizing" is now maybe the less good alternative moving forward. 

A loose federation of county-wide community centric independent but united and maybe county/state based, partly, care and coverage centers seems a simpler and more equitable "modern" governance opportunity.

And, where such also relates to "healthcare coverage" history as designed still from a enticement to "employee retention" and as a employer based insurance product construct many questions still remain as to how to work such metrics and quantitative and qualitative analysis of underwriting within "market" system would be maybe better to a county-based not strictly employer-based competitive considering where employers maybe to be of "options" for employees different within different counties but with a motivation to participate in their communities general economic comparative advantages in healthcare providing.

So we have systems now of designs of such from a time when such was the best or only option.

So now we have computers and the internet and don’t need to usurp to national socialism or for regional fairness, and so don’t have to deal a blow to our nation’s vast differences in "sense of community" across our lands.

Really!  Right?


Filed under: — @jphoganorg @ 10:05 am

To skin a chicken you first must catch it.

To save healthcare in America you should have first looked at what wasn’t really being looked at, our communities as communities?

To get to Carnegie Hall "PRACTICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICE" like?

Ok, it is odd that Presidents Clintons (Clinton two-fer in the original) in their first moves past boot from White House was to attempting to get Bill nearest the Penthouse suite in new Carnegie Hall Towers in New York City and so as an attempt to get tax payers to cover near a million per year rent - before build-out just for President Bill Clinton.

Ok, it wasn’t to such a "simple life" that Clintons were to trying to get tax payers to cover for them an annual rent for President Clinton that was in just first year to amount to more than had been paid for all past Presidents of the United States combined in our brief history.

Ok, it was to they didn’t get their first choice and its desired elite austerity and royal spledor and that even what he got dragged into near tears uptown in Harlem was even then more than tax dollars should have been released for.

What was "appropriate" for a new Senator? 

What was "appropriate" as well for a new Senator and especially a carpetbagging Senator around healthcare reform?

What would have been better for all New Yorkers but for Senator Clinton and such just President Clinton to have turned their energies to helping all New Yorkers get "coverage" at least as Massachusetts had worked for all?

How was it Senator Clinton isn’t googleable for years of hard work to get all New Yorkers covered by all New Yorkers and is almost entirely searchable for "universal" coverage just for elite Americans as her reaching for centralized big government solution inseparable from tag as "socialism"?

Where was the "community service" in Washington DC Democrats manuevering? 

Where was the sensibility to look at greatest costs that may have been the easiest to fix and fix locally?

Where was the focus on local and community level change where about healthcare by a neighbor for a neighbor in a neighborhood or near neighborhood healthcare facility run by mostly other neighbors for other neighbors mostly was still a healthcare system about neighbors and community? 

How did we get to neighbors needing WASHINGTON to give care to a neighbor? 

How did we get to neighbors and communities thinking around health fears that it wasn’t just still a neighbor or other member of their community that they really were only needing to consider?

How did we get to a healthcare cost system inflated and confused just because WASHINGTON seemed to want to be in our "community" decisions?

Isn’t the greatest "cost" issue thought easiest to fix that of how emergency rooms and their higher costs from higher over-head are providing healthcare services like at five dollars per case when only one dollar per case needed otherwise?

Isn’t it only because WASHINGTON wants in that communities have been not fixing such system on their own and maybe with a new focus at county wide not country wide levels?

Isn’t it only because we stopped looking at such practice around urbanity and counties and inequalities of burdens for a regional model of life and created a new healthcare model to first match the existing regional model of life?

Even as early as early 90s the United States was with a new technological level of interconnectivity such to adjust healthcare systems and "groups" towards "county based" and more in lieu of "employer based" coverage.

Even as early as early 90s were we with though a new interconnectivity that could prevent much of the feared abuses thought to come then with attempts to fix healthcare with one small step at a time community and county based reforms.

Even as early as early 90s and before Clintons got elected a great extra cost in healthcare was that emergency rooms providing at five time or more the costs to their community care for others in their community that could be covered at on unit instead of a multiple of such to five.

To fix healthcare don’t we first have to stop looking at it the way and ways the Clintons both have long encouraged?

To skin a chicken you must catch it first, and isn’t it actually worse than all the above as per our current economics that President Clinton did seem to approach his "banking pals" thinking they would dish out his "rent" for near penthouse suite in new Carnegie Hall Towers and for them like "owing" him for not just helping them create an entire new market in "derivitive" but actually for encouraging them into such when he wanted to try running unfunded and underfunded classic federal social programs?

{I would mention such more about President Obama, but see in early 90s, he and his being four years older than me to the day, still had him as a fresh law school grad, and seeming focused other ways.}