1/6/2011

AND THEN THERE WAS ONE

Filed under: — @jphoganorg @ 7:13 pm

Until today President Barack Hussein Obama had been the accepted titular head of two equal branches of our federal government.   Well, maybe more so than just "titular."

We have three "branches" (equal branches) in our Federal Government, some even read about such today.

Have you read your Constitution today — did you read along with Congress?

Did you hear the part with "in the year of our Lord" with us in a marking of our days with the Christian calender later "amended" some with our First Amendment?

I guess understanding what is written can be difficult at times.

Are you ready?  Have you readied yourself?  Have you steeled yourself for austerity issues?

Have the Clintons been most to this "failing" of 111th and President Barack Hussein Obama such that now our President may have been rendered near a "titular" head and of only one branch?

There is much history and precedence that our Congress to an equal right to determine the fix.

If it is now to "austerity" the Clintons might want to sneak away and hide — their eight years are going to get a long overdue "edit" in the public eye.  Have their plans backfired?

Are you ready for C.O.L.A. rollbacks and with efforts to lower the cost of living while accepting newly permissible effectings in valuations and revaluations once unthinkable?

Not much we can do about just National Security imperatives nor that President Clinton use to whine that President Bush had "left him a war."  Not much that we can do now that the less expensive options for Afghanistan and Iraq passed with the "avoidance" and "inaction" of the eight years of Clintons.

Lucky these past two years didn’t see those in Washington as politicians and bureaucrats of governance unchecked by a state media - a media controlled by them.

How much are the eight years of the Clintons to blame?  How did so much of what Obama and 111th Dems call "necessary" seem so different and opposed to Clintons’ rash unfunding and underfunding to a unnecessary surplus years before its time?

AND THEN THERE WAS ONE — and the one was the United States of America - as a lone superpower.   How poorly did the Clintons govern and lead relative to such a rare and unplanned global status updating for us?   With each "austerity" measure many should now be asking, and with clear and measured accounting to a overdue "compare and contrast" with Bush eight years.

We didn’t need 9/11!  We didn’t need 9/11!  We didn’t need 9/11 as an excuse to re-enter Afghanistan for humane purposes those Clinton eight years our early exit and absence let fester an "abandonment" and danger we had moral case to from our earlier presence and early exit?

We didn’t need Operation Iraqi Freedom?  We didn’t need to wait so long to live up to hour historical post war precedence of prosecutions and fair trials like Nuremberg?  It was also wrong to pass those eight years of Clintons with their official line for Iraq of a peoples of a majority as "not capable of governing themselves" and with such a "peoples" of a specific religion/sect?

AND THEN THERE WAS ONE — and defense and intelligence cuts and cuts and more cuts and PEACE DIVIDENDS before their time.  Did the Clintons use the CIA to lie about "peace"?

Now that President Obama is down to just one, how much will he too be blaming the Clintons?

Now that defense cuts not to be left out of work further in our CRISIS OF VALUATION that now has "revaluations" an allowed and available tool towards lowering "costs of living" but not "standard of living" we may still stand alone or near alone.

It is arguable that the size of the "coalition" for OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM had to be smaller than the "coalition" for the PERSIAN GULF WAR and because "volunteer armed forces" essential for such to be a "liberation" not an "occupation" and so of "stand down as they stand up" sensibilities.

And, well The United States of America is few among many with an armed forces of volunteers.

Can President Obama govern without the Clintons?  Can he avoid "TITULAR HEAD"?

Three equal branches, right?  Boy can he shake "deputy president" to Clintons?

The one was the United States near unique with its volunteer armed forces beholden to their Constitution.

Luckily the Dems these past couple years were pressed by a media not "state run."

A BONNIE AND CLYDE PARABLE?

Filed under: — @jphoganorg @ 1:24 pm

WHERE ELSE TO A "FRAME OF MIND" SHOULD ONE BE TO START AN ATTEMPTED INTERPRETATION OF OUR 22 AMENDMENT?

WE ARE OF A CONSTITUTION TO CAUTION AND CARE WITH A BASIS IN "CHECKS AND BALANCES."

WE ARE OF A GOVERNANCE STILL SUPPOSED TO BE OF "COMMON SENSE" AND "EVERYDAY CONCERNS."

WE ARE OF A GOVERNMENT WITH NEAR THE MOST UNIQUE "EXECUTIVE OFFICE" IN THE WORLD AND SO WITH OUR "OFFICE OF PRESIDENT" BEING A "HOME OFFICE."

WE ARE A PEOPLE CELEBRANT AND DEFENSIVE IN PROTECTIONS OF MARRIAGE AND PRIVACY RIGHTS AND PROPERTY RIGHTS.

OUR 22 AMENDMENT IS HISTORICAL FOR BEING THOUGHT A NECESSITY AND PRUDENT LEGISLATIVE MOVE TO THE HIGHEST ORDERING OF AN "AMENDING" TO OUR CONSTITUTION AND SO SOON UPON THOSE YEARS WHERE FIRST LADY ELEANOR ROOSEVELT AND HER DAUGHTER WERE THOUGHT TO HAVE BECOME THE EFFECTIVE "HOLDERS" OF OUR EXECUTIVE OFFICE AND MAYBE "POPULAR" FOR SUCH WHILE "LEGEND" OF FDR CARRIED HIM PAST "UNABLE" TO PERFORM CONCERNS.

WE ARE OF AN EXECUTIVE OFFICE NOW WITH TERM LIMITS TO TWO TERMS SO "ELECTED" AND YET STILL WITH RESPECT TO "MARRIAGE LAWS" AROUND ISSUES WHERE AN ACT OF ONE SPOUSE SUFFICIENT TO BE OF "AN ACT" OF THE OTHER SPOUSE ESPECIALLY AS REGARDS RECORDS AND "HOME OFFICES."

WE ARE NOW OF A DAY WHERE SUCH IS MORE CONFUSED BUT MORE IMPORTED TO IT NOT MATTERING THE "SEX" OF THE "INTIMATE SEEMING CO-HOLDER" OF THE OFFICE ONE THIRD OF OUR THREE EQUAL BRANCHES OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

WE ARE OF A PROTECTION TO PRESIDENTS SUCH THAT SOME RECORD CAN BE KEPT FROM THE PUBLIC PERVIEW AND FOR THIRTY YEARS, AND THESE PAPERS A "SPOUSE" REGARDLESS OF SEX HAS BEEN AN INTIMATE FULLY ALLOWED AND EVEN EXPECTED "WILLING" CO-ACTOR.

OUR NATION HAS SO MANY PROTECTIONS TO CHECK AND BALANCES AND PRIVACY SUCHT THAT IS SEEMS ABSURD FOR OUR 22ND AMENDMENT NOT TO NATURALLY PREVENT A SPOUSE OF A TERM LIMITED PRESIDENT AND ESPECIALLY SO AS SUCH COULD BE JUST AN ATTEMPT TO CIRCUMVENT TO INTENT OF THE LAW AROUND LIMITS TO A RETURNING OF A LIMITED PRESIDENT BACK INTO THE INTIMATE "DECIDING" OF OUR OFFICE OF PRESIDENT.

LIKE LEAVING HONEY OUT FOR A BEAR AND EXPECTING IT TO STAY AWAY?

LIMITED SO BUT ONLY UNTIL ALL RECORDS ARE OPENED TO THE PUBLIC AND WITHOUT SHORTENING THE PROTECTIONS FROM CURRENT THIRTY YEARS?

AN INTERPRETATION OF 22 AMENDMENT THAT DOESN’T PREVENT A LIMITED PRESIDENT FROM BEING RETURNED IN LAW "ACCIDENTALLY" BY ALLOWANCES IN A MARRIAGE LAW OF MARRIAGE RIGHTS AS NECESSARILY TO "EXPECTED" TO ALSO HAVE BEEN "ELECTED" TO RETURN IS SEEMINGLY ABSURD.  

AN ALLOWANCE OF A SPOUSE TO EVEN A CAMPAIGNING TO SUCH OFFICE IS ABSURD IN LIGHT OF SO MANY OF OUR PROTECTIONS AND LAWS TO HELP PREVENT CORRUPT ACTIVITIES. 

AN "ELECTION" OF A SPOUSE, REGARDLESS OF THEIR SEX, TO OUR OFFICE OF OUR PRESIDENCY EVEN AS JUST A EQUAL BRANCH TO CONGRESS ON ITS FACE APPEARS TO BE REDICULOUS AND ABSURD AND ARGUABLE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

THERE IS AN ALLOWANCE TO SPOUSES OF ‘PROTECTIONS’ THAT DESERVES GREATER PROTECTION AND AWARENESS IN CONCERNS TO OUR MOST UNIQUE EXECUTIVE OFFICE DESIGNED AND PERPETUATED AS A "HOME OFFICE" TOO.

BEST ‘INTERPRETATION’ TO HELP GOVERNMENT AND ALL OUR PEOPLE TO A GOOD FUTURE?

SUCH SHOULD HELP ALL MEDIA AND JOURNALISTS TO A DECENT STANDARD.

AND, THEN OF COURSE THEIR THEN BECOMES THE QUESTION TO "DESERVING."