3/3/2011

OUR MOST CHRISTIAN ALLY?

Filed under: — @jphoganorg @ 2:24 pm

How is it the Clintons are both being saved by "Harlem Cover" - But for the money?

But for the money, public only money, or public and private monies, how differently would the Clintons appear today, and especially on most Main Streets?  Today, President Obama didn’t overtly meet with known socialists, but in a recent yesterday the Clintons did try to land permanently next door to the RUSSIAN TEA ROOM.

Politicos to the one, maybe wondering how is President Obama, while still surrounded-by both Clintons, and their machinations, today near a global crisis not again meeting with known socialists.  Why is a Muslim world crisis, of sorts now greated otherwise - why this time did President Obama think it Diplomatic to meet with our nearest and greatest Christian ally?  Mexico is an ally, right?  Mexico must be an ally - just look at how open and unsecured our shared border is, right?

I am still most puzzled by President Obama and his foreign policy moves - really wonder about where he is getting his "diplomatic" advice. Is he raising an Muslim response force with a Christian ally - Is Mexico’s President in Washington to affirm we are there for them, and while Mexico’s climate more naturally desirable maybe for Muslims?

Well politicos?  Qadhafi isn’t a Ba’athist, right?  Qadhafi is more of THE AFRICAN UNION than of the original intent from conception of "Ba’athist" to an ambition for a UNITED ARAB SOCIALIST STATE?  Well politicos?

If it comes to Muslims against Americans won’t it be Muslims against Christian with more desirable real estate and climates first?  President Obama, who has the upper hand at today’s negotiations/parlay?

Seems THE BUSH GAMBIT (my term) seems to have steed us well with it so of a possibility and allowance that such long over due prosecution of Saddam Hussein with OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM may free us and coalition states from necessary meddling in other regional reaches for similar freedom.

Politicos, Afghanistan still remains another cup of tea, and so a more easily reasoned concern specific around "a stitch in time saves nine" than even Iraq when looked at just about brief history and how we are arguably now there under difficult situations so because we were not back in their during the Clintons years when enough trouble had already arisen from our absence, there.  Surely the Clintons were smart enough to sell a need for us to return to Afghanistan by the United States as they have seemed to have argued recently without basis in 9/11?  Surely we, as politicos, have an unsworn duty, to consider that Clintons are at least politically negligent for not having addressed Afghanistan properly while enough cause existing, pre 9/11?  Surely we have to ask if Clintons can now make the right call if they couldn’t then.

It also is not a light question to ask seemingly humorously:  If "Hillary" were the Clinton being hailed by at least Matthews as THE FIRST PRESIDENT OF THE WORLD would she be "the first black president" or is that just a "Bill" thing?

I don’t know - do you?

How much is convenient "happenstance" that is now saving the Clintons from themselves? — If "Bill" hadn’t been dragged kicking and near tears all they way up to Harlem for affordable rental space how now might they both appear?  How bad would it appear if now President Clinton were as he sought now situated near the penthouse of Carnegie Hall Towers and with THE RUSSIAN TEA ROOM next door?  How much would his fight to get the space still, after GAO told him they couldn’t in good conscience approve a rent for him near a million a year and especially while such more than in a year than all past presidents’ rents for first year, combined?

So Senator Clinton was saved by "Harlem Cover" but maybe not as ’saved’ as hoped since, well, we do not have now "President Clinton - the second black president" — How would it have looked even if she were still a Senator and economic story unfolded with "Bill" in guilded spaces and if as he fought once to still getting them by visiting his banking friends with an expectation that they at least owed him such perks for all his help with dirivites scheme conception and regular pimping?

If Clintons were now without the "Harlem Cover" would there be any question as to their implicitness and guilt and such past seeming negligence on non-banking foreign affairs?

Again, well, we may need Christian allies, but again I am one politico wondering where President Obama is getting such foreign policy advice, such questionable and hack kneed dramatics.

Hidden by "Harlem Cover" is still the story of "Bill" first to visiting his banking pals to assert the nearly owed him such a perk as such plush and grand and maybe even guilded prime real estate. 

Politicos, what did have him kicking more that he had to settle for Harlem office space or that his banking pals whom he had helped make so much money with his dirivitives scheme and his regular pimping of it were of wanting separation and fiduciary distance?

So President Obama hosts Mexico’s President today at The White House - how much of direness of such meeting is because the Clintons made "Christian Alliances" more necessary for their years avoiding "stitches in time" around Middle East?

Mr. President, as "Barry", as the author of DREAMS OF MY FATHER, weren’t you writing as a highly educated and Harvard Law trained writer with such to suggest that you had grown up in Kenya in your heart all those years waxed upon?  Wouldn’t instead a DREAMS OF MY MOTHER have steed you better as a Christian?  

God bless America – God bless our "melting pot"!  We do have quite a story. If we are now necessary to "Christian Alliances" such has to be historically from ‘negligence’ or worse by Clintons during the Clintons’ "8" - so it seems, and seems easy to reason and conclude.

But now for "Harlem Cover" it would all be so much more apparent?