5/13/2011

SHE LIES FOR A LIVING - 29th TIME?

Filed under: — @jphoganorg @ 10:58 am

It is nearly ice cream season here in America’s northeast area of southern Connecticut.

With recent new of killing of Osama bin Laden was local state government stories about legislative efforst against capital punishment.  I still haven’t figured my state’s Democrats - I used to categorically vote against them on any "foreign policy" advancement thought regular to supporting them for local/community and state based duties. 

Seems we are ready as a country and an overgrown nation to be now to a grand consideration of at least one new amendment to our nation’s Constitution – seems such is a 29th Amendment suggestion.  

We can use Madam Secretary of State Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton’s "example" much towards a justifying and ratifying towards such — If President William Jefferson Clinton can be impeachable and disbarrable for lying under oath then we really have to consider if any one charged to be a professional liar within an administration is necessarily to a Constitutional condition to stipulate a voluntary surrendering of any law licence or bar association upon swearing into an executive office.

As suggested in earlier blogged column(s) a 29th Amendment seems now justified so that any lawyer elected to our office of the President is then to a required and voluntary surrendering of any and all law licences and bar affiliations/associations – and all cabinet officers not of Justice or Law enforcement duty.

We have a confusing complications about "impeachable" and "disbarrable" these days, and not needingly so.   Our "diplomacy" is largely about being as long dramatized specialists in "professional lying" and so no Secretary of State should be allowed to undermine our law profession by being still a licenced professional beholden to smaller standards and affiliations.

We still have, with the impeachment and disbarring of President Clinton, the fat of the story that had much consideration put into whether First Lady Hillary Clinton was also complicit both in violations of standards of our office of President and of legal ethics standards about her law profession.  We still have the story of her as a willing accomplice maybe essential and necessary about the "lying" that President Bill Clinton was so long prosecuted about.

We should only be having to consider whether any so charged in duties can be charged with "impeachment" or "treason" and such not as well about a "professional" standard of a mere legal establishment/affiliation/association/state jurisdiction.

Since the will of the People was recently remeasured and recorded with 2010 elections we have been fresh upon, again, a corruption and impeachableness of a Clinton and as also a disbarrable charging.  President Obama’s administration wasn’t called "THE MOST CORRUPT ADMINISTRATION IN OUR HISTORY" without such really being much about his embrace of both "Bill" and "Hillary" and of their known and unknown but supposed corruptions.

Clearly we should allow a lawyer to run for our office of the President - yet hopefully for a full and well rounded personality, sufficient to our nations "music" - but best now looking forward to such only with a swearing in to such, if winnable, only after a voluntary surrendering of all law licences and bar affiliations signed to so as then to be sworn to.   And, yet so that any and all licenses could be restored after office by review and finding by highest ethics commitees, essentially present. 

Seems even "progressive" to advance a new legal standard that could save us from so many discussions about "disbarrable" behavior by our charged executives.   If we are to continue thinking we are asking them to be as near above our laws as they seem to hope, then we really should make it official, right?

NO LAWYER IF ELECTED TO OUR OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, OR NOMINATED TO A CABINET OFFICE, NOT FOR JUSTICE OR ENFORCEMENT, SHALL BE ALLOWED TO BE SWORN INTO SUCH OFFICE UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THEY HAVE SWORN OFF THEIR PROFESSION, OFFICIALLY. ???

We should be able to leave it for our lawyers and Washington representatives to continue the discussions already ongoing as to how "corrupt" this administration is and still as to "impeachable" or "disbarrable" details especially around ethics - and ethics specifically about one now much in a job as long dramatized near specifically to "professional lying."

Yes, this goes to "transparency" but more to a better "bureaucratic separation."

I only saw the headline about my state of Connecticut being about discussions against "capital punishment" so near after OBL headlines – I have no idea yet how they argued around such "coincidence."

As per Clintons, now, what do we have to lose – they have proven that a "repeat" by them, as we have had with Obama near with Clintons’ old team, didn’t actually know how to "repeat" performance – such suggests that they still aren’t the ones responsible for much of their own "successes" and that they didn’t know it until recently themselves - since why would they have tried a "repeat".  Seems confirming of thoughts that someone other than such Democrats actually responsible for what were actually "successes" of Clintons’ 8. 

Don’t know what you can or should believe - really.  Don’t know how we can fix economy until such isn’t so true.