6/6/2011

DOG EAT DOG STATE(S)?

Filed under: — @jphoganorg @ 6:11 pm

How secure can we be when the spouse is the sole "officer" responsible for duty and charge of proper labeling for actions and as per "terrorism" and "material support" risks?

This is obviously above the pay grade of a normal representative, unless maybe of over-sight committee responsibilities over our State Department – this is of an on going ‘rediculousness’ of the Obama administration having the spouse of head of Clinton Global Initiatives the "responsible" one, solely, to keep associations of former President Bill Clinton and his "commitments" from being "officially" labeled as "material support of terrorists."

Yes, this has to be about what is "physical" and what is "consentual" but so well above the pay grade of a common representative unless he/she is actually charged with activities concerned with ethics of State and as well general over-sight of security issues.

This isn’t a seven wives and seven houses story - but is much about "knowing" and "consentual" and/or "physical."  But as this is about the specifics and a complicity and fog still about the Clintons and their "two-fer" this is seeming not about a common representative’s security clearance nor innocence.

Sure, a common representative may be to a "papers" anniversary instead of a the expected "paper anniversary" — and with "official" complications.  However, and now as news of Secretary General announcing interest in securing another term at world body, what about the insecure and rediculous in the preposturous actuality that is of our Secretary of State the sole offical in our vast system of checks and balances that is our charged "officer" to all over-sight of all contributions and off the record "commitments" of "Bill’s" CGI and other foundation and NGO activities, much operating as if a shadow department of state?

How is President Clinton now supporting "terrorists" and with "material support" as the "champion" of progress and even insurections around the world?  How are we to not daily be checking and probing both Clintons to see which one may be covering for the other or being covered by the other and outside of our general Constitutional systems and legislated checks and balances?

The sheer volume of dollars and quieted "commitments" to review must be near a full time duty for such a past President who hasn’t stopped meddling in state affairs since leaving office?  Sure he has hosted events and called them "non-partisan" and not "political" and with "I am no longer in politics" (like nearly or exactly) and then wrapped up such events often with slinging of political hits and with partisan rancor and bite.  This is still the "Bill" of our politics old and new and quite recently even of days after President Obama asked for a new "civility" of breaking out anew with political and global partisanship (from Davos???) counter some to such with meddling in our state(s)constitutions and governance with "it is their (Republicans) job to try to defeat us (the Democrats).

So we proceed, not nearly cautiously enough.  So we proceed with President Obama’s cursory "review" of all Clinton finances and political contributions and all foundation and library funds, more of a seeming: ‘I didn’t find anything that I won’t hope to get away with myself someday.’

So where is "Bill" anyways?  Seems somewhere he is still about stirring up locals against their established government(s) especially if they are not of global initiatives to a global Democrat Party and his priorities that our’s and Obama’s "Hillary" is our charged "officer" to checks and balances and proper labeling, yet he spouse – seems to more than a few he is at least being encouraging of insurrections if not specifically insurgencies.

Seems their "dog" ate our Constitution(s) and our safety. How do we tolerate them, these Dems, so of treating our governors and their state’s Constitutions and constituents so dismissively and inferior much to State Leaders of countries smaller or just as large as such state(s)?

Seems safest to suggest "Bill" is still up to his old tricks and meddling in matters of state(s) as no past president in our history has yet or may ever be equal to.  He says he "isn’t in politics" and is acting "non-partisan" with one breath and then blurts out another partisan and political hit much more accurately of an "is in politics."

What of President Bill Clinton’s on going activities and persisting meddling can be said to be "consentual" and "not physical" for all parties and so surely and specifically not a red flag that our Secretary of State, his spouse, should be of a "throwing"? 

Depends what the definition of "terrorist" is, doesn’t it, still? Have we even begun to consider how much "meddling" by both Clintons, globally, during Bush administration did hinder progress possible in less partisan and polarized ways, otherwise? And, New York?

Can we be "safe" with it his spouse "Hillary" of our lines of defense and our primary "officer" responsible for "over-sight"?  Seems like something right out of Tammany Hall days of New York’s history, doesn’t it?

Seems we have a fair expectation that regular reports should be being published around all things currently of former President Bill Clinton and his on going global political meddling with columns and rows specifically identifying and confirming "physical" or "consentual" and as clear of being in illegal "material support of terror."