Filed under: — @jphoganorg @ 8:12 pm

It may not be too late yet.

Some "universals" still viable and tolerable even here in northern America.

If you have been able to read this it may not be too late.

That "liberals are the ones that write our history" may no longer to as true as once accepted or unchallenged.

We may still have time, yet, since President of the World still stands unchallenged and uncontested.  When once a challenger rises will our Secretary of State have to recuse herself?

It may not be too late - is she safe, oddly, and for liberals haven’t yet writ that President of the United States Clinton suffered from too little "feminine intuition"/"womens intuition" in his deciding?

What an "odd couple"?   Surely Putin must be considering challenging President of the World Clinton soon - won’t "Hillary" have to recuse herself?

Even Qadhafi has led a large union - The African Union - so some already know - what if he pulls out a global soap box and starts challenging yet unchallenged President of the World Bill Clinton?  Really won’t "Hillary" have to recuse herself as soon as any challenger announced?

It may not be too late yet - and for Americans of North America south of Canada, mostly especially, if hoping to avoid a global contest full of questions of problems from Clintons eight years as President of the United States of America are not now known to have been of "Bill" without enough "womens intuition."

So what have we missed with so much recorded history so now mostly wrought by liberals - by such’s ‘historians’?

So the/our current President of the United States of America may want to challenge "Bill" himself and may be better suited and aspired to such, and such with far fewer laws yet written around such.  How can "Hillary" not soon be thought to need to recuse herself, really?

As it is she should already have recused herself and long ago - President of the United States of America cannot reasonably pursue or chase a "bipartisan" Washington and a move to "the center" while President of the World William Jefferson Clinton, and his wife, are so loudly and proudly stirring strong and hard of a global "partisan" very DEMOCRAT party sided/biased.

It may not be too late, yet.

All that is keeping us safe and balanced, domestically and globally, may still just be that our Republicans haven’t supported or embraced the Obama/Clinton party lines — All we may now have keeping us globally short from that last straw too many for such camel loads - is that we have the Republicans as a very clear and certain alternative to our current Democrat Party leaders.

Even if "Bill" can parse these desserts with a dichotomy Decartian again still of an alternate defining about "is" - how as a challenged President of the World Bill Clinton won’t "Hillary" best to a recusal?

Are we only now safe because there is near zero "bipartisanship" in Washington?

Are we now best to a readiness and preparedness to the highest levels of threat ratings from the day forward, that day forward from any that may yet imprudently be of a new rapport without a long and historically thorough disection of Clinton "two-fer" politics and shortcomings?

If Republicans were to remove themselves as such current loud check and alternative to these Democrats, in light of recent events, wouldn’t we then best be too near highest alert levels and quite for most days forward?

At least for now we have time - not even Putin has announced a campaign to challenge seeming self proclaimed President of the World Bill Clinton to a rightful/democratic fair holding.

How now to correct the history of the Clintons’ eight years, hmmm?  — Claim President of the United States William Jefferson Clinton just didn’t have enough "feminine intuition" or maybe claim that his (regular) "feminine intuition" was to hawkish and selfish in her own ambitions to being first female President of the World?

Is "recusal" really the right word for this query line - for this discussion?

It may not be too late - we still have at least two very different political alternatives - and one of them, the one maybe best to avoid is a "two-fer" so they say.

Note:  Please don’t expect me to "like" Hillary Rodham Clinton in any official roll, my take on the Clintons eight years in nineties near, at least near "criminally stupid" - my being right now across such issues affirms I was right about such as I was writing and sharing it from 1991-1993.  And, she still is of the bad first impression from our encounter in New Haven back in early 70s when I likely was still a first grader.  I cannot abide a popularity for "Hillary" now for such would necessarily have me of a contentedness or happiness with their "two-fers" misuse and misappropriating of so much of my strategic and dramatic thinking since before they even were in the 1992 race.  As early as first grade I knew "Bill" as one who expected me as also a man to be his wingman and with a acceptance of him lying about what my given "honest answer" then was to their question. 

Query:  Like the title?  Was it catchy enough?  Time seems to have proven me right and both of them in their proud and confused "two-fer" wrong, and yet I am still trying to be polite, with tolerance.  If only the people were as informed, hmmm.

Comments »

No comments yet.

Leave a comment

Publication may require admin approval; please come back later to view your comment.