@JPHOGANORG
http://twitter.com/jphoganorg
Categories:

Archives:
Meta:
March 2013
S M T W T F S
« Feb   Apr »
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  
03/27/13
LOS ANGELES
Filed under: WHAT EVER
Posted by: @jphoganorg @ 2:41 pm

LOS ANGELES

IN THE STREETS,
OF THE ANGELS,
THE WORLD ON FIRE.

IN THE STATE,
OF SAINT LOUIS,
AMERICA SPINS TRUE.

IN THE RACE,
OF HOPE,
WHO GETS THE BILL?

IN THE HOPE,
OF A HEAVEN,
HOW THROUGH WE SEE?

WITH DIVERSITY,
ON TRIAL,
GOVERNED BY LAWS.

WITH OR WITHOUT,
ON WE GOVERN,
GOVERNING BY LAWS!

WITH OPPOSITES ATTRACTING,
ON WE JOURNEY,
UNITING IN HOPE!

WITH A BUSH,
ON FIRE,
WHAT DID WE SEE?

J. PETER HOGAN
MAY 12,1992

[Note:  Due to Hollingsworth v. Perry and DOMA this week I dug up
this old poem written first to be primarily a poem as a journalistic
covering of the Rodney King news.  As that was so it was also
written to live as part of my collection THE CHARGE OF NEW
FEDERALISM and as the opening piece for such.  A meaning that
may go lost in it is that of Rodney King basis as well as a meaning as
meant to have been a neurological concern for fires in President Bush’s
brain and his capacity in those days to handle being so “on fire” and as too
much like Lincoln then as of having kept the world together as like of a
civil warring by Saddam Hussein.  For its name alone I don’t see how
justice can be served with SCOTUS allowing loose language confusion
of “same sex marriage” to be of a affirmation by them while really of a
request for different sex right and not same sex rights as those of those of
different sexes as of the rights from their Creator to working further
creationism.]

[Note:  Yes this was one of my last pieces of my new PC
political correctness in a fuller and better new way to write
generally and less racially and so such still as much before
the Clintons had been long in trying to sound like I was with
the more earlier works of my THE CHARGE OF NEW
FEDERALISM collection.  The Clintons were a huge
disappointment about such though greatly to personal political
benefiting to themselves.  The Clintons still have the story to be
told as I know it of them of being immoral by/with their choices
to do less for an available greater good in their times and for special
spousal selfisness - for having worked to make positive change
meant for all get worked to be more polarizing and political in a
great partisanship and to working then for fewer people generally.
As per this poem it still is remembered that they like to read it as of
the one primary meaning it was meant to be not about while stirring
such consideration to be yet in the general air of concerns for professionalism
at least for those much of Los Angeles and Hollywood.]

Comments Off
03/25/13
THE BLACK HOLE
Filed under: WHAT EVER
Posted by: @jphoganorg @ 11:44 pm

IT MUST BE
AN ANTI-MATTER
MATTER

SO DIF BE IT
A SAME
NOT A SAME

NIXY SEXY
SO DIF
MATT’D SAME

NO TOO TO
SAME SEX
“SAME SEX”

FIRST THE COSMOS
OF REAL MATTER
& SAME AS DIF

NO TO TOO
“SAME SEX”
O DIFFERENT SEX

NOT FAIR
FOR GREATER RIGHTS
THENCE WHENCE IF

OH NO - OH, NO!
NOT THE SAME O
THE SAME - IT BE DIF

CAN’T HAVE IT LEGIT
AS THE SAME FOR SAME
AS SAME AS FOR DIF

CAN’T HAVE IT LEGIT
AS FOR DIF AS SAME
AS SAME FOR SAME

IT CAN’T BE
SAME SEX FOR ALL
AS DIF SEX FOR SAME

IT CAN’T BE
DIF SEX FOR DIF SEX
AND “SAME” FOR SAME

ONE CAN BE NATURAL…
ONE OTHER TWO UNNATURAL…
… FAMILY MARRIAGE LAWS

BUT SAME SEX MARRIAGE
NOT BUT A BLACK HOLE
OF ILLEGIT ANTI-MATTER

NO TO “SAME SEX MARRIAGE”
AS SUCH ISN’T FAIR TO DIF
TO DIF SEX COUPLES AS DIF

AS PER PUBLIC RESTROOMS
AN UNFAIRNESS TO “SAME”
AND GOODBYE TO DIF SEX HEADS

A DOMINO EFFECT TIPPIN’
SO SWEAT THE REST OF HEADS
GREATER RIGHTS TO SAME IF TO “SAME”

NO, AGAIN, TO “SAME SEX…”
IT NOT THE SAME BUT DIF
IT CAN’T BE “SAME” IF DIF FOR SAME.

J.P.HOGAN
[LATE NIGHT SUPREMELY RISEN INSPIRED LINGUISTIC CIVILITIES AS POSTED & DATED]

Comments Off
TET(E) OFFENSIVE?
Filed under: WHAT EVER
Posted by: @jphoganorg @ 10:20 am

A refreshed
ocularity as per the
US Constitution as
a purposed dedication
as a spectacle
of &
for the
New Testament Senator
Rand Paul is sightable for
standing tall on
the original spectacle
o
such and not efforts since
to cloud - to cloud
our First Amendment barring
of Congress from a “re-specting” per
the original humble spectacle o’
the founders in
their
unanimaty.

Our First is
that it is not
“Congress may pass
no law abridging
freedom of religion”
but is
what
it is
as a referencing
to
the spectacular bold
establishment in
the New Testament
with “Congress shall make no law
respecting an
establishment of
religion…”.

It is an odd turn o
law for citation siting
and sighting
since it seems for all
the other ways it could have been
written to be, as it has been
recently suggested to be,
o’ meaning,
it fits only with
the above attempt
o’ sharing that
a re-establishment has become
popular - more popular than the
attempts to a popular post-Constitu-
tionalism convenient to a new
marching for secular
socialism.

It seems
popular
now that it is
re-established
that the First
Amendment is phrased
just so to
survive the phases
o’ distrust and assaults
with “respecting”
critical only if
a “spectacle” existent
already in
an establishment o’
religion.

It is a well -
well set odd phrase so o’
the “do ordain and establish” o’
o’ the humble “subscribing”
under God
so that “Year of our Lord” o’
our Founders’ Christianity and
its calender as o’
else could they have barred Congress
from infringing o’
o’ the struggle
in America
for freedoms
to be o’ the type o’
Christians - Christians so
many were trying
to be?

For the oddity
of the First
to work o’
o’ not a useless o’
random wordiness
it seems
there both
has to be - be o’
o’ an ‘establishment
of religion’
already
and it
as a “spectacle”
o’ o’
“spectacular”
(boldness?)
for there to be
“respecting” bar for Congress
to be
to any law o’
o’
“re-specting.”

So it seems
our Founders established
o’
o’ humbly
under God
in that Year o’
o’ their Lord o’
o’ that our Constitution
is a spectacle o’
o’ an establishment
in the New
Testament
and
the establishments there o’
o’ in of
“marriage”
“creation”
and all
therefore of
man and women.

So technically we
may not -
may not have freedom -
Freedom from religion
O’
o’ but such that
local jurisdictions
may render
o’ of.
Hmmm?

J.P. Hogan
[Rejustified Facebook.com/jpeterhogan status posting - (more) poetic of 25th March of 2013]

[note:  What to do with popular attempt long of suggesting we could just say we are now in a post-Constitutional new world order and like President Obama with his 2nd Inaugural can be legally of such spectacle of his of orating like:  I just swore the oath - BUT!!! I won’t feel beholden to it or our Constitution…?]

Comments Off
03/21/13
TOE TO TOE
Filed under: WHAT EVER
Posted by: @jphoganorg @ 9:25 am

This is “poetic” if about analysis as per “poetic license”:


“Here is the fun part of Hillary’s Constitutional problem
with 22nd Amendment
(not her’s with due process problems her’s):
One law is not supposed to
undermine another and yet
our marriage laws can be undermined by our 22nd
Amendment for term
limits when such is no longer “undecided Law”. The
Clintons have done
the hard part for such a deciding by insisting they are an
inseparable
political “two
-fer” of a ‘buy one and
get the other’ by any election of
the other. The Clintons have cleared
the way then for a simple and not complex
ruling on the intent and
establishment of our Term Limits Amendment since
an election of one
spouse is then therefore do to the indivisibility of their union
then an
election of the other. That our law always has to separate between
when
something is say of “as by an electing” and “as by the electing” we
have
before getting to any of the “holding” concerns that for these
times Hillary
cannot now be elected with such then by their admitted and
sold “two-fer” inseparable
indivisibility in marriage that with such
then of the forbidden in the 22nd to a returning
“by election” of Bill
to any, all, or just some of the “holding” of such office. See it gets
funny and full of stuff to write about in many different ways when the
consideration
that our 22nd cannot undermine our marriage laws and that
“holding” of “office” is
too similar to “to have and to hold, in
sickness and in health” of marriage vows
and indivisible by our Laws
such that an election of a spouse regardless of sex
as a spouse in a
term limited First Couple union is therefore then and returned to
a shared
“holding” of marriage rights to full intimacy that a partial
ruling as
if of just “professional” duty objectivity would be inappropriate to
as
per such a unique and Powerful office holding of our Presidency.
Hillary you
can say cannot be elected President nor maybe be a legal
candidate
for such office without her spouse to be returned to some or
too much
“holding” by an electing of he as part of her indivisible union
in marriage
laws which cannot have the 22nd Amendment abridging even
for that which would
be spousal holding in sickness and in health.
Hillary cannot be President, by such
reasonable interpretation because
Bill then would not be allowed his full
marriage rights to a holding
spousally of his wife and as well for such would be
to having come about
by a returning of him post term limiting “by an electing” while
he
legally indivisible from being by their admitted “two-fer”ness as
inseparable and
legal to be also “elected” as Hillary was also to such
shared and intimate
executive holding by election in 1992.*


*Reposted Facebook status update of 3/21/2013
{Justification in above and the general structure some by ‘random’
reformation by computer from cutting and pasting - other parts
modified by poetic instinct.  Don’t know if it needs editing while
so much of a structure as from an original block of prose as a single
running paragraph now yet though much randomly pulsed in justifying.}


Notes:
The real poetry of/in motion for such more of rhyming or not while of

rhythms their own together however would be that this consideration
of spouses under God in USA and not just under their President such
that a First Couple is only under themselves however is that a run now
of Clinton
“two-fer” necessitates a sexual positions book focused on the
bedroom and most intimate of their
moments not of a chilled “holding” as
per if their sexual position is itself “too much a holding
by election” of our
office of the President.  And, if they have more than one sexual position
how any addition sexual position might be for them of a full and transparent
analysis now of
a jurisdiction for a swearing of them in again due-ness as
per every moment of their two terms
of the years 1993-2001.  You can try
to figure if and how of any poetic license yourself - as such
now is of
your rights to know or at least try to discern justly and fully.

Two as one as of marriage is so set by USA as under God & not with
special that a joined soul by marriage union is turned off by the State
by the punching in on a time clock for “work.”  Right?

And, now with retired Madam Secretary of State Mrs. William
Jefferson Clinton’s recent remarks spoken about marriage and otherwise
directed contrary to hers as for union rights for same sex couples:  Mrs.
Clinton I guess you should tell us how your marriage is supposedly
legal about all this to the fullest range of detail and transparency fair to
differentiating what seems the contrariness in your interpretation of limits
of marriage union of souls as per yourself and that which seems more
idealistic and fuller as per the hopes of those wanting same sex marriage
rights.  It seems same sex couples don’t want the reworked convenient
interpretation of marriage that you practice as if is not is but when is by
whimsy and with your law degree seeming a power greater than your
joined wealth and souls, and one to supersede such of natural law animalism.

Comments Off
> TOE TO TOE! <
Filed under: WHAT EVER
Posted by: @jphoganorg @ 8:16 am

>>>> TWO SHEETED TO THE WIN <<<<
> A STUDY IN A/THE “HOLDING” COMING <

Comments Off
03/13/13
TIC TAC TOE
Filed under: WHAT EVER
Posted by: @jphoganorg @ 11:06 am

HAVE THE CON SCRIPTS SO LIBERAL
BEAT TOO LONG AN ORBIT
A RECYCLING CYCLING OF
A CLINTON DOUBLE CON
THERMO FAM NUCLEAR
PEACE WHEN WAR
WAR WHEN PEACE
A PLAN’D IT WHEN NOT
A MASH’D WHEN PLANNED
A SCRIPTING BEAT WRIT NOT
CONSECRATED BUTS
SO SPOUSAL’D HUSBANDRY’D
A TOMORROW FROM TODAY
WRITS NOTS TANGENTIARY
GEOMETRICAL PLACIDITIES
NINE SQUARES TOO TOO MUCH
PLANETARY OR PLAN’D ACTUALLY
LIBERALISM A LOST ORBITATION
A NATIONALIZATION CON SCRIPT’D
AN IDEALISM LOST NOW
AS IF A PLUTO UN-PLAN’D-ETARY
IF NOT FOR TOMORROW AS
IF NOT FOR YESTERDAYS TO
AND TOMORROWS AS YESTERDAYS SET
STILL A WRIT LESS A CON SCRIPTED
LESS ORBITAL OR TANGENTIARY GALACTIC
WHAT IS A LIBERALISM POST
WHAT IS A GEOMETRICAL PEACEFUL
COPACETIC PLAN’D O WRIT LATITUDE
HOW A LONGITUDAL ATTITUDE FORWARD
OF LESS THAN RIGID CONSERVATISM
AND NOT AN IMBALANCED TILT BIASED
GAMED AS IF OF INDEMNITIES SCRIPT’D
WHILE TURNED AND SPINNING RADICAL’D
HOW THERE LIBERALISM - THEIR LIBERALISM
HERE NOW GUILTY BEFORE PROVEN WHAT
HERE NOW NOT INNOCENT AS PREJUDGEMENTS
LOST LIBERALISM ARTS AS A NEW PLUTO NOT
HER VENUS DE MILEAGE’D
HIS MARTIAN SPOUSAL’D HUSBANDRY’D
OUR “PEACE” THEIR ORBITALLY - SPUN OUT
HOW SPIN SO TANGENTIALLY A DEATH
A PASSING OF HONORABLE LIBERALISM
A TIME O FEMIFEST DESTINY GLOBAL THERM’D
O NUCLEAR LIBERALISM BOUNCING NOTS
A GAME SO WRIT DANGEROUS
A GAME CON’D A CLINTON DOUBLE CON
TOO NUCLEAR & OUT OF ROTATIONS “GAMED”
HOW HATH AN HONORABLE LIBERALISM PASSED
HOW HATH AN ARTFUL TO DRAMATIC DODGE’D
PASSED OUR ‘INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY’
NOMENCLATURE’D WRIT SCRIPTS PROTECTORATES
LEFT OUR GALACTIC UNIVERSALS
LEFT OUR PLAN’D ORBITS O GOVERNANCE
LEFT TO OUR CONS & SCRIPTS NOT WRIT LARGE
NINE SQUARES - A LOST PLUTONIC SOCRATIC
A GAMING NOW POST PHILO - PHILOSOPHICAL
A DOUBLE THERM’D SPOUSAL’D SUCCESSIONARY
A DOUBLE CON - BUSTED - AND SPUN OUT NUCLEAR
A YANKEE DOODLED DANDY - UN-PLANETARY
AN OLD SAW KEPT PRUDENT TO PROCEDURES
CIVILITIES SET FOR CIVILIZATIONS AND ART
NOT LIES FOR LIES OF A LIBERALISM ESCAPISM
NOT A GAME OF WARS PERCHANCE CON’D
& SPINNING NOT A CYCLING ORBITS EXTRA-C
HOW GOES VENUS WAYS AND SAID MARTIANS
LOST LIKE PLUTO MUCH LIBERALISM ARTS
AN ART OF THE DODGE TO BUY ATTITUDE
ATTITUDE LATITUDES O ARTFUL DODGERS
ESQUIRED LOTS - EMPTY CHAIR(S)
THERMO FAM NUCLEAR
PEACE WHEN WAR
WAR WHEN PEACE
A PLAN’D IT WHEN NOT
A MASH’D WHEN PLANNED
A SCRIPTING BEAT WRIT NOT
CONSECRATED BUTS
HOW LOST OUR LIBERALISM AS AN ART
HOW LOST A PLANETARY GALACTIC PLUTO’D
TOO SOCRATIC NOW - RIGHT?
A LIE OR LAY OF LIBERALISM WHENCE
THENCE A UNIVERSAL ATTITUDINAL
A BUYING OF JUST TIME TO ESTABLISH
A BUYING OF JUST TIME TO PRESERVE
A KEPT ENCLAVE FOR INNOCENCE FIRST
A KEPT ORBIT MORE PLUTO’D & SOCRATIC
OF AN OUTER REALMS SECURED LONGITUDE
A LIBERALISM FOR A JUST ART OF A DODGE
HOW LOST NOW TO GLOBAL THERM’D NUCLEAR’D
HOW PAST TO SUCH FROM NINE SQUARES
SET SO ADRIFT AND ALIENATED BY
SPOUSAL’D HUSBANDRY’D TOO LIBERALIZED?

J.P. HOGAN
[FIRST DRAFT HERE AS POSTED & DATED]

Comments Off
03/10/13
> TIC TAC TOE <
Filed under: WHAT EVER
Posted by: @jphoganorg @ 8:13 am

>>> NEW TITLE IN THE QUEUE <<<

Comments Off