I have to state that I really am a little wrong in how I think about them as all being part of the same beneficiary of Federation proceeds distributed.
This morning I read how the Las Vegas Gambling Billionaire donated to Ron Johnson over Russ Feingold. I tended to believe that they always ponied up to members of the same religion as that has been my observational experience.
But you can't tell me that Ron Johnson, Johnson and English Surname, doesn't have Jewish blood. And I think that is represents bad Republican idealisms that are consistent with the English we declared our Freedom from in the Declaration of Independence.
But tell me this. Just tell me this? What interest does a Las Vegas Billionaire Casino Operator have in funding the results of elections in Wisconsin? It is really paid for policy. And whatever is at the dark heart of that likely is unconstitutional in some way!
So a Senator is on committees with regard to creating legislation with regard to business. Per my memory it used to be illegal to give them gifts. How can you say money isn't a gift? I will have to comb the Constitution on this again. But it looks like a lot of treason has been committed! A lot! The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. That means it is like the ten commandments carved into stone! Any laws created in this country cannot contradict it in any way! And law has to be read in terms of its intent of being created not the spoiled will of a ...
But in terms of Russ. He has what I believe to be estranged Confidence? Meaning deferring from the original possessor? So he is in there because he is the fall guy?
But what about the John Son surname? It is adopted a lot in England. England a foundation of the Roman Empire. John's Son? The English seem to use that Bible as a manual for wealth manipulation and control? It was the Kings religion and Divine Right and that is what we fought to gain our Independence from. Divine right meaning you could have a retard as king doing whatever he wants and not be able to do anything about it. Including siring many John's bastard Sons? Why do you have to ask whose son it is in the name? It is like some unwed whore had a son and she told him to just tell everyone that he was Johns Son. A family knows who its son is! A father knows who is son in his home is. I wouldn't need to call my son Tom's Son. My son would have my last name and a unique first name. Anyone following this?
Do you see that son suffix on many Irish surnames? Not as many as English. But the Irish were of Patriarchal lineage! With a son prefix on your last name without a doubt you are of matriarchal lineage! Another way to describe it as bastard.
So Smith is an English Surname. But we don't say Smithson do we! There isn't a lot like that. It is more of a skilled mans job (comes from Blacksmith) and the responsible man more likely to carry on what patriarchal lineage means. So what about the English Surnames with son on the suffix? It is like the Indian fertility tent isn't it! A matter of religion. Go in the Indian tepee with the shaman and she comes out pregnant. And we all know she was diddled in there. But they don't call that Shamanson do they? But that is a religion and John was a figure from the Bible in similar religious example.
So the title juxtaposition can be boiled down to one, the latter, defers confidence from the original possessor in estrangement while the former incites civil unrest like a fatherless bastard n1663r.
Meanwhile the oceans are filling up with plastic or acrylic or whatever the Romanian genealogy priest wants to call it.
Copyright 2016 Thomas Paul Murphy
Originally published on 02 22 2016 at: www.themilwaukeeandwisconsinnews.blogspot.com