The Election that Won't Happen?

Ok I've been thinking and if you think about it, G.W. Bush has been acting more like a dictator than a president. I don know, thats the feeling I get. Anyways, I've been thinking and Bush is like the most unpopular president of this era. Now, if the government did have a lot to do with 9/11(which no one knows for sure, but it is entirely possible), what's to say there won't be another 9/11 type thing right around when the general election takes place. Now think about this, another 9/11 type attack, Bush in all his 'wisdom' signs an executive order putting the nation in a state of emergency, pushing back the election to whenever he sees fit. I think this is very possible and could be very likely. I mean, unless McCain is elected, than what if a democrat is elected, all of Bush's plans go down the sink, the democrats take over control. So bush needs to keep his place in office. This is just a theory, lemme know what yall think, I think this is a very likey situation. Kinda scary.

I have heard speculations about a fake assassination or like project Blue Beam making a layer in the atmosphere that would be like a movie projector across the sky faking the second coming of Christ. Also during this time they would present the anti-Christ and their sick spin on Christianity. Seems kinda far fetched to me but nothing really surprises me anymore.

The only other thing I could imagine happening is that the election would be fixed, bringing Hillary in and keeping Bush in behind the scenes.

reply to post by PennKen2009


youve been listening to Alex jones to much

just delete that page from your favorites and everything will be just fine

list all the ways he has been dictating and the following through of that dictatorship

most presidents get unpopular during their terms, yes his is just more than normal

but I dont think the elections will be stopped cause of some second time 9/11 situation

You don't get it man. There is no difference between the dems and neocons. There will be an "election" (more like a baton passing) I've been saying it since 2003 that Hillary would be president in 08. The Clinton and Bush families are good pals, and peas in the same pod of Globalism.

It will make no difference whether we have Clinton for 8 more years or Bush till he dies. In the next 10 years, unless we revolt we will no longer have our country, as it is pissed away to the global banking elite.

We do get it, and yes... there is a big difference between the democrats and republicans. There may be procedural similarities, but there are huge differences in the direction that they want to take the country in. We are in a global economy, and even Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich would have to operate within those constraints.

reply to post by PennKen2009


You might want to do a little more research on dictators before making such claims. Bush wouldn't need Congress or the Supreme Court, if he was in fact a dictator. He doesn't have anywhere near absolute power.

[edit on 19-2-2008 by BlueRaja]

McCain is insane, Hillary is a communist bi#ch, Obama is bought and paid for, Huckabee a fake,

Ron Paul, fights for the Constitution and the people

President/Dictator Traitor George Bush has gone insane and is going to try to become ruler the way it is looking.

please explain how bush is becoming ruler

oh and ron paul has no chance, get over it

when I said dictator I don't mean like Saddam or Castro Dictator, I mean that everything he wants he can get. Everyone in his cabinet agrees completely with him, there are no alternative ideas there, nothing but morons like him who think the same way. And when someone does try to think on their own they get thrown out (colin powell, donald rumsfelf). Secondly, what has Congress done at all? What have the courts done? Bush wanted the war in Afganistan, he got the war. He watned the war in Iraq, he got it. He probrably will want one in Pakistan real soon and unfortuenately I'm sure he's going to get that too.


What I dont get is, if there are people in the background controlling everything and they are so 'powerful' why don't they just keep someone in office forever, screw the Constitution and all? I mean obviously this is fiction, or else this would be the case if you ask me.

[edit on 2/19/2008 by PennKen2009]

I strongly recommend you read Daniel Estulin book "The True Story of The Bilderberg Group". It will tell you how things are done and how it doesn't matter who is president there all back by the Bilderberger's, Council of forign Relations and the Trilateral Commission, which Bill Clinton is apart of them all. Where all screwed unless we educate everyone on what's going on and stand up and say "NO MORE". hopefully when that comes it won't be to late.

Originally posted by PennKen2009
when I said dictator I don't mean like Saddam or Castro Dictator, I mean that everything he wants he can get. Everyone in his cabinet agrees completely with him, there are no alternative ideas there, nothing but morons like him who think the same way. And when someone does try to think on their own they get thrown out (colin powell, donald rumsfelf). Secondly, what has Congress done at all? What have the courts done? Bush wanted the war in Afganistan, he got the war. He watned the war in Iraq, he got it. He probrably will want one in Pakistan real soon and unfortuenately I'm sure he's going to get that too.


What I dont get is, if there are people in the background controlling everything and they are so 'powerful' why don't they just keep someone in office forever, screw the Constitution and all? I mean obviously this is fiction, or else this would be the case if you ask me.

[edit on 2/19/2008 by PennKen2009]

All Presidents have the authority to use the military- Bush hasn't come up with a new power. Bush doesn't have the power of the purse, or to legislate, or decide the constitutionality of something.
There aren't people so powerful as you think, and that is precisely the reason that someone could stay in office for life.

reply to post by BlueRaja


You may want to do some more research into how Bush has changed the laws to effectively be a dictator in the event that martial law is declared. He would have complete oversight of all three branches of government at that point, which is a dictatorship by all understandings of the word.

Staged terrorists attacks, martial law, dictatorship, postponed elections....it is all possible. BTW, Clinton is who they really want. But Obama is scaring them so they may need to help us sheep along. FYI Hillary attended the last "Builderburger" meeting in Canada in 2007. Democrats vs Republicans, at this point, it is no longer relavant. They could live with McCain, but anyone else other than Clinton is not completely trusted to further there agenda. I am so scared for Obama.

reply to post by percievedreality


Sorry for the one liner but so you know Hilary was at the 2006 meeting in Ottawa. In 2007 it was held in Istanbul.

Originally posted by downtown436
You don't get it man. There is no difference between the dems and neocons. There will be an "election" (more like a baton passing) I've been saying it since 2003 that Hillary would be president in 08. The Clinton and Bush families are good pals, and peas in the same pod of Globalism.

It will make no difference whether we have Clinton for 8 more years or Bush till he dies. In the next 10 years, unless we revolt we will no longer have our country, as it is pissed away to the global banking elite.

I agree, there is little or no difference when it comes to the banksters agenda. Bush is bought and paid for as well a Hillary and McCain. Did you see the Bush's giving McCain big hugs and kisses yesterday and welcoming him on board?
I do think the Patriot Act as well as all the recent rash of executive orders are setting the stage for some sort of "disaster" that will be the excuse for martial law. Maybe if Obama is beating Hillary they will try something to derail his campaign. I wouldn't put anything past these criminals.

Originally posted by BlueRaja

Bush doesn't have the power of the purse, or to legislate, or decide the constitutionality of something.

Are you kidding me? How can you still belief that were we are today?

Sure he does, he just declares it off-limits under executive privledge. How about destruction of the WH emails or the waterboarding tapes or the Patriot Act. He does have the power to decide the constitutionality of something by stopping the ability of oversight from others.....that is how dictators rule! No accountability or even the abilty to ask questions to investigate wrong doing. We killed people for waterboarding (torturing) our troops but now we can do it, get away with it and then kill them? Open your eyes people.

reply to post by Spaxz


You are correct, sir. Regardless, it proves the point I was trying to make, she is in the loop...Dems or Reps, it really doesn't matter. The NWO knows that this 2-party system will keep people divided and busy arguing while failing to see the bigger picture and thus pose no real threats to their agenda as it progresses.

We killed people for waterboarding (torturing) our troops but now we can do it, get away with it and then kill them? Open your eyes people.

Who did we kill for waterboarding our troops? I have not heard that our troops have been waterboarded, much less that we killed someone for doing it. Not saying it didn't happen, but I have not heard of this.

Originally posted by percievedreality

Originally posted by BlueRaja

Bush doesn't have the power of the purse, or to legislate, or decide the constitutionality of something.

Are you kidding me? How can you still belief that were we are today?

Sure he does, he just declares it off-limits under executive privledge. How about destruction of the WH emails or the waterboarding tapes or the Patriot Act. He does have the power to decide the constitutionality of something by stopping the ability of oversight from others.....that is how dictators rule! No accountability or even the abilty to ask questions to investigate wrong doing. We killed people for waterboarding (torturing) our troops but now we can do it, get away with it and then kill them? Open your eyes people.

How does this show that Bush has the authority to spend money, legislate, or make rulings unilaterally? Why do you think he has to go to Congress to ask for money, if he has the power to spend without asking. Why do you think in areas where the Supreme Court has ruled against a policy, he's had to change(i.e. the status of enemy combatants). Don't mistake executive authority, with absolute power.

reply to post by Spaxz


That's his opinion of what the Bilderberg Group is/does. Are there any corroborative sources that are even remotely mainstream, or can one only find sources on conspiracy sites? I have yet to see anyone post the topics of discussion/minutes of meetings from these groups.