It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Bush's Conspiracy To Keep Control

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 12:18 PM
I beileve that George W. Bush is conspiring to keep control of the United States using terrorists to skew public oppinion for the election.

My reasoning is as follows:

Bush believes that he is on a mission from God, he's hinted at this many times and there have been reports out of the White House that seem to verify this.

Bush's sanity is fleeting. Here's a story from Capitol Hill Blue, although I've also seen this talked about on CNN and MSNBC

He's also not been campaigning very hard, at least not as hard as John and John. In my experence American political elections are a game of one-upping the other canidate, Bush's campaign seems to have let Kerry and Edwards go with just a spattering of TV ads and attacks on Fox News.

The Department Of Homeland Security has begun looking into ways to postpone the election should terrorists attack. The department is probably one of the most partisan in the government right now, serving the interests of the president and his admin.

Here's what I think is going on:

The CIA or FBI has credible information that some terrorist group will attack on or near election day, and Bush is going to use this to his advantage. Remember the feelings after 9-11? The blind anger, fear, incredible patriotism and support for Bush? I think the president will allow a terrorist attack to occur, suspending the election and whipping America into a terrified yet patriotic frenzy. At which pont he'll make his play as the anti-terror canidate, which is one of the few things he's running on now, and watch the polls flip. Then once public oppinion is back in his favor, Bush will hold the election, winning in a landslide.

But I also don't think that his plan will work. The American people could see through the political manuvering, Bush could be called for using people's deaths to win. Also, everyone remembers their rights once they are blatantly trampled on, postponing the election could backfire and much more than the normal 1/3 of the population will turn out. Also the election could not be postponed too long, or Bush will be called a dictator and arrested, assassinated or overthrown.

I hope I'm wrong on this, but I'm seeing a very disturbing pattern starting to form here. With luck though I'm just paranoid about this, and the election will go off without a problem.

May Peace Travel With You

posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 12:25 PM
I totally agree with ya on this, I've been noticing all the things you mentioned. Along with the fact most every news network seems to be covering Kerry/Edwards more than Bush/Cheney and so you know its gonna be time for an eye opener.

posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 12:37 PM
I've explained in this thread:

...why in the event of an attack, it would be to Bush's advantage to hold the election as soon as humanly possible and why Kerry would be pushing for postponement.

posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 01:00 PM
In the '80s it was Reagan who was going to do this.

In the '90s it was Clinton.

Now it's Bush. While I generally don't look to the lunatic fringe for consistency in thought, it is oddly reassuring to find it, nonetheless.

Keep up the good work.

posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 01:09 PM
"The CIA or FBI has credible information that some terrorist group will attack on or near election day, and Bush is going to use this to his advantage".

Instilling FEAR is what this whole thing is about and is the keyword to this election. Bush and Co. are using terrorist tactics to undermine the election process and to achieve their own adgenda.

posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 01:18 PM
Mako, I completely agree, it seems that Bush, Cheney & Associates have been marketing the war on terror to terrorize America into voting them back in. I hope there are enough other people that see it too though come November, on whenever the election is.

I also wonder if this isn't just a huge ruse, mention postponing the election, something that's never been done before and people get scared, and vote for Bush.

It's very possible that this is a covert election strategy, however amoral it would be.

May Peace Travel With You

posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 01:56 PM
People have a strange way of ignoring the unpleasant things in life and would rather face the consequences for ignoring the issues than take action.

I've spoken to numerous people who complain about the current administration, and yet, did not vote the in last election and won't vote this time around because they don't think it will make a difference.

The American public needs more awareness.

posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 02:22 PM
Not voting is still a vote. It is a vote to let others decide.

Not everyone desires to lead. Most desire to be led. It's simpler.

There is nothing at all wrong with that. It is, in fact, the default human condition.

Historically, leaders are few, and followers many. Self-representation is a wonderful anomaly that appears and disappears in the history of man, but it is an anomaly, not the norm.

Look on the bright side: The fewer the number of voters, the more significant your vote.

On the dark side: Consider how little control you have over the choices presented to you, for that is where the true power lies.

All this talk of a Bush/Cheney "Conspiracy To Keep Control" is nonsense, because they are not truly the ones in control.

posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 02:43 PM
Majic, so who is in control?

I will like to debate, in who is really in control or let say the power behind the president.

Clinton onces said: "there's a secret government within the government, and I have no control over it."

I never understood this phrase perhaps you will be able to tell

posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 04:02 PM
I am (thankfully) not in as position to know who they are by name, but have very good cause to know they are in control.

Without getting into who I am or why I would know, which are subjects I won't discuss (and thus you should apply appropriate skepticism) -- other than to say that I am no one of consequence, I can confidently assert that we're not talking about one monolithic "conspiracy", but rather a great many "factions" of interested parties who control significant amounts of money and power.

Their reach and interests tend to be more global than national, although there are some hard-core nationalist factions as well as somewhat self-interested factions out there (criminal syndicates, for example). They are also neither homogeneous in structure nor are they all equal in power. Some factions control others, and many hierarchies exist. Most are unaware of where they truly fall within a given hierarchy, and nearly all are "connected" to more subtle and powerful "authorities". There are a relatively small number of "top dogs", and even they are beholden to others.

While they don't necessarily correspond to specific political parties or movements per se, and there's a lot of overlap, they do accomplish the majority of their work through political means due to its efficiency. Yes, politics can be efficient when it comes to achieving certain objectives. However, a significant amount of this political work is accomplished through covert means, information warfare and extralegal activities.

They are all ultimately well-meaning in their own way (even the most hardened criminal has a rationale to justify his deeds), but can differ violently in terms of objectives and methods. Additionally, these "factions" tend to be somewhat amorphous and can vary in their short-term tactics depending on who is currently running the show, their current constituencies, current alliances and the status of long-term objectives. While only a very few think of themselves as "evil" or "sinister", almost all are "players" who are not afraid to shed blood (sometimes a lot of blood) to further their objectives.

President Bush, for example, is indeed a very powerful man, and does wield great influence, but no man is an island, and you don't become president on your own. He does answer to a higher authority, although it would be simplistic and foolish to believe that he simply "takes orders". Those with true power don't give orders, they persuade you to want to do what they want you to do.

Bush is beholden to some very powerful people, who do indeed "really" run the show, but relationships at that stratum are not crude matters of "boss" and "employee". The real relationship is far more subtle, and thus far more reliable and effective. Don't forget Bush is himself a "player", it is the coin of the realm. He knows his power, and also knows its limits, but he doesn't know all there is to know.

If you really want to know who is calling the shots, some detective work can pay off, if you'd call it that. Some of these people are "hidden in plain sight", but others will disappear you if they so much as wonder if you have a clue. The good news is that you're unlikely to ever get close enough to the dangerous ones to warrant attention. Those folks have their own orbits and tend to stick to them.

I realize that this amounts to a great deal of verbiage yielding little real information, that it reads like some sort of dubious, generalized horoscope, and that you probably knew all this anyway, but sometimes that's the best I can offer on the "big picture" (although, technically, this isn't really the true "big picture"). Bear in mind that I not only do not know everything (or even all that much, frankly), but have my own interests to consider, as well.

There's plenty of information out there for the curious, but be warned that almost all of it is utter nonsense, that there's a mind-numbingly huge amount of it, that most of it is crafted to mislead or control you, that nothing is as it seems, and that the truth can be stranger than fiction.

The time to panic is when you begin to understand.

[edit on 7/12/2004 by Majic]


posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 04:05 PM

Originally posted by marg6043
Clinton onces said: "there's a secret government within the government, and I have no control over it."

This page from 1995 argues that FEMA is the organization in question and without a doubt it has gotten stronger since 9/11 with new Executive Orders giving it powers beyond those mentioned in the article.

posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 04:15 PM

Thanks for the FEMA connection I though that was it.

Magic has brought up the power of the organizations that control the government in this country, I am going to call them organizations, but I remember my father always said that US was control by mafia, but during the 70s and 80s it kind of die out, and I guess we al know about the real power but most people just tend to ignore this things and in order to live democratic happy lives back up by our constitutional rights.

One more thing Magic, do you thing the elections will be stopped.

posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 04:19 PM
Well, this summer the US public has received the first major warning for a terrorist attack. These warnings will have no influence whatsoever in the future if nothing happens, they just won't be believable on a large scale after awhile. So what happens, a terror attack occurs during summer/ early fall, awhile before the elections.

Then, another warning is received for election day. Since the last warning came through, the government will decide that this time around they need to take measures. The measure being the postponement of elections. During the time from the last terror attack until the new election day, we attack another country, like Saudia Arabia. As well, this instills a fear that maybe the government is right after all with their warnings.

posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 04:34 PM
It is possible for smaller gangs and "mafia" groups to be autonomous (and most think they are), but they all need "connections", whether sources of drugs to sell, fences to purchase stolen goods or "accountants" to launder money. Thus, often unwittingly, they find their places in a hierarchy.

As for FEMA, it exists for a reason, but it would be incorrect and simplistic to presume that FEMA is "in charge". Rather, it exists literally for contingencies to support those who really are in control should certain things occur. For what it's worth, FEMA has really helped a lot of people out in disaster situations. But yes, their mission scope includes some rather unsavory options for "domestic control" scenarios.

As for postponing elections, I'll shake my Majic 8-Ball(tm) and say "sources say no." It is a possibility, and I'm not implying that it can't happen, but it is unlikely.

An exception: if a terrorist attack or truly credible threat should occur that would indicate the voting process itself was targeted. Mass attacks on registrars and voting infrastructure, including physical, unconventional and electronic forms of warfare would present a legitimate reason for postponing the elections. We'll see if that threat materializes.

But even a major attack a few days before the elections targeted against something other than the voting apparatus would most likely not be considered cause for postponement.

Bear in mind that postponing elections presents some extremely serious consequences of its own at all levels of government, with substantial impacts on the political, legal, civil, economic and security status of the United States. This is not something the powers that be would consider lightly.

posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 05:03 PM
Can you say "Bush has gone mad, and should be impeached?" I really wish that Kerry wins the election. Ofcourse it would be better if Bush was put in jail though after he looses.

posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 05:12 PM

Thanks, one more thing, I have notice how the war in Iraq and the terror alerts has taken away our minds, eyes and ears of other issues, like war on drugs somebody did mention this on another post, kind of funny, I like this conspiracy of the government, Majic keep it coming but without getting anybody in trouble.

I do believe we may have a terror attack in the mist but is not for benefit of Bush, and AD5673, yes I think we are seen the madness of King George the ll that is how I am going to call him from now on.

posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 05:23 PM
Be mindful of the "spotlight of the news" and the "news of the day" phenomena.

Part of it is due to the pack-animal nature of journalists and the result of overdependence on a handful of wire services, part due to presenting news that sells ("Meteor Does Not Hit Earth" is not the way to sell news), and no small part of it is due to information warfare.

The pickpocket directs your attention elsewhere while he grabs your wallet. So it is with "managing" the news. Avoid "news hypnosis". Don't let others drive your agenda.

It is very difficult, especially in light of the way news is created, packaged and sold, but I recommend following news of interest to you, and minimizing the distractions of following only the headlines.

Monitor multiple sources, and trust none of them completely. They all have an angle. Objectivity is unattainable by humans. Suspect everything, and corroborate as much as you can. Maintain skepticism.

The news you see is the news they want you to see.

[edit on 7/12/2004 by Majic]

posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 05:27 PM
The elections will go off without a hitch IMO. There's no reason for Bush to impede middle America from going to the polls.

Now having said that, they will continue to scare the ever loving bejesus out of URBAN DWELLERS right up until the election, as that's where Dem votes predominantly come from AND where terrorists would "make credible threats".

If just 10% of usual voters from NYC and LA stay home on election day, Bush wins.

There's the conspiracy, the strategy and the plan unfolding before our eyes.

posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 05:32 PM
The main difference between this upcoming regime change and all past ones is clearly the terrorist attack in Spain. News networks continue to hammer in the point, whether they state it word for word or not, "The terrorist attack in spain caused the election outcome to change."

Now that an attack like that has occured who could resist using it in America. This kind of thing has been speculated at since Reagan was in office as Majic said. But there is no doubt that the world climate is very different and more susceptable to this type of thing than when Reagan or Clinton left office.

posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 05:43 PM
Majic, interesting points, however there is one more thing that I have been noticing lately:

I believe there is a power struggle within the powers that be in America. Bush is a puppet, I'll be the first to scream that from the rooftops, but his keepers are very different from the people who were in control even ten years ago. America is changing, the old powers that be were very interested in making money, and making sure they weren't disturbed while making the money. The new generation of people behind the power is much more ideological, they're also interested in making money (which they are hand over fist thanks to Bush) but they also have a vision of the kind of society that America should be.

Therein lies the struggle, everyone's happy to do business, but the new powers want control of the people, and the old guard is fighting like hell to keep that from happening.

Bush's decision not to speak at the NAACP is indicative of this, he's made his allies and the big backers at the NAACP, who were big when Clinton was in charge, are no longer in the loop.

Dunno how this is going to effect the election, but Bush's backers could push him to do some radical things to ensure their continued control of American politics.

May Peace Travel With You

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in