From another angle see US politics .

See US politics From another angle .

It looks like a democratic system. It's not. The two parties are all under control of inside group. Politicians are puppets. The campaign is actually like a horse racing. And the candidates are like domesticated horses.

This time the inside group want Bush to stay in 2nd term of president because he is obedient. He followed the order to start an unjust war. So they keep him there because they want more war. The other candidate who may be a possible threat to Bush were advised to leave.

What is the target of politicians? President. Can you immagine a department manager give up the chance to be raised to the position of executive president? But Tom Daschle and Al Gore were advised to abandon to election 2004. Because they may defeat Bush. And they obeyed. That's why I say it's a domestic horse racing. Everything depends on Master's will.

They leave some incompetant horses for Demo and make it a chaotic circus. Through media propaganda, fake poll, rigged election, they got a weak candidate for Demo. All to make sure Bush can continue to be a "war president".

And of course, you always see those government accessaries, discredit this and support that. At the purpose to weak Demo and strenthen Bush.

Who control election?

13 US Congressmen have asked help from UN to monitor US election. How can so said "democrtic" US get into such a plight? Rigging in election now is so obvious even high ranking politicians realize the gravity of the question.

People who vote don't decide whom be elected.
People who count the vote do.

The people who control the intelligence in US decide whom been elected. That's what happened in Florida 2000 election in which Inside group selected Bush. And in Demo's Primary in 2004 in which they dropped Howard Dean.

In a rigged election, they could move votes by thousands.

Quote, ""DELAND, Fla., Nov. 11 - Something very strange happened on election night to Deborah Tannenbaum, a Democratic Party official in Volusia County. At 10 p.m., she called the county elections department and learned that Al Gore was leading George W. Bush 83,000 votes to 62,000. But when she checked the county's Web site for an update half an hour later, she found a startling development: Gore's count had dropped by 16,000 votes, while an obscure Socialist candidate had picked up 10,000--all because of a single precinct with only 600 voters."

- Washington Post Sunday , November 12, 2000 ; Page A22

Re: "Yes. Something very strange happened in Volusia County on election night November 2000, the night that first Gore won Florida, then Bush, and then as everybody can so well remember there was a tie.
Something strange indeed. But what exactly? In the above report ( click for full version), written days after the election, hotshot Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank goes on to attribute the strange 16,022 negative vote tally from Volusia's precinct 216 to an apparently innocent cause.
"�. faulty 'memory cards' in the machines caused the 16,000-vote disappearance on election night. The glitch was soon fixed," he wrote.

But thanks to recent investigations into Black Box Voting by Washington State writer Bev Harris we now know this explanation is not correct. In fact it is not even in the ballpark.
Entire article

www.scoop.co.nz...

Manipulate media and poll

Howard Dean is a vivid sample of how insider group to use media and intelligence to manipulate an election.

1. In last October, when Dean became a threat to Bush, they at first threw out Wesley Clark to block him. Media said that Clark was the only one in Democratic Party which could beat Bush. ( try to divert the support of Dean to Clark) CNN-USA Today Gallop poll said Clark lead over Bush at the rate of 49% to 46%. How could they get such a result when not much people knew who Clark was?

Even media beat the drum to blow up Clark, the general has never led in any of Demo's primary. Where is the base of that 49% vs Bush's 46%?

2. When they failed to block Dean by Clark, inside group threw out Kerry. Kerry won the first Demo Primary in January. The tactic was the same. Now they said Kerry is the one who can beat Bush. The problem is how could Dean, as a leading candidate in Iowa, suddenly dropped into a result of 18% vs Kerry's 38%? Media use a word "Iowa surprise" to explain this drama. It's not convincible. Consider Demo candidates have similar stands on important issues, that 75% Iowa voters are anti-war, that Kerry has voted for Iraq war authorization Bill.

3. Same show had acted in recall of California. Before the recall, poll said Arnold had 26% vs Bustmonte's(Demo)28%. Another Rep's candidate, Mclintok, had a steady 14%. Mclintok wouldn't pull out the campaign after persuation. Then CNN poll suddenly boosted Arnold a 40% vs Bustmonte's 28%. (with Mclintok's 14% unchanged)
Obviosly, inside group once thought Mclintok would pull out, but he didn't. Of course that wouldn't trouble them, because they control election office thus they control the result. (just like in Florida election) All they had to do was immediately threw out a poll to justify Arnold's victory.

This is how insider group manipulate American election. They steal it by intelligent covert job. (Those who controlled intelligence, they controlled election office) And make people believe the result is reasonable by fake poll.

If one party states aren't so great (COMMUNISTS) then what good does adding just one more party. The green party and independents hold too few seats too actually do anything.

Originally posted by kathaksung
See US politics From another angle .

It looks like a democratic system. It's not.

It is. Candidates are presented, the public votes. IOW, its democratic. The system, as some will belabour, is a Representative Republic, specifically. But merely because it has a two party system hardly makes it undemocratic. Plus, think about it. In a several party system, a plurality (ie getting more votes than anyone else, but not a majority of votes), gets you elected, iow, a minority of voters elected you, and the vast majority of voters did not vote for you. I'm not saying that a several party system is undemocratic tho.

But Tom Daschle and Al Gore were advised to abandon to election 2004.

Daschle? Yeah, thats cute. Didn't he infact run? Gore didnt, but Dachle did. He lost, horribly, in the Primaries. Know what that means, it means people didn't vote for him to be the candidate. See, even the Candidates are elected.


Because they may defeat Bush. And they obeyed.
That doesn't even make sense. If Gore is a puppet of his overlords, and bush is a puppet of his overlords, and so is Daschle even, why the heck would they drop out? Why would the overlords prefer bush, if everyone is their puppet? And why would they care if one puppet beats anohter? If Gore might beat bush, then why wouldn't the overlords just let it happen, and then control Gore? Bush's election is even contested, and he's controversial. People question his legitimacy, so why would the overlords even bother risking exposing themselves by putting forward a puppet that (1) might loose to Tom Daschle of all people and (2) is already thought to be illigetimate? It would make more sense for them to put Gore forward, and then control a more pliable population.


They leave some incompetant horses for Demo and make it a chaotic circus. Through media propaganda, fake poll, rigged election, they got a weak candidate for Demo.
You just said that the overlords control both parties. Why would they rig elections and all that jazz? They would just tell the executive councils of eiter national party who to allow to run in the primaries. And Kerry is hardly weak, he's trailing bush by a few percentage points in most polls, but he's got a heck of a lot better chance at it than, jesus, did you really say Tom Daschle? Now if there really were these overlords, they'd be able to get Keynes elected, or Buchannon, or Kucinich.

[edit on 28-9-2004 by Nygdan]

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by kathaksung

You just said that the overlords control both parties. Why would they rig elections and all that jazz?
[edit on 28-9-2004 by Nygdan]

Yes, they control two parties. Which you can see how they pulled down Howar Dean and let Kerry become Demo's candidate. They made both parties' candidates pro-war one.

Why they rigged the election? To make it look like a democratic system, the two parties have to have some difference. Otherwise there is no "competition" and public have no interest to vote. To rig the election will assure them to have their most favorite candidate to be selected. This time it's Bush. He has proved himself an obedient president even to start an unjust war.

-----------------

Inside group now is smiling. They got all cadidates, both in Rep. and Demo camp, all their puppets. Go play the election, you people, enjoy "democracy". The end is already in the hand of inside group. The following is a message I posted about 5months ago, it still works.

"Three musketeers (originally posted in February this year)

There were two big events in House in Bush presidency. One was passing through of the Bill of Patriot Act and other one is the Bill of Authorizing the use of armed force against Iraq. These two bills seriously eroding the civil rights of US citizens and their interest but largely benefit the inside group. They even activated anthrax attack(for Patriot Act) and DC sniper shooting (for the bill to authorize Iraq war power) to push through the two bills. After the bills passed successfully, the media published pictures to show that it was supported by two parties. The picture showed Bush was in the center, with Lieberman, Edwards, Gephardt came beside him. Like three musketeers stood with the king. Kerry, though being gang of four, even not qualified to be in the picture. They are the hard core of inside group followers.

Edwards has another character. He works covertly like Wesley Clark and Arnold Schwarzinneger. When Clark suddenly joined campaign, he has a clean vote history because he has never been a politician. Arnold at first denied he would be candidate in California recall, only at last minute announced involvement. Same tactic like Clark. Arnold also ducked all candidates debate. Edwards worked in same way. Try not to be in focus, avoid conflict. At this point, he and Clark and Arnold could be viewed as three musketeers from Feds.

Howard Dean was the target of insider group because his anti-war stand. They manipulated election, media and poll to pull Dean down. The resiganation of Dean's campaign manager gave him a last hit. When they created a situation that Dean was hopeless, why they are so eager want Dean announceing his out? It might be paving way for Edwards.

When they forced Dean to pull out, Kerry and Edwards became major competetors. They could make another surprise in Super Tuesday's primary. (Though this time they didn't. Otherwise it would be too evident the election was manipulated.) "

Edwards is a favour of inside group. They almost made him the president candidate. It's no surprise they made him now a vice candidate.

If nothign else, plese take more care in the way that you post, you have included your entire post as a 'quote' of yourself, and have a few different levels of quotes, from you to me to me to you, which is unnecessary. This thread is not long nor ecomplex enough to warrant that much detail and context in each post.

Originally posted by kathaksung
You just said that the overlords control both parties. Why would they rig elections and all that jazz?

Yes, they control two parties. Which you can see how they pulled down Howar Dean and let Kerry become Demo's candidate. They made both parties' candidates pro-war one.
Uhm, no, not true under any 'angle'. Dean did not win the primaries. He didn't get support from the people, he didn't have anything like enough reps at the convention, and he wasn't on the ticket. No one, except the voters in the primaries, 'forced' him to do anything.

Why they rigged the election? To make it look like a democratic system

If they control both parties, then it doesn't matter to them which candidate wins, so why would they rig the elections to have a particular outcome, if they control who is the candidate, then why would they bother controlling and rigging the elections, let the people vote, you guy wins no matter who they chose, thats what I stated.

Your post from several months ago is irrelevant, why make everyone read a post that has already had its oppurtunity to be seen? And it seems to show that you didn't know what you were talking about in February, and don't know now either.

You clearly don't understand the basics of the voting and election process in the US. Your criticism of it is meaningless. You can't critique or explain something you obviously don't understand and haven't investigated.

If nothign else, plese take more care in the way that you post, you have included your entire post as a 'quote' of yourself, and have a few different levels of quotes, from you to me to me to you, which is unnecessary. This thread is not long nor ecomplex enough to warrant that much detail and context in each post.

It's a mistake to use "Quote" format. You made same mistake to include my words in yours.

Uhm, no, not true under any 'angle'. Dean did not win the primaries. He didn't get support from the people, he didn't have anything like enough reps at the convention, and he wasn't on the ticket. No one, except the voters in the primaries, 'forced' him to do anything.

A thief can declare the goods he stolen was bought legally.

If they control both parties, then it doesn't matter to them which candidate wins, so why would they rig the elections to have a particular outcome, if they control who is the candidate, then why would they bother controlling and rigging the elections, let the people vote, you guy wins no matter who they chose, thats what I stated.

I explain it in previous message. I repeat it again. If they make two rivals the competition. There must be some difference. In which inside group pick up one they favour most. When people vote for the other one, then they rigged the election.

----------------

There are many petitions suggest to impeach Bush. It won't succeed. On the contrary, he will be awarded for a second term.

Why the media beat the drum on a personal affair and almost impeached President Clinton from his post. While awarded President Bush with a high approve rate when he misled American people to an unnecessary war?

If you can view the whole thing from another angle. That terrorist group is manipulated by CIA and Mosad. And what Bush did was following a "road map" a powerful group designed earlier. You may know it better.

The bombing of US Cole and embassy in Africa were provokation for a Mid-east war. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz had lobbied Clinton for the war in Jan. 1998 but failed. Clinton ordered missil bombing in Sudan and Afghanistan but didn't start a war. He was punished by Lewinsky scandal and was almost impeached from his post.

Since bombing of Cole and US embassador in Afirica were not big enough to touch off a war, they had a big attack in US. Many information revealed that 911 was allowed to happen. With which Bush started war with Afghan. But that was not the main target of "road map". Bush then started war with Iraq even though there was no sufficient justification. He did a good job for that power group. How could him be impeached?

Bin Laden was not found because he is too important for intelligence. His existence gives an excuse to make "war on terrorism" an endless one. He won't be arrested or killed until they found another terror leader to substitute him.

Another possibility is that Bin Laden had already died. US intelligence keeps him alive so from time to time they can issue a tape of "Bin Laden's" to flame a public's sentiment about terrorism to the need of inside group.

The "Road map" is not finished. There are more "evil countries" in the list. The "war on terror" is used by US inside group to squeeze more power and money from American people. So Bush will stay in his post, as well as Bin Laden.

A thief can declare the goods he stolen was bought legally.

How did kerry steal the primaries? By receiving more votes? Kerry -destroyed- dean in the primaries. There was active support for dean, but the vast majority of voters completely rejected him.

If they control both parties, then it doesn't matter to them which candidate wins, so why would they rig the elections to have a particular outcome, if they control who is the candidate, then why would they bother controlling and rigging the elections, let the people vote, you guy wins no matter who they chose, thats what I stated.

I explain it in previous message. I repeat it again. If they make two rivals the competition. There must be some difference. In which inside group pick up one they favour most. When people vote for the other one, then they rigged the election.
So yuo are saying, for example, that the overlords controlled Gore and Bush, but, forwhatever the reason, they just liked bush a little more, so they went made a democrat make stupid ballots for florida, put up a fraudulent vote count, made Gore challenge the count, and influenced the florida recounters to recount the ballots wrong, and forced the SCOTUS to halt the recounts (even tho they were controlling the recounts and were the ones who went to court to start the recounts in the first place) and then controlled all the newspapers and independant investigators who counted the ballots afterwards, and generally risked exposing themselves and went thru all that silliness for no particular reason other than they liked 'Puppet Candidate A' better than 'Puppet Candidate B'?
----------------

There are many petitions suggest to impeach Bush. It won't succeed. On the contrary, he will be awarded for a second term.

And the only reason you can see for any of that happening is secret overlords who run all political parties, the boards of elections in all states, and generally, what, the vast majority of people in the country?

Why the media beat the drum on a personal affair and almost impeached President Clinton from his post. While awarded President Bush with a high approve rate when he misled American people to an unnecessary war?
The media can influence things, but the approval ratings aren't just made up, they're based on polls. As far as clinton, obviously it deserved more media attention, because the house (or was it senate) actually impeached him, whereas none of the congressmen are moving to impeach bush.

The bombing of US Cole and embassy in Africa were provokation for a Mid-east war. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz had lobbied Clinton for the war in Jan. 1998 but failed. Clinton ordered missil bombing in Sudan and Afghanistan but didn't start a war. He was punished by Lewinsky scandal and was almost impeached from his post.

Yeah ok. So clinton knows that there are imperial overlords, but he chose to ignore them that one time, but still bombed people in the sudan and afghanistan.

Since bombing of Cole and US embassador in Afirica were not big enough to touch off a war, they had a big attack in US. Many information revealed that 911 was allowed to happen.

I have never seen any of it. What is the most credible and convincing peice of information in support of this?


Bin Laden was not found because he is too important for intelligence. His existence gives an excuse to make "war on terrorism" an endless one. He won't be arrested or killed until they found another terror leader to substitute him.

Another possibility is that Bin Laden had already died. US intelligence keeps him alive so from time to time they can issue a tape of "Bin Laden's" to flame a public's sentiment about terrorism to the need of inside group.

Possibility? Sure, why not. Any reason to beleive any of that? Apparently not.

is used by US inside group to squeeze more power and money from American people.

Really? They can't think of a better way to make money other than start global wars and wreck havoc with the US economy? And they did it for money, but don't own the iraqi oilfields?

Originally posted by Nygdan


So yuo are saying, for example, that the overlords controlled Gore and Bush, but, forwhatever the reason, they just liked bush a little more, so they went made a democrat make stupid ballots for florida, put up a fraudulent vote count, made Gore challenge the count, and influenced the florida recounters to recount the ballots wrong, and forced the SCOTUS to halt the recounts (even tho they were controlling the recounts and were the ones who went to court to start the recounts in the first place) and then controlled all the newspapers and independant investigators who counted the ballots afterwards, and generally risked exposing themselves and went thru all that silliness for no particular reason other than they liked 'Puppet Candidate A' better than 'Puppet Candidate B'?.

They manipulate election all the way. When they let Gore pull out the election in 2002, push out Wesley Clark, then Kerry to pull down Dean, these were all their tactic to assure the candidates being their own. It's not as simple as only puppet A and B you suggested. see "about Clark" below.

And the only reason you can see for any of that happening is secret overlords who run all political parties, the boards of elections in all states, and generally, what, the vast majority of people in the country?

The media can influence things, but the approval ratings aren't just made up, they're based on polls. As far as clinton, obviously it deserved more media attention, because the house (or was it senate) actually impeached him, whereas none of the congressmen are moving to impeach bush.

As I told, majority people are cheated. Election is rigged. Poll is a forgery to make the rigged election result reasonable.

(Since bombing of Cole and US embassador in Afirica were not big enough to touch off a war, they had a big attack in US. Many information revealed that 911 was allowed to happen. )

I have never seen any of it. What is the most credible and convincing peice of information in support of this?

If you want, I can give you many information.

Really? They can't think of a better way to make money other than start global wars and wreck havoc with the US economy? And they did it for money, but don't own the iraqi oilfields?

Well, tell me the better way how to persuade people abandon their civil right to have a "Patriot Act". Tell me how Pentagon could get a historical budget of more than 400 billion? Tell me how could maintain an incompetent, dishonest, cowardish Bush in presidency.

----------------

About Clark

Clark is a tool used by inside group to block Dean. Dean's anti-war opinion gathered support from the people and becomes a threat to Bush. So in September they throw out Clark to replace him.

Why when Clark announced to be 10th Demo candidate he could be suddenly jumped over others and was said the one could defeat Bush while a lot people asked in internet, "Who is Clark?"?
If people support Clark because of his anti-war opinion, then Dean has that opinion much longer then Clark. Why Dean can't defeat Bush but Clark can?

The answer is obvious. Dean's anti-war opinion is honest. It is against the will of inside group. So they must stop him. Clark is a patsy of that group. He had been an admirer of Bush cabinet. Now he stole Dean's opinion in order to block the way of Dean to become the president candidate of Democratic Party. A patsy always change his mind to favour his master.

Media is in stronghold of inside group. So Clark has been titled "he is the only one who can beat Bush." "another name of Clinton", "another Esenhower".... That's how inside group to manipulate election by propaganda. And the way to pick up the candidate of their own.

Originally posted by kathaksung
If you want, I can give you many information.

I already asked for the most credible and convincing peive of information on that.

Really? They can't think of a better way to make money other than start global wars and wreck havoc with the US economy? And they did it for money, but don't own the iraqi oilfields?

Well, tell me the better way how to persuade people abandon their civil right to have a "Patriot Act".

I thought they just wanted money. Now you are saying that they want a totalitarian dictatorship? Isn't much money in those.

Tell me how Pentagon could get a historical budget of more than 400 billion?

For the past few years defense spending has been around 3% of the US GDP.

Tell me how could maintain an incompetent, dishonest, cowardish Bush in presidency.

Well, maintaining isn't the issue, since there's only been one election, and there isn't much sense in maintining anyway, since they can only be president for two years, and, as you said, they control ever candidate in the primaries and in the general election, so, again, why in the world would they risk getting caught by rigging the election? No matter who the people vote for, their guy wins, not because the election is rigged, acoording to your idea, but because their guy is every candidate.

----------------

About Clark

Clark is a tool used by inside group to block Dean. Dean's anti-war opinion gathered support from the people and becomes a threat to Bush. So in September they throw out Clark to replace him.
Except clark didn't replace him. Or anyone. Dean failed miserably in the primaries. People didn't want him as their candidate, so they didn't vote for him. He isn't running now, not because of clark, or anyone else, except the voters.

Why when Clark announced to be 10th Demo candidate he could be suddenly jumped over others
Because he was the only one of the ten that could say "I was supreme nato commander", becuase he was a moderate/centrist, and because he looked nice in a sweater.


and was said the one could defeat Bush while a lot people asked in internet, "Who is Clark?"?
Clark was better known than Kerry before the election, so this doesn't fly. And now you aresaying that clark was put in to 'knock out dean' (even tho no one, acorrding to you, knew who he was, so he couldn't have beaten dean in the primaries [and, er, didn't]) so that kerry could be the democratic candidate that the overlords wanted to loose to bush? This is getting alittle silly isn't it? If they wanted bush to win, they've pushed Howard Dean as the Democratic candidate, because he' loose in the general election.

If people support Clark because of his anti-war opinion, then Dean has that opinion much longer then Clark. Why Dean can't defeat Bush but Clark can?

I dunno, maybe clark over-estimated his capabilities? Whats it matter, he thought he stood a good chance. On paper he certainly did. What, are you going to suggest that Al Sharpton is also a tool of the political overlords, because he too ran without standing a chance? And if clark couldn't defeat bush, how the heck could dean have?

I thought they just wanted money. Now you are saying that they want a totalitarian dictatorship? Isn't much money in those.

They want both. There is no conflict in this.

I dunno, maybe clark over-estimated his capabilities? Whats it matter, he thought he stood a good chance. On paper he certainly did. What, are you going to suggest that Al Sharpton is also a tool of the political overlords, because he too ran without standing a chance? And if clark couldn't defeat bush, how the heck could dean have?

Clark over-estimat himself? He had no ability to do this. It's media said He could beat Bush by 49% vs 46%.

Al Sharpton? One of the domestic horses too.

One should see US politics from another angle. That it is not a democratic country but a covert totalitarian country ruled by inside group.

The interest of that group right now is to have more war in Mid-east. Bush is a puppet fits their demand. To assure him have the 2nd term, they forced out possible trouble candidate Gore and Daschle. And made the rest a circus. These politicians like domesticated horses. Those out of track were "Wellstoned". If it runs too fast such like Dean, then they let out another one to block his track(W. Clark). That's why you see a chaotic Democratic Party. Clinton? Remember Luwinsky scandal? He himself is a horse too. That's a punishment if he didn't run as inside group required.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by kathaksung
If you want, I can give you many information.

I already asked for the most credible and convincing peive of information on that.

FBI knew in advance.

A news in July 2001 revealed that FBI knew the coming hijaking.

Quote, "WASHINGTON, July 26, 2001
Attorney General Ashcroft, with President Bush (AP) "There was a threat assessment and there are guidelines. He is acting under the guidelines." FBI spokesman (CBS) Fishing rod in hand, Attorney General John Ashcroft left on a weekend trip to Missouri Thursday afternoon aboard a chartered government jet, reports CBS News Correspondent Jim Stewart."

"Earlier this week, the Justice Department leased a NASA-owned G-3 Gulfstream for a 6-day trip to Western states. Such aircraft cost the government more than $1,600 an hour to fly. When asked whether Ashcroft was paying for any portion of the trips devoted to personal business, a Justice Department spokeswoman declined to respond. "

"In response to inquiries from CBS News over why Ashcroft was traveling exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial airlines, the Justice Department cited what it called a "threat assessment" by the FBI, and said Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet for the remainder of his term. "

Be noticed the news was on July, 2001, two months before 911. And Janet Reno, Ashcroft's predecessor as attorney general, routinely flew commercial. She didn't enjoy the special benefit of security. Can you explain why?

When FBI is accused of failure to warn the nation of 911 attack, this news revealed they did do something to deal with coming threaten already. Though only to their boss.

www.cbsnews.com...


Question and answer

"Maybe the threat was personal, not terror related."

Someone said this might be a personal threaten. But we know a personal threaten to celebrity is used to be assassination, such like President Kennedy's, Martin Luther King's. And a private plane is more vulnerable for a personal threaten, such like Jr. Kennedy, (died in 1999) whose political potential is a nightmare to those who assassinated his father and uncle. Carnaham, former governor of Missori, in campaign for Senator against Mr. Ashcroft,(in 2000) and a Disneyland executive, in campaign for CEO of Disney,(in 1993) were all died in accidents of private plane. Commercial flight's hijacking? In world, we know mostly done by Mid east terrorist. In US domestic flights? So far I know there was none until 911. So it goes back to the topic, how did FBI knew there would be an 'personal threaten' on commercial flights which hadn't happened before?

Originally posted by kathaksung
They want both. There is no conflict in this.

The two prime examples of tot.dict. are nazi germany and soviet russia. There wasn't much of a market in either of those states. THe two ideas are entirely contradictory. You are saying that the capitalist elites whose power and riches are entirely based on the operation of a free/mixed economy with a heavy dependency on international trade are trying to destroy the very system that keeps them in power and makes them rich in order to, well what exactly, mock the peasants or something?

One should see US politics from another angle. That it is not a democratic country but a covert totalitarian country ruled by inside group.

Yes, so you keep saying.

Bush is a puppet fits their demand.

You've been saying that every one every where is a puppet. The candidates, the administration of the parties, the media, the people who work in the primaries, the poll monitors and election observers, everyone is in the direct employ of the 'inside group'.

. She didn't enjoy the special benefit of security. Can you explain why?

Looks like they received threats about planes being hijacked. No one ever denied this. Heck, they even said in that article that they received threats about planes. Hardly a cover up.

And a private plane is more vulnerable for a personal threaten

How is a private nasa jet more vulernable than a public commerical airliner?

how did FBI knew there would be an 'personal threaten' on commercial flights which hadn't happened before?

What does it matter how they knew, there is no information either way how they knew, so you can't just say that they knew that 911 was going to happen. They probably received some sort of information pertaining to US airplanes being hijacked, why is that so unbeleivable? Becuase it hadn't happened in the US before? 911 never happened anywhere before, but you are saying they knew about it and beleived it. And if they knew about 911, then why would they have ashcroft on a private jet? Any jet he gets on is going to have tight security and be well inspected, no terrorists are going to try to hijack a plane when they know armed federal agents are onboard, and if they knew about 911, they'd just not have him on those planes, rather than leave this 'cookie crumb' conspiracy trail.

kathaksung - you have no idea what you are talking about, no solid informaton, and your command of the english language is less than that of a three year old. In short you are just another babling paranoid on a site full of them.

Originally posted by Nygdan

The two prime examples of tot.dict. are nazi germany and soviet russia. There wasn't much of a market in either of those states. THe two ideas are entirely contradictory. You are saying that the capitalist elites whose power and riches are entirely based on the operation of a free/mixed economy with a heavy dependency on international trade are trying to destroy the very system that keeps them in power and makes them rich in order to, well what exactly, mock the peasants or something?

Hitler said he wanted to destroy evil Stalin and communism. Bush said he was to eliminate evil Saddam. That's same. What they didn't say are there were oil in Russia, and in Iraq as well. That's treasure.

How is a private nasa jet more vulernable than a public commerical airliner?

I've said in the message that there were much more accidents in private plane than in commercial airliner. Count Kennedy Jr.; Senator Wellstone; former Missori Governor Canarhan.....

What does it matter how they knew, there is no information either way how they knew, so you can't just say that they knew that 911 was going to happen. They probably received some sort of information pertaining to US airplanes being hijacked, why is that so unbeleivable? Becuase it hadn't happened in the US before? 911 never happened anywhere before, but you are saying they knew about it and beleived it. And if they knew about 911, then why would they have ashcroft on a private jet? Any jet he gets on is going to have tight security and be well inspected, no terrorists are going to try to hijack a plane when they know armed federal agents are onboard, and if they knew about 911, they'd just not have him on those planes, rather than leave this 'cookie crumb' conspiracy trail.

The NSA cracked bin Laden's encryption code by February 2001

Even before April, the Bush administration HAD TO KNOW something was up and probably had info that was even more specific than the warnings given above. According to UPI correspondent Richard Sale, by February 2001, the National Security Agency had broken Osama bin Laden's communications encryption system. We know that the encryption was broken because the Bush administration reported AFTER 9/11 that it had intercepted encrypted calls bin Laden made to his mother two days before the attack, saying "In two days, you're going to hear big news, and you're not going to hear from me for a while." If this message was intercepted before the attack, what others were intercepted as well that the Bush administration did NOT reveal? Most likely six-months'-worth of terrorist planning.

scoop.co.nz...

How Bush Sr. lost presidency/

There were two war on Iraq. One started by GW. Bush. The other one was started by his father Bush Sr.

Bush Sr. won the Persian Gulf war beautifully. Compare with his son, Bush Sr. got the support from most countries of the world. US soldiers suffered much less casulties compare with GWB's. And US paid a little amount of war fee. Most spending were shared by other countries.

GW. Bush misled US into an unjust war. He lost the support from UN. He lost traditional allies. He made US paid an huge war fee, and let US army dropped in an Vietnam like war of daily casulty. We don't know when can we leave that quagmire.

One thing strange happened. Bush Sr., though had a glorious victory, and got an approvement rate of 90% then, lost the President campaign to Clinton. While GW. Bush had so bad a war, he is still awarded a rate of nearly 50% and is predicted to win the president campaign in a landslide victory in election 2004.

Why? The answer is pretty simple. America is controlled by inside group. Their interest is for the security of Israel. Their target is occupying Iraq to oppress the hostility of Islamic countries against Israel. So when Bush Sr. stopped to invade Iraq to save US soldiers' lives, it was against the inside group's will. He was punished for failure in president election.

GW Bush is much obedient. Despite it was hurting the interest of US, he started a war to the favour the inside group. He will be awarded 2nd term of president. The inside group creates a situation for his succeeding. Maintain his approve rate by rigged poll around 50%. Incapacitate his rival Demo Party. And try to boost the economy in 2004.

Bush was elected not by people but inside group. (11/4)

Bush probably is the worst president in US history. In his first term, civil liberty is seriously eroded; economy is in a mess; the international reputation of America drops to the bottom because the unjust war he activated. Any president commits one offense of the above would have lost hi second term, yet Bush still stays. Why?

Because he is proved an obedient proxy of inside group. And inside group control US politics. How?

Through media and intelligence.

1. Media rarely report negative news relates to "Patriot Act". They seldom report the opinions of people all over the world because nothing is positive about Bush. We can only get it from Internet.
Media report "off-shoring jobs to overseas is good in long term to US, and cheered a "jobless recovery". They rarely report the feelings of unemployed people. They never talk about a dark economic future to American people because that will hurt Bush's fame.

Brand name media kept let out a steady figure of poll. They miraculously maintained Bush's approve rate at about 50%, and led over his rival by sometimes even 12% despite the insurgence in Iraq, rising casualties of US army and Iraqi civilians, scandal of Abu Ghraybu, news of no WMD.

2. Intelligence control. Feds have their accessories everywhere from big cooperations to small companies to punish, intimidate, and harass any anti Bush activity.

Michael Moors' "Fahrenheit 911" was blocked to be distributed by its own investor - Disney. It could go to public finally because it has won the award of best film in Cannes Festival. The film became too popular to be censored.

Linda Ronstadt was evicted from the Aladdin in Las Vegas after angering the casino's management with pro-Michael Moore comments during her concert. Celebrities got a treatment like this, not mention the ordinary people.

Former president Clinton got a heart attack after he gave an advice to Demo candidate Kerry. He told Kerry not to focus on Vietnam history but on Iraq war which touched the taboo of inside group.

Constant terror attack warning from D.O.J. and FBI. Though at last they didn't activate any terror bombing they still issued a Bin Laden's tape. Four days before election date.

Senate Minority leader Tom Daschle lost the election too. It's not a surprise if you still remember he was also the one who received the anthrax letter. He is a dislike of inside group.

Of course the biggest operation was to rig the election. When they told you Bush won Kerry by 51% vs 48%, you have to take it. You have no other way to verify it. You only know the vote you casted.

This is how insider group manipulate American election. They steal it by intelligence covert job. (Those who controlled intelligence, they controlled election office) And make people believe the result is reasonable by fake poll.

I want to know who are the most powerful people in America?

The most powerful people in America know inside information, trading, ect...

The rockafeller's have been suspects, the Carlye Group have been suspects, PNAC have been suspects, the list goes on.


There is something going on behind the scenes but who can you point fingers at? There are so many organizations and people of power it's hard to figure out just who is involved?

Are you trying to find the root cause of corruption or what?

It's quite the web i'm guessing, and i'm sure many people wouldn't even read or learn about it because it would be too #ed up to fathom.

I'm sorry I am not able to name them because they work in covert. Carlyle group, skull and bone, Illuminate.... probably.

-----------------

Bush was elected not by people but inside group(2) (11/14)

People who vote don't decide whom be elected. Those who count the vote do.

Fraud in 2004 election is worse than 2000. Nobody could do that except a large powerful organization which abuse its power.

THE BLOWUP IN FLORIDA

In Baker County, for example, with 12,887 registered voters, 69.3% of them Democrats and 24.3% of them Republicans, the vote was only 2,180 for Kerry and 7,738 for Bush, the opposite of what is seen everywhere else in the country where registered Democrats largely voted for Kerry.

In Dixie County, with 4,988 registered voters, 77.5% of them Democrats and a mere 15% registered as Republicans, only 1,959 people voted for Kerry, but 4,433 voted for Bush. The pattern repeats over and over again - but only in the smaller counties where, it was probably assumed, the small voter numbers wouldn't be much noticed.

Franklin County, 77.3% registered Democrats, went 58.5% for Bush. Holmes County, 72.7% registered Democrats, went 77.25% for Bush. Yet in the larger counties, where such anomalies would be more obvious to the news media, high percentages of registered Democrats equaled high percentages of votes for Kerry.

More visual analysis of the results can be seen at

ustogether.org...

www.rubberbug.com/temp/Florida2004chart.htm.

www.nomorefakenews.com...

www.commondreams.org...

In Ohio

Most voters in Ohio thought they were voting for Kerry. CNN's exit poll showed Kerry beating Bush among Ohio women by 53 percent to 47 percent. Kerry also defeated Bush among Ohio's male voters 51 percent to 49 percent. Unless a third gender voted in Ohio, Kerry took the state.

So what's going on here? Answer: the exit polls are accurate. Pollsters ask, "Who did you vote for?" Unfortunately, they don't ask the crucial, question, "Was your vote counted?" The voters don't know.

Here's why. Although the exit polls show that most voters in Ohio punched cards for Kerry-Edwards, thousands of these votes were simply not recorded. This was predictable and it was predicted. See TomPaine.com, "An Election Spoiled Rotten,"

www.tompaine.com...

www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu...

Bush was elected not by people but inside group (3) (11/26)

Bush sold his soul to devil

The fraud in 2004 election was vast and wide spreaded. And almost all of them favored Bush and GOP. It was a well planed rig. No other group then intelligence could carry out such an operation.

As a matter of fact, there might have been a long history to manipulate election. Only at that time it was covert and in small scale. It became evident in 2000 election when inside group create a suspending case in Florida. When Clinton left White House, he left for us a historical budget surplus. Demo did good in economy. There was no reason for people to change regime.

But good economy was not the interest of D.O.J.. What they needed was an expanding police power. For that power they had created Oklahoma bombing. They failed to pass a bill similar to Patriot Act after the Oklahoma bombing. They prepared for a bigger one - 9/11. But needed someone to carry it out.

That was why there was a pending case in Florida. The situation gave inside group a base to negotiate a deal with candidate. The merchandise was a terror attack and war, the payment was the seat of Presidency. There was a month long process for the negotiation. Bush won the deal at last. He sold his soul to the devil. He promised to activate Iraq war if he became President. He got it.

In the book "The Price of Loyalty" written by former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill which provided about 19,000 pages of documents. It revealed Bush determined to go to war in Iraq even before the 9/11 attack.

That was why we saw Bush behaved so unusual after 9/11.

Re: "On the evening of Sept. 12, 2001, according to a newly published memoir, President Bush wandered alone around the Situation Room in a White House emptied by the previous day's calamitous events. Spotting Richard A. Clarke, his counterterrorism coordinator, Bush pulled him and a small group of aides into the dark paneled room.

"Go back over everything, everything," Bush said, according to Clarke's account. "See if Saddam did this."

"But Mr. President, al Qaeda did this," Clarke replied.

"I know, I know, but . . . see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred."

Reminded that the CIA, FBI and White House staffs had sought and found no such link before, Clarke said, Bush spoke "testily." As he left the room, Bush said a third time, "Look into Iraq, Saddam."

At last, Bush using a fake "WMD" to start the Iraq war. He fulfiled the deal and proved he is a royal puppet. That was probably why he was chosen again in election 2004.