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 & Kerry Related

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 04:17 PM
Not many realize George W. Bush is the biggest liar right off the bat. The reason behind this is, Bush was not born in Texas, he was born in Connecticut. He is no cowboy. He is a punk kid.

But to the point I was to make...

Do you realize that the fascist-globalist order (NWO) was smack dab in the middle of the 2004 elections. But first, on Kerry and Bush's background.

John Forbes Kerry is the 10th cousin of George Herbert Walker (who married Barbara Price).

Also, John Forbes Kerry is the 10th cousin of Prescott Sheldon (married Dorothy Walker).

John Kerry is related to George W. Bush (9th cousin, twice removed)

John Kerry and George W. Bush descended from Edmund Reade (1563-1623)

At the Massachusetts Bay Colony, John Winthrop, on July 6, 1635 married Elizabeth Reade, daughter of Edmund Reade.

When one traces those lineages, both Kerry and Bush have Royal blood in their families.

In the 2004 election, Bush represented the people who were teetering on a full welcoming of the globalist idea (complete U.N. control). Whereas, Kerry repreesnted the people who were ready to accept, without a doubt, the globalist idea (complete U.N. control).

In other words, the 2004 election represented an extreme turning point in our relationship as a country to the world as a whole. Americans still do not have the will enough to welcome the globalist idea in its complete form. And I salute this!

I am completely against the entire political system we have these days, because both parties (and independent) serve the globalist idea of a nation with no boundaries or no sovereignty.

Personally, I would like to turn the hands back, way back, before 1789, and reinstitute the Articles of Confederation. That way, we will remain a sovereign nation.

Meanwhile, we have both candidates, democrat or republican, Bush or Kerry, whoever or whoever in 2008 (upcoming) election pushing toward one thing: the fascist-globalist way of life.

Thanks for your time, Edward

posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 07:05 PM
He's never claimed tohave been born in Texas. He does, however, claim to be Texan, and he is. My Russian friends born in Russia and my Asian friends born in their respective countries have lived here for more about 15 years. They're American now, New Yorkers. If you let them live to be 30, 40, or Bush's 59 then yeah, nobody would think of calling them Russian or Asian; they'd be New Yorkers.

Second, almost all prominent New England families are related. It's not weird. This is year-old news, and means absolutely nothing. I'm related to, among others, Winston Churchill and Grover Cleveland, and, especially in the case of the former, I'm inclined to say it's a lot closer than 10th cousins.

Also: You should include links when you're referencing other work.

[edit on 8/8/2005 by Amorymeltzer]

posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 08:05 PM
If he has Royal Blood hes inherited the genes that good old George 3 had and lost America same as he did.

posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 08:10 PM
Okay, I will try to include more links. But the way I see it, is, the people who read anyone's material can do their own research if in doubt. But anyway, I'll apply your suggestion.

The point of the thread was, how the 2004 election was not about two people running, but about one idea: a globalist agenda. I do not care if Bush is related to George Washington or Jesus Christ or Abraham or the Pharaoh; but what I am concerned about is the way in which the select few are bringing in the new world order.

Nevertheless, thanks for your time, Edward

posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 06:50 AM
(Well, the subject does imply that their shared ancestry is the issue...)

If we trace the ancestry of any two Americans (or indeed any two people), you're going to find common ancestors....and it's probably wise to consider this part: (9th cousin, twice removed) . That's honestly not a close relationship....extrapolate your own 9th and 10th cousins, and you'll see what I mean

If you go back even five generations you'll find 16 "grand" ancestors, all of whom have siblings, cousins and in-laws of their own. This makes for the certainty that at some point, somewhere down the line you're related to virtually every and any random person.

Having said that, I think the potential for a "select few" controlling the entire world is worrisome. I'm not sure how likely it is, but the concept in itself is frightening.

But common ancestry really doesn't prove anything one way or the other, you know?

new topics

top topics

log in