EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Will Bush Cancel The 2008 Election?
It is time to think about the "unthinkable."
The Bush Administration has both the inclination and the power to cancel the 2008 election.
The GOP strategy for another electoral theft in 2008 has taken clear shape, though we must assume there is much more we don't know.
But we must also assume that if it appears to Team Bush/Cheney/Rove that the GOP will lose the 2008 election anyway (as it lost in Ohio 2006) we cannot ignore the possibility that they would simply cancel the election. Those who think this crew will quietly walk away from power are simply not paying attention.
The real question is not how or when they might do it. It's how, realistically, we can stop them.
In Florida 2000, Team Bush had a game plan involving a handful of tactics. With Jeb Bush in the governor's mansion, the GOP used a combination of disenfranchisement, intimidation, faulty ballots, electronic voting fraud, a rigged vote count and an aborted recount, courtesy of the US Supreme Court.
A compliant Democrat (Al Gore) allowed the coup to be completed.
In Ohio 2004, the arsenal of dirty tricks exploded. Based in Columbus, we have documented more than a hundred different tactics used to steal the 20 electoral votes that gave Bush a second term. More are still surfacing. As a result of the King-Lincoln-Bronzeville federal lawsuit (in which we are plaintiff and attorney) we have now been informed that 56 of the 88 counties in Ohio violated federal law by destroying election records, thus preventing a definitive historical recount.
As in 2000, a compliant Democrat (John Kerry) allowed the coup to proceed.
For 2008 we expect the list of vote theft maneuvers to escalate yet again. We are already witnessing a coordinated nationwide drive to destroy voter registration organizations and to disenfranchise millions of minority, poor and young voters.
This carefully choreographed campaign is complemented by the widespread use of electronic voting machines. As reported by the Government Accountability Office, Princeton University, the Brennan Center, the Carter-Baker Commission, US Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) and others, these machines can be easily used to flip an election. They were integral to stealing both the 2000 and 2004 elections. Efforts to make their source codes transparent, or to require a usable paper trail on a federal level, have thus far failed. A discriminatory Voter ID requirement may also serve as the gateway to a national identification card.
Overall, the GOP will have at its command even more weapons of election theft in 2008 than it did in Ohio 2004, which jumped exponentially from Florida 2000. The Rovian GOP is nothing if not tightly organized to do this with ruthless efficiency. Expect everything that was used these past two presidential elections to surface again in 2008 in far more states, with far more efficiency, and many new dirty tricks added in.
But in Ohio 2006, the GOP learned a hard lesson. Its candidate for governor was J. Kenneth Blackwell. The Secretary of State was the essential on-the-ground operative in the theft of Ohio 2004.
When he announced for governor, many Ohioans joked that "Ken Blackwell will never lose an election where he counts the votes."
But lose he did....along with the GOP candidates for Secretary of State, Attorney-General and US Senate.
By our calculations, despite massive grassroots scrutiny, the Republicans stole in excess of 6% of the Ohio vote in 2006. But they still lost.
Why? Because they were so massively unpopular that even a 6% bump couldn't save them. Outgoing Governor Bob Taft, who pled guilty to four misdemeanors while in office, left town with a 7% approval rating (that's not a typo). Blackwell entered the last week of the campaign down 30% in some polls.
So while the GOP still had control of the electoral machinery here in 2006, the public tide against them was simply too great to hold back, even through the advanced art and science of modern Rovian election theft.
In traditional electoral terms, that may also be the case in 2008. Should things proceed as they are now, it's hard to imagine any Republican candidate going into the election within striking distance. The potential variations are many, but the graffiti on the wall is clear.
What's also clear is that this administration has a deep, profound and uncompromised contempt for democracy, for the rule of law, and for the US Constitution. When George W. Bush went on the record (twice) as saying he has nothing against dictatorship, as long as he can be dictator, it was a clear and present policy statement.
Who really believes this crew will walk quietly away from power? They have the motivation, the money and the method for doing away with the electoral process altogether. So why wouldn't they?
The groundwork for dismissal of both the legislative and judicial branch has been carefully laid. The litany is well-known, but worth a very partial listing:
The continuation of the drug war, and the Patriot Act, Homeland Security Act and other dictatorial laws prompted by the 9/11/2001 terror attacks, have decimated the Bill of Rights, and shredded the traditional American right to due process of law, freedom from official surveillance, arbitrary violence, and far more.
The current Attorney-General, Alberto Gonzales, has not backed away from his announcement to Congress that the Constitution does not guarantee habeas corpus. The administration continues to act on the assumption that it can arrest anyone at any time and hold them without notification or trial for as long as it wants.
The establishment of the Homeland Security Agency has given it additional hardware to decimate the basic human rights of our citizenry. Under the guise of dealing with the "immigration problem," large concentration camps are under construction around the US.
The administration has endorsed and is exercising its "right" to employ torture, contrary to the Eighth Amendment and to a wide range of international treaties, which Gonzales has labeled "quaint."
With more than 200 "signing statements" the administration acts on its belief that the "unitary executive" trumps the power of the legislative branch in any instance it chooses. This belief has been further enforced with the administration's use of a wide range of precedent-setting arguments to keep its functionaries from testifying before Congress.
There is much more. In all instances, the 109th Congress---and the public---have rolled over without significant resistance.
Most crucial now are Presidential Directive #51, Executive Orders #13303, #13315, #13350, #13364, #13422, #13438, and more, by which Bush has granted himself an immense arsenal of powers for which the term "dictatorial" is a modest understatement.
The Founders established our government with checks and balances. But executive orders have accumulated important precedent. The Emancipation Proclamation by which Lincoln declared an end to slavery in the South, was issued under the "military necessity" of adding blacks to the Union Army, a step without which the North might not have won the Civil War. Franklin Roosevelt's Executive Order #8802 established the Fair Employment Practices Commission. Harry Truman's Executive Order #9981 desegregated the military.
Most to the point, FDR's Executive Order #9066 ordered the forcible internment of 100,000 people of Japanese descent into the now infamous concentration camps of World War II.
There is also precedent for a president overriding the Supreme Court. In the 1830s Chief Justice John Marshall enshrined the right of the Cherokee Nation to sovereignty over its ancestral land in the Appalachian Mountains. But President Andrew Jackson scorned the decision. Some 14,000 native Americans were moved at gunpoint to Oklahoma. More than 3,000 died along the way.
All this will be relevant should Team Bush envision a defeat in the 2008 election and decide to call it off. It's well established that Richard Nixon---mentor to Karl Rove and Dick Cheney---commissioned the Huston Plan, which detailed how to cancel the 1972 election.
Today we must ask: who would stop this administration from taking dictatorial power in the instance of a "national emergency" such as a terror attack at a nuclear power plant or something similar?
Nothing in the behavior of this Congress indicates that it is capable of significant resistance. Impeachment seems beyond it. Nor does it seem Congress would actually remove Bush if it did put him on trial.
Short of that, Bush clearly does not view anything Congress might do as a meaningful impediment. After all, how many divisions does the Congress command?
The Supreme Court, as currently constituted, would almost certainly rubber stamp a Bush coup. If not, like Jackson, he could ignore it as easily as he would ignore Congress.
What does that leave? There is much idle speculation now about what the armed forces would do. We also hear loose talk about "90 million gun owners."
From the public side, the only conceivable counter-force might be a national strike or an effective long-term campaign of general non-cooperation.
But we can certainly assume the mainstream media will give lock-step support to whatever the regime says and does. It's also a given that those likely to lead the resistance will immediately land in those new prisons being built by Halliburton et. al.
So how do we cope with the harsh realities of such a Bush/Cheney/Rove dictatorial coup?
We may have about a year to prepare. Every possible scenario needs to be discussed in excruciating detail.
For only one thing is certain: denial will do nothing.
HARVEY WASSERMAN'S HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES is at www.solartopia.org, along with SOLARTOPIA! OUR GREEN-POWERED EARTH, A.D. 2030. The FITRAKIS FILES are at www.freepress.org (where this article was originally published), along with HOW THE GOP STOLE AMERICA'S 2004 ELECTION & IS RIGGING 2008, which Bob and Harvey co-wrote.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
208 Comments so far
Show AllTo David B - I thought I already told you -google for them, they're all there.
Excellent comments by melody23: "We are, as always, protected by time and death from a true totalitarian state."
Time marches on. We live in dark times, but I am one who believes the pendulum will swing back the other way.
I also remember a similar theory going around during the Reagan Iran-Contra era, that Reagan/Bush had plans to declare martial law and suspend the constitution (they also had these totalitarian provisions in place). They never tried it though.
There is no question that Bush has put in place the laws (and "executive orders", etc.), that give him the power to try something like this. But I agree with the posters here who point out that this would only destabilize their grip on power. They already get away with almost anything they want. Why shake it up?
KEM PATRICK, sorry if I nitpicked that one comment out of your post. You made a very good point about the consequences of our food distibution system, in the event of another serious depression. Good post.
I appreciate sj's efforts to educate everyone here about a little known chapter of our history (the plot to overthrow our government in the 30's by Bush's granddad and others). But this also is not any kind of incontrovertable proof that Bush will try to do it in 2008, or that if he does he will get away with it. But it is definitely interesting and important information for people to be aware of.
After reading the article and most of the comments, all I can say is - I wish I had the tinfoil hat concession for this crowd.
I do think this site should get some kind of award for fiction, given its liberal (pun intended) use of blatantly false "facts".
I know, it's near Interstate 8, but some of the Yuma prison property runs dowm near I-10 and it's sort of a warning to not pick up hitch hikers. Halliburton may have built a gulog there now. I don't know about that, but an article in the newspaper this week stated the money to build those prisons has not yet been approved by congress.__ We'll see.
Hi Pete, I was not offended by your remark, it was correct. I agree with much of what you write also, but a good definition of the term paranoia___ is reality. If we didn't have varied opinions, this site would not be here.
Hey Grandma. Haven't you heard ojf the Red Hatters? they are a bunch of nice older ladies who travel to all parts of the county and they all werar outragious bright red hats. they jst have a god time and smetimes tak about world affairsand enviromental issues. Tehy aren't really bafg ladies, they fly normally first class. Before i retires I haad a group of them on my limo tour bus, travellng the western U.S.. National parks. They were swell and great fun.
I edited those speelling erors and they didn edit.
Checking on something I read long ago -
That during the Watergate scandal, and while the VW War was still raging, Nixon wanted to suspend the next election (probably out of fear that he wouldn't win). Alexander Haig talked him out of it during a long afternoon in the WH. Does anyone know if this is true? Nixon had the power to do it, the War Powers Act gave him that right.
Anyone know if this is correct?
(If it is, "the more things change the more they stay the same.")
KEM PATRICK - Thanks for the clarification. In the interests of peace, I'll believe it!
Yesterday, Jane Bright wrote:
"Regarding the detention centers there is one on Highway 10 driving east from California toward Phoenix on the Arizona side of the state line. The sign on the side of the road says "state prison," nothing else. The prison is way off the highway, just a group of brown buildings, no other signage to be seen. I've often considered driving toward the entrance just to check it out but I'm afraid I'll be detained, seriously."
Jane, I've done some research, and I believe what you're seeing there is the Lewis Arizona Prison Complex. It's huge and remote, located 43 miles west of Phoenix on Hwy 10. If, however, what you've seen is closer to the California state line on Hwy 10, I've found no reference to it as a recognized Arizona State Prison.
Haven't you ever heard of the state prison near Yuma? It's been there since before Arizona was a state.
Grandma, the night before Nixon resigned, the Strategic Air Command went on full Defcon Two alert, from about 11pm EST to 5am. We had no idea of what was up, but we were as conerned as we were the last day of the Cuban Missile Crisis, and believe me, that day was a close to world war three as we have ever come. Actually, within ten minutes of Doomsday. Few know the whole story, it is most thought provoking, we almost did it.
I don't know of course if Nixon initiated the alert, but he did have the power to have the ICBMs launched, all he had to do was to order it. He may have lost it there for a while, Haig said Nixon was very unstable those last few days and had advised the top military brass of his opinions and the basis for them. Anyway, nothing bad happened. I wonder if you are thinking, something bad can happen, if we ever have a president who displays a personality of being a little wacko?
Kem, the Yuma prison isn't on Hwy 10. If Jane's recollection is correct, the Yuma prison can't be what she saw.
This article is worthless. Not only is it JUST a conspiracy, it fails to source any references which aren't theories themselves (i.e. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2006/010206detentioncamps.htm). If you click on the reference links, they are all links to another conspiracy infested article within that same website. For people to openly accept this article as the 'truth' really shows me how misinformed the American public is. Wouldn't it be GREAT if real life closely mimicked the Hollywood movies we see today (liberal with an attitude July 31st, 2007 2:45 pm)? From what I see, OSU gradstudent is the only one being reasonable here. For you to ask him to prove why he thinks GWB isn't going to leave office is ridiculous. It is YOU who should be PROVING to me why he WON'T be leaving office. This poor excuse for an article has left nothing but speculation from the uneducated authors who wrote it. If I don't see factual evidence, I'm not going to believe it, so for you to say I'm siding with the 'Coup' doesn't work. I don't get my information from the 'Coup' alone, hence me reading this article. I find the most FACTUAL, UNBIASED articles I can, from all sides, and see which one makes the better argument.
Again, referencing sj July 31st, 2007 6:37 pm,
"In 1933, Prescott Bush was involved in planning a coup to take down FDR's administration and replace it with a fascist regime….look at this link and all doubt as to what these thugs are up to will disappear…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20070723.shtml
No need to be a conspiracy theorist…it's all right there for anyone to read…."
For you to claim that GWB has any ties with this is ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS unless you can prove it. This is why what you're inferring is, IN FACT, a conspiracy.
the detention camps they mention are supposedly done under fema, under the Rex 84 program. Saying they are incase a mass exodus of people from mexico, that way they have somehwere to put them all, and incase of a Martial law instance for americans they have camps setup for holding. There is one in Beechgrove, Indiana an old amtrak Station fitted with 2 brand new big crematorium type furnaces and piping, wind sockets for helicopters, they have it setup in colored zones (green/yellow/red) and of course a concentration camp must, railroad tracks. They also have an Airforce train car, and an Army crane sitting there, there are videos on youtube about them, just go watch them for yourself and you will see what i mean.
It (a Bush coup) is definitely a scary proposition and something that impeachment (now) would avert. I was for impeachment as early as 2003 and am even more in favor of it now.
Showmetheproof__You don't have to yell, this is a friendly debate.
I have some doubts also, but with the presidential directives GWB has written, the crimes he has un-questionably committed, in regards to several violations of our Constitution, the lies he told to the American public and to congress, in order to have the approval and funding for the Gulf War, all add up to a president who is capable of anything.
I also understand, he is directly related to one of the primary plottes of the planned 1933 coup of President Roosevelt. Blood is thicker than water and shit runs down hill. Is GWB influenced in any way, by what his ancestors did, how they thought, their theories of how the world should be run?
I don't know, neither do you know the answer to that, but combined with all Bush has done in the past six years, the family association should not be brushed aside. People are convicted on circumstancial evidence, if there is enough of it. Proof is in the pudding,___right!
KEM PATRICK,
This is the problem. When you make a statement regarding something, you need to assume not everyone knows what you are talking about back it up with references. When you say: "... with the presidential directives GWB has written, the crimes he has un-questionably committed, in regards to several violations of our Constitution, the lies he told to the American public and to congress ...," you need to support these statements with FACTS and EVENTS documented. I have no idea which 'violations' and 'crimes' you are referring to and therefore have no way of understanding where you are coming from. Could I get some of these examples?
By the way, I wasn't yelling. Another assumption.
SHOWMETHEPROOF;___ I JUST YELLED YOUR NAME.
Whenever I write THIS WAY, some accuse me of yelling, it was a joke when I wrote it about your blog, but then my sense of humor is not the same as everyones. Maybe you have none? That is a question, BTW, not an assumption.
You need proof of the crimes GWB has committed? First, I read the Constitution again, three times this week. I won't print it here, but if you are not familiar with it by chance, you may wish to read it.
Our Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If not, there is no law in America.
Bush has authorized our government, to illegally invade our privacy, allowing monitoring of our telephone conversations, our e-mails and what books we check out at the library, without obtaining a warrant to do so.
Bush ordered some of his cabinet and or cabinet employees, to ignore congress when they were given legal orders to come forth as witnesses in cngressional investigations.
Bush deliberately lied about intelligence reports, concernig the involvment of Iraq and 9-11. That would have to be proven in an impeachment process, but there is enough evidence of that crime, to have the investigation. Read thE congressional Hr-333 bill, which will explain much of what I have written. I'm not going to write it all for you, if you are interested enough to answer me, you may be interested enought to look things up for yourself.
Bush has authorized the use of depleted uranium weaponry, which is a violation of the Geneva Conventions subject, of weapons of mass destruction. That also is a vioation of the Constitution, whereby, a president ignores the constitution by placing himself above the law. That enough? One is enugh tO have an impreachment process, but there is more.
As inteligent as you write, I'm certain you can look up the necessary facts and PROOF, without my assistance. If you are asking for an admission of guilt of any crimes from GWB as your only PROOF, why not go and ask him? Bush won't lie to you, he's a born again Chritian.
i think you guys are all nuts. every single night the greatest joy in W's life is crossing another day off the calendar.he can't get out of office soon enough. he cannot wait to dump his disaster on his democratic successor and begin blaming them for the loss. bill kristol has already started the party line, how when we withdraw we'll be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. it won't matter that by the time it happens he will have alraedy been saying that for two years.
Davidrc3; I take it that is your opinion? Or do you have proof of what you just wrote, some inside info perhaps?
Well__ if you don't have proof, maybe you are the nut? Think about it, you disagree with others opinions and the person you disagree with is nuts. If one is a nut according to your estimation,___ which one is?
Showmetheproof...you were yelling...just a little. You can admit it, it's cool.
Here's the information regarding the Presidential Directive I believe Kem Patrick is referring to:
www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5853
To back up what Professor Marjorie Cohn is saying, simply go to Google and type it in, or go to the White House Website and you'll find it.
As to the "impeachable" crimes (the ones the Constitutional scholars and some Congresspersons agree on) they can be found online at Google. Simply type in Kucinich's House Resolution 333 to impeach Cheney. That should give you a general idea what those elected Congresspersons believe are Constitutionally impeachable crimes.
This may not be an "impeachable" offense, but I would think since Bush took the oath "to protect and defend the Contstitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic SO HELP ME GOD", the fact that he blurted this out in a room full of mostly Republicans, "I don't want to hear about the Constitution! It's just a Goddamned piece of paper", that that might sneak in as at least a freakin' misdemeanor!
Certainly the war against and occupation of Iraq under the pretense of lying is right up there.
Torture? No habeus corpus? Both highly unconstitutional.
"Legal" sneak and peek of our homes without us being aware? Unconstitutional.
Considering that Clinton was brought up for impeachment for lying about a BLOW JOB!!! Nobody died! Hello!!
Our rights taken away, being lied to, our fellow Americans being dragged into a foreign entanglement that was based on lies. Then losing their one and only lives and killing thousands of others who they/we have no personal fight with. We are punishing the people of Iraq for the crime of living under a dictator?! Incredible.
I've seen the clip on video probably 20 times now. Bush is in a press conference and he's asked what Iraq had to do with September 11th, 2001. Bush's answer?
"Nothing!!"
I'm pretty sure the clip of him saying that is in this video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6702050570069604257&hl=en
IMPEACH.
"Paul Bramscher July 31st, 2007 2:02 pm
It may be that Hillary's running is the theatrical equivalent, long and drawn out surrogate if you will, of a cancelled election..."
Bingo. Corpress has donated more to HRC than any other Dem since 2000. Having her on the ticket will be akin to having a gay marriage ban on the ticket. Radical regressives will be swarming to the polls and we'll lose Congressional seats, as well as the WH. No need for hacking machines, or disenfranchsing voters.
If Monica pleased me like that Abby, It might kill me.
Showmetheproof:
I just saw your posts and KEM PATRICK and abbywood try to answer you, but you seem to be fixated on what you call "facts" and "proof". However, your position (I have taught logic and analytical philosophy, but I am not trying to pull rank here) is called "solipsist" which means you consider yourself as the only reality and you do not believe in any other person's reality as "factual". Here I am being generous, because you may have learnt to argue incesantly with the mere words "facts" and "proof" without really knowing what you are talking about.
Whatever be the case, the way in which inferences are made by the Scientific Method, which most people here try to use more or less succesfully, is that empirical inferences (in your lingo - - "proofs") are made on a PATTERN of facts. The inference may not be the "next" fact in a series; it could be a theory about the pattern itself.
On the issue of whether or not Martial Law will or will not be imposed, we do not have a book published by Bushco and available on amazon.com titled: "How We Will Become Dictators in 2008"; and even if such a book were available, it would never satisfy a solipsist like you.
Most people here are making an inference on the following pattern:
1. Issuance of about 900 or more Presidential Directives that establish the entire set of prerorgatives of a "unitary" executive in total control of the country. Some have been exactly mentioned by David B August 1st, 2007 2:58 pm above.
2. Enabling laws passed by Congress that gives the Executive branch extraordinary powers to suspend the Constitution and declare Martial Law without approval by Congress.
Now if there was no intention to use these powers, nor is there any credible threat now (FDR in the middle of WWII against a far more dangerous enemy did not suspend the Constitution, and Churchill in Britain in the middle of the Nazi Blitz on London did not suspend Habeas Corpus), why would one ask for these powers?
Therefore the rational inference being made here by many posters is that if something "walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it is a duck".
Get it?
Aymon
To Pete:
There is no pendulum. All there is, all there EVER is, is public resistance to tyranny. When it succeeds in pushing against the trends and forces the political reality back in the other direction, it appears like a pendulum. But the pendulum does not swing by itself, and waiting for it to swing is tantamount to abdicating citizenship.
Aymon!
Well stated!
Sorry about the bad start above-
showmetheproof and others -
jakgillespie asked a very good question a mile or so back, and no one answered him.
He asked: "Would someone please explain how a signing statement or an executive order becomes the law of the land?" I ask that too.
Considering the 800 +/- signing statements GWB has signed, thus nullifying laws passed by Congress, not to mention all the Executive Orders and Directives that also seem to immediately become the law of the land, also nullifying laws passed by Congress and often stripping Americans of their Bill of Rights rights, one does wonder - is this constitutional? Apparently it is, because all presidents do it and everyone accepts it (although GWB may be the worst), but on re-reading my constitution I can't find any mention of signing statemens or executive Orders/Directives. So when did this practice start and it is really legal?
IMHO, these adjustments to the laws should be illegal if they're not, and grounds for impeachment all by themselves.
Please excuse the above - I'm having trouble posting this.
showmetheproof and others -
jakgillespie asked a good question a while ago - He asked "Would someone please explain how a signing statement or an executive order becomes the law of the land?"
I'd like to know this too. These things change the laws that Congress has passed, at a presidents whim, so - are they even constitutional? i can't find them mentioned in my copy of the Consgtitution. IMHO, they are grounds enough for impeachment. Anyone know?
There's a
**relatively simple**
answer to the many thoughtful issues raised here.
Go to Amazon.com and (at the very least) check out the customer reviews of the book, Crossing the Rubicon, by Michael Ruppert. If your drawn to do so, read the book, and judge its arguments and conclusions for yourself.
If/When this stuff goes public (assuming it is valid) impeachment will be "in the bag,"
unavoidable...
"A Slam Dunk," if you will.
But be ready to be both
en-lightened
and
endarkened
simultaneously.
If you happen to be more of an "on-line person," and less of a "book person," you might enjoy looking at some of the same material at: Fromthewilderness.com.
If/Once the elections are cancelled, however, it will be too late (if it isn't already).
Again, the material is available. Get / consider this information while you still can.
Good night and Good Luck.
I wish you were right Powerlove, but as long as Congressman Conyers is the ONLY person who can stop an impeachment process, like he is presently doing with HR-333, impechment will not be a slam dunk.
Our Constitutin is the supreme law of the land and if not, we have no law in America.
Any violation of that law by the president is an impeachable offense. By that law, congress SHALL IMPEACH. Not may, or should, shall!
Conyers is guilty of violating that law. No one is challenging him on that crime and it is a mystery to me why no one has.
Hello Kem,
Thanks for your thoughts. Would be kinda interesting if circumstances were such that the American People (in the face of their strong preference Not to do so)...Found themselves --- DEMANDING I'M-A-PEACH-MENTO.
"Shocked! We are Shocked~"
"We Never Knew! Astonished! We never guessed... We never thought...!"
"All Shook Up and la-dee-da!"
It's the source material that calls for each of our evaluation. Is this stuff sound or nonsense? You be the lead detective and finally the judge and jury.
"Could it really be....? Shocked, I tell you, Flabby -we -are -ghasted," etc, etc, ad nauseum.
("Now what was we were watchin' on the Plasma Screen, Honey? Oh, yeah and, doll, on your way, would you bring me a beer")?
"What??
"I said BEER ME, HON!"
A compliant Democrat (Al Gore) allowed the coup to be completed.
You folks know that this is patently false rewrite of history. Don't you? It's time stop spinning these false memes, ladies and gentlemen!
These were the facts that played out in FL:
Facts about FL'2000
1. Gore fought for 35 days: link
2. After the verdict, DNC Chair Rendell called Gore to concede: link
3. 79% of Americans wanted Gore to concede should the SC ruling go against him. link
4. The urban myth "The Gore was cherry picking districts to get more votes." is false. They asked the Bush campaign to join them to request a statewide recount, and the Bush campaign refused. This link explains in detail
5. Daschle and other senate Democrats had a power sharing agreement with senate Republicans, which was the reason that no Democratic senator supported the protests by the CBC regarding the certification of the election, contrary to the impression left by Fahrenheit 9/11 movie's opening scene. link
Gore fought until no recourse was left and did so despite waning support from the party leadership in later weeks.
Please see also: 2000 Election synopsis
Re-posting as my the earlier comment hasn't appeared by the time I post this.
Unfortunately, the claim "A compliant Democrat (Al Gore) allowed the coup to be completed." is false.
Facts about FL'2000
1. Gore fought for 35 days: link
2. After the verdict, DNC Chair Rendell called Gore to concede: link
3. 79% of Americans wanted Gore to concede should the SC ruling go against him: link
4. The urban myth "The Gore was cherry picking districts to get more votes." is false. They asked the Bush campaign to join them to request a statewide recount, and the Bush campaign refused. This link explains in detail.
5. Daschle and other senate Democrats had a power sharing agreement with senate Republicans, which was the reason that no Democratic senator supported the protests by the CBS regarding the certification of the election, contrary to the impression left by Fahrenheit 9/11 movie's opening scene. link.
Gore fought until no recourse was left and did so despite waning support from the party brass in later weeks.
Please see here for links: http://tinyurl.com/yvr5nf
Thank you.
Also, please see the following:
The 2000 Presidential election: A Synopsis
Link: http://tinyurl.com/ypgc3d
Thanks again.
NL___ Thank you for that. I hope you post that comment on every string that concerns Gore, at least once a week, there are many including those concerning global warming.
Hi KEM,
i am guessing that you're pulling my leg with that one, as my snark-detector is not giving a clear signal one way or the other :)
It is unfortunate that people spread notions about what happened in Florida that are the exact opposite of the reality which was that Gore fought hard in FL, until no recourse was left for him to pursue. I find it appalling to see the truth twisted when people talk about Florida'2000. Giving the benefit of the doubt in terms of motives, only some sort of cognitive dissonance phenomenon can explain the false commentary.
Thanks for your comment.
Hello, I just registered to give my 2 cents in this very interesting discussion. First off, I'm not American but German, but I'm still following this discussion with great interest as everything that ever happens in America seems to spill over to Europe just a few years later.
So my point is, have any of you ever thought of this variant: What would keep Cheney from becoming the next president? So I gather he is not running. But if the president himself fell victim to a 'terrorist attack', would that not automatically give Cheney full presidential powers? And in the national uproar that would ensue, it would not be difficult to him to 'win' the next 'elections' (duh), whether in 2008 or postponed.
From a European viewpoint, it really seems as if Bush is more or less only a puppet and the master mind of American politics is the vice president. Now I do hope with all of you that all of these are only crazy conspiracy theories, but being German I've grown up being educated to fight fascism when it is still in its beginnings, because afterwards it will be too late to stop it.
NL.___ No, I was not pulling your leg.__ Are you a girl?____ Never mind,__ I love wemon.
Anyway, your comments were accurate and to the point. Gore is not a candidate, but that could change. There are many here who don't know or understand the truth about Gore, regarding his last run and the end results. If he does run, you could help, possibly more than you realize. Please don't use those big words, like the ones you wrote in your last bolg. Damn NL, most of us aren't that smart.
Germandude. If Bush fell over dead, Cheney would be our new president. It would not make any difference, he already is the president. Well, one difference,__ Cheney has intelligence. Intelligence and evilness are a bad mix.
Ok kem, well the only difference is he would get 4 or 8 more years.
This will never be allowed to happen. He might make a feeble attempt to cancel the 2008 elections but it would falter. Like I said it will not be allowed. The light is brightly shining on the darkness of his dark ways trying to enslave us into a dictatorship. Just with our intent we can stop this.
Fact that the Neo Cons can still stay in power after all the in-your-face lies and scandals is proof that they could pull anything off.
What can you do about it if the 2008 election is canceled? Everything is under absolute control of Bush's handlers... those who run the New World Order... It is a high tech system powered by infinite money.
Those who believe it is a Democrat vs. Republican issue are just pawns in the over all control game. Keeping you polarized is the plan.
Every form of resistance can be easily countered via the control system. We are so pacified and introverted, as people there is no organized resistance nor can one effectively arise. All resistance will be crushed mercilessly. This is not just some future prediction, it's happening now!
But really, it makes no difference who gets elected, the deck is stacked. Ron Paul may be your only present hope!
Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country.
Is there anyone here who is owed a favor by Putin and Chevez?
This former "demo" is going for the most viable honest person running....DR. RON PAUL...JOIN THE REVOLUTON !!!! THE REAL DEAL !!!
What you people need to realize is this... IT DOES NOT MATTER WHO IS PRESIDENT FROM EITHER DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN
PARTIES... THEY ARE BOTH IN THE SAME.. THEY ARE DEMOPUBLICANS. BOTH PARTIES CONTROLLED BY THE SAME PEOPLE.. ITS TIME TO VOTE 3RD PARTY.. THE ONLY REPUBLICAN I WILL VOTE FOR IN THE NEXT ELECTION WILL BE RON PAUL... RON PAUL IS THE ONLY CANDIDATE WHO UPHOLDS THE CONSTITUTION! YOU WANT CHANGE THEN VOTE FOR RON PAUL!!!!!
Canceling the 2008 election is not unthinkable - it is downright certain provided that we have a serious terrorist attack. The next attack, I am guessing, will be blamed in part on homegrown - that is, American - terrorists. This will facilitate the imposition of martial law, as after all we will need to be protected from ourselves. Recent documents suggest that sections of the Army are now being prepped for deployment in the US, where they will fight a 'counter-insurgency'.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/25/6360/14594
The True Story Of Nikola Tesla And His Murder
http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20070405.htm
In short, Otto Skorzeny claimed that the true identity of George H.W. Bush was "George H. Scherff, Jr., the son of Nikola Tesla's illegal-immigrant, German-born accountant, George H. Scherff, Sr."
Skorzeny did not stop there. He produced a photo of a young Skorzeny, Mengele, Bormann, and the family of George H. Scherff, Sr.. Seated in the midst of those in the photo was a young George H. Scherff, Jr., who, Skorzeny explained, was trained as a spy and sent to America to work for Adolph Hitler. "He was given false identification and adopted by Prescott Sheldon Bush as his "son," George Herbert Walker Bush," Skorzeny went on. "He forged a birth certificate in order to enter the military before he turned 18. He was 16 at the time."
In the family photo, a young Scherff and Bormann both sported a German Navy uniform. Scherff later enlisted in the U.S. Navy as "George H.W. Bush."
In even greater detail, Otto Skorzeny described how ("contrary to the CIA-written history books") he helped Hitler escape to Austria in a plane flown by a female pilot, Hanna Reitsch. "Hitler did not commit suicide," Skorzeny recounted. "His double was shot between the eyes, and the dental records proved he was not Hitler. The Americans kept it a secret, worried the truth might anger the Russians."
Eric "Orion" (Berman), in a live radio interview on Republic Broadcasting Network, January 17, 2006, [14] detailed how "Skorzeny died on December 31, 1999. His body was cremated, I have a copy of his death certificate, and I saw his ashes. After the war, he helped George Bush found the CIA through Operation Paperclip and ODESSA."
Berman recounted how Skorzeny was found "not guilty" at the Nuremburg trials, and then ushered into the CIA. "Some 50,000+ S.S. Nazi war criminals, not just rocket scientists, were brought to America after the war."
The significance of this benign description of Tesla's inventions and his last days has a direct relationship to the previously unknown claims of Otto Skorzeny. As Skorzeny described (to Berman) in detail his involvement with George H. W. Bush (George H. Scherff, Jr.) in organizing the CIA by absorbing Nazi S.S. agents," he intimated that it was Reinhard Gehlen and himself who murdered Nikola Tesla on January 6, 1943 by strangulation/suffocation.
Part 2: Deathbed confessions, photos support claims that George H. Scherf(f), Jr., was 41st U.S. president
Why did the most brilliant scientist in history die penniless with his inventions benefiting megalo-maniacal governments and ruthless organized criminals? Why are the world's most profitable businesses oil, chemicals, war, pharmaceuticals, "illegal" drugs, human slavery and prostitution? Why do "democratic" governments rule their people with oppressive, police-state tactics? Why do these "democracies" poison the food, the water, the air and the land; why do they tax and regulate their people into slavery?
It is simple to understand when you put these questions into human terms. We know how people occupy niches in our own circles of influence; how we all try to maximize our opportunities within a given set of circumstances—and how some can be depended upon to lie, cheat and/or steal their way into success within an operating framework.
Look at the Bush and Walker families' lineage on this page and keep it in your mind as you read through and internalize this part of the story—the story of why America is ailing, how she became ill and who poisoned her. The relationships are (intentionally?) complex and difficult to decipher, so we have attempted to reduce them to workable symbols as if parts of equations. When we come out the other side of this article, we should have no question in our minds as to which "families" have been most influential in the preplanned destruction of America and her once-free people. Continued . . .
dwatkins9 July 31st, 2007 1:11 pm
Why are "ninety million gun owners" dismissed so easily and cavalierly? An armed citizenry is a bulwark against tyranny.
Uhh.. Cruise missiles and tanks maybe?
It ain't working out so good for those Iraqis and they have AK's and rocket launchers. We get pistols and shotguns.
Our founders meant for the citizenry to be as well armed as the military. I want my tank.
I know of a place under construction, out of sight due to hills, with direct access off of a major highway. I drive by it quite often and never noticed it was there. I "discovered" it one night when I pulled off the Hwy in front of the large, newly paved entrance, and was immediately greeted by two security ambassadors who seemed to appear out of thin air.
Them: "What are you doing"
Me: "Eating my lunch" "Why?"
Them: " Your going to have to do that somewhere else."
Me: "Why?" "This is a public Hwy."
Them: "Not here it's not."
Me: "Really"
Them: "Really"
They were private security. I didn't want a hassle so I moved on. I am not saying this place is an internment camp, just that it is odd and secretive.
Don't be fooled into believing, that just because you haven't seen a news report, or a flashing neon sign, that possible internment camps don't exist.
The neo-con cabal simply cannot afford to lose the next election. The consequences are perilous. They could not risk having the powers of the Patriot Act, the Homeland Security Act, the No More Habeas Corpus Act and the Because I Said So Act fall into the hands of President Clinton/ Obama/ Kucinich and AG Edwards/ Waxman/ Nader. The questions could get awkward. The renditions could get extraordinary.
So, why take the chance? What Republican strategist is pushing "Let's forget we know how to steal elections and try to beat them fair and square while we're only 26% back in the polls"? If you steal one election, don't you sort of have to steal all the ones that follow?
Okay Ladies and Gentleman, here is a history lesson.
The Bible tells us of this prophecy. We are Living in the Last days, also know as the Time of the End! If you doubt read Matt 24:15. In that scripture, Jesus, the greatest Teacher tell us that when we see things look really bad, read the Book of Daniel.
The Book of Daniel marches us through history right up to today, then the information that Daniel has is sealed until the book of Revelation picks it up. Read Daniel Chapters 2, 7 and 8
In short there have been four world powers, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Pagan and then Papal Rome (the last power is left ambiguous because God knew that the Roman Catholic Church (the Beast) would destroy the Bible completely if He would have specifically identified it by name in the Bible. Pagan Rome changed to Papal Rome in 508 A.D. From 538 AD to 1798 AD (The Dark Ages) the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) went about destroying all knowledge of the Bible. This situation was quasi-rescued in 1798 by the French by General Berthier when he attacked the Vatican and took the Pope prisoner. The RCC's power never returned until recently.
Dan. 13:3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.
· This deadly wound (the attack on the RCC) reduced the power of the RCC and began a long separation of church and state throughout much of the world
· The RCC has long since wanted to see that old power return to the world in the form of and through the United States. BINGO!!! Notice the influence that the church has on the current government. Especially this administration
Dan. 7:25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. =1260 years, the dark ages!!!
Throughout its existence and especially from ~300A.D. the RCC changed some of everything especially the most important thing changing the Sabbath from the seventh day to the first day.
YOU COULD BE KILLED FOR HAVING A COPY OF THE BIBLE DURING THAT TIME!!!
Thus the people of the known world were kept in spiritual DARKNESS
Consider the beginning of the U.S.A.
Rev. 13:11 And I beheld another beast (world power) coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. The two horns represent two powers that were decidedly separate (civil and religious) Separation of Church and state!!!
The U.S. started out acknowledging the rights of its people to worship, as they wanted w/o the influence of the church. Which is why they came to America in the first place
Fast forward to 2001 and the current administration
Rev. 13:12 And he (the U.S.A.) exerciseth all the power of the first beast (the Roman Catholic Church) before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.
When this country goes dictatorship the religious right will have control of world leadership and they will then force all eyes to worship the beast. The image of the beast is THE DAY THAT THE BEAST FORCED THE OLD WORLD TO WORSHIP! And it will do it again!
Has not this government begun speaking like the beast before it? Did the people of Europe have power to speak against ROME?!!! Stay tuned.
WOLF, reading the link in your post makes the Mafia look like kindergarten. Makes me want to just go tend my garden and not even bother to vote. Are you suggesting there is no birth certificate for George H.W. Bush?
This is something that I said would happen, and will happen I said that this president would be the last President that would ever hold an elected office in the Nation, and their is not a thing that anyone can do ablut i9t it is the will of God that is being carried out, God is operating all in accord with the counsel of His will (Ephesians. 1:11). All is the consequence of His decree. He is afterall a sovereign supreme God (Deity) and nothing can go contrary to His divine will *(decree)*
All is going according to His will not our will. Mankind wants what he wants but he gets what he gets...We don't alwayus get what we want but you just might find out that we get what we need.
So-It-goes!
Koch