← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Zoroaster
Thread ID: 10397 | Posts: 114 | Started: 2003-10-10
2003-10-10 14:44 | User Profile
[url]http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1276[/url]
Why Bush Won't Be Re-Elected
by "dominantlogistics" 10/10/03 There is much debate, particularly now that Wesley Clark has thrown his hat into the ring, over whether or not President Bush will be re-elected next year or if he will be replaced. Unless Bush radically alters his current positions on a variety of issues, it is virtually inevitable that he won't be re-elected, no matter what the polls are saying today. While many analysts regard the current administration as being strong on defense, and thus holding that advantage over the Democratic contenders, the reality is that the current administration's defense policies will ultimately lead to its demise.
Too Much Wasted Money
The biggest mistake the administration has made is their policy of massive defense spending increases that are not directed towards useful military purposes. The bottom line is that by election time, most Iraqi children will be attending better schools than many American children. This doesn't mean that we should be spending more on education (this is a state and local function, not a federal one) but is moreso a reflection of the declining infrastructure of the United States. Another example of this is the recent blackouts in the Eastern sections of the United States. The critical infrastructures of America are in shambles and virtually nothing is being done about it...
Where is the need for continuing to pour massive sums of money into ratholes like the RAH-66 Commanche and V-22 Osprey programs? With the growth and success of unmanned aerial and combat vehicles, how can we possibly justify the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program? These three programs alone account for $7.1 billion dollars in the 2004 military procurement budget - and that's just procurement costs. Another $4.1 billion worth of procurement funds are going down the drain for future carriers and nuclear attack submarines we have no use for. Another $1.3 billion is purchasing Stryker deathtraps and medium size trucks that do nothing to improve upon our military's capabilities. And then there's my personal favorite, $780 million for Trident D-5 submarine launched ballistic missiles - didn't Bush establish a policy to massively cut our nuclear arsenal? More than any other programs, these are draining badly needed federal dollars and causing pressures to increase the defense budget in lieu of investing in the nation's critical infrastructure. And what is truely sad is that if the administration were to cut these useless programs, it could put half of the savings back into cheaper programs, allowing for more purchases of cheaper systems and thus more manufacturing jobs, and invest the savings in the nation's infrastructure.
For all the talk of transforming the force, why hasn't there been a single mention or suggestion of pushing up the next round of BRAC discussions? Isn't now, while we are engaged in war abroad, the ideal time to trim some of the fat from our military infrastructure? Send some of our stockpiles abroad and now we can close down some of our excess warehouses and eliminate some of our wasteful stocks. It is also an ideal situation for realigning our overseas presence and even units here at home. Redeploy our forces in Europe for the next round of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and instead of sending them back to Europe, they can come back home where they belong when they are finished. Its a lot easier to close out an empty military base than one that is full of troops and gear - now is the time to take the steps to realign and save many more billions per year that, once again, can be evenly divided between reinvestment in the military and reinvestment in the nation's infrastructure.
Missing the Nuclear Boat
Frankly, it's hard to imagine a time in history more ripe for investments in nuclear energy. It's the best source of power for the environment and there are clear advantages in other energy aspects as well. We're supposedly slashing our nuclear arsenal while at the same time, the Russians have developed reactor designs to burn the leftover fissile material to produce energy but lack the funds to fully develop the program. We also are having massive security problems at many of our existing nuclear labs. At the same time, oil and gas prices have been skyrocketing for a variety of reasons. Could the answer be more clear?
Instead of wasting defense dollars pursuing marginally useful "mini-nukes" and other ridiculous nuclear designs, why not convert Los Alamos and the other labs with security problems over to non-military nuclear missions? The security problems become a non-issue if the labs are converted to a joint effort with the Russians to fully exploit designs to burn up older nuclear warheads to produce energy. The military also has numerous excess bases that could be made available for the construction of new nuclear power plants. We could also drop the insane policy of barring the reprocessing of nuclear fuel, making nuclear power far more cost effective than it currently is.
But instead of taking these common sense steps, and creating thousands if not millions of jobs through construction, manufacturing, and operations of these facilities, the Bush administration has instead chosen to maintain the status quo with our nuclear arsenal while pushing to further exploit our oil resources. I'm not against increasing oil production and exploring ANWR, but clearly a case can be made that the nuclear industry is in a much better position to benefit from a little political backing from the administration. Reducing our nuclear arsenals, stockpiles, and infrastructure could save billions of dollars every year - next year's budget has over $19 billion just for the defense portion of the Department of Energy funding for maintaining the nuclear stockpile; this doesn't include the costs of missiles, submarines, and other costs directly associated with the nuclear force. Once again, there's no reason we couldn't take these simple steps and split the savings between reinvestment in defense and reinvestment in infrastructure.
Nation-Building Overseas
The current administration recently went before Congress requesting about $87 billion to rebuild the nation of Iraq. Billions more are pouring into other "nation-building" programs including Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan. Billions more are spent every year by the United States to defend our allies like Japan against non-existent threats, as well as to maintain obsolete organizations like NATO. Don't get me wrong, I'm a decent Christian, I fully believe in helping one's neighbors but not at the expense of our own children.
A very eye-opening report is available online that outlines the major problems in our nation's infrastructure and it is striking. To resolve the existing deficiencies in our nation's roads and bridges alone will require us to nearly double our current spending on these items. To maintain existing mass transit systems will require double the funding we currently spend while needed improvements will require spending increases of over 300%. An estimated 75% of all schools in America are inadequate for meeting existing educational needs and the price to fix the problem is estimated at over $127 billion. Water purification systems are being underfunded by an estimated $11 billion annually while waste water treatment facilities are shorted about $12 billion per year. Nearly 2600 dams are considered to be unsafe while 21 dams have failed in the U.S. in the last two years alone. The GAO has estimated there to be between 400,000 and 600,000 hazardous contaminated areas in the US requiring clean-up while the Superfund program is actually cleaning up an average of only 40 sites per year with over 4200 sites remaining on its existing list of areas requiring clean-up. Over recent years, the load on our nations waterways has increased over 40% while funding to maintain these waterways has decreased 70%. In the electrical sector, our annual shortfall of electrical production is averaging 30% while an estimated $50 billion in improvements is needed for the power grid. All told, the current national infrastructure of the United States is in need of an estimated $1.6 trillion in improvements.
And yet here we sit watching the administration pouring larger and larger quantities of money into defense when anyone who takes the time to look can see an easy $40-50 billion per year that could be trimmed from the defense budget without having ANY negative impact on our military capabilities. Bush wants about $20 billion more to spend on defense per year - trim even a small portion of the waste from the existing defense budget and that money will be available with an additional $20-30 billion available to reinvest in the nation's infrastructure.
Bush Doesn't Deserve Re-Election
Hey, I'll admit it - I voted for Bush, but I won't do it again. He's still better than Gore ever would've been under the present circumstances and there are things he's done right. But managing the nation's checkbook hasn't been one of them and it has nothing to do with the rough economic times we've been having. The bottom line is that federal spending has got to be trimmed and reorganized or this nation is in deep trouble. I'm a big fan of tax cuts and believe they should probably be cut more if anything. But at the same time, the federal government is wasting hundreds of billions of dollars every year, dollars that it doesn't have to be spending in the first place. There would be no federal deficit if we quit wasting money on projects and budget items that are useless and wasteful.
Reinvesting in existing defense programs like the F-16, the H-60, and the LHD will create more industrial jobs while at the same time lowering the costs of defense and improving our current defense capabilities. Reducing our unneeded nuclear infrastructure will cut costs and make investment in civilian nuclear programs a viable option strengthening the peace with Russia while making more money available for useful defense programs. But for whatever reason, the current administration isn't interested in making more jobs and reducing federal spending. It's time we look for an adminstration that is. When Iraqi children are attending better schools than our own, paid for with our defense dollars, something is just plain wrong with this picture.
============================================================= If Americans continue to allow the Zionist/NWO cabal of international bankers, multinational corporate heads and neocon creeps to rule America, the luxuries, rights, priviliges, and benefits that we currently enjoy will soon be gone. We're on the brink of another world war with Islam, brought about by the Zionist warmongers in Washington, plus the Jews and Palestinians tearing each other's throats out. Genghis W. Bush has already thrown down the gauntlet, setting the stage for World War Three.
-Z-
2003-10-11 06:56 | User Profile
I'll take massive military spending over social programs anyday. At least we get some widgets out of it and it also employs a lot of scientists and engineers.
Money isn't going to solve the education problem. My parents,aunts and uncles were all educated in one room buildings in the sticks that didnt have indoor plumbing and they all ended up with at least masters degrees and half with doctorates.
Bottom line is that in their day the bottom end didnt go to school and the teachers were of much better quality and the ethnic makeup of the class was not multicutural.
There isnt enough money in the universe to enable morons to educate morons unless they are majoring in buffoonery.
2003-10-16 02:13 | User Profile
My opinion about education is that money is good, but you have to implement it correctly.
Military spending is good, but a "military lobby" of companies making the stuff is bad, because they'll defend any bloated, useless project.
2003-10-21 01:16 | User Profile
I think in different way. Bush may be awarded for a second term. Why the media beat the drum on a personal affair and almost impeached President Clinton. While awarded President Bush with a high approve rate when he lied to mislead 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. 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 a reason to make "war on terrorism", an endless one. He won't be arrested or killed until they found another terror leader to substitute him. The "Road map" is not finished. There are more "evil countries" in the list. The war on terror is a long one. So Bush will stay in his post, as well as Bin Laden.
2003-10-21 12:23 | User Profile
When truth begins to surface about what is really going on in the world, the Zionist-controlled media always marginalizes it by labelling it a conspiracy theory. Always remember, though, that something does not remain a theory once it is proven to be true. Led by Genghis W. Bush, the neo-con War Party, and a policy of perpetual war the Zionist/NWO criminals want folks to continually kill one another instead of focusing their attention on the real enemy--them!
Since ZOG controls both major political parties in America, it matters little which party wins the White House in '04. Traitors lurking behind the scenes will continue making decisions that are not in America's interest.
-Z-
2003-10-21 13:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE]The bottom line is that by election time, most Iraqi children will be attending better schools than many American children. This doesn't mean that we should be spending more on education (this is a state and local function, not a federal one) but is moreso a reflection of the declining infrastructure of the United States.[/QUOTE]
Iraqi children will be attending better schools and the result will be a more formidible army that will be used against us. Hatred does not go away with education.
Here is an article written by Allan Wall that tells us how we have not been gettting our money's worth from foreign aid and in fact have made countries poorer than before and made more enemies. Unfortunately he still caters to Bush by saying the Iraq is US territory now and is "another story".
[url]http://www.gopusa.com/opinion/aw_1021.shtml[/url]
Foreign Aid and the Middle East - What Do Our Dollars Buy? By Allan Wall October 21, 2003
The U.S. taxpayer, through his government, pumps billions of dollars annually into other countries via foreign aid. Certainly, some of this aid has done some good. Some could be justified, especially limited programs with close scrutiny. But it's quite likely that much, or possibly most, foreign aid is wasted and counter-productive.
Foreign aid may be well-intended, but often ends up in the hands of kleptocratic foreign politicians rather than accomplishing what it was designed for. Citizen accountability is sorely lacking - the American taxpayer is scarcely aware of what is being doled out in his name, and how.
Consider the contrast with private commerce and private charity. A businessman investing in a foreign country is there to make a profit, and will keep a close eye on whether or not his enterprise is efficient. Americans who make voluntary donations to private charity organizations can monitor funds to see how they are being used. They can cease donations and send their money to a different charity, if they feel the money is not being spent wisely. But in the case of government foreign aid there are political factors that sometimes make it hard to do the right thing.
From a humanitarian standpoint, much foreign aid is questionable, since many Third World countries are poorer now than before they started receiving it! This alone should cause one to ponder.
Does foreign aid really buy us friends? Many of the biggest recipients of U.S. aid have the most anti-US voting records in the U.N. , and anti-Americanism is often rampant in countries receiving aid from the U.S.
In some cases, foreign aid actually exacerbates anti-Americanism, by accentuating national differences in wealth and power - rubbing it in, so to speak. Proud nations are reduced to beggars, asking alms from the United States, so they compensate by being anti-American. The relation sometimes resembles that between a resentful but dependent adolescent and his father.
How about the Middle East? Billions of dollars in aid are being dispensed there. What does it accomplish?
(Let's leave aside the Iraqi question for the moment. Iraq is now a U.S. territory, making it a different case entirely. There are plenty of other cases to consider.)
Israel is the #1 recipient of U.S. aid. But it doesn't really need the money, which totals less than 3% of its GDP. In fact, U.S. aid probably discourages needed economic reforms which could make the Israeli economy more productive. Aid also makes Israel unnecessarily dependent on the United States, making the Jewish state vulnerable to U.S. pressure to make unwise concessions to its enemies. You can't receive aid, in other words, with no strings attached. (See "Israel Doesn't Need to Be A Banana Republic", for some good recommendations along these lines).
Egypt is the second-largest recipient of foreign aid, and is considered a close ally. However, Egypt is still an authoritarian state and its official media is a source of anti-American and anti-Jewish rhetoric. The nation's Christian minority is persecuted and Islamic radicals are always on the verge of causing major damage. Plus, Egypt has been cooperating with North Korea in the development of ballistic missiles. Is American aid to Egypt a good investment?
Even pre-9/11 Taliban Afghanistan was raking in U.S. aid dollars! In July of 2001, the government reported that in that fiscal year, Afghanistan had already received $117,869,525 millions of dollars in aid for food, education and other benefits.
Did that inspire Mullah Omar to turn Osama over to us? Of course not. Like the Beatles sang, "Money Can't Buy Me Love!". Now the U.S. is spending big bucks to beef up Afghanistan's borders - how about our own borders?
Since the Oslo Accords, the U.S. has paid millions to the Palestinian Authority. What has that purchased? Certainly not peace. To show its gratitude, the Palestinian Authority named a city square in Jenin after a suicide bomber who killed 4 American soldiers in Iraq.
A year ago in October of 2002, USAID official Laurence Foley was assassinated in Amman, and Yasser Arafat called his killers "noble men". (Was Arafat against the fact that USAID had supplied clean drinking water to Jordanians, or was it just sheer anti-Americanism which caused him to say that?) Some USAID funds disbursed to the Palestinian Authority, by the way, were used to renovate a high school named after Dalal Mughrabi, a female terrorist who killed 37, including 1 American. [url]http://www.connectionmagazine.org/2002_11/ts_bauer_unmoney.htm[/url] And then there is the latest atrocity - American embassy officials dispensing scholarships to Palestinians have been killed in Gaza.
Why are we sending money to these guys?
Other countries considered U.S. allies are Jordan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Yet Jordan appears to be a great source of anti-American activity in Iraq. Elements of Pakistan's government apparently aided our enemies in Afghanistan even after 9/11. And Saudi Arabia, the country we saved in the First Gulf War, is the home of Osama bin Laden and most of the 9/11 hijackers.
Isn't it about time to sit back and analyze our entire Middle East policy?
And here's something interesting to consider. One Middle Eastern country which reportedly does have a significant amount of pro-Americanism is Iran. Not only does Iran not receive U.S. aid, but its regime is an enemy of America. Quite a contrast with Egypt, where the exact opposite is true. There may be a lesson there....
Allan Wall is an American citizen who lives and works (legally) in Mexico. His website is [url]www.allanwall.com[/url] and he can be contacted at [email]allan39@prodigy.net.mx[/email]
2003-10-21 15:53 | User Profile
Bush poll numbers are low enough now that he's plenty beatable. But, before dismissing his chances of winning, remember the Democrats will run an obnoxious leftist. And, if the Democrat guy is lacking in charisma he doesn't stand a chance.
2003-10-31 19:30 | User Profile
Bush won't be re-elected?. 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. 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. 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 he be abandoned? Bin Laden was not found because he is too important for intelligence. His existence gives a reason to make "war on terrorism", an endless one. He won't be arrested or killed until they find another terror leader to substitute him. The "Road map" is not finished. There are more "evil countries" in the list. The war on terror is a long one. So Bush will stay in his post, as well as Bin Laden.
2003-11-11 20:16 | User Profile
It's pretty correct that inside group controls the major parties in US. So there is no difference who be the next president. But Bush is proved to be an obedient one, so they choose him for convenience. Clinton, though a picked up one, proved not that easy to control.
Liberman is the spare part. That's obvious when they made Al Gore pull out of the election of 2004. If you know from the beginning that US politics is played by a shadow group of insiders. The debate of 9 candidates is only a drama for the public and give some material for those experts to discuss.
The road map of Mid-east is not finished yet. Bush, though is awarded a high approve rate by media, is actually disliked by most Americans. With Liberman as Demo's candidate, either elected can assure insider group that their interest will persist.
Liberman, who actively pushed the "patriot Act" passing through, and stand firmly by the side of Bush when he need Iraq war power, is actually a Republican inside Democratic party. He was arranged to be vice President in 2000 election if Bush failed, and in 2002, they paved way for him to be the President's candidate of Democrats by forcing Al Gore's pulling out.
2003-11-11 20:42 | User Profile
You make good points, kathaksung. Liberman, however, is too much like Howdy Doody to be elected. The only certainty is that ZOG will remain in control of Washington regardless of what party wins the White House in 04.
-Z-
2003-11-22 22:28 | User Profile
Inside group tried their best to keep Bush's fame. It reflected how they prepared for Bush's state visit to London.
Bush's Britain visit is a controversial one. And was opposed by most Britons. British government and Royal family were reluctant to entertain such a notorious guest. so they were intimidated. Bush is a proxy of Israel, he has done good to Israel by activate Iraq war, he should have an honorable trip according to that interest group. Then we see how high ranking of Great Britain bent to the pressure. 1. The leaking of information that Princess Diana's death was designed by British intelligence and Royal family. That targets at British intelligence. 2. Tony Blair went to hospital for heart trouble. Target at P.M. 3. News of Prince Charles's scandal with his servant. Target at Royal family. All these took place at the time just before Bush's visit. And Great Britain obeyed.
Bush had a glorious state visit. He stayed in Royal's palace in London and welcomed by Royal family. And "Guardian" issued a so said poll "Majority welcome Bush's visit" which was spread vastly in internet by intelligence accesseries. All this is the result of work of intelligence.
And you also can see it in internet. Intelligence activate all their accessaries to post message to discount the anti-Bush demonstration. And in media, they censor or discount the protest. Or put the appropriate news in second page but report more about the ceremony to receive Bush. They also throw out the news of Michael Jackson's molesting case to divert public's attention. That's the tactic intelligence used to do, if you are familiar with them.
2003-11-23 05:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=kathaksung] Bush's Britain visit is a controversial one. And was opposed by most Britons. British government and Royal family were reluctant to entertain such a notorious guest. so they were intimidated. Bush is a proxy of Israel, he has done good to Israel by activate Iraq war, he should have an honorable trip according to that interest group. Then we see how high ranking of Great Britain bent to the pressure. 1. The leaking of information that Princess Diana's death was designed by British intelligence and Royal family. That targets at British intelligence. 2. Tony Blair went to hospital for heart trouble. Target at P.M. 3. News of Prince Charles's scandal with his servant. Target at Royal family. All these took place at the time just before Bush's visit. And Great Britain obeyed.
[/QUOTE]
If this scenario is anywhere near real then we should be very happy because if the Jews, through their international media ownership, are actually blackmailing the Royal family that means the Royal family hates the Jews and this is good for us. Personally I don't think this scenario is correct because such blatant blackmail would be resisted. I don't think the Jews put the screws to their [I]Masonic[/I] co-conspirators. I wish they would! Because then we would find ourselves suddenly bankrolled. All the revolutions since the French have been bankrolled by big money, which is what our movement is lacking.
2003-11-24 05:00 | User Profile
If Bush can get us out of Iraq, and the economy improves, then his chances will for re-election will increae. Also, this is assuming terrorists don't pull off another big hit against our country. If they do, then all bets are off, and Bush may very well be an easy shoe-in for re-election.
2003-11-27 23:14 | User Profile
Its a tough choice for the self choosen. On one hand some of them realise that as in the past they have overplayed their hand and its time to change sides again. Maybe they can get a democrat in with some blood relations? Blame the aggression on that evil gentile in charge? OY we had nothing to do with that, "we come in peace". On the other hand, they simply can't reign in their hatred and arrogance and Bush might attack syria or iran. They also feel they are so close to outlawing free speech and opposition to them. In a similiar vein they don't want to have to flee America before its to week to revenge itself. They hope to keep building up China so that when America is weeker China and America can finish each other off while they sell to both sides.
2003-12-01 17:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]If this scenario is anywhere near real then we should be very happy because if the Jews, through their international media ownership, are actually blackmailing the Royal family that means the Royal family hates the Jews and this is good for us. Personally I don't think this scenario is correct because such blatant blackmail would be resisted. I don't think the Jews put the screws to their [I]Masonic[/I] co-conspirators. I wish they would! Because then we would find ourselves suddenly bankrolled. All the revolutions since the French have been bankrolled by big money, which is what our movement is lacking.[/QUOTE]
Bush's rate
How could a president did nothing good but still have an approve rate around 50%? His foreign policy makes US an unwelcome country in the world. US loses its traditional friends and gets a lot of hostile enemy. In domestic, there is a sluggish economy, high unemployment, and a historical dificit, civil liberty eroded heavily by Patriot Act. Any US president would have been thrown away by people if he had any failure of above.
Yet all these negative work maintain him around 50%. Because his work favours an inside group which demand war in Mid-east. This group controls media, gave fake poll to manipulate the sentiment of public. Bush's actual approve rate, probably well under 30%.
American people are the same like other people all over the world, they don't like war. They were cheated when media said that 70% Americans support Iraq war. They believed the poll and thought they were minority if they anti-war. Thus became silence majority.
Beware the insider group manipulate you with fake poll. US, as a matter of fact, is controlled by intelligence. It's a pity to see people busy arguing about poll figures, and campaign elections. These are pre-fixed.
2003-12-21 00:15 | User Profile
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 like Bush to stay in 2nd term of president because he is obedient. He followed the order to start an injustice 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. Let them attack each other. 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.
2003-12-21 06:35 | User Profile
Bushie may win this time, but if he does the I will bet the Clintons will be moving back into the white house in 2008!
2003-12-31 22:15 | User Profile
From another angle to see US politics
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 60% 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 hostility 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 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 around 50 to 60%. Incapacitate his rival Demo Party. And try to boost the economy in 2004.
2004-01-11 00:06 | User Profile
About Clark
Clark stole the anti-war opinion from Dean. Dean has that opinion. Why media didn't report Dean will defeat Bush? Why when Clark announced joining campagin he could be suddenly jumped over others and was said the one can defeat Bush while a lot people asked in internet, "Who is Clark?"?
Consider media is in stronghold of insider group, and they preferred a candidate of pro-war such like Bush, Lieberman, Gethardt.... How can it turned out to laud for Clark?
The answer is: Dean holds anti-war idea honestly. Inside group doesn't like it. So they throw out a patsy to take over the support from Dean. To reach their purpose, they praise Clark is the one who can beat Bush and award him a high poll rate. Have you ever thought of how can an unpopular man suddenly become the only man whom can defeat Bush? Only US media can do it by propaganda.
2004-01-12 05:59 | User Profile
The only comment I'd like to add to this thread for the moment is that I recently had dinner with David Irving (along with about 30 other people) at a German restaurant in San Francisco. He opined that Americans should stay well clear of planes, national monuments, unusually tall buildings and the like this October, for reasons that I hope are obvious, and that subsequently, Bush will be handily re-elected (or maybe, just maybe, lynched). I will add, however, that I believe within the context of mainstream political discourse (which doesn't include the CIA permitting a few Al-Qaeda operatives to slip through their net three weeks before Election Day), Bush's political strengths (and Dean's political weaknesses, in the event he is the nominee) have been greatly exaggerated. Barring some sort of criminal manipulation of our political system, I think Bush is likely to lose to Dean (who I am convinced will be the nominee) by an Electoral College spread about midway between Bush's whisker thin 2000 victory (271-267) and Klinton's more convincing 1992 victory (371-167). I also rather suspect that Al-Qaeda will try to assassinate Bush during the campaign season (presumably, the CIA will NOT knowingly permit that to occur, although such an operation on Al-Qaeda's part could still turn out successful). We live in interesting times.
2004-01-12 06:04 | User Profile
"Clark stole the anti-war opinion from Dean. Dean has that opinion."
It should be noted that Gen. Clark, the Butcher of Belgrade, is not a credible anti-war figure.
"Why media didn't report Dean will defeat Bush? Why when Clark announced joining campagin he could be suddenly jumped over others and was said the one can defeat Bush while a lot people asked in internet, 'Who is Clark?'?"
Clark's father, grandfather and going back several generations, according to David Irving, are all rabbis. This, I think, is why the media is so enamored with the colorless and clueless general.
"The answer is: Dean holds anti-war idea honestly. Inside group doesn't like it. So they throw out a patsy to take over the support from Dean. To reach their purpose, they praise Clark is the one who can beat Bush and award him a high poll rate. Have you ever thought of how can an unpopular man suddenly become the only man whom can defeat Bush? Only US media can do it by propaganda."
There is some truth in your analysis as well. Important things like this are seldom done for just one reason.
2004-01-12 16:35 | User Profile
All governments are parasitic by nature.There are isolated instances of governments that have a symbiotic relationship with its host(the taxpayers/serfs)
Ours has been working against its serfs since the founding of the federal reserve scam bank. The problem has escalated in the last 30 or so years.. The political paraistes will ignore the problem and ride the system for their masters until it collapses.
We have a government that employs OVER 1/3 of the workforce if you add all state local and federal levels...
Let me illustrate the problem..If i had a tumor on my body that was half of my actual BODY weight,that was sucking nutrients and energy from my system, how healthy would you say i was? (even if the tumor was non-cancerous i would be in bad shape)
Now what if that tumor were cancerous and multiplying at a prodigious rate? (current Bush administration is cancerous, government size has increased by 27% under the Bush administration)
Now the other immediate problem..(beside the fact that our government has been treasoning the constitution since roughly 1917) is CHECK KITING...actually the world economy is in deep trouble we may be headed for a depression.
The U. S. federal parasite has been kiting checks in the taxpayer's name and sticking us with the debt. The problem is that it has written us into debt (roughly $40 trillion will be coming due)for many times the actual cumulative value of every asset in our country..
I actually know HOW to solve the problems and return the political sytem to control of the people; but it would take either an economic collapse at this point to do so..OR the systematic shutdown of approx. 90% of the government.
As for Bush administration, these are the worst parasites to hit the american political system for years..the patient (american taxpayer) is on life suupport. Come to think of it so is our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The Expatriation of educated americans is hitting a record high in this adminstration...as people get out while the getting is still good.
Bush will be elected IF the public school system has adequately done its job, and if it hasn't, then there is always Diebold with their backdoor manipulation of the vote counts..
More and more as I cruise the interent, i am hearing THE WORD "REVOLUTION" being bandied about by ordinary americans. I have never seen people this angry in my life...so maybe there is hope.
The only thing i can say for sure is that if Bush wins re-election, it will destroy the vestige of REAL america that is left, as we transform into a third world country..
2004-01-20 19:35 | User Profile
Gang of four
Whatever they talked about economy, immigrant, medicine..... The main point of choosing candidates is. Pro or anti war.
Because inside group needs more war in Mid-east, they make the candidates mostly pro-war one.
Bush is a war president. There is no doubt. He is designated for a second term.
The leading four candidates of Democratic are all pro-war (or at least, obedient to the will of inside group). Kerry, Lieberman, Edwards, Gephardt. They all voted for authorizing Iraq war power to President Bush. Gephardt is the one who introduced the War Authorization Bill. Lieberman, Edwards were the hardest supporters of that bill. The three were hard supporters of Iraq war and honest followers of inside group. Even though they knew most of their constituents are against Iraq war. Now to try to win the chair of Demo President candidate, they changed their face that they are against Bush's Iraq war policy. That's very hypocrite and is almost an open lie.
Most people realize this and go for Howard Dean. To block Dean, inside group threw out Wesley Clark because he has no vote record. You can see the gang of four gathered up fire on Dean but avoid to touch Clark. This is the tactic how inside group to choose their favorite candidate. Follow this line, you can see the reality through the cover up smoke. Whatever they show you of scandal, poll rate..... And surely there will be more to come.
As for Clark who tries to defeat Dean by stealing his anti-war idea, I think he is an insider working for intelligence for a long time. Under his commander he had helped FBI fulfilled two big events. In Waco slaughter and bombing Chinese Embassy in Yugoslavia.
See story in: "193. Bombing Chinese Embassy in Yugoslavia" and "194. D.o.D. worked for D.o.J. (1/6)" at:
[url]http://hometown.aol.com/katsung563/myhomepage/profile.html[/url]
If there is harassment (blank page, slow entering, server busy....) try
[url]http://forums.delphiforums.com/police915/messages/?msg=25.1[/url]
2004-01-20 20:20 | User Profile
Well, seeing how the Iowa caucus turned out yesterday, Bush is set for for re-selection to the White House for the last 4 years of the Old United States of America. The Clintons managed to manipulate the entire Democratic run-off to ensure a patsy candidate like John Kerry to run against Bush, and secure the Presidency to Hillary Clinton in 2008. A Howard Dean nomination means Bush loses this November and Hillary doesn't become President. It's all so sickening. It's time for REVOLUTION.
2004-01-31 19:16 | User Profile
Dean was poisoned
In DC sniper shooting case. When Lee Boyd Malvo was arrested, he kept his mouth shut up. But in an interrogation a week later, "Malvo was talkative, smiling, even bragging in response to indirect questions from investigators, sources said."(S.J.M.N.) The police interrogating him thought Malvo's testimony didn't make sense and was exaggerating. It was a typical phenomenen that Malvo was medicined (or in another word, poisoned) by something to talk. Under the influence he was forced to talk as much as he could, even exaggerating. It was possible an excitant or something unknown for outsiders which force the victim losing control of mind, behaved unusual and doing something exaggerating. It's a tactic intelligence used to do to squeeze information from target.
Howard Dean is a target of insider group because he is the one who fiercely anti-war. Dean lost Iowa primary. His rate from the leading one dropped to the third place, (16% vs Kerry's 38%) It was unusual, consider 75% Iowa voters are against war. It can be viewed as poll result was manipulated by intelligence.
The development in on the way to the will of Inside group
And to suppress Dean more, they seemed using same tactic to vilify Dean. Dean likely was poisoned by some excitant or something influencial on his sentiment in the meeting before Iowa Primary. Media (which are under stronghold of inside group) took the chance to propaganda on "lunatic", "crazy"... on him.
Intelligence covert work was largely used in campagin if you still remember Water Gate scandal. Especially by inside group who controls Feds. Here is another recent report:
Republican caught spying on Demo Thursday 22 January 2004 Senate Panel's GOP Staff Pried on Democrats
WASHINGTON -- Republican staff members of the US Senate Judiciary Commitee infiltrated opposition computer files for a year, monitoring secret strategy memos and periodically passing on copies to the media, Senate officials told The Globe.
[url]http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/012304A.shtml[/url]
2004-02-10 23:57 | User Profile
Manipulate election and poll
Howard Dean is a vivid sample of how insider group to use media and intelligence to manipulate an election.
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%?
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.
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.
2004-02-20 22:09 | User Profile
Three musketeers
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 is paving way for Edwards' victory.
As a block to Dean, Kerry's mission is done. With great possibility, there will be a bigger surprise than Iowa one. Don't be astonished if you hear Edwards win super March 2 primary. All election are rigged one.
2004-02-21 04:58 | User Profile
If you vote for Kerry or Bush you are a slave. I know they comje from opposing outlooks through their familes. Yes, Skull and Bones is a reality. Its not as bad as you think it is, but it is still relvant cancerning power and truly taken oaths. Kerry/Kohn as u call him.. make it an issue, ask about Kohn. I truly have doubts about that Jewish connection with Kerry, lay them to me. You see, I am not a right-all and I dont post to be a neo-con celebrity. Times are changing, see wh en you try to type ,, they control.... is this what ita coming to ?
I think its well overdone to make it real while we s till can .
Arrest Th e
m .
2004-03-13 03:18 | User Profile
I heard a reputable talk show host on [url]http://www.realityradio1320.com[/url] recently say that in every US Presidential election, the candidate with the highest percentage of " royal bloodline " has won. According to this correlation, John Kerry wil defeat George Bush Jr.
2004-03-13 03:24 | User Profile
Just thinking of that for a moment. I guess some of the hosts throw things out without researching them. But that station is still good and you can hear Alex Jones every weekday from 1-3 EST. Bill Clinton, whose fathers name was Blythe, had no royal bloodline at all, but GHW Bush did. Oh well, another theory shot to shit.
2004-03-13 20:36 | User Profile
Media censorship
The tactic inside group used to pull down Howard Dean.
A negative propaganda against Dean before Primary. Dean got more criticism than any other Democratical candidates did.
Control Primary election. Justify the result by fake poll. (see message "Manipulate poll")
Media censorship. They decided to terminate Dean's campaign right from the begining of Primary by created an "Iowa surprise". After a short period of "hopeless" comment about Dean, Media censored the news of Dean and put the focus on Kerry. There is no reason for Kerry's sudden leap up. It's only the result of manipulation of media - the decision of inside group. When Dean announced his pull out, he was still the second leading candidate of Demo.
Quote, "Study: Network news criticizes Dean most
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Jan. 16, 2004 | LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Howard Dean received significantly more criticism on network newscasts than the other Democratical contenders, who were the subjects of more favorable coverage, according to a study released Thursday.
More than three-quarters of the coverage of Dean's foes by the nightly news programs was favorable, while a majority of attention to Dean was negative, the Center for Media and Public Affairs found.
The study found that 49 percent of the coverage of former Vermont Gov. Dean was positive, compared to 78 percent of the rest of the Democratic field, collectively.
[url]http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/01/16/dean_media/[/url]
Why the Corporate Media Wiped Out Howard Dean News/Comment; Posted on: 2004-02-17 13:22:42 [ Printer friendly ]
On December 1, 2003, Howard Dean was ahead by twenty points in the polls when he appeared on Hardball with Chris Matthews and said, "We're going to break up the giant media enterprises." This pronouncement went far beyond the governor's previous public musings about possibly re-regulating the communications industry, and amounted to a declaration of war on the corporations that administer the flow of information in the United States.
[url]http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=2096[/url]
(10 days ago, I was blocked to get to this forum by tech. problem. The URL doesn't work. I can only click in this time by a link from a search page. Strange to say, the URL is the same)
2004-03-14 02:44 | User Profile
On December 1, 2003, Howard Dean was ahead by twenty points in the polls when he appeared on Hardball with Chris Matthews and said, "We're going to break up the giant media enterprises." This pronouncement went far beyond the governor's previous public musings about possibly re-regulating the communications industry, and amounted to a declaration of war on the corporations that administer the flow of information in the United States.
the polls mean nothing. They are specifically targeted by into low-tier households and those polls were only to registered Democrats. There is no doubt that Howard Dean recognized the media as a problem. The problem with HIM, however, is that he does not understand that statement in the same light you and I do. He thought the media was biased towards the ruling party. He knows the truth, but is really a good hearted doctor who is real.. but he's married to a Jewess.. it was poilitical sport, but the fact is that the media did Howard Dean a favor. They propped him up and he failed to carry the torch. Dennis Kucinich, Bob Graham, all the others would have loved that same opportunity. Dean blew it. But he's still young.. and in the aristocracy of the American political paradigm, he's still a player. Don't be surprised if he's the nominee 10-20 years from now. THis whole apparatus is like watching tv wrestling.. it's all contrived, and those who come into the system naive and with good intentions are gradually watered down into just parts of the machine.
2004-03-23 19:37 | User Profile
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Though either Bush or Clinton are politicians cultivated by inside group, they more or less belong to a party and sometimes must stand for Party's interest. So the best way is to have a candidate of their own. We can see now how intelligence have their own people to join the campaign. Such like Clark. (Clark was pro GOP before, and was said not even registered as Demo the night before he became a president candidate of Demo Party), and Arnold Schwarzenneger.
Though he rides the boat of GOP, Schwarzenegger is propaganded more as a man of both parties. The tactic inside group used is:
Make Schwarzenegger keeping a distance from Bush because Bush is becoming notorious.
Emphasize his personal relationship with Demo. That his wife Maria is a niece of former President Kennedy. Reporting he was received warmly by Senator Edward Kennedy in DC.
To create a figure of a successful politician, inside group activated their resource in Demo to support Schwarzenegger. When Arnold became the governor, he turned over two bills, "Drive license for illegal immigrant" bill, "Automobile license fee" bill. These important bills signed by former Demo Governor Davis and supported by Democratic Party, now are abolished without trouble in a governmet dominated by Demo. Those Demos, once have voted yes on these bills, now vote no.
Another big event is the "Bond bill". The way Schwarzenneger suggested to solve California finance problem is borrowing money. Which was once opposed by Demo. Later it was passed without trouble too. Here we can see there is no opposing Party. Any opinion could be easily changed to master's will. When there is a demand from inside group, the opposing party became tame sheep.
After they stole California, they are preparing to take over the US with their own candidate. You probably will see in near future they change the constitution the rule that only native born American can be US president. To pave the way particularly for their own candidate, Arnold Schwarzenneger.
2004-03-23 22:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=kathaksung]Media censorship
The tactic inside group used to pull down Howard Dean.
In the two months before the Iowa caucus, Dean got more criticism from the media than all the other candidates combined. He arguably got more criticism than other candidates got COVERAGE combined.
2004-03-24 12:20 | User Profile
I am sorry, but less we forget Bush was not elected the frist time. Gore got more votes and lost Fld. a state that whom's brother was Gov. of. If that election was not stolen then I do not know what. We most not let him stell another one this time.
2004-04-02 19:41 | User Profile
Hilary is a favorite of inside group because she is an obedient politician.
Hillary is arranged as an emergent stopper if Clark and Kerry can't block Dean's way. The inside group had prepared for that already.
She was bribed by high income of her book: "Living history". She is arranged a possible candidate of 2008 President campaign. But she may be also used as a spare part to block Howard Dean if Clark and Kerry can't block him. That's why she was arranged to visit US troops in Iraqi after Bush's visit.
Hilary was registered as a candidate for 2004 president election. An arragement of inside group.
I saw from another web site that Hillary Clinton filed on Oct 3rd, with the Federal Election Commission to run for President in 2004.
Registration: Presented by the Federal Election Commission CLINTON, HILLARY RODHAM ID: P00003392
Office Sought: President Election Year: 2004 State: Presidential Candidate District: 03 Party: DEM (Democratic Party)
NOTE: Candidate listings may appear here as a result of draft committees or independent expenditure committees registering with the FEC. If no official documents appear below, the individual identified here has taken no action to become a candidate.
[url]http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?P00003392[/url]
2004-04-23 19:51 | User Profile
Ashcroft attacks
Ashcroft accused Jamie Gorelick erected the "wall" between the FBI and the CIA that kept them from sharing intelligence and possibly from doing more to prevent the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. That because FBI feared to touch that wall, so they hadn't applied a permission to search suspect Zacarias Moussaoui's computer, so they lost chance to stop 911 attack in advance.
This is a typical blackmail.
FBI have two ways to apply a search warranty from Judge. One is by FISA,(Foreign Intelligence Spy Act) which is in a very low standard and easy to get. The other way is by criminal law court which is in high standard because Americans are protected by 4th amendment from unreasonable search and arrest.
When Ashcroft said there is a wall to block sharing information between FISA and criminal investigation, he is demanding a big police power expanding which makes 4th amendment mean nothing. He then can search and arrest American citizen at his will, only out of suspicion(FISA standard is low) while we are now still protected by criminal law from being unreasonable search and arrest. (must based on evidence)
Ashcroft use Moussaoui's case as a foundation, said because FBI feared to touch the wall of criminal law so they didn't investigate Moussaoui's computer. It's hypocrite and is a misleading. We don't have to be a professional like A.G. or FBI to know that Moussaoui is a foreigner and fits for FISA. Why FBI hadn't apply FISA(obviously an easy one) but consider domestic criminal law? And they even didn't apply? It is imcompetance, a mistake, or a deliberate negligence? Many informations revealed that government knew 911 attack in advance, it was allowed to happen. Because they are benefit from it.
What Ashcroft wants is to give FBI more police power to search and arrest people. He wants to low the standard of criminal law. That's a blackmail in the name of "war on terrorism".
BTW, there is a deep meaning of "erect the wall of sharing information" . In fact, intelligence share the information already. The real meaning is they can't use that information to apply a search warrent. The wall prevent they use FISA standard on domestic criminal case.
Theoretically, FBI can't spy a citizen unless they have evidence the man committed crime. When this "sharing information wall" is broken, now they can search a citizen covertly only on suspicion. Because FISA standard is low.
This is the real purpose of Ashcroft. And he claimed "Patriot Act" gave him such priviledge. The fact is, under "Patriot Act", Bush and Ashcroft expand their fascist police power. American people are losing the protect from "unreasonable search and arrest" of 4th amendment.
Government and media never tell people about this. You are losing your constitutional right.
2004-04-25 00:02 | User Profile
That whole wall thing is typical Bush BS. They had 8 months to take down that wall, as it was not law and was only a memo. That "wall" made no difference when the FBI decided to ignore its field personnel. The main problems that lead to 9/11 was irresponsible immigration policies and incompetent or career politicians...still the main problem. But, the slave labor lovers don't want to talk about securing our borders. Condi Rice told the truth when she said the Bush admin ignored it until there was a disaster.
2004-04-25 02:39 | User Profile
...you'll be right even if he wins.
I'm just not sure what the Jews want...more Bush the Smirking Monkey or one of their own at the helm. He's doing such a good job for Israel that John Kohn is hardly necessary.
2004-04-25 06:03 | User Profile
Diebold is a contributor to the Bush campaign and Republicunts in general. THey also manufacture computerized tolling stations that are used ( and will be used in hundreds more ) American areas this year. I used to vote by switch, pull the lever.. last election it was scanning card.. they want to make it touch-screen. Do you have any idea how these programs can be hacked ? Results can be modified as EASILY as American Idol. You want Total Recall the movie ? Its here.. and its happenning in YOUR LIFETIME in FRONT OF YOUR FACE and you cannot do ANYTHING about it. How does it feel to be HOPELESS ??
2004-04-25 23:02 | User Profile
I won't bet, but I believe less people will be voting for the two parties this fall, than ever before in U.S. history. I will vote for my dog, before the NWO choices..
2004-05-03 21:02 | User Profile
Media deception (5/3)
How media issued polls to manipulate the sentiment of American people?
To block Howard Dean to become a real rival to Bush, inside group has thrown out Wesley Clark and John Kerry one after another. To help these puppets to win over Dean in Democrate's primary, CNN-USA Today Gallop in early October, 2003, had a poll (49% vs 46%) said Clark was the only one who could beat Bush. Then in January, it gave a similar poll said Kerry was the only one who could beat Bush.
And it's interesting to reveiew other media's poll at that time when they tried to justify Kerry's victory over Dean.
Re: "Kerry's standing has strengthened not only against his Democratic rivals but also against Bush. For the first time, he clearly defeats the president in a head-to-head matchup, 53% to 46%. By 63% to 24%, those surveyed say Kerry would be a good president.(USA TODAY, 2/2/2004)
Re: 52 Percent of Voters Don't Want to See Bush Re-Elected (44% Do), 37 Percent Strongly Want to See Him Re-Elected, 47 Percent Strongly Do Not. (Newsweek Poll , Saturday January 24,)
Now watch the dramatic change of the poll. They were done after Howard Dean was pulled down from Demo's primary.
Fox’s Last-night poll says: "45% Bush to 45% Kerry" (2/21)
Rasmussen Reports Presidential Tracking Poll shows George W. Bush attracting 47% of the nation's likely voters while John F. Kerry is the choice for 45%. (2/21)
Same USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll said in April that "The survey, taken Friday through Sunday, shows Bush ahead 50% to 44% among likely voters......The president's job-approval rating was steady at 52%."
What happened from February to April which boost Bush's approve rate?
Paul O'Neill, Richard A. Clarke, WOODWARD revealed Bush from the beginning decided to invade Iraq. WMD, "democracy" is only an excuse.
The insurgence of Fallujah, and insurgence of Shiite revealed Bush's "war on Iraq" is becoming a quagmire for US.
All these proved Bush is a dishonest man, an incompetent president. Yet all these nagative things boost his rate. Please tell me I may missed something Bush did good in this period. Otherwise review what media said and polled and to see how inside group control the mind of American people.
They control US by media and intelligence. They justify rigged election (through intelligence) by fake poll (media). They even turn negative things into positive. To maintain the approve rate of a patsy president always around 50%. Despite how notorious he is. All to make sure they will have him a second term.
2004-05-03 21:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Exelsis_Deo] How does it feel to be HOPELESS ??[/QUOTE] I wouldn't know. They can't steal or kill a person's soul without permission. Another word for hopelessness...surrender.
2004-05-03 22:51 | User Profile
It is amazing that Bush is doing so poorly. He was handed an incumbant President's election dream--a major terrorist attack on the US. He wisely attack Afghanistan, realizing this would make him wildly popular. He perhaps also wisely (in terms of election results) aimed to attack Iraq, realizing he might distract the American people from issues favoring the rest. But then what does he do? 1. Make numerous false claims about weapons of mass destruction, and make these the centerpiece of his 'pitch,' along with equally unsustainable claims about spreading democracy. 2. Gives pork to seniors that even they aren't happy with. 3. Propose amnesty for illegal aliens and open borders 4. Throws in a trip to Mars with $500 billion deficits, massive trade imbalances, troops stretched razor thin, and the dollar sliding.
Imagine if instead Bush had claimed that we were invading Iraq as part of an overall effort to destroy potential havens for Muslim terrorists; that he had proposed cuts in welfare spending on the grounds that we needed more money for 'security'; and backed massive cuts in immigration for 'security' reasons, and in 'growing recognition' of the need for 'stability.'
The man would have been easily elected.
As it is, Kerry could clean up on him with one hand tied behind his back if he would just stop talking about Vietnam, and sticking day-after-day to claiming that Iraq is a debacle. But, nay, he'd rather give Bush another chance. Maybe he feels bad for the guy, after W. blew his easy election.
2004-05-04 03:27 | User Profile
They won't be able to steal your soul, Old Right, but they will steal your childrens souls. This is how sick fact is. This is how it was in Biblical Times . Times 10 in our eyes.. because sorcery is now technology. Satan has been ripening this seed for 300 years. To make us believe we have the insight, the abillity, the birthright to be God !!! TO BE GOD !!!!!!!!!!! sound familiar ?? a 400 year old spell imprisoning all of us in this society, chained to the mechanizations of fake paper money and false man made laws. No wonder He is the King of This World. God Damn Him.
2004-05-04 14:47 | User Profile
My 2cents says that Bush will be elected because Kerry does not have widespread American appeal. I remember how in the 96 election everyone KNEW that Clinton would not be reelected after all the scandals of his first 4 years. But the Repubs pissed it all away by nominating Dole. Dole had no appeal for most people. The Demos are screwing up the same way this time out. If they'd put Zell Miller or some Southern Democrat (if there are any left) then they'd probably win.
Again, my prediction is that Bush wins, even though I'm not happy about it.
2004-05-04 15:54 | User Profile
I agree that at present, Bush will win by default. However, it is possible that the Kerry campaign is using a 'building up' approach, first trying to get voters to have nice thoughts about Kerry's solidiering and family, with more substantive, get-out-the-vote message of 'The war has been mishandled, the deficit is out of control' coming in strong later. And, yes, a good VP candidate would help a lot. I am not sure if the South is really winnable for Kerry, but I also don't think Bush can win without some the key 'battleground' Northern states.
2004-05-25 20:31 | User Profile
Strange logic. Do you mean Americans vote on personal appeareance? Not on their policy and political opinion? Do you mean people would rather to have a dishonest leader whom misled them into an unnecessary war than to have a man of not "appeal"? What make Bush appeal? Then just say it is a beauty champion race.
2004-05-25 21:30 | User Profile
This election will not be a choice, it will be a dilemna. Which of these rats is less unbearable? Kerry may have an advantage in that he can at least form a sentence in coherent English.
2004-06-05 18:22 | User Profile
Yes, I agree it's a dilemma. They give you an election with little choice.
Censorship and Liberal media (6/3)
A news in internet in August 2002:
"The crowd was standing at the barricades and the police had called a state of emergency. Pepper spray was used on group early on. Batons were used on some people. Group included babies in strollers and older people, also people in wheelchairs. Those that could get out of the way were cut off surrounded by police. There are snipers on the roofs. Police have opened fire on protesters with rubberbullets, pepper spray and gas. The crowds of people are moving around and regrouping. " [url]http://portland.indymedia.org:8081/front.php3?article_id=17241&group=webcast[/url]
It seemed a scene taking place in totalitarian country. But it was in Portland, citizens protested Bush's war policy and were surpressed. If it happened in Moscow, Beijing, you could see big title and pictures as first hand news in media. But this time, there was no report from media. I learned it from internet. There is a strong censorship on anti-war news. Inside group needed war. Media coordinated. They created a feeling that most of people were pro-war.
If Michael Moore is not a famous film director, his "Fahrenheit 9/11" wouldn't be known by public. If his film haven't been awarded the top prize at the Cannes Film Festival, it may still have been blocked from distributing. So far American people still have no chance to watch it. Is Disney a media, or rather a tool of inside group? All this happened in US, famous for its "Bill of Right". The free speech has to struggle for its existence against invisible censorship. What kind of "freedom" Bush can bring to Iraqis? You imagine.
"Patriot Act" seriously erodes civil liberty. More than hundred towns, cities, even states passed resolution condemning it. As "liberal" media, it should be a big issue to be discussed, criticized. Have you often heard of it? Rarely. Abandon the title of "liberal", even if media dare not to comment at this topic, as "media", should they do some very basic thing to report it? Yet, they failed in their professional duty. New York joined the long list of cities to condemn Patriot Act recently. A sponsor said, "The Patriot Act is really unpatriotic, it undermines our civil rights and civil liberties," Because New York was the victim of 9/11 attack, and Patriot Act was a result of that attack, the resolution of New York is significant. Yet, the news is censored by most media. I learned it only from a message from internet.
Quote, "UnderReported.com
.....Queries on news.google.com yield no results for CNN. Two queries for the New York Times yield no relevant results, and I was unable to find an article by searching on the nytimes.com website itself. Did this amazing story really go unreported in the city's own New York Times
Pete_undercover
[Post# 463683 ]
Though there are "Demo" paty and "Rep" party, "liberal" media and "conservative" media, It's only a cover up. Once it touches the interest of inside group, there is no Democracy and liberal. All principle and opinion are given up. Media and politicians, are only tools of inside group.
2004-06-07 16:13 | User Profile
Although I am convinced that Bush doesn't stand a chance, I hasten to add that he will not lose for want of my vote (not that it makes much difference anyway. I live in NJ where democrats outnumber thinking people by about 10 to 1). Bush has been a terrible disappointment and I would love to see him replaced by a Conservative, but that isn't going to happen. Therefore, considering that the alternative is ten times worse, the only thing left to do is hold your nose and pull the Republican lever.
2004-06-07 17:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=OPERA96]Although I am convinced that Bush doesn't stand a chance, I hasten to add that he will not lose for want of my vote (not that it makes much difference anyway. I live in NJ where democrats outnumber thinking people by about 10 to 1). Bush has been a terrible disappointment and I would love to see him replaced by a Conservative, but that isn't going to happen. Therefore, considering that the alternative is ten times worse, the only thing left to do is hold your nose and pull the Republican lever.[/QUOTE] In what way is the alternative ten times worse? They are virtually indistinguishable.
2004-06-07 19:32 | User Profile
Kerry is to the left of Teddy Kennedy and has character problems that would make Slick Willy look like the living definition of virtue. Bush is less likely to use self serving whoppers to push a Marxist agenda (alhough as a politician, I have no doubt that he is not incapable of it) or dismantle our national defenses and intelligence capabilities ala Clinton. This is not to imply that I think of Bush as a Marxist. Besides, Kerry is a Democrat and I have never known of a Democrat president who was anything short of a disaster. Including "Uncle Joe" Stalins good buddy, FDR.
2004-06-07 19:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=OPERA96]Kerry is to the left of Teddy Kennedy and has character problems that would make Slick Willy look like the living definition of virtue. Bush is less likely to use self serving whoppers to push a Marxist agenda (alhough as a politician, I have no doubt that he is not incapable of it) or dismantle our national defenses and intelligence capabilities ala Clinton.
Bush is pretty far left himself. Witness the explosion in spending, the endless pandering to minorities, the illegal alien amnesty proposal, the unwillingness to address homosexual "marriage" or abortion head-on, and the "Islam is Peace" mantra. Bush has also shown himself entirely willing to use self-serving whoppers to push an Israel-first agenda. *[QUOTE=OPERA96]This is not to imply that I think of Bush as a Marxist***.
I do. His belief in the New World Order and radical egalitarianism qualify him as such.
[QUOTE=OPERA96]Besides, Kerry is a Democrat and I have never known of a Democrat president who was anything short of a disaster. Including "Uncle Joe" Stalins good buddy, FDR.[/QUOTE] True, but all the Republican ones have been disasters, as well.
2004-06-08 12:55 | User Profile
Please do not place me in the role of a Bush defender. As I have already stated, he has been a terrible disappointment and the only thing he has going for him in my opinion, is that he isn't Kerry. As concerns Republican presidents, how can you possibly place Nixon, Ford, Reagan and 41 in the same category as the likes of Johnson, Carter and Clinton? To attempt to compare them as equals is an exercise in absurdity.
2004-06-08 13:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=OPERA96] As concerns Republican presidents, how can you possibly place Nixon, Ford, Reagan and 41 in the same category as the likes of Johnson, Carter and Clinton? To attempt to compare them as equals is an exercise in absurdity.[/QUOTE] Reagan was the best of that bunch, easily. That said, under every single one of those presidents, our government has grown, our liberties have decreased, our religion has been marginalized, and our culture has been destroyed. And none of them did anything about it. Tax cuts are great, but they don't make someone a saint. Both parties are merely players in the same charade.
2004-06-20 05:53 | User Profile
It was nice to read about the Portland incident. I don't usually identify with left-wingers, but I respect the courage of those guys against the dictatorial-type police. I read the comments on the indymedia site and the comments indicated that leftists, as well as CI and militia types as well were courageous enough to tell the neocons to go to hell. Protests are a great way of showing public disapproval to the government, even if they end dramatically. I have a feeling that under a police state (and the Patriot Act), more and more violent protests will occur.
2004-08-02 19:20 | User Profile
The two parties campaign are only a hoax drama. In the name of "democracy" it attracts people to watch and join the competition. But the candidate and result are all designated in advance. Innocent people are busy to campaign, to debate, to vote. They don't know they work in vain.
The interest of inside group is for more war in Mid-east. Bush is an obedient horse to his master. That's why he was selected to be president in 2000. That's why O'nelle observed Bush determined to start Iraq war in early 2001. To ensure Bush having a second term, in 2002, they forced Gore to abandon the 2004 election. When there is a black horse cropped up,(Howard Dean rose with anti-war idea) who drew support from public, inside group push out Wesley Clark to block him. When Clark failed in competition, with no convincible reason they pull down Dean by Kerry. So Bush does not have to worry about his rivalry. What Demo has is an incompetant candidate. They also bought an insurance by embedding a hard core follower to be vice president candidate(Edwards). In case unpopular Bush is too weak to win the campaign.
The media blow the trumpet on former president Clinton. Because he openly supported Bush's war policy. He was bribed 10 millions by his new published book. The high ranking Democratics tone down critics on Bush. They are following the instruction of their master. Bush did nothing good but started an unjust war. Bashing him is no difference to bash the war. That's against the will of inside group. So you see a humble Demo, dare not to touch their rival even in their biggest mass pledge.
DNC: Don’t bash Bush: Kerry wants Dems to tone down criticism By David R. Guarino and Andrew Miga Monday, July 26, 2004
Democrats are scrambling to tamp down former Vice President Al Gore and firebrand Howard Dean before they step to the convention podium, worried they may embarrass John Kerry with red-meat anger and excessive Bush bashing.
The Democratic National Convention and Kerry campaign staffs are working feverishly to rewrite, polish and tone down speeches submitted in advance of today's convention opening bell.
[url]http://news.bostonherald.com/beta/cookiePop.bg[/url]
2004-08-02 19:39 | User Profile
The Bush presidency has been a stupefying disaster for America and the world. It all comes down to 9/11 and what you really believe about that "attack". If you believe the government either knew about it before or actually helped perpetrate it, then you will certainly dismiss Bush come November.
The lies of the Bush Administration have been astounding when the "debate" for the Iraq War was happening. People forget the demented lies of only 1.5 years ago. They repeat the lies to this day, hoping that their lies become "truth".
Bush has divided the country (and world) and made any dissent of his actions equivalent to "aiding the terra-ists" and being "anti-American". Even a "hyperpower" like the USA cannot and never will succeed without the support of many other countries and a majority of it's own citizens.
What I'm saying is what difference does it make if you do vote for Kerry?? At the very least, we'll have the temporary pleasure of seeing Bush deposed from office in disgrace.
I'd say that voting for Kerry now prevents President Hillary Clinton in 2008. Don't vote for Bush.
2004-08-02 20:54 | User Profile
"Why Bush Won't Be Re-Elected "
Because the Jewish controlled media doesn't want him to, and, like sheep, we follow. :whstl:
2004-08-12 22:29 | User Profile
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."
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
[url]http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm[/url]
2004-08-12 23:41 | User Profile
kathaksung,
This election is going to be a mess!
2004-08-13 00:10 | User Profile
Can anyone tell me why every president to be are always kissing up to the Jews in order to be elected????????? I mean, the Jews are supposed to be only 2.6% of the US population.
Does that means that if someone dosen't get t he 2.6% of the Jewish votes they will loose the chair in the White House???????
Tell me that the friking Jews don't dontrol the White House and I'll call you a liar,,,,,,,,,,,,WAKE UP AMERICA.
2004-08-22 21:21 | User Profile
The following message may tell you something who control US politicians.
From McGreevy gay affair to Lewinsky scandal
N.J. Governor McGreevey resigned to his gay aid scandal. His aid Golan Cipel came from Israel. According to McGreevey, that he was blackmailed 5 million dollars by Cipel for the gay affair scandal. The whole thing is resembled to other two events. Lewinsky scandal and Chandra Levy's death event.
There are some common points in these three cases.
All three men involved were important Democratic politicians. Clinton was US president; McGreevey is N.J. Governor; Gary Condit was Congressman, a member of intelligence committe.
All politicians were drawn into sex scandal. They were humiliated, lost or almost lost their posts.
Their sex partners were either aid or interns. A job close to politicians and influence them a lot.
Their sex partners are all jewish ethnic. Either from Israel or from a jewish family. (correct me if I am wrong. )
Are these three the only cases there in US politics circle? I don't think so. It's only the iceberg we can see above the sea. In underneath there are much more.
It seemed Israel try to recruit those aids and interns to influence US politics by control US politicians. The phenomenon is evident. Iraq war is for the interest of Israel. US soldiers fight and die for the security of Israel. All these pro-Israel policy were probably created under influence of these aids and interns, and pro-Israel politicians as well.
2004-09-01 20:56 | User Profile
What good is Bush?
e.g. "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
2, He has no common knowledge. He doesn't know the money of Russia and Iraq.
Bush speaks of 'Soviet dinar' in speech about Iraq
Wed Aug 18, 8:28 PM ET HUDSON, United States (AFP) - US President George W. Bush spoke of "the Soviet dinar," even though dinars are the Iraqi currency.
[url]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040819/pl_afp/us_vote_bush_dinar&cid=1521&ncid=1963&sid=96378801[/url]
He had no ability to handle and foresee the development of a big event. He said "(Iraq war) Mission is accomplished". We know it is not.
He is dumb to react an emergence. He had no reaction to a big attack(When WTC was bombed) for 7 minutes.
To react properly in above events is not difficult for most people. How can be in such a great country like US, we have no better selection but an incompetent Bush?
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.
2004-09-13 00:22 | User Profile
Unpopular Bush (Bush 2)
Even before Iraq war, the world viewed him a villain already. It was from report of his own State department.
Quote,"Many see Bush as villain, US embassies report by Glenn Kessler and Mike Allen Washington Post Washington - the messages from US embassies around the globe have become urgent and disturbing: Many people in the world increasingly think President Bush is a greater threat to world peace than Iraq President Saddam Hussein....." (S.J.M.N. 2/24/03)
[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55326-2003Feb23.html[/url]
Now many viewed him as war criminal. In Belgium, Bush and Blair had been filed with lawsuit of war crimes. They were banned to Church of Nativity. Bush also had been indicted for war crimes by a group of Japanese lawyers. Of course, you can never see this kind of news from US mainstream media. Inside group very carefully protect their puppet.
When Bush visited London last November, he met with a large protest from people which turned a state visit to a public humiliation. To save Bush's fame, D.O.J. at the same time threw out Michael Jackson's molesting case to distract.
What about American people? The biggest protest ever to Republican Convention in New York this September says all.
Early this year, more than 60 leading scientists-including Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors and university presidents-issued a statement to protest Bush's scientific policies.
In March, a US business group that monitors federal spending took out a full-page advert in The New York Times, likening President George W. Bush to a corrupt chief executive officer who has forfeited public trust
In May, some 50 retired US diplomats wrote a letter to Bush urging him to reverse the Mid-east policy.
Professionals, from their own angle, protest Bush's policy. Bush is notorious, either in domestic or abroad.
Even Bush's closest ally Tony Blair keeps distance from him.
Quote, "LONDON (AFP) - British Prime Minister Tony Blair is refusing to fly to the United States to receive a medal bestowed on him by the nation for his support over last year's Iraq war, a London newspaper has reported. US President George W. Bush has put huge pressure on his closest ally to pick up the medal in person, which was awarded over a year ago, the Sunday Mirror said, quoting a senior British government source.
[url]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1538&e=10&u=/afp/britain_us_iraq[/url]
Yet, from time to time, name brand media such like CNN, ABC, USA Today, Gallop issued poll result that Bush steadily has the approve rate around 50% and often leads over his Demo rival. What is the base of it?
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.
2004-09-22 23:08 | User Profile
Bush boasted his tax cut policy. But since his three years of tax cut, the economy in consecutive years goes worse.
Bush government manipulate numbers to cheat people. Said economy is improved. Let's see some absolute numbers:
Total Nonfarm Payrolls (thous.) Bureau of Labor Statistics Establishment Survey
period ........start......end......Jobs created ..%chng....President 61 - 64....53,681... 59,583....5,902....... 11.15%...JFK/Johnson 65 - 68....59,583... 69,438 ...9,855....... 16.54% ....Johnson 69 - 72....69,438 ...75,620....6,182 .........8.90%....Nixon 73 - 76....75,620.. .80,692....5,072 .........6.71%....Nixon/Ford 77 - 80....80,692 ...91,100 ...10,408 .......5.77% ....Reagan I 85 - 88....96,353 ..107,132 ..10,779 ......11.19%.... Reagan II 89 - 92...107,132 ..109,725 ...2,593 .......2.42%...Bush, GHW 93 - 96 ..109,725 ..121,232 ..11,507 .....10.49% ....Clinton I 97 - 00...121,232..132,436....11,204 .......9.24% ....Clinton II 01 - 03 ..132,436 .130,124 ..-2,312 .......-1.75%.... Bush, GW
[url]http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/PAYEMS.txt[/url]
I.R.S. Says Americans' Income Shrank for 2 Consecutive Years By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON
Adjusted for inflation, the income of all Americans fell 9.2 percent from 2000 to 2002, according to the new I.R.S. data.
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/29/business/29tax.html?position=&ei=5006&en=26b81d34ef09dc4e&ex=1091678400&adxnnl=1&partner=ALTAVISTA1&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1091106523-u3RTWXhX2RoUhGrVOfclPA[/url]
More Americans Uninsured, Living in Poverty Census Data Shows Third Straight Annual Increase in Both Categories By GENARO C. ARMAS, AP
WASHINGTON (Aug. 26) - The number of Americans living in poverty increased by 1.3 million last year, while the ranks of the uninsured swelled by 1.4 million, the Census Bureau reported Thursday..... It was the third straight annual increase for both categories. ...Approximately 35.8 million people lived below the poverty line in 2003,
[url]http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20040826103709990008[/url]
Yet media (So said crdible media poll like CNN, Gallop, ABC...) always matains Bush's rate around 50%. Said Bush leads over Kerry 11%. And news in internet said in electorade vote, Bush will have a landslide victory. Do you believe it? Do American people would rather vote for a president who proved bad?
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.
2004-10-02 20:17 | User Profile
Dark future (Bush 4)
Bush blows trumpet that he cut tax for you. It's only a trick to wangle votes. When he disguised as a Santa Clause to give you a tax cut cheque, at same time he quitely put a debt bill into that sock too.
He had cut tax for three years. The federal dificit went up for three years at a record high. It will hit a historical 422 billion dollars this year in adition to 375 billion of last year. The national dificit will be 2.2 trillion in next decade. If the tax cut goes on, then it will double to 4.4 trillion.
To fill the hole of that dificit, government have to borrow from financial market which will cause the rising of interest rate. As a result, it will leads to the break out of two bubbles: housing market and stock market.
The federal benchmark interest rate stays below 2% for three years since 2001. It creates a big credit bubble. Personal debt increased, as well as national debt. The interest rate now is going up. Federal reserve bank has raised the rate three times in recent months. The rate is still below 2%. There is still a long road to go to the reasonable rate level. Meanwhile, housing market bubble and stock market bubble will break out at any time.
That's what we will face: a long time stagnant economy. And with great possibility, a big economy downturn when the two big credit bubbles exploded.
Bush dramatically increased national dificit. And allowed two big economic bubbles created which endangered financial market. We will have a very dark future. Main stream media rarely tell people about this. They keep issue the poll to maintain Bush's approve rate at around 50% and say he is steadily lead over Kerry at 8 %. Do people really not care about their pocket? Do they really support a president who bring them a bad economy?
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.
2004-10-12 19:18 | User Profile
Dirty tactic (Bush 5)
Lie, cheating, intimidation, revenge, propaganda.... that's dirty tactics Bush done to stay in presidency.
Of course, the biggest lie is the WMD Bush used to mislead US to the war of Iraq. From the book of former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, former counter terrorism adviser Richard Clark, Bob Woodward, Joseph Wilson we know from beginning Bush determined to have a war with Iraq. WMD was only an excuse. When Wilson revealed it, he was punished. Someone leaked the ID of his wife that she was a CIA agent.
Now WMD lie is broken off. Bush changes the tone, said it was for freedom, world becomes safer. Does world becomes safer? Iraq war may created more terrorists for the world. Do Iraq people feel safer? Since Bush invaded Iraq, tens of thousand of innocent Iraqi civilians died. Bush dares not to declare the casualty of civilians. The reality is US replaces Saddam to be the biggest threat to Iraqi people. The killing is going on.
According to Bush's propaganda, Hitler may become a hero. The tactic Hitler used is followed by Bush. Hitler started his pre-emptive war targeted at Communist Russian. If Bush's justification stands, Hitler would have more reason to say his war was a right one that his purpose was to eliminate evil Stalin and made world safer. To start a slaughter (war) based on personal belief, or exactly, for the interest of a little group. Bush is no other than Hitler. He is a war criminal.
Another lie was a report given to people this April that terrorist attack worldwide had declined 45% since 2001, dropping to its lowest level in 34 years. Deputy Secretary of State Armitage said it offered "clear evidence " that Bush administration was prevailing in the fight against global terrorism. Later it was proved wrong, because in fact, in 2003, terror attack had risen significantly. News said it was the first time State Department had to rewrite it significantly since they were ordered to issue report 15 years ago. Is it just a mistake? No, April was the month of insurgence of Al Fallujah, as well as the Shiite insurgence in south. Bush's lie -"Iraqis welcome US libration" was broken. To save his fame, they issued another lie to cover up the broken lie.
To smear his rival, Bush camp push out a "Swift boat veteran team". With which it turned a Vietnam war veteran into a lier, coward. The result is you may doubt something wrong with the reward system of US Army(or Navy). How could Army gave a coward medal one after another? Because they foresaw Kerry would be US president candidate? Or simply US Army is a blinder? Or these Vietnam heroes were actually all cowards? But whatever the media said, there is one thing I know clearly, that is, Bush at that time, escaped Vietnam war duty. With his family relationship, he went to National guard to avoid to go to a dangerous war field - Vietnam. Who is coward?
Yet, they made a Vietnam war veteran with 5 medals a coward, a lier. And made a real coward, lier, a Vietnam war deserter a "decisive leader". They can even turn "job lost" into positive. (They said it's good in long term to US to offshore job to overseas.) And invent something new such like "jobless recovery" to cover up a bad economy. This is how brand name media such like ABC, CNN, USA Today, Gallup...., under the direct of inside group, to turn white into black. Reversing the truth. Change negative into positive. They maintain a notorious, incompetent, dishonest president a 50% approve rate, and leads over his challenger with reluctant reason. The poll number are from their own mouth and can never proved by independent organization. Do you believe it?
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.
2004-10-22 19:58 | User Profile
Beware of another terror attack (9/29)
In recent months, Feds continually issued terror warning. The so said "terror attack", I alleged in previous messages, is planned by insiders of US government. D.O.J. use this as distraction of a framed case. Another purpose is to help Bush in November election. 10 days ago, they let out such a plan:
Quote, "FBI's Anti-Terror 'October Plan'
WASHINGTON, Sept. 17, 2004 (CBS) Convinced that al Qaeda is still determined to disrupt the U.S. fall elections by an attack on the homeland, FBI officials here are preparing a massive counter-offensive of interrogations, surveillance and possible detentions they hope will disrupt the terrorist plans, reports CBS News Correspondent Jim Stewart.
FBI field offices and Homeland Security agencies will be advised of "extraordinary measures" that will go into place "beginning the first week of October through the elections."
Specifically, the plan calls for "aggressive - even obvious - surveillance" techniques to be used on a short list of people suspected of being terrorist sympathizers, but who have not committed a crime. Other "persons of interest," including their family members, may also be brought in for questioning, one source said.
[url]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/17/eveningnews/main644096.shtml[/url]
Is Al Qaida a voter for Demo, or GOP? The bombing attack will help whom? Kerry or Bush? Which party is the favorable of terrorist? Can you tell me? I think even FBI is not able to answer this question. Yet from time to time they issued warning that Al Qaida will attack to influence the election. Bombing to help whom? Bush? His approve rate was low after he was selected to be president after controversial Florida election. 911 attack raised his approve rate dramatically. With which he started two Mid-east war.
So who has the eagerness to have a terror attack to influence this election? Will Al Qaida benefit from any new elected president? Or the interest group which can be benefit by getting more money and power and approve rate? One thing I'm sure is that D.O.J. is a beneficiary from terror attack. Right after 911 bombing, "Patriot Act" was passed to expand more police power for them. Civil liberty is seriously eroded. People are under vast electronic surveillance. What is "persons of interest"? Consider Ashcroft define his critics as "unpatriotic", "aiding enemy", see if you agree with Patriot Act? Oppose Iraq war? Or a Bush basher?
I think the October plan of FBI is just a continuation of the constant "terror warnings" which designated to help Bush's re-election, and is part of persecution on me. Beware of another "terror attack".
2004-11-01 22:22 | User Profile
Three months ago, I posted a message "Al Qaida", said that Bin Laden would issue tape when Bush needed. The prediction is awfully accurate. News of 10/29 said in a tape Bin Laden admitted he ordered 911 attack.
Quote, "Al-Jazeera Airs Videotape by Bin Laden
Oct 29, 4:45 PM (ET) CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - Osama bin Laden, reading a statement to the American people in a new videotape aired Friday, directly admitted for the first time that he ordered the Sept. 11 attacks and said "the best way to avoid another Manhattan" was to stop threatening Muslims' security.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041029/D861ANVO2.html
See the message I posted 3 months ago, notice the bold text:
Al Qaida: Bush's aid
Is that too conveinent to attribute everything to Al Qaida? Bali bombing in Indonesia, it's Al Qaida; Madrid bombing, it's Al Qaida; Nick Berg beheading, it's Al Qaida; Paul Johnson beheading, it's Al Qaida; Korean beheading; it's.....
Saddam and his high ranking officials were arrested or eliminated in their own land, show me Bin Laden or Al Zarqawi which does so much damage everywhere. But how can they survived in a land not theirs? (Bin Laden is not Afghanist, Zarqawi is not Iraqi) It only exists in media, in government propaganda, they use beheading case to wave people's indignation against Islamic people.
Who is Bin Laden? He was trained by CIA as "Freedom fighter", (now there is another name "terrorist") What he did always helped Bush to grasp more power and money and start war. [B]When Bush needs something to raise his rate, Bin Laden would issue a tape on time to remind you he is still there that you need a leader in "war on terror". That's why he exists in media and government propaganda and never be captured. [/B]
Now they created another "Al Zarqawi" of Iraq. He played the same role of Bin Laden. He will arouse your hostility against Mid-east people and give Bush an excuse to stay in Iraq, prepare for more Mid- east war. That's the role of Al Qaida.
So next time when you ask "How can a rogue like Bush can stay in his second term?". The answer is "It's Al Qaida". This time the reply is correct and true. Only this Al Qaida is created by Bush himself and acted on Bush's behalf.
[url]http://www.indystar.com/forums/show...3651#post983651[/url] [url]http://www.indystar.com/forums/showthread.php?p=983651[/url]
2004-11-12 21:22 | User Profile
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.
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.
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.
2004-11-22 23:20 | User Profile
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
[url]http://ustogether.org/election04/FloridaDataStats.htm[/url]
[url]www.rubberbug.com/temp/Florida2004chart.htm[/url].
[url]http://www.nomorefakenews.com/[/url]
[url]http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1106-30.htm[/url]
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,"
[url]http://www.tompaine.com/articles/an_election_spoiled_rotten.php[/url]
[url]http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/research/electoral_reform/residual_ballot.php[/url]
2004-12-02 22:30 | User Profile
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 spread. 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 loyal puppet. That was probably why he was chosen again in election 2004.
2004-12-03 03:30 | User Profile
kathaksung,
You are most Right, Bushie is running America into the ground!
2004-12-12 23:09 | User Profile
Thanks, Faust.
Ohio 2004 plays the same role of Florida 2000
Bush was elected not by people but inside group (4) (12/7)
Tasted the sweet of advantage of a pending competition, Inside group established another one in election 2004. It is in Ohio.
The media created a situation that the country was divided by red and blue. And the result of election depended on a few undecided states. It was a psychological gimmick. They manipulate the public to focus on a few states but neglect the others. Did the nation real vote red and blue as they said? Not necessarily. It only made the rigging work easier for Feds. It made covert job easier in fixed states because people believe it was colored by red and blue already. Feds could concentrate their resource in the key state.
The key state was Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004. Feds created a situation that the output of the key state decided the result of US election.
This year people found serious election fraud in Florida and Ohio. Florida was the key state in 2000, but not the planned one this year. The manipulation would be too obvious if Feds set the same state in controversial focus for consecutive two elections.
It was because people were alarmed by election 2000 so they had a tight observation on Florida. They found unusual phenomenon. But the suspicion was eliminated quickly by Feds. Florida is not in their plan this year. It is Ohio.
Then we can see vote controversy in Ohio. Media reported vote challenges in Ohio continue. Jassie Jackson; third party candidates, Democrats.... request a re-count. All these build up a pressure on Bush. It is a warning to him, "if you do not obey, then anytime we can overturn the result of election."
What is the ransom D.O.J. wants this time? Likely the control of the whole intelligence force of USA. D.O.J. not only control FBI, DEA, they want to control CIA too. And with it the fat budget of military intelligence.
The bill of re-organization of intelligence has been blocked in House. Bush worked hard, even pushed his GOP colleagues to pass it. Once it is passed, Americans will face a terrible intelligence monster. And you can expect the freedom and civil right are threatened.
Feds build up a pending case in election. (Though Ohio is more covert one than Florida of 2000) At the purpose to squeeze most from candidate. Americans are naive to think they have a democratic system. Their mind, as well as the election, are manipulated by Inside Group through media and intelligence.
2004-12-13 00:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=kathaksung]Ohio 2004 plays the same role of Florida 2000
Bush was elected not by people but inside group (4) (12/7) [/QUOTE]
Unless you have something substantive, can we give the FUD a break? Every major polling service showed Bush in th lead. Bush won Ohio by roughly 150,000 votes. It wasn't close like Florida four years previous.. Even in Florida, I've seen no evidence, but plenty of lies, of Republican crimes.
Most Americans think Bush told the truth about Saddam his alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction. Most Americans think Saddam played a roll in the 9/11 attack. Most Americans think Bush is the man to be president.
2004-12-22 22:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Unless you have something substantive, can we give the FUD a break? Every major polling service showed Bush in th lead. Bush won Ohio by roughly 150,000 votes. It wasn't close like Florida four years previous.. Even in Florida, I've seen no evidence, but plenty of lies, of Republican crimes.
Most Americans think Bush told the truth about Saddam his alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction. Most Americans think Saddam played a roll in the 9/11 attack. Most Americans think Bush is the man to be president.[/QUOTE]
It looks like you haven't read my messages posted previously. I never believe so said brand name media and their polls. It's a tool to manipulate public's mind. Go to read #26 "Manipulate election and poll" in this thread.
What is substantial material? Was it substantial information with whcih Bush started Iraq war? And you still want us to believe "WMD"? The "Most Americans think" is only a propaganda method used by brand name media and from the mouth of you.
Cover up rigging election (12/17) Bush was elected not by people but inside group (5)
On 11/28 there was an article in San Jose Mercury News to justify the Florida 2004 election.
"New vote count confirms Bush's north Florida win"
"How did the Republicans win so heavily in counties stocked with Democrats?
Last week, the Miami Herald went to see for itself whether Bush's steamroll through north Florida was legitimate. Picking three counties that fit the conspiracy-theory profile - staunchly Democratic by registration, whoppingly GOP by voting - two reporters counted more than 17,000 ballots over three days.
The conclusion: No conspiracy."
The whole story is like this. Teacher accused student cheating in final exam that he copied the answer from the book. A judge was assigned for the case. He came checking the exam paper. and found the answer was right. The conclusion: No cheating.
The judge only repeated what the teacher had done - Found the answer was all right. He didn't check the accusation that the answer was a copied one. He didn't answer the question. How did the student who had no knowledge of the content of test could have a perfect exam result.
Some media said because it was Bush's morale value which moved voters.
What made people register as a Demo or Rep? Their moral value. People generally vote to their morale value in election if there is nothing particularly happened. What made them switch vote to the candidate of the other party? When the party he registered to did some thing disappointed him. e.g. if the candidate did bad in economy which hurt voter's pocket, then they switched to the other one. That's not for moral value because otherwise he wouldn't register as a Demo or Rep.
But what good has Bush done in his first term? Economy is bad. Civil right eroded. The war is a opposed by most people. People lost so much in his administration. There is strong reason to have a regime change. .
Media justify Bush's victory by moral value. That's a gimmick. Moral value is why people registered to a party. If people voted on moral value, Bush would should lost heavily in Florida. . "How did the Republicans win so heavily in counties stocked with Democrats?"
The answer is simple. Intelligence switched the votes to their favor. 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 media propaganda. Even if the result contradicts strongly to the reality.
2005-01-01 22:25 | User Profile
Psychological manipulation and propaganda (12/28)
Bush was elected not by people but inside group (6)
Some people apologized to the world that US has Bush elected for the second term. They don't have to. The majority of Americans didn't elect Bush. It was inside group which selected Bush by a rigging election and media propaganda.
There was really nothing good to justify Bush's victory, the media at last throw out a "moral value". But under this justification, Bush should have been a big loser because he is a dishonest man. He misled US to an unjust war by a big lie - that Iraq was an imminent threat to us.
Media rarely report the conflict exit poll in US election but beat the drum to same event happened in Ukraine. Yushchenko's poison case played same role as "Swift boat team" - to tarnish the rival in election.
A destroyed face played the propaganda to its utmost.
Most poison were used to hurt victim's health, on the purpose to take their lives. A poison to destroy someone's face is rarely heard. Does Dioxin only influence the skin of victim's face? Or the skin of all body? Though I don't know what happened to Yushchenko's body, it seems the skin of his neck and hands are all right.
Yushchenko vigorously active in election. It seems the poison didn't hurt his health much.
Yushchenko and Western media blow the trumpet said that he was poisoned. It seems the poison was selected for propaganda much more than killing.
Motive is important in any case. Who benefit from this election if the victim having a destroyed face?
Is perpetrator an amateur who selected a wrong poison to let others know that Yushchenko was obviously poisoned? Or just want to have a propaganda?
Next time when you see the TV repeatedly broadcast the collapse of World Trade Center; or a destroyed face; see the orange terror alarm code; or see the US map printed in blue and red color, be aware that it's a psychological manipulation. Government has a purpose.
2005-01-12 21:54 | User Profile
Make a blackmail more efficient (1/8)
Bush was elected not by people but inside group (7)
"Democrat wins Washington with 130 votes". Mercury News reported on Dec. 24. It said Democrat Christine Gregoire won the election by 130 votes out of 2.9million ballots cast in third round of recounting by hand. The previous count and recount declared that she had lost to her GOP rival Dino Rossi by 261 and 42 votes separately. The article came with a picture of smiling C. Gregoire. She really had a reason to smile to win the seat of governor of Washington at such a slim margin:0.004%.
The price of this victory may be big for Democrat : The seat of Presidency of US. I think it's a concession to the pressure of people whom demand investigation on obvious election fraud in Florida and Ohio.
Strange enough, the protest on rigging election are mostly from individual groups or observer. The high ranking of Democrats seem keep a blind eye on it. Kerry quickly admits his failure despite a controversial election. Have you ever heard any words from Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Edwards..... about the fraud? These people are experts. They know the principle of game. If there is no order from inside group, they won't make a move.
As a matter of fact, the result of election was decided long time ago. When they pushed Howard Dean out of the campaign in Democrat's Primary, the inside group had got what they want already. There is little difference between Kerry and Bush. They both voted for war and Patriot Act. Bush was elected because he was proved a loyalty of inside group. He was more eager to sell his soul.
The skill to squeeze more from an election now is more advanced. Though they are able to make a unilateral victory for a candidate, Feds created a situation that by only control several hundreds of votes they can decide a governor of a state. Or by only control the election result of a state, they can decide a president of US. With which they can more efficiently to blackmail the candidate.
2005-01-13 00:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=kathaksung]Make a blackmail more efficient (1/8)
Bush was elected not by people but inside group (7)
"Democrat wins Washington with 130 votes". Mercury News reported on Dec. 24. It said Democrat Christine Gregoire won the election by 130 votes out of 2.9million ballots cast in third round of recounting by hand. The previous count and recount declared that she had lost to her GOP rival Dino Rossi by 261 and 42 votes separately. The article came with a picture of smiling C. Gregoire. She really had a reason to smile to win the seat of governor of Washington at such a slim margin:0.004%.
The price of this victory may be big for Democrat : The seat of Presidency of US. I think it's a concession to the pressure of people whom demand investigation on obvious election fraud in Florida and Ohio.
Strange enough, the protest on rigging election are mostly from individual groups or observer. The high ranking of Democrats seem keep a blind eye on it. Kerry quickly admits his failure despite a controversial election. Have you ever heard any words from Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Edwards..... about the fraud? These people are experts. They know the principle of game. If there is no order from inside group, they won't make a move.
As a matter of fact, the result of election was decided long time ago. When they pushed Howard Dean out of the campaign in Democrat's Primary, the inside group had got what they want already. There is little difference between Kerry and Bush. They both voted for war and Patriot Act. Bush was elected because he was proved a loyalty of inside group. He was more eager to sell his soul.
The skill to squeeze more from an election now is more advanced. Though they are able to make a unilateral victory for a candidate, Feds created a situation that by only control several hundreds of votes they can decide a governor of a state. Or by only control the election result of a state, they can decide a president of US. With which they can more efficiently to blackmail the candidate.[/QUOTE]
Your little conspiracy theory has a problem with itââ¬Â¦ if ââ¬ÅThere is little difference between Kerry and Bushââ¬Â, then why go though all the trouble to reelect Bush when everyone knows kosher Kerry was the most leftist guy in Washington and would have more than gladly done whatever they wanted him to do? You must get a better grip on reality or someone is going to come along and call you a fruitcake.
2005-01-22 21:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]Your little conspiracy theory has a problem with it… if “There is little difference between Kerry and Bush”, then why go though all the trouble to reelect Bush when everyone knows kosher Kerry was the most leftist guy in Washington and would have more than gladly done whatever they wanted him to do? You must get a better grip on reality or someone is going to come along and call you a fruitcake.[/QUOTE]
What trouble have they got to re-elect Bush? The election is under control by intelligence. They even could make the vote difference as little as 42 in a state election and tens of thousands in a state to decide a president of nation. With which they can blackmail the candidate, "see, with a flick I can change the consequence of election. Now I want the seat of Homeland Security, CIA, DOJ....."
Is Kerry the most leftest who anti-Iraq war? Did he vote against Patriot Act? What's the difference between he and Bush at these point? And that is the most important issue for people. You can't even catch the point.
Control media - intimidation(1/11)
CBS fires four staffers over Bush story. Dan Rather also will step down as anchorman of the "CBS Evening News". All these because they had been "myopic zeal" about Bush's story relied on forged documents.
They had reason to believe the documents handed to them at that time. The fact was Bush did escape the service in Vietnam. Some one did arrange him in National Guard to avoid Vietnam service. Bush's military record mysteriously missed. As CBS said, "It's a blow, but it's not fatal. ... Ninety-nine percent of the stories we do are accurate and solid."
They told the Truth. Only the documents they referred was a forged one which was supplied with an evil will. The mistake was made inadvertently.
Compare with Bush. He deliberately misled Americans into an unjust war. He deceived people by fake "WMD" and "imminent danger". He caused the loss of hundred of thousands lives of innocent people. Who is to be blamed?
A witness reported a theft. The accessory of the thief supplied a forge evidence to the witness, deliberately to discredit him. The witness was punished when he referred the forged evidence. The thief, though was a criminal, on contrary, got a prize. Bush was awarded a second term of presidency. A team of CBS lost their job.
Feds used to set up trap for people. Rumsfeld repeated trying to make it a legitimacy of his "Strategy office". They have a "Lie workshop" which produces misinformation and disinformation. CBS event can be viewed as an achievement of this "Strategy office".
Ive and Adams lost paradise after they ate the apple given by Satan. People know who was the evil. They painted Satan a snake. But it's not only the staffers of CBS lost their job. It's another step the American people lost the freedom of speech. It is an advance of Inside group to intimidate media workers for more self restriction. You can expect to have more "political correct" poll and news from media since.
2005-02-01 19:59 | User Profile
Bush's social security reform (1/28) A plan to benefit financial group
What Bush intends to do is to drive young people to invest their retire pension into financial market. Who will be winner and who will be loser?
Financial market, especially the stock market, is a speculating market. How can Bush expect people will win in that market? He has no assurance. But one thing he knew for sure is that the financial group will benefit a lot from his proposal.
When people went to Las Vegas. The winner is always Casino. Aladdin, Mirage.... all these grand Hotel were built up on the money lost by gamblers. But at least those gamblers are willing to go there and they more or less got some entertainment.
For those who put their money in financial market, they can expect to contribute more to Gold Sach, JP Morgan, Citi Bank ....
That's probably why Bush only proposes the reform at young people and to a limit portion. If his proposal is real good as he said, then why didn't he suggest to privatize all social security fund, and apply it to all ages? He dares not. He knew there is a risk. Once such a fainancial disaster takes place, the impact won't be felt by young immediately because there is still sometime to their retirement age. They became a Guinea pig of Bush's plan.
The main work Bush did in his first term was to contribute a high profit for military industry and oil group. It seems the mission for him in 2nd term is for the profit of financial group. That is why he is awarded with four more years.
2005-02-12 20:37 | User Profile
Social security fund (2/8)
Bush uses the same tactic to carry out his policy: intimidation. In his first term, to start a war, he scared Americans that the "WMD" in Iraq posed imminent threat to US. Now, he repeated that social security is headed toward bankruptcy. He proposed that young people to privatize one third of their s.s. fund (4% of income) into financial market.
Does he really care for the benefit of young generation? No. He hurt them. In his first term, he had a tax-cut plan which mainly benefit the rich people. At the same time, he created a historical deficit. In another word, he borrowed the money to pay tax-cut. That loan he borrowed, after all, must be paid back. The payer will be the young generation. Bush put a debt burden on them. That's not enough, he is seeking to steal their retirement fund.
Is social security fund in danger now? Not really. The Social Security Administration estimates the fund will last until 2042; many economists estimate the fund will last much longer. There are many other ways to balance the s.s. fund account then. Here is a chart compare the shortage of s.s. funds compare to tax-cut over 75 years.
......Shortfall or cost as a percent of ..In trillions of dollars ..... GDP over 75 years ....................over 75 year
Shortfall, Social Security ....0.4% ............ NA Trust Fund (CBO est.)
Shortfall, Social Security ....0.7% .............$3.7 trillion Trust Fund (Trustees estimate)
Cost of the 2001/2003 tax....2.0%.......... $11.6 trillion cuts, if made permanent
Tax cuts for top 1 percent,... 0.6% ............$3.4 trillion if made permanent
[url]http://www.cbpp.org/1-4-05socsec.htm[/url]
There was lesson from privatization. 401(k) was allowed to enter financial market in 1994. When the dot.com bubble broke out in 2001, many people suffered great loss in their retirement pension account and have to delay their retirement plan. Some people lost most of their pension when Enron went bankruptcy.
In Bush's plan, first of all, the young generation will lost 2 trillion. The administration fee of privatization estimated at 15% to 20% of total investment amount. Financial group win the first round even without a battle. And then, in a pool where big fish fighting with small fish and shrimp, who will be winner?
Most people left casino with full pocket? or empty pocket? Judge with your common sense.
2005-02-23 00:10 | User Profile
HP ousted its CEO - Carly Fiorina on 2/9. It proved my previous thought.
In early 1990s, I started to suspect it was the house I bought which caused persecution on me. One thing puzzled me was how could they even shut down a company to prevent me from buying the house. How could owner of the company bear the loss to benefit Feds?
Something occurred in 1993 solved this puzzle for me. In May that year, newspaper reported that former owner of Disneyland - Walter Disney was an informant of FBI. I thus knew that Feds ruled country through their informants, especially by the management of company.
About same time there was a campaign between two high ranking executives. They competed for the post of CEO of Disneyland. The struggle ended with one candidate died in a helicopter accident. So another puzzle came into my mind. Either candidate would have been cooperative with Feds to be its informant, why Feds still choose the CEO by violence?
I finally had a conclusion. Feds now is not satisfied with informants. They need a CEO of their own. That someone represents for the interest of Feds rather than for the interest of company he works for. For example, Walther Disney might refuse to shut down Disneyland for the interest of FBI because that was his blood and sweat. But a CEO of Feds will do. (see "29. "I am you, American."")
In late 2001, HP CEO Fiorina announced acquisition of Compaq. Which was opposed by HP heir Hewllet. I thought it was a typical sample of how a CEO not work for the interest of the company she was employed. I wrote an article, pointed out Hewllet's opinion was for the interest of HP. Fiorina's was not. The recent development proved my theory about CEO. (see "57. FBI's interest" I wrote in 2002.)
Three years later Fiorina is ousted from HP. Her decision to emerge with Compaq played key role in her bad performance. I am an outsider of high tech. business. But even I knew it was a bad deal. How Fiorina in a position with much more information couldn't see the danger and took over a hot potato? What she did might have saved the Compaq from bankruptcy. She might have saved profit of some firms which held a large quantity of Compaq stock. She probably saved the stock market from another shocking downturn. Stock market was gasping in 2001 from the outbreak of dot.com bubble. It couldn't bear another news of bankruptcy of a big firm. What she did, was at the cost of HP's interest.
As what I have said if CEO made a damage, he has little to lose. Fiorina left with a fat pocket. She got 21.4 million of severance pay and a compensation of 8.15 million for 2004. It looks like she did something good and left with a reward. She might get another high ranking job.
2005-03-05 19:10 | User Profile
Disneyland had invested in Michael Moor's documentary film Farhenheit 911. But it refused to distribute the film after it was done. The decision of high ranking was political motivated. As Farhenheit 911 is a business successful film. It got the top prize in Cannes film Festival.
If you view US as a company and president as a CEO, you can find it is operated by inside group in same way they did to a business company.
What has Bush achieved in his first term? Patriot Act was passed and mid-east war activated. The suffering of Americans is apparent. Civil rights are seriously eroded. Lives and money are losing in war. US reputation in the world goes down. Bush hurt the interest of American people to benefit a little group and Israel. Former Prime Minister of Malaysia said that Israel rules world through its proxy, it let others fight and die for them. (The original word Marhatir used was Jews, I don't think it is proper here so replaced it with Israel) Bush is a proxy not work for the interest of US. He let Americans fight and die for the interest of Israel. He was rewarded for a second term.
What will Bush do in another four years? Likely more wars in mid-east to secure Israel. (Syria and Iran) And another important mission for him is to steal from the retirement savings from America people - their social security fund.
Bush's plan to privatize s.s. fund mainly will benefit financial group. And another purpose is to support the stock market from collapsing.
Because Feds held a large quantity of real estate properties, they keep interest rate at unreasonable low level since 2001 to maintain a prosperous housing market. The low interest rate produced two big bubbles in housing market and stock market. these two markets are also the cash boxes for Feds where they withdraw money for their spending.
When the economic situation won't allow interest rate staying in low level any more and turn up to go upward, the two bubbles are going to break up. It's hard to keep the house price to be higher when interest rate rises. So the only choice for them is to save the stock market which is controlled by big financial group.
What Bush going to do is to drive small fish into a slaughter market to lure the big fish from leaving. To keep a cash box of Feds to be active while the other one (housing market) will go low in recent future. As I have said, a CEO in US doesn't work for the interest of company he was employed. Bush works for the interest of inside group which selected him to be a president of US.
2005-03-15 20:46 | User Profile
Former President Kennedy was assassinated. Former President Clinton was impeached. All these revealed that even in top position, US politicians are under the control of intelligence. They were under the surveillance. They were extorted, blackmailed by intelligence. If they disobeyed, then they were punished by scandal, or even been assassinated.
Former President Nixon was impeached and lost his post in oval office in early 70's. The formal reason was he lied to cover up a tape which might reveal his awareness of illegal campaign activity. But lie and dirty campaign activity were common among high ranking politicians. It was only an excuse. Then what was the real purpose?
In March 2002, a news helped me resolved several puzzles. It was a tape of Nixon's conversation with former treasury secretary Connally. Re:
Quote, "Nixon Defended Envoy's Groping 1972 Tapes Also Reveal Talk of a Justice Dept. 'Full of Jews'
By George Lardner Jr. Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, March 1, 2002; Page A02
"Oh! Oh, God!" Nixon said with a sigh. "It erodes our confidence, our strength. They're untrustworthy. . . . Look at the Justice Department, it's full of Jews." "Any place of power," Connally agreed. "SEC used to be -- all of them, those lawyers." "Listen, the lawyers in government are damn Jews," Nixon said. Both men agreed that Nixon should try to reduce the Jewish influence in a second term. Nixon told Connally on May 15 that he wanted no more than 2 percent of the government's political appointees to be Jewish, in proportion to the population. He later said 10 percent would be acceptable, "but certainly not 30 or 40 percent."
[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20361-2002Feb28.html[/url]
I then knew who control Justice department and why Nixon lost his job.
Nixon realized that there was a disproportion of government political appointees to the population. He thought it was not for the interest of US and tried to change that situation. He was impeached before he could do it.
Now I know why Sharon said, "Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." - Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, to Shimon Peres, October 8th, 2001
Israel controls D.O.J.. D.O.J. controls FBI. And FBI keep Americans under surveillance, include Presidents.
(There is a strong EM wave attack on me and I alleged there will be a big action coming. See next message.)
2005-03-25 19:21 | User Profile
The news about Walter Disney in May, 1993 came with the publish of book "Walter Disney, Hollywood's dark prince". In which W. Disney was described negatively. That he was an abused boy; he drank heavily; he persecuted his employees; he was anti-semitic, anti-union, anti-communism. Most disturbing thing was that he was a FBI informant which W. Disney's family strongly denied.
Walter Disney is a beloved American icon. Every person has a nice memory of a childhood with Micky mouse and Snow White. Why he was so much humiliated?
The author of the book said his information obtained through the Freedom of Information Act. It was an excuse. There are many celebrities who are FBI informants. Why they are protected from being exposed by the Freedom of Information Act but W. Disney?
Nobody knew this (informant) except FBI and Disney himself. W. Disney wouldn't have done it even if he is alive. So the other possibility is it was leaked by FBI. Nobody can let the news published except FBI because it controls everything in US. They could deny it in the name of security. To reveal the identity of informant, even the informant had passed away, is against principle of intelligence. Then what made FBI betray its own principle? I puzzled.
The puzzle was resolved 9 years later by the news of Nixon's tape, It started :
Quote, "Saturday, 2 March, 2002, 03:05 GMT Graham regrets Jewish slur The Reverend Billy Graham has apologized for a taped conversation with former President Nixon in which he said the Jewish "stranglehold" of the media was ruining the United States and must be broken."
(see "295. Who controls D.O.J.? (3/7/05)")
Graham is a celebrity. Then I recalled W. Disney. He was a celebrity too. According to the news he was anti-semitic; anti-union; anti-communism. Which is the power that can humiliate him?
No wonder Sharon said, " We, the Jewish people, control America." It can force US celebrity apologizing to them. What about people passed away? They were humiliated.
It was not a coincidence that the negative news about Disney was released in 1993. At same period, a man became the CEO of Disneyland when his rival died in a helicopter accident. News said new CEO is a Jewish. Thirty years after Walter Disney's passing away, he was not only humiliated, his kingdom was also taken over by someone he disliked. It was a power show-off.
2005-04-05 21:16 | User Profile
Winner and loser
Question, "Historical, the stock market offered 10% returns over the long haul (40 years)."
Who got that 10% return? Rich people. When they got 20%, 30% or above, Much more people got 1%, 2% or negative return.
When Buffett got a return much higher than others, someone must pay for the money he made. The payer will be the average people.
RE: Gates, Buffett, China 'run from dollar' Expert sees development as sharp warning to Americans Posted: February 3, 2005
Decisions by the world's two wealthiest men to bet on a further weakening of the U.S. dollar, coupled with China's lack of confidence in American currency should grab the attention of every working person, says Craig Smith, CEO of Swiss America Trading <
Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates is following the example of Berkshire Hathaway Chairman Warren Buffett, who made a pretax gain of $412 million in the fourth quarter of 2004 by buying foreign currencies.
[url]http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42687[/url]
RE: MUTUAL FUNDS TO AVOID
These 10 Funds are the worst of the worst. See how much a $10K investment would be worth after five years:
÷ T. Rowe Price Sci & Tech: .......... $3,534 ÷
Putnam Voyager B:......................... $5,971 ÷
White Oak Growth Stock:.............. $5,593 ÷
Janus Global Technology: .............$3,504 ÷
Putnam Growth Opp.: ......................$4,359 ÷
MainStay Cap. App. B:................... $5,817 ÷
Scudder Growth Fund A:................ $5,638 ÷
PIMCO PEA Innovation C:............. $2,667 ÷
Morgan Stanley Info B: ...................$3,378 ÷
Firsthand Tech. Val. Inv: .................$3,602
<[url]http://pf.channel.aol.com/redir.adp?_type=click&_p=us[/url] pf investing funds spotlight&_m=a1 1 ent_promo_nested 33459 {pf lemon funds bb 215} 0 0&_s=1&_u=http://aolpf5.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B3EF618CE%2D7C1D%2D4AB8%2DA892%2DA3B3A2A28A84%7D&siteid=aolpf&dist=aolclick >
Government always tell you the average return of financial market. They will never tell you who got the chunk and who got the bit. Casino show you some one got the million dollars prize. They don't tell you most people go home with empty pocket.
My question is still there. If stock market is that good as you said, 10% return in long period, then why don't invest all S.S. fund into that market? Even children is able to know it.
Because only a few of people benefit a high profit. Most people are the loser. Did you see the work of above mutual fund? They are iceberg of failed investment firm. In five years they not only made no income, they also lost 50% to 70% of its fund. I can tell you the loser won't be Buffett, Gates, Lockfeller or Morgan, it's average people.
2005-04-15 19:21 | User Profile
Another two of great prophecy of Anthony Carr came into true. The death of Pope and a big earthquake. (Though the earthquake didn't take place in Italy, it took place in Indonesia and caused a tsunami.)
In World Journal, there were five pictures. Anthony Carr made many prophecies. But those five with pictures obviously were particularly picked up by intelligence to impress people. I think these were the most important projects of Inside Group. (The collapse of Eiffel Tower; earthquake in Rome; the death of Pope, Senator Edward Kennedy, and Prince of Monaco - Albert.
I found four out of five were related to Iraq war. Senator Edward Kennedy, Pope John Paul and France were three strong opposers to the Iraq war. An earthquake in Rome would also affected Vatican. Inside Group intended to create a situation that Vatican were punished by God with the suffering of natural disaster and death of Pope. John Paul expressed his anti-war opinion as early as in 2001.
Re: Ex-envoy: Pope was champion of peace Eric Gorski Denver Post Staff Writer
Coloradan Jim Nicholson met with Pope John Paul II on Sept. 13, 2001, at Castel Gandolfo, the pontiff's summer palace outside Rome. During that summit, the pope decried the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks as an attack not just on the United States but on humanity, Nicholson recalled. But John Paul II vociferously opposed a U.S. strike on Iraq, sending an emissary to Washington in the run-up to the war in a failed attempt to sway President Bush.
[url]http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~53~2797231,00.html[/url]
Since then, Roman Catholic had a three years long intensify trouble in US. Many sex scandals were revealed. Roman Catholic were humiliated. Priests were sentenced and fined. When I read such kind of news one after another, I realize it was a revenge and blackmail. Those sex scandal cases were mostly happened decades ago. Now all of a sudden, they were poured out like a big wave. But Pope didn't bent. He insisted his opinion.
Pope to Bush: Go into Iraq and you go without God By CHB Staff and Wire Reports Mar 5, 2003, 07:18
Pope John Paul II has a strong message for President George W. Bush: God is not on your side if you invade Iraq.
Laghi came bearing the pope's message: A war would be a "defeat for humanity" and would be neither morally nor legally justified. The Pope also questioned the President's statements invoking God's name as justification for the invasion. "God is a neutral observer in the affairs of man," the Pope said. "Man cannot march into war and assume God will be at his side." "It's illegal, it's unjust," Laghi told reporters after the session with Bush.
In a May visit to the Vatican, Bush told the pope he was "concerned" about the Catholic church's standing in America, where the church has been rocked by sex-abuse scandal.
[url]http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=15&num=1883[/url]
You can see how Bush extorted Pope with sex scandal.
So when the newspaper reported the Anthony Carr's prophecy, I knew it was the project of inside group. They think they are the real God and punish people who do not obey to them. There was trace that Pope was poisoned and suffered EM wave shooting in his final days. My condolence to John Paul. He is the victim of Inside group.
This is message posted 6 months ago which predicted Pope's death.
Early this year, an article in World Journal caught my eye. The topic was: "Big prophecy for 2004". I am not a superstitious man. But five pictures with the article attracted me. They were: Eiffel Tower of Paris; Senator Edward Kennedy; Pope John Paul; Prince of Monaco Albert; ruin of ancient Rome.
It said, Canadian Anthony Carr, viewed as a modern Nostradamus, predicted that Eiffel Tower would collapse after an attack, Rome of Italy and California of US would have strong earthquake in 2004.
The following are the successful prediction he had made: 1. On 1/1/2001 and 8/14/01, Anthony twice said "There will be airplane crashed in New York. Hundreds of people will die." That was 9/11 attack.
Same day on 1/1/2001, he said George W. Bush would bring war to the world soon after he became president. We all saw it.
In February 2002, he said Princess of Margaret would die in 2002.
In August 2002, he said Mad Cow disease would attack Canada and rapidly swept across US. All these prophecy came true. And also he had predicted the death of Princess Diana.
If someone had made the above prophecy one hundred years ago, or 50 years ago, or even 20 years ago, I would admit it was a prophecy. Because there were too much variables in a long period. But check these achievements. It came true within a year, some even within a month. It's much more a proclamation of a project of intelligence then an astrology. Assassination of celebrities; terror attack; war. All the work capable done by government inside group.
I talked about mad cow, alleged it was a bio-attack from intelligence in December 2003. (see "191. Framing a case in December (12/26/03)") I talked about for many times that government knew 911 attack in advance. (see "68. Ashcroft's revenge (5/31/02)") All these were written before January 2004 when I knew there was such an Anthony Carr and his prophecy from newspaper.
In the books of of former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, former counter terrorism adviser Richard Clark, Bob Woodward, Joseph Wilson we know from beginning when Bush entered White House, he determined to activate war. Outsiders observed phenomenon, insiders knew the detail. That's how Anthony Carr could make a prophecy. Or rather, to announce the plan of inside group in advance.
Now we go back to the great prophecy of 2004 by Anthony. It's still the assassination of celebrities, (Pope Paul, Edward Kennedy, Monaco Prince Albert) terror attack (Eiffel Tower), natural disaster (earthquake which could be induced, or created by modern technique).
Then why did they let out their plan by Anthony Carr? It's a psychological manipulation. Quite a lot of people believe in God. Prophecy will attribute all these events fatal. The prophecy will make that part of people believe what happens is natural.
You can also see Bush did the same thing. He always said what he did was God's will. As a matter of fact, media play the same role too. When brand name ABC, CNN, USA Today, Gallup..... constantly issued poll that Bush has an approve rate around 50% and leads over his rivalry despite Bush is a proved big lier, they are giving a prophecy too. This time it is for the rigged election. To make you believe the output of election is reasonable.
Anthony Carr doesn't need any reason to support his prediction. That's the advantage of a prophet. I predict sometime too on the purpose it won't happen. (such like the framed drug case even with specific date 6/19 , 9/2......) I always gave the reason why I thought in this way and with my analysis. I remind people from time to time "beware of pick pocket" so the thief won't steal for the time being.
I hope my revelation can prevent Anthony Carr's prophecy from happening.
2005-04-26 18:18 | User Profile
Another great prophecy of Anthony Carr in early 2004 was the death of the Prince of Monaco - Albert along with the death of Pope. If it was an intelligence project, the likely motive is to loot the treasure of Monaco Royal family or to control the economy of that country. Monaco, though being a small country, is a rich state with its gambling business, tourism industry and financial institution.
On 4/6, Prince Rainier died at the hospital treating him for heart, kidney and breathing problems. It was just four days after Pope John Paul's death.(4/2) They both had health problem a month ago. Pope had breathing problem in February and had a surgery to insert a tube in his windpipe. Prince Rainier was first admitted with a lung infection to a heart and chest clinic one month ago before his death. It could be a coincidence. It could also be that the action teams got the "OK to start" order at same time.
Someone argued with me that Pope died not of a conspiracy but of his age. (Re: 302) I would have believed so if I hadn't read Anthony Carr's prophecy. I don't believe astrology. Carr's prophecy came with strong motive of US Inside group. And they have ability to do it. Modern technique can create earthquake, tsunami; change climate and murder people covertly, make the death look like a natural one.
The passing away of Prince Rainier alarmed me that intelligence started to act their projects. On 4/10, I heard another news. "The marriage of Monaco royal family was imprecated?" (World Journal) It said that Ernst(translate from Chinese. I don't know his English name), 51, Prince of Hanover, husband of Princess Caroline, was sent into emergency room for pancreas infection in early morning on April 5th, just one day before Prince Rainier's death.
"He is under intensify observation. His condition is serious. He needs a long time cure. Bio and radiology examination is done. Now is doing scan." The insiders of hospital and royal family said that he is in coma.
Ernst's serious sickness once again touched off a saying that the dynasty of Monaco was cursed. It said the marriage of the royal family was imprecated and wouldn't last long and happy.
Prince Albert is 47 years old, still young. So Carr's predict was he would die in a car accident like his mother. After other obstacles were eliminated, Albert will be the next. Likely among Princess Caroline's close friends there are some candidates ready to be her next husband in her fourth marriage.
The modern pirate loot in the name of "democracy". For a big country such like Iraq, they started a war. For a small one such like Monaco, they steal through murder, marriage and heir. Of course, they do a lot of propaganda to convince people. From "WMD", "war against terrorism" to "prophecy" and "spell". Psychological preparation is always an important part of their plot. That's why when Pope John Paul didn't co-operate with them for the war, they punished him with death.
2005-05-05 19:57 | User Profile
It was more than ten years I had experience to be shot by EM-wave ray. So I have to sleep behind iron cabinet. I don't know what kind ray Feds used. I call it EM-wave ray. It was so strong that it could penetrate thin metal plate. I have to pile up iron product to prevent from suffering.
When I came back from South-east Asia (from late 2000), I still slept behind iron desk. One day I felt head ache. Different from previous experience the source of ray was from up-wards direction. Feds shot from roof? I tried to use a single metal plate to shield, it didn't work. They use strong EM wave. What I could do was to avoid sleeping at that spot. The target location was fixed. I tried several times later, each time when I slept at same location, there was a pain feeling.
At same time there were many astronomical events reported by news. Comet, meteor, eclipse.... all were referred as having rare chance to see. I tried several times but failed to see anything. Then one day my daughter put a chair in the lane, said it was a homework to watch the astronomical event that day. (I forget what it was) It was to happen about 11 pm. On time I went there, sitting on chair and had a search in the sky, I still saw nothing like newspaper reported. It was quiet in midnight. I was the only one in the lane. I suddenly felt that I was a prominent target fixed there. Why did they want me to look up at the sky? A LASER to blind my eye? (That's the knowledge all I knew at that time) I went into the house and never watch such event since. And those so said rare events seemed to concentrate at that period. I have never seen such news in local paper in recent two years.
On 11/21/04, there was an article in Mercury News. "Spacecraft off to explore an explosive force", "Instruments to probe short-lived but powerful Gamma-ray bursts".
"Compared with other forms of electromagnetic radiation - radio waves, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet and X-rays - gamma rays are the most energetic, with the highest frequencies and shortest wavelengths. They would present a serious hazard to life on Earth if the atmosphere did not prevent them from reaching the surface."
The news reminded me of previous events. I started to realize Feds using space weapon to attack. It is the most energetic gamma ray. I think the spacecraft set off on 11/21 is a new type of space weapon, though in the name of "scientific research" instrument. Different from former gamma ray which concentrate on one point, this one with more energy that can influence a field. (so far as I know is the size of a bed at least, or a room?)
It caused a warm feeling that even in winter target would take the blanket away. It could penetrate thin metal plate to hurt the target. It hurts the internal organs of human being.
That space weapon seemed to used on me immediately. I felt unusual warm since later November. In message "276. Psychological manipulation (12/19)" I had a detailed description. Only at that time I didn't know it was caused by field shooting of gamma ray and it was from space. Because Feds also tried to use radioactive material at same time, I misunderstood it was the result of radiation of isotope.
Because it was a massive field shooting, I didn't know where the attack was from. It took me more than a month, tried to shield from all direction, at last I found the attack was from above - space. In meantime, kidney was hurt most. There was a heavy feeling of waist and the urine was red - blood inside. It was not caused by poison because the symptom was found in the morning.
At last, I covered my up-words sky with metal plates. Only leaving the shank and feet exposed without upper shield. In the morning, that part of body was unusual warm which enabled me to realize that attack was from the space.
The attack from above sky continued until February , then stopped. I noticed it was the time when Pope and Prince Rainier started having health trouble. Did they move the space weapon above Europe to help their projects there? Or is it a coincidence? Your bet.
2005-05-05 20:23 | User Profile
Kathasung, are you an alien from outer space?
2005-05-16 17:41 | User Profile
In a website "Republican Forum", I was blocked to post the message "295. Who controls D.O.J.?". When I clicked the logo of "post", the page said "your message was sent to board for approval." But in same web site at same time, my other messages were posted in seconds without any "approval". Obviously, the agent who monitor my computer decided instantly which one I could post for some web. #295 is a taboo for them.
There is another story about #295. I posted it to my thread "Whom do they work for?" in web "Above top secret" on 3/30. Next day, the thread was missing. There was a new thread "ATS members to be visited by Feds " No URL was given but a picture of CNN page was referred. It said, "CNN Technology
Government to visit members of online conspiracy forum, Above Top Secret.com
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Washington (Reuters) --
The Federal Government is cracking down on conspiracy nuts in an attempt to make 'America Safer' says a high ranking White House official.
A White House spokesman said "We have all the names of the members of this conspiracy site and we just want to talk to them at this time. In the name of National Security, we must crack down on these crack pots." The government claims that these sites must be shut down because they don't think like the rest of us....."
This is an intimidation from Feds. I think it was about my article of "295. Who controls D.O.J.?" Inside group not only controls mainstream media, they tried to control INTERNET too. Will America be safer if people are blocked to know who control D.O.J.? Do people must think the way Feds want you to think?
The message URL: [url]http://70.85.38.54/forum/thread130983/pg1[/url]
2005-05-16 18:05 | User Profile
To tell the truth is not a " conspiracy" but the facts of life.
As the old saying goes " If the truth hurts it must then be the truth".
2005-05-25 20:28 | User Profile
Stock market and social security
A farmer planted a seed. He sold the fruit The famer created a wealth. A worker produced a car. He sold the car. He creates a wealth.
Investor A bought one hundred shares at 1.00/share. The company got one hundred dollars to pay rent, wage and material. Then the stock market rose to peak. Investor A sold the share at 1.10/share to investor B. A got 110 dollars. He made a 10% profit. But was that 10 dollars created? No. it was B's loss. When B bought the stock from A, he became a potential loser. What he bought was only a piece of paper. He couldn't cash the stock with the company which issued it. What B can do is hoping some one else to take over the potential loss.
Situation 1. If the stock is Enron, then when it went bankruptcy, B's stock worth nothing. Here Company got 100 dollars. A got 10 dollars. B is the loser. He lost 110 dollars. Winners' money is from loser's. It's evidenct.
Situation 2. If the stock is HP, then in trough, the share price may fall to 0.90/share. B sold it to C. B lost 20 dollars. C paid 90 dollars for 100 shares. C sold the stock in peak 2 at 1.20/share to D. Now D becomes a potential loser. If nobody has the will to buy his paper, then the stock worth zero. Now let's see, company got 100 dollars. A sold stock at 1.10/share. he made 10 dollars. B bought at 1.10/share, sold at 0.90/share. B lost 20 dollars. C bought at 0.90/share and sold at 1.20/share. C won 30 dollars. 10(A) + 30(C) + 100 (company) = 20(B loss) + 120 (D's potential loss)
The eqation: Winner's gain(profit) + Capital gain (Company issue the stock) = Losers' loss (loss) + Potential loss (Amount paid by the latest stock holder)
You can see there is no wealth created. How much winner got is how much loser and potential loser lost. And it doesn't include administration fee. (it's about 2 trillion in 10 years period, Re: San Jose Mercury News, 12/17/04) So when Bush say you may get better income in stock market, there must be some people bear the loss for the winner's gain. Whom do you think will be the loser and winner?
(I omit the dividend here. it's similar to interest paid by bank.)
The value of stock market is supported by continue coming of investment fund. One thing you should know the people who hold the stock is no other then hold a piece of paper. That's a bubble. When no money came, then the bubble will break up.
When you deposit 100 dollars in the bank, you are guaranteed to get that deposit back, plus interest.
When you buy one hundred dollars of shares of a company, you are told you probably get some dividend sometime if business is good. The dividend is not guaranteed. And you can not cash the stock with the company. Because they have spent it to pay rent, wage and equipment already. If you liquidate the company, most time you may get a negative asset. e.g. if it's Microsoft, what they left for you is a program of Windows. UA may have some airplanes. But they always come with a huge debt. What kind of asset do Kodak and McDonald have for the stock they issued? What you hold finally could be a piece of paper. What you hope is someone else would buy that paper from you to take over your potential loss. When people put all their retirement fund in stock market, they are sitting on a big bubble. All they hold is a bunch of paper. One day when people wake up and refuse to behave like a fool, then there will be a collapse of stock market.
What Bush does is to persuade people put their retirement fund into the market to take over the hot potatoes.
2005-05-26 05:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]Kathasung, are you an alien from outer space?[/QUOTE] I guess origin is from the planet Spam.
2005-06-05 15:27 | User Profile
If monthly trade stock is 100 shares, ($1.00 each) the investment fund in that month is $110, then the share price will be 1.10 each, it's a 10% rising market. If there is only $90 fund go into the market, then the price will be $0.90 each. A falling of 10%.
More fund is needed to support a growing up market. For decades, the index of US stock market went upwards. It created a fake phenominon that if you invest in long term, (e.g. 40 years) you got a good return. That's the justification someone like Bush used.
But if you know the above principle(a rising market depends on increasing investment fund) you must know that it was built up artificially. The US stock market growing up at public's pension fund. At first, Different pension fund push up the stock market. Then financial group created mutual fund in 1970s(?) which put your savings into the stock market. When it was not enough they invented "IRA" in 1980s which push another amount of retirement fund into the stock market. Further more, in 1990s, government allowed 401(k) to access the stock market. Wave after wave, Americans' retirement money were pushed into that gambling market. It became a big bubble.
But money was harvested by company and winners already. What public held are only a bunch of papers. When people want to cash their 40 years long savings, (they think they have a bunch of treasures, but that's only a paper value) Who has the ability to take over that big bubble? It needs a lot of new investment fund to support it.
That's why when government exhausted your money by "pension fund investment", "IRA", "401(k)" the last exit is your social security
2005-06-15 20:09 | User Profile
As I have said, a growing up stock market must be supported by increasing investment fund. A $100 market grew up 10% in first year with $110 investment.Next year, to support a $110 market growing another 10% up, you need $121 new investment fund. And $133 for the third year..... To blow a ballon bigger, you need more air.
That's what happened in past 40 years. It's a process of how babyboomers cast their retirement fund into the stock market. It's a process how babyboomers exchanged their treasure(retirement fund) with papers (stock shares). When I said potential losers hold a bunch of papers, I mean the stock paper may lose value any time. (Unlike the certificate of CD which banks guarantee to cash or Grand deed of a house that you have a house, no one has obligation to cash your stock certificate, the only interest(dividend) was often cancelled in the name of re-investment by company)
Now it goes to a reverse point. The first generation of babyboomers reach their retirement age, they will not put money in pension fund any more, instead they will cash the stock in their portfolio for their retirement spending. If the market was originally at 10% growing up step, ($100 stock with $110 new investment fund) now it will be a staggering market or a recess market. The new investment fund becomes 105,(due to less retirement fund) the stock for sale becomes $105 (more old people cash their portfolio), then the stock market stagerring with no growing up. Or a recess, $100 new investment fund with $110 selling stock. Market will fall at 10% rate. (depends on retirement rate)
The World War 2 ended in 1945. The first generation of babyboomers were born in 1946. If the legal retirement age was 63, 1946 + 63 = 2009, then starts from 2009, same problem face to Social Security will face to stock market. Less working people contribute to pension fund, more old people to cash portfolio. A long term growing up stock market will become a long term recess market. The fairy tale will break up.
That's why Bush set the date of his privitization of S.S. in 2008. To save the stock market from collapsing. And deliver the bubble at the cost of young people's retirement fund.
2005-06-25 21:32 | User Profile
(1) “In the year 2018, for the first time ever, Social Security will pay out more in benefits than the government collects in payroll taxes,” Bush said.
So in 2018, it will be a break even year.
If the S.S. payroll tax is $100 in 2008, the actual benefits paid to old people are $75, then there will be $25 surplus fund go to save in current account of S.S. This trend will go on until 2018.
But when Bush's plan is carried out, about one third of S.S.tax will go to the privatization account instead of S.S.current account. The calculation is: 35/42 x 1/3 = 0.27. Here I suppose the working years of people are 42 years.(also the period they pay tax. If their work start from 20 years old to 62 when they retired.) the rate of people who enjoy privatization are 35. years. (20 years old to 55 years old which Bush said enjoying privatization)
So $27 would go to privatization instead of S.S.current account. There is only $73 left to pay retired people while they were promised $75. The $2 shortage will have to take from the S.S. saving portfolio. The break even year will be in 2008 instead of 2018.(I don't know the exact figure. It can be worse then what I said.)
Bush should say, "In the year 2008 when my privatization plan goes, for the first time ever, Social Security will pay out more in benefits than the government collects in payroll taxes,”
Bush's plan accelerates the collapse of Social Security and directly endanger the old people who depends on S.S. benefit.
(2) Administration fee. Estimated 2 trillion in ten years period. It will either come from S.S. tax or from an additional tax from all tax payers. One thing for sure is it won't come from the pocket of Bush and his group. Another thing for sure is it will go to the pocket of financial group.
Quote, "Economists opposed to Bush's plan say the 10-year, potential $2 trillion cost of shifting to individual investment accounts is reckless and would require such a huge increase in government borrowing that it could destabilize the nation's economy. " ("Social Security change pitched" Mercury News 12/17/04)
Quote, "Social Security spends 1 percent of its money on administration. But administrative costs for private insurance range between 12 and 14 percent, according to the American Council of Life Insurance. In Chile, which instituted a system of mandatory private savings accounts in the early 1980s, administrative costs exceed 20 percent. This is your money, going straight into the pockets of Wall Street. "
[url]http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/504620720?z00m=20239[/url]
Before you gamble in Casino, you lose first with a fee about 15% to 20%.
2005-07-05 20:17 | User Profile
Everyday, in debate of Social Security privatization, I always encounter with the argument, "Historical, the stock market offered 10% returns over the long haul (40 years)." Or "average S&P goes up 10.5% each year. In latest two years went up 50%." It seems there is a strong reason to invest in stock market. 10% return each year, what a brilliant figure. Yet it's a gimmick.
The flaw for this theory is that high return from stock market doesn't mean high return to average investors. But Bush never talked about this. And seldom media talked about this too. One day I finally found a data about the return of average investors. And found why media and government avoid this topic, the most important topic. Read this:
Quote, "Over the past 20 years, the average investor in mutual funds that hold stocks earned almost nothing once inflation was taken into account, even though stocks enjoyed terrific gains.
These are among the results of the 12th annual study of investor behavior by Dalbar, a Boston financial-research firm.
The study found stock-fund investors had returns averaging just 3.7 percent a year from 1985 through 2004, while the Standard & Poor's 500 index returned 13.2 percent a year. Annual inflation averaged 3 percent, chewing up most of the investors' gains." ("Break the buy-high, sell-low pattern" S.J. Mercury News, 5/8/2005)
[url]http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/business/columnists/jeff_brown/11311526.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp[/url]
There did is high grow up of S & P index, there was also a low return for average investors that almost was nothing if considering inflation.
Average people don't care about the high index of S&P. They care about thier return. Where did the money go? It went to the firms which control the market. To my equation, (suppose the stock is S&P index, oringinal price at $100, in 10 years period)
37 (average investors gain in 10 years) + 95 (special interest group gain in 10 years) + 100 (capital gain of S&P company) = 232 (price paid by potential loser after 10 years)
One thing I should remind you that this is the result of mutual fund. Though there was little gain, the average investors haven't lost its capital because the fund was managed by expert. What if there is a real "privatization", average investor does it individually?
Here is a story again seldom to be reported.
Re: This is a problem that is beginning to be recognized. Since 1964 Nebraska offered state employees the chance to manage their 401(k)-type plan. Extensive employee education and training seminars were given, and everyone expected outstanding investment returns. But when the state audited the program in 2000, the results were incredibly discouraging: employees were making bad investment after bad investment. So in 2003, Nebraska eliminated employee choice from its 401(k) plan.
From: NewCartesian
[url]http://forums.washingtonpost.com/wpforums/messages?msg=2800.351[/url]
Hardly a gain (with expert) or a loss (invest by yourself even being trained), that's average investors' encounter in stock market.
The most important thing is this happened in a grow-up market. That more and more pension fund were guided into the stock market. Yet, average investors had such a poor result. What if the trend reversed? (When the fund lured to support stock market is exhausted like what I said in "4. The reverse point"?)
Of course, Bush will never tell you this. Otherwise, how can his group get fatter without your fund joining in?
[url]http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/business/columnists/jeff_brown/11311526.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp[/url]
2005-07-15 21:12 | User Profile
A myth about wealth
question, "I don't think your equation works very well at all. It is like owning a house. If you do some landscaping and renovations, and keep up with repairs, your house will likely appreciate in value over time. This does not mean you have benefited at the expense of anyone else. Investing in stocks works the same way. The company reinvests most of its profits in expansion and improvements; if they do this wisely then the company will grow in value. It is not the zero sum game that you suggest it is."
Answer: You still haven't told us how the wealth created in winners' gain. The sample you given is a misleading of company's activity with stock trading. A company of course must work hard to earn a profit so it can distribute dividend to investors. They plant, produce, or do a house repair as you said. It doesn't related to stock trading. The wealth company created was used to distribute dividend. When you said company reinvested its profit in business, that means company diverted the dividend investor deserved to re-investment. You know there had been a period that Microsoft holding the profit and hadn't distribute the dividends to the stock holders. That is typical story fits your "company grow in value". But it belongs to the category of dividend distribution. I have said the dividend is the same thing like interest paid by bank to its investors. There is totally nothing related to the profit gain in stock trading. If you want to know where the profit of winners came from, go to my eqation. It is from the losers and potential losers. Or you show me where it came from.
My equation: Profit( stock winners gain)+ Capital gain(Company issued stock) = Loss(losers) + Potential loss (One who hold the stock)
Or to satisfy you: Profit(stock winners gain) + Capital gain (Company issued stock) + Capital gain 2 (Company re-invest with money originally should be used as dividend) = Loss (losers) + Potential loss (One who hold the stock) + Loss (Investor loss of dividend)
That Capital gain (company re-investment) is always equal to Investors' loss of dividend. It should belong to the category of dividend. (I omitted it because it is similare to interest)
2005-07-25 17:24 | User Profile
In my illustration equation in message 6: (based on fact that the return of average investor was 3.7%, and average return of S&P was 13.2% each year)
37 (average investors gain in 10 years) + 95 (special interest group gain in 10 years) + 100 (capital gain of S&P company) = 232 (price paid by potential loser after 10 years)
to maintain a high return rate in stock market, special interest group needs more and more fund. In that equation, it's the amount 232 paid by potential losers. Next year, to maintain a 13.2% grow up rate, they need 262 new fund from potential losers. So far it works well becasue they successfully guided the pension fund, then IRA, then 401(k) into the market. But once those who invested in stock market with their pension fund want to cash their portfolio who has that big money to take over the stock papers? They turn on to your social security.
2018 is the year when paid S.S. tax will be less than the benefit paid to retirees. That's 13 years away. 2042 is the insolvent year for S.S. That's 37 years away. Why Bush is so eager on this issue? Because the stock market will have problem in 2009. That's 4 years away. Bush's privatization plan is not to save Social Security, (on the contrary, it endangers S.S.. See message 5. Bush's privatization plan will endanger S.S. further (5/22/05)) It is to save the stock market. The sacrifice is young people's retirement fund.
Back to my equation, when potential loser paid 232 for a stock paper, the money has gone to the winners' profit gain and company's capital gain already. When potential loser wants to cash his stock paper, who has the money to take it over?
That's why Bush and his accessaries bang the drum to propaganda on "high return in stock market" (it's a gimmick, see message 6. Average investor in stock market) to lure people to invest their money into the stock market to take over the hot potato.
Bush's plan is opposed by majority people. But he tries to play with tricks. whatever the new plan he proposed, one thing is for sure: 1. He needs money(fund). 2. The money is from Social Security fund. 3. And that fund will be put into the stock market to save it from collapsing.
2005-07-25 17:57 | User Profile
I voted for Bush, but I won't do it again. He's still better than Gore ever would've been under the present circumstances and there are things he's done right I'm not so sure I agree with this statement, except for his recent Judge appointment.
2005-08-05 20:42 | User Profile
S.S. is Social security not Social risk
BOOMERJEFF said, "Your equation leaves out the human creativity/innovation/invention/management element.
For example, Cell phone Co may have invested $1 million on R&D to develop the ability to take pictures. They may invest $2 million in a factory to make the new phones that take pics.
.....
So, the $3 milion invested in the picture phones could generate much more profit than $3 million invested in phone-only phones, or $3 million invested in improved pots and pans, or $3 million invested in improved lawn mowers. Thus, the market value - not your theoretical book value - of the picture cell phone stock will rise many times as much as the market value of stock in the phone-only cell company, or stock in the pots & pans company or stock in the lawn mower co.
===========
When the debate starts, I always encounter with arguments like above one. It used to be: 1. They use unique sample to cover all. 2. Businees belong to dividend category but they mix it with stock trading.
My Answer
Or in stock market, 10 people invested, one made high return like you said, the others suffer a lost you don't mention at. The average return you avoid to talk is still low.
As a matter of fact, it's like the propaganda of gamble business. They say every week there is a millionare prize winner. That the critics neglected the lucky element(in your word, "creativity/innovation/invention/management element.)
Here we talk about average return. Not a lottery. And that average return of stock market for ordinary people is almost nothing consider to inflation. I have that fact in message "6. Average investor in stock market" in this forum.
In your sample. If the stock price went up 5 times to the original one and you sold all the stock, then to my equation: 12 million (profit gain by original investor)+ 3 million ( Capital gain of phone company)= 15 million (potential loss of new investors who bought the stock)
Remember the profit gain in stock market is always from the buyer. Because however a company successful the money paid to stock trading is always from the stock buyer (potential loser) not the company.
Then you may ask where is the value created by "human creativity/innovation/invention/management element" goes?
It reflects in dividend distribution. And it used to be a flatened one because such success is always be in consideration when the stock was issued. In another word, the profit was gained by inventors and VC capitalist. (VC capitalist must average the profit with other failed cases) Have you ever heard a company paying dividend equal to its stock price, or even 50% of it? So far as I know, the average dividend is close to the rate of interest bank paid to its customers.
Of course, I always talk about average not lottery or unique accidence. Social Security is a system to guarantee most people have a minimum income when they retired. Not to put them in a risk life when they get old.
2005-08-15 19:08 | User Profile
First of all. People should recognize the difference between average return of stock market and average return of stock investors?
The Dalbar research gave you the result: In latest 20 years, 1985 to 2004, (2005 not finished yet).
Average investor's yearly return: 3.7%. (ordinary people) Average S&P 500 index yearly return: 13.2% (stock price gain)
Get clear the idea of "average investor" and what happened to the difference between 3.7% and 13.2%.
Nobody deny the high return of stock market, only it belongs to special interest group not ordinary people.
I emphysize the average investor's return: 3.7%. Because S.S. is about the interest for ordinary people - the average tax payer, not for the special interest group. And my equation tells where the money went.
37 (average investors gain in 10 years) + 95 (special interest group gain in 10 years) + 100 (capital gain of S&P company) = 232 (price paid by potential loser after 10 years)
This is how Bush and his S.S. war room show to people: 132 (total profit made in 10 years) + 100 (capital gain of S&P company) = 232 (price paid by potential loser after 10 years)
They mix average investor with special interest group.
And this is how ordinary people got in stock market in latest 20 years, almost nothing (in mutual fund) or a loss (401k in Nebraska). A rare data leaking from government censorship net.
Bush and his group only blow the trumpet on that 13.2 but leave the "3.7 and loss" alone.
One thing very important is this took place in a rising stock market. Investor should have a rich profit, yet the result is poor. Where the profit came from? Stock market won't create wealth. It came from potential loser. From 232 paid by new buyer.
In the chart of S&P 500 index, we can see there are two obvious expanding period. The index rose from about 200 to 500 in 15 years. (1980 to 1994) This is the time when pension fund and IRA introduced into the market. And index rose from about 500 to 1200 in 10 years (1995 to 2004). It reflects that how the investment fund baloons the price of stock market.
I made a rough metaphor to make it easy to understand: The original invetor had a stock worth $200 for 30 years, then government introduced a new buyer, Pension and IRA. Pension and IRA paid $500 in 15 years and had the stock price being $500 in 1994. To make market a prosperous one, government found another big buyer, 401(k). 401(k) is a rich man, in 10 years, he raised the market by $700 to $1200. 401(k) now has no extra money to raise the market. (401k paid $1200) G(government) promised it can double in 10 years. But who has that much money to double the price to $2400? G now is in a hurry, the only one he can find is S.S.. S.S. has that ability to boost the stock market, but the problem is 10 years later, when S.S. intends to sell the stock, who has that much money $4800 to take over the hot potato? After all there will be an end. That's how a potential flood developing into a tsunami.
Bush doesn't care. What he wants is at current he and his group can make money. He borrows to pay the bill. (He cut tax by issuing national bond, you people pay it later) He spends at your debt. When crisis break out, he is not a Presidnet any more. Or even he is not alive then. Young people will bear the loss.
2005-08-25 21:15 | User Profile
If the paper value of the whole stock in maket is 20 t (trillion), then there may be only 1 t stock is active in trading. The rest stock is inactive (sleeping stock). Because some owners hold it to control the company; some owners hold it as long term investment. (mostly the people hold it as retirement investment)
Only a little fund can change the whole value. When there is 1.1 trillion investment fund entering the market and caused a 10% increase on 1 t stock, the rest sleeping stock(19 t) felt their asset increased by 10% too. That's how a baloon is multiplied by 19 times.
So there are two ways to increase stock market value. 1. To increase the investment fund in the stock market. This is what government has done to push the pension fund, 401(k) fund into the stock market. And Bush is doing now to put S.S. fund to the market.
When the money supply is 1 t. But the supply of stock for selling increased to 2 t, then there will be a 50% drop of price.(1t fund/2t is 0.5) Original $1.00 share can only get $0.50. If the stock for selling reduced to 0.5 t. Then the price will double. $1.00 share can sell for $2.00. A 100% increase. (1t fund/0.5t is 2) Reduce the quantity of stock for selling is a more effective way to boost the price.
This is why Bush's plan allow the privatization fund heritable. Old people would have sold the pension stock because it's foolish not to spend it before their death. Now they will think, "if I have no necessity to sell it, whatever happen to me, my son will have it." The inactive stock will go on sleeping. There will be a significant quantity of stock avoid to be sold in the market.
While a small amount of investment fund (say, 1t) support a fantacy of a big treasure ballon (say, 20t), interest group hope more people sleep on the paper stock to go on with their dream. So it will make them easy to blow the balloon bigger and delay the crisis from exploding.
2005-09-05 20:46 | User Profile
When I have learned the rare data about average investor's return (3.7%), I was surprised that how such a data could be leaked from a tight censorship net of Inside Group.They want people sleeping in the dream that stock market is a gold mine with high profit gain.
A lot of people thought because company having a good business, so stock could be sold at a higher price. That the profit of stock trading was from the wealth comapny created. It's wrong. The wealth company created were distributed by dividend. Even some CEO re-invest or buy back the stock, the money they spent is still a steal from the dividend that shareholders deserved. The reality is sellers profit (or loss) came from the money paid by buyers not from company.
If a company had a profit margin at 1.00/share, and stock price was $10.00, when it makes 1.20/share next year, should the stock price be raised to $12.00? Not neccessarily. When buyers is tight with money. It could be still $10.00 or even a loss, $9.00. It depends on the supply and demand - the stock for sale and new fund willing to invest.
The Nasdag collapsing in 2000 is such sample. When Inside Group thought it was time to harvest, they poured out the stock they held. The investment fund couldn't maintain the usual price, a collapse took place. Did high tech. business had trouble then. No, they still made same profit as usual. But when there was not enough fund going to the market to buy increased amount of stock for sale, the stock price dropped to the bottom too. Nasdaq index lost 2/3 from 5000 to 1700. Those who slept with stock paper with the dream of high profit gain lost their most. The loser is always average investor.
I re-read that "Break the buy-high, sell-low pattern". I found the point of article is: "And that's where some of the good news comes in. Investors slowed the rate of redemptions last year to a pace that would lengthen average stock-fund ownership to 4.2 years. (the 20 years average is 2.9 years) " It advised that if people could hold the stock longer, the return would be better. So in the end it wrote, "As a long-time practitioner of dollar cost averaging, I can note one other benefit: You don't have to make a lot of decisions and you don't second-guess yourself. So you sleep better."
The purpose of the article is clear. With the release of data, it wants you hold the stock not for trading. The longer the better. In last message "9. How to blow a balloon bigger" I've told of the best way to boost stock price is to reduce the quantity of stock for selling. It will make them easy to blow the balloon bigger and delay the crisis from exploding. That's why Inside group want you "don't make a lot of decisions and sleep" on that paper. Better forever.
2005-09-15 18:26 | User Profile
Read my message "9. How to blow a balloon bigger" you know There are two ways to keep stock price from falling. The two articles from Mercury News show how this government and the media they controlled are working hard to push every bit of money to the stock market to keep the balloon from exploding.
Re: "Automatic enrollment in 401(k) plans is endorsed
Workers must choose not to contribute
By Jack Sirard, Sarcramento Bee
..... Studies show that up to 20 percent of employees who are eligible to join theri comany's 401(k) plan fail to do so.
..... Automatic enrollment, which is a growing trend nationally, changes a worker's decision from having to choose to join a 401(k) to having to choose not to join. " (Mercury News, 7/24/05)
Thus the 20% workers who haven't made up their mind are automatically being pushed into an investment pension fund.
By Kaja Whitehouse, Dow Jones
Almost half, or 45%, of all workers who left their employer last year opted to cash out their 401(k) savings, according to a new study. .....
Employers would often force distributions for accounts worth less than $5,000 because they found them too costly to maintain. .....
Under the new rules, employers are required to either maintain small balances - defined as anything between $1,000 and $5,000 - or automatically roll the money into an IRA when workers depart. This way, workers with small balances will only take their money in cash if they take the initiative to do so. " (Mercury News, 7/26/05)
This is how they push workers to join 401(k) investment plan, and try their best to prevent workers from cashing their 401(k) portfolios, even if it's a small amount.
2005-09-25 21:51 | User Profile
Roberts ducked important questions Demo asked him in hearing. So at the end he is mostly a man of unknown to the people. This is a typical figure of D.O.J.: hide everything with a cover. Does everything in covert.
Is he a speculator? After he refuses to show his stand, he can later turn out to be red, or if necessary, to be blue. Or just a flip-flop. This is a typical figure of secret agent. They really have no interest in any side. They only favor what their master favors. So they have no opinion of their own.
He will be selected as the judge of Supreme Court. Because that's the choice of Inside Group. Bush is only a puppet to deliver the words. Demo Senators only played a little bit what opposition Party should do. They knew Roberts will take over the seat. All this is a drama.
But when you select a general, how can you know nothing of his opinion about war? (his excuse is he only can answer in specific battle) How can you select a CEO for the company who refuse to express his idea about economy?
When US politics develops to this point that an mostly unknown person can take such an important job, is this drama too ridiculous? Bush administration even sealed Roberts record from public.
Roberts is more likely a secret agent who will work for the Feds, (D.O.J.) and the real master behind - Israel.
D.O.J. hurriedly sent Roberts to the seat of Chief Justice is for the framed case of September 24, I think. My case is the most important one for D.O.J. since I reveal the true face (crime) of them. To frame a case, they even sacrifice both directors of FBI and DEA in a secret deal in 2001.
On 5/10/2002, I wrote "65. Birthday Party on May 3 (5/10)", revealed there was an attempt framed case on me and my family on 5/3. Several days later, my tenant and a neighborhood suddenly left.(both were from China. see #85, 86) It was until three months later when newspaper reported Ashcroft had been rebuked by judge in May for cheating the court, I then knew I was under the surveillance by FISA warrant. When judge found they were cheated by Ashcroft and FBI, they cancelled the warrant. Two Chinese secret police, my tenant and a neighborhood, had to leave.
The surveillance recovered in November 2002 when D.O.J. claimed Patriot Act gave them such power. But how could they frame an innocent man without evidence? They still need evidence to carry out an arrest.
Since then, D.O.J. tried their best to "break" the wall of "share information from foreign intelligence" with "domestic criminal law enforcement". The recent "Pentagon's information about Atta" is such an effort.
This issue must have been passed into Supreme Court. I think, Chief Justice William Rehnquist had defended the fourth Amendment of the Constitution. Thus he became the obstacle of D.O.J.. He had a cancer.
If Rehnquist's health condition was very bad, he would have resigned earlier. But he hadn't. That means he himself felt he was still OK for the job. His death was sudden. I think it was a controlled murder. I have said, "2. Control the death on will. They can make target getting sick by slow poison, once the death is necessary for Feds, what they have to do is just increase the dose, the target died to intelligence' demand without causing a suspicion." (186. Slow poison (12/6/03))
When I found there was another big framed case set up on 9/24, I revealed it on 9/2. (see "339. The September plot (9/2/05)") Next day, Chief Rehnquist died. Roberts is hurried to be nominated and said his confirmation is almost certain and will be in post in October. Because the framed case will break off on 9/24. D.O.J. needs a man of their own to guarantee the case can be set up by "sharing foreign intelligence information with domestic criminal law enforcement"
William Rehnquist's death and Roberts' nomination may signal the death of 4th Amendment that American people will lose the protection from "unreasonable search and arrest". US Justice will be ruled by an evil group.
(The 4th Amendment has been made to protect people from the "plant" of corruptive law enforcement force. That the warrant must based on evidence not the "plant". The "sharing information" low the standard to "suspicion" (foreign intelligence source) and made search and arrest possible based on "plant". see "335. 4th Amendment (8/17/05)")
2005-10-05 19:07 | User Profile
These days, Feds activate a wave in Internet to propaganda on "eliminate the wall erected to prevent the sharing information from foreign with domestic criminal law enforcement." Said the wall caused the success of 911 attack. It's an attack at the Constitution - the 4th amendment. times Feds set up traps in my case. One was to change the roof of my house. The other one was to change the garage door. I alleged Feds had planted drugs in my attic and in my garage. They planned to carry out a search and arrest by guise as the roofing or the garage door contractor.
Why couldn't they direct search and arrest? Fourth amendment forbid them to do so. They couldn't apply a search warrant on suspicion. They must have evidence. But I am innocent man, they have no evidence. What they can do is plant. But for that plant they still need a reason to get a search warrant.
Because it's easy for them to get the foreign collaboration to get a "useful" information. Then to get a FISA warrant which is easy to get. An unreasonable search and arrest could be done if the "information sharing" is allowed.
If the wall was broken, every citizen will lose the protection of the 4th amendment from unreasonable search and arrest. Everyone can be the victim of Feds' planting.
Here I repeat the message I posted before. D.O.J. is desperately to attack that protect wall.
Re post: Ashcroft had accused, and now it's his accessories are accusing Jamie Gorelick erected the "wall" between the FBI and the CIA that kept them from sharing intelligence and possibly from doing more to prevent the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. That because FBI feared to touch that wall, they hadn't applied a permission to search suspect Zacarias Moussaoui's computer, so they lost chance to stop the 911 attack in advance.
This is a blackmail.
There are two ways for FBI to apply a search warranty from Judge. One is by FISA court.(Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) In which a warranty is in a very low standard and is easy to get. The other way is by criminal law court which is in high standard because Americans are protected by 4th amendment from unreasonable search and arrest.
When Ashcroft and FBI said there is a wall to block sharing information between foreign information and criminal investigation, he is demanding a big police power expanding which makes the 4th amendment mean nothing. He then can search and arrest American citizen at his will, only based on suspicion(FISA standard is low) while we should be protected by criminal law from being unreasonable search and arrest. (must based on evidence)
D.O.J. use Moussaoui's case as a reason, said because the FBI feared to touch the wall of criminal law so they didn't investigate Moussaoui's computer. It's hypocrite and is a misleading. We don't have to be a professional like A.G. or FBI to know that Moussaoui is a foreigner and fits for FISA. Why FBI hadn't apply FISA(obviously an easy one) but considered the domestic criminal law? And why they even didn't apply? It is incompetence, a mistake, or a deliberate negligence? Many information revealed that the government knew 911 attack in advance, it was allowed to happen. Because they benefit from it.
FBI didn't apply a warrant from FISA, they say because they are afraid to touch that wall. A man caught driving without a license. He said because he was afraid he won't pass the road test so he hadn't apply one. Could a judge justify that reason? As a matter of fact, the FISA standard is very low, if FBI had applied one, they for sure would get it. But they hadn't.
What D.O.J. wants is to give FBI more police power to search and arrest people. They want to low the standard of criminal law. That's a blackmail in the name of "war on terrorism".
BTW, there is a deep meaning of "erect the wall of sharing information" . In fact, intelligence share the information already. The reality is they can't use that information to apply a search warrant because it's illegal. The wall prevent they use FISA standard on domestic criminal case.
Theoretically, FBI can't spy a citizen unless they have evidence the man has committed crime. When this "sharing information wall" is broken, now they can search a citizen covertly only on suspicion. Because the FISA standard is low.
This is the real purpose of D.O.J.. And it claimed the"Patriot Act" gave it such privilege. The fact is, under the "Patriot Act", Bush and D.O.J. expand their fascist police power. American people are losing the protect from "unreasonable search and arrest" of the 4th amendment.
Government and media never tell people about this. They steal the civil liberty in the name of security. You are losing your constitutional right.
2005-10-14 21:40 | User Profile
Although 9/24 case was postponed, new framed case developed immediately. There were two articles in Mercury News at same time.
"False arrest verdict reversed" (9/24/05)
"The federal jury in San Jose had found that officer William Foster, 37, had no probable cause to arrest Laura B. McIntyre. She was arrested after touching Foster's badge to get his identification.
US district Judge James Ware, reconsidering laws at issue in the case at the city's request, reversed his earlier decisions, disregarded the jury's verdict and issued a Wednesday(9/21) ruling in favor of Foster."
(McIntyre, who had just graduated with honors, was attending a party on 2/8/01. When police told guests to leave to a complaint, she put two fingers on Foster's badge to see the numbers. She was arrested for committing a battery.)
"Bill would force DNA collection" (9/25/05)
"Washington - Suspects arrested or detained by federal authorities could be forced to provide samples of their DNA that would be recorded in a central database under a provision of a Senate bill to expand government collection of personal data.
The measure was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee last week and is supported by the White House, but has not gone to the floor for a vote. It goes beyond current law, which allows federal authorities to collect and record samples of DNA only from those convicted of crimes. The data is stored in an FBI-maintained national registry that law enforcement officials use to aid investigations, by comparing DNA from criminals with evidence found at crime scenes."
The purpose of two articles is very clear. To justify unreasonable search and arrest and then to frame the victim by DNA planting. DNA(a hair, skin, semen) like drugs, can be planted easily. The provision opens the gate for corrupted Feds. They can find an excuse to detain people. Then frame him in a crime case. No evidence needed. What they need to do is to declare the detainee's DNA is identical to one found in criminal scene. I believe Feds now are busy to plant my DNA in old unsolved case.
The 4th Amendment was set up to protect people from "planting" of corruptive law enforcement. Feds can not arrest people simply because they can find drugs in his property. It is unreasonable search and arrest. They must have evidence the man charged had practically involved in drug case. So the 4th Amendment protect us from "planting".
I allege Feds planted drugs in my attic and garage. Twice they try to frame cases by disguising roof contractor or garage door contractor. (see "144. Roof contractor from Idaho", "300. Garage door".)
This time they use DNA plant. They say now the DNA forced test of suspects is allowed. It opens the gate of "police planting". It's easy to detain people in a dispute with police. Then to prosecute them by DNA evidence. DNA, like drugs, can be planted easily. Innocent people, while commit no crime, can be conveniently framed in a case.
Now what's the meaning for 4th Amendment?
2005-10-24 21:59 | User Profile
After Feds got the bill of "forced DNA test", the rest thing was to arrange a police detain. For which they even made a judge disregarded a jury's verdict, reversed his own decision to issue a new ruling to encourage unreasonable search and arrest.(see #436)
On 9/28, I took a walk around the block. I saw an unusual lively street. A resident and a yard worker talked at the entrance of the lane. Cross street, there was a van of heater company with three people. When I turned into the side street, I saw two young men with a broken car, and a technician of AAA emergency car. There were five people walking on the path in the small park next block. There was even a lady with Arabic dress. This was the first time I saw an Arab in my community. Wah, I thought, Feds activated so large resource to carry out an arrest. When I got back to my home, a car arrived at cross street house just opposite the lane. Five people got off the car, hugging, walking around, made a noise. These people, would play the role of "reliable witness" if a police arrest carried out.
On 10/4 about 10 pm at night, I saw a towing car parked cross street. I went out to have a look. Then I saw a row of 4 cars slowly drove through. The last one was a police car. I think it was an "arrest work team" on their night shift with three potential witnesses and a police.
In recent decade, when Feds occupied most to houses of my area, it becomes a desert area. Rarely I saw a child here. When I had a walk seldom I saw a resident. Sometimes I could see one or two people walking in the park. So a sudden surge of more than a dozen people was very unusual for me. And for a quiet community (most residents are agents and their support group), a police car was a rarity too.
I believe there will be a search and arrest ready for me. It's not accidental but a well planned one. Feds even prepared a lot of "reliable witnesses" for it. Though I'll try to avoid any conflict with police, what people heard will be another story.
People read my thread know the tactic Feds used to distract the frame case. A "terror attack" and a natural disaster to rouse the panic that will divert public's attention from a criminal case committed by Feds.
In same day, Mayor of New York, Bloomberg, said the FBI had informed him about "a specific threat" that 19 suicide bombers planned to hit the subway system.
These are typical pre-advanced propaganda. A bombing will happen, but Feds has no responsibility. Because they have given you a warning in advance.
Two days ago Bush said to deal with such pandemic he may use troops to quarantine. For a president who was so incompetent to react to a pre-warned hurricanes, how could he be so active in a disease in which not a case is found in US?
I worry there will be a slaughter in the name of pandemic after they frame a case on me.
2005-11-04 22:07 | User Profile
When I wrote that the recent tactic Feds using is to arrest in the name of drug charge by unreasonable search, there was a swift re-action.
"Boy George held on drug charges" (Mercury News, 10/9/05)
Police said Boy George called 911 to report a burglary on Friday(10/8) in New York."When police showed up, they found no evidence of a burglary but did find a small amount of cocaine near a computer in his apartment." Boy George was arrested on drug charge.
The case was a framed one, I think. It was a model demonstration to instruct how Feds to act on my case aggressively. In local TV news that night,(10/9) there were pictures that residents of San Jose complained how their houses were intruded by strangers. Next day on 10/10 in the evening, there was a knock at the door. It was a young man. I didn't answer it. He took a walk in my front yard then left.
In previous two attempted frame cases, Feds tried to disguise as contractors of roofing or garage door. I had a look at these two places but couldn't find anything suspicious. It's impossible to search the garage because too much stuff was piled up there. I once puzzled that how the disguised contractor could declare they finding the drug in concealed place where no others could see. Boy George's case solved my problem. George had no motive to tell a lie to call police to his home that led to his arrest. Once police were at his home, the rest words were all theirs. It's too convenient to say there was no evidence of burglary and they found drugs near George's computer.
What they need is to find an excuse that they are legally there. So the search and arrest would be reasonable. Roofing, garage door repair and burglary were all tactics to create an invitation. To make unreasonable search and arrest legal. Once they were there, the rest story was written by themselves.
To make sure they can finish the case as fast as they can, Feds also planned individual search and arrest. For which they prepared many potential "reliable witnesses". To guarantee the success of the plan, they even murdered (I allege) Rehnquist and send a man of their own to be the Chief Justice.