George W. Bush Wins Job in December 2000 to Play President in September 2001 Movie about Terrorist Hoax
“OK George, this is your big scene. I pretend to tell you we are under attack. Just sit there and act clueless.” “Andy, I’m not acting.”
The Presidential Election of 2000 is best known for the lengthy process of recounts and court decisions which eventually gave the White House to George W. Bush. But in reviewing the two candidates, one should reasonably wonder why the election was so close. The real reason why should concern us.
Al Gore, who had served two terms as the Vice President of the United States, ran as the Democratic nominee. The issue voters tend to value most, the economy, favored Gore. So did the relative peace. Gore had tons of experience in public policy – not only through his time as the Vice President, but also eight years in each of the House of Representatives and the Senate.
The Republicans nominated Governor George W. Bush of Texas. He had little public policy experience, just his six years as the governor. But even then, the Texas Legislature only met on odd numbered years and the state Constitution gave much power to the Lieutenant Governor. Before his time in elected office, Bush had run a number of failed businesses.
As the impeachment of President Clinton had taken place just a year before, Bush frequently made mention of how he would bring back “honor and dignity” to the White House. The Clinton scandal for his lie under oath about an affair he had with an intern may have harmed Gore, but not to a great extent.
Gore should have won in a landslide. But he had to claw in the last few days to catch up to Bush, thanks mostly to Bush’s belated confession that he had been guilty of driving under the influence a number of years before.
WHY WAS THIS ELECTION SO CLOSE?
Some observers point out that Gore ran a lackluster campaign. A Slate magazine article which appeared shortly after Election Day elaborated and called Gore out for his stiff personality, his distancing from Clinton and his “angry” populist tone.
But how much of the defeat can be attributed to these problems? So Gore did not always appear to be at ease. He could also be funny. He came across as a much deeper person intellectually than Bush, which I would hope most voters would prefer.
It would have been great for Gore to appear frequently with Clinton, probably the best campaigner of his generation. But if Gore, as reports from insiders have indicated, was indeed furious at Clinton for his behavior, he should be given credit for his sincerity.
He stood by Clinton when it was difficult and shunned him when it would have helped. This speaks well of his convictions and shows he was not a “fair weather”
His focus on attacking corporations may have turned some people off. The Slate article cites Michael Kinsley’s comment on Gore’s tone, that the voters “have never had it so good, and I'm mad as hell about it."
What these three complaints of the Gore campaign suggest is a candidate who did things the hard way. Talking about peace and prosperity all the time would have been much easier. Swallowing his pride and getting Clinton out campaigning for him more frequently could not have been so hard to take, knowing it would have made the difference,
WHAT REALLY HAPPENED?
The fact is, there is no way that Gore could win. Not even losing the popular vote stopped Bush from taking office.
Never mind Bush had avoided service in Viet Nam and had gotten suspended from the Air National Guard. The military embraced him and many retired members of the military supported his candidacy. So did the media, which ignored his many gaffes and substandard English. The media also picked up many criticisms of Gore, accusing him of exaggeration by exaggerating grossly themselves.
On Election Day, thousands of voters were turned away at the polls because their
names had not been added to the voter rolls by Kathleen Harris, Florida’s Secretary of State. She also happened to be a co-chair of Bush’s campaign. Other voters were turned away because they were wrongly labeled as felons. These kinds of problems happened quite a bit in Democratic-leaning
George Bush’s cousin who worked at Fox News convinced his employer to call the election prematurely for him and the rest of the media fell in line, guaranteeing his “win” in public opinion. Members of the military attacked Gore for saying that ballots from people overseas that came in late should not be counted. Gore’s recounts were stopped in the courts, ultimately by a Supreme Court consisting of five Republicans. The vote went 5-4 for Bush.
The real story of the 2000 Election makes sense if we start with an event that took place just eight months after Bush took the presidential oath of office. Popularly known as “9/11,” a group of people who control popular opinion staged a hoax and convinced a majority of the public that a group of terrorists had attacked the United States by hijacking airplanes and crashing them into buildings, including the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
The media repeated that “planes hit the towers” and followed the lead of government experts in blaming Al-Qaeda for a terrorist attack planned out years before by insiders. The refrain of “3,000 deaths” convinced the public that the solution for this hoax was to fight two wars for the next decade plus.
The hoax plotters could not afford a president who might have noticed the deception played and told the public. They needed someone who would take orders, blame the patsies he was told to blame and otherwise not cause any trouble to the plan to make war. They found their man in George W. Bush.
Gore’s behavior of doing things the hard way makes sense from this point of view as well. The mere fact that Bush led him in the polls at all was probably a sign to Gore that he was not going to get the job.
Simply put, as I pointed out in a recent article about the 1980 Presidential Election, the people whom we elect are not running this country. We may not know their names, but we know they want war and will do anything to get it.
What do the events below have in common? Can this chart of events foretell what will happen next in the United States?
A Marvelous Read
Rating: 5.0 stars
Reviewed by Jack Magnus for
St. Peter's Choice is a metaphysical novel written by Dean T. Hartwell. It takes place on Judgement Day, the day when the saved are rewarded with Heaven, and the sinners are consigned to lakes of fire. St. Peter is reading the names from the list that God has given him. While he is doing so, he happens to overhear a conversation between God and a non-Christian. This person had lived a good and virtuous life, but did not embrace the concept of Jesus as his personal savior. God faults the man for not confessing his sins and sends him to hell. The man answers that losing one's integrity is worse than being sent to hell. The man then meets two other rejected souls in a place where he hears the crackling of flames. They question the power of those flames, and the flames disappear. St. Peter is intrigued by what he hears and goes to converse with the three.
Dean T. Hartwell's metaphysical/philosophical novel, St. Peter's Choice is a marvelous read. Hartwell contrasts what St. Peter remembers of his time with Christ with what his informants are telling him of the Bible as they know it. Hot-button issues such as gay marriage, women's equality and evolution pop up during the conversation. One particularly interesting chapter is the gospel according to X, wherein X tells what he thinks Christ's story is. This gospel made a lot of sense to me. Other important issues that are brought up in St. Peter's Choice are how some gospels were not included in the Bible as not pushing the church leaders' agenda, and how greedy, mean-spirited and hateful people can be accepted into heaven just because of their belief in Christ as a personal savior. At what cost to your soul and integrity do you walk through those pearly gates? That's the decision St. Peter must make and it's grand reading the dialogue as he makes up his mind.
Rating: 5.0 stars
Reviewed by Melinda Hills for Readers' Favorite
If you don’t believe in heaven, is hell real? In St. Peter’s Choice by Dean T. Hartwell, the traditional concept of the Last Judgment is under careful scrutiny with the application of logic. Inconsistencies in what Christians believe to be the ‘Word of God’ are brought into question and the validity of the Bible itself is examined in light of modern research. By following his curiosity, St. Peter learns of the use of free will to reach decisions about what to believe instead of living life based on blind faith and obedience. He understands that choices have consequences, but is surprised to find that the consequences are not real when there is no belief in them or their alternatives. Heaven may just be how one lives life – not some illusion that is promised as a reward for accepting a particular set of beliefs.
Dean T. Hartwell uses a fictionalized St. Peter to express his opinions about the nature of God and blind belief in what have traditionally been seen as His laws. St. Peter’s Choice essentially outlines what could be called flaws in the logic of Christian dogma and questions why a loving God would keep anyone from the Kingdom of Heaven. He proposes that Jesus was speaking in code and was actually part of a conspiracy to overthrow Roman rule. That leads to the assertion that the Bible should be taken figuratively and not literally, and that to insist on adhering to it word for word is to defy logic and common sense. This is great reading as a starting point for an interesting discussion or as a stepping stone to learn more about the modern quest for understanding other possible stories of Jesus.
We don't know where MH 370 is, but we know what is possible...
Update: March 27, 2014
New article on Press TV by Gordon Duff takes on the official theory of Flight MH 370 (see below). There is recent precedent for lies about plane crashes.
This isn’t the first time something like this has happened. When four airliners “disappeared” on 9/11 much of what we are seeing today occurred then, but with far less technology being denied and suppressed.
Update: March 25, 2014
The Prime Minister of Malaysia made an announcement yesterday that a private United Kingdom company had used analysis of satellite "pings" from the plane to determine that MH 370 crashed somewhere in the southern part of the Indian Ocean. He said that all passengers and crew are presumed dead.
I hope that investigators find the plane and the black box to determine what happened. A tragedy goes deeper when we cannot see the end of it.
Update: March 23, 2014
The investigators still can’t find MH 370.
Does it matter? Of course it does. It matters to the families and friends of the passengers. It matters to those of us who care about what happens in the world.
But in a deeper context, it matters even more.
With the changes in stories about when the plane was last heard from, the later story of the plane traveling several hours in a direction not known at first, stories of family members calling cell phones and hearing ringing, etc., it brings to our collective consciousness that invisible hands are once again at work.
With all of the technology available, it should be obvious by now that there are people who know where the plane is and who could tell us what happened. These people have likely surmised it is not worth the risk to tell what they know.
And because they won’t talk, people like me can and will sort through the assertions made, ascertain facts and suggest theories based upon those facts. As long as one understands how theories are made, it hardly matters what one calls them.
So I will theorize as to what would cause knowledgeable people not to speak.
Their information could have saved the lives of the passengers. Or it could have informed the investigators as to the location of the planes so that the investigators could have determined by now what happened to it.
If it was pilot error that caused a crash, the airline could improve their pilot training. They could also help the families find closure.
If someone sabotaged the plane, this information would help the international community to identify the criminals who committed the act.
If a hijacking took place, the interested nations could have acted to either punish
or negotiate with the hijackers.
These possibilities would have prompted the knowledgeable people to act because the rewards of acting upon those possibilities are important enough. And these possibilities, if true, would not likely be kept secret.
There must be more to it.
So I theorize that someone or some group of people are pressuring the knowledgeable people not to speak. These people who pressure others are the invisible hands to which I referred earlier.
The invisible people have interests beyond the passengers and the plane. Otherwise, they would have no need to act.
Why would someone care about this plane?
There could be passengers on board that an invisible hand wants to kill or otherwise harm.
I won’t speculate details. The plane had over 230 people on it. Any one of them could have been a target of some sort. There are allegations of Chinese passengers who perhaps had angered the nation of China on board. Is the government of China acting here? I don’t know and I do not think we have enough information to make that kind of conclusion.
The plane, a new 777 Boeing, was worth a ton of money. Maybe someone wanted the insurance and helped stage a ruse for it.
If the invisible hand was on board, they would somehow have to arrange at the very least their own safe landing and the hiding of the plane or plane pieces.
That’s possible but pretty complicated. How does one acting alone assure that the silent people do not know what they are doing and talk about it?
So we go back to what we know.
The plane has been missing for a whole two weeks.
That means it crashed and the parts are submerged and hidden, somehow eluding the massive plane hunt. And no great explanation about the cell phones, either. It would seem a plane crash would cause phones to shut off completely at the point of the crash.
Or it means that the plane landed somewhere. Which likely means someone from the outside hijacked it (electronically – the technology to do so is there, as I have previously stated) and landed and got help in hiding it and the passengers.
There you have it. My theory. Challenge it. Better it.
What else can we do until the silent speak or the invisible appear?
From March 14, 2014:
Too bad we can't use the "Liar, liar pants on fire" line on our leaders and the media. We'd have them in flames over some of the stories they have told us over the years. It's getting to be too many to mention - the lie about a single bullet killing JFK and injuring Governor Connally in Dallas, the lie that we would win the war in Viet Nam, the lie of nineteen suicide hijackers crashing planes into buildings on 9/11, etc.
Now we have another fishy story about a vanished airplane from Malaysia that no one can find, despite all of the technology in the world. It sounds like another lie to add to the collection. You can probably add Sandy Hook and some other recent events as well.
OK, so we know we are being lied to. We need to know why now.
Theories about why we have (allegations of) mass killings at schools every so often include the idea that gun control supporters are trying to push their agenda. I get into disagreements with many others who acknowledge lies on events but who insist there will come a day when the government will take guns away from citizens. But I don't fault their interest in getting to the source of these hoaxes.
We should be deeply concerned when or leaders present "facts" to us in an emotional fashion. The public can get suckered into believing an official story before it can use its logic to sort out truths from falsehoods and relevant facts from those that are not relevant.
I don't know where this latest incident about the missing plane is going but I applaud those who are trying to ascertain the truth as soon as possible so that we can get to the bottom of why the lies keep happening. Remember that rumors fly, truth walks!
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice - United States Senator Barry Goldwater
Many political observers cringed when candidate Barry Goldwater delivered this phrase at the Republican National Convention in 1964. It sounded like Goldwater would put no limit on United States intervention in Viet Nam.
Years later, I believe Goldwater’s comment reflects the way the world really works. The words are malleable enough to justify any action taken for any cause.
What is extremism?
It depends upon to whom one refers. Goldwater spoke by implication of
aggression by the old Soviet Union or North Viet Nam. Perhaps tacitly, he implied the reason there was no limit to actions we were willing to instigate was because we feared what the “enemy” might do.
So, if we believe another nation or group of people oppose us, or may take something we want, they are “extremists.” We believed that North Viet Nam was a threat to our ally South Viet Nam, so some of the forces in the Gulf of Tonkin contacted President Johnson and lied about the North Vietnamese firing upon our ships. Goldwater backed Johnson’s
subsequent response to step up the bombing and to ask for Congressional support for expanded force in that region.
We were not extremists. We just did what we had to do to protect an ally and our interests in that area of the world. We also did not want anyone else in the world to believe we would back down from the threat the “enemy” posed to us.
In short, we can use extreme measures, but we are not extremists.
What is liberty?
Again, it seems to matter whose liberty to which we refer. Our liberty is something we find necessary to defend. Our Declaration of Independence makes mention of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Liberty places second after the need to live first but before our own happiness. It seems, then, that life is meaningless without liberty.
The irony is not lost upon me that we often destroy the liberty of others (by invading, bombing, disenfranchising, etc.) to make sure that we have our own. We must fail to recognize that simple reciprocity would deprive us of what we say we prize.
So what, then, do we make of vice?
It seems that we do not assign the word vice to ourselves but rather to those whom we oppose. The communists, the terrorists, the extremists, the fascists and everyone else our nation has cornered at the point of a gun. The threats we perceive are wrong; the threats we use to counter the perceived threats are right.
I guess, in my heart, I know Goldwater was right. We do whatever we think necessary to make the world safe for us to dominate. Then we plead danger because people ask too many questions when the going
Goldwater’s only real vice was telling the truth.
Dean T. Hartwell pulls no punches about the events of 9/11. There were no hijackings, for one thing. And none of the planes alleged as part of the plot actually flew any passengers!
Hartwell admits he was mistaken in previously saying that passengers landed in Cleveland that day. After reviewing all available information, he says that Flight 175 likely landed in Cleveland but no passengers were on board!
This book calls out those who have lied to us about 9/11 and explains to the reader why they lied. Then he describes the road to a peaceful society as a long and winding one, but the road he prefers over hearing lie after lie!
This is Dean T. Hartwell's final say on what happened to the alleged passengers and planes of 9/11. He also talks about the value of truth seeking to our society.
He talks about events in recent history. The JFK assassination, the Viet Nam War, Sept 11, etc. Our leaders and the media frequently lie to us about these kinds of
Lies are nothing new. Most people have been lied to most of their lives. (Santa Claus - a man in a red suit flown by reindeer delivering gifts to millions of kids on one night!). No big deal.
What this book does is to tell the reader why our leaders lie. And how they benefit from it.
This book won’t change the world. That’s OK. The world isn’t going to change because someone says someone is lying! But maybe some people will.
The events of 9/11 were a hoax. I spent several years researching the event and have presented my conclusions on this topic. People are free to read what I have to say and agree or disagree with those conclusions.
My question now is: what should we who are convinced of the falsity of the official theory of 9/11 want?
We will never convict those responsible for this fraud.
We will never get the mainstream media to show our side to the story.
We will never reverse the policies that came about as a result of the fraud.
With that in mind, we can and should focus on something that we can attain. It is something far more basic than any of these other goals and perhaps even more useful.
It is the simple concept of freedom.
The controversy over what happened on September 11 and many other events before and since has stoked the fears of all of us.
Fear of terrorists. Fear of foreigners. Fear of flying. Fear of freedoms being taken from us. Fear of the future.
In the words of Franklin Roosevelt, we need freedom from fear.
We can work toward this goal by untangling us from what makes us so afraid: the unknown. Answers to a few simple questions would be helpful.
Are you afraid the government will take your guns (or other freedoms)?
Do you often believe what the same government tells you about 9/11 and other events?
Do you believe history repeats itself?
Do you believe the future will be much different than the past?
If you are willing to hold two contradictory thoughts at the same time, will you ever achieve freedom of thought?
Welcome to a future that will be a lot like what we have already experienced. The government and media will continue to lie to protect interests. People will continue to predict Doomsday. The truth about anything important will be known but never stated openly until it no longer matters.
Clear your mind and follow the way of the world. Not a straight line to disaster but one big familiar circle instead.