If we knew who decided presidential elections, we could determine who will win the Presidential Election of 2016.
I have pointed out in two recent articles that the decision makers are certainly not the voters or even the Electoral College. Groups of individuals have had enormous influence on election outcomes.
The 1980 Reagan-Bush campaign, a group of private citizens, effectively made foreign policy by convincing Iran to keep our hostages past the election in exchange for the promise of weapons. Twenty year later, groups of people determined to make war in the Middle East manipulated public opinion to help George W. Bush get “elected” president.
Similar efforts have taken place in other elections. Anna Chennault, a high level supporter of Richard Nixon, convinced her friends in the South Viet Nam government to withdraw from peace talks before the 1968 election. Consequently, the talks fell apart, which enabled Nixon to edge Hubert Humphrey, Johnson’s Vice President, in the election.
When we combine this type of interference in our elections with assassinations and assassination attempts, we see a clear picture of who is behind these actions and what they want. The assassination of JFK promoted Johnson to the presidency, whereupon he escalated the Viet Nam War. The war continued in large part because of the assassinations of two people who argued that it must end, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert Kennedy.
The attempt on the life of candidate George Wallace knocked him out of the 1972 presidential race and with it any chance that Democrat George McGovern could win (with Wallace as a third party candidate siphoning votes from Nixon). A near-fatal shooting of President Ronald Reagan gave Vice President and former CIA Director George H. W. Bush control over the Administration long before he won election himself.
From these events alone, it should be clear (1) successful politicians are disposable puppets who represent interests (wittingly or unwittingly) and (2) the interests involve power, wealth and war. I refer to them as the “War Party.”
Why would those who control these interests allow elections to alter their control?
The simple answer is that they wouldn’t. They stand to lose too much.
Other events have influenced the selection of presidents. I have written extensively about the hoax of 9/11, in which the War Party planted stories of passenger flights hijacked by terrorists who flew them into buildings, including the World Trade Center.
The fall of the towers was planned well in advance, in part to give owner Lawrence Silverstein billions of dollars in insurance money. Whether anyone actually died as a result is in serious debate.
I suggested that the War Party needed a president who would not ask too many questions and would allow the hoax to play out in September 2001. They got their man in George W. Bush, who mysteriously won the election against a far superior opponent.
Two wars, which Bush and his Administration cited the events of 9/11 as reason to invade, followed.
In recent years, a war of sorts has been brought home to us. We keep hearing in the media about incidents of gun-related violence. Because of the media coverage of Sandy Hook and other events, the public perceives these shootings as commonplace. Some politicians, including President Barack Obama, have called for tougher gun control, while others calls for less or even no gun control.
As in war, truth is often the first casualty in this debate. The organization FactCheck.org called out Representative Donna Edwards for overstating the number of school-related incidents, Rep. Louie Gohmert for misleading statements about gun-concealment laws and Dan Gross, head of the Brady Campaign, for overlooking the fact that gun-related murders have gone down.
The debate over guns gets played over and over in the media and few, except for organizations like FactCheck, bother to challenge all sides. Why is that?
Someone is winning the real “debate” here. “Almost as many guns -- 26.1 million -- were produced during Democrat Barack Obama’s first term as president as during the entire eight-year presidency of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, the ATF data show,” says Bloomberg.com.
Townhall.com states that “The FBI has released new statistics on NICS background checks showing 2013 gun sales hit a new record.” After noting that Obama has used executive orders to attempt to implement gun control, Townhall goes on to note that “President Obama is indeed the best gun salesman in U.S. history.”
Obama, a two-term president, is a successful politician. Is he a puppet for the interests of power, wealth and war, like the gun sellers? Hoaxes often ask us to ignore facts and respond instead to perception, like the 9/11 hoax’s use of “phone calls” from relatives in passenger planes.
Was Sandy Hook another hoax used to promote the underlying interests in our society?
We should ask less about the next puppet who will reside in the White House and more about who controls public perception of events like Sandy Hook. Then, perhaps by 2016, we can get our view of those who pull the puppet strings.
I have pointed out in two recent articles that the decision makers are certainly not the voters or even the Electoral College. Groups of individuals have had enormous influence on election outcomes.
The 1980 Reagan-Bush campaign, a group of private citizens, effectively made foreign policy by convincing Iran to keep our hostages past the election in exchange for the promise of weapons. Twenty year later, groups of people determined to make war in the Middle East manipulated public opinion to help George W. Bush get “elected” president.
Similar efforts have taken place in other elections. Anna Chennault, a high level supporter of Richard Nixon, convinced her friends in the South Viet Nam government to withdraw from peace talks before the 1968 election. Consequently, the talks fell apart, which enabled Nixon to edge Hubert Humphrey, Johnson’s Vice President, in the election.
When we combine this type of interference in our elections with assassinations and assassination attempts, we see a clear picture of who is behind these actions and what they want. The assassination of JFK promoted Johnson to the presidency, whereupon he escalated the Viet Nam War. The war continued in large part because of the assassinations of two people who argued that it must end, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert Kennedy.
The attempt on the life of candidate George Wallace knocked him out of the 1972 presidential race and with it any chance that Democrat George McGovern could win (with Wallace as a third party candidate siphoning votes from Nixon). A near-fatal shooting of President Ronald Reagan gave Vice President and former CIA Director George H. W. Bush control over the Administration long before he won election himself.
From these events alone, it should be clear (1) successful politicians are disposable puppets who represent interests (wittingly or unwittingly) and (2) the interests involve power, wealth and war. I refer to them as the “War Party.”
Why would those who control these interests allow elections to alter their control?
The simple answer is that they wouldn’t. They stand to lose too much.
Other events have influenced the selection of presidents. I have written extensively about the hoax of 9/11, in which the War Party planted stories of passenger flights hijacked by terrorists who flew them into buildings, including the World Trade Center.
The fall of the towers was planned well in advance, in part to give owner Lawrence Silverstein billions of dollars in insurance money. Whether anyone actually died as a result is in serious debate.
I suggested that the War Party needed a president who would not ask too many questions and would allow the hoax to play out in September 2001. They got their man in George W. Bush, who mysteriously won the election against a far superior opponent.
Two wars, which Bush and his Administration cited the events of 9/11 as reason to invade, followed.
In recent years, a war of sorts has been brought home to us. We keep hearing in the media about incidents of gun-related violence. Because of the media coverage of Sandy Hook and other events, the public perceives these shootings as commonplace. Some politicians, including President Barack Obama, have called for tougher gun control, while others calls for less or even no gun control.
As in war, truth is often the first casualty in this debate. The organization FactCheck.org called out Representative Donna Edwards for overstating the number of school-related incidents, Rep. Louie Gohmert for misleading statements about gun-concealment laws and Dan Gross, head of the Brady Campaign, for overlooking the fact that gun-related murders have gone down.
The debate over guns gets played over and over in the media and few, except for organizations like FactCheck, bother to challenge all sides. Why is that?
Someone is winning the real “debate” here. “Almost as many guns -- 26.1 million -- were produced during Democrat Barack Obama’s first term as president as during the entire eight-year presidency of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, the ATF data show,” says Bloomberg.com.
Townhall.com states that “The FBI has released new statistics on NICS background checks showing 2013 gun sales hit a new record.” After noting that Obama has used executive orders to attempt to implement gun control, Townhall goes on to note that “President Obama is indeed the best gun salesman in U.S. history.”
Obama, a two-term president, is a successful politician. Is he a puppet for the interests of power, wealth and war, like the gun sellers? Hoaxes often ask us to ignore facts and respond instead to perception, like the 9/11 hoax’s use of “phone calls” from relatives in passenger planes.
Was Sandy Hook another hoax used to promote the underlying interests in our society?
We should ask less about the next puppet who will reside in the White House and more about who controls public perception of events like Sandy Hook. Then, perhaps by 2016, we can get our view of those who pull the puppet strings.
RSS Feed