Regime Rotation 2004
Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft &
Ridge threatened to "postpone" the election
Did Kerry "throw" the election to Bush?
written fall 2003 and winter 2004:
The Democratic Party is urging the grassroots to ignore the fact that all of the Presidential candidates (except Kucinich and Sharpton) are pro-war. If being pro-war is not relevant, then we might as well all vote for Bush. Of course, with voting machines made by Republicans, we might be voting for Bush whether we want to or not. It is amazing (but maybe not surprising) that the Democratic Party is silent about electoral fraud (Georgia, Alabama, Nebraska, etc. in 2002), preferring to attack leaders like Cynthia McKinney.
The 2004 campaign will likely be between Kerry and Bush - blood brothers in the secret SKULL AND BONES society from Yale University. The D's are meeting in Boston, Kerry is the wealthiest candidate, he has good hair, he's a pro-war democrat masquerading as anti-war, and he helped cover up the CIA's involvement in drug trafficking in the late 1980s (after Iran-Contra hearings). He's clearly the anointed one. His foreign policy chair for his campaign is Rand Beers, who served on Bush's National Security Council until 2003 (the passing of the torch from Skull and Bones/Bush to Skull and Bones/Kerry?).
But Kerry wasn't doing well in late 2003, which is why the D's (and R's) brought in General Clark, a Republican now pretending to be a Democrat. He's waged a war based on phony evidence (Kosovo), is tied to drug money laundering Jackson Stephens (see www.oilempire.us/clark.html ), supports the Army School of the Americas torture training center in Georgia, and worse.
Dean, the liberal's hope, is a conservative Democrat from old-money Long Island NY republicans. He did wonders to Vermont as governor: freeways, environmental deregulation, corporate welfare, introduction of Wal-Mart, police abuses, the list is a long one. He's as much the "peace candidate" as LBJ was in 1964, since Dean supports Bush's military budget, "Homeland Security," "special forces," and has even blessed the doctrine of pre-emptive war (although with tactical differences than Bush's approach). But despite all of these retrograde views and a history that is completely different than the image he paints on the campaign trail, he hasn't committed crimes on a national or international scale of sufficient magnitude for the covert rulers of the empire to permit him to become President. Kerry has that experience from assisting to keep the CIA / cocaine scandal reasonably muted in the aftermath of the Iran-Contra scandal, and his membership in Skull and Bones no doubt reassures the secret, actual government that he is presidential material.
Representative Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate calling for stopping the subsidy for fossil fuels in favor of renewable energy, the Kyoto treaty (admittedly weak), a South Africa style "Truth and Reconciliation" commission to investigate 911, cutting the military budget and investigating the trillions missing from the Pentagon and other federal agencies. Sadly, most of the electorate that agrees with Representative Kucinich's views has been reluctant to support his candidacy (or is even aware that he is running).
The police state is likely to get stronger whether George Bush steals the election or lets the Democrats win. General Clark worked for one of the Total(itarian) Information Awareness contractors. The real front-runner, Senator Kerry, is a blood brother with George W. Bush in the Skull and Bones secret society at Yale University (a cult that has incredible influence in finance, politics and what's euphemistically called "intelligence"). Governor Dean supports "Homeland Security." Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. The war on freedom, but under new, kinder and gentler management.
Kerry said in the New Hampshire debate on January 22, 2004 that the US needed to increase the size of the military. The main difference with Bush is that he wants the UN to bless the occupation so that Europe will contribute troops since the world conquest plan is overextended.
Whether Bush steals the election or lets the Democrats win depends much more on internecine fighting among the elite than how many people vote or even organize -- if the Democrats continue to be afraid to talk about the full extent of Bush's scandals:
- complicity in 9/11
- and the anthrax attacks on the Democrats (to get the USAPATRIOT act passed)
- Governor Carnahan and Senator Wellstone plane crashes
- Marvin Bush's involvement in a security firm that worked for airports used on 9/11 and the World Trade Center
- Bush's knowledge of Peak Oil and how the US is planning to control the world oil supplies for the remainder of the oil era
- torture, Guantanamo Bay concentration camp, US death squads in Iraq, war crimes, etc.
- the Homeland Security police state
- the looting of the economy (up to three trillion in federal spending that cannot be properly accounted for)
It is fascinating to see how the Democratic Party - and much of the liberal / left - has seized on the "WMD scandal" to muster just enough outrage to bring down the Bush administration while keeping intact the core functioning of the empire.
The Democratic party wing of the establishment is working to limit dissent to ensure "regime rotation" instead of "regime change" in November.
Regime Rotation consists of unseating Bush but replacing him with another President who will continue the empire's global domination efforts, although with more tact, better speeches and a few token distractions for domestic and international opinion increasingly opposed to the Bush regime's outrages.
Regime Rotation exposes the war on Iraq as a deception, but not the September 11 "Reichstag Fire." Regime rotation recommends that 9/11 be seen as a result of incompetence and / or lack of coordination by the intelligence agencies (which only need more billions and less restrictions to ensure it won't happen again), even though there is an enormous amount of evidence that 9/11 was an "inside job."
Regime Rotation wants to keep the occupation of Iraq going. The three main opposition candidates - Clark, Dean and Kerry - all support keeping troops in the oil fields, although they state that the invasion was a mistake. A Democratic victory in November would allow Bush and the Project for a New American Century "neo-conservatives" to have done the dirty work getting the oil wars going (and "homeland security" to be installed for addressing domestic dissent as the economy continues to unravel), and allow the "Good Cop" of a Democrat to continue the war with less domestic opposition, UN blessing and European money and soldiers. These oil wars are the United States's response to Peak Oil, and will continue as long as the oil lasts (Cheney calls it the war that will not end in our lifetime) or until the US is willing to undertake a massive reduction of energy consumption and investment of resources into a more locally based, renewable energy society.
|Canceling the Election?|
In Summer 2004, Kerry / Edwards surged ahead in
so the Bush regime threatened to "postpone" the elections
Published on Sunday, July 11, 2004 by the Los Angeles Times
Kerry to Reach Out to 'People on the Right'
Candidate's new strategy embraces conservatives. He seems unconcerned about ruffling liberals.
by Matea Gold and Mark Z. Barabak
.... A poll by Newsweek magazine released Saturday indicated Edwards had given Kerry a boost nationwide. The survey, conducted Thursday and Friday, found the Kerry-Edwards ticket leading Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, 51% to 45%. A Newsweek poll in mid-May had Kerry ahead by 1 percentage point, 46% to 45%.
Kerry is polling better than Bush, which is why the Doctor Strangeloves in the Department of Homeland Security are floating the idea that a "terror" attack before the election would force "postponement" of the election. One aspect of the 9/11 "attack" is that it forced the cancellation of the New York City primary that day, and as a dry run for canceling/postponing the 2004 Presidential Election it worked very well, since a normal election would not have been possible in New York on 9/11/2001.
The "3/11" (March 11, 2004, which was 911 days after September 11) terror attack in Spain backfired, since the voters threw out the right wing government and elected a government who is pulling Spain's troops out of Iraq. A repeat of 9/11 in the United States might also backfire, since a LOT of citizens realize that Bush needs an attack to stay in office.
"Fahrenheit 9/11" is a mixed film, since it carefully avoids discussing the evidence that clarifies how the Bush regime deliberately allowed 9/11 (if they didn't actually plan it themselves). However, the sold-out theaters from coast to coast (and even in "conservative" areas) are a positive sign that millions are hungry to learn deeper truths.
Those behind the throne planning the next 9/11 are probably very concerned that a repeat might
(1) be seen as another "inside job,"
(2) be seen as merely a convenient opportunity presented for Bush to suspend the election, or
(3) be seen as proof that Bush can't protect the country and that his policies have made us all less safe.
Getting these ideas into the media coverage is probably the best antidote to this threat to "postpone" the election - a tactic that makes the infamous Florida "felon list" and the computerized paper-less touch screen voting machines seem like minor irregularities.
What sequel do Cheney and Ridge have planned? Merely an intensified "color" alert (red alert for Election Day, but no terror attack)? Or actually have a terror attack just before the election? (October Surprise?) Will the honest officers in the military and intelligence agencies allow them to do this? Will the media conglomerates ratify the coup? Will the 50 plus million who plan to vote for Kerry stay passive and accept this outrageous disruption of the election? Will they allow Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft and Ridge to terrorize the country with this threat? If there really IS a terror attack planned without any Bush regime complicity and the Bush regime is aware of this, why don't they move to arrest the would-be perpetrators? In May, the Bush regime claimed that the next terror attack was 90% complete in its preparation. How do they know this? If they really have an informant in the terror group, why not move to stop them from carrying out the crime? Is it all a hoax to keep people in a state of permanent fear? Does the Bush administration want the terror attack to succeed, but in a way most congenial for Karl Rove's mad psychological warfare campaigns?
Does anyone anywhere know someone who voted for Gore or Nader who now wants to vote for Bush? In contrast, there are a fair number of people who voted for Bush who regret it now. Most of those who voted for Nader and regret it want to vote for Kerry to defeat his cousin, George W. Bush (although they don't know Kerry and Bush and Cheney are cousins). If Nader hadn't been in the race in 2000, it is likely that the public would not have known about the blatant vote fraud in Florida. In a way, the Florida fraud was a gift, since Bush's gang had probably stolen the election long before election day, but they got caught doing this, and the whole world saw that Bush was not legitimate (which helped discredit him on Day 1). The opening scene in "Fahrenheit 9/11" shows how the Democratic controlled Senate resisted efforts by the Congressional Black Caucus to have a debate on the legitimacy of the Florida Electors (January 6, 2001), with VP Gore presiding as President of the Senate (ie. the tie-breaker for a Senate divided 50-50 between the parties). Unfortunately, in 2004, Nader is not addressing the deeper ways that the election is being tampered with, and is not speaking directly to the overwhelming fears that much of the country has about another term for Baby Bush. While it is critical for Bush to leave the White House, preferably BEFORE November 2, Bush's most important policies (oil wars and homeland security) will continue under Kerry, but most of the people agitating for Bush's electoral defeat will relax and "stand down" in their opposition to war and fascism after election day, assuming that election day is allowed to happen.
Why would Bush/Cheney suddenly get bad press from the same media powers that ratified their 2000 electoral coup and ignored evidence of the Bush regime's complicity in 9/11?
Why isn't the most popular democrat (Dean) the one who was picked by the Democratic Party? Last fall, Kerry's campaign was in disarray, fundraising was down (Dean had raised more, and from small donations), he had fired his campaign manager, and few thought that his candidacy was going anywhere. But the Clintons brought in General Clark to split the Dean vote, the media turned on Dean with a vengeance, and a couple months later, Dean's campaign had imploded and Kerry was suddenly the front runner.
Why is a Skull and Bones member with experience in covering up Bush family crimes the "alternative" to Bush? Has Kerry made a deal not to prosecute all of the Bush crimes in order to become President, similar to his muzzling of evidence of George Herbert Walker Bush's importation of cocaine during the Iran-Contra scandal (the "Kerry Committee" investigated this scandal after Iran-Contra)? Is this similar to Clinton's involvement with Daddy ("Poppy") Bush's smuggling of tons of cocaine through Arkansas while Clinton was Governor to fund the Contra war and make billions in untraceable profits? Is is possible for anyone to become President who isn't deeply involved in these sorts of scandals? http://www.oilempire.us/kerry.html
Kerry is going to win, and the Strangelove faction behind Bush and Cheney do not want this to happen.
Much of the elite, but not all, are satisfied with Kerry, who is for the Bush military budget, Homeland Security, the Peak Oil wars, the draft, etc. But the extreme crazies aren't as interested in the illusion of legitimacy while building the police state, they want full strength fascism.
The Constitution already plans for
no need for "Homeland Security" to tamper with the Constitution
It's worth remembering that the Department of Homeland Security is run by an extreme Republican ideologue with a long track record of opposition to basic civil liberties. While Governor of Pennsylvania, Tom Ridge had a peaceful protestor of the 2000 Republican Convention (in Philadelphia) arrested with a one million dollar bail for the crime of talking on his cell phone on the public street (perhaps the biggest bail ever for a misdemeanor). Ridge was made head of "Homeland Security" within a few months of the Air Force shootdown of Flight 93 near Shanksville, PA on September 11. For more on the danger of the Homeland Security department, see www.oilempire.us/homeland.html
From: "Noe, Teresa A."
The XX amendment to the constitution clearly defines when the President's term ends. The constitution also requires elections be held before then.
TITLE 3 THE PRESIDENT
Chapter 1. Presidential Elections and Vacancies
§ 1. The electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State, on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President. Failure to make choice on prescribed day
§ 2. Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.
So why is anybody making an issue of this? We're already covered for just such a possibility and the New York 9/11 primary is the model for how to cover it!
Urgent Message from Mike Ruppert -- The 2004 Elections -- Rumor Becomes Fact as Bush Admin Asks for Authority to Suspend the Election
CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS IN AMERICA
By John J. Albanese
Some States May Skip Presidential
By Stephanie Simon, Times Staff Writer
Several states are considering cancelling the 2004 Presidential Primaries under the excuse of "saving money." While it is obvious who will be the "winner" of the Republican primaries, there is more difference between Senators Lieberman or Kerry and Representative Kucinich than between Lieberman or Kerry and Bush. In a parliamentary democracy, they would not be in the same party. Indeed, given Lieberman's policies, it could be argued that he is running for election in the wrong country (he has relatives who are "settlers" on the occupied West Bank).
November 10, 2003
Cash-strapped states dump primary elections
By Robert Tanner
The Associated Press
Several states have moved to drop their presidential primaries next year, worried about costs in still-tight financial times and wondering if the political exercise would serve any purpose.
Some say they can't afford the millions of dollars it costs to put on an election. Others say the decisions reflect the lopsided nature of modern primaries: The front-runner gets anointed by the media and campaign donors after the first few state primaries and the rest of the primaries are formalities.
The decisions add fuel to the argument that the primary system is in dire need of repairs. In most states forgoing a primary, party-run caucuses will be used instead to choose delegates to the national conventions.
``Fewer voters will participate because (caucuses) are more complex,'' said Curtis Gans, director of the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate. State politicians are freezing out average voters, he said, because caucuses bring ``lower turnout, and more advantage to whoever's organized.''
Primaries usually don't get turnout much higher than 20 percent of registered voters, but they're better than caucuses. In Missouri, the 2000 primary brought 745,000 people to the polls, while the 1996 caucus brought 20,000, the state Democratic Party said.
So far, Kansas, Colorado and Utah - all with Republican-controlled legislatures - have canceled their state-run 2004 primaries. Republican legislatures tried unsuccessfully to drop primaries in Arizona and Missouri, but Democratic governors either vetoed the primary bill or restored the funding.
Some Democrats complain that cutting primaries hurts them especially, with their crowded field of candidates. President Bush has no challenger.
Other Democrats, however, are pushing to get rid of primaries. Maine dropped its presidential primary for next year, and New Mexico effectively did - it passed a law allowing parties to hold caucuses, and then Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson set an early Feb. 3 caucus (June primaries will go on for other elections).
Washington Gov. Gary Locke, head of the Democratic Governors Association, is calling a special session to discuss scrapping his state's primary next year.
``Why waste $7 million of scarce state money?'' Locke said. Democrats in Washington state are using precinct caucuses in February to allocate national convention delegates, making the March 2 primary pointless.
Oregon plans to go ahead with its primary on May 18.
Money worries have just exacerbated already existing doubts about the front-loaded nature of the primaries, officials and experts said.
``It started to snowball,'' said Leslie Reynolds, executive director of the National Association of Secretaries of State. ``We're spending all this money, we don't have an impact on the process, and people aren't coming because they don't feel they have an impact.''
``Clearly, the process is flawed,'' said Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin. ``The country is only now beginning to wake up to the fact that there's a primary. Active Democrats are only now focusing on it. Average voters aren't focused at all. And that's not good.''
Gans said the changes aren't all bad. A turn to caucuses strengthens person-to-person politics, rather than the TV-driven, mass advertising campaigns that mark big primary days like Super Tuesday, when 11 states vote at once.
Galvin, a Democrat, worries instead that the anti-primary push in GOP-controlled states is an effort to stop any criticism of Bush from within his party. ``They don't want a president on the ballot when people can come out and make a protest,'' he said.
But Christine Iverson, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, said the decisions have been made by the states, not the national party, and for them cost is the main concern. ``There's no reason to spend the money when it isn't necessary,'' she said.
In some states where the government has chosen not to hold the primary, the state Democratic Party has decided to conduct one anyway and bear the cost itself.
South Carolina's Democrats are struggling to raise an estimated $500,000 for their Feb. 3 contest.
Utah's Democrats also want their voters to have a say.
``We want to show the Utah Legislature they were wrong and the democratic process is alive in Utah,'' state party Chairman Donald Dunn said.
Several states have moved to cancel their presidential primaries next year.
Colorado: Abolished 2004 presidential primary to
save $2 million.
Kansas: Canceled scheduled April 6 primary to save $1.75 million, and because lawmakers believed it would be held too late to have much influence.
Maine: Eliminated primary; both caucuses and primaries were relied on in the past to choose delegates to national convention.
New Mexico: Allowed parties to hold a February caucus for presidential nominations. June primary will still be held for local and state elections.
Utah: Scrapped presidential primary after the last one drew only 10 percent of the electorate. Democrats will hold their own primary on Feb. 24 using private funds.
Washington: Considering proposal to eliminate the March 2 primary at a special session in December. Democratic Gov. Gary Locke says primary ``serves no practical purpose'' because party caucuses will choose delegates.
2004 Presidential Candidates
||George Walker Bush: the bad cop||John Forbes Kerry:
the good cop
|Howard Dean: the doctor for the death penalty||Dennis Kucinich:
the peace candidate
|Skull and Bones cult||member, 1968
President George Herbert Walker Bush and Senator Prescott Bush were also members
John Heinz, Senior (father of Teresa Heinz Kerry's first husband) was also a member
|went to Yale University, but was not "tapped" for Skull and Bones||not a member|
|war on Iraq||primary responsible official for this war crime, should be impeached and jailed for this activity||supports continuation of Iraqi occupation with increased troop levels, but hopes his more suave demeanor can convince Europeans to contribute troops and money||had tactical disagreements with how it was done, but supports Bush's military budget||only Presidential candidate who voted against the war and wants to reduce the military budget for social needs|
|9/11||primary official responsible for the paralysis of the NORAD Air Force protection of New York and Washington, it is critical that Bush be removed from office BEFORE November 2, 2004||Silent about Bush's complicity in 9/11||floated the idea that the Saudis might have warned Bush in advance||supports a genuine investigation and "truth and reconciliation" commission to learn the truth, talks about "al-Qaeda's role" in 9/11 which implies others were involved|
|Patriot Act and Homeland Security Act||signed them into law||voted for both of them||a supporter of Homeland Security||voted against both of them|
|new gas pipeline from north Alaska to lower 48||supports||supports||on record calling for an end to fossil fuel subsidies, only candidate to mention Peak Oil|
|immediate increase in fuel efficiency standards||opposes||opposes, wants to wait for 36 mpg cars until 2015, after his terms are over||energy position was very similar to Kerry's||supports|
|highways||supports NAFTA highways||supports NAFTA highways, helped fund world's most expensive road (the $15 billion Boston "Big Dig")||worked out a deal with Bush regime to exempt I-289, the Burlington Bypass, from normal environmental review||wants a stop to all subsidies of fossil fuel|
|NAFTA treaty and WTO||supports||supports||supports, brought Wal-Mart to Vermont while Governor||opposes, would rescind immediately after Inauguration|
|genetic frankenfood||supports||supports||supports, as long as it is labeled||opposes strongly|
|spraying Columbia with herbicides||supports||supports||?||opposes|
|Enron||good friends with Ken Lay, CEO of Enron||Teresa Heinz Kerry had Ken Lay on the board of directors of her foundation, supports energy deregulation||opposes|
|wealth||officially a multi-millionaire, but with three trillion dollars unaccounted for in federal spending, the true wealth is probably much greater than this||billionaire (Teresa is worth more than $1,000,000,000)||his family is old money Republican from Long Island, NY||his House of Representatives job the best paying of his life, not wealthy|
|Florida election coup||primary perpetrator and beneficiary||ratified the Florida coup on January 6, 2001, by refusing to support Congressional Black Caucus objections to the fraudulent Florida electors (one Senator was needed to permit a Congressional debate)||sadly, did not join Black Caucus objections to Florida Coup, but since he's not a Senator, it was less relevant than Kerry's silence|
Kerry has a history of helping to cover up official scandals, especially his work on damage limitation of the CIA / cocaine scandal after Iran-Contra. He's probably already been picked by the powers-that-be to replace cousin George, since W. wasn't able to get the oil from the Middle East as promised. Why else would the media suddenly trash the incumbent, although in a relatively limited way (they won't dare touch the overwhelming evidence that 9/11 was not a surprise attack)?
November 23, 2003
Scaring Up Votes
By MAUREEN DOWD
New York Times www.nytimes.com/2003/11/23/opinion/23DOWD.html?th=&pagewanted=print&position=
Republicans have announced their intention: to scare us stupid, hoping we won't remember that this was the same State of the Union in which Mr. Bush made a misleading statement about the Iraq-Niger uranium connection, or remark that the imperial idyll in Iraq has created more terrorists.
Richard Clarke, the former U.S. counterterrorism chief, told Ted Koppel that Mr. Bush's habit of putting X's through the pictures of arrested or killed Qaeda managers was very reminiscent of a scene in the movie "The Battle of Algiers," in which the French authorities did the same to the Algerian terrorists: "Unfortunately, after all the known Algerian terrorists were arrested or killed, the French lost. And that could be the thing that's happening here, that even though we're getting all the known Al Qaeda leaders, we're breeding new ones. Ones we don't know about and will be harder to find."
Democrats display weakness by bowing to Bush
Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton are the only presidential candidates who are not war mongers. However, Sharpton does not have managerial experience in politics - and while gives great speeches, is probably less qualified than Kucinich for the job (and an election is ultimately a job interview, with the voters as boss - at least in theory).