Why Bush Won And Gore Lost In 2000

[kathaksung]

Impeach

There are many petitions suggest to impeach Bush. It won't succeed. 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 from his post. 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 from his post.

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 an excuse 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.

[kathaksung]

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.

1. Media rarely report negative news relates to "Patriot Act". They seldom report the opinions of people all over the world because nothing is positive about Bush. We can only get it from Internet.
Media report "off-shoring jobs to overseas is good in long term to US, and cheered a "jobless recovery". They rarely report the feelings of unemployed people. They never talk about a dark economic future to American people because that will hurt Bush's fame.

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.

2. Intelligence control. Feds have their accessories everywhere from big cooperations to small companies to punish, intimidate, and harass any anti Bush activity.

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.

[Bigsky770]

. . .And that's going to be (all I'll say about that). . .

Media rarely report negative news relates to "Patriot Act"

. . .Wrong. I have heard on the news CNN, USAToday, & Fox BAD things about "The Patriot Act" and as well misgivings announced on the other networks (CBS, NBC & ABC).

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/West/05/18/patriot.act.ap/

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C86915%2C00.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in564189.shtml

http://abcnews.go.com/US/Investigati...d=90203&page=1

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4065424

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...-patriot_x.htm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C86167%2C00.html

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90684&page=1

That'll get yah started.

. . .Just because you do not necessarilly listen to what it is they have to say, (or) tell you that which WANT to hear to strengthen your case, doesn't mean they are not 'reporting' it. I HAVE CERTAIN reservations "about" parts and pieces of the "Patriot Act" that I take issue with, and I am happy to say that I have heard EVERYONE of these stated. As a "Free Civilization" these need to be brought out and addressed, and I rest assured with the knowledge that in the end, "The RIGHT [WILL] PREVAIL" in this.

Brand name media kept let out a steady figure of poll.

. . .Where did you get this? hell, I'm still thinking about the "Exit Polls" that were so screwed up! (whereas "Kerry" was given a 12-point lead!) I SAW the reports PRIOR to voting, and I voted for "Bush" anyway! [MY VOTE] does not depend upon "popularity contests" and NEVER WILL.

2. Intelligence control. Feds have their accessories everywhere from big cooperations to small companies to punish, intimidate, and harass any anti Bush activity.

. . ."Paranoia" may destroy yah! (sic). . .

Michael Moors' "Fahrenheit 911" was blocked to be distributed by its own investor - Disney.

. . .That is because of the issue that "Michael Moore" did not put forward that which he promised. He was supposed to approach this from the standpoint of more PURITY in "Journalism", and it ended-up as nothing more than political satire/done rather badly, I'm afraid. It was a "Bush-Bashing Extravaganza", and the majority of Americans had seen it "as such". Now we are threatened with a "Fahrenheit 911-and-a-half" when shall we ever be rid of this miserable loser? He wants to "educate" us. . . (heh. . .) Michael, PUULL-LEEZE!

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.

. . .Do you EVEN HAVE A CLUE as to what she was supposed to be doing there? "Las Vegas" isn't ABOUT that. It's a place where you can go to "Let your hair down", "get funky" yah know. It's ABOUT "Entertainment!", dammit!
People GO THERE to "get away from it all", not to see a continuation of "Lesson in Politics, part II". I have NO PROBLEM with Linda Rondstadt having an opinion (or) even announcing it in public, but she was "on the clock", so to speak. Would you go to your bosses' office (while YOU are "on the clock") and proceed to lecture him on politics? [friendly advice. . .DON'T GO THERE!] No, Your "boss" has you there for YOUR PERFORMANCE, in whatever capacity you are employed. What I'm getting at here, Kathaksung, is I LIKE "Linda Rondstadt", and even "George Clooney", and "Bruce Willis" for that matter. Favorite song by Linda: "Love is a Rose" Favourite Movie with George Clooney: "Oh Brother Where art Thou?" Favourite Movies with Bruce Willis: "The Die-Hard" series/whether-or-not I happen to disagree/agree with their 'political viewpoints' isn't the point here; when I purchase a CD (or) DVD I am paying for their PERFORMANCE, NOT THEIR VIEWPOINTS. What is it you are paying for? When I buy that ticket/cd/dvd they're on MY CLOCK, and that's what I want/otherwise, I wouldn't BUY IT. Comprende'?

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.

. . . Beg your pardon, (ahem) THAT touched many raw-nerves with many veterens, both INSIDE and OUT. Not just a 'select' group, here. . .

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.

. . .Pray tell, what would you have said IF they had NOT aired it? (did I just hear someone whisper) "censorship?"

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.

. . .Yes, so-sad HE lost (boo-hoo!), though he wasn't the 'only one' to get those so-called 'Anthrax' letters. Many Republicans ALSO got them; Terrorism knows NO PARTY LOYALTIES HERE, to them, WE ARE ALL the ENEMY.Quote From Osama Bin-Laden: "All citizens of the United States are guilty against Islam crimes they have committed, they must either convert to Islam or be destroyed as Infidels", Unquote, Also"Those that have payed taxes to THEIR gov'ts and have supported them are Infidels". Want more of his rants? just 'google' it!

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.

. . .Don't know if this is any indication, but I'll give you a 'for instance' here. My wife and I had a couple of friends over yesterday, (it was good, we hadn't seen them inawhile). We never really 'delve' into political discussion, though the topic had arose, so we compared notes, post-election/yah know, "how-did-you-vote-sorta-thing". Gotta say I was amazed at their reply, (THESE ARE "DEMOCRATS" we are talking about!) and they voted for "Bush" EVEN IN SPITE of having seen "Fahrenheit911" also! [Incidently, they even agreed that our reservations about his sad attempt at unbiased journalism] In EVERY CATAGORY, THEY VOTED EXACTLY like my wife and I, AND for all the very-same reasons! They (in the end) just didn't trust "John Kerry's doublespeak" here, it stuck with them all the way up to and including "Election Day". Good lesson for "John", there, perhaps he can use that knowledge in 2008. . .

Joe (Bigsky770)

[kathaksung]

Originally Posted by Bigsky770

. . .And that's going to be (all I'll say about that). . .



. . .Wrong. I have heard on the news CNN, USAToday, & Fox BAD things about "The Patriot Act" and as well misgivings announced on the other networks (CBS, NBC & ABC).

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/West/05/18/patriot.act.ap/

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C86915%2C00.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in564189.shtml

http://abcnews.go.com/US/Investigati...d=90203&page=1

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4065424

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...-patriot_x.htm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C86167%2C00.html

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90684&page=1

That'll get yah started.

. . .Just because you do not necessarilly listen to what it is they have to say, (or) tell you that which WANT to hear to strengthen your case, doesn't mean they are not 'reporting' it. I HAVE CERTAIN reservations "about" parts and pieces of the "Patriot Act" that I take issue with, and I am happy to say that I have heard EVERYONE of these stated. As a "Free Civilization" these need to be brought out and addressed, and I rest assured with the knowledge that in the end, "The RIGHT [WILL] PREVAIL" in this.

Joe (Bigsky770)

Thanks for URL information. But compare to other issues. Don't you think that's real scarce?

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.
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. "
http://portland.indymedia.org:8081/f...&group=webcast

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. 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 </cgi-bin/wwwthreads/showthreaded.pl?Cat=&Board=national&page=0&view=co llapsed&sb=5&vc=1&Number=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.

[Defiant Noquisi]

Originally Posted by Bigsky770

They (in the end) just didn't trust "John Kerry's doublespeak" here, it stuck with them all the way up to and including "Election Day". Good lesson for "John", there, perhaps he can use that knowledge in 2008. . .

Nice handling of this one Joe. However, Im a little confused with this last one. Not that Kerry was any kind of doorprize, (cause he wasnt) but wouldnt doublespeak be an equivalent to lying or deceit? If it is, how does one decide which is "better" or "worse" when casting a vote?

Just a thought.

[kathaksung]

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

http://ustogether.org/election04/FloridaDataStats.htm

www.rubberbug.com/temp/Florida2004chart.htm.

http://www.nomorefakenews.com/

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1106-30.htm

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,"

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/an_...led_rotten.php

http://www.civilrightsproject.harvar...ual_ballot.php

[substand]

are we STILL talking about this 2000 thing in 2004, post elections? You shoulda started a new thread. But I will respond here...

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.

This is not very hard to explain. Through the polls, almost everyone who said they were voting for Bush said they were voting FOR him, while almost everyone who said they were voting for Kerry said they were voting AGAINST Bush. With so little support FOR Kerry, it is not hard to imagine that people weren't motivated to go and vote for him... thus, it is quite possible that these people did not vote. And even if they did, with all of what, 3 counties in FL being democrat, it is not likely that they would have made a difference in the final outcome anyway, with the margin of victory Bush held in the state.

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.

The women polled sounds about accurate in the vote count. It was well known that women were voting for Bush more than normal (ie, normally it would be a wider margin of women voting for the Democrat). The polls about men are well within the margin of error. Being +-4%, the actual vote could have gone 53% to 47% for Bush among the men, and the women could have been closer, considering the margin of error. Since Bush won by such a small margin in Ohio, these polls are not at all alarming.

In the end, its obvious the polls were correct- they were within their margin of error.

[edit: fixed an obvious spelling mistake "can"->"can't" in the first paragraph and a quote problem... and one other thang]

[Defiant Noquisi]

Originally Posted by substand

are we STILL talking about this 2000 thing in 2004, post elections? You shoulda started a new thread. But I will respond here... Miss "They didn't poll everyone and you can't trust a poll" Noquisi =P ...

I dont understand the reference to my opinion of polls being posted in this thread subs.

[substand]

Originally Posted by Defiant Noquisi

I dont understand the reference to my opinion of polls being posted in this thread subs.

Huh? What are you talking about?


Sorry, saw your avatar right above the post and thought you had written it. References taken out.

[Defiant Noquisi]

Ah, ok. I thought I was missing something.

[kathaksung]

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.

[substand]

Ohio 2004 plays the same role of Florida 2000

Did you write this or should you be linking to someone who did? Does the author have any clue about presidential electoral politics in the US, or did he/she pull this completely out of the proverbial ass?

[kathaksung]

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.

[substand]

Did you write this or should you be linking to someone who did? Does the author have any clue about presidential electoral politics in the US, or did he/she pull this completely out of the proverbial ass?

Must have been pulled out of the proverbial ass.

[kathaksung]

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.

1. 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.

2. Yushchenko vigorously active in election. It seems the poison didn't hurt his health much.

3. Yushchenko and Western media blow the trumpet said that he was poisoned. It seems the poison was selected for propaganda much more than killing.

4. Motive is important in any case. Who benefit from this election if the victim having a destroyed face?

5. 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.

[kathaksung]

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.

[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.

[kathaksung]

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.

[Defiant Noquisi]

Originally Posted by kathaksung

They had reason to believe the documents handed to them at that time.

That smells so much of the Iraq war sham.

[kathaksung]

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

http://www.cbpp.org/1-4-05socsec.htm

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.

[stewey]

Gore lost, get over it. In Fahrenhype 911, they interview Gore's campaign manager, and he himself said that Bush won.

[kathaksung]

Are you a member of swift boat team or from Rumsfeld's "strategy office" to spread propaganda?

---------------

291. CEO and company (2/14/05)

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.

[stewey]

Originally Posted by kathaksung

Are you a member of swift boat team or from Rumsfeld's "strategy office" to spread propaganda?

---------------

291. CEO and company (2/14/05)

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.

Nope, I am a member of the Libertarian party. However, Gore lost fair and square in 2000. Get over it already.

[kathaksung]

Originally Posted by stewey

Nope, I am a member of the Libertarian party. However, Gore lost fair and square in 2000. Get over it already.

So you are the one assigned to detect Libertarian Party?

-------------

292. From Disneyland, HP, to US. (2/19/05)

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.

[kathaksung]

295. Who controls D.O.J.? (3/7/05)

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."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2002Feb28.html

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.