Home > Archive >The Bush Victory Analysis & The Bush Record
Author:written by Joel Skousen posted by jc
Sun, Nov 21st, 2004 06:43:17 PM
Topic: The Bush Victory Analysis & The Bush Record

The Bush Victory Analysis
The Bush Record

Never before has an election polarized the American people as this one—and the bitterness and distrust of the Bush administration by the 49% that voted for Kerry is not going away. It will continue to fester as President Bush accelerates his “new mandate from the people.”

Despite the fact that there is very little difference between the positions of both major political parties (both are socialist and globalist in orientation), and also little difference in the controlled background of both candidates (Skull and Bones members, surrounded by CFR advisors and handlers), the perception of voters from the two sides is dramatically separate. Democrats and many independent voters hold to the view that George Bush is an inveterate warmonger and that John Kerry is a peace loving liberal. Conservatives, on the other hand, were downright fearful of being led by a Jane Fonda peacenik,who falsified his allegiance to the Constitution, gun rights, and moral values.

Despite Kerry’s call for unity and Bush’s appeal to Kerry supporters to help him lead a united America , there will never be a truce between these two groups. As long as conservatives give unthinking support to a president who betrays every constitutional and religious principle he pretends to espouse, and as long as liberals think John Kerry would have done anything different as president, we haven’t got a chance of turning things around in this country. When it appeared that Kerry might just pull off a victory, I thought it might be an interesting exercise to see how the liberals react once they realize that Kerry would continue the policies of Bush, albeit with a different spin. But, as one of my friends pointed out, “Liberals wouldn’t see the light any more than conservatives. Both are wedded to the carefully skewed establishment news” which never really attacks the globalist agenda of either party.

HILLARY: A victory for Kerry would have derailed a presidential run for Hillary Clinton until she was too old and ugly to win. Now, with the Bush reelection, Hillary will begin her run for the Democratic nomination immediately, though informally. She already is getting a boost from the NY Times:

In a story in Thursday's editions, the paper begins: "The defeat of John Kerry has left Hillary Rodham Clinton as one of the most powerful elected officials in the national Democratic Party - as well as the top prospect for the presidential nomination in 2008, according to party officials and strategists."

She has powerful ambitions and will not be denied, though I doubt the PTB will let her win the presidency. They don’t ever intend to allow the victory of a candidate who has her kind of independent will. That is why they never allowed Lee Ioccoca to run for president. He was too independent and strong-minded. He wasn’t controllable.

I think Hillary will face Rudolph Giuliani as the Republican nominee, a candidate who is, frankly, unbeatable—if he can stay healthy. Some have speculated also about the ambitions of Arnold Schwarzenegger, who just recently admitted on 60 Minutes that he, indeed, harbors presidential ambitions, notwithstanding the US constitutional prohibition against persons of foreign birth ascending to this high office. –Not to worry! Republican lackey Sen. Orrin Hatch is bent on sponsoring a constitutional remedy for this problem. One wonders why he would go to all this trouble (amidst all the more important things Hatch has to do) when there is neither a pressing need nor a public outcry for such a change. It is obvious someone from the RNC put a bug in his ear—which indicates that in mind for the presidency. However, I think he is just a back-up, in case Giuliani slips from popularity.

There are a number of Democratic candidates who could have presented a greater threat to George W. than John Kerry—but they were not allowed to run. The PTB wanted Bush reelected and they needed a flawed Democratic candidate who could be beaten. Kerry appeared to be a good choice, on the surface, but the liabilities of George Bush (one-track, blustering, error-prone personality; falsifying the reasons for going to war in Iraq ; etc.) still made it unlikely that he could defeat Kerry single-handedly. Bush’s liabilities make him the perfect president for antagonizing the rest of the world, but increase the difficulties of getting him reelected. That is why Ralph Nader was trotted out to pull off additional votes from Kerry, as happened with Al Gore’s run for the presidency. If the PTB really wanted Kerry to win, they would have given significant airtime to the Libertarian and Constitution Party candidates, which would have drawn votes away from Bush. But, nary a word was uttered about these two principled third parties. Even the Christian Coalition refused to list the Conservative Party candidate, Michael Peroutka, for president. Peroutka is a devout Christian who ran on a pro-constitution, pro-Christian platform.

In the end, Not even the Nader sabotage campaign was enough to ensure a Bush win. As some had feared would happen, there appears to be ample evidence of the misuse electronic voting skew the results toward Bush. This is easy to do when the PTB control the people behind the two major companies that provide voting machines to states. Walden O'Dell, CEO of Diebold Corporation, the largest of the two, is a Republican fund raiser. That doesn’t make him dishonest per se but Diebold’s history of secretive software changes and lack of openness in state investigations about those changes make the company very suspect.

Some of this manipulation was blatant, such as when voters in some precincts complained that the touch screens sometimes registered their vote for Kerry as a vote for Bush. There were virtually no reports of the opposite mistake happening. One county’s vote computer already had votes for Bush in memory before the voting began. Another county in Ohio had all its votes disappear from memory.

But the more common methods were more subtle—tweaking the Bush percentages upward only in close races where it wouldn’t be noticeable or provable. Here is an analysis by voter fraud expert Faun Otter:

“So what do we actually see when comparing exit polls with actual results? There is skew - but ONLY in states which the Republicans had previously stated to be target states in play. The skew is in the same direction every time; that is to say in favor of Bush. The exit poll results are not scattered about the mean as the alternative theory predicts. They are all on the Kerry side of the vote counts as issued by the states except for a hand full of states which hit amazingly close to the exit poll figures.

“Here are the figures. They list the four contemporaneous and uncorrected exit polls. Kerry is listed first and Bush second in each pair of figures. Published = the figure presented as the vote count as of 10.00 a.m. EST on 11/3/04.

Poll one 45-55 Final 45-55 Published 44-55

Poll one 48-51 2nd 48-50 3rd 46-53 Published 46-53

Poll one 42-57 Final 43-56 Published 42-57

Poll one 51-48 Published 51-48 Published 51-48

Poll one 49-49 3rd 50-48 Final 49-49 Published 49-50

New Mexico
Poll one 50-48 2nd 50-48 3rd 50-48 Final 50-49 Published 49-50

3rd poll 55-44 Published 53-45

3rd poll 48-49 Published 48-51

3rd poll 45-54 Published 45-54

Final 46-54 Published 46-53

“These tracking polls were right where you would expect them to be and within the margin of error. However, if we look at some other states, the figures are beyond curious. Either the exit polls were wrong or the vote count is wrong:

Poll one 52-48 3rd 51-46 Final 52-47 Published 50-49

Poll one 60-40 3rd 54-45 Final 53-46 Published 51-49

Poll one 52-48 2nd 50-49 3rd 50-49 Final 51-49 Published 49-51

Poll one 51-48 2nd 50-49 3rd 50-49 Final 51-49 Published 47-52

Poll one 58-40 3rd 58-40 Final 54-44 Published 51-48

New Hampshire
Poll one 57-41 3rd 58-41 Published 50-49

North Carolina
Poll one 3rd 49-51 Final 48-52 Published 43-56

“Taking the figures and measuring the size and direction of the poll to supposed vote count discrepancy, we find the variance between the exit poll and the final result: Wisconsin: Bush plus 4%; Pennsylvania: Bush plus 5%; Ohio: Bush plus 4%; Florida: Bush plus 7%; Minnesota: Bush plus 7%; New Hampshire: Bush plus 15%; North Carolina: Bush plus 9%.” [End of Otter analysis.]

My comments:
It is noteworthy that the manipulators (insiders with the companies that provide the machines to state governments) chose states where a paper record is not required or not easily audited afterward. Exit polling has been proven to be extremely accurate, so this study should not be dismissed. A caller to a radio talk show I was on yesterday pointed out to me that the mainstream media was crying “foul” about these exit polls (showing Kerry winning), suggesting that this may be proof of the left trying to influence the outcome of the election. It could also be that the controlled media knew that Bush was going to be the winner, and that the election results would show a significant difference from the exit polls—hence the need to denigrate the exit polling results beforehand, so the public would believe the skewed election results.

I expect to see several changes in the Bush Cabinet as he and his handlers prepare for the “new” four-year globalist agenda. Rumors abound that Colin Powell will be leaving as Sec. of State. Powell, though a predictable yes-man, has never been deep enough within the core circle of Neocon strategists to avoid making significant political gaffs while in office. Hardly a month goes by without a Powell remark being corrected by the White House. Powell has also had to play up to the left-leaning contingency of staffers in the State Department, who hate being part of the Bush administration, with all of its perceived “right wing” baggage. Look for either Condi Rice or Richard Armitage to fill the slot. Condoleezza Rice has not been effective as National Security Advisor (not being on par with the likes of Kissinger, Scowcroft, Talbot and Brzezinski), but she would be a perfectly obedient spokeswoman for Bush as Sec. of State.

Embattled and unpopular Attorney General John Ashcroft may also step down to give the appearance of change at the Department of Justice. This one move would do more to assuage the pain of the American liberals than anything else, though I’m sure another predictable yes-man will be selected to fill his slot. It is amazing to me how much can be done to dampen public ire simply by changing personnel at the cabinet level. The departure of George Tenet from the CIA is a case in point. Porter Goss has continued the same policies, but no one notices. Rudolph Giuliani, “America’s Mayor” and Time Magazine’s 2001 Man of the Year is being considered for the post. The Republicans are looking for a prestigious job for Giuliani in order to keep him in the public eye. However, his pro-abortion and pro-gay position make him suspect to conservatives. In any case, now that Bush has won reelection, he can disregard his conservative base with impunity.

Some pundits claim that Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld will be replaced as well. I doubt that such a move would blunt criticism of the Iraq occupation, as long as the US intends to continue the war—which it does. Rumsfeld is one of the president’s experienced handlers, who instructs him on policy, so he won’t be released unless replaced by someone of equal importance to the globalist hierarchy.

In general, concerning foreign policy matters, I expect to see Bush play up to the UN and his European allies more during his second term. Even the Europeans are making noises about reconciliation, though no one really expects any substantive changes. There will be another war in the Middle East during the Bush second term. Worse, North Korea will undoubtedly harden its stance, despite the optimism of the South Koreans who claim North Korea will just have to get used to four more years of “tough-minded” Bush. Only the rhetoric of the Bush administration is tough. Bush continues to allow China and Russia to cover for North Korea. In addition, secret negotiations always involve deep concessions to North Korea’s claimed needs for military, nuclear and foreign aid support.

The paradigms of free speech and unfettered elections have forever been altered by the events of 2000 and 2004. While the establishment’s ballot intervention in Florida during 2000 was poorly handled and abrupt, the establishment now has new and more sophisticated tools at their disposal with electronic voting. Despite its flaws, I don’t expect a return to paper ballots. The inertia of having brought on new equipment, with all the associated installation and training costs, will keep states from returning to the old ways.

Another aspect that has changed for the worse during this election is the degree of free speech tolerated during campaign season. Particularly disturbing is the manhandling of protestors by police forces, who are under federal control when the President comes to town. Not only are no-fly zones put into effect, which affect private pilots, but “free speech zones” are set up on the ground far away from any potential contact with the campaigning politician. These zones have begun to resemble concentration camps. In small towns, protestors are subjected to tactics that can only be described as manipulative—where one can’t avoid defying law enforcement officers because of opposite and contradictory orders. Here’s a sample from my home state of Oregon by Trish Bowcock. Her story demonstrates why the extreme measures used against protestors at the Republican National Convention were not the exception, but the rule:
“Southern Oregon has been deemed a "battle ground" area in the presidential race. John Kerry has made incredible inroads in this traditionally Republican stronghold. President Bush's campaign stop was an attempt to staunch the slide. Jacksonville is an old gold mining town. Our main street is only five blocks long, lined with restored storefronts. The sidewalks are narrow.

“We are a peaceful community. The prospect of an overnight presidential visit was exciting, even to me, a lifelong Democrat. My excitement turned to horror as I watched events unfold during President Bush's visit. In the mid 1800s, when Indians invaded Jacksonville, citizens clambered upon the roof of the old library. It was the one building that would not catch fire when flaming arrows were shot. This week it was a different scene.

“Police armed with high-powered rifles perched upon our rooftops as the presidential motorcade approached. Helicopters flew low, overhead. A cadre of motorcycle police zoomed into town. Black SUVs followed, sandwiching several black limousines carrying the president, his wife and their entourage as they sped to the local inn where they would eat and sleep.

“The main street was lined with people gathered to witness the event. Many supported the president. Many did not. Some came because they were simply curious. There were men, women, young and old. The mood was somewhat festive. Supporters of John Kerry sported signs, as did supporters of George Bush. Individuals, exercising their rights of free speech began chanting. On one side of the street, shouts of ‘four more years’ echoed in the night air. On the other side of the street, chants of ‘three more weeks’ responded. The chants were loud and apparently could be heard by President Bush.

“An order was issued that the anti-Bush rhetoric be quieted. The local SWAT team leapt to action. It happened fast. Clad in full riot gear, at least 50 officers moved in. Shouting indecipherable commands from a bullhorn, they formed a chain and bore down upon the people, only working to clear the side of the street appearing to be occupied by Kerry supporters. People tried to get out of their way. It was very crowded. There was nowhere to move. People were being crushed. They started flowing into the streets. Pleas to the officers, asking, ‘where to go’ fell upon deaf ears.

“Instead, riot police fired pellets of cayenne pepper spray into the crowd. An old man fell and couldn't get up. When a young man stopped to help, he was shot in the back with hard pepper spray balls. Children were hit with pepper spray. Deemed ‘Protesters’ were shoved and herded down the street by the menacing line of armed riot police, until out of the President's ear-shot.

“Across the street, individuals shouting support for the president were allowed to continue. Officers monitored this group but allowed them to shout words of support or hurl derisions toward Kerry supporters, undisturbed. Honking cars filled with Bush supporters were left alone. A honking car full of Kerry supporters was stopped by police on its way out of town.

“The standoff with ‘Protesters’ continued until the President finished his dinner and was secured in his hotel cottage for the night. Only then were the riot police ordered to ‘mount-up,’ leaping upon the sideboard of a huge SUV, pulling out of town, and allowing ‘free speech’ to resume.

“In small town America, I witnessed true repression and intimidation by law enforcement. I saw small children suffering from the effects of being fired upon by pepper bullets. I felt legitimate fear of expressing my political opinions: a brand new feeling. Newspaper accounts state the chaos started when a violent ‘Protester’ shoved a police officer. No one I talked to witnessed this account.” [End of Bowcock excerpt.]

I have documented in prior briefs the government’s use of agent provocateurs to give justification for violent actions against protestors. This is a great evil and is becoming all too common in the world. Although conservatives consider “protesting” beneath their dignity now, the time will come when they too will feel the need to decry government actions – when they wake up to the awful realization that what remains of their constitutional liberties is nearly gone.

THE BUSH RECORD AT MIDTERM--A CONTINUATION OF CLINTON POLICIES When George W. Bush came on board as president, not only did he fail to block implementation of the flood of Executive Orders signed in the waning minutes of Clinton's administration, but he directed Attorney General John Ashcroft to drop prosecution of all the pending investigations of Clinton's misconduct during his two terms of office. Bush claimed he simply wanted to "put all this behind us," and many conservatives took the new president at his word. However, at mid-term, it appears as if Bush has actually been taking guidance from the same CFR insiders that controlled, pampered and protected his predecessor, the nation's most notorious "Criminal in Chief." In fact, with the delivery of his second State of the Union address, it is now abundantly clear that George W. Bush not only intends to outspend Bill Clinton, enact more socialist legislation, and make international intervention his hallmark, but he also intends to maintain and defend all the failed policies enacted by Clinton that conservatives hoped would go away.

Phyllis Shlafly sent out an excellent partial analysis of this presumed anomaly in a recent report to the Eagle Forum. Here are some excerpted examples of problematic Clinton policies being stubbornly upheld by Bush: [ My comments in brackets. ]
1. "The Clinton Administration's abolition of the Army's 'Risk Rule,' which had exempted women in support units from areas that involve 'inherent risk of capture.' That policy change, ordered by the Clinton feminists, is the reason why a single mother of two very young children was killed in the Iraq war and another single mother of a two-year-old was taken as a POW… [These] are victims of a Clinton policy that Bush could change with a stroke of his pen. But, according to Fleischer, this hasn't risen 'to a higher policy level.' What's a higher policy level than defending mothers of infants against being killed or captured by the axis of evil?

2. "Why doesn't Bush terminate other Clinton rules that impose the feminist agenda on the military, such as coed basic training? The Army Training Command admitted that coed basic training, which is gender- normed to reduce female injuries, is 'not efficient' and of no military value….[But] without presidential leadership, the generals are certainly not going to act on their own.

3. "Nor, without a presidential decision, will the generals overturn Clinton's convoluted ' don't ask, don't tell enforcement regulations, which a federal Court of Appeals found to be inconsistent with the 1993 law banning homosexuals from the military.

4. "The feminists in the Clinton Department of Education engaged in aggressive enforcement of Title IX, using bureaucratically invented words and rules that were not authorized by the statute. They used Title IX to punish men by forcing colleges to abolish 171 wrestling teams and hundreds of men's teams in gymnastics, swimming, golf and even football. President Bush appointed a commission to study the distortions of Title IX, but he foolishly gave some of the commission seats to feminists, and they used the media to grandstand for their side of the controversy. Secretary of Education Rod Paige then announced he would not implement any changes that were not unanimously recommended , [ in essence giving those feminist members a veto power over all the others-a slick move that allows a politician to maintain a conservative front while stacking the deck so that liberal policies continue to emerge ].

5. "The Clinton Administration persuaded Congress to pass a ban on semi-automatic assault rifles in 1994, and the ban will sunset next year. Senate Democrats have introduced a bill to continue the ban and, to the shock of the National Rifle Association, Bush announced that he supports the Democrats' bill. President Bush seems to have forgotten that his steadfast support of Second Amendment rights was the main reason he carried the Democratic states of Arkansas ,Tennessee and West Virginia in November 2000.

6. "Then there is the matter of Clinton sending US troops to Bosnia, and its relation to the International Criminal Court (ICC) Treaty which Clinton's emissaries enthusiastically helped to write and Clinton signed as one of his last official acts. Bush had a wonderful opportunity to withdraw our troops from Bosnia when the ICC impudently asserted jurisdiction over Americans even though Bush had 'unsigned' the ICC Treaty. For a brief few days, Bush stood tall for the protection of American service personnel by threatening to pull our troops out of Bosnia unless the United Nations promised us immunity from the ICC. [ Actually, Bush only demanded immunity for US political and military leaders. ] But then he wobbled, accepting a lame compromise that left the US with the almost impossible task of trying to negotiate separate immunity agreements with the 139 ICC countries, while at the same time keeping our troops on duty in Bosnia as a fig leaf to cover the ethnic hostility that is still as bitter and dangerous as ever.

7. "Another Clinton policy, Executive Order 13166, requires all government agencies, and all entities receiving federal funds (such as doctors and hospitals), to provide their services in any foreign language demanded by a client. The perfect opportunity to rescind this costly unfunded mandate was served up when the US Supreme Court ruled two years ago that no one has a right to demand government services in languages other than English. But President Bush chose to continue Clinton 's pandering to non-English speaking minorities. Regrettably, Bush breathed new life into Clinton 's EO 13166 with all its follies and costs. We're still hoping for a repudiation of these Clinton policies." [End of Schlafly quote.]

I would add to the list a few more egregious Clinton policies that Bush insists on perpetuating:
8. President Bush refuses to rescind PDD-60 , the suicidal Clinton decision directive (to the military) to absorb a nuclear first strike and not rely on Launch on Warning , a powerful deterrent to nuclear attack. This telegraphs to Russia ,China or any other major power with ICBMs the message, "You get one free attack on the US , so give us all you've got in the first shot."

9. The Bush Administration continues the Clinton policy of giving US companies that are transferring dual use technology to China special exemptions from Commerce Department regulations banning export of military technology. Bush also decided, just like Clinton , not to demand that the United Nations' Human Rights Commission investigate China 's widespread human rights abuses of torture, forced confessions, killings, religious suppression and arbitrary arrest. The Chinese prison camp system (Laogai) is larger than the Russian Gulag.

10. Clinton brought open homosexuals into his administration and recommended them for Senate approval as government administrators or ambassadors. Bush, albeit without all the publicity, has done more of the same. His hand picked chairman of the Republican National Committee, Marc Racicot, met with leaders of the Human Rights Campaign , a homosexual lobby group, at a luncheon in Washington . Not surprisingly, the meeting was kept secret and was first reported in the Washington Blade (an openly gay newspaper). In response to conservative criticism over the meeting, a spokesperson for the RNC said that Racicot was "honored to meet with gays." Bush has even gone further than Clinton in pandering to the homosexual groups lobbying for billions in AIDS funding. Bush's proposal announced in his State of the Union speech targets $15 billion for AIDS, and includes funding for a host of pet research projects on the homosexual agenda. The bill also emphasizes condom use rather than changes in high risk homosexual behavior.

11. The Bush administration, like Clinton 's, continues to pander to the environmental lobby. For instance, the Pentagon sponsored an Earth Day celebration on April 21, assigning acting Navy Secretary H. T. Johnson to host this taxpayer-funded party for the same environmentalists that continue to try to shut down all military training grounds, claiming damage to supposedly endangered species. Worse, the administration has refused to give relief to the Oregon farmers whose legal water rights were terminated by the Clinton administration to provide more water for fish stocks.

12. Bush has used his clout as president to support liberal Republicans Senate candidates who support bigger government, increased taxes, abortion and sometimes even gun control. When some of these failed to gain the nominations, he has worked against their more conservative challengers. Clinton would have done the same thing.

13. President Bush continues promote the United Nations, recently putting the US back on board UNESCO , with all its anti-American education propaganda.

14. President Bush is just as secretive as Bill Clinton in terms of covering up for government wrongdoing. To cite just a few examples: Cheney's stonewalling of the Congressional subpoena for information on the secret energy meetings with Enron and others; President Bush's invoking Executive Privilege to keep Congress from investigating FBI dealings with the Mafia; and the administration's denial to the 9/11 Independent Commission of access to government records detailing government's failure, during the attacks on the WTC, to activate defense protocols in a timely manner.

15. Like Clinton , the Bush administration has engaged in systematic lying to the public. The examples of this are legion. I've detailed many instances in prior briefs, such as the falsification of intelligence information to justify the Iraq war, and the denials of insider dealings between members of the Bush administration and its various oversight agencies with corrupt corporations like Enron, Worldcom, and Global Crossing. The administration has also lied about a host of things relative to 9/11 attacks, and about their real motives for going to war in Iraq . In fact, I will even be so bold as to assert that almost every statement from this administration is a lie, if we take into consideration the purposeful omission of crucial information that would change people's perception about what is being announced.

16. Just like Clinton, the Bush administration continues to silence whistleblowers .Clinton signed, in the name of "national security," a special Executive Order (EO 13039) excluding the Naval Special Warfare Development Group from the Whistleblower Protection Act . Why? This organization includes the Navy divers who went down to extract the black boxes from the submerged wreckage of TWA 800 two days before these same black boxes were officially found, back in the water . In falsifying the evidence of the "accidental fuel tank explosion" of TWA 800, Clinton obviously didn't want the Navy divers talking about their role in the bringing up the black boxes early so the recordings could be altered. In like manner, during the Bush administration, FBI whistleblowers with information about government involvement in the OKC bombing or about FBI mishandling of crucial information about the 9/11 attacks have been silenced. Even impeachment attorney David Schippers, who now represents several of these FBI agents, cannot get anyone in the Ashcroft Justice Department to answer his calls. Strangely, the courts continue to protect the Bush administration as it hides behind the mask of "national security" and the "war on terror."

Home   Buy/Sell at the Kazbah   Terms Of Service