Double post on same topic, and I’ve seen to many polls saying that Kerry got a 4 pt bounce. I think this is just an aberration from what is really going on.

Posted by: Lakhim at August 1, 2004 05:16 PM

*too….blarg.

Posted by: Lakhim at August 1, 2004 05:17 PM

The CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll provides an interesting contrast with the Newsweek numbers. In addition, Rasmussen’s polling numbers over the past two days also differ from those of Newsweek. I’d have to guess that there was a very small bump for the Democrats, but not what they were hoping for.

On another note:

I just watched the Kerry/Edwards interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. They were not very impressive - especially Kerry. It was like watching a dodge ball game with Kerry trying to evade his own words. I have to hand it to Wallace. He was polite and respectful - not at all combative, but he didn’t relent and let Kerry spin away from what he’s said and done in the past - up to and including his speech at the Convention. Good interview.

Posted by: Jim at August 1, 2004 06:03 PM

They made a huge mistake by focusing on the war (Bush’s issue) and by bringing up Viet Nam (a non-issue). Energized the Reps and turned off the Dems.

Posted by: thedragonflies at August 1, 2004 06:12 PM

If we’re ever going to get away from the Prom King-style of Presidential elections, we’re going to have to put a sock on the polls.

This is the next POTUS, not Danny Potts, halfback on the varsity, it’s not a popularity contest. We have a secret ballot in this country and whoever someone else votes for is none of my business.

Perhaps the best thing to do is to stop watching the news on TV (if you’re still doing that, most people aren’t). Who is declared the winner of NY with less than 1% of the vote counted should never keep anyone home because of the “What’s the use?” factor.

Instantaneous information dispersal is a double-edged sword. Don’t let anyone else tell who’s won/going to win until you have voted.

Posted by: torpedo_eight at August 1, 2004 06:15 PM

“They made a huge mistake by focusing on the war (Bush’s issue) and by bringing up Viet Nam (a non-issue). Energized the Reps and turned off the Dems.”

Some clarification here - The war was/is OUR issue. If Kerry had/has a plan that differs from President Bush, I’d say ‘go for it’. Let’s hear about that plan, if he has one. He does not. So…

AFA Vietnam - It should have been a non-issue. Kerry chose to make it an issue. If he wants to recant his bogus ‘testimony’, release his questionable Military Medical Records and let the chips fall where they may, I say once again, ‘go for it’. Slim and next to zero chance that will happen. It has become all too acceptable for the Left and Liberals to allow any and all behavior as long as it it is Left and Liberal. Inexcusable from my perspective.

The italicized portion Posted by: thedragonflies at August 1, 2004 06:12 PM

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at August 1, 2004 07:10 PM

And the Democratic UNRAVELING begins in the “Battleground States”…

St. Paul, MN DEMOCRAT Mayor Endorses BUSH for President.
http://kare11.com/news/news-article.asp?NEWS_ID=67485

Posted by: Max Darkside at August 1, 2004 08:08 PM

The last three issues of Newsweek have had Kerry, Edwards or both on the cover. You don’t think they’d have some bias do you?

Do you suppose Bush/Cheney will get three issues with glowing oratory around the RNC convention? I don’t think so either.

Chads

Posted by: Chads at August 1, 2004 08:19 PM

I agree that the war is America’s war and doesn’t belong to Bush. I don’t know that the Dems and Kerry really understand that. I am afraid Kerry is still in the treat-the-war-like-a-crime mentality. The Nader crowd, of course, just wants to pull out altogether. I wasn’t convinced that Kerry would be as good as Bush on the war.

Posted by: thedragonflies at August 1, 2004 08:25 PM

I agree that the war is America’s war and doesn’t belong to Bush. I don’t know that the Dems and Kerry really understand that. I am afraid Kerry is still in the treat-the-war-like-a-crime mentality. The Nader crowd, of course, just wants to pull out altogether. I wasn’t convinced that Kerry would be as good as Bush on the war.

Posted by: thedragonflies at August 1, 2004 08:34 PM

I don’t think Kerry himself is convinced he would be better at fighting the War on Terror or finishing up in Iraq and Afghanistan. On Chris Wallace today he said he had a plan for Iraq but wasn’t going to discuss the details until he was President. It appears his overall plan is to “convince” France, Germany and Russia to take over.

His position as I understand it from his DNC speech is to respond to attacks and not fight a war unless it is necessary. I’m sure that was music to the ears of jihadists everywhere. How many more Americans will have to die on our soil and how much devastation will our economy have to overcome? Kerry has pretty much invited terror attacks on us if he is elected.

Posted by: TexasGal at August 1, 2004 08:37 PM

I am more inclined to believe this poll, which is of likely voters, than the Newsweek poll, which is of adults.

Posted by: DWC at August 1, 2004 08:58 PM

• There is a small positive bounce.
• There is no bounce.
• There is a small negative bounce.

Pollsters have reported each of these outcomes. All of them are correct, if you know how polling works.

None of them matter.

Posted by: Don at August 1, 2004 09:09 PM

It’s quite easy to see why Bush might have gotten a bounce from the DNC. There was a week of News focusing on the convention NOT the bad news or perceived bad news from Iraq. This election is not about why Kerry should be elected, it’s about Why Bush Should not be reelected. When the news does not favor removing Bush, Kerry will drop in the polls!

Posted by: lawguy at August 1, 2004 09:23 PM

Perhaps, but on the other hand….

Posted by: Don at August 1, 2004 09:25 PM

lawguy,

I understand your point, but just a small quibble.

This election is not about why Kerry should be elected, it’s about Why Bush Should not be reelected.

That’s not what the election is about. But that was what the Democrat’s Convention was about.

Posted by: TexasGal at August 1, 2004 09:33 PM

Texasgal, generally a reelection campaign for president is more about the incumbent rather than the challenger. In this type of election the electorate usually answers two questions, 1. does the incumbent deserve a second term, and if the answer to that is NO, than 2. is the challenger an adequate replacement.
My point is the electorate needs to decided if they want a new president first. The Burden is on the challenger to show the electorate that the incumbent needs to be replaced. The incumbent needs to defend their record and show that, even if you want me gone, the challenger is not an adequate replacement. Look at the 96 election, because the economy was good, we were in a “perceived time of peace”, and despite all of Clinton’s scandals and questionable behavior, the electorate was happy and did not see a reason to replace him. A Reagan type could have run against him and loose. This is just my opinion.

Posted by: lawguy at August 1, 2004 09:51 PM

Considering that:

1) The month of August usually does not historically show much change in polling numbers (however both camps seem determined to try and change that this election.)

2) This is a very partisan election season with less than 10% of likely voters who seem to be trully undecided or willing to consider changing their vote (which typically does not happen until late October normally)

3) The large number of outside influcences that may cause major impacts on the current status quo (Iraq, the economy, GWOT, another major attack on U. S. soil, WMD discovery (if any or not), OBL, etc.)

Then these numbers are interesting but not conclusive one way or the other. Still, if this trend to little or no bounce continues to be reflected in the emerging poll updates, it will call for a more defensive response from the Democrats versus ammunition for Repbulican claims.

Bottoom line, the reports to date provide a net gain for the Republicans… but not by much.

I agree with lawguy in the following:

… the electorate needs to decide if they want a new president first. The Burden is on the challenger to show the electorate that the incumbent needs to be replaced. The incumbent needs to defend their record and show that, even if you want me gone, the challenger is not an adequate replacement.

so… it continues to be a close race, and to be sure a nasty one.

However, the President has a certain incumbent advantage in that he can cause or not cause certain things to happen (e.g. be proactive in policy or diplomatic initiatives) to potentially help himself and/or impeded his challenger. An uptick in the economy in August and September, a victory here or there in GWOT, the capture of OBL, improved relations with other coutries (Note: NATO is sending troops to help train Iraqi forces in an apparent cooperative venture with the U. S.) and Kerry’s struggle gets more difficult. If things start to go worse in any of the diplomatic, economic or war fronts for President Bush, than Kerry’s Monday Morning Quarterbacking will be sufficient to convince voters to replace Bush.

Posted by: steve at August 1, 2004 10:20 PM

Where does the “Kerry can’t viscerally repulse potential voters” aspect fit into this scenario?

Posted by: JB at August 1, 2004 11:13 PM

Lawguy,

Like I said, I understand your point. I agree as the challenger Kerry has to prove his case to the electorate why he should be elected and why Bush should not be reelected. But that is only one side of an ELECTION. In this case that is the Democrat’s side of the campaign. The opposite will be true of the Republican’s side of the campaign. So for example, Bush will be focusing on why he should be reelected and why Kerry is not competent to lead the nation.

Both sides make an Election.

So it’s not the jest of what you say, its’ the way you say it that I disagree with.

As far as these polls are concerned, I think what is shows is the undecided for the most part were not swayed by Kerry. My opinion is that once his position as outlined in his speech begins to be defined and understood, he has lost his opportunity to sway the undecided.

Posted by: TexasGal at August 1, 2004 11:20 PM

In following the conventions effect on the Military Blogs, Forums,etc., it seems that the “John Kerry,War Hero™” Vietnam Values Tour did the opposite of that which was intended.

It appears to be bringing in Veterans that haven’t been to the military sites before and find themselves surprised that the Anti-Kerry forces OWN the sites. A short walk with their brother veterans and the guys in the Middle of the road turn right. The term “fraud” and “phoney” is bandied about often, regarding Kerry’s illustrious Naval career.

He should have stuck with the Hamster story and left the Vietnam home movies on the cutting room floor. At least it wouldn’t have cost him votes.

Posted by: ET at August 2, 2004 02:21 AM

Hopefully that will get the snowball rolling downhill. If you can’t beleive him on his military history I sure don’t beleive him on foriegn or domestic policy.

Chads

Posted by: Chads at August 2, 2004 09:04 AM

Interesting about this poll… CNN.com does not have any report or mention of its own poll as of 10 am today. Gallup and USA Today have full reports. At least one of the talk shows on Sunday discussed the apparent small bounce out of the convention too.

One would think this was newsworthy as it features the CNN name in the least.

Posted by: steve at August 2, 2004 09:55 AM

hmmmm,

Polling data will abound between now and the real poll. It’s starting to sound like a sport radio talk show with people defending their predictions based on amazing trends.

“Team X’s record is 16 and 2 after playing a night game on turf against an opponent with a winning record. Therefore I’m taking X and the points”

This seems like the same deal. The tea leaves are in the bottom of the cup and each of us gets a chance to read them.

Still, if I were in the Kerry camp, I’d have some concerns this fine morning. yes I do believe I’d be concerned.

Posted by: skip at August 2, 2004 11:04 AM

ET: The “military blogs” tell you essentially Nothing at all about what’s really going on out there. Most veterans don’t hang on military blogs. Damned few of them do.

What you need to do is get out and talk with Actual Voters. I manned a booth in a small community festival, right next to the American Legion booth and across from the Army National Guard booth. I wore my “Proud to be a Veteran” button on my cap, and several dozen veterans coming by initiated discussion of Kerry’s status.

These are folks who wouldn’t know a Military Blog from a hole in the ground. Yet they are Voters — not just registered, but Real Voters.

They overwhelmingly find the attempt by the R’s to discredit Kerry’s military service distasteful on its face. They simply state that he was a Genuine War Hero, and let it go at that. Their interest in the entire Veteran’s Discussion resides elsewhere — and their take on it is hardly pro-Dubya overall.

Folks who hang on the Net in its various guises oftime reify it to the point where they see It as being representative of The Nation generally, and The Voters specifically.

Mostly it isn’t. In fact, I’d guess that if you were to do a proper stratified random sample poll of veterans out there — which would be on a nationwide basis somewhere between 1500 and 2000 individual veterans, just to get the Error Factor down to somewhere around 3-5% — you’d maybe find less than ten who were even Aware of a Military Blog, and less than five who had ever been to one. That’s been borne out in my political efforts this year as well — The Net is hardly the focus of folks’ attentions on any political matter.

Don’t reify this medium. Though it captures 100% of the attention of its enthusiasts, it doesn’t capture anywhere near that in the lives of Normal Folks. For most folks, what they use the Net for is to do e-mail and maybe a little online shopping. Blogs of any sort are waythehell down the line.

Concluding from the reactions of the bloggistes that there’s Something Significant happening out there is a fool’s errand in a political milieu.

Posted by: Don at August 2, 2004 11:35 AM

Skip et al: Of course the Kerry camp should be concerned. So should the Dubya camp. The only one that shouldn’t be is the Nader camp.

Any political campaign that isn’t Concerned about everything pretty much all the time tends to lose. Complacency is Not a winning strategy. Neither is overconfidence.

Smugness even less so.

Posted by: Don at August 2, 2004 11:37 AM

TG: The Chattering Classes (columnists, commentators and bloggistes generally) are going to wander about, proclaiming that the election is about This or That, trying to make their claims universal.

They will all be wrong. (Review the poem about the Three Blind Men of Hindustan for a discussion of how that works.)

The election is “about” what individual voters say and believe it is about. Each of them will have a slightly different Personal Take on the matter. Some will be rational and have to do with specific issues of salience to them. Some will be emotional, and have the same differential focus. Some will be social — they’ll just vote the way their parents did (which explains something over 50% of the overall variance in voting, if you believe the research over the years — and I do).

Some will vote For one candidate, some will vote Against another, some will vote Third Party out of mostly anger. Some will vote their religious bias, others will react against it.

The list is long and varied.

No one gets to say the election is About any one thing. That’s not how elections work.

Modern campaigns have long since done the Market Research and have learned how to tease out the various motivations and hang them on demographic voting blocs. Amateurs don’t see that, and continue to try to press the entire activity and actions into This or That specific rationale, and end up ranting mightily about it, as though they actually Knew what was going on.

They don’t.

Don’t buy off on the press releases. Pay attention to what the marketing professionals actually do, and not what the spin doctors on both sides try to say. The former are a Lot harder to see, though. Which suits their preferences precisely. The latter work for the former, not the other way ‘round.

Posted by: Don at August 2, 2004 11:46 AM

Don,

I have no idea how your comments directed to me address the subject of my discussion on this thread.

But thanks for taking the time to provide me with your “expertise” once again on a subject I was not discussing.

Posted by: TexasGal at August 2, 2004 12:20 PM

Further poll data:

Rassmussen daily polls just updated/posted and which have shown a consistently even race now echo CNN/Gallup polling results —- little or negative bounce for Kerry coming out of the convention.

Spin it as you will, but this is not a net positive for the Kerry camp so far. The pundits will be looking to give this their own spin, but from the Kerry side, there is little positive data so far to highlight.

Posted by: steve at August 2, 2004 12:42 PM

My dear Texas Gal, I fail to understand your objections to the Don’s posts. Is there some reason why you would object to verbose ramblings that substitute for erudition?

Since there is very little in the known universe upon which the Don cannot pontificate may I suggest that you simply ignore his posturing, and his admonitions and respond simply to the thread’s flow.

In short, ignore this guy.

Posted by: skip at August 2, 2004 03:11 PM

Kerry Leads Bush in Post-Convention Poll
Washington Post-ABC News Poll Shows Voters Favor Kerry 50-44
By Richard Morin and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, August 2, 2004; 5:20 PM
Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry emerged from his national convention last week with a small lead over President Bush in the race for the White House and improved his standing against the president on both the economy and on who is better qualified to serve as commander in chief, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News Poll.
The new poll shows Kerry now claims the support of 50 percent of all registered voters, compared with 44 percent for Bush, with independent candidate Ralph Nader at 2 percent. On the eve of the convention, Bush led Kerry 48 percent to 46 percent.
Among those most likely to vote, the race is tighter: Kerry holds a 2-point advantage over Bush in the current poll.
By historical standards, Kerry’s post-convention bounce is modest, at best — a fact that set off a debate between his and Bush’s campaign advisers. The Bush team said Kerry’s failure to gain more significant ground from his national convention puts him at a serious disadvantage for the fall, while Kerry advisers said the electorate is already so polarized and partisans so energized that there was far less chance for a big bounce this year.

Posted by: Todd at August 2, 2004 07:36 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34914-2004Aug2.html

Posted by: Todd at August 2, 2004 07:38 PM

More from the same article:

Efforts by Democrats to counter GOP claims that Kerry would be a weak and indecisive leader also showed at least temporary and partial success. Bush still is viewed as the stronger leader, but Kerry has managed to cut the president’s advantage by more than half. Currently 50 percent of all voters see Bush as the stronger leader, while 44 percent say Kerry is.

The Democrat is now viewed as more honest and trustworthy than Bush, by 47 percent to 41 percent. Immediately before the convention, those numbers were essentially reversed. Kerry also has widened his advantage as the candidate who best understands the problems of average Americans. While Bush was seen on the eve of the convention as the candidate who most closely shared their values, Kerry now has a 50 to 44 percent advantage over Bush on that question.

The survey also suggests that perceptions of Kerry as a dour pessimist may have eased somewhat. He is now viewed more favorably than Bush by the public. And the proportion who say he’s an optimist rose from 55 percent on the eve of the convention to 65 percent immediately after. Overall, 56 percent of Kerry’s supporters say they were “very enthusiastic” about him, compared to 41 percent barely a week earlier.

Bush’s approval rating stood at 47 percent, with 49 percent saying they disapproved of how he is handling his job. That represents a statistically insignificant deterioration in his standing on a crucial indicator.

Posted by: Todd at August 2, 2004 07:42 PM

Good post Todd. Let the third party facts speak for them selves. A refreshing absence of name calling too.

Seems that the post convention bounce is just a little slow in forming, but still shows only modest at best improvements.

I think that some of the wider swings about characteristics are subject to more flux than simple “who do you support?” But still, Kerry hasn’t gone downhill as some would make of it all (as really only the one ABC-WP and CNN/USA Today/Gallup polls seem to indicate.)

I am still bewildered even with all the spin why Kerry did not do better… I don’t totally buy the “95% are set in concrete” on their choice as many pundits are echoing. The speech was perfect for presenting him as a moderate Democrat… it worked for Clinton… why not now?

Also, what will the post-RNC show in early September? Most pundits are betting on a similar swing to counter whatever ground Kerry has made up or gained. Then for all the hoopla and hurrahs, we are back where we started in early July I guess.

Posted by: steve at August 2, 2004 10:27 PM

Steve,

I think the pundits (who talk on both sides and around every conceivable angle of a poll) are basically correct that there were fewer undecided voters to swing. I think the stats are telling, though. While Kerry didn’t draw voters away from Bush, he solidified his base and drew in about half of the previously undecideds.

The proof will, indeed, be in the pudding. If Bush has a bigger post-convention bounce than Kerry did, then Kerry could be in trouble. I think your prediction is correct, however, that we will be right back where we started.

Posted by: Todd at August 3, 2004 08:29 AM

Todd,

Solid and very rational post… thanks! Good observations which seem to be supported by continuing poll releases today. While the Republicans may caste doubt on the results, Sen. Kerry had raised the bar none the less for the RNC.

Both sides are playing hard ball… the pundits are doing what they get paid to do and the partisans are trying accentuate the positives and obscure any negatives.

But it all comes down to us the voters to decide in the end. I trust the American voter to be the wiser of the bunch when all is said and done.

Posted by: steve at August 3, 2004 02:21 PM

BUSH,KERRY AND ROCKEFELLER ARE MEMBERS OF SATANIC SECRET SOCIETY
SKULL AND BONES.
Lecture-notes of Tore Toivicco, christian politician (17.10.2004):
SKULL AND BONES ARE MEN BEHIND 11/9.2001?
-USA/WALL STREET / SKULL AND BONES/ETC.(?) HAS BEEN SUPPORTING NAZISM AND
COMMUNISM,HITLER AND SOVJET RUSSIA.THIS CAN BE EXPLAINED AS CREATING A WAR OR CHAOS,WHICH MEANS MONEY TO WAR-INDUSTRY, OR/AND SERVES SATANISTIC IDEAS.
-ADOLF HITLER WAS A HIGH SATANIST
-SATANISMS PHILOSOPHY HAS BEEN DESCRIBED TO BE PHILOSOPHY OF EVILNESS ,AND
EVILNESS IS CONNECTED MANY TIMES TO SKULL AND BONES ALSO.IT´S SAID THAT
ALL MODERN TIME US PRESIDENTS HAS OBEYED SKULL&BONES,EXCEPT JFK.IT´S SAID
THAT SKULL AND BONES ARE USING DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTS TO CHANGE THINGS INSIDE
USA,AND REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS TO CHANGE THINGS INTERNATIONALLY.(KERRY MEANS
GAY-SUPPORTING LAWS+PSYCHIATRIC CONTROL SOCIETY(LAW ABOUT EVERY AMERICAN
CITIZEN TESTED BY PSYCHIATRISTS),BUSH WARS AND MORE NEW WORLD ORDER “ACTS”?)
“A little-known fact unites Democratic frontrunner John Kerry and President
Bush: they are both members of Yale’s secret society Skull and Bones.”
Quotes:[http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0 401/S00143.htm ]
http://www.savethemales.ca/251102.html
http://www.newswatchmagazine.org/weekly_editor/9.8.00.htm
http://www.geocities.com/northstarzone/BK.html
http://www.freedomdomain.com/skullbones.html
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0122-10.htm
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/8425/BONES.HTM
http://www.nyobserver.com/pages/story.asp?ID=4136
http://members.surfeu.fi/11syyskuu/119.htm
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/schoolvideo.html
http://www.americanfreepress.net/051302/FBI_Admits__No_Evidence_/fbi_admits__no_evidence_.html
http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2004/07/16/the_new_freedom_initiative_us.htm

U.S. president George W. Bush, his father and grandfather are proven initiates
of this multi-generational occult lodge.Adolf Hitler was also obsessed with
the occult, in his case the Thule Society which was closely connected to
German Theosophists. If the Nazis’ occult lodges had been exposed and shut
down, not treated as a taboo, millions of lives could have been saved. The
second world war need never have happened [ QUOTE: http://www.bilderberg.org/skulbone.htm
]
Best proof about this establisments existence/power is total lack of discussion about these things in news-media(even lots of data about them is available and these things has something to do with every citizens life - and this is perfect subject for a news media)?
THEY STEAL VOTES IN ORDER TO GET THEIR CANDIDATES PRESIDENTS:
“…Your vote and mine may now be a meaningless bit of energy directed by
preprogrammed computers-which can be fixed to select certain pre-ordained
candidates and leave no footprints or paper trail.
“In short, computers are covertly stealing your vote.
“—For almost three decades the American vote has been subject to government-sponsored
electronic theft.
“—The vote has been stolen from you by a cartel of federal “national security”
bureaucrats, who include higher-ups in the Central Intelligence Agency,
political party leaders, Congressmen, co-opted journalists — and the owners
and managers — of the major Establishment news media, who have decided
in concert that how America’s votes are counted, by whom they are counted
and how the results are verified and delivered to the public is, as one
of them put it, ‘Not a proper area of inquiry.’
“—By means of an unofficial private corporation named News Election Service
(NES), the Establishment press has actual physical control of the counting
and dissemination of the vote, and it refuses to let the public know how
it is done.”
Quote:[ http://www.parascope.com/articles/0997/skullbones.htm ]
Antony C.Sutton :”Why had the US built-up it’s enemy? Why did the US build-up
the Soviet Union, while we also transferred technology to Hitler’s Germany?
Why does Washington want to conceal these facts?” Sutton, following his
leads, proceeded to research and write his 3 outstanding books on Wall
Street: and FDR; and the Rise of Hitler; and The Bolshevik Revolution. Then,
someone sent Antony a membership list of Skull and Bones and—“a picture
jumped out”. And what a picture! A multigenerational foreign-based secret
society with fingers in all kinds of pies and roots going back to ‘Illuminati’
influences in 1830’s Germany.[Quote: http://www.rense.com/politics6/SKULL.htm ]
“WAR IS ULTIMATE SATANISM.”
“ADOLF HITLER WAS A 33RD DEGREE HIGH SATANIST.”
REASON WHY I´M WRITING THIS IS THAT WE MAY HAVE SAME KIND OF MISSION IN
FRONT OF US AS GOOD PEOPLE HAD 1945!NAZISM HAD TO BE STOPPED THAT TIME,
AND SO IT MUST BE STOPPED IN THE FUTURE.
MEN BEHIND HITLER AND 9/11 WERE SAME: SKULL AND BONES,SATANISTS,ILLUMINATI,ETC.I
DON´T KNOW EXACTLY WHICH OF THEM,BUT THERE PROPABLY EXIST HIGHEST ADMINISTRATION
AMONGST SOME OF THOSE GROUPS- AND IT RULES THE WORLD SOME WAY.
LOTS OF DATA ABOUT SKULL AND BONES, AND THESE THINGS LATELY , IMPLIES THAT
THOSE PEOPLE ARE NOT IN HIGHEST POWER, BUT ON THE OTHER HAND IT MAY BE
THEIR PR,IF THEIR POSITION IN POWER ON EARTH IS SO SURE ALREADY.
(WE DON´T NEED TO BELIEVE SATANS EXISTENCE,BUT WE CAN THINK SATAN AS A GOD OF SATANISTS,WHO DO THINGS IN ORDER TO SERVE SATAN.)
HISTORY:
WORLD RUN BY ILLUMINISTS,SATANISTS SECRETLY 50,OR 100 YEARS OR MORE?George
Bush’s father as well as George Bush were and are members of Skull& Bones.
Bush’s father was a major contributor to the Hitler Project as
well as the build-up of the Soviet Union. Thus, leading to the inevidable
World Wars and the eventual set-up of the United Nations in America.Quote:
[ http://www.freedomdomain.com/skullbones. html ]
It all began at Yale. In 1832, General William Huntington Russell and Alphonso
Taft put together a super secret society for the elite children of the Anglo-
American Wall Street banking establishment. William Huntington Russell’s
step-brother Samuel Russell ran Russell & Co., the world’s largest OPIUM
smuggling operation in the world at the time. Quote:[ http://www.freedomdomain.com/skullbones
. ]
WORLDS EVOLUTION OF THAT TIME PLANNED TO CREATE MORE SATANISM(SATANISM HAS
RULED THE WORLD LONG TIME,AND PREPARED WORLD TO SATANISM(F.EKS. SATANISTIC
ADMINISTRATION INCLUDING MANY GOVERNMENTS,VATICAN,ETC.ETC.,CHANCING CHRISTIAN
VALUES,CREATING BIG CITIES,-YOUTH ,WHO HAS NO
RESPONSIBILITY,-RACIAL DISCRIMINATION,CONTROL OF IDEAS,AND
NOW THE TIME IS NEAR.ANYWAY PERSONALLY THE WRITER OF THIS TEXT,THINKS IT
AT LEAST TAKES FEW YEARS STILL,MAYBE EVEN TENS OF YEARS.IN WORST CASE NOT
MUCH.):
1- WARS
2-DESTROYING MORALS
-ROCK
-MEDIA: ALMOST EVERY HOLLYWOOD MOVIE HAS A SEX-SCENE,EVEN IF IT HAD NOTHING
TO DO WITH A PLOT OF STORY.WHY?(ORDER FROM SATANIST MANAGEMENT IN ORDER
TO CREATE LUST,ETC.) - VIOLENCE OF TV, AND HOLLYWOOD MOVIES ; COMMANDED
FROM CHURCH OF SATAN?
- SEX:PORN AND SEX OFFERING IS CREATED BY SATANISTS IN ORDER TO DESTROY
MORALS,AND THEY MAKE MONEY WITH THIS ALSO?SEX-BUSINESS? ALSO CREATING PERVERSIONS
-BIG CITIES(used in order to create a loveless jungle-law areas,where
people are fighting towards each others
-MAKING 2 SIDES FIGHTING:
Satanism has no morals
“SATANISTS HAVE NO DOUBTS TO STEAL ,LIE , BE VIOLENT OR INTERFERE INTO OTHER
PEOPLES LIFES, AND DESTROY IT.”
SATANISTS WANT POWER
SOME FORMS OF SATANISM:
COMMUNISM (evilness towards middle-class)
NAZISM (evilness towards middle-class)
CAPITALISM (evilness towards middle-class)?
SEPARATING OLD AND YOUNG PEOPLE IS A SATANISTIC METHOD?
SUPPORT/PRACTISE ANYTHING WHICH IS OPPOSITE TO TEACHINGS OF JESUS OR BIBLE.EVERY
HIGH SATANIST IS A MEMBER OF A CHRISTIAN CHURCH,in order to destroy Christianity.
THEY FILL WORLD WITH CATHOLICS AND MUSLIMS,IN ORDER TO USE THEM AGAINST
JEWS AND CHRISTIANS?(=racism,2 sides fighting,war,and satanism against christians).
PEDOPHILE HYSTERIA used:A.-TO STOP PEOPLE LOVING CHILDREN ,B.-USE AS A WEAPON
TOWARDS ENEMIES,C.-PEDOPHILE-PANIC IN MEDIA IS USED TO STOP PEOPLE SEE SATANIC RITUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN IN SATANISM?
CREATING CONTROL SOCIETY?
ENVIRONMENTAL CATASTHROPHY IS A LIE-IN HISTORY EARTH HAS HAD MORE HOT PERIODS WITHOUT PROBLEMS,AND IT MAY BE ONE WAY TO CREATE CHAOS OR MAKE WORLD ACCEPT EXCEPTIONAL CONTROL.DAVID ICKE HAS STATED THAT MODEL WHAT THIS SATANIC ADMINISTRATION IS USING ,IS TO CREATE A PROBLEM AND THEN OFFER A SOLUTION TO IT.THIS IS HOW THEY MAKE PEOPLE TO ACCEPT BAD THINGS
“Rebecca Brown then proceeds to relate her story, how she met up with spiritual
opposition in the hospital and how she met up with Elaine who entered the
Satanic group known as “The Brotherhood.” She also became the Regional Bride
of Satan. Elaine claims “There are only 5 to 10 regional Brides of Satan
in the U.S. at any one time. It is a position of great honor and power.
Elaine name-drops a few times. “I also made a number of trips to other countries.
I have been to Mecca, Israel, Egypt, also the Vatican in Rome to meet the
Pope. All of my trips were for the purpose of coordinating Satan’s programs
with satanists in other lands…The Pope knew very well who I was. We worked
closely both with the Catholics (especially the Jesuits) and the high-ranking
Masons. It was during this time that I met many of the well known Rock music
stars. They all signed contracts with Satan in return for fame and fortune.
The evolution of Rock music in the U.S. was carefully planned by Satan and
carried out by his servants step by step.”
http://www.chickcomics.com/
SATANISTS ARE INFILTRATING THEMSELVES ALSO INTO POLICEFORCES,INTELLIGENCES(=NEW
WORLD ORDER-POLICE COMING?):CHURCH OF SATANS HOMEPAGE HAVE NAZI-TYPE IDEAS
ABOUT POLICEFORCES AGAINST “CRIMINALS”,CALLED “SCUM”,AND F.EX. SKULL&BONES
LINKS TELL ABOUT CIAS CONNECTIONS TO THOSE GUYS.
Of all these agencies of the Cold War era, the CIA would stand out as a
singular power center for Yale University alumni in general and Skull &
Bones initiates in particular. The term “spooks,” the well-known CIA term
for a clandestine operator, was originally Yale campus argot for a secret
society member. According to a recently published article in the Covert
Action Information Bulletin, there is reportedly a “Bones club” within the
CIA which helps promote the intelligence careers of members of the Yale
secret society.
Quote: [ http://aor.cat4.net/nwo/skullandbones/5.php ]
MEDIA IS FILLED WITH LONE KILLERS,WEIRDOS,INSTEAD OF REAL CRIMES WHICH ARE
DONE BY GROUPS,BECAUSE LINKS IN MANY CASES WOULD LEAD TO THIS SCRET ADMINISTRATION.POLICEWORK
IS ONLY HANDLING LOWEST LEVEL OF CRIMINALS.
DNA PROOFS ARE DEMANDED BY POLICE,BUT THEY CAN BE ABUSED ALSO,AND AS AN TYING EVIDENCE IT SHOULD BE USED REALLY CAREFULLY SO THAT IT´S CHECKED THAT NO-ONE HAS USED DNA TO FRAME OTHERS.
HAS ANYONE ASKED HOW LONE MURDERERS LIKE HARVEY,SIRHAN SIRHAN,LUTHER KINGS
MURDERER,OLOF PALMES AND ANNA LINDHS MURDERERS “WERE ABLE” TO AFFECT POLICEFORCES
SO THAT POLICEWORK WERE NOT SUFFICIENT OR EVEN BELOW NORMAL,INVESTIGATIONS
WERE NOT DONE PROPERLY,(STRANGE DEATHS OF WITNESSES?) AND MANY OTHER THINGS WERE LACKING WITH INVESTIGATIONS
OF THESE HIGHEST CLASS IMPORTANCE CRIMES.
I´M NOT SAYING THAT ALL THOSE PEOPLE IN CATHOLICISM , MASONS OR EVEN
IN SATANISM ARE BAD OR GUILTY ONES, BUT FOR SURE THEY CAN BE UNDER THIS
SAME COMMAND OF HIGHEST SATANISM-OBEYING MEMBERS OF THEIR GROUPS(ABOUT
WHICH THEY ARE NOT AWARE OF) AND THIS WAY SUPPORTING TOTALLY NEW-WORLD-ORDER
`MASTER PLAN`.
SO, PROPABLY MOST LOWER LEVEL MEMBERS OF THOSE ORGANISATIONS MAY BE
NORMAL PEOPLE,WHO DON´T WANT ANY HARM,BUT ARE IN THOSE ORDERS FOR SOME REASONS.THOUGH IT´S SAID THAT F.EX.IN SATANISM EVERY MEMBER MUST KILL SOMEONE IN ORDER TO BECOME A MEMBER.
WE MAY NOT ACCUSE USA BECAUSE OF THESE THINGS,WHICH ARE CREATED BY SMALL
ELITE GROUP.USA IS ONE OF MOST POSITIVE THINGS ON THIS PLANET AND IT´S HAPPY
PEOPLE,WITH RIGHT FINE VALUES,AMERICAN DREAM,WORK,ABILITY,HONESTY ARE THINGS
WE SHOULD HAVE INTERNATIONALLY.

Link to my research: [ http://www.e-manifesta.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=XForum&file=viewthread&tid=23 ]
AS A SOLUTION TO THESE THINGS I FIND NEXT THINGS:1.DECLEARING SATANISM CRIMINAL
ACTIVITY-OF COURSE ANYONE
CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT THEMSELVES,BUT WHEN THERE IS ORGANIZED GROUPS,HUMAN
SACRIFICE OR SEXUAL ABUSE,IT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED. - 2.NORDIC-TYPE CHRISTIANITY (NOT A FANATIC TYPE OF CHRISTIANITY.INCLUDES F.EX. FORGIVENESS,LOVE,WORKING,PRAYING JESUS CHRIST)- 3. SCIENTOLOGY. 4.-UNDERSTANDING THE IMPORTANCE OF APPRECIATING SMALL CHILDREN,UNDER 4 YEAR,INSTEAD OF DESTROYING THEIR NATURAL GREATNESS
http://www.ahola-valo.fi/article-suvanto.htm
ALL GOOD PEOPLE,PLEASE BE FREE TO FORWARD AND PUBLISH THIS IMPORTANT INFORMATION.I
GIVE ALL RIGHTS TO ANYONE TO PUBLISH THIS WRITING ON THE CONDITION THAT
MY NAME AS A WRITER IS MENTIONED.(if sold,I demand right to give my share out of income).

Posted by: Tore Toivicco at October 18, 2004 02:13 PM