Shaping the New World Order: Did George Bush Purposely Lose the Election in 1992

Shaping the New World Order: Did George Bush Purposely Lose the Election in 1992?

By Eric Barger

OUT WITH THE OLD...IN WITH THE NEW?

Many Christians, frustrated with the Bush administration and/or through ignorance of biblical precepts, voted for the Clinton/Gore ticket or possibly Ross Perot. I am not saying that a vote for Bush would have somehow been a better, more biblically sound choice. On the contrary, anyone having heard me speak over the last two years knows that I was not an advocate of George Bush as he, more than any previous president, was leading us toward a global or "one world" government. However, when comparing the 1992 Republican platform with the 1992 Democratic platform, a person wishing to choose based on godly principles was left with no choice but to vote for the incumbent - if only to defeat Clinton and the Democratic platform. With all the truly conservative presidential candidates either severely underfunded or just simply ignored, 1 it was kind of like having your favorite team eliminated in the playoffs - leaving you little choice but to root and cheer against your least favorite team, hoping someone could beat them in the championship!

Considering his vent toward globalism, a second Bush presidency would undoubtedly have had its own set of horrendous problems. However, when one comes to understand the objectives of those who advocate a New World Order, it only makes sense that a socialist-minded leader can do far more at the appropriate moment toward accomplishing that goal than one from the outwardly conservative Republican ticket. Bush, though at best a liberal in disguise with a "secret service," big government, leftist platform, 2 may have found his globalist agenda much harder to implement in a second term due to the growing opposition from the true conservative Republicans. Clinton, on the other hand, is no country boy from Arkansas. Instead, he is every bit the one-world insider that Bush was, and an avid liberal to boot!

Everything else aside, there is one issue of unfinished business that continues to nag at me: DID GEORGE BUSH REALLY LOSE THE ELECTION?

How could George Bush and James Baker run such a superb campaign in 1988, winning by such a great margin of victory (Michael Dukakis or not!); and then just four years later run such an absolutely ineffective race? 3 Allow me to take you through some thoughts and a scenario.

One prime example of the Bush candidacy and campaign being off target was the snail-like response concerning a face to face debate with Clinton and Perot. Doing this was a total reversal of the character and life history of George Bush. His stature as a war hero and track record as a politician dictate that the man who ran in 1992 was, for whatever reason, not the same man from years past. Bush must have known that declining to debate Clinton for several weeks as he did would have adverse consequences on his bid for reelection. His "bob and weave" avoidance of facing Clinton on the same platform was classic in the style of Mohammed Ali! This is to say nothing of the campaign policy that gave no concrete answers in the three most important issues to voters in 1992 - the economy, jobs, and national deficit reduction. Though family values and moral themes was an issue high on the agenda of Christian conservatives, it paled a distant fourth in importance nationally. Clinton, though he regularly changed his tune on the issues, still appeared to address the voters’ concerns and took the election by just less than 5% of the popular vote - 5% that Bush surely could have persuaded had he done more just than name-call and shadow box with matters of substance. Yes, "Slick Willie" is slick and Gore is "The Ozone Man," but name calling only gets press - not votes.

Let me get right to the point. I sense, and submit to the reader, that George Bush may have actually been running a campaign to LOSE the presidency. I have come to this conclusion through an extensive examination of the events in the months just preceding the election. The weight of this evidence leaves one with at least the possibility that my inklings may be more than just indigestion! Granted, my conclusion to this matter is without what some may consider, "hard evidence." Nonetheless, I do have a viable conclusion that fits the globalist "insider" scenario.

Anyone who wants to lose an election needs only examine the 1992 Bush campaign for a blueprint to success! True, Bush outspent Clinton in television ads nearly two-to-one ($18.1 million to $9.4). 4 True, the Bush campaign staff had far more experience in running a national campaign than did Clinton’s. However, any candidate who ignores addressing the heart cry of the people will find himself collecting an early retirement! Campaign promises in good faith, spirited exaggerations, wishful thinking, or sadly just plain lying are all a part of addressing the issues in American politics. In the Bush campaign, we saw a new facet unknown to most - silence! Considering the history of the Clinton-Bush race, it is easy for one to imagine that though the American electorate actually marked their ballots for Bill Clinton (and Ross Perot), they were really recalling George Bush! Outlandish and preposterous, you say? If one understands the workings of the so-called "Eastern Establishment," the idea of a politician - even the President of the United States - throwing an election is not nearly as absurd as it may appear at first glance.

What if indeed there is a wealthy clan of unseen global power brokers pulling the marionette strings over Washington? Couldn’t one easily reason that since Bush and Clinton are both beholding to the same secret orders, codes, and financiers, that they, the "Secret Brotherhood," may have engineered the change of Presidents by manipulating the American people to pull the plug on Bush? The globalists would see this as democracy’s finest hour if, through manipulation, the democratic system were to install a socialist, new age, one-world leader with the charismatic appeal of John F. Kennedy to do their bidding! Given this, one can imagine the scenario as follows:

BUSH’S ULTIMATE CALL TO

"SERVICE": A SCENARIO

Perhaps the word came down to George Bush as he sat in the Oval Office one morning last spring. A familiar voice on the phone complimented him on serving the purpose of the global elite well - having heralded the New World Order, making it a household saying and even a treasured dream among unsuspecting millions in the United States and the world. He had eloquently declared that the path to real peace and safety was not, in fact, that of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and others throughout American history. Now, through his leadership and service, culminated in his tenure as President, George had successfully redirected his constituency away from fully believing in the most formidable opponent of the globalists - American sovereignty. The ever-problematic (supposedly) antiquated patriotic nationalism, to which Americans had clung for over two centuries, had been dealt a powerful blow; one that had been gaining strength nearly since the inception of the union in 1776. "On to becoming ‘global citizens’ in a ‘new age’...a thousand points of light" had been his battle cry - and the citizenry had now picked up the chant.

Though saddened to leave his post at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue after only four years, Bush’s sworn allegiance to the "guardians of light" quickly superseded any of his personal desires for power and prestige. He knew well the globalist motto: "The sacrifice of one for the good of the whole." Certainly this was in line with the creeds to which he had sworn as CIA chief, UN ambassador, Council on Foreign Relations director and Trilateral Commission member. Though personally not happy about the current role he had been chosen to play, he was preconditioned to respond in a prescribed manner.

Losing the election might be tricky. He would have to make it look good. The illusion of Republican-versus-Democrat must be maintained. Certainly, no one must know the truth. How could this monumental charade be accomplished? Simply put, the campaign for reelection must be fashioned in such a way as to never deal with issues of substance. The desired result of this "non-campaign": a Bush defeat. Should anyone in the news media notice the symptoms of a campaign being run into the ground, it should be easy to quell their questions by illusion or by simply not responding. After all, they (the media) would have simultaneously received their orders as to which candidate to push on the American public. News reporters are the most important decision makers dictating to the public what is "politically" correct, "a" moral and "necessary" for the country in this popularity contest-called-an-election, aren’t they? 5 Now, all that remained to be done was for the American people to cast their vote, using their Constitutional freedom to elect the man that had already been chosen for them!

The voice on the phone that fateful morning might have applauded George for being such a good and faithful servant of the "brotherhood." He, as no President before him, had made the "One World" agenda his main focus. Now in 1993, it must be established - by a socialist Democrat - to solidify the deal. Then the end, for which George had worked so hard, would be in sight - a New World Order enthroning the global elite as rulers of all!

We may never know if, indeed, any such events did take place. One thing is sure - they very well could have. Yes, it may have been much as I have described - his loyalty to the unseen elite unshaken, George Bush descended the ladder of power and stepped aside for the next hand-picked figurehead. After all, the goal of the secret power brokers could conceivably be accomplished much quicker through the sweeping changes of a socialist figure just waiting in the wings to forge a "new" America, unlike any other. His name is Bill Clinton.

I would be totally amiss to exclude the fact that God has allowed the defeat of George Bush. Certainly, God is in sovereign control of the affairs of planet Earth. He raises and lowers the great and the small at His will. Two things come to mind concerning the Bush defeat. First, Bush has done just about everything to undermine the United States’ relationship with Israel. Genesis 12:3 tells us that God will bless those who bless Israel and curse those who don’t. Enough said. Secondly, God is indeed on the move, fulfilling end-time prophesy at an unparalleled pace. Doubtlessly, He is going to allow the globalist elite to rise, even though all or most of them do not know that their plans are surely leading the world into the arms of Antichrist himself. Regardless, these are exciting times to serve the King who will ultimately have His way. Glory!

"When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice;

But when a wicked man rules, the people groan."

(Proverbs 29:3 NKJV)

Footnotes...

1. In this author’s opinion, Howard Phillips, head of the Taxpayers’ Union, has both the character and ability needed to lead the country through these very precarious times. The national media however, is consistent in ignoring or discrediting any candidate outside the mainstream parties. (This is democracy, eh?) Ross Perot’s 1992 campaign is an anomaly, due in large part to his tremendous wealth and influence as a globalist insider.

2. According to the Heritage Foundation’s Dan Mitchell, annual government spending climbed an average of $44.7 billion under Bush. This is 15 times the average annual increase under Reagan and 3 times that of Jimmy Carter. The Federal Register, in which all new regulations are published, increased in size from 53,376 pages in 1988 to 67,716 in 1991. The number of federal employees also jumped from 104,360 during Reagan’s last year to a whopping 124,994 during the Bush administration, surpassing Carter’s all-time record. (McAlvany Intelligence Advisor, 10/92, p.12)

3. I certainly wasn’t the only one to notice this. Bruce Babbitt, now a Clinton cabinet appointee and himself a globalist insider, took up this question in the USA Today newspaper just after the election.

4. Time, 11/16/92, p.23

5. In reality, the media reporting of the 1992 election was slanted very heavily in favor of Clinton. Bush had a positive news rating of just 15% as opposed to Clinton’s share of 85%. (Brent Bozell, Chairman of the Media Research Center, "Point of View" radio talk show 10/21/92)

Considering the fact that the liberal media is nearly 100% controlled by the globalist elite, and considering that George Bush is also within the sphere of globalist influence, the media was abnormally harsh on one to whom they are powerfully tied in the "secret brotherhood." I realize that this flies in the face of what is conventionally projected by the media. That is, the battle of liberal versus conservative. However, I believe the truth is that this ideological confrontation is merely the preferred appearance for the public’s benefit. Any liberal or conservative ideology is only window dressing, regardless of how convincing Rush Limbaugh or Dan Rather might be! Globalist/New Age ties below the surface are much stronger than the public rhetoric that we are led to believe.