Soma hii
The First Presidential Debate, Romney versus Obama, the Skull and Bones Influence and Mabus
By John Hogue | Published: 5 October 2012
Today we are just one day shy of a month before the biggest story in forecasting, second only to 2012 Maya madness: who will be the President of the United States? As many of you know, 6 November 2012 will mark my 40-year anniversary of making presidential predictions by tuning into the popular vote.
Since Nixon went after Humphrey in 1968, we have had 11 elections with the 12th before us. So far I am documented at 11 wins and 0 losses – including Al Gore winning in 2000 "by 500,000 popular votes". Like I said, my oracle picks the winner by tuning into people's choices – not their stupid 17th-century laws, such as the Electoral College, their trickster "Liars" (that's what my meditation teacher, Osho used to call "Lawyers") or their Supreme Court of fools in black drag who pick G.W. Bush over the man a majority of Americans chose as their president.
Anyway, I will save that rant for another article closer to Election Day when I explain how none of you who vote have ever voted for a president. You vote for people who elect presidents in a "college" unless the people you don't vote for, nine Supreme Court justices, choose who the electors can pick for you as your president.
My choice for the 12th run at this crystal bollocking was made several weeks before Barack Obama was inaugurated for his first term. At the Conscious Life Expo on Saturday, George Noory, Coast to Coast AM's host who is the host of the celebrity banquet, will no doubt ask me if my view has changed, or better, if another alternative destiny is in play.
Back in January 2009, I told his North American audience of 20 million that Obama, if he survived his immaturity as a man not ready to be president in his first term, would win a second term in 2012 by 8.5 percent of the popular vote. That is .5 percent more people voting for him than the last time. Boy did that fill my inbox with a lot of angry birds and tweets.
Political predictions make you friends with neither side and too often the complaints of readers say more about what the reader wants to hear, wants to happen. Since the last presidential cycle mostly the Dumbopublican readers are incensed by my forecasts. After 2004 it was the Donkeycratic readers messing with the messenger for predicting and second term for G.W. Bush.
Today the Democrats are writing me full of anguish that their Blue State Messiah, their great Obamagogue was soundly defeated in Wednesday night's presidential debate. President Obama, once again, revealed himself to be a man of destiny come to his destiny too soon, as I predicted in an article published in March 2007, nearly a year before he ran for office.
After all this time and all this corporate campaign money spent on his side as well as lavished on his opponent standing at the opposite podium, did Obama's handlers not anticipate Governor Mitt Romney, the mutable Piscean fish, would unexpectedly change mental course, and with one shake of his pompadour noggin, erasing his right wing stance faster than you can say "etch-a-sketch" to morph into a purple conservative-eating, moderate Republican?
http://www.hogueprophecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/RomneyPointing.jpgDuring the first debate, Romney had his eraser headed game face on. Obama, eyes black with smoldering anger, tried maintaining his fixed Leo Sun attitude looking down at his notes, looking peeved, looking tired, It appeared he would rather be sitting with the girls on ABC's The View than mucking around with the Mitt flipping conservative-now-flopping-moderate Mormon.
He missed one opportunity to slam-dunk the man red Republican cool-aid drinking factual myths that Mitt tossed out before 60 million Americans on TV. I mean, where was the retort to Romney's quip about Big Bird and PBS losing their funding and jobs? Where was that missed zinger, like: "The Governor likes to fire people.
Big Bird, you're next." Where was the moment when Romney's math, or his avoidance to actually detail his economic plans beyond sweeping bromides, demanded more than a shuffled grumble from Obama, face down, like a chastened child, about "arithmetic" issues? When was the President going to look up, point to Romney, look into the camera at 60 million Americans and say, "Enough's enough!
The American people need to know specifics. Why don't you bring out the details, share them with the people, and explain why your plan is not adding 5 trillion dollars of debt over 10 years? I'm not sure you even have a plan. You keep talkin' about plans, you keep saying ‘trust me, folks' but at this late hour and in these difficult times, it is easy to be the one tearing down the incumbent president.
People have heard enough of that. What they want to hear from you now are not more generalities. They want to know details. Their future might be in your hands. They want to see a consistency of values and beliefs, not this incontinent, flavor of the day, stuff. They want to know that you stand for something always and not just for the moment. Put down the etch-a-sketch Governor. They want to know which Romney is the real Romney!" Ah… but you will not hear that from a passive aggressive personality and Romney's handlers know it.
They hit Obama right in his psychological blind spot, the same thing I psychologically profiled in articles in early 2007 and 2008 that indicated a passive-aggressive personality usually does not, a successful president, make.
Yet I foresee he will be president, if indeed he spends this last month before the election, wasting his first term in office learning how to be a president. One of his secret weapons against Romney is that we have had a moderate Republican president in office now for nearly four years. Obama, by political policy and persuasion in these right-leaning times is often as conservative and even more right wing than the Messiah of Dumbo, Hollywood's Ronald Reagan. Obama has been rightfully described as "the Democrat Reagan." He, like Reagan, during his campaign for a second term also ran a gauntlet of similar economic and debating pitfalls.
Reagan struggled in his first term with a recession and by October 1984 was burdened with monthly unemployment numbers around 8.3 to 8.1 percent. Like Obama his campaign promises to cut unemployment had failed even though in his fourth year in office some signs of improvement in the economy were stirring, just like now in 2012. Like Obama, Reagan in his first debate against Walter Mondale did poorly. However, I would caution Romney's handlers to remember that winning the first debate is not as important as winning the last of three debates.
Mondale sucker punched Reagan in the first round and caught him off guard, but now his strategy was exposed for its weaknesses and Mondale paid heavily for it in the next two debates that Reagan won, hands down. He then beat Mondale, despite the slow recovery and the 8.2 percent monthly unemployment.
This will be the same in Obama's case if he will continue to grow out of his political immaturities even in this eleventh hour. He is definitely showing signs this year that he is learning, so Romney beware.
There is one positive side to being passive aggressive, people underestimate you and your cool defense mechanism can make them express the anger you are too cool to vent publicly. Their anger makes you look like the cooler dude to vote for, the adult in the debate. Beyond his struggle with passive aggression in a role that requires an alpha male mentality is Obama's inexperience when choosing advisors.
He is still learning the ropes of being an executive even though he has never been an executive of anything until he started his course in the Oval Office studies back in January 2009. Romney has executive experience as a governor of a state. Heck even Wasilah's Will of the Whisp, former Alaskan governor Sarah Palin has more executive trigger time than Obama. With know experience at all, Obama started his crash course in executive decisions making one of his worst choices. He picked a Wall Street insider as his Secretary of the Treasury – Tim Geithner.
Obama is getting better at the exec thing but he still makes dumb choices, like picking Massachusetts Senator John F. Kerry to play Mitt Romney in rehearsed debates – another passive aggressive; moreover, a loser against Bush in 2004. Kerry took a few good swipes at G.W. Bush during those debates.
Indeed Bush struggled and failed to clearly win all three debates. Still, Kerry lost the election. The powers that hide in secret temples on the property of Yale University had picked to retain the Bonesman Bush over Bonesman Kerry in 2004. Kerry is Obama's link to the American king makers who chose the A or B team presidents in election cycles.
John Kerry is their agent in the Obama administration and my sense is the bonesman prefer the man who campaigned in 2008 as the "Black Kennedy" turning out to be more like a "Black Reagan", a moderate Republican in Democrat clothing, as the president in the next cycle. If this prediction indeed becomes the case, watch for Kerry's climb to a major cabinet post, perhaps even Secretary of State. We will then have "two" passive aggressive personalities in key posts in the White House.
If you wish to read further details about how the Skull and Bones society picked Bush and Kerry to run against each other in 2004 and then shifted to promote the Democrat "B" candidate in 2008, turn to Chapters 8 and 9, in my e-book, Nostradamus and the Antichrist: Code Named Mabus. The 2012 election will be remembered as a battle between Republican moderates who in both cases ware another political mask to fool their base voters on the blue (Left) and red (Right).
I think in this election it is less important who won the first debate. The winner of this election is the one who nails the "last" of three national debates. Romney's etch-a-sketch moment was actually the real moderate coming out of the Right Wing and extreme water closet.
Romney is in a unique bind and I have some sympathy for the political swindle he must use to string the Republican core voters along to vote for him as their president. He belongs to a party that has currently eaten most of its moderates and asked for seconds.
There is no way you can win the hearts and minds of these moderate feasting political cannibals unless you adopt their red-right-wing meat cannibalism at least as a pretense. In other words, you cannot win as a Republican nominee without going as far right in your statements as can be believed – or beyond belief. So, as a moderate, you keep playing the cannibal, or you get politically eaten alive by your own Republican base, long before you even get nominated by that party of blood red politics the GOP has become since it made its Faustian pact with the Tea Party back in the mid-term elections of 2010.
The new fire-breathers of constitutional reform have the old and mostly moderate, pragmatic Republican establishment by the balls. To stay politically in power a moderate must quack like a Tea Party duck, woddle like ha Tea Party Duck for now. Romney gets a bad rap as Mr Etch-a-sketch, or Mr. Flip-Flopper. What can a moderate do to gain the White House in a tight election when you absolutely need your cannibals lined up to win? Once there, you can show your real political colors.
All cannibalism of metaphors aside, what I am saying is this: the people Romney intends to fool all the way to the White House are the only demographic strongly in his corner, the only demographic of voters his political strategy is relying to defeat Obama: the white male, middle aged and far right voter.
To do this Romney has whored his true and moderate values. He relies on the doom of the American voter, their short-term memory of his politically pragmatic and moderate ways that got him elected as governor in one of the deepest blue states in the Union, mega-liberal Massachusetts. Like him or hate him in that role, Romney was a capable governor who achieved his many successes as a consensus building, moderate.
Obama Care was modeled after Romney Care, folks, but Romney has etch-a-sketched away that image up to the first presidential debate. Now I see him in the final lap of this race sketching up an image closer to his reality. You will see on the screen that is his face a new sketch tracing in the works. Erased will be that red-meat Republican conservative platform.
The lines draw a new fish who will talk centrist to woo the moderate independent voters away from Obama in the last weeks of the campaign, if he can. I think this moderation will only alienate enough of his cannibal base to lose. On 6 November the red conservative cannibals will eat Romney for breakfast and then sit on their vote digesting their mistake picking a moderate in red-Republican cannibal's clothing.
It is a Hobson's Choice. Romney in 2012 does the "Al Gore" in the 2000 elections. Romney tries to distance himself from his Massachusetts moderate successes to win his right-wing base, like Gore tried to distance himself from the successful but sex-scandalized Bill Clinton to win his left-wing base.
The lesson to be learned here is that you cannot win by disassociating yourself from your political accomplishments without looking phony. Still, the election will be quite close because in Obama's case, his passive agression makes him ill equipted to promote loudly and longly his political accomplishments. In the 11th hour of a man not ready for his destiny, he can mature. My oracle said he was meant to be president in 2012, not 2008.
We will see if the impetuous audacity to come too soon to that destiny leaves him no hope to achieve it. My prediction remains the same. He will have a second term, and then we will see what destiny makes of him.
The First Presidential Debate, Romney versus Obama, the Skull and Bones Influence and Mabus
By John Hogue | Published: 5 October 2012
Today we are just one day shy of a month before the biggest story in forecasting, second only to 2012 Maya madness: who will be the President of the United States? As many of you know, 6 November 2012 will mark my 40-year anniversary of making presidential predictions by tuning into the popular vote.
Since Nixon went after Humphrey in 1968, we have had 11 elections with the 12th before us. So far I am documented at 11 wins and 0 losses – including Al Gore winning in 2000 "by 500,000 popular votes". Like I said, my oracle picks the winner by tuning into people's choices – not their stupid 17th-century laws, such as the Electoral College, their trickster "Liars" (that's what my meditation teacher, Osho used to call "Lawyers") or their Supreme Court of fools in black drag who pick G.W. Bush over the man a majority of Americans chose as their president.
Anyway, I will save that rant for another article closer to Election Day when I explain how none of you who vote have ever voted for a president. You vote for people who elect presidents in a "college" unless the people you don't vote for, nine Supreme Court justices, choose who the electors can pick for you as your president.
My choice for the 12th run at this crystal bollocking was made several weeks before Barack Obama was inaugurated for his first term. At the Conscious Life Expo on Saturday, George Noory, Coast to Coast AM's host who is the host of the celebrity banquet, will no doubt ask me if my view has changed, or better, if another alternative destiny is in play.
Back in January 2009, I told his North American audience of 20 million that Obama, if he survived his immaturity as a man not ready to be president in his first term, would win a second term in 2012 by 8.5 percent of the popular vote. That is .5 percent more people voting for him than the last time. Boy did that fill my inbox with a lot of angry birds and tweets.
Political predictions make you friends with neither side and too often the complaints of readers say more about what the reader wants to hear, wants to happen. Since the last presidential cycle mostly the Dumbopublican readers are incensed by my forecasts. After 2004 it was the Donkeycratic readers messing with the messenger for predicting and second term for G.W. Bush.
Today the Democrats are writing me full of anguish that their Blue State Messiah, their great Obamagogue was soundly defeated in Wednesday night's presidential debate. President Obama, once again, revealed himself to be a man of destiny come to his destiny too soon, as I predicted in an article published in March 2007, nearly a year before he ran for office.
After all this time and all this corporate campaign money spent on his side as well as lavished on his opponent standing at the opposite podium, did Obama's handlers not anticipate Governor Mitt Romney, the mutable Piscean fish, would unexpectedly change mental course, and with one shake of his pompadour noggin, erasing his right wing stance faster than you can say "etch-a-sketch" to morph into a purple conservative-eating, moderate Republican?
http://www.hogueprophecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/RomneyPointing.jpgDuring the first debate, Romney had his eraser headed game face on. Obama, eyes black with smoldering anger, tried maintaining his fixed Leo Sun attitude looking down at his notes, looking peeved, looking tired, It appeared he would rather be sitting with the girls on ABC's The View than mucking around with the Mitt flipping conservative-now-flopping-moderate Mormon.
He missed one opportunity to slam-dunk the man red Republican cool-aid drinking factual myths that Mitt tossed out before 60 million Americans on TV. I mean, where was the retort to Romney's quip about Big Bird and PBS losing their funding and jobs? Where was that missed zinger, like: "The Governor likes to fire people.
Big Bird, you're next." Where was the moment when Romney's math, or his avoidance to actually detail his economic plans beyond sweeping bromides, demanded more than a shuffled grumble from Obama, face down, like a chastened child, about "arithmetic" issues? When was the President going to look up, point to Romney, look into the camera at 60 million Americans and say, "Enough's enough!
The American people need to know specifics. Why don't you bring out the details, share them with the people, and explain why your plan is not adding 5 trillion dollars of debt over 10 years? I'm not sure you even have a plan. You keep talkin' about plans, you keep saying ‘trust me, folks' but at this late hour and in these difficult times, it is easy to be the one tearing down the incumbent president.
People have heard enough of that. What they want to hear from you now are not more generalities. They want to know details. Their future might be in your hands. They want to see a consistency of values and beliefs, not this incontinent, flavor of the day, stuff. They want to know that you stand for something always and not just for the moment. Put down the etch-a-sketch Governor. They want to know which Romney is the real Romney!" Ah… but you will not hear that from a passive aggressive personality and Romney's handlers know it.
They hit Obama right in his psychological blind spot, the same thing I psychologically profiled in articles in early 2007 and 2008 that indicated a passive-aggressive personality usually does not, a successful president, make.
Yet I foresee he will be president, if indeed he spends this last month before the election, wasting his first term in office learning how to be a president. One of his secret weapons against Romney is that we have had a moderate Republican president in office now for nearly four years. Obama, by political policy and persuasion in these right-leaning times is often as conservative and even more right wing than the Messiah of Dumbo, Hollywood's Ronald Reagan. Obama has been rightfully described as "the Democrat Reagan." He, like Reagan, during his campaign for a second term also ran a gauntlet of similar economic and debating pitfalls.
Reagan struggled in his first term with a recession and by October 1984 was burdened with monthly unemployment numbers around 8.3 to 8.1 percent. Like Obama his campaign promises to cut unemployment had failed even though in his fourth year in office some signs of improvement in the economy were stirring, just like now in 2012. Like Obama, Reagan in his first debate against Walter Mondale did poorly. However, I would caution Romney's handlers to remember that winning the first debate is not as important as winning the last of three debates.
Mondale sucker punched Reagan in the first round and caught him off guard, but now his strategy was exposed for its weaknesses and Mondale paid heavily for it in the next two debates that Reagan won, hands down. He then beat Mondale, despite the slow recovery and the 8.2 percent monthly unemployment.
This will be the same in Obama's case if he will continue to grow out of his political immaturities even in this eleventh hour. He is definitely showing signs this year that he is learning, so Romney beware.
There is one positive side to being passive aggressive, people underestimate you and your cool defense mechanism can make them express the anger you are too cool to vent publicly. Their anger makes you look like the cooler dude to vote for, the adult in the debate. Beyond his struggle with passive aggression in a role that requires an alpha male mentality is Obama's inexperience when choosing advisors.
He is still learning the ropes of being an executive even though he has never been an executive of anything until he started his course in the Oval Office studies back in January 2009. Romney has executive experience as a governor of a state. Heck even Wasilah's Will of the Whisp, former Alaskan governor Sarah Palin has more executive trigger time than Obama. With know experience at all, Obama started his crash course in executive decisions making one of his worst choices. He picked a Wall Street insider as his Secretary of the Treasury – Tim Geithner.
Obama is getting better at the exec thing but he still makes dumb choices, like picking Massachusetts Senator John F. Kerry to play Mitt Romney in rehearsed debates – another passive aggressive; moreover, a loser against Bush in 2004. Kerry took a few good swipes at G.W. Bush during those debates.
Indeed Bush struggled and failed to clearly win all three debates. Still, Kerry lost the election. The powers that hide in secret temples on the property of Yale University had picked to retain the Bonesman Bush over Bonesman Kerry in 2004. Kerry is Obama's link to the American king makers who chose the A or B team presidents in election cycles.
John Kerry is their agent in the Obama administration and my sense is the bonesman prefer the man who campaigned in 2008 as the "Black Kennedy" turning out to be more like a "Black Reagan", a moderate Republican in Democrat clothing, as the president in the next cycle. If this prediction indeed becomes the case, watch for Kerry's climb to a major cabinet post, perhaps even Secretary of State. We will then have "two" passive aggressive personalities in key posts in the White House.
If you wish to read further details about how the Skull and Bones society picked Bush and Kerry to run against each other in 2004 and then shifted to promote the Democrat "B" candidate in 2008, turn to Chapters 8 and 9, in my e-book, Nostradamus and the Antichrist: Code Named Mabus. The 2012 election will be remembered as a battle between Republican moderates who in both cases ware another political mask to fool their base voters on the blue (Left) and red (Right).
I think in this election it is less important who won the first debate. The winner of this election is the one who nails the "last" of three national debates. Romney's etch-a-sketch moment was actually the real moderate coming out of the Right Wing and extreme water closet.
Romney is in a unique bind and I have some sympathy for the political swindle he must use to string the Republican core voters along to vote for him as their president. He belongs to a party that has currently eaten most of its moderates and asked for seconds.
There is no way you can win the hearts and minds of these moderate feasting political cannibals unless you adopt their red-right-wing meat cannibalism at least as a pretense. In other words, you cannot win as a Republican nominee without going as far right in your statements as can be believed – or beyond belief. So, as a moderate, you keep playing the cannibal, or you get politically eaten alive by your own Republican base, long before you even get nominated by that party of blood red politics the GOP has become since it made its Faustian pact with the Tea Party back in the mid-term elections of 2010.
The new fire-breathers of constitutional reform have the old and mostly moderate, pragmatic Republican establishment by the balls. To stay politically in power a moderate must quack like a Tea Party duck, woddle like ha Tea Party Duck for now. Romney gets a bad rap as Mr Etch-a-sketch, or Mr. Flip-Flopper. What can a moderate do to gain the White House in a tight election when you absolutely need your cannibals lined up to win? Once there, you can show your real political colors.
All cannibalism of metaphors aside, what I am saying is this: the people Romney intends to fool all the way to the White House are the only demographic strongly in his corner, the only demographic of voters his political strategy is relying to defeat Obama: the white male, middle aged and far right voter.
To do this Romney has whored his true and moderate values. He relies on the doom of the American voter, their short-term memory of his politically pragmatic and moderate ways that got him elected as governor in one of the deepest blue states in the Union, mega-liberal Massachusetts. Like him or hate him in that role, Romney was a capable governor who achieved his many successes as a consensus building, moderate.
Obama Care was modeled after Romney Care, folks, but Romney has etch-a-sketched away that image up to the first presidential debate. Now I see him in the final lap of this race sketching up an image closer to his reality. You will see on the screen that is his face a new sketch tracing in the works. Erased will be that red-meat Republican conservative platform.
The lines draw a new fish who will talk centrist to woo the moderate independent voters away from Obama in the last weeks of the campaign, if he can. I think this moderation will only alienate enough of his cannibal base to lose. On 6 November the red conservative cannibals will eat Romney for breakfast and then sit on their vote digesting their mistake picking a moderate in red-Republican cannibal's clothing.
It is a Hobson's Choice. Romney in 2012 does the "Al Gore" in the 2000 elections. Romney tries to distance himself from his Massachusetts moderate successes to win his right-wing base, like Gore tried to distance himself from the successful but sex-scandalized Bill Clinton to win his left-wing base.
The lesson to be learned here is that you cannot win by disassociating yourself from your political accomplishments without looking phony. Still, the election will be quite close because in Obama's case, his passive agression makes him ill equipted to promote loudly and longly his political accomplishments. In the 11th hour of a man not ready for his destiny, he can mature. My oracle said he was meant to be president in 2012, not 2008.
We will see if the impetuous audacity to come too soon to that destiny leaves him no hope to achieve it. My prediction remains the same. He will have a second term, and then we will see what destiny makes of him.
