THE DEBATES ARE REALLY ABOUT CHROMOSOMES AND VOTES

 

 

 

By Joan Veon
October 22, 2004
NewsWithViews.com

Do debates really tell you about a candidate? Ask Richard Nixon. The Bush vs. Kerry Debates have been nothing but entertaining. We hear various phrases that become common place such as "tax cuts" and "healthcare for everyone" but do we really know what is behind such rhetoric? No. The real story behind the rhetoric is who you are connected to.

In 1988, The Washington Times ran an article about the royal ties between the Bush family and all 60 royal families of Europe. It stated, "Vice President George Bush is a distant cousin of Queen Elizabeth, 13th cousin twice removed, and has blood ties with every other European royal family on or off the throne" according to Harold Brooks-Baker who publishes Burke's Peerage which is a directory of British aristocracy. Furthermore the publisher stated, "Without any shadow of doubt, Vice President Bush is connected to more imperial, royal and noble houses than any previous president." Bottom line, according to Brooks-Baker is that "Every time there has been an election in the United States where a man of royal descent was featuring, the man with royal descent won."

Burke's Peerage traces the Bush family tree back to the 1400's and says Bush's American roots were planted by Dr. Richard Palgrave, his grandfather seven times removed who crossed the Atlantic in 1630. He said Bush is also related to 21 of Britain's 26 dukes and is "connected to more great royal families" except Prince Franz Josef of Liechtenstein.

Earlier this year, a family tree was sent to me showing that President G.W. Bush and Senator John Kerry are related through Elizabeth Reade who married John Winthrop, the first governor of Massachusetts. Then in August, The Guardian ran an article entitled, "Kerry's royal roots will give him victory, says Burke's".

British researchers are predicting that Kerry will oust Bush because he has MORE royal blood than the president! Sixteen years later according to Mr. Brooks-Baker, "Every maternal blood line of Kerry makes him more royal than any previous American president." It states, Kerry is "related to all the royal houses of Europe and can claim kinship with Tsar Ivan "The Terrible", a previous Emperor of Byzantium and the Shahs of Persia."

The short articles sums up the bottom line to our presidential election, "Because of the fact that every presidential candidate with the most royal genes and chromosomes has always won the November presidential election, the coming election - based on 42 previous presidents - will go to John Kerry."

I find this interesting, especially since I have studied the British royal family for more than twenty years. Recently in doing some research of my own, I found something very, very interesting. Most Americans know that the United Nations is based in New York City. While they may not be any more familiar than that, most would not have any reason to even know about a second major governmental organization called the British Commonwealth.

Just like the United Nations which is comprised of 191 countries of the world who meet to discuss world concerns, operating inside the United Nations is a parallel organization of 54 countries which all have ties to Great Britain. Some are former colonies like India, South Africa, Kenya, and Zimbabwe that joined this parallel governmental organization for trade reasons or because of their history.

The Commonwealth describes itself as "a voluntary association of independent sovereign states, mostly formed by the United Kingdom and its former colonies." While some do not acknowledge the British monarch as head of state, those that do are known as "Commonwealth Realms" while the majority are republics with some having their own monarchies. All, however, liken the Queen as Head of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is successor to the old British Empire and was formalized by the Statute of Westminster in 1931.

A year ago at the WTO meeting in Cancun, a number of African countries with Commonwealth membership were pleading for open trade so that their people would not starve. When I interviewed them, I asked about help from Great Britain since they were all members of the Commonwealth. Several told me there is no help from Great Britain. When I asked why they don't withdraw from the Commonwealth, the look they gave me was the same look that I have had from other African delegations when I asked about them withdrawing from the World Bank or IMF. They can't withdraw from this voluntary organization.

Now, why does this have relevance to the presidential debates? For the following reasons: The political agenda of the Commonwealth follows that of the United Nations very, very closely. So why allow the Commonwealth if they have the same goals? Why not give those countries a choice-- either the UN or the Commonwealth? The answer is found in VOTES!!!

The United States is OUT VOTED by the British Commonwealth at the international and regional levels. The following shows the organization and the number of countries that are members of the Commonwealth: The United Nations: 54, the Group of Eight: 2, the International Monetary Fund: 45, the World Bank: 44, the World Trade Organization: 46, the Bank for International Settlements: 38, the International Organization of Security Commissions: 28, the International Association of Insurance Supervisors: 27, the Group of 20: 5, the Free Trade Areas of the Americas (the EU for our country): 13 and the Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation: 7.

What can I tell you about the election? It will be very close. While George Bush has given Wall Street and corporations everything they ever wanted in tax cuts and the recent corporate tax bill just passed in the Senate, you and I will have to see if chromosomes really do matter. In the meantime, votes do.

� 2004 Joan Veon - All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

Order Joan Veon's book;
"The United Nations'
Global Straitjacket"