The 2016 US Presidential Election: Produced for Your Viewing Satisfaction

oligarchy clubBy Janet Phelan

Every four years, in an established display of political engagement, Americans line up on the right or the left and the game begins. Feelings that lay dormant or simmering for four years emerge with great forcefulness, as the campaign for US President occupies television broadcasts, news reports and barroom debates.

While the pundits earnestly discuss the merits of the candidates, there lurks off screen a question that is growing in magnitude. “Does it really matter?” has been joined by an equally dark concern: “Is this only theatre?”

Increasingly, that latter question demands our attention. The trajectory of American politics has resulted in a narrowing of the differences between right and left, between Republicans and Democrats. Some have gone so far as to say that there is really only one political party in the US at this juncture, and that would be the “Money Party.” Others have likened the Presidential contest to a Punch and Judy show, with the hidden hand of the puppeteer creating what appears to be conflict and dialectic where none really exists.

It is not within the scope of this article to dissect the similarities between the red and blue candidates. Briefly, an overview on their war policies as well as their domestic policies reveals little separating them from each other.

The reality that the candidates may not be substantially different from each other constitutes one level of concern. Of even greater magnitude is that the election results may be predetermined. The entire campaign and electoral process may be a sham, a display to convince us that the race — and therefore the future — is not fixed. In other words, the elections may be a charade to sucker us into believing that we have choice when we do not.

If we are living in a mock-up nation, wherein the program has been predetermined and we are objects, rather than subjects of our own future, one could conceivably see where the election could be contrived to convince us that we live in a representative democracy when we do not. If in fact we do not, the spin doctors may go to some lengths to engineer our delusion. The proof of this could be found in what is commonly termed “election fraud.”

Allegations of election fraud surfaced in 2000, in the Presidential race between George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore. Gore took his demand for a recount in Florida, which appeared to be the focal point of election fraud, up to the US Supreme Court. In a patently bizarre decision, SCOTUS ruled that a complete recount in Florida would violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause because different counties have different ways of counting votes.

By 2004, many people had had their fill of Bush. And the allegations of election fraud in the 2004 Presidential contest between Bush and John Kerry went through the roof. Concerns about election fraud centered on several states — Ohio, Florida and New Mexico — featuring as pivotal battleground states. And, as we shall see, these three states, which determined the vote count to re-elect George Bush in 2004, were the critical states determining the re- election of President Obama in 2012. At both junctures — in 2004 for incumbent George W. Bush and in 2012 for incumbent Barack Obama — public support for the incumbent had turned sour for the men seeking a second term in the White House. And in each circumstance, the same states popped up Republican to support a Bush victory and then turned around and weighed in as Democrat to ensure Obama’s re- election.

Curious, isn’t it?


Ohio was “delivered” to Bush through a number of dedicated methods, including African American voter suppression; the utilization of voting machines pre-programmed to register Democrat votes as Republican ones; the removal of voting machines in African American neighborhoods (African Americans are known to vote Democrat), resulting in lines so long that many people simply were not able to vote at all; as well as the destruction of new voter registration forms.

The fact that the problematic electronic voting machine companies were owned by Republicans was extensively reported in the news, as was the statement by Diebold’s CEO, Walden O’Dell, a major fundraiser for Bush, who stated that he was “committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President next year.”

Exit polls, considered to be a reliable form of vote prediction, consistently showed that Kerry was winning in Ohio. “Exit polls are almost never wrong,” wrote Republican pollster Dick Morris in The Hill. “So reliable are the surveys that actually tap voters as they leave the polling places that they are used as guides to the relative honesty of elections in Third World countries. …”

In defiance of the exit polls, the final vote tally delivered Ohio — and the country — to Bush. Writes Michael Parenti, “Bush Jr. also did remarkably well with phantom populations. The number of his votes in Perry and Cuyahoga counties in Ohio exceeded the number of registered voters, creating turnout rates as high as 124 percent. In Miami County nearly 19,000 additional votes eerily appeared in Bush’s column after all precincts had reported. In a small conservative suburban precinct of Columbus, where only 638 people were registered, the touchscreen machines tallied 4,258 votes for Bush.”


The 2000 Presidential election was brutally close. As it eventuated, Florida determined that election. Factors resulting in Bush’s victory over Gore included Florida Governor Jeb Bush (George’s kid brother) ordering state troopers to engage in such confrontational tactics as car searches at polling places, which resulted in keeping individuals from voting. Other tactics included some precincts demanding two forms of identification (Florida’s law only requires one form of ID); voters turned away due to falsely being termed “convicted felons”; early closure of polls in Democrat precincts; and the infamous “hanging chad” ballots.

Florida election difficulties again emerged as a tool in George Bush’s box of tricks in 2004, when Bush faced disgruntled voters in the national election. In 2012, when Obama faced a disillusioned voting population, Florida, where election fraud is now considered to be state of the art, went for Obama.


New Mexico is another state wherein problematic voting machines may have fixed election outcomes. Writing about the 2004 election, Michael Parenti stated: “In New Mexico in 2004 Kerry lost all precincts equipped with touchscreen machines, irrespective of income levels, ethnicity, and past voting patterns. The only thing that consistently correlated with his defeat in those precincts was the presence of the touchscreen machine itself.”

In 2012, New Mexico helped ensure Obama’s national victory.

What we see in these three states is that the depth of connivance in falsifying the vote tallies served to re-elect an incumbent President both in 04 and then in 2012. What this appears to point to is that there are certain states which will serve up a President – of either party – upon demand.

The US populace was keenly aware in 2008 that the country needed change. In 2008, Obama appeared to be the candidate offering this. His sweeping victory in ’08 could have been viewed as a mandate for a new direction. Rather than steer the country away from the policies of Bush, however, Obama only continued them. He pursued Bush’s “War on Terror,” advancing the methods to include drone kills and executive ordered assassination of US citizens alleged to be involved with Al Qaeda, in a shocking detour from the Constitutional imperatives for due process.

Obama also advanced the invasion of Middle Eastern countries to include Libya and Syria. His promise to close Guantanamo did not bear fruit and his promise to provide medical care for all Americans resulted in a mandated coverage scheme which excluded a chunk of poor Southern blacks and jacked up the rates for many others.

Such a yearning for “change” appears to be fueling the popularity of DC outsider Donald Trump. If you put them side by side, Trump would appear to be the polar opposite of Obama, in terms of personal style and apparent policies (although the New York Times has suggested that Trump may be the first “post-policy candidate”. )

Trump appeals, as did Obama, to the politically desperate and disillusioned, who think that the country is on a problematic course and needs a “different kind” of leader who will steer the ship of state in a new direction. In this sense, Trump is playing the “change” card, as did Obama in 08, although he is certainly playing it in an extravagantly different manner.

When Bill Clinton ran for President in 1992, he was considered to be a DC “outsider.” The Washington Times has stated that when George W. Bush ran for President in 2000, he ran as a Washington outsider. Obama’s 2008 campaign was focused on his outsider status. This sort of spin seems to work well for candidates who wish to occupy the Oval Office. The fact that Trump has positioned himself as an “ultimate outsider” might well be viewed with an understanding of the usefulness of this perception in prior Presidential elections.

The game is on. While are settling into our stadium seats to watch the applicants duke it out, it might be helpful to remember that the entire extravaganza may be just that — a hunky big psyop.

Image Source

Janet C. Phelan, investigative journalist and human rights defender that has traveled pretty extensively over the Asian region, an author of a tell-all book EXILE, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.

Activist Post Daily Newsletter

Subscription is FREE and CONFIDENTIAL
Free Report: How To Survive The Job Automation Apocalypse with subscription

12 Comments on "The 2016 US Presidential Election: Produced for Your Viewing Satisfaction"

  1. i don’t really care at all about this garbage. Distance yourself from the matrix…the system. It is a distraction that will drain the life from you. Its OK to say I don’t care about this system and continue to ignore it. Many say that “things” will not change with this behavior. Quite the contrary, avoidin the system at all cost and minimizing your associations (e.g., big banks, big stores)

    • But you are not ignoring it. You are fighting it by not contributing what little we still control, as we all should do.
      We may be able to only fight in small ways but if we all do it together, we have a strength unrealized

      • The only thing we control is our own reality. Voting is essentially agreeing to be controlled by others and giving your consent to be ruled. The only way to make a difference is to withdraw your consent by not voting. That’s the real strength unrealized.

        • If voting really worked it would be illegal.
          The voting system has been compromised for sometime. They choose who they want and manipulate the data to reflect it, thus tricking the average American in thinking this is what WE chose through the act of voting.

          Our REAL strength is how we spend our money. You still have control over that.
          If people used the power of social media and their concerted effort to boycott ONE evil company at a time we could shut them down.

          Money drives everything in this material world we have helped create
          Anything that has been done, can also be UNDONE

  2. I wish the American people were made aware of the recent Princeton University Study (although I don’t think it would matter) that showed the correlation between what the people want their government politicians to do and what the politicians actually deliver. The study concluded that the will of the people compared to what they got from the politicians. The percent was so small that Princeton Study said it was almost to small to measure. In other words, the government doesn’t care what the people want, at all.

    • They want our consent via our vote. They put on a Really Big Show for our entertainment and once they get everyone to choose sides and march down to the polls, show our National ID and cast our vote to be ruled by psychopaths, they are through with us for four years, except for paying taxes. Anyone who is stupid enough to participate in this ridiculous farce gets what they deserve, in spades.

    • JoAnn Dolberg | March 6, 2016 at 10:48 am | Reply

      Exactly…that is how we got the “nanny” state. They actually believe in their own power and in our need to be controlled by them….and we keep allowing them to get away with it because we just know they will change their minds when they see how beautifully well we control ourselves. Then, we realize they are not interested in how well WE are doing, but in how well THEY could do if they get our power away from us.

  3. Since Criminally Clinton is still running this proves it’s ALL rigged , end of story …..

    • JoAnn Dolberg | March 6, 2016 at 10:56 am | Reply

      It is amazing, isn’t it…the democrats who really don’t have much to offer, offered all they have…a Criminal and a Communist. And it appears as though they will both be allowed to remain on the ballot. THIS ought to tell Americans the true state of our union, but nooo….they all march to the polls and vote for one or the other. I will say, the sane democrats are voting republican this time around, which makes me think that there is hope for people in general. Of course, if it is all completely rigged, those who remain skeptics should find out with this election, for sure.

  4. A vote for the lessor of two evils is a vote for the need for evil to exist.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.