In New Hampshire we were witness to Diebold rigging an election to bring Hillary Clinton a much-needed victory. This perfidy was accomplished by using the NFL as a go-between for both contact and financial support.
Now, though, we have seen the depths to which the NFL is willing to stoop in order to help Hillary Clinton become president: they’ve rigged the Super Bowl! You didn’t really believe that the mighty Patriots could only score 14 points against the Giants and lose, did you?
How did they do this, you ask? It’s quite simple. Did you notice during the game that the shots of Peyton Manning in the second half looked remarkably like the ones from the first half? And that Peyton was both in the Giants locker room and inexplicably fatigued-looking after the game? This is because the Manning that threw the dramatic pass to get out of 3rd and 5 was Peyton himself! How else can you explain jittery Eli becoming cool-hand Luke in the Superbowl?
Their other action was far more diabolical. Bill Bellicheck coached the entire game inexplicably attired in a red sweatshirt, rather than his trademark raggedy gray hoodie. Is there any surprise, then, that he struggled to find his coaching mojo and was distracted enough that he went for it on 4th and 13? This is the work of evil: stealing a man’s security hoodie just to win a football game.
Should we be surprised that as a young woman Hillary interned for the father of current NFL commissioner Roger Goodell? We should not: this conspiracy has been decades in the making, and it is like an onion: the more layers you peel back, the more it stinks.
But why would the NFL rig the Superbowl to allow the underdog Giants to win? How could this profit their preferred candidate? It is because of history, and the strange power of the Superbowl to affect the presidential election.
It is a fact that when the AFC wins the Superbowl, the Presidency changes parties (with one sinister exception). It is also a fact that when the NFC wins the Superbowl, the incumbent almost always cruises to victory.
The exception is this: George Bush won in 2000 when the NFC was victorious, and he won again in 2004 when the AFC won, which is all the more reason to cast doubt upon his hanging chads and electoral shenanigans. Everyone knows that Karl Rove has no respect for real election laws; we should not expect him to respect metaphysical ones, either.
What does this mean for the 2008 election?
One must always ask: who gains? How could Hillary gain by an NFC win, instead of an AFC win, if an NFC win is good for the incumbent?
The only candidate to ever successfully change the party of the Presidency during an NFC victory is Bill Clinton. The only candidate who is running that has presidential experience is Hillary Clinton, through her co-candidate and sometimes spouse, Bill Clinton.
If the AFC won, then she surely would be doomed: the incumbent (her husband) would have been lost and the presidential party either change (to Barack Obama) or stay in Republican hands (via the machinations of Karl Rove). But with an NFC victory intact, the Clintons’ electoral good-luck charm is secured and the only incumbent eligible to run can breathe a little easier.
I ask again: can any of us hope to stand against this sinister confluence of political corruption, big business, and major sports?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
What does this mean for the election? Karl Rove sings like a locust and chews his matted hair. Breezes through harrowing suburbs until his cheeks cave in.
Post a Comment