Bush or Gore-Two Presidential Destinies in Prophecy

As you may or may not know, I have made presidential predictions since 1968. So far I have had an 8 and 0 record. Odds are I will finally be wrong this time when picking a future president. I am happy to admit that my record for predicting what happens in that future president’s term is less than perfect. I certainly hope I am wrong about many of the things I am about to say. It is a burdensome thing for me to relate a prophecy of tragedy and trials for this country. I lived through the Kennedy assassination and I do not want to live through that again. Be that as it may, even the darkest tragedies can be cause to challenge us as individuals and as a nation to strive for a better future.

Whoever the president will be, I do not see them being more than a one-term president. The reasons may go beyond either man’s competency. I believe our next president will die in office.

Predictive astrology warns us that this campaign 2000 is once again under the shadow of malefic planetary conjunction of the planets Jupiter and Saturn. This conjunction takes place once every 20 years. Every president who has campaigned under this conjunction in a year ending with a zero has faced near-fatal harm or death through illness during their presidency.

Let us look at the timeline of past conjunctions of Jupiter and Saturn and our presidential tragedies:

1980—Ronald Reagan (nearly died from assassination early in his first term).*
1960—John F. Kennedy (assassinated in his first term).
1940—Franklin Delano Roosevelt (Survived his third term after campaigning in 1940 during the conjunction, but died of a brain
aneurysm only a few months into his fourth term).
1920—Warren G. Harding (died of heart failure in his first term).
1900—William McKinnley (assassinated in his first term).
1880—John Garfield (assassinated in his first term).
1860—Abraham Lincoln (assassinated early in his second term).
1850—Zackery Taylor (died of an illness 16 months into his first term).**
1840—William H. Harrison (died of pneumonia a month into his first term).

*So far, President Reagan is the only one to beat the purported astrological curse. Astrologers have said Reagan survived because the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction passed through an air sign (in layman’s terms a soft aspect). None of the other presidents were so lucky.

** I added Zachary Taylor to this list, even though he was not a president elected under the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction. However, he did suffer the strange coincidence of dying like the others after campaigning in a year ending with a zero.

Except for Taylor, so far, ALL of America’s presidents who died in office did so during a campaign year dominated by the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction.

Lately reports have surfaced suggesting John F. Kennedy suffered from a terminal adrenal gland disease. If Kennedy did not go to Dallas on that fateful November day in 1963, there is a good chance he would have died from the illness sometime in his second term.

The current Jupiter-Saturn conjunction is one of the strongest in recent history. How could this threaten either presidential hopeful?

In the case of Gore the sense I get is death from a sudden and unexpected health crisis, such as a heart attack. I also see the danger of a plane accident. Gore, being born under the sign of Aries, may bear the danger better than his counterpart. I do not see assassination in Gore’s future. That does not rule out my misreading of the prescient signs. There could be an assassination attempt using fowl play with Air Force One by domestic or foreign terrorists. There is also a possibility that I picked the right danger but pinned it on the wrong man.

For Bush, I see the death coming from assassination, most likely from a Mideast source through terrorism because of an escalation of war with Iraq that takes place between now and the end of 2002.

I do not want to say any of this, but the power of this current Jupiter-Saturn conjunction may even see a future president “and” his chosen successor either assassinated or die suddenly from an unexpected heart attack. Not only the second man on today’s presidential ticket may become tomorrow’s president but it is even possible that a second death in the oval office happens before 2004. We would then require the Vice President of either President Lieberman or a President Cheney to finish the term. If Lieberman is assassinated, I believe his successor will be a woman..

In either case the destiny of the next president will be a rocky one, be it Gore or Bush (and their vice presidential successors, be it Lieberman or Cheney). Either man will face the same national crises in the next presidential term:

a.) nation-wide and global ecological disasters;
b.) a major war in the Middle East and Iraq;
c.) a serious economic/fuel crisis any time within two years from now (definitely by late 2002). I believe the catalyst for the latter will come from a new oil embargo.

I have been predicting this for many years now, if Gore becomes president the one word to define his presidency is this: “Surprise!” He is like a cardinal waiting in the wings for decades as the Pope’s designated successor. Everyone thinks they know how he will run the shop but when he becomes “pope” the man’s real political agenda comes out from behind the mask of playing successor and surprises everyone. He will be an activist president. I predict that Gore, if elected, will immediately jump head first into one political cat fight after another. The fighting will immediately begin after he is sworn into office with a debate on campaign finance reform in the new Congress.

Incidently, this is my take on the political future of Ralph Nader and the Green Party. Nader should campaign as a spoiler to get George W. Bush into office because Gore will make a powerful attempt to win back disenchanted Democrats to his party and make the Greens politically superfluous. If Gore does not succeed—or if his efforts fail because of untimely death—then I predict the Democrat Party may cease to be a viable party and a new third party will fill the political void in the next presidential elections in 2004.

By the way, the new party will not be Nader’s Green Party.

It will be entirely new. By playing spoiler in the present elections, Nader is taking a great political risk; one in which I predict he will collect more retribution rather than new voters for his Green Party, whoever is the final victor—Bush or Gore. If Bush wins, Nader will be known as the man who for over 30 years worked to protect Americans from the corporations, but in the 2000 election, swung the votes for the president backed by the corporations. If Gore wins, Nader could become a political pariah.

I feel Nader has made a historic mistake. His timing for his political reform revolution came two to four years too soon. I predict another third party will adopt many of Nader’s brilliant criticisms about our system. They will wave the banner of his visionary insights, but better communicate them to appeal to a larger, mainstream voting public who might shrink away from his reputation as a leftist revolutionary.

Gore the candidate has fired off a lot of bold promises. They include the reform health care, initiating a revolutionary ecological policy, an overhaul of campaign financing, and a bold—indeed reckless—pledge to eliminate the influence of special interests in politics. The question remains whether Gore can follow through with his promises. That all depends on whether the American people vote for two more years of gridlock by placing one partisan party in the White House and another in the Congress. If Gore falls short of any of his declared goals he will face a political whirlwind that could carry him and his party into political obscurity by 2004.

Now let us look at the future of the Congress. I am sure the election will bring a Democrat House of Representatives with a slim majority similar to the one the Republicans enjoy today. I also see a one-or-two seat majority for the Democrats in the Senate, though I am less sure of this

The road for President Gore’s reforms through the gauntlet of Congress will be rough and politically convoluted, even with a majority in the House and Senate. I see anger, lots of it. I see the revolutionary ecologist who wrote “Earth in the Balance” coming out from under the folksy, mainstream mask worn during his wooden campaigns. I see a man who appeared as a mediocre campaigner in the past surprising everyone as a firebrand of a future president. Yet, with that said, I see a president that could explode on enemies and allies alike and work himself sick over road blocks to his reforms.

Stress is a definite health danger for Gore. I would tell him, keep exercising, manage your anger, keep a sense of humor like your predecessor, or your heart will suffer—perhaps fatally.

Now to world affairs. The new president, whoever that will be, will face mounting crises in the world generated by increased global warming, overpopulation, ecological degradation, and general problems in sustaining economic growth based on overstressing the planet.

My oracular gut feelings say Gore will handle these crises with more experience and strength. Bush, on the other hand, will reveal a lack of focus and clarity under fire. Like Kennedy before him in the early 60s, his inexperience as a statesman may color him in the minds of world leaders as an intellectual and political light weight. Whether this view is correct or not, when leaders in the past have concluded that our president is weak it has lead to some of the most dangerous crises for the country. For example, when Khrushchev viewed Kennedy as inexperienced and weak the Soviet Premier made risky military and political maneuvers that lead to the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962—the closest we ever came to nuclear Armageddon. A few decades later, the belief that President Carter was weak and indecisive preciptated the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan. Carter’s flip-flop support and abandonment of the Shah of Iran helped speed up Ayatollah Khomeini’s Iranian Islamic revolution and motivate the abduction of members of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Saddam Hussein later invaded Iran in part because he correctly concluded that the Carter Administration would do nothing significant to stop him. This action set the stage for America’s Gulf War with Saddam a decade later.

I believe a President Gore will be a strong and consistent foreign policy president. I see him containing Saddam Hussein in a similar way as his predecessor. However, I am sorry to say that I do not see President Bush being a good foreign policy president. He is an isolationist at heart. If Saddam Hussein views President Bush as withdrawn from world affairs, or weak or erratic then you may see the Iraqi dictator risk unleashing a regional-wide war in the Middle East. I believe this war could happen as soon as 2002. The flash point for such a war will be a water dispute between Israel and the new Palestinian State. Where a Gore presidency will contain Iraq there will be an eagerness in a Bush presidency to settle scores and bring about a Gulf War, Part Two. It will most likely topple Saddam Hussein but not before it gets a Bush presidency bogged down in a Vietnam in the desert and threatens America with 27 to 30 years of terrorist reprisals.

I have written nine books on world traditions of prophecy over the last 15 years. I have collected hundreds of predictions from ancient and modern sources that point to a third world war in the 2020s being fought over issues of food and water sustainability of an overpopulated civilization. Population explosions aside, many great prophets from around the world and down through history foresaw today’s cascading increase of violent weather and global warming. Thus, prophetically speaking, it has never been more fundamentally important who gets our vote on November 7, 2000. Considering what I see coming in prophecy we have ten years left to moderate global warming and population stresses on our world. We need to choose a candidate that will help the greatest polluting country, the United States of America, get off its addiction to fossil fuels and over consumption of dwindling natural resources while there is still time. A president who would delay moderating America’s wastefulness—indeed a president who would encourage more consumption and fossil fuel production in an era of global warming—will speed up and intensify the tribulation I foresee coming.

Clearly my prescient oracle gazing today reflects a less kindly destiny for a Bush presidency. If you think it is my prophetic bias clouding my magic mirror-gazing, I sincerely hope you are right.

I close by saying to you all. Choose carefully. Think how your vote might affect life for your future—for your children’s and grandchildren’s future. Consider which of the presidential candidates will help bring the climate back into control and the human population back into balance. And if after 7 November 2000, your choice is in office, never let him forget his promises to our children and grandchildren to make a better, ecologically healthier and peaceful world.

John Hogue
(6 November 2000)

Predicting the president.


This entry was posted in US Presidential Predictions and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

3 Trackbacks

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>


* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *