by Michael E. Salla, PhD

November 2, 2004

I have just read an article basically arguing that there is little policy difference between George Bush and John Kerry, and that neither offers a long term solution to the ills of US Society:, I think thatís an argument many have made including Ralph Nader, and I think many reading this would agree with that assessment. Yet we know that it will be only Bush or Kerry who win the Presidency so those who vote are trapped into making a decision to vote with their heart for the third party candidate who wonít win, or follow their head and possibly make a difference for the major party candidate who will win. Itís an agonizing choice for many, choosing between the lesser of two evils to make a difference or following your heart. Well itís worth reflecting on the election in terms of disclosure of the ET presence and where the two major candidates stand.

Basically, George Bushís administration has been one of the most secretive on record. Keeping out of the public arena many documents and policy making processes that had become more public under the Clinton administration. Many of the initiatives undertaken by Clinton to make the US government more transparent, and to enable more classified documents to be automatically declassified and released were overturned by the Bush administration. Even Congressional committees had a tough time getting public access to classified documents as the 9/11 Commission discovered. The Bush administration is well known as being the most secretive on record.

On the other hand, a Kerry administration would be much more open and transparent, and could be expected to restore many of the Clinton initiatives to have classified documents automatically declassified and released in many cases where the national security of the US wasnít compromised.

Kerry throughout his tenure has been a stalwart in getting Congressional committees to have more access to classified documents that have public interest such as MIAís, and to have these released. This leads to the critical question of who between Kerry and Bush would play the most constructive role in public disclosure of the most important secret of the US government, the undisclosed extraterrestrial presence.

I believe that the majority of evidence points to a major policy schism between two dominant factions of those secretly managing the extraterrestrial presence. There is a hardline faction that is deeply nationalistic and believes in a strong military response to the ET presence. This faction has very little trust in those ETs who are playing a major role in interacting with government agencies in terms of secret agreements, deep black projects, and who interact with the US population. That in particular means ET races from Zeta Reticulum, the Grays, who dominate abduction accounts and whistleblower testimonies concerning ETs. This hardline faction is well represented in the approach of the Bush administration which is dominated by neo-conservatives and of course believes in a strong military response to threats to the US and is intensely nationalistic. A public disclosure of the ET presence by such a faction would tend to be one depicting the ETs, Grays, as hostile and untrustworthy. It would be most likely formulated in terms of a national security crisis.

Individuals like Douglas MacArthur and Ronald Reagan stand out as those who have supported such a hardline approach. Keeping the ET presence a secret would thus be a logical choice for such a faction who would feel threatened if such ETs began openly interacting with the general public. Secrecy would thus enable the general public to remain uninformed so that if a policy decision was ever made to ítake outí the Grays using captured and reverse engineered technology, then this could be initiated. After all, more than five decades of secret military development of ET technology may give this hardline faction some confidence in their military capacity to take on the Grays. It would be likely that disclosure would thus follow a contrived crisis as Stephen Greer has described.

On the other hand, there is another faction of controllers that are much more sympathetic to the ETs who believe that the US would have much to gain from cooperating with the Grays and other ETs in technology exchanges and other ímutually beneficialí ways. This faction is more internationalist in outlook and less committed to a military response that provides security to the US. In short, this faction believes that the Grays can make reliable ípartnersí if not ífriendsí, and are therefore willing to promote a more benevolent depiction of the Grays.

This more internationalist perspective and ET-friendly approach is supported by Democratic administrations who tend to get their ideological support from think tanks such as the Council of Foreign Relations and internationalist organizations such as the Trilateral Institute, and the Bilderberg Society. So a Kerry administration would be likely to promote openess and disclosure of ETs since an informed general public would be more likely to accept the enigmatic Grays as ípartnersí. So a Kerry administration would support greater acclimation initiatives to get the public ready for a disclosure announcement when the decision was finally made.

Essentially, the choice before Americans today is one where they without realizing it, are choosing between administrations that would favor either a hard line nationalistic and crisis approach to ETs and disclosure, or a more internationalist and graduated approach to ET disclosure. A Kerry administration is more likely to release more secrets and lead to a more informed public about ET related matters. This is essentially for creating conditions for an inevitable disclosure announcement which emerges out of a carefully thought through process, rather than a crisis engineered by hard-liners.

Ultimately, ET disclosure would benefit from a Kerry administration. Yet this will not eliminate hard line factions who have very little trust in ETs in general and the Gray in particular, and who are committed to a military build up to counter a possible ET threat. Ultimately, there will need to be much consensus building and cooperation between these two factions for progress to happen on the ET disclosure front. Kerry is best equipped to ensure that ET disclosure is more forthcoming and results from an informed public, rather than a crisis announcement that would emerge I believe from a Bush administration.

While both a Kerry and Bush administration would put their own spin on the ET presence, I believe the Kerry spin would be less dangerous and more genuine. I think we have a long way to go to ensure that disclosure of the ET presence is an honest reckoning of what has historically transpired concerning ETs and of the true number of ETs that have interacted with humanity:

The political spin of a Kerry administration supported by íprogressive managersí would be more beneficial, than the political spin of a Bush administration that would eventually produce a crisis with ETs. However, it would still be a spin that is designed to preserve the records and decisions of individuals and groups that have kept the ET presence secret for decades, and that have participated in agreements with ETs that have led to a number of questionable practices and abuses.

Overall, I believe that important progress can be made with the election of a Kerry administration that will contribute to a more vigorous acclimation process and eventual disclosure of the ET presence in a more graduated and responsible fashion.