THE KENNEDY'S STOLE THE 1960 ELECTION:

[Bruce Patrick Brychek]

11.16.2009:Dear JDB4JFK:Thank you for your response of 11.10.2009 which I just read. I have been out of town (OOT).Of course I did not just discover this point. I clearly meant it as a discussion point, or focal pointfor Newer JFK Forum Members and those who were unaware. If you would champion any cause, you must study and analyze the strengths and weaknesses as well. I recently read from a new JFKForum Member that he had totally believed the whole Oswald story, and never knew of other strong positions.Clearly you are intelligent and well read on this issue, and have very much to contribute. You are right on most of your points, of which you and I share similar beliefs. I merely focus on this forum on things that JFK and RFK were affected by in their time. And by the time of the 50th year Anniversary of 11.22.1963, most Americans will not care, and reasons like this will contribute tolack of concern and interest. As is continues to dwindle.And certainly my point was NOT that it was O.K. to kill JFK because he, and his family stole the election. Certainly many others have.My point is, and always has been that, both JFK and RFK were both in part killed by those they defeated,rightly or wrongly. "Know your enemies. Study the past. He who forgets history is doomed to repeat it." This is nothing new since Cain and Abel, Jesus Christ, or Julius Caesar.This is the focal point of discussion that I wished to generate. Analyzing the who and what groups that they defeated, rightly or wrongly. And of those, who had lost because of it, and stood to gain by the removal of JFK and RFK, and their stream of consciousness for American Democracy in the 1960's.Who would have had the Skill, Will, Talent, Training, Money, Connections, and long term interests tobenefit that much from the Assassinations - Coup d' etat's of JFK and RFK ?And who or what groups still benefit today from their on going cover-ups ?Any more recent analyses, interviews, investigations, readings, research, study, thoughts, orwritings on this subject matter.Comments ?Respectfully, BB.

[Dealey Joe]

Bruce I don't think elections are won or lost by the candidates any longernor decided by the votersI am not sure how far back that goes.The Hidden Elite have already decided who is gonna be the next President.And if he fails to follow the guidelines set out for him he is in big trouble.Why they kill some and just neuter others I do not know.Guess it depends on who they piss off?I think to assume the citizens have anything to do with running this country is delusionary.Wonder who Nixon got in trouble with?Hanging chad? give me a break!Wim could tell us how easy it would be to ADJUST the computer programs in these new voting machines.

[SeamusCoogan]

Bruce Patrick Brychek wrote:POINT: 8. THE KENNEDY'S STOLE THE 1960 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. JOHN KENNEDY RIGHTFULLY NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRESIDENT:"In the last months of the Eisenhower administration, a notorious Chicago gangster named Sam Giancana had been brought into the Castro assassination effort, with Senator Jack Kennedy's knowledge. But Giancana was far more than just another mobster doing a favor for government - and was looking for a favor in return. Giancana and his fellow hoodlums in Chicago, one of the most powerful organized crime operations in the nation, had already been enlisted on behalf of Kennedy in the 1960 presidential campaign against Republican Richard M. Nixon, providing money and union support: mob support would help Kennedy win in Illinois and in at least four other states where the Kennedy plurality was norrow. Giancana's intervention had been arranged with the aid of both Frank Sinatra, who was close to the mob and the Kennedy family, and a prominent Chicago judge, who served as an intermediary for a meeting, not revealed until this book, between the gangster and Jack Kennedy's millionaire father, the relentlessly ambitious Joseph P. Kennedy. The meeting took place in the winter before the election in the judge's chambers. A few months after the election, allegations of fraud in Illinois were reported to Bobby Kennedy's Justice Department - and met with no response. The 1960 presidential election was stolen."The Dark Side of Camelot, Seymour M. Hersh, p. 4.Respectfully,Bruce Patrick Brychek.You call Seymour Butts a balanced perspective you have gotta be kidding me. Man, your posts really do suck. Joe Kennedy was a lot more complex than Hersh makes him out to be.http://hnn.us/articles/49178.htmlWhy not post something useful? Why not post something released via the ARRB?

[Bob]

Seamus, Bruce first posted thread over 3 years ago. It was to stimulate discussion, as every politician has been accused of that charge. God knows the United States and the world had to live 8 years with Dumbya Bu$h as President after he used many means to steal BOTH the 2000 and 2004 elections. Means like electronic voting devices that could be rigged, voter discrimination (in FLA and Ohio), a brother's help (Jeb in FLA) and the Supreme Court that had two justices directly connected to the Bu$h campaign. Bottom line, I have debated Bruce about this book by Hersh, as I don't think it was the best effort by Hersh, just like Vince Bugliosi laid an egg with his book regarding the JFK assassination. Overall Bugliosi has been a good author, and even Jim DiEugenio would agree with that. Money may have clouded Bugliosi's thought process, as he was reportedly paid $1 million for the book. The same could be true about Hersh's effort here, because overall Hersh has been a pretty good investigative reporter...just ask Dumbya Bu$h and Dick Cheney. Hersh's fine work regarding the Bu$h administration has turned out to be true.I just don't see a need to call someone out, especially some as insightful as Bruce. Do I always agree with Bruce? No. But he is always trying to stimulate thought with his posts and his book recommendations. Bruce is a friend of mine and I have to speak out on his behalf. The forum is here to educate, learn, stimulate discussion and to debate. Bruce makes that happen here. Agree or disagree about his posts, but be respectful. Seamus...I like you a lot, and we too have had our disagreements, but we have always been respectful. Bruce has earned respect in this forum and in many other ways through the course of his life. Yes..I too sometimes get slightly emotional with some responses in some posts, but this forum has evolved into such a great vacuum of knowledge, and we need to keep that momentum, without losing focus and causing infighting between the group. That is all I ask.

[SeamusCoogan]

Bob wrote:Seamus, Bruce first posted thread over 3 years ago. It was to stimulate discussion, as every politician has been accused of that charge. God knows the United States and the world had to live 8 years with Dumbya Bu$h as President after he used many means to steal BOTH the 2000 and 2004 elections. Means like electronic voting devices that could be rigged, voter discrimination (in FLA and Ohio), a brother's help (Jeb in FLA) and the Supreme Court that had two justices directly connected to the Bu$h campaign. Bottom line, I have debated Bruce about this book by Hersh, as I don't think it was the best effort by Hersh, just like Vince Bugliosi laid an egg with his book regarding the JFK assassination. Overall Bugliosi has been a good author, and even Jim DiEugenio would agree with that. Money may have clouded Bugliosi's thought process, as he was reportedly paid $1 million for the book. The same could be true about Hersh's effort here, because overall Hersh has been a pretty good investigative reporter...just ask Dumbya Bu$h and Dick Cheney. Hersh's fine work regarding the Bu$h administration has turned out to be true.I just don't see a need to call someone out, especially some as insightful as Bruce. Do I always agree with Bruce? No. But he is always trying to stimulate thought with his posts and his book recommendations. Bruce is a friend of mine and I have to speak out on his behalf. The forum is here to educate, learn, stimulate discussion and to debate. Bruce makes that happen here. Agree or disagree about his posts, but be respectful. Seamus...I like you a lot, and we too have had our disagreements, but we have always been respectful. Bruce has earned respect in this forum and in many other ways through the course of his life. Yes..I too sometimes get slightly emotional with some responses in some posts, but this forum has evolved into such a great vacuum of knowledge, and we need to keep that momentum, without losing focus and causing infighting between the group. That is all I ask.Now my previous email made me sound more aggrieved than I am. But I tell you what, we shouldnt need to be discussing half of this stuff if but for someone who is asking questions which the poster IS CLEARLY NOT DOING. Bob I agree with you Vince Bugliosi, did wrtte an excellent book on the Bush's and yeah in many ways so did Hersh, but Hersh sucked as far as Kennedy goes, and lord knows why after you have debated the points the poster concerned brings out this stuff again. Now Bob, If the question was "Do you think JFK stole the Election?" then yeah okay thats cool but WTF is "THE KENNEDY'S STOLE THE 1960 ELECTION:" I mean it seems like a pretty emphatic statement to me. Look we all know Nixon was dirty as well, so why bring up that bullshit quote as if Kennedy was the solely guilty party? Wouldnt another good title to a topic be entitled "Kennedy steals Nixon stolen election. A debate".I think anything that reads "THE KENNEDY'S STOLE THE 1960 ELECTION:" is likely to cause argument rather than rather than debate.

[Bob]

I understand your thought process Seamus. But Bruce's overall work in this forum is outstanding, and as you see, he is often asking opinions about books he would recommend and is always trying to spur discussion about things. Yes...the thread title could have been altered a bit, to make the discussion seem more neutral. By the way, it was Bruce that spurred me on to post links to Executive Action.

[SeamusCoogan]

Lol I dont dislike Bruce ha ha ha and thank you. Because Bobs getting executive action helped me upload the Parrallax view so its all good from down here.

[Bruce Patrick Brychek]

Sunday06.09.201912:37 p.m.,Chicago, Illinois time:Dear JFK Murder Solved Forum Members and Readers:04.14.2006 I Originally Posted this Abrasive, Powerful, Probative Headline.I believe today, as I did when I Posted this Headline, that an Analytical, Deep, ProbativeResearch, Study, and Writing Process of what I wrote of, and The Deep State, The SecretState, and The High Cabal since the Civil War through Today, will connect many Dots andPoints of View.I laughed at the critics and criticisms then, as I do now. Simple Minded, Uneducated, Unread, Emotional, and Confused often due to a Lack of In Depth Study.Since the late 1960's I have communicated daily or weekly with James Earl Sutton - Files,the Man Who Actually Blew Out JFK's BrainsJFK Was Immediately Dead.There Was No Valiant Attempt To Save JFK.The Process To Realign The Chess Pieces Was Reverting Back To When The Kennedy's StoleThe 1960 Election.This is/was Fact.Who, What, When, Where, How, and Why Then, and Now is how you Connect The Dots.As always, I strongly recommend that you first read, research, and study material completely yourself about a Subject Matter, and then formulate your own Opinions and Theories.Any additional analyses, interviews, investigations, readings, research, studies, thoughts, or writings on any aspect of this Subject Matter ?Bear in mind that we are trying to attract and educate a Whole New Generation of JFK Researchers who may not be as well versed as you.Comments ?Respectfully,BB.

[Jim Carney]

I thought I would respond to the title “The Kennedy’s Stole the 1960 Election”. Reading the other responses I can see where probably most elections have some shenanigans going on that helped swing the election in their direction.I guess I am not sure JFK and RFK knew about their father’s actions with the mob via Sinatra to get JFK elected. If they did know then they openly snubbed their noses at the mob, not a healthy thing to do. In getting JFK elected the mob figured that they had the president in their pocket in that he owed the mob return favors. Actually either way they would have a president in their pocket, Nixon was connected also. The other big thing was that the US was going after Castro and turn Cuba back into what it was before Castro thus the mob getting back their casino’s there. Trafficante used to oversee the gambling operations in Cuba along with Meyer Lansky. Previously RFK was going after the mob in the McClellan Committee and the mob hated RFK for that. So now you have RFK as Attorney General and he takes it upon himself to kidnap and deport Carlos Marcello to Guatemala as he was routinely reporting to the immigration office. Marcello was not a citizen. Long story short, Marcello and his lawyer wind up getting dropped off in the middle of the jungle left to fend for themselves in their florshiem shoes. Can you imagine the hate that Marcello built up for RFK after being pulled in front of those committee meetings and verbally abused by RFK and then getting kidnapped and to be dropped off in the middle of the jungle! Marcello was one of the most powerful mafia “Dons” in the US. He along with Trafficante controlled the south, Texas to Florida. You don’t treat a man like Marcello like that, he kills for a lot less.