Paul Brancato

Ron - I looked up the story you reference that Clinton was blaming Obama. The source for the allegation comes from unnamed Clinton staffers, and in essence it was that Obama knew about Russian hacking and did nothing. 

The botom line for me is this - you are ill informed, whether by choice or accident I don't know. You post on this forum from a position of ignorance, and sometimes it seems like you wear that like a badge of honor. Its your choice to either remain so, or open your world view up and look beyond the corporate media headlines. You're in a good place to do so, conversing with so many well informed people here. 

4 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

 

4 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

It was a headline, news caption, or forum subject that I saw somewhere. I didn't bother to read the story or wait to hear it, because all I care about the Clintons now is that we are rid of them. At least I hope.

I don't see how Comey and Putin could have had more effect on voters than the dozen or so women who publicly accused Trump of sexually assaulting them, with Trump himself claiming on audio tape that he molests women. I would imagine that things pretty well evened out, assuming that American voters have any decency.

 

I don't see the equivalence Ron. When Comey made his second appearance 10 days before the election in connection with sexual Deviant Wiener's computer it had a devastating affect on the polls. And Comey's FBI refrained from mentioning the Trump-Putin ties which were also under investigation. Putin's boys were active for months creating fake news and hacking the DNC and Podesta. There may have been more than that. Putin is busy covering it up now by arresting high ranking members of the cyber security wing of the FSB. Trump's financial ties with Russia run deep, so stated one of Trump's sons. 

I also think you should refrain from quoting news headlines from stories you haven't read. It's misleading. Hating the Clintons is no excuse.

I haven't heard Clinton at all recently. Where did you see a story about her blaming Obama? I know a Democratic strategist who has no trouble acknowledging the poor job Clinton did in rallying support in certain states like Wisconsin, Michigan, etc. I also think the Democrats have done very little to counteract voter suppression, even rhetorically. To be clear, I only voted Democratic in the last 3 elections, and only because I thought Obama was a good choice, and because I didn't want to see Trump in the White House. I've voted third party otherwise since 1984. I wanted Bernie Sanders and voted for him, don't mind saying so, in the primaries. I'm not at all a fan of either Clinton. But the incessant attacks on them from the right bother me, especially when the news is fake. There is real stuff too, which is what I pay attention to. 

I think Clinton ran a poor campaign. Too smug, too sure that taking the so-called high road would work. And she and the Democrats have done a lousy job for decades standing up for the poor, the unemployed. I understand that portion of the backlash. But don't you think Comey and Putin influenced the vote? 

Ron - I wanted to amplify a bit in voter suppression. I assume you know that historically it's very real, especially in the south. Speaking of the present I would focus on two elements, even though there are many more. First - voting machines and polling places. Of course I don't trust the machines that cannot be verified, and would prefer a uniform paper ballot system in all states. But more pressing to me are the dearth of machines and polling places in the inner cities. I can vote at home, or go to my local polling station and get home in 15 minutes. Think about it - where to you see pictures of long voting lines and multi-hour waits? Voting is handled differently in each state, and funded as far as I know by the states. Republicans are acutely aware, and I hope you are too, that higher voter turnout equals more Democratic votes. Republican controlled state houses limit voter turnout by underfunding the voting process - less machines, less polling places, less poll workers. 

In their zeal to limit Democratic turnout twenty something Republican controlled states joined together in something called 'Operation Cross Check'. This operation targets voters whose names appear in more than one state, and are not very careful about making sure the names are not just alike but actually belong to one person. They claim that social security numbers are cross checked, but investigators have shown that to be sloppily handled. Predominantly black surnames are targeted, and there are figures to prove that certain surnames are mostly black, such as Washington. So you are a black voter, you wait for hours to vote, only to find out your name is not on the voting roll, something you were not informed of. If you are lucky you get to fill out a provisional ballot, but that is no guarantee that it will be counted. In addition they target names who appear to be of dead people. Many investigations have shown that voter fraud - voting in two states, pretending you are a dead person, is extremely rare, statistically non existent in fact. So why the noise and effort? Quite simply, to make it hard for black people to vote. And historically that is nothing new. It dates back to Reconstruction, and gets more subtle as time goes on. Provisions of the voting rights act have been gutted in some states. Voter ID laws have been implemented that make it difficult for citizens who don't drive to vote. Just as in the old days, getting through this obstacle requires long drives to state capitals and lots of paperwork. Guess who that affects disproportionally? So when you hear the term 'voter fraud' be suspicious. Mainstream Republicans don't want to go down the road that Trump is pushing to tackle voter fraud, because it will expose voter suppression.

as to your point about CNN, that seems to be a dig at what you think of as the liberal media, as if I should be content to get my information and talking points there. I don't, and never have. I'm not a liberal, and don't like labels any more than you do. Left/right is a false dichotomy, a divide and conquer strategy. I'm more pissed off at the Democratic establishment than you could imagine. I only care about truth and lies. 

As for national ID cards, blocking this has long been the policy of the Republican Party, in the guise of protecting us from Big Brother. Many Democrats have taken this tack too, as in 'show me your papers'. What's the point now of blocking ID's? Anybody who uses the internet or a cell phone leaves an indelible track anyway. No one flies under the radar now.

Ron - I appreciate your post and point of view. I don't think however that you see the coup that has taken place. Trump is in office largely because of draconian efforts to suppress voting, and very clever and successful Republican efforts to take over state legislatures and then gerrymander their voting districts. If one looks clearly at all these efforts it becomes obvious that all of them are designed by monied interests that could see clearly that the people who founded this country, namely white landowners, would eventually lose power at the ballot box unless steps were taken. Voting in the inner cities is a far different proposition than it is for you and I. Californians for instance can vote by mail, and don't have their identities questioned. The right wing has long stood against national ID cards, which would clearly make both voter fraud and voter disenfranchisement impossible. 

I would go even further than most and suggest that the gutting of public education, the extreme cost of higher education, the constant battle against universal health care, are part of the same plan to maintain control by elites. And now we have huge movements against immigration - a wall, real or metaphor, to keep non-whites out, to keep non-Christians out. It's identity politics, a phrase often reserved for what the Democratic Party engages in but more accurately describes Republican efforts. 

Please Ron - don't imagine I'm labeling you racist. 

To address one particular point you make, why do you feel unsafe? The terrorist acts of a few crazies during Obama's two terms would not have been stopped by what Trump is putting forward now. I want to feel safe too. But I don't buy the world view that everyone seems to embrace these days, which we now call the war on terror. No matter what the rhetoric, when you look deeply at this you see the Crusades all over again. We can't wipe out the Muslim faith. So why do we declare war on them? Why do we constantly hear the refrain that Muslims should be doing more to combat the Jihadists, a movement largely created and supported by our so-called ally Saudi Arabia? A longer view of history is necessary to put this in context of course. It cannot be disconnected from oil, or colonialism, so blithely. It's convenient to call it an Islamic problem, divisions that go back centuries. It it's far more complex than that, and western foreign policies beginning in the 20th century are to me at least more relevant. 

More war will not solve the problems that religion and oil politics have wrought. 

Douglas - this interview could be posted in the JFK assassination topic. I have wondered ever since I started reading and posting here why Mae Brussell gets so little attention. It's almost a 'been there done that' point of view. She was instrumental in crystallizing my own viewpoints on JFK and on world history, and I think more relevant today than ever. My liberal friends see it differently of course. They view our democratic institutions as fundamentally sound and fully able to fend off the minority far right. That point of view is now called into question, and we see the battle lines being drawn more clearly. It's true that fascism has a much tougher time establishing itself here where Democratic institutions have long histories. But it should be clear to everyone that we are closer to an open fascist state now than ever before. 

I found Mae Brussell quite by accident while driving home from work one evening about 35 years ago. The station from which she, and later her followers, broadcast had a weak signal, so it was only late at night and through considerable static that I was able to listen. I was already a 'student' of the '60's assassinations, but I knew nothing about the Nazis and the far right connections to mainstream politics. I remembered that the Minutemen were named as possibly behind the JFK assassination, but that group had all but disappeared from national consciousness by the time I began listening to her. Others that followed in her footsteps include John Judge, and also Daniel Sheehan.

i think the time has come to take a more careful look at her web of connections. 

Speechless. I'm praying for the Pope.

David - Thanks for the important post. Subtext to me is that Trump might do the same as Putin if he deems it necessary. He has laid the rhetorical groundwork with his open hatred of the media. I fear that Congress is unlikely to stop this coup until it's too late. My less fearful friends would say that the US has strong institutions that will make a fascist takeover impossible. The Washington State Judge who issued the ruling on immigration yesterday gives me some reason to hope. But other things are allowed to proceed, such as Bannon's inclusion on NSC meetings while others such as the Joint Chiefs chairman are kicked out.

What would Lincoln say? If he had lived through the reconstruction period would we be living in a different country today?

I find it hard to believe that so many citizens like Trump.

Douglas - I'm not able to verify this story.

Sandy and Steve - Really interesting post. It's great that researchers like yourselves have the patience to put these bits of testimony together and show the subterfuge at work. I cannot imagine Oswald being anywhere else but outside watching the motorcade, unless he was on the 6th floor shooting, which I'm certain he wasn't. 

3 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Read Perry's testimony.  It's not what's missing or "edited" but the way it was conducted.  I can't remember exactly but Dulles kind of jumps into it, changing the subject, and interrupting Perry's flow of the testimony.

Does it mean Dulles was sitting there rubbing his hands together and thinking, "Oh, I've got to disrupt this?" No, but once again, it's so much easier to create subterfuge in the written record of this case than to paint in blobs and black paint in the films.  To me, *that's* far more proof of sweeping things under the rug and subverting the truth than hearing others talk about removing frames in a film.

Then, of course, you have Ford adding "neck" in the final version of the report before release.  Really?  Again, the photo showing Kennedy's back wound is proof that the SBT could not have happened like the lawyers said it happened.  But again, to fudge that official record, Ford wrote it in.

Keep in mind, too, that Ford later reveals to the French prime minister in a private talk that yes, there was a conspiracy.

I actually think Dulles was conscious of controlling the flow of questioning. I agree that clever questioning, possible editing of WC testimony is easier than altering the film record, and more provable. Of course many good researchers think the Z film was altered. I don't pretend to know the truth of that, but my intuition has always been that it's a distraction.

Something about the nature of comedy, possibly the history of it. Anti-establishment viewpoints, the fool and the king. The right keeps trying to steal this ground, but no matter how much they scream about big government they just ARE big government, and make much better targets for comedians.

No I don't. It gets full for some reason. I'll try to clear it.

done - inbox cleared, so you should be able to send a message now.

I think there are a few posters here who could tell you whether anything like missing parts of WC testimony is likely to be released later this year. 

Chomsky, with his supercilious superior drawl. I'm glad Newman nailed him on this hugely important document and shift in foreign policy. Chomsky's opinion is that JFK was just another Cold warrior. How can someone with his credentials be so ignorant? Well, I don't think it's ignorance, never have. 

Oh man

Michael Clark - My apologies. It was Michael Walton who said 11/22 changed the course of history. 

I'm not entirely sure why you feel attacked. I've asked a larger question in recent posts about the idea that somehow people here have a leftist agenda. I explained why I think that having a leftist, if we must call it that, point of view is not surprising in the context of the history of the opposition to the government's findings. I still dont see anything particularly wrong with asking where someone is coming from. 

I am sorry that we ended up so polarized. I'd like to hear what you have to say.

'Leftist political agenda under the guise of JFK assassination research'

Lance - thanks for your direct and honest response on this thread. You helped clarify why I started it, and you have attempted to turn it on it's head. For most of the past 54 years JFK assassination research has been led by what you would call 'leftists' for the very obvious and clear reason that JFK was what you would call a leftist. I don't particularly like the left/right simplistic view of our political landscape, and it's increasingly lost any meaning it might have. I prefer to think of myself as humanist. I believe that government should be of, by, and for the people. As what you might call a leftist I have been pissed off since I was old enough to think for myself at what we call the military industrial congressional complex. I have been equally disappointed with a free press that has for the most part failed to tell the truth, and this particular beef I mostly aim at the so called liberal wing of the media, who failed when it mattered most when the best and brightest leaders we had were destroyed. And yes, I do wish for the world that the Kennedys and King envisioned, without apologies.

So, let me be clear why I started this post. I'll refer back to my statement that I/we continue to be angry at the forces that killed our leaders, and continue to seek justice. I made an assumption 54 years ago that JFK was killed because he was fighting against the MICC. There is more than enough proof for anyone with a clear eye and a willingness to read that JFK was at war with the Joint Chiefs and with the CIA and FBI. His actions and words prove it beyond a doubt. However, there are many people posting here now that apparently don't see that, haven't really looked at JFK's life or policies. To call the long history of JFK research, and of the authors that post here or have posted here in the past as having some kind of leftist agenda is laughable and worse. The question is what is the agenda of the posters here who don't view JFK RFK and MLK as heroes? Lance Payette, for one example, won't even consider reading one of the best researchers, John Newman, who Mr. DiEugenio rightly points out is a libertarian, because he doesn't like what Newman has to say about the historical Jesus. How can I possibly give two cents about Lance's contribution here if his mind is so closed? It's not a matter of whether someone voted for Trump. This post is not about Trump or his supporters, it's about why people are here reading and posting. It's not the decades of research by people that loved JFK and tried to figure out who killed him and why who have an agenda. Look in the mirror. 

If the newer posters here who agree with Lance in whole or part care, they might do us all a favor and read the well researched books by the few authors who are still posting here. You know who they are and what they have written. Or you could read any of dozens of other important books by people who cared enough to write them, and whose agenda was clearly to find the truth, not to further a leftist agenda. What crap Lance. 

Glenn - explain your post please.

I wondered when I started this thread what would happen. I'm surprised that the moderators let it stand, and would accept graciously if they changed their minds. It is divisive. But as it goes on I become more convinced that I am right about the central theme of it. What surprises me at this point is that many who generally agree with me on who JFK was and why his death matters, who have posted here for a long time, who are clearly humanist in their world views, and well read historians, are not posting, and that most who are posting are the ones I worry about. Kirk shed some light on what motivates them, but it is a cynical light. At least he is willing to define them as earnest and not something worse. I truthfully don't know what to think they represent. Maybe Kirk is right. I start a thread suggesting infiltration without defining what I mean. Now there are people posting who are aggressive and just plain nasty. I suppose I gave them a forum to say what they really think. But - what next? I don't wish to exchange with such closed minded people on a website devoted to JFK. On another forum sure, but not here. This was sacred ground to me, a place where smart people using real names engaged in both sharing research and debating conclusions. 

I no longer feel safe. My guess is I'm not alone.

Thanks Kirk for your voice of sanity. I was unaware of much of what you assert, but completely aware of the problem going back to the assassination that the more leftward or liberal press failed, and still fails, to understand JFK and the effect of his murder.

Lance - you may approve of Trump and his policies. We can differ on that. But your point about lefties getting over the shift of public opinion is not backed up by reality. The Republicans stole this election by dishonest cynical manipulation of voter roles, and their intent for a long time, ever since the Civil War, has been to disenfranchise people who see things differently. In Ohio alone, 2 million people were illegally removed from voter roles. Republican State legislatures are fighting a dirty war. It appears that the Democratic Party has finally woken up, very late in the game. 

You and I are about as far apart as two people could be. We once had a polite private exchange about UFO's which somehow devolved into a Christian rant. I've offered to share with you some alternate but well conceived views of 1st century Palestine. You didn't take me up on it then, or more recently on a public thread here. At least I didn't see it, so if you did respond let me know. One thing for sure Lance, is that your presence here makes no sense. You obviously could care less about JFK, and when you diss an author like Newman without reading what he has to say, you prove your bonafides. 

Rachel Maddow reported a connected story on 1/26/2017 that the Deputy Director of cyber security in Russia's FSB,  Ruslan Troyanov, was dragged, hooded, out of a meeting and is being held pending trial for treason by secret military tribunal. Also arrested and facing treason charges was Sergei Mikhailov, senior FSB intelligence officer. Think they might have been leaking to the retired MI6 agent, now in hiding, who wrote the dossier published by Buzzfeed? 

Shaw's book is getting too much publicity. 

Michael - what does that mean? What's eating you?

Doug - are you familiar with JFK's part in getting the book Seven Days in May made into a film?