Deeppoliticsforum.com is blackmailing Myra Bronstein!

[Len Colby]

MB and Colby have now opened NEW threads on this subject with MB saying she is being black mailed and Colby...well..being Colby.

The thread I started was about a separate but related issue. I guess if you ran a forum you wouldn't mind if members threatened to sue you.

This has no place here and its sorry to see that some of the mods, and former mods, are as biased as Colby.

Why don't you spell out which "of the mods, and former mods, are as biased as Colby" and provide evidence of said bias?

[Pat Speer]

I share RCD's concerns about this kind of dirty laundry being aired out on the forum. I think I'll stop bemoaning the constant strife between warring individuals and cliques in the research community. It must be obvious, at this point, that such disputes may very well be more important than the JFK assassination itself, at least to those who continue to delight in engaging in dramatic words of war.

I am personally disallusioned by all this infighting. As I've noted before, I usually agree with most of those who feel compelled to keep arguing with each other. In this latest bit of theatrics, the players are all people whose views are normally in accord with my own. Myra Bronstein, for instance, was one of my very favorite posters here. I also admired Charles Drago's no-holds-barred posts, even while bemoaning his often bombastic style. I could never find anything bad to say about Dawn Meredith.

Let's pretend that all the best and brightest CTers could ever come together at one place- let's call it a convention, for lack of a better word. They've been granted the right (I know, this is impossibly naive, but please play along) to name their own blue ribbon investigative commission, to finally discern the truth about the assassination of John F. Kennedy. So...who would be on that commission? How would the CTers ever agree on even one member, let alone several? Is there one critic who someone would not passionately object to? This is the present state of the critical community; beset with an increasing number of those I call "neo-cons," or people who have grown to dismiss many of the strongest tenets of conspiratorial platform, and plagued by personal feuds between the most knowledgable CTers.

With all these beligerant debates, often involving personal matters and frequently between people who haven't ever met each other personally, it has become increasingly easy for suave LNers to cruise into forums like this and use the discord between CTers to their advantage. I wouldn't strongly object to these DPF threads being closed, and the subject becoming verboten here, but I admire John Simkin for allowing a free exchange, unfettered by the kinds of excessive control exercised on many other forums.

The infighting is beyond tiresome and I have very specific and very significant things I plan to accomplish as a JFK researcher/historian. That's where I want my energy and focus to go. I'm sorry for my role in your disillusionment Don. And I appreciate your post.

I actually find the in-fighting educational. The more CTs fight among themselves, the more I'm convinced there is no "ongoing conspiracy," only a bunch of opinionated people trying to have their way with history, some on one side of the fence, some on the other...few willing to even consider using a gate....

In the words of Elvis Costello..."Two little Hitlers will fight it out until one little Hitler does the other one's will..."

Not that I would want to compare anyone to Hitler... That would be bad...

[Cliff Varnell]

Not that I would want to compare anyone to Hitler... That would be bad...

Especially for a moderator.

I'm with RCD and Don.

[Myra Bronstein]

I share RCD's concerns about this kind of dirty laundry being aired out on the forum. I think I'll stop bemoaning the constant strife between warring individuals and cliques in the research community. It must be obvious, at this point, that such disputes may very well be more important than the JFK assassination itself, at least to those who continue to delight in engaging in dramatic words of war.

I am personally disallusioned by all this infighting. As I've noted before, I usually agree with most of those who feel compelled to keep arguing with each other. In this latest bit of theatrics, the players are all people whose views are normally in accord with my own. Myra Bronstein, for instance, was one of my very favorite posters here. I also admired Charles Drago's no-holds-barred posts, even while bemoaning his often bombastic style. I could never find anything bad to say about Dawn Meredith.

Let's pretend that all the best and brightest CTers could ever come together at one place- let's call it a convention, for lack of a better word. They've been granted the right (I know, this is impossibly naive, but please play along) to name their own blue ribbon investigative commission, to finally discern the truth about the assassination of John F. Kennedy. So...who would be on that commission? How would the CTers ever agree on even one member, let alone several? Is there one critic who someone would not passionately object to? This is the present state of the critical community; beset with an increasing number of those I call "neo-cons," or people who have grown to dismiss many of the strongest tenets of conspiratorial platform, and plagued by personal feuds between the most knowledgable CTers.

With all these beligerant debates, often involving personal matters and frequently between people who haven't ever met each other personally, it has become increasingly easy for suave LNers to cruise into forums like this and use the discord between CTers to their advantage. I wouldn't strongly object to these DPF threads being closed, and the subject becoming verboten here, but I admire John Simkin for allowing a free exchange, unfettered by the kinds of excessive control exercised on many other forums.

The infighting is beyond tiresome and I have very specific and very significant things I plan to accomplish as a JFK researcher/historian. That's where I want my energy and focus to go. I'm sorry for my role in your disillusionment Don. And I appreciate your post.

I actually find the in-fighting educational. The more CTs fight among themselves, the more I'm convinced there is no "ongoing conspiracy," only a bunch of opinionated people trying to have their way with history, some on one side of the fence, some on the other...few willing to even consider using a gate....

In the words of Elvis Costello..."Two little Hitlers will fight it out until one little Hitler does the other one's will..."

Not that I would want to compare anyone to Hitler... That would be bad...

I really don't think it has that much import Pat. We're just garden variety assholes who couldn't get along.

Don is right and it's a horrible waste among people who, when not being assholes, all care a lot about bigger historical and societal issues.

[Tony Frank]

I read somewhere that some Nigerian could solve this whole thing with 2600 Euros.

[Kathleen Collins]

Let's pretend that all the best and brightest CTers could ever come together at one place- let's call it a convention, for lack of a better word. They've been granted the right (I know, this is impossibly naive, but please play along) to name their own blue ribbon investigative commission, to finally discern the truth about the assassination of John F. Kennedy. So...who would be on that commission? How would the CTers ever agree on even one member, let alone several? Is there one critic who someone would not passionately object to? This is the present state of the critical community;

I nominate Greg Burnham. He has great public speaking abilities and the power of his convictions.

Kathy C

[Len Colby]

MB and Colby have now opened NEW threads on this subject with MB saying she is being black mailed and Colby...well..being Colby.

The thread I started was about a separate but related issue. I guess if you ran a forum you wouldn't mind if members threatened to sue you.

This has no place here and its sorry to see that some of the mods, and former mods, are as biased as Colby.

Why don't you spell out which "of the mods, and former mods, are as biased as Colby" and provide evidence of said bias?

Come, on Jim, I was really hoping you’d reply.

[Myra Bronstein]

MB and Colby have now opened NEW threads on this subject with MB saying she is being black mailed and Colby...well..being Colby.

The thread I started was about a separate but related issue. I guess if you ran a forum you wouldn't mind if members threatened to sue you.

This has no place here and its sorry to see that some of the mods, and former mods, are as biased as Colby.

Why don't you spell out which "of the mods, and former mods, are as biased as Colby" and provide evidence of said bias?

Come, on Jim, I was really hoping you’d reply.

Rats, I'm a little too late.

I was actually hoping to apologize for this thread but I think it's about to be locked.

First it has nothing to do with JFK as others have noted.

Second I think I was being silly and melodramatic when I used the word "blackmail."

In retrospect I think the DPFers were trying to be honorable and warn me before posting on Wikispooks.

I'd also hoped to post some closing thoughts on the other thread which is now locked.

I totally understand why it's locked and have no issue with that.

Just wanted to say something...

[Guest Robert Morrow]

I just tried to log-in over at Deep Politics Forum and I get this message:

"Robert Morrow, you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

1.Your user account may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?

2.If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation."

I guess someone at Deep Politics Forum ... just ... can't ... handle ... the ... truth about what a sex freak John Kennedy was. I posted a lot of useful, highly relevant, TRUE stuff about the JFK assassination over there. And you would not believe the incredible nasty, at times profane personal attacks that some members - even a MODERATOR - of Deep Politics Forum threw all me... all because of political, ideological reasons. So some, but not all or even most DPF members, especially this guy Charles Dragoo - whoever he is - made a bunch of completely unwarranted nasty attacks on me.

Of course, I did nothing of the same to that minority. I just stuck to my theories, analyses and the facts like I always do.

Check out the Deep Politics Mission statement:

"Welcome to the Deep Politics Forum, an online community dedicated to shining light into the shadowy reaches of historical and contemporary deep political systems. We aim to expose deep political objectives, strategies, tactics, and operatives, and to understand their social, economic, and cultural impacts.

Our mission transcends academic inquiry, which we accept as an invaluable tactic in a broader strategy to wield knowledge and truth as weapons in a coordinated assault on the manipulators who operate within deep political shadows."

So I guess they are for debate, research, trading information, seeking the truth EXCEPT OF COURSE YOU CAN'T TALK ABOUT WHAT A COMPLETELY OUT-OF-CONTROL SEX FREAK JOHN KENNEDY WAS AND HOW HE WAS EXPERIMENTING WITH DRUGS IN THE WHITE HOUSE ...

In fact all types of reasonable, fact-based political discourse is allowed at Deep Politics Forum EXCEPT FOR THOSE DEBATES OR THEORIES WHICH THE SOME OF THE OFTEN NASTY, ABUSIVE MODERATORS DISAGREE WITH.

To be fair, the bad egg moderators and members of DPF are in the distinct minority, and I do think the web page offers a great place to learn about deep politics and the 1963 Coup d'Etat. I really don't think the majority of Deep Politics participants HAVE FASCIST AND TOTALITARIAN INSTINCTS ... but some do, don't they?

I vote that we keep this thread on Deep Politics Forum permanently open. And if anyone does not want to read it, you don't have to.

Edited January 8, 2011 by Robert Morrow

[Myra Bronstein]

I just tried to log-in over at Deep Politics Forum and I get this message:

"Robert Morrow, you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

1.Your user account may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?

2.If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation."

I guess someone at Deep Politics Forum ... just ... can't ... handle ... the ... truth about what a sex freak John Kennedy was. I posted a lot of useful, highly relevant, TRUE stuff about the JFK assassination over there. And you would not believe the incredible nasty, at times profane personal attacks that some members - even a MODERATOR - of Deep Politics Forum threw all me... all because of political ideological reasons. So some, but not all or even most DPF members, especially this guy Charles Dragoo - whoever he is - made a bunch of completely unwarranted nasty attacks on me.

Of course, I did nothing of the same to that minority. I just stuck to my theories, analyses and the facts like I always do.

Check out the Deep Politics Mission statement:

"Welcome to the Deep Politics Forum, an online community dedicated to shining light into the shadowy reaches of historical and contemporary deep political systems. We aim to expose deep political objectives, strategies, tactics, and operatives, and to understand their social, economic, and cultural impacts.

Our mission transcends academic inquiry, which we accept as an invaluable tactic in a broader strategy to wield knowledge and truth as weapons in a coordinated assault on the manipulators who operate within deep political shadows."

So I guess they are for debate, research, trading information, seeking the truth EXCEPT OF COURSE YOU CAN'T TALK ABOUT WHAT A COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTROL SEX FREAK JOHN KENNEDY WAS AND HOW HE WAS EXPERIMENTING WITH DRUGS IN THE WHITE HOUSE ...

In fact all types of reasonable, fact-based political discourse is allowed at Deep Politics Forum EXCEPT FOR THOSE DEBATES OR THEORIES WHICH THE SOME OF THE OFTEN NASTY, ABUSIVE MODERATORS DISAGREE WITH.

To be fair, the bad egg moderators and members of DPF are in the minority, and I do think the web page offers a great place to learn about deep politics and the 1963 Coup d'Etat. I really don't think the majority of Deep Politics participants HAVE FASCIST AND TOTALITARIAN INSTINCTS ... but some do, don't they?

Robert, Here's my take on it FWIW.

As I think you noted, President Kennedy's sex life is trotted out regularly as a way to diminish his value to the people he was taken from. The subtext is 'JFK was a sleaze so it doesn't matter who killed him.' I think a lot of people recoil from the subject because it's so often used to dismiss him as a person and as the great revolutionary leader he was.

[Guest Robert Morrow]

I just tried to log-in over at Deep Politics Forum and I get this message:

"Robert Morrow, you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

1.Your user account may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?

2.If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation."

I guess someone at Deep Politics Forum ... just ... can't ... handle ... the ... truth about what a sex freak John Kennedy was. I posted a lot of useful, highly relevant, TRUE stuff about the JFK assassination over there. And you would not believe the incredible nasty, at times profane personal attacks that some members - even a MODERATOR - of Deep Politics Forum threw all me... all because of political ideological reasons. So some, but not all or even most DPF members, especially this guy Charles Dragoo - whoever he is - made a bunch of completely unwarranted nasty attacks on me.

Of course, I did nothing of the same to that minority. I just stuck to my theories, analyses and the facts like I always do.

Check out the Deep Politics Mission statement:

"Welcome to the Deep Politics Forum, an online community dedicated to shining light into the shadowy reaches of historical and contemporary deep political systems. We aim to expose deep political objectives, strategies, tactics, and operatives, and to understand their social, economic, and cultural impacts.

Our mission transcends academic inquiry, which we accept as an invaluable tactic in a broader strategy to wield knowledge and truth as weapons in a coordinated assault on the manipulators who operate within deep political shadows."

So I guess they are for debate, research, trading information, seeking the truth EXCEPT OF COURSE YOU CAN'T TALK ABOUT WHAT A COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTROL SEX FREAK JOHN KENNEDY WAS AND HOW HE WAS EXPERIMENTING WITH DRUGS IN THE WHITE HOUSE ...

In fact all types of reasonable, fact-based political discourse is allowed at Deep Politics Forum EXCEPT FOR THOSE DEBATES OR THEORIES WHICH THE SOME OF THE OFTEN NASTY, ABUSIVE MODERATORS DISAGREE WITH.

To be fair, the bad egg moderators and members of DPF are in the minority, and I do think the web page offers a great place to learn about deep politics and the 1963 Coup d'Etat. I really don't think the majority of Deep Politics participants HAVE FASCIST AND TOTALITARIAN INSTINCTS ... but some do, don't they?

Robert, Here's my take on it FWIW.

As I think you noted, President Kennedy's sex life is trotted out regularly as a way to diminish his value to the people he was taken from. The subtext is 'JFK was a sleaze so it doesn't matter who killed him.' I think a lot of people recoil from the subject because it's so often used to dismiss him as a person and as the great revolutionary leader he was.

I understand that Myra. However, it is extremely important to understand that the ONLY reason Lyndon Johnson got on the 1960 Democratic ticket with John Kennedy is that LBJ, Sam Rayburn, and Hoover used SEXUAL BLACKMAIL on John Kennedy to force him to put LBJ on the ticket. And the source for that is a damn good one: Evelyn Lincoln, JFK's personal assistant for 11+ years. And as Jack Ruby said if JFK had picked Adlai Stevenson for VP he would have still been alive and not assassinated. Lyndon Johnson was integral to the planning and the cover up of the JFK assassination.

So JFK's out of control and blackmailable sex life is EXTREMELY important to understand its impact on real politics. After the death of JFK, we got the Vietnam War for example.

Evelyn Lincoln, JFKs secretary, reports that Johnson, with J. Edgar Hoovers dark help, got on the 1960 Democratic ticket by using BLACKMAIL on the Kennedys

"During the 1960 campaign, according to Mrs. Lincoln, Kennedy discovered how vulnerable his womanizing had made him. Sexual blackmail, she said, had long been part of Lyndon Johnson's modus operandiabetted by Edgar. "J. Edgar Hoover," Lincoln said, "gave Johnson the information about various congressmen and senators so that Johnson could go to X senator and say, `How about this little deal you have with this woman?' and so forth. That's how he kept them in line. He used his IOUs with them as what he hoped was his road to the presidency. He had this trivia to use, because he had Hoover in his corner. And he thought that the members of Congress would go out there and put him over at the Convention. But then Kennedy beat him at the Convention. And well, after that Hoover and Johnson and their group were able to push Johnson on Kennedy."LBJ," said Lincoln, "had been using all the information Hoover could find on Kennedyduring the campaign, even before the Convention. And Hoover was in on the pressure on Kennedy at the Convention." (Summers, Official and Confidential, p. 272).

According to Lincoln, Kennedy had definite plans to drop Johnson for the Vice Presidency in 1964, and replace him with Governor Terry Sanford of North Carolina. In 1964, new President Lyndon Johnson gave FBI director J. Edgar Hoover a lifetime waiver from the mandatory retirement age of 70 that Hoover would hit on 1/1/65! In other words, Hoover could live to age 120 and still be head of the FBI. In my opinion, both LBJ and Hoover were conspirators, along with the CIA, in the JFK assassination. LBJs and Hoovers jobs were to cover up the murder.

More on how Lyndon Johnson and Sam Rayburn blackmailed and threatened John Kennedy to get Lyndon Johnson on the Democratic ticket in 1960

The Dark Side of Camelot by Seymour Hersh is an excellent book and I highly recommend it. Through Seymour Hersh, you get the voices of the CIA people and perhaps Secret Service people who hated John Kennedy. JFK was not murdered because he was a reckless and prolific womanizer. But it gave JFK's killers one more justification to kill someone they did not respect ... and actually hated for reasons both personal and ideological.

Seymour Hersh really does a fantastic job detailing how the psychopathic serial killer LYNDON JOHNSON BLACKMAILED HIS WAY ONTO THE 1960 DEMOCRATIC TICKET ... with last minute threats and blackmails issued by him and Sam Rayburn late in the night of July 13th, 1960 at the Democratic convention in Los Angeles. By the morning of July 14th, Lyndon Johnson and Sam Rayburn (using Hoover's blackmail info on Kennedy) had TWISTED THE ARM of John Kennedy enough to force him to break his deal with Symington and INSTEAD put the homicidal maniac and Kennedy-hater Lyndon Johnson on the 1960 Demo ticket.

That my friends, was a FATAL decision. Because Johnson works like this: blackmail you today, kill you tomorrow. Like Jack Ruby famously said, if John Kennedy had picked Adlai Stevenson, Kennedy would still be alive... or at least would not have been shot like a dog in the streets of Dallas.

In reality John Kennedy was all set to pick Sen. Stuart Symington of Missouri who was very popular in California, which had a whopping 35 electoral votes at that time. With Johnson on the ticket, Kennedy lost California by a razer close 1/2 of a percent. It is very likely that a Kennedy/Symington ticket would have WON California.

Read the Dark Side of Camelot by Seymour Hersh, p.124-129:

Close JFK friend Hy Raskin: Johnson was not being given the slightest bit of consideration by any of the Kennedys… On the stuff I saw it was always Symington who was going to be the vice president. The Kennedy family had approved Symington. [Hersh, p. 124]

John Kennedy to Clark Clifford on July 13, 1960: Weve talked it out me, dad, Bobby and weve selected Symington as the vice president. Kennedy asked Clark Clifford to relay that message to Symington and find out if hed run. …I and Stuart went to bed believing that we had a solid, unequivocal deal with Jack. [Hersh, p.125]

Hy Raskin: It was obvious to them that something extraordinary had taken place, as it was to me, Raskin wrote. During my entire association with the Kennedys, I could not recall any situation where a decision of major significance had been reversed in such a short period of time…. Bob [Kennedy] had always been involved in every major decision; why not this one, I pondered… I slept little that night. [Hersh, p. 125]

John Kennedy to Clark Clifford in the morning of July 14, 1960: I must do something that I have never done before. I made a serious deal and now I have to go back on it. I have no alternative. Symington was out and Johnson was in. Clifford recalled observing that Kennedy looked as if hed been up all night. [Hersh, p. 126]

John Kennedy to Hy Raskin: You know we had never considered Lyndon, but I was left with no choice. He and Sam Rayburn made it damn clear to me that Lyndon had to be the candidate. Those bastards were trying to frame me. They threatened me with problems and I dont need more problems. Im going to have enough problems with Nixon. [Hersh, p. 126]

Raskin The substance of this revelation was so astonishing that if it had been revealed to me by another other than Jack or Bob, I would have had trouble accepting it. Why he decided to tell me was still very mysterious, but flattering nonetheless. [Hersh, p. 126]

Edited January 8, 2011 by Robert Morrow

[Myra Bronstein]

I just tried to log-in over at Deep Politics Forum and I get this message:

"Robert Morrow, you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

1.Your user account may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?

2.If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation."

I guess someone at Deep Politics Forum ... just ... can't ... handle ... the ... truth about what a sex freak John Kennedy was. I posted a lot of useful, highly relevant, TRUE stuff about the JFK assassination over there. And you would not believe the incredible nasty, at times profane personal attacks that some members - even a MODERATOR - of Deep Politics Forum threw all me... all because of political ideological reasons. So some, but not all or even most DPF members, especially this guy Charles Dragoo - whoever he is - made a bunch of completely unwarranted nasty attacks on me.

Of course, I did nothing of the same to that minority. I just stuck to my theories, analyses and the facts like I always do.

Check out the Deep Politics Mission statement:

"Welcome to the Deep Politics Forum, an online community dedicated to shining light into the shadowy reaches of historical and contemporary deep political systems. We aim to expose deep political objectives, strategies, tactics, and operatives, and to understand their social, economic, and cultural impacts.

Our mission transcends academic inquiry, which we accept as an invaluable tactic in a broader strategy to wield knowledge and truth as weapons in a coordinated assault on the manipulators who operate within deep political shadows."

So I guess they are for debate, research, trading information, seeking the truth EXCEPT OF COURSE YOU CAN'T TALK ABOUT WHAT A COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTROL SEX FREAK JOHN KENNEDY WAS AND HOW HE WAS EXPERIMENTING WITH DRUGS IN THE WHITE HOUSE ...

In fact all types of reasonable, fact-based political discourse is allowed at Deep Politics Forum EXCEPT FOR THOSE DEBATES OR THEORIES WHICH THE SOME OF THE OFTEN NASTY, ABUSIVE MODERATORS DISAGREE WITH.

To be fair, the bad egg moderators and members of DPF are in the minority, and I do think the web page offers a great place to learn about deep politics and the 1963 Coup d'Etat. I really don't think the majority of Deep Politics participants HAVE FASCIST AND TOTALITARIAN INSTINCTS ... but some do, don't they?

Robert, Here's my take on it FWIW.

As I think you noted, President Kennedy's sex life is trotted out regularly as a way to diminish his value to the people he was taken from. The subtext is 'JFK was a sleaze so it doesn't matter who killed him.' I think a lot of people recoil from the subject because it's so often used to dismiss him as a person and as the great revolutionary leader he was.

I understand that Myra. However, it is extremely important to understand that the ONLY reason Lyndon Johnson got on the 1960 Democratic ticket with John Kennedy is that LBJ, Sam Rayburn, and Hoover used SEXUAL BLACKMAIL on John Kennedy to force him to put LBJ on the ticket. And the source for that is a damn good one: Evelyn Lincoln, JFK's personal assistant for 11+ years. And as Jack Ruby said if JFK had picked Adlai Stevenson for VP he would have still been alive and not assassinated. Lyndon Johnson was integral to the planning and the cover up of the JFK assassination.

So JFK's out of control and blackmailable sex life is EXTREMELY important to understand its impact on real politics. After the death of JFK, we got the Vietnam War for example.

Evelyn Lincoln, JFK’s secretary, reports that Johnson, with J. Edgar Hoover’s dark help, got on the 1960 Democratic ticket by using BLACKMAIL on the Kennedys

"During the 1960 campaign, according to Mrs. Lincoln, Kennedy discovered how vulnerable his womanizing had made him. Sexual blackmail, she said, had long been part of Lyndon Johnson's modus operandi—abetted by Edgar. "J. Edgar Hoover," Lincoln said, "gave Johnson the information about various congressmen and senators so that Johnson could go to X senator and say, `How about this little deal you have with this woman?' and so forth. That's how he kept them in line. He used his IOUs with them as what he hoped was his road to the presidency. He had this trivia to use, because he had Hoover in his corner. And he thought that the members of Congress would go out there and put him over at the Convention. But then Kennedy beat him at the Convention. And well, after that Hoover and Johnson and their group were able to push Johnson on Kennedy."LBJ," said Lincoln, "had been using all the information Hoover could find on Kennedy—during the campaign, even before the Convention. And Hoover was in on the pressure on Kennedy at the Convention." (Summers, Official and Confidential, p. 272).

According to Lincoln, Kennedy had definite plans to drop Johnson for the Vice Presidency in 1964, and replace him with Governor Terry Sanford of North Carolina. In 1964, new President Lyndon Johnson gave FBI director J. Edgar Hoover a lifetime waiver from the mandatory retirement age of 70 that Hoover would hit on 1/1/65! In other words, Hoover could live to age 120 and still be head of the FBI. In my opinion, both LBJ and Hoover were conspirators, along with the CIA, in the JFK assassination. LBJ’s and Hoover’s jobs were to cover up the murder.

More on how Lyndon Johnson and Sam Rayburn blackmailed and threatened John Kennedy to get Lyndon Johnson on the Democratic ticket in 1960

The Dark Side of Camelot by Seymour Hersh is an excellent book and I highly recommend it. Through Seymour Hersh, you get the voices of the CIA people and perhaps Secret Service people who hated John Kennedy. JFK was not murdered because he was a reckless and prolific womanizer. But it gave JFK's killers one more justification to kill someone they did not respect ... and actually hated for reasons both personal and ideological.

Seymour Hersh really does a fantastic job detailing how the psychopathic serial killer LYNDON JOHNSON BLACKMAILED HIS WAY ONTO THE 1960 DEMOCRATIC TICKET ... with last minute threats and blackmails issued by him and Sam Rayburn late in the night of July 13th, 1960 at the Democratic convention in Los Angeles. By the morning of July 14th, Lyndon Johnson and Sam Rayburn (using Hoover's blackmail info on Kennedy) had TWISTED THE ARM of John Kennedy enough to force him to break his deal with Symington and INSTEAD put the homicidal maniac and Kennedy-hater Lyndon Johnson on the 1960 Demo ticket.

That my friends, was a FATAL decision. Because Johnson works like this: blackmail you today, kill you tomorrow. Like Jack Ruby famously said, if John Kennedy had picked Adlai Stevenson, Kennedy would still be alive... or at least would not have been shot like a dog in the streets of Dallas.

In reality John Kennedy was all set to pick Sen. Stuart Symington of Missouri who was very popular in California, which had a whopping 35 electoral votes at that time. With Johnson on the ticket, Kennedy lost California by a razer close 1/2 of a percent. It is very likely that a Kennedy/Symington ticket would have WON California.

Read the Dark Side of Camelot by Seymour Hersh, p.124-129:

Close JFK friend Hy Raskin: “Johnson was not being given the slightest bit of consideration by any of the Kennedys… On the stuff I saw it was always Symington who was going to be the vice president. The Kennedy family had approved Symington.” [Hersh, p. 124]

John Kennedy to Clark Clifford on July 13, 1960: “We’ve talked it out – me, dad, Bobby – and we’ve selected Symington as the vice president.” Kennedy asked Clark Clifford to relay that message to Symington “and find out if he’d run.” …”I and Stuart went to bed believing that we had a solid, unequivocal deal with Jack.” [Hersh, p.125]

Hy Raskin: “It was obvious to them that something extraordinary had taken place, as it was to me,” Raskin wrote. “During my entire association with the Kennedys, I could not recall any situation where a decision of major significance had been reversed in such a short period of time…. Bob [Kennedy] had always been involved in every major decision; why not this one, I pondered… I slept little that night.” [Hersh, p. 125]

John Kennedy to Clark Clifford in the morning of July 14, 1960: “I must do something that I have never done before. I made a serious deal and now I have to go back on it. I have no alternative.” Symington was out and Johnson was in. Clifford recalled observing that Kennedy looked as if he’d been up all night.” [Hersh, p. 126]

John Kennedy to Hy Raskin: “You know we had never considered Lyndon, but I was left with no choice. He and Sam Rayburn made it damn clear to me that Lyndon had to be the candidate. Those bastards were trying to frame me. They threatened me with problems and I don’t need more problems. I’m going to have enough problems with Nixon.” [Hersh, p. 126]

Raskin “The substance of this revelation was so astonishing that if it had been revealed to me by another other than Jack or Bob, I would have had trouble accepting it. Why he decided to tell me was still very mysterious, but flattering nonetheless.” [Hersh, p. 126]

Robert,

The part where you quote Evelyn Lincoln is really interesting and makes sense. It was always apparent that LBJ forced his way onto the ticket. And I do believe LBJ planned at that point to promote himself over JFK's dead body or he'd never have given up the powerful majority leader position for the cruddy ol' VP slot. Plus at that point a Southerner had never been elected president, so his only path to greater power was over JFK's body. If the sexual blackmail is the rest of the story then that sounds plausible and I'm glad to know it.

As far as Seymour Hersh though, I consider him to be a CIA mouthpiece and "The Dark Side of Camelot" to be a JFK smear from Hersh's CIA handlers. I don't consider Hersh credible.

[Guest Robert Morrow]

There is absolutely NO WAY that John Kennedy would have picked Lyndon Johnson to be on his ticket except for the fact that Lyndon Johnson, Sam Rayburn (using Hoover's info) were sexually BLACKMAILING John Kennedy and forced him to put LBJ on the ticket. Period - end of story. It is incredibly important for folks to understand this as well as the sub rosa war that the Kennedys were having with both Lyndon Johnson and the CIA in the 1960-1963 time frame.

Lyndon Johnson was NOT on JFK's short list to be VP. He was not on the long list. LBJ was not on the list - period. Lyndon Johnson FORCED his way on the ticket with blackmail in the night of July 13, 1960, and with threats that he and Rayburn would do everything they could to sink the 1960 Demo ticket if LBJ were not on it.

Edited January 8, 2011 by Robert Morrow

[Guest Gary Loughran]

To be consistent, I am also closing this topic.

Thanks for your co-operation,

Gary