A SCHISM HAS DEVELOPED ABOUT THE REMOVAL OF JFK:

Knowing the truth about the Kennedy Assassination is understanding America today.

Moderators: Bob, Phil Dragoo, Dealey Joe, kenmurray, dankbaar

A SCHISM HAS DEVELOPED ABOUT THE REMOVAL OF JFK:

Postby Bruce Patrick Brychek » Thu Nov 07, 2019 7:02 pm

Thursday
11.07.2019
1:02 p.m.,
Chicago, Illinois time:

Dear JFK Murder Solved Forum Members and Readers:

I sincerely believe that a SCHISM HAS DEVELOPED ABOUT THE REMOVAL OF JFK AND RELATED
SUBJECT MATTERS AMONG ARTICLES, ANALYSES, BOOKS, INTERVIEWS, SEMINARS, SPEECHES,
READINGS, RESEARCH, STUDY, AND WRITINGS, etc.

And of course Human Egos and Perspectives multiply the above greatly.

In addition the fact that 11.22.1963 was almost 56 years ago of course plays a big factor.

Human Nature, the Main Stream Media, Compartmentalization Among Participants, Need to Know
Among Participants, and of course Past, Present, and Future Directed Cover-Up Efforts of The Deep
State, The Secret State, and The High Cabal are among some Major Governing Factors.

Also, The Deep State, The Secret State, and The High Cabal is perhaps the Highest Ranking Form of
Musical Chairs Ruling Power ever in Financial, Global History, Government, Military, Politics, etc., in
Essence Deep Government By An Evolving Committee, an impossible target "to hit", much less assign
blame and assign responsibility.

Simply put I believe that there are two (2) Major Approaches to The Removal of JFK and Related
Subject Matters:

1. The Top Down Approach.

2. The Bottom Up Approach.

I/We have always focused on The Top Down Approach. We knew since the 1960's Who
Shot JFK.

The Removal of JFK being a Coup d'etat I accept as a given.

That there was a Conspiracy before and after The Removal of JFK I also accept as a given.

Many/Most of the JFK Researchers have been arguing about "facts" and accumulating them like Grains
of Sand on The Beaches of JFK Research.

But JFK is Till Dead.

JFK is Still Dust In The Wind.

Just a Rough Draft while I am thinking this.

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.
Last edited by Bruce Patrick Brychek on Fri Nov 08, 2019 4:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Bruce Patrick Brychek
 
Posts: 2426
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 9:09 am

Re: A SCHISM HAS DEVELOPED ABOUT THE REMOVAL OF JFK:

Postby bobspez » Fri Nov 08, 2019 2:44 am

Bruce Patrick Brychek wrote:Thursday
11.07.2019
1:02 p.m.,
Chicago, Illinois time: ...

The Removal of JFK being a Coup d'erat I accept as a given.

That there was a Conspiracy before and after The Removal of JFK I also accept as a given.

...


Bruce I agree completely. I also agree the removal of RFK and MLK were carried out by the same forces, with the same ideology and connections. I believe the same forces exist today, with the same ideology and that money and power is their only true aim.

I can say I believe the Ted Kennedy incident at Chappaquiddick and the JFK Jr. plane crash were caused by the same forces. I think 911 was purposely allowed to happen by those same forces to initiate the Middle East wars. They say Pearl Harbor was the result of Roosevelt blockading Japan, an island with no natural resources. I have read that intelligence was aware of the impending attack, but let it proceed so that we would have an excuse to enter WWII. The Gulf of Tonkin incident was said to have been manufactured, giving us an excuse to escalate the Vietnam war. There's much evidence that intelligence was aware of an impending attack on 911, that normal protocols were ignored, that allowed the attacks to take place. That gave Bush an excuse to go to war. Who benefited in all these cases? The military industrial complex and the bankers who financed them.

But back to JFK, where does that lead us? To nameless faces in the shadows that wanted to profit from war, as they have profited from most of the wars ever fought. International bankers financed both England and France in the Napoleonic wars. They financed both Nazi Germany prior to WWII and the US in WWII. It was the US that armed the Taliban when they were fighting the Russians in Afghanistan. Those who profit from war (including guns, tanks, aircraft, ships, bombs, missiles, fuel, and materiel down to uniforms, construction, laundry services and and hot dogs in the mess) as well as all the dealers and bankers profit from both sides. And their connections and influence extends to our elected officials, and the government agencies that purport to oversee them. Where do we go from there?
bobspez
 
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2017 4:00 pm
Location: Southern NJ, USA

Re: A SCHISM HAS DEVELOPED ABOUT THE REMOVAL OF JFK:

Postby Slav » Fri Nov 08, 2019 3:05 am

Bobspez

Excellent response I agree 100 percent

I thought Trump would clean this all up or hoping, I think they will clean Trump up, they have to set term limits to get rid of the deep state, and make some serious changes in the cia .

If Trump loses like the gop did in the elections a few days I say good bye to life as you know it.
Time will tell, everyone in office is making 200 million to billions , what a great way to make money in a corrupted government.

Trump is not in control he is running with his tail between his legs,
I think the demons with have 2020 with fake voting machine, illegal voters, dead voters, we are living in a semi communist Country that will go to hell in the next 10 years.
Who shot JFK - Files, Nicoletti,Roselli, Jack Lawrence, Frank Sturgis, Roscoe White, Marshall Caifano and others
Who shot MLK- police officer Frank Strausser.
Who shot RFK - Thane Caesar
All Cia hired assasins
User avatar
Slav
 
Posts: 1678
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2010 6:08 pm

Re: A SCHISM HAS DEVELOPED ABOUT THE REMOVAL OF JFK:

Postby bobspez » Sat Nov 09, 2019 2:52 am

Thank you Slav. Further I'd say life as we knew it continues to disappear all the time. We just have to get used to the new life. We have no other rational or practical choice.

I was very disappointed in Obama's performance, and I voted for him twice. I credit him with removing the maximum payouts on health insurance claims and removing pre-existing conditions as a reason to refuse payouts. The health insurance companies were refusing lifesaving treatments because the insured had reached a dollar limit or had never mentioned every illness they ever had, including acne, on their applications.

Of course the insurance companies needed a quid pro quo and government subsidized Obama care and millions of new customers was the deal that got struck. That and hands off the pharmaceutical companies. That's pretty much it for Obama's fulfilling his campaign promises. But I'm not complaining. I've had some enormous medical expenses in the four years since I turned 69, close to four hundred thousand dollars worth, and thanks to Medicare and my supplemental insurance, I wasn't hurt financially at all. In fact I have lived through 12 presidents from Harry Truman to Donald Trump, and I can honestly say none of them have yet affected my life in any way.

There's a joke about two donkeys discussing the coronation of the new king. One donkey says, isn't wonderful that we are going to have a new king? The other donkey says, I was a donkey under the old king and I'll still be a donkey under the new king.

I was pretty sure that Trump supporters would eventually experience the same letdown I experienced with Obama. Decades ago, Arpege perfume was very popular, and their advertising slogan was "Promise her anything, but give her Arpege." That pretty much describes the difference between what candidates promise and what they deliver.

Slav wrote:Bobspez

Excellent response I agree 100 percent

I thought Trump would clean this all up or hoping, I think they will clean Trump up, they have to set term limits to get rid of the deep state, and make some serious changes in the cia .

If Trump loses like the gop did in the elections a few days I say good bye to life as you know it.
Time will tell, everyone in office is making 200 million to billions , what a great way to make money in a corrupted government.

Trump is not in control he is running with his tail between his legs,
I think the demons with have 2020 with fake voting machine, illegal voters, dead voters, we are living in a semi communist Country that will go to hell in the next 10 years.
bobspez
 
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2017 4:00 pm
Location: Southern NJ, USA

Re: A SCHISM HAS DEVELOPED ABOUT THE REMOVAL OF JFK:

Postby Bob Jonas » Sat Nov 09, 2019 4:21 am

I beg to differ. I don't think Trump is a puppet or under anyone's control yet.. As long as the media is in obvious collusion with the Democrats and even a component of the Republicans in an attempt to completely destroy a sitting president, you've got to believe the Deep State is afraid of something. The question is what? Losing power? The revelation of past misdeeds?

We are watching a soft coup. Love him, tolerate him, or hate him, Trump has somebody awful scared or else they wouldn't be coming at him so hard. Could it be JFK-related? Very well could be. There was a reason the last batch of documents was withheld from release until 2020. The art of assassination has gotten more complex with the advent of social media as it makes it harder to control all information as was done in '63.
Last edited by Bob Jonas on Sat Nov 09, 2019 2:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Bob Jonas
 
Posts: 320
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2015 2:12 pm

A SCHISM HAS DEVELOPED ABOUT THE REMOVAL OF JFK:

Postby Bruce Patrick Brychek » Sat Nov 09, 2019 4:45 am

Friday
11.08.2019
10:45 p.m.,
Chicago, Illinois time:

Dear JFK Murder Solved Forum Readers and Members:

Messrs. Bob Spez, Slav, and Bob Jonas in my opinion you are all Outstanding, Important, Regular Contributing Members
of the JFK Murder Solved Forum. And this discussion contributed to by all of you is certainly proof of that beyond my
opinion only.

You all raise important facts, theories, and questions buttressed by your own life experiences, and current interests and
perspectives which I for one truly appreciate.

I am going to make a few bullet points that in essence agree with many of your combined facts and theories incorporated
into my own points, leading up to the point I wish to make with one of Bob Spez's points.

* Since 11.22.1963 it was "common street knowledge that The Removal of JFK came through Chicago, Illinois." If you haven't
been born and/or raised in Chicago, Illinois it is had to fully understand that it is almost like a separate country that
thinks it runs the U.S.

* The information that comes out of Chicago, or better yet, doesn't come out of Chicago will startle non-natives.

* The Main Stream Media has more control over Chicago than even the residents know and understand.

* In the 1970's J. Edgar Hoover denied the existence of Organized Crime, or the Mafia, underscoring Chicago's innocence.

* From 2006 on it was "common street knowledge in Chicago, Illinois that Barack Obama a/k/a Barry Sotero, and Michelle
Obama WERE NO LONGER LAWYERS HAVING BEEN 'FORCED TO SURRENDER THEIR LAW LICENSES," Michelle in 1993, and then
Barack in 2006."

Based upon that having been substantiated, and many other known facts about the Obama's, I would never vote for Obama.

Bob Spez, NO ATTACK, AND NO CRITICISM OF YOU AS I ADMIRE, APPRECIATE, AND ENJOY ALL OF YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS.

You said that your voted for Obama twice.

Did you know that both Obama's had been forced to surrender your law licenses over fraudulent legal matters ?

Main Stream Media really hurried this.

I knew they had both lost their law license, but I didn't know why until I read this.

This is legit. I checked it out at https://www.iardc.org Stands for Illinois Attorney Registration And Disciplinary Committee.
It's the official arm of lawyer discipline in Illinois; and they are very strict and mean as hell. (Talk about irony.) Even I, at the
advanced age of almost 65, maintain (at the cost of approximately $600/year) my law license that I worked so hard and long
to earn. Big surprise.

Former Constitutional Law Lecturer and U.S. President Makes Up Constitutional Quotes During State Of The Union (SOTU)
Address.

Consider this:

1. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a "lawyer". He surrendered his license
back in 2008 in order to escape charges he lied on his bar application. A "Voluntary Surrender" is not something where you
decide "Gee, a license is not really something I need anymore, is it?”, and forget to renew your license. No, a "Voluntary
Surrender" is something you do when you've been accused of something, and you 'voluntarily surrender" your license five
seconds before the state suspends you.

2 Michelle Obama "voluntarily surrendered" her law license in 1993. after a Federal Judge gave her the choice between
surrendering her license or standing trial for Insurance fraud!

3. So, we have the first black President and First Lady - who don't actually have licenses to practice law. Facts.
Source: http://jdlong.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/ ... w-license/
4. A senior lecturer is one thing, a fully ranked law professor is another. Barack Obama was NOT a Constitutional Law

Professor at the University of Chicago.

5. The University of Chicago released a statement in March 2008 saying Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) "served as a professor"
in the law school-but that is a title Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never held, a spokesman for the school
confirmed in 2008.

6. "He did not hold the title of Professor of Law," said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an Assistant Dean for Communications and
Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago School of Law.

Source: http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/03 ... title.html ;

7. The former Constitutional Senior Lecturer (Obama) cited the U.S. Constitution the other night during his State of the Union
Address. Unfortunately, the quote he cited was from the Declaration of Independence ... not the Constitution.

8. The B-Cast posted the video: http://www.breitbart.tv/did-obama-confu ... ependence/

9. Free Republic: In the State of the Union Address, President Obama said: "We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing
on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal.

10. Um, wrong citing, wrong founding document there Champ, I mean Mr. President. By the way, the promises are not a notion,
our founders named them unalienable rights. The document is our Declaration of Independence and it reads:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

11. And this is the same guy who lectured the Supreme Court moments later in the same speech?

When you are a phony it's hard to keep facts straight.

Keep this moving -- educate others. It is important to forward to your entire address book………do it now

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson

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.
Bruce Patrick Brychek
 
Posts: 2426
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 9:09 am

Re: A SCHISM HAS DEVELOPED ABOUT THE REMOVAL OF JFK:

Postby bobspez » Sat Nov 09, 2019 6:34 pm

Bruce. Thanks for this information. I am not surprised that the Obamas were involved in dirty deals that cost them their law licenses. I am surprised that the info was never released during the campaigns, especially in 2012. Maybe Romney decided to take the high road, or had his own misdeeds he didn't want brought out in an all out dirty campaign.
In our system we get to vote for two establishment vetted candidates. In 2008 Obama was essentially running against Sara Palin, who was a heartbeat away from the presidency. Even the fact that McCain had picked her as a running mate, disqualified him in my eyes. In 2012 Romney seemed like a sort of simpleton, like George Bush Senior had which caused him to lose to a younger hipper Bill Clinton. And Obama had a really convincing way of presenting himself and his campaign promises.
To give credit where it was due, he did eliminate maximum health insurance payouts and pre-existing conditions. Probably 25 years ago the beautiful young wife of a co-worker got a bone marrow transplant that didn't succeed in putting her cancer in remission. When it came time to get a second one, our health insurance denied it based on having already reached the limit of payouts. An unsuccessful fund raiser failed to even raise a small portion of what would be needed, and the young wife and mother of small children died. She may have died anyway, but maybe not. We will never know. And insurance companies were notorious for using any excuse or omission from a person's medical history to deny claims, even if the omission had nothing to do with the current illness or treatment. So Obama did right two wrongs in the system. The rest of what he accomplished was half measures or no measures at all. He never did anything about the revolving door in federal regulatory agencies with the corporations they regulate, didn't reform the war on drugs, didn't do anything for prison reform, didn't close Guantanamo, basically continued Bush's foreign policy. When my UPS driver told me he feared Obama being elected because he was a socialist, I told him, don't worry, Obama will be as American as Apple Pie. For better or worse I think that is what happened. He was no different than any other hand picked establishment candidate. Real progressives like Ralph Nader, who probably saved more lives with seat belts than any sitting president, never had a chance.

That's also why I put Trump in the same category. Just another style of delivering promises that would get him elected, like Obama did. There's no wall. There's no draining of the swamp. Nothing got better. It's all like professional wrestling. You root for the white hat or the black hat, but it's all just show business.


Bruce Patrick Brychek wrote:Friday
11.08.2019
10:45 p.m.,
Chicago, Illinois time:

Dear JFK Murder Solved Forum Readers and Members:

Messrs. Bob Spez, Slav, and Bob Jonas in my opinion you are all Outstanding, Important, Regular Contributing Members
of the JFK Murder Solved Forum. And this discussion contributed to by all of you is certainly proof of that beyond my
opinion only.

You all raise important facts, theories, and questions buttressed by your own life experiences, and current interests and
perspectives which I for one truly appreciate.

I am going to make a few bullet points that in essence agree with many of your combined facts and theories incorporated
into my own points, leading up to the point I wish to make with one of Bob Spez's points.

* Since 11.22.1963 it was "common street knowledge that The Removal of JFK came through Chicago, Illinois." If you haven't
been born and/or raised in Chicago, Illinois it is had to fully understand that it is almost like a separate country that
thinks it runs the U.S.

* The information that comes out of Chicago, or better yet, doesn't come out of Chicago will startle non-natives.

* The Main Stream Media has more control over Chicago than even the residents know and understand.

* In the 1970's J. Edgar Hoover denied the existence of Organized Crime, or the Mafia, underscoring Chicago's innocence.

* From 2006 on it was "common street knowledge in Chicago, Illinois that Barack Obama a/k/a Barry Sotero, and Michelle
Obama WERE NO LONGER LAWYERS HAVING BEEN 'FORCED TO SURRENDER THEIR LAW LICENSES," Michelle in 1993, and then
Barack in 2006."

Based upon that having been substantiated, and many other known facts about the Obama's, I would never vote for Obama.

Bob Spez, NO ATTACK, AND NO CRITICISM OF YOU AS I ADMIRE, APPRECIATE, AND ENJOY ALL OF YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS.

You said that your voted for Obama twice.

Did you know that both Obama's had been forced to surrender your law licenses over fraudulent legal matters ?

Main Stream Media really hurried this.

I knew they had both lost their law license, but I didn't know why until I read this.

This is legit. I checked it out at https://www.iardc.org Stands for Illinois Attorney Registration And Disciplinary Committee.
It's the official arm of lawyer discipline in Illinois; and they are very strict and mean as hell. (Talk about irony.) Even I, at the
advanced age of almost 65, maintain (at the cost of approximately $600/year) my law license that I worked so hard and long
to earn. Big surprise.

Former Constitutional Law Lecturer and U.S. President Makes Up Constitutional Quotes During State Of The Union (SOTU)
Address.

Consider this:

1. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a "lawyer". He surrendered his license
back in 2008 in order to escape charges he lied on his bar application. A "Voluntary Surrender" is not something where you
decide "Gee, a license is not really something I need anymore, is it?”, and forget to renew your license. No, a "Voluntary
Surrender" is something you do when you've been accused of something, and you 'voluntarily surrender" your license five
seconds before the state suspends you.

2 Michelle Obama "voluntarily surrendered" her law license in 1993. after a Federal Judge gave her the choice between
surrendering her license or standing trial for Insurance fraud!

3. So, we have the first black President and First Lady - who don't actually have licenses to practice law. Facts.
Source: http://jdlong.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/ ... w-license/
4. A senior lecturer is one thing, a fully ranked law professor is another. Barack Obama was NOT a Constitutional Law

Professor at the University of Chicago.

5. The University of Chicago released a statement in March 2008 saying Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) "served as a professor"
in the law school-but that is a title Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never held, a spokesman for the school
confirmed in 2008.

6. "He did not hold the title of Professor of Law," said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an Assistant Dean for Communications and
Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago School of Law.

Source: http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/03 ... title.html ;

7. The former Constitutional Senior Lecturer (Obama) cited the U.S. Constitution the other night during his State of the Union
Address. Unfortunately, the quote he cited was from the Declaration of Independence ... not the Constitution.

8. The B-Cast posted the video: http://www.breitbart.tv/did-obama-confu ... ependence/

9. Free Republic: In the State of the Union Address, President Obama said: "We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing
on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal.

10. Um, wrong citing, wrong founding document there Champ, I mean Mr. President. By the way, the promises are not a notion,
our founders named them unalienable rights. The document is our Declaration of Independence and it reads:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

11. And this is the same guy who lectured the Supreme Court moments later in the same speech?

When you are a phony it's hard to keep facts straight.

Keep this moving -- educate others. It is important to forward to your entire address book………do it now

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson

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.
bobspez
 
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2017 4:00 pm
Location: Southern NJ, USA

Re: A SCHISM HAS DEVELOPED ABOUT THE REMOVAL OF JFK:

Postby Tom Bigg » Tue Nov 12, 2019 1:34 am

Bruce, this is the age of judgment, it may be the terminal generation. We are seeing damning evidence coming out from many quarters against the super rich and well connected, something that would have been unthinkable 20 years ago; especially the wealthy Jewish operators. We may see cascading judgments coming down, judicial, financial, social, environmental.
Tom Bigg
 
Posts: 500
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 3:29 pm


Return to Who shot JFK, and why?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests