Thursday, May 12, 2016

Ah, the hate!

I've been getting a lot of hate mail today. A lot.

Please send more! This reaction tells me that I must be onto something in my ongoing research into the Bernie Sanders-Roger Stone connection. As they say: You don't get flack unless you're over the target.

Why won't my critics read the necessary background material on Roger Stone? Laziness is only part of the answer. The truth is, the BernieBots are cowards. They're terrified of discovering evidence that they've been manipulated by a Republican ratfucker.

I've been trying to do some original research. It hasn't been easy: When you're an A-list or B-List blogger, people answer your phone calls and respond to your emails. But when you're at C-level, you don't get respect. Still, I'm comfortable here. The great virtue of C-level is independence: I work for no-one and can piss off whomever I please. And despite the obstacles, I'm making headway on the Sanders/Stone story.

The greatest danger facing the nation today is Bernie Sanders, the Frankenstein monster created by Republican hit man Roger Stone. The quickest way to prove the point is to check out the positive press that Sanders continually receives from the Breitbarters. That's a tell, folks: Breitbart is a functional arm of the Trump campaign -- and if they are saying kind words about Bernie, then Bernie should also be considered an arm of the Trump campaign.

It has been Stone's practice for decades to use a "progressive" puppet to fracture the Democrats and to smear the most effective Democratic politicians. That's his "go to" gambit.

This Politico piece comes close to the truth, although the author can't see the strings connecting Puppet Bernie to Puppetmaster Stone:
But in presidential campaigns, the one resource that’s never renewable is time. Zombie candidates can’t win the nomination, but they squander vast amounts of time and slowly chip away at the prohibitive front-runner. Some of the damage is obvious—the endless series of public dents in the candidate’s reputation; some are subtle, noticeable in ways that perhaps only political operatives can appreciate.
There was something surreal about knowing that doomed campaigns of fellow Democrats were aggressively peddling opposition research, and that candidates whose fates had been sealed were still publicly labeling their party’s soon-to-be nominee as “the handmaiden of special interests.” We were forced to respond. We were forced to spend limited money on the airwaves, buying time to run ads that would be long forgotten by November—all while an incumbent Republican president stockpiled resources. We were less than four years removed from watching Ralph Nader and disaffected liberals throw an election to Bush, yet these flailing campaigns seemed incapable of resisting the danger of repeating that mistake by damaging their own standard-bearer. Political campaigns can do many things, but they cannot recover lost time. The friendly-fire attacks compounded the difficulty of responding effectively to the parallel attacks made by Republicans. It postponed the work of unifying the Democratic Party and absorbing our rivals’ best operatives into our apparatus. It wasted campaign funds that could’ve been put to better use in the general election. And it stalled our ability to shift the campaign’s schedule and resources into an effort that could win the presidency, instead of one that would merely follow a nominating calendar.
What’s the alternative for Sanders? If he is serious about creating lasting political change—and I believe he is—he should start a national movement to drive money out of politics. Sanders could harness his enormous grass-roots fundraising network and the cash it has stockpiled—and can replenish repeatedly—to elect candidates from the White House to the Congress to the state and local levels who are committed to repealing Citizens United.

He could target Senate Republicans in states like New Hampshire, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, inspiring voters there to “feel the Bern” and defeat the incumbents. He could hold those new senators accountable and enlist them in his quest to rid big money from the political system.

He could help Hillary Clinton win big and sweep in a Democratic majority in the Senate. He could become a powerful committee chairman. He could return to the next Senate as one of its most influential players.
Sanders won't do any of that. I'm not offering a prediction: I'm stating a hard fact. 

Sanders will do nothing -- NOTHING -- to help the Democratic party. He will do nothing to elect liberals. He will do nothing to endanger Citizens United. He will do nothing to stop Trump from choosing the next Supreme Court justices.

Why? Because Bernie Sanders is playing for the Republican team. He has been compromised. He is not his own man. He is a puppet.

I am increasingly convinced that if Bernie does not do as Roger commands, Roger will make sure that the world knows what's in those tax returns that the Sanders family has been hiding. Roger may even tell the truth about the inherent corruption of "small" donations.

Here's a big hint: "Small" = Anonymous. You can anonymously hit the donate button a zillion times, as long as each donation stays under fifty bucks. Don't believe me? Call up the FEC as I did. They'll tell you that the campaigns are utterly self-policing when it comes to anonymous donations. They'll even helpfully direct you to page in the handbook where all of this is spelled out.  

Sanders will do nothing nothing nothing to use his "revolutionary" network to elect liberals to Congress.

Again: That's not a prophecy. It's a fact. Watch it happen.

I was right about Obama in 2008, when all of you "progressive purists" told me that only a racist would dare to question his Messiahship.

I was right about Nader in 2000, despite all of the progressive purists who insisted that Al Gore was Hitler II. (Amusingly, nobody can now remember the reasons why Gore was so despised by all good lefties.)

I'm right about Sanders now.

Goddammit, I'll just come right and say it: My record on these things is excellent. Your record is shit, progs.

Sure, on other matters, my predictions often go awry and my interpretations can be terribly flawed and wrongheaded. But on these calls, I am always right. Whenever a frenzied prog mob screams at me to bow down and worship the latest prog Messiah, my cynical reaction is always justified by later events.

And the progressive purists who send me hate mail are always always always ALWAYS proven wrong.

Y'see, I learned from my mistake back in 1980. That was the year of the John Anderson "third party" campaign which crippled Jimmy Carter. At the time, the progs all adored John Anderson because he was endorsed by Doonesbury and Saturday Night Live. If you didn't support Anderson, you couldn't join Club Hipster.

Guess what? The Anderson campaign was just another Roger Stone scheme. Bet you didn't know that. At the time, nobody would have believed that assertion.

Every election season, the purists join the latest cult of personality -- Anderson, Nader, Obama, Bernie -- and the progs get pluperfectly pissed off whenever I refuse to swig the same Kool-Aid to which they've become addicted.

Roger Stone and his fellow ratfuckers are like Lucy in the Peanuts comic strip, always holding up that "purity football" -- and progressives are like Charlie Brown, always thinking that this time, things will be different.
Speaking of "Third Party" runs:

this article is right on time. Thank you for connecting dots.

After all, it's not Chuck Todd's "job" (or anyone else's in the media).

I can definitely see that the case you outline is possible. I dont know that it is definitely the case but I wont dismiss the possibility. Its all too often the case that "convenient" runs for office are sponsored by surprising people. I am already convinced that was so with the Obama campaign.

However it all makes me very sad. I found a blog post which was ostensibly about opiate addiction but also spoke indirectly about the Sanders-Trump phenomenon. I paste below because its quite a good explanation of how I feel too, and well written. I dont know how many people there are out there who feel like me. Probably none. But there may be some utility for those who support HRC to understand the thought processes of at least some Sanders supporters.

I refuse to read this because you censored my honest and kindly put opinion about the focus of your articles. That isn't hate. Don't chalk me up as "one of them."

Aren't I STILL here? Come on, Joseph. Don't count me a "BernieBot" just because I won't join the Manchurian Candidate bus, Courtesy of Goldman-Sachs. Lol.
If Anderson and Ted Kennedy had not torpedoed Carter, he would've won a second term, and the planet would be a helluva lot better off today. Funny, he never gets any environmental credit. I am convinced Sanders is a GOPer operative and the Republicans are screwing with our primaries via Independents. The Democratic Party needs to close all of its primaries and completely eliminate caucuses.
"Ratfucker" - what a refreshing sip of clarity. You're not suppose to be peeking behind the curtains, Mr. Cannon. You know how upset it makes the plebes when anyone suggests they have been thoroughly and completely deceived the entire time.

I'm sure you would see the same hate mail with a different return address if you tried to tell the Trump crowd that they are being played by the ratfuckers just like the Republicans during the Nixon re-election campaign.

I won't vote in this charade. I will not leave a voting process to my children exploitable by ANY psychopathic ratfuckers. I think it's time to give what's left of our democracy a serious ratfucker enema. Stone and his ilk are a symptom, not the underlying disease.
Wow, talk about "damned" by one's own words, thanks for the laugh, Morgan!! It's breath-taking. So you're still here, but not to read Joseph's post/s? You don't come here to read original content, and agree or rebut on that, but to prove something. You're hurting because your "honest" and "kindly put" opinion didn't pass muster? Was it as "kindly put" as Manchurian Candidate? Yes, you're very clever and so different from every other dupe that has been trained to regurgitate boilerplate memes.

Again, thanks for the laugh. Butthurt always amuses me to no end!

And thank you, Joseph, for letting this one through! lol

Well, after reading that Pando article you linked to, I've come to the realization that you are probably correct. I agreed with you about Obama, but I resisted with Sanders. Despite my cynicism I let idealism get in the way of proper judgement. I think it would be near impossible for any rational, reasonable, thinking person to not see what is happening here when presented with the facts you lay out. I really didn't know all that about Stone before, and hadn't really heard of him prior to your writings (though I'm thinking I may have read something in the Daily Howler back around the time right after the 2000 election).

In any case, no matter how cynical I think I am, I just can't seem to keep up (to paraphrase Lilly Tomlin). I still think a lot of what Bernie proposes is exactly what this country needs, and that most of what Hillary will do will just increase the selling out of the American people to big business, but as I've already stated I will NEVER vote for Trump. I had already resigned myself to having to vote for Hillary, but now I can at least feel a little bit better about it (but still not good). I just hope Stone's tactics don't win out this time and that Trump doesn't somehow get into the White House (unless, as I have suspected previously, he is just running to increase her chances......they are very old friends after all). My in laws have stated their intention to vote for him, and despite my attempts at dissuading them they are a little too brainwashed by mainstream media to realize what a horrific mistake they are about to make. Hopefully, reason will prevail and Hillary (a FAR from ideal choice) will be the one to make it in. Of course, I still don't think voting actually does anything and that it's been rigged for quite some time (with all the election circus put into place to keep people's eye off the ball). So I had assumed Hillary was the selection for this "election" anyway. Now, I'm actually kind of hoping I'm right. Thanks for the excellent research Joseph.
Bob Harrison -I agree with you completely with the need for closed primaries and dropping the caucuses; too many tricks from the Republicans and the cult of personality crowd. Someone correct me on this - Didn't these ideas come about at the time of McGovern?

As to Bernie and his "handlers"- He has some real estate agents looking for some waterfront property on Lake Champlain as we speak. Even old hippies like their comfort.
The Daily Beast, even, is on the case. -
Why do we still call them leftists is beyond me. They continue to betray the ideals of the left day in and day out. They are the reason behind every setback or disaster for many decades. They do it without shame for money,fame, or any other lame hapless thing they are chasing.They need to be exposed
For what it's worth:
Hi Joseph--

Glad to see you made it through your brush with mortality and are still breathing--fire, it would seem!

I'd be interested to see what you can come up with about a hard Sanders/Stone link.

I share you views about Sanders and his role as a stalking horse for Trump and the right. I agree with many of the stated policy goals of Sanders--I'd also like to live forever.

I think both have the same chance of taking place.

On Sanders' backing--he's received considerable support from, which is financed by George Soros. It is quite ironic that someone whose currency speculation gambits in the 1990's produced so much human suffering is flying beneath the radar on a course being plotted by a campaign that portrays itself as AGAINST the influence of Big Money in politics!

A few points, not in particular order of importance:

In a column in the now-defunct San Francisco Examiner, Warren Hinckle stated that Al Sharpton had worked for the CIA in Granada. One wonders if the same might be true of the Reverend Al's activities in the USA?

Observers have noticed a similarity between the current race and the 1968 contest. Recall that in that one, Senator Eugene McCarthy led a "Clean for Gene" campaign opposing the Vietnam War. What we were not told is that--according to "Who's Who in the CIA" by Julius Mader, McCarthy worked for the CIA.

I do not discount this in light of the fact that Jim Hougan documented in his landmark text "Spooks" that the McCarthy campaign was largely bankrolled by Stuart Mott, whose largesse came from a big block of GM stock.

At the same time, Mott was bankrolling Environmental Industries Incorporated. A nice, "green" sounding name, it was actually a grotesque pun. The company was the parent firm of the outfit manufacturing Mitchell Wer Bel's Ingram silenced machine pistols.

The "environmental" reference was to the assumption that the company had a contribution to make in the area of population control!

Eugene McCarthy backed Ronald Reagan in the 1980 Presidential race!

Among the reasons I'm sure you are right about Sanders and his right-wing/fascist backing concerns the unthinking, strident viciousness of his supporters.

I have never seen a clearer example of fascism in action in my life! All they need are Bro' Shirt uniforms and they would fit in well in Munich, circa 1923.

Yeah, I know, they are young, immature etc. Still, the sheer self-righteous rancor of the Sandersistas is striking.

I am also struck by Sanders' extreme personal and political immaturity--if I could get five minutes alone with him, I would ask him if he has ever thought about what he would like to be when he grows up.

Do keep up the good work, here, Joseph and maintain your course "over the target."


Dave Emory

Dave? I'm so glad there are no hard feelings. It's been kind of a weird quarter-century, don't you agree?

I am VERY grateful for the reference to the Hougan book. It's depressingly rare now: I lost my copy ages ago, so a couple of months ago I scanned in a copy lurking on the shelves of a university library. (But I've re-read only part of it.) Hougan should put that thing online. "Secret Agenda" too.

I recall reading -- somewhere -- that the CIA fed Mader disinformation about McCarthy and McGovern. Unfortunately, I can't back up that point, since I don't have that article to hand (I lost nearly ALL of my files, most of my library and a whole bunch of personal crap). But honestly, smearing McGovern via the East Germans would seem like the kind of trick that Jim Angleton or one of his boys might get up to. It's not as though STASI was impenetrable.

Sharpton definitely worked with Stone, but he and Stone later had a falling out. The more you dig into that "milieu," the weirder it gets. I've been hoping that Sharpton will want to get some payback, maybe blab about Stone, but I doubt that he'll take the chance. From what I understand, the guy had a little "habit" which made him blackmailable. But I'm not sure if that is still the case. Age tames us all.

My tentative theory, as you know, is that Sanders or his wife made some kind of mistake (probably an innocent one) involving taxes which rendered him susceptible to pressure. His early unfortunate encounters with the "Black Lives Matter" imposters seems to have been a kind of test, designed to prove the effectiveness of such a device. Someone then directed that weapon away from Sanders and on to Hillary. I think that the BLM harassers who went after her were just as phony as the ones who earlier had gone after Bernie.

That's just a theory, and I'm open to alternative ideas.

I think you're right about Sanders' immaturity. You and I have both met a lot of lefties of that sort. They mean well, and usually they are decent people. But they never have very specific ideas as to how to get things down, do they? Usually, they act as though wielding actual power would be in bad taste. I mean, Bernie's whole program is predicated on a "revolution" that will never take place. On some level, he must know this. The romantic appeal of Grand Failure seems to be part of the mentality of these people.

The use of Soros money is indeed a bit hypocritical, but that's the least of my concerns right now. You should look into the truth of those "small" donations. It is INCREDIBLY easy to launder millions that way. The campaign is totally self-policing. And despite the fact that the FEC is incredibly understaffed, they've still complained about Bernie's inability to account for...I think the number was $23 million, something like that.

By the way: I was terribly sorry to hear about your own health issues. I had a similar problem a month after my heart attack -- a very serious dental infection, no antibiotics, no money for treatment, and a face that swelled up like the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.

You know what saved my ass? GARLIC. Fresh, uncooked chopped garlic, and LOTS OF IT. Best antibiotic and anti-inflammatory agent imaginable. The infection was completely gone within 36 hours, the heart palpitations calmed down, and my life-long GERD was cured as well.

Using that stuff won't make you fun to be around. But it CAN save your life. I honestly think it saved mine.
RE: "the truth of those "small" donations. It is INCREDIBLY easy to launder millions that way."

That's what I said in 2008 about Obama's supposed following. Got me banned from more than one so-called progressive website.

If Obama really had the following he touted, why didn't he use it to effect the change he promised? No answer required, it's a rhetorical question.
Excellent overview of Stone's greatest hits. I'd add: 1) his Watergate bona fides are usually remembered as setting up Nixon's liberal Republican opponent Paul McCloskey with a phony endorsement from the Socialist Workers Party. He also circulated lit from a fictional left liberal group excoriating Ed Muskie, Nixon's feared opponent that race. He admitted to the Ervin Committee dropping the lit off in the McGovern HQ to connect the dots for New Hampshire media, framing the narrative that lefty McGovernites hated liberal Muskie.

2) The Brooks Brother riot suggests one of his several political bases. He and his wife, the daughter of a Batista diplomat in 50s Cuba, worked the right-wing Spanish media in Miami, pulled put a crowd using fresh lists from local Republican operatives and the rightist radio stations and riled the crowd on-site to prevent the Miami-Dade vote recount from completion. This cost Gore the state and the election (tho Sore-Loserman is a genius diss). I'd suggest Stone's roots in the right-wing Cuban community began in Watergate with Barker, Martinez etc+likely E. Howard Hunt, the dirty tricks quarterback of Team Watergate.

3) Stone brags he took NY Gov. Eliot Spitzer down. There's a lot of misdirection in his telling of the tale (running into a hooker in a Miami joint who described her friend's night with "bald, skinny" Spitzer is a classic Stone hallucination).But he openly worked for the NY Republican Senate Conference who were at war with the Governor during his short term. His actual clients were AIG and Stock Exchange honcho Ken Grasso both of whom Spitzer was trying to put in jail (Stone had lobbied for AIG in the 80's+90's along with Trump's casinos and Trump Air). This puts Roger in bed with financial oligarchs and the far right edges of the party-- factions who hate liberals who stand up to elites.

Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?