Well, I guess we can add Senator Ted Kennedy to the list of treasonous liberals!

Watching “Life, Liberty and Levin” the other night, a TV show hosted by (The Great One) Mark Levin, I was floored by a letter his guest, Paul Kengor, discussed.

Paul Kengor is a political science professor at Grove City College, and the author of the book, “The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism,” among others.

According to Sheila Fitzpatrick of the Wiley Online Library, “The opening of formerly closed and classified archives following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 was a remarkable experience for historians…, our data base abruptly expanded in a quantum leap…”

This is how a KGB letter, dated May 14, 1983, written at the height of the Cold War, from the head of the KGB Viktor Chebrikov to Yuri Andropov, who was then General Secretary of the Soviet Union’s Communist Party, came to light.

Here is the translated letter:

Special Importance Committee on State Security of the USSR

14.05.1983 No. 1029 Ch/OV Moscow

Regarding Senator Kennedy’s request to the General Secretary of the Communist Party, Comrade Y.V. Andropov

Comrade Y.V. Andropov,

On 9-10 of this year, Senator Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant J. Tunney was in Moscow.  The Senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Center Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.

Senator Kennedy, like other rational people, is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations.  Events are developing such that this relationship coupled with the general state of global affairs will make the situation even more dangerous.  The main reason for this is Reagan’s belligerence and his firm commitment to deploy new American middle range nuclear weapons within Western Europe.  According to Kennedy, the current threat is due to the President’s refusal to engage any modification on his politics.  He feels that his domestic standing has been strengthened because of the well publicized improvement of the economy: inflation has been greatly reduced, production levels are increasing as is overall business activity.  For these reasons, interest rates will continue to decline.  The White House has portrayed this in the media as the “success of Reaganomics.”

Naturally, not everything in the province of economics has gone according to Reagan’s plan.  A few well known economists and members of financial circles, particularly from the north eastern states, foresee certain hidden tendencies that many bring about a new economic crisis in the USA.  This could bring about the fall of the presidential campaign of 1984, which would benefit the Democratic Party.  Nevertheless, there are no secure assurances this will indeed develop.

The only real threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations.  These issues, according to the Senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.

The movement advocating a freeze on nuclear arsenals of both countries continues to gain strength in the United States.  The movement is also willing to accept preparations, particularly from Kennedy, for its continued growth.  In political and influential circles of the country, including within Congress, the resistance to growing military expenditures is gaining strength.

However, according to Kennedy, the opposition to Reagan is still very weak.  Reagan’s adversaries are divided and the presentations they make are not fully effective.  Meanwhile, Reagan has the capabilities to effectively counter any propaganda.  In order to neutralize criticism that the talks between the USA and the USSR are non-constructive, Reagan will grandstand, but subjectively propagandistic.  At the same time, Soviet officials who speak about disarmament will be quoted out of context, silenced or groundlessly and whimsically discounted.  Although arguments and statements by officials of the USSR do appear in the press, it is important to note the majority of Americans do not read serious newspapers or periodicals.  Kennedy believes that, given the current state of affairs, and in the interest of peace, it would be prudent and timely to undertake the following steps to counter the militaristic politics of Reagan and his campaign to psychologically burden the American people.  In this regard, he offers the following proposals to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Y.V. Andropov:

  1. Kennedy asks Y.V. Andropov to consider inviting the senator to Moscow for a personal meeting in July of this year. The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA. He would also like to inform you that he has planned a trip through Western Europe, where he anticipates meeting England’s Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and French President Mitterand in which he will exchange similar ideas regarding the same issues. If his proposals would be accepted in principle, Kennedy would send his representative to Moscow to resolve questions regarding organizing such a visit. Kennedy thinks the benefits of a meeting with Y.V. Andropov will be enhanced if he could also invite one of the well known Republican senators, for example, Mark Hatfield.  Such a meeting will have a strong impact on American and political circles in the USA (In March of 1982, Hatfield and Kennedy proposed a project to freeze the nuclear arsenals of the USA and USSR and published a book on the theme as well.)
  2. Kennedy believes that in order to influence Americans it would be important to organize in August-September of this year, televised interviews with Y.V. Andropov in the USA. A direct appeal by the General Secretary to the American people will, without a doubt, attract a great deal of attention and interest in the country. The senator is convinced this would receive the maximum resonance in so far as television is the most effective method of mass media and information.

If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews.  Specifically, the president of the board of directors of ABC, Elton Raul and television columnists Walter Cronkite or Barbara Walters could visit Moscow.  The Senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side.

Furthermore, with the same purpose in mind, a series of televised interviews in the USA with lower level Soviet officials, particularly from the military would be organized.  They would also have an opportunity to appeal directly to the American people about the peaceful intentions of the USSR, with their own arguments about maintaining a true balance of power between the USSR and the USA in military terms. This issue is quickly being distorted by Reagan’s administration.  Kennedy asked to convey that this appeal to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union is his effort to contribute a strong proposal that would root out the threat of nuclear war, and to improve Soviet-American relations, so that they define the safety of the world.  Kennedy is very impressed with the activities of Y.V. Andropov and other Soviet leaders, who expressed their commitment to heal international affairs, and improve mutual understandings between peoples.

The Senator underscored that he eagerly awaits a reply to his appeal, the answer to which may be delivered through Tunney.

Having conveyed Kennedy’s appeal to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Tunney also explained that Senator Kennedy has in the last few years actively made appearances to reduce the threat of war. Because he formally refused to partake in the election campaign of 1984, his speeches would be taken without prejudice as they are not tied to any campaign promises.  Tunney remarked that the Senator wants to run for president in 1988.  At that time, he will be 56 and his personal problems, which could hinder his standing, will be resolved (Kennedy has just completed a divorce and plans to remarry in the near future).

Taken together, Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president. This would explain why he is convinced that none of the candidates today have a real chance at defeating Reagan.

We await instructions.

President of the committee,

Viktor Chebrikov

 

Well what do you think about that?

Again…, can you imagine a letter like this being unearthed that implicated a Republican, and the blood bath that would ensue?

It’s so obvious that the “biased, liberal, fake news media” has been “running interference” for democrats for the last 60+ years now, and it continues today.

It sure sounds to me like Senator Kennedy wants to conspire with the Russian leader against the President of the United States at the time, Ronald Reagan.

I don’t know how you call this anything less than treason.

Kevin Mooney, a staff writer for Crosswalk.com at the time, seems to agree with me.  In October of 2006, he wrote, “A KGB letter written at the height of the Cold War shows that Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) offered to assist Soviet leaders in formulating a public relations strategy to counter President Reagan’s foreign policy and to complicate his re-election efforts.”

In his letter, KGB head Viktor Chebrikov offered the USSR General Secretary Yuri Andropov his interpretation of Kennedy’s offer.  Former U.S. Senator John Tunney, a democrat from California, and Kennedy’s law school roommate at the University of Virginia, had traveled to Moscow on behalf of Kennedy to seek out a partnership with Andropov and other Soviet officials, Professor Kengor claimed in his book.

At one point after President Reagan left office, Tunney acknowledged that he had played the role of intermediary.  Tunney later told the London Times that he had made 15 separate trips to Moscow!

Kennedy’s attempt to partner with high-level Soviet officials never materialized, at least as far as we know.  Yuri Andropov died less than eight months receiving the letter about Kennedy from his KGB head, and it is not clear if the Soviet Communist Party chief ever acted on the Democrat senator’s proposal.  Andropov was succeeded by Mikhail Gorbachev.

“There’s a lot more to be found here,” Professor Kengor told Cybercast News Service. “This was a shocking revelation.”

Kevin Mooney, later an author at “The Daily Signal,” wrote in 2016, “Sen. Edward “Ted” Kennedy had “selfish political and ideological motives” when he made secret overtures to the Soviet Union’s spy agency during the Cold War to thwart then-President Ronald Reagan’s re-election…”

“In the 1980s, Kennedy was ‘terribly misguided’ and ‘a fool’ for seeing Reagan as a greater threat than either the leader of the Soviet Union or the head of its brutal secret police and intelligence agency,” political science professor and writer Paul Kengor told The Daily Signal.  “But what is clear from history is that Russian agents have worked with “dupes” such as Kennedy and other “naïve” Americans to influence U.S. policy to serve their own ends.”

So, what is the point of this article?

Here’s the point:

President Trump has been under a daily attack, for the better part of two years, from the “biased, liberal, fake news media” regarding some uncorroborated claims of collusion between President Trump and Russia.

In the case of Senator Kennedy, we have an actual letter describing his desires to conspire with a foreign government, and the “biased, liberal, fake news media” chose to, and chooses to, look the other way.

That’s the point.

Whose side are these guys on anyway?

Whoever’s side it is, it’s not “We the People’s” side, that’s for sure.

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the bottom of this site and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

ted kennedy

 

So the “biased, liberal, fake news media” now feels it is OK to belittle the education level of selected groups of voters? 

The answer to this question is undeniably “yes,” at least as far as Eugene Scott of The Washington Post is concerned.

Mr. Scott chooses to point out that, “Americans are pursuing higher education at growing rates, but those without a college education are increasingly finding a home in the GOP.”

So are you implying that voters without college educations are somehow less informed, Mr. Scott?

Are you implying that voters without college educations are somehow less deserving of the right to vote, Mr. Scott?

During the latest midterm elections in 2018, if I heard it once I heard it a thousand times from the democrats, “Every vote counts!”  “Every vote deserves to be counted!”

I guess that’s only true when you’re “harvesting” what you believe are votes for democrats.  Right Mr. Scott?

Voter demographics should not have a bearing on anything.  Each voter is as important as any other voter.  The important things are that each legal voter have the opportunity to vote, and that they vote only once.

According to new data released by the Pew Research Center, higher educational attainment is increasingly associated with Democratic Party affiliation and leaning:

“In 1994, 39% of those with a four-year college degree identified with or leaned toward the Democratic Party and 54% associated with the Republican Party.  In 2017, those figures were exactly reversed.”

More than half of registered voters who identify as Democrat have a bachelor’s degree, while fewer than 4 in 10 registered voters who identify as Republican have a bachelor’s degree.

Those with graduate degrees are even more likely to find their political home in the Democratic Party, according to the survey.

Meanwhile, the GOP has increasingly become more of a political destination to Americans who lack a college degree, according to Pew, “Among those with no more than a high school education, 47% affiliate with the GOP or lean Republican, while 45% identify as Democrats or lean Democratic.”

In Mr. Scott’s estimation, “This may not bode well for the GOP long-term as the American public becomes increasingly educated.”

I think he means, “… as the American public becomes increasingly brain washed by our liberal education systems!”

According to Census Bureau data, “More than a third of American adults have a four-year college degree or higher, the highest level ever measured by the Census Bureau.”

Why Mr. Scott…, I do believe you are “fake news!”

You say, “This may not bode well for the GOP long-term as the American public becomes increasingly educated,” but if “more than a third of American adults have a four-year college degree or higher,” that would mean close to two thirds do not.  How does that “not bode well for the GOP?”

Mr. Scott goes on to say, “As the Republican Party increasingly becomes the party of those without degrees, their leaders may feel pressure to champion policies that benefit working class voters…”

Well, we can’t have that!  Right Mr. Scott?

That damn “working class,” right Mr. Scott?

Those pathetically ignorant “working class” voters who don’t deserve to vote, but pay for all of your liberal “give-away” programs, right Mr. Scott?

Pew data shows that the educational makeup of the two major parties’ electorates also has changed substantially over the past two decades, particularly when factoring in race:

“When race and education are taken into account, white voters who do to not have a college degree make up a diminished share of Democratic registered voters.  White voters who do not have a four-year degree now constitute just a third of Democratic voters, down from 56% two decades ago.  By contrast, non-college white voters continue to make up a majority of Republican and Republican-leaning registered voters at 59%.”

Ha!  I knew it wouldn’t take long before race got involved in the issue!

Apparently “non-educated” white voters are less desirable that “non-educated” Black or Latino voters.

Mr. Scott finishes by saying, “Some top GOP officials have attracted attention for their desire to win women and people of color to their party.  Perhaps moving forward we’ll see more emphasis on what can be done to win the highly educated.”

It seems to me, Mr. Scott, that your “highly educated” people are more often than not the people that are more “highly confused.”

Also, why is it that liberals seem to only value education as a result of a college education?

How about educations and training acquired by our “trade” professionals, like electricians, plumbers, welders, carpenters, HVAC technicians, mechanics, licensed practical nurses, construction professionals, et al?  Do these educations, most of which are quite extensive, not count just because they are practical?

How about the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who serve in our military, most of whom do not have college educations?  Do these educations not count because they are practical in nature?

No, these educations don’t “count” in the minds of liberals because these are educations that do not indoctrinate the students into the liberal political ideology.

Nicholas Carnes and Noam Lupu, also of The Washington Post, have their own take on voter demographics, specifically as they pertain to Donald Trump’s election and support.

Carnes and Lupu say that, “Media coverage of the 2016 election often emphasized Donald Trump’s appeal to ‘the working class.’ The Atlantic said that ‘the billionaire developer is building a blue-collar foundation.’ The Associated Press wondered what ‘Trump’s success in attracting white, working-class voters’ would mean for his general election strategy.  On Nov. 9, the New York Times front-page article about Trump’s victory characterized it as ‘a decisive demonstration of power by a largely overlooked coalition of mostly blue-collar white and working-class voters.’”

“But what about education?” They continued.  “Many pundits noticed early on that Trump’s supporters were mostly people without college degrees.  There were two problems with this line of reasoning, however.”

“First, not having a college degree isn’t a guarantee that someone belongs in the working class, nor should it somehow indicate that these people are not successful (think Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs, Richard Branson, Aretha Franklin, Quentin Tarantino, Ellen DeGeneres, Simon Cowell, Ted Turner, Rachel Ray, Kim Kardasian, Mark Wahlberg, Al Pacino, Seth Rogan, Marshall “Eminem” Mathers, and Robert ‘F-you’ DeNiro, just to name a few).”

“And, second, although more than 70 percent of Trump supporters didn’t have college degrees, when we looked at the NBC polling data, we noticed something the pundits left out: during the primaries, about 70 percent of all Republicans didn’t have college degrees, close to the national average (71 percent according to the 2013 Census).  Far from being a magnet for the less educated, Trump seemed to have about as many people without college degrees in his camp as we would expect any successful Republican candidate to have.”

So Mr. Scott, you have been debunked!

“Observers have often used the education gap to conjure images of poor people flocking to Trump, but the truth is, many of the people without college degrees who voted for Trump were from middle- and high-income households.”

Many, if not most, of these “observers” are quite confused and quite biased as well.  “Poor people” flocking to candidates is, again, only desirable when they are “flocking” to the appropriate liberal candidate.

“In short, the narrative that attributes Trump’s victory to a “coalition of mostly blue-collar white and working-class voters” just doesn’t square with the 2016 election data.  According to the election study, white non-Hispanic voters without college degrees making below the median household income made up only 25 percent of Trump voters.”

In a word, there are “uneducated voters” and then there are “uneducated voters.”

It would appear that it is the democrats who are a party of extremes.  They seem to be comprised mostly of college eggheads, highly paid entertainers, extreme social and environmental interest groups, high school drop-outs, high school graduates who haven’t furthered their education, and all of those who live off of the government and have no intent to better themselves.

In a recent National Review article (The National Review is recognized as a leading conservative magazine, but was exposed during the election as just another “swampy,” establishment, media outlet) about Trump’s alleged support among the working class bordered on a call to arms against the less fortunate, saying that, “The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles.  Donald Trump’s speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin,” and that “the truth about these dysfunctional downscale communities is that they deserve to die.”

According to Carnes and Lupu, “This kind of stereotyping and scapegoating is a dismaying consequence of the narrative that working-class Americans swept Trump into the White House.  What deserves to die isn’t America’s working-class communities.  It’s the myth that they’re the reason Trump was elected.”

Shame on you National Review, and shame on you Eugene Scott.

And thank you to Nicholas Carnes and Noam Lupu for reporting the facts and not twisting the facts to fit the liberal narrative.

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the bottom of the page and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

remember-when-you-said-trump-would-never-be-president-but-36286487

 

I may not be the smartest guy in the world, but I do know the name of our next president won’t be “Beto!”

According to Alex Seitz-Wald of NBC News, “An early straw poll of members of the progressive group MoveOn.org shows a wide-open competition for liberal voters in the 2020 Democratic presidential contest, with Rep. Beto O’Rourke narrowly beating out former Vice President Joe Biden.”

First of all, calling the group MoveOn.org “progressive” is like calling the Flat Earth Society “progressive.”

MoveOn.org is a group of liberals who haven’t had a politically “progressive” thought in their lives.

Second of all, the number one vote getter was actually Mr./Mrs./Ms./Mx./M?. “I don’t know yet” or Mr./Mrs./Ms./Mx./M?. “Someone not listed here as an option.”  This was represented by 28.8% of their vote.

Other than that, out of the 30 potential candidates listed, the results were:

Beto O’Rourke: 15.6 percent

Joe Biden: 14.9 percent

Bernie Sanders: 13.1 percent

Kamala Harris: 10 percent

Elizabeth Warren: 6.4 percent

Sherrod Brown: 2.9 percent

Amy Klobuchar: 2.8 percent

Michael Bloomberg: 2.7 percent

Cory Booker: 2.6 percent

Didn’t understand the question: .2 percent

It’s another sign of O’Rourke’s surprising popularity among national Democrats.

It makes perfect “liberal sense.”  The person can’t even beat Ted Cruz in Texas for a Senate seat, but he’d be a good choice for the democrat candidate for president though.

It’s still early yet, but MoveOn endorsed Bernie Sanders in the 2016 Democratic primary. That year, 78 percent of MoveOn members voted to back Sanders over Hillary Clinton.

I have to give MoveOn credit for not supporting Mrs. Clinton (Satan’s grandmother), but on the other hand, I have to question their support for Bernie’s overtly socialist agenda.

“While the race for the 2020 Democratic nomination for president remains wide open and MoveOn’s endorsement is up for grabs, MoveOn members and progressives across the country are clear: They’re looking for candidates who will rally voters around a progressive vision of building a country where every American can thrive, whether we’re white, black, or brown, rich or poor,” said Ilya Sheyman, executive director of MoveOn Political Action.

Translation: They’re looking for candidates who can get enough votes to win.  They would prefer a candidate with a socialist agenda, who will punish those who are successful, while redistributing the wealth so that everyone can enjoy a standard of living barely above the poverty level.

“We’ll be challenging prospective candidates to inspire us with big ideas in the months to come, including at a series of events in early voting states in early 2019,” Sheyman added.

Translation: They’ll be challenging prospective candidates to inspire them with outrageously stupid ideas that Kool-Aide drinking liberals across the country will happily gulp down.

Alex Seitz-Wald adds that, “MoveOn, which was founded back during Bill Clinton’s presidency, is one of the largest progressive online organizing groups with millions of members across the country, so its endorsement has been coveted in the past.”

Let the race begin to see who can be the wackiest lefty liberal who could still get elected.

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the bottom of the page and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

moveon 2

 

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑