Congressman Elijah Cummings gets caught providing a little “quid pro quo,” Hillary Clinton style!

Ahhh…, Mr. Elijah “holier than thou” Cummings!

Mr. Elijah “I’m above reproach” Cummings!

Mr. Elijah “I’m beyond question” Cummings!

Mr. Elijah…, okay…, I think you get the idea.

According to Adam Shaw for Fox News, “House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings’ wife reportedly paid her for-profit organization with money from her separate charity as part of a cost-sharing arrangement, a revelation that is adding to mounting ethical questions surrounding her financial dealings.”

elijah 5

“The Daily Caller obtained documents showing that Maya Rockeymoore Cummings’ charity, the Center for Global Policy Solutions (CGPS), paid over $250,000 between 2013 and 2015 to her similarly named for-profit organization, Global Policy Solutions LLC (GPS).”

There is a related article by Brooke Singman, of Fox News, which is titled, “Cummings fights ‘baseless’ allegations against wife’s non-profit agency.”

Have we EVER seen a title like that on an article about President Trump?

A title that would go like, “President Trump fights ‘baseless’ allegations against himself and his family?”

No.

President Trump does not enjoy the same presumption of innocence like Representative Cummings or his wife it seems.

How stupid of me!  Of course, President Trump is a republican and Cummings is a democrat.  What was I thinking?

elijah 4

President Trump represents and fights for the American people, while Cummings and his wife are card carrying members of “the swamp!”

Cummings and his wife also enjoy the protection of the “biased, liberal propaganda, fake news media.”  Although being black, their level of protection is not quite as comprehensive as, let’s say, a Nancy Pelosi or a Jerrold Nadler.

“The documents outline a cost-sharing agreement by which the center shares ‘equipment, facilities, personnel costs and sundry other services.’ But the center also pays GPS 5 percent of the center’s expenses for ‘managing its programs and operations.’”

‘“The Caller’ calculated those management fees to be over $250,000.”

“Conservative watchdog The National Legal and Policy Center (NPLC) said that the latest report points to ‘self-dealing.’”

‘“It’s taking the charity’s resources and turning them into personal profits,’ National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) investigator Tom Anderson told the Caller. ‘IRS law doesn’t allow a charity for this purpose. This isn’t for the public interest, this is for her personal interest. You can’t do that.’”

Other nonprofit experts warned that the 5 percent fee was a red flag, particularly considering Rep. Cummings’ regulatory authority over business interests that fund the CGPS.

“That connection could be made,” Charity Watch President Daniel Borochoff told the Caller. “All the more reason to get rid of that 5 percent arrangement.”

This isn’t the first set of questions to be raised about the relationship between Cummings’ organizations. The NPLC alleged in a filing to the IRS last month that GPS and CGPS overlapped to derive “illegal private benefit.”

“According to The Washington Examiner, which first reported on that complaint, the nonprofit CGPS received over $6.2 million in grants between 2013 and 2016. The report claims the nonprofit’s financial backers included Google, J.P. Morgan and Prudential, all of which had business interests before the House Oversight Committee, chaired by Cummings, and could pose a conflict of interest.”

Ya’ don’t say?

The very companies that have issues pending before the House Oversight Committee, which just so happens to be chaired by Elijah Cummings, are the same companies who made generous donations to his wife’s “nonprofit” organization.

Wow!  What a coincidence!

It couldn’t be anything but just sheer coincidence could it?

elijah 8

And, of course…, in a statement to Fox News, Congressman Cummings blasted the report as “baseless” and “partisan.”

‘“These baseless claims come from a group funded by right-wing mega-donors known for their political hit jobs,’ Cummings said. ‘I am confident that they will be exposed for what they really are, a fabricated distraction from the important work being done on behalf of Americans, such as lowering the skyrocketing prices of prescription drugs.’”

elijah 1

Ahhh…, so it’s a “hit job” by the ever present “right-wing mega-donors.”  Do you mean someone like George Soros, only on the conservative side as opposed to the socialist/liberal side?

I noticed that Mr. Elijah Cummings didn’t deny the claims…, he just attacks the claimers.

I’m not confident, but I am hoping that Cummings and his wife are exposed for what they are…, cheaters and liberals who feel they are above the law.

Rockeymoore Cummings, in a statement to The Washington Post last month, blasted both the Examiner report and the complaint as a “hit piece.”

“It appears a conservative front group and a news outlet . . . are pushing a hit piece filled with faulty research, lies and innuendo in an attempt to tarnish my personal reputation, professional work and public service as well as that of my spouse,” Rockeymoore Cummings said in a statement to the Post, calling the effort a “distasteful attempt to intimidate my family into silence at such a pivotal moment in our nation’s history.”

Oooooh…, ahhhhh…, “a pivotal moment in our nation’s history!”

What is she talking about?

And you don’t have any personal reputation worth tarnishing by the way, Mrs. Maya Rockeymoore Cummings.

elijah 7

Let’s tell it like it is…, you’re just political climber who glommed onto a well-known politician who is old enough to be your father.

Bam!  That’s it.

And now…, on top of that, you’re not smart enough to keep your sugar daddy, or yourself, out of hot water.

Don’t worry…, I’m sure it’ll turn out okay for you.

Just use the Hillary Clinton defense…, play stupid, and deny, deny, deny.

In your case, playing stupid won’t be that much of a stretch.

elijah 3

Fox News’ Brooke Singman also contributed to this report.

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the “Follow” button which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

Is Pete “the punk” Buttigieg serious right now? 

Wait…, Pete who…, what?

According to Leah Simpson for The DailyMail.com, “Presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg [pronounced “Booty-gag,” I believe] fully supports erasing the names of Presidents Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson from titles of prestigious annual political dinners around the country, due to their slave-owning history.”

“The Indiana politician shared his view on The Hugh Hewitt Show Friday after the radio host asked if Jefferson-Jackson dinners should be renamed everywhere because both were holders of slaves.”

erase 6

‘“Yeah, we’re doing that in Indiana. I think it’s the right thing to do,’ Buttigieg said ahead of his June 15 appearance at the event that is now named the Blue Commonwealth Dinner in his state.”

“He told The Hugh Hewitt Show Friday that ‘Jefferson is more problematic’ than Jackson.”

Oh…, so Thomas Jefferson is “more problematic” in your eyes, huh, Mr. “Booty-gag?”

Please allow me to remind you about a few things regarding Thomas Jefferson?

First of all, he lived over 200 years ago (1743-1826)!

Things were a little different over 200 years ago.

I think we need to put Thomas Jefferson and his life “in context.”

Thomas Hobbes said, “Life was still nasty, brutish, and short” in 1800. The average life expectancy was only about 37 years.  A typical day was filled with hard work of every sort. People worked six days a week and went to church on Sunday. They mostly dealt with illnesses by dying. They ate meat and grains and vegetables and whatever they could grow and kill.

There was no electricity, no running water, no educational system, no “health care” and no “social security.”

There was no way to get around, on land, besides walking or with the help of a horse.

I doubt that our friend Pete would even have lasted very long.

It was during these times that Thomas Jefferson managed to become an architect, a lawyer, the principal author of The Declaration of Independence from Great Britain, one of the founding fathers of our country, a diplomat under George Washington, the second vice president of the United States from 1797 to 1801, and the third president of the United States from 1801 to 1809.

During the American Revolution, he represented Virginia in the Continental Congress that adopted the Declaration of Independence, he served as the second Governor of Virginia from 1779 to 1781, during the American Revolutionary War.  He became the United States Minister to France in May 1785, and subsequently the nation’s first secretary of state under President George Washington from 1790 to 1793.

It’s a shame that the current mayor of South Bend, Indiana, which is about 60 miles east of Chicago, with just over 100,000 residents, and ranked 301st in the country in population, has such issues with someone “like” Thomas Jefferson.

Like they say in the world of sports, Pete Buttigieg would not be qualified to carry Thomas Jefferson’s jock!

Thomas Jefferson was a product of his times, Pete.  Jefferson having slaves at the time wasn’t anything personal.  It was what it was, that’s all.

If it weren’t for men like Jefferson, who established the absolute miracle of a country called The United States, you wouldn’t be able to stand there criticizing him.  In fact, you’d probably be a slave yourself, or at the very best a peon, working your life away based on the wishes of your masters.

“Buttigieg said the disassociation of Jefferson’s name was more of a pressing matter across the United States.”

erase 2

‘“Over time, you develop and evolve on the things you choose to honor,’ he said.”

erase 1

It’s too bad we all have not “evolved” to such an elite level as yourself Mr. Buttigieg!”

Right now, America is still a free country and we all get to choose who we choose to honor.  You can choose to honor whoever you feel is worthy of your admiration, Pete…, you know…, people like Madonna, Cher, Alec Baldwin, Whoopi Goldberg…, but as for me, I’ll stick with Thomas Jefferson as someone deserving of our admiration and appreciation.

erase 3

“However he regards the move as a way to not only acknowledge the damage of the enslavement of people but to make it clear racism still thrives in America.”

I wouldn’t say “racism is thriving in America,” although the democrats sure do love to promote it.  Racism is actually a cottage industry for many liberals.

Racism obviously exists though, and it always will exist to some extent.

For most people back in Jefferson’s era, slavery wasn’t about racism, however, it was about business.

From The Declaration of Independence:

“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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness. – Thomas Jefferson

erase 4

Buttiġieġ is a Maltese surname, derived from an Arabic word, meaning chicken owner, or in this case “chicken sh#t.”

Mayor Buttigieg has bad-mouthed Thomas Jefferson on race, but according to Wikipedia, “In 2012, Buttigieg demoted South Bend police chief Darryl Boykins (the city’s first ever African American police chief) after a federal investigation found that the police department had improperly recorded telephone calls. He also fired the police department’s communications director, who had ‘discovered the recordings but continued to record the line at Boykins’ command.’ The police communications director alleged that the recordings captured four senior police officers making racist remarks and discussing illegal acts. Boykins sued the city for racial discrimination over being demoted by the mayor [Mayor Buttigieg], arguing that the taping policy existed under previous police chiefs, who were white…, resulting in the city’s spending over $800,000 on out-of-court settlements.

Hmmm…, that sounds like a racist type issue there Mr. Mayor.  And you must have been guilty since you opted to settle for over $800,000. And not of your own money, of course, but with money from the hardworking taxpayers of your fair city.

Typical liberal hypocrisy on display…, again.

erase 5

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the “Follow” button which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

 

 

Let the 2020 election games begin!

On one side we have President Trump…, and on the other side, the democrat side, we have an absolute, clueless, hot mess, with the goal of beating President Trump AT ANY COST.

But this may become a three-sided race if prior CEO of Starbucks, Howard Schultz, decides to run for president in 2020 as an Independent candidate.

And Howard Schultz would be an interesting candidate.

What’s so interesting about him you ask?

Well…, let me tell ya.

First of all…, Howard Schultz would be running as an Independent candidate, even though he endorsed Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential campaign.

As most of us know by now…, labeling yourself as an “Independent,” politically, means you’re basically a liberal, and basically a democrat, but you want to set yourself aside to make yourself appear more independent, although really you’re not.

From what I’ve heard, Howard Schultz seems to talk a pretty good game, however.

According to Brittany De Lea for Fox Business, “Schultz called himself the ‘poster child of the American dream’ during an interview with CNN last May, having grown up in subsidized housing in Brooklyn to eventually becoming the chief executive of one of the nation’s largest and most prominent coffee and beverage chains.”

That’s a positive for him.  Americans likes success stories.

‘“You have to ask yourself about the promise of America and the American dream,’ Schultz said.  ‘And if it’s not available to everybody, if people feel as if the color of their skin or their station in life is not going to provide them the same opportunity as someone who is white and who has a better zip code then the country is not going to succeed in terms of its long-term aspirations.’”

Oh, that’s good!  Having the proper amount of “white guilt” is definitely a requirement of the left.  No one is going to argue with his basic point either.  Americans generally like someone with a sense of fairness.

“Schultz has been critical of the national debt, which is currently more than $21 trillion.  He said during a June interview with ‘Time’ the government needs a ‘centrist approach’ to spending. ‘There’s no for-profit business in the world that could sustain itself or survive with $20 trillion in debt,’ he said. ‘And we can’t keep pushing this. … It’s just not responsible.’”

I think most reasonable people would tend to agree with him here as well.

Schultz has been critical of President Trump, and during an interview with CBS, Schultz said Trump was “not qualified” to be president.

“We’re living at a most fragile time, not only the fact that this president is not qualified to be the president, but the fact that both parties are consistently not doing what’s necessary on behalf of the American people,” Schultz told “60 Minutes” recently.

This statement is where he runs into some problems.  If President Trump isn’t qualified to be president, then what makes him qualified to be president?

He does quickly tie-in the problem of both major parties “not doing what’s necessary on behalf of the American people,” however, which most people would agree with as well.

The “60 Minutes” appearance didn’t go as smoothly as expected, however.  As Schultz began to speak, on another topic, he was interrupted by a heckler, who was eventually escorted out by security.

“Don’t help elect Trump, you egotistical billionaire a–hole,” the protester shouted. “Go back to getting ratioed [“Ratioed” is new social media term that refers to the negative response that a tweet gets.] on Twitter. Go back to Davos with the other billionaire elite who think they know how to run the world. That’s not what democracy means.”

That’s pretty harsh, and pretty elitist, with the reference to “Davos” (Davos, Switzerland, plays host to the World Economic Forum, an annual meeting of global political and business élites) and the attempt to own what “democracy” means while accusing others of trying to “run the world.”

This wasn’t your average run of the mill heckler.  He was hired and planted there by somebody, I would guess.

Julia Limitone, of FOX Business, reports that, “Schultz is also being criticized by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who is also considering a 2020 run as a Democrat.  In a [recent] Tweet, the billionaire lambasted third-party candidates saying they would help re-elect Trump.”

‘“In 2020, the great likelihood is that an independent would just split the anti-Trump vote and end up re-electing the President,’ he said.”

So, just in case anybody didn’t already realize this, Mr. Bloomberg is officially sounding the alarm.

“Although Schultz has described himself as a ‘lifelong Democrat’ he isn’t connecting with some ideas floated by members of the democrat party [indicating he has a fully functional brain], especially newly minted house Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s tax plan.”

‘“I think I respect the Democratic Party.  I no longer feel affiliated because I don’t think their views represent the majority of Americans,’ he said. ‘I don’t think we want a 70 percent income tax in America and I certainly don’t think we can afford the things they are suggesting.’”

It appears that Schultz, based on what he says at least, is more aligned with the democrats, socially, but more aligned with conservatives, and basic common sense, economically.  He’s trying to walk an ideological tightrope here.

According to Megan Henney, of FOX Business, “Ex-Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz [thinks] every American has the right to affordable health care,” but that, “…he wouldn’t feel comfortable running for office as a Democrat.”

Get ready to watch the “barbecuing” of Howard Schultz begin!

Even though Howard Schultz leans to “the left,” and describes himself as a “lifelong Democrat,” he is now the second most dangerous person in the country, right behind President Trump, from “the swamp’s” point of view.

This is because it is believed he would take votes from the establishment liberal democrat candidate, thus helping President Trump win the election.

Mr. Schultz is putting a big target on his back.

The attacks on him by the democrats and the “biased, liberal, fake news media” will only be rivaled by the on-going attacks on President Trump.

“The swamp” has already started the attack on him by questioning and pointing out how much of his fortune he contributes to charity.

Megan Henney continues by saying, “The 65-year-old billionaire has drawn ire since announcing that he’s mulling a presidential bid for his criticism of wealth tax plans proposed by New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who announced her own presidential bid this month, that are intended to reduce income inequality in the U.S.”

‘“However, when I see Elizabeth Warren come out with a ridiculous plan of taxing wealthy people a surtax of 2 percent because it makes a good headline or sends out a tweet when she knows for a fact that’s not something that’s ever gonna be passed, this is what’s wrong,’ he said during an interview on NPR’s ‘Morning Edition.’ ‘You can’t just attack these things in a punitive way by punishing people.’”

“Schultz, who stepped down as CEO of Starbucks in 2017, would likely be subject to Warren’s ‘ultra-millionaire tax,’ which would create a 2 percent wealth tax on people with more than $50 million assets and a 3 percent tax on people with more than $1 billion.”

So, he’s openly attacking the socialist’s…, ooops, I mean the democrat’s newest rising star, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, and her sister in mind and spirit, Elizabeth Warren?

He’s got guts…, I’ll give him that…, but he’s putting himself at odds with the PC and socialist “group think” mob who only believes in free speech if that speech agrees with their beliefs and political agenda.

While the horde of potential 2020 democrat candidates compete to see who is willing to give away the most money in order to win the election, Mr. Schultz may actually be the liberals “voice of reason,” and their best chance at defeating President Trump.

But of course, “the swamp” isn’t actually interested about doing what’s right for America.  Their only interested in gaining control and gaining power.

So, they, “the swamp,” will chew up and spit out Mr. Schultz in short order and quickly get back to the business of beating President trump AT ALL COSTS.

If he does officially announce he’s running for president, I’m sure we’ll see the usual playbook pulled out, which will include charges of inappropriate dealings with women, inappropriate money dealings, and charges of racism if needed.

“Vox,” (“Vox” is an American news and opinion website owned by Vox Media.) recently ran an article titled, “Dear billionaires: stop running for president,” in reference to Mr. Schultz.  It’s funny, but they didn’t seem to have an issue with Oprah running for president when she was out their floating the idea.

You’re only an “acceptable” billionaire if you can manage to check off the appropriate “swampy” boxes.

It’s quite amazing actually, because it wasn’t much more than a year ago, Howard Schultz was the toast of “liberal town,” while, “Investors warn a ‘liberal agenda’ is killing Starbucks’s business,” according to Clint Rainey for New York Magazine.

While Howard Schultz was still at the helm of Starbuck’s, he tried to “mix coffee with social justice.” His refugee hiring plan, which came in reaction to President Trump’s travel ban, ignited a pretty swift conservative backlash and a pretty swift liberal “seal of approval.”

The company’s investors, “Were demanding that Starbucks [Schultz] rethink its ‘liberal political stances,’ and just in general stop the ‘attacks on President Donald Trump.’ They [the investors] argue that Schultz in particular is ‘obviously’ liberal, ‘perhaps even anti-conservative,’ and worry the CEO’s politics have tainted the brand for consumers who disagree ideologically, in turn causing the brand’s public perception to seriously plummet, which surveys show has happened, and which is never a good thing for sales numbers.”

It seems that Howard Schultz should have qualified as being “far left” enough…, but that was over a year ago, and the democrats have moved even further to the left.

So, in the final analysis here, Howard Shultz could have been a pretty formidable democrat candidate, if he wasn’t so reasonable.

It seems that reason won’t get you anywhere in the democrat party these days.

 

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.

howard schultz

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

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑