Kennedy and The KGB

This is one of the most disturbing pieces I've ever done and I couldn't make this up if I tried...

Last week, I posted a piece about the talking points of the Communist Party USA and their similarity to the Democratic platform. The talking points listed on the CP USA website are so similar in nature to what we here from the left, it’s really quite chilling. But you don't know the half of it.

According to some Cold War era documents from Soviet archives, it seems Senator Ted Kennedy on more than one occasion met with KGB operatives in hopes of defeating sitting U.S. Presidents. In other words, he collaborated with the Soviets for political reasons. How scary is that? A United States Senator, collaborating with the KGB. Sounds unbelievable I know. But read on…

From the piece on Human Events:

One of the documents, a KGB report to bosses in the Soviet Communist Party Central Committee, revealed that "In 1978, American Sen. Edward Kennedy requested the assistance of the KGB to establish a relationship" between the Soviet apparatus and a firm owned by former Sen. John Tunney (D.-Calif.). KGB recommended that they be permitted to do this because Tunney's firm was already connected with a KGB agent in France named David Karr. This document was found by the knowledgeable Russian journalist Yevgenia Albats and published in Moscow's Izvestia in June 1992.

- Former U.S. Senator John Tunney (D-CA) had a firm that was connected with a KGB agent? That’s troubling. And according to the next paragraph, Tunney was a go-between for Kennedy and the KGB -

Another KGB report to their bosses revealed that on March 5, 1980, John Tunney met with the KGB in Moscow on behalf of Sen. Kennedy. Tunney expressed Kennedy's opinion that "nonsense about 'the Soviet military threat' and Soviet ambitions for military expansion in the Persian Gulf . . . was being fueled by [President Jimmy] Carter, [National Security Advisor Zbigniew] Brzezinski, the Pentagon and the military industrial complex."

Kennedy offered to speak out against President Carter on Afghanistan. Shortly thereafter he made public speeches opposing President Carter on this issue. This document was found in KGB archives by Vasiliy Mitrokhin, a courageous KGB officer, who copied documents from the files and then defected to the West. He wrote about this document in a February 2002 paper on Afghanistan that he released through the Cold War International History Project of the Woodrow Wilson Center.

- Kennedy was willing to speak out against a DEMOCRATIC President in order to help the Soviets position in Afghanistan? That doesn’t even make sense to me. What would be his motivation for speaking out against a democratic President and his position on the Soviet war in Afghanistan? According to a February 1983 London Times article, "It appeared [the Soviets] understood it as an attempt to boost Kennedy's own political fortunes with their assistance." If you remember, Ted Kennedy briefly ran for the Democratic nomination for President against Carter.

The apparent treason continues…

In May 1983, the KGB again reported to their bosses on a discussion in Moscow with former Sen. John Tunney. Kennedy had instructed Tunney, according to the KGB, to carry a message to Yuri Andropov, the General Secretary of the Soviet Communist Party, expressing Kennedy's concern about the anti-Soviet activities of President Ronald Reagan…

Kennedy offered to "undertake some additional steps to counter the militaristic, policy of Reagan and his campaign of psychological pressure on the American population."

- Seems to me, he wanted to weaken the U.S. by defeating the increases in Military spending, which President Regan pressed so hard for. -

Kennedy asked for a meeting with Andropov for the purpose of "arming himself with the Soviet leader's explanations of arms control policy so he can use them later for more convincing speeches in the U.S." He also offered to help get Soviet views on the major U.S. networks and suggested inviting "Elton Rule, ABC chairman of the board, or observers Walter Cronkite or Barbara Walters to Moscow."

So in other words, he was willing to spread the Soviet propaganda to the American people and he thought he could enlist Walter Cronkite and Barbara Walters to help him do it. You think maybe that Russian propaganda coming from a U.S. Senator and brother of the beloved John F. Kennedy would in somehow legitimize that Russian propaganda? Somehow, I think it would. –

Do you think this story is outrageous? It’s easy to think that this is just right wing wishful thinking. However, in doing research on this, I found out this story was originally published in Moscow’s Izvestia by a Russian journalist named Yevgenia Albats. In researching that, I found this on the Accuracy in Media website, half way down the page:

THIS AIM REPORT ON RUSSIA MENTIONS SENATOR TED KENNEDY'S ROLE IN SOLICITING Soviet/KGB support in the 1980s.

Herbert Romerstein's article, posted on the Human Events website on December 5, noted that "One of the documents, a KGB report to their bosses in the Soviet Communist Party Central Committee, revealed that 'In 1978, American Sen. Edward Kennedy requested the assistance of the KGB to establish a relationship' between the Soviet apparatus and a firm owned by former Senator John Tunney. KGB recommended that they be permitted to do this because Tunney's firm was already connected with a KGB agent in France named David Karr. This document was found by the knowledgeable Russian journalist Yevgenia Albats and published in Moscow's Izvestia in June 1992." I contacted this Russian journalist, Yevgenia Albats, who is now at Yale, and asked if this account was accurate. "Yes, it is accurate," she replied. We suggest sending a postcard to Boston Globe political columnist, Thomas Oliphant, an admirer of Senator Kennedy, asking him to look into this.

Now, to be fair, the Boston Globe did do a bit of a fluff piece on this in 1992 and you can read it here. That is an image link because the article was found via a Lexis Nexis search and I can't link to it. So I created an image file so you can read it.

There is also a new book out by Grove City College professor Paul Kengor called The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism that also discusses the KGB memos.

Now, this story is all over the internet. Hundreds of blogs are talking about it and yet the mainstream media isn’t discussing it at all. Seems to me, the notion of a U.S. Senator collaborating with the Soviets during the height of the Cold War to undermine 2 different U.S. Presidents is news worthy information.

I’d be willing to bet, if this memo was about President Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney, this would be all over every major network news cast. How do I know this? Look at the coverage the memos about President Bush’s National Guard service, that proved to be fake, got before the 2004 election.

I'm a nobody. Just some blogger on the internet that has spent a few hours of my free time on this. But it seems to me there is enough here to warrant a serious investigation by people that actually know what they're doing.

I am a believer in Freedom of the Press. That notion is key to our Republic standing the test of time. The press has an obligation to hold government accountable to its people. Not just one party of the government, but the entire government. And the thing is, our mainstream media is clearly slanted to the left. And I believe we as Americans owe it to ourselves and to our country to hold the media accountable for their lack of action in this matter.

The New Look

Welcome to the New Political Nightmare.com. Well, it just looks new. It's still the same ol' pissed off jarhead looking to infuriate the Liberals of America. I was bored with the old look and decided we needed something new. My original idea was something blue, but it was just too boring. Blue is boring, we gotta have the red baby.

Anyway, let me know what you think of the new look here at the Nightmare. And don't forget to check out the Steel Nightmare for all your Steelers needs.

A Message To Voters

And take a guess who it’s from…


Surfing the net, reading political garb, you know, just for fun, I stumbled upon something that I found quite interesting and I think you will to. "A Call To Action: DEFEND DEMOCRACY. Change Congress in 2006!"

Seems harmless enough, don’t you think? I’m about read for a change in Congress. I mean, we can’t secure our borders. Our tax cuts have not been maid permanent. The Democrats are wimps and want to pull out of Iraq and the Republicans are wimps and won’t stand up to the Democrats.

Anyway, following politics as I do, reading this article, the usual comments are very familiar. From the piece:

The Bush Administration and the Republican controlled Congress have created our nation’s worst Constitutional crisis since the Civil War.
Brazenly, they have placed themselves above the law. Their abuses of power are immense and include:

-LYING to Congress and the people about the illegal pre-emptive war on Iraq
-Criminal negligence in abandoning the victims of Hurricane Katrina
-Corrupt no-bid contracts with crony corporations like Halliburton
-SPYING on ordinary citizens with wiretapping without warrants

The policies of the Bush Administration and the Republican leadership in Congress are designed by and implemented on behalf of the biggest, greediest, most corrupt corporate interests in our country. They have unleashed a wholesale assault on every gain won by the people in the last half century. They are attempting to:

-Privatize Social Security and dismantle pensions
-Undermine the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act
-Reverse health and safety laws
-Repeal environmental regulations and reject any measures to curb global warming
-Deny workers the right to organize a union

Bush’s new world order of raw corporate greed is driving down wages and working conditions everywhere to Wal-Mart levels. Tax cuts to the rich and billions for war are wiping out funds for public education, housing and health care.

Sound familiar to anyone? Sounds to me like the platform of the Democratic Party. No real answers, only criticisms of President Bush and the Republicans. Sure, I have complaints about President Bush and the Republicans, but these aren’t it. This definitely sounds like a democratic stump speech from Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid.

The funny thing is, it’s not from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and it's not from House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi. It’s not even from the Democratic National Committee. Oh no, it’s not from any of their websites.

It’s from this one…




The Communist Party USA.

Click the link, it's all right there for you to see for yourself.

I realize this upcoming election hasn't provided us with much of a choice. My own Congressional district is a joke and I'm not happy with either candidate. Representative Phil English is my Congressman, and he's about as stealth as a Congressman can be. I do know he seems to be a Washington fat cat and he's never visited my town in the 3 years I've lived there. But the alternative to him is a left wing professor that used to play in a rock band and wants universal healthcare. Talk about choosing the lesser of two evils.

But let's be honest. A vote for the democrats is a vote for the Communist Party of the USA. The points listed above were posted on 9/22/06 and if I had the time, I could probably show each of those talking points to one democrat or another.

So if you think you're doing some good by sitting out this election, or you think you're going to teach the Republicans a lesson by staying home, you're cutting your nose off to spite your face. I'm not happy with the options before me, but I do have to make a choice. Growing up during the Cold War, I was taught that anything Communist is bad, and my continued education in the ways of the world has only reinforced those teachings. Loving freedom and loving this country as much as I do requires me to do what is in the best interest of my country. And what is in the best interest of my country at this moment in time is not a vote for Communism, but a vote for the lesser of two evils. It's too late to do anything about my choices now. But during the next term, we all need to take a more active roll in our government and ensure we are no longer left with two pathetic choices.

The Hypocrisy of the Homosexual Left

This ought to generate some hate mail...

Last week, in doing some reading on the Foley scandal, I came across a blog ran by a liberal gay activist by the name of Mike Rogers. I'm not going to provide a link to his blog because I completely disagree with what he is doing and I don't want to make it easy for anyone to see what he's doing. If you feel the need to see it for yourself, google him. Anyway, this guy has been on O'Reilly and Tucker Carlson. I guess he thinks he is some sort of homosexual crusader, trying battle the evils of conservatism. Mind you, he's not battling conservatism in the arena of ideas. Oh no, he is publicly outing some homosexual Congressional staffers and one staff secretary in the White House. Why? Because they work for Republicans. He says he is trying to "expose the hypocrisy" of the Republican party, and he's doing it in the wake of the Foley scandal.

But it seems to me, what Mr. Rogers is really doing is publicly violating, what we've been told by the left for years, a Civil Right. The Right to Privacy. In thinking about this, I had to first answer some questions:

1. Is there a guarantee of the right to privacy in the Constitution? Although I've yet to actually see it in the Constitution, I do believe in the right to privacy. I think it's an individual right that should never be overlooked. And, according to the left and the Supreme Court there is a right to privacy. Roe v. Wade was a privacy case in which the Court determined the state has no right to know what takes place between a doctor and a patient. This "right to privacy" is what gave us abortion. So, obviously, the left depends heavily on this right to privacy for it's arguments on multiple cases. So, with the prevailing legal precedent handed down by the Supreme Court, there is a Right to Privacy. And the left depends on it.

2. Is a person's sexual preference considered private information. Well, we've been told for years by homosexuals or was it an episode of Seinfeld, "a person's sexual preference is nobody's business but their own." Seems to me a person's sex life should be kept private. If you want to tell the world about it, that's up to you. But it seems to me, if you don't want people to know, that should be your right. So, yes, people's sex lives are a private matter UNLESS the individual wants that information to be common knowledge.

3. Is purposely publishing information about a person's sexual desires, preference or acts considered a violation of said person's privacy. Well, I remember back in the 90's, the left told us over and over that Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky was merely a private matter and should not be subject to public ridicule or political action. It has no bearing on his ability to perform his job and it is his "PRIVATE LIFE!" So again, according to the left, sex is a private matter and nobody's business.

With those three questions, using the arguments from the left, I have demonstrated exactly how the outing of homosexual staffers on a website is a violation of the right to privacy and therefore, quite hypocritical.

Look, I'm all for exposing elected hypocrites in Washington. I think it's a sign of a healthy Republic. But publishing private information, about a Congressional staffer, on a website in furtherance of a political agenda is just mean. It's not free speech because it possesses the potential to do harm to an individual. It is an overt action being taken by the mother of all hypocrites. A gay activist that demands civil rights for gays and then violates the civil rights of gays.

Mike Rogers is not exposing hypocrites. Being gay and opposing gay marriage is not hypocritical. Privately proclaiming a desire to marry your homosexual partner and publicly opposing gay marriage is hypocritical. I know the left likes to redefine certain words, but let's not redefine hypocrisy too.

As an added bonus to this post, I'm going to post some comments from this blog to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the homosexual left. The names have been deleted to protect the hypocrites.

In reference to the Foley scandal, this is from someone who was advocating the outing of "closeted" homosexuals.:
"It is only because the GOP leadership refused to officially acknowledge Foley's sexuality that this was allowed to continue -- those emails coming from a "straight man" to a former male page would be seen as "a little weird" -- but coming from a 52 year old man that everyone acknowledged was gay they were an obvious warning sign."

My head just about exploded when I read that. So, when a 52 year old gay man contacts a young boy, it's now an obvious warning sign? Wow, kind of puts a hole in their Boy Scout leader argument doesn't it? Would you classify that as hypocritical?

From another advocate of the outing of homosexuals:
"... Out them all! I don't care if they're stupid enough to kill themselves after exposure instead of waking up and dealing with the reality of who they really are. No one ever said that politics would be a cakewalk."

Can't you just feel the love? Who cares if they kill themselves as a result of this information being published? Remember the potential to do harm to an individual that I mentioned earlier? Wow. Just wow. And they say we're hate mongers.

Bottom Line: Mr. Rogers, screaming about your civil rights while going out of your way to violate what could be someone else's most valued civil right, is extremely hypocritical. Perhaps you should think about that while you're attempting to ruin the lives of members of the homosexual community.

Foley Scandal is the Result of a Prank?

Oh man, what a bunch of morons...

According to this report on Drudge, the string of IMs between Foley and the page is the result of a prank.

"According to one Oklahoma source who knows the former page very well, Edmund, a conservative Republican, said he goaded an unwitting Foley to type embarrassing comments that were then shared with a small group of young Hill politicos. The prank went awry when the saved IM sessions got into the hands of political operatives favorable to Democrats."

Now, the sources listed want to remain un-named, and to be fair, I'm never happy with an un-named source. But if this is true, and all of this is the result of a practical joke gone wrong, somebody needs to do some jail time. Perhaps that's why this kid hired a lawyer. Who knows, I can't keep up with all the twists and turns in this story. I just want the truth of who knew what and when did they know it. So far, the left has provided zero evidence the Speaker of the House knew anything about the IMs. And from watching him being interviewed, I tend to believe him. But I still say anybody that knew of these IMs and withheld the information should be kicked out of Congress.

But there is yet another twist. There are also reports that this Page was 18 at the time of inappropriate IMs.

Ok, 18 or not, a 50 year old guy sending that stuff to an 18 year old is still completely inappropriate. But I try to Congressmen to a higher standard. What I find interesting is that if he was 18 at the time of the exchange, the Dems have been attacking this guy for being homosexual. And that is almost as ironic as Foley being the Chairman of the Missing and Exploited Children Committee.

It looks to me as if the could easily turn in to a Political Nightmare for both sides.

Foley and What is Really at Stake

Ok, let me start by saying I think Foley should fry. I don't care if he did or didn't have sexual relations with this Congressional Page. I have no tolerance for any man, in his 50s seeking sexual delights with a 16 year old kid. And I think for Congressmen, the penalties should be more severe than for the general public because I honestly believe our politicians should be held to a higher standard and there should be an additional charge of violating the public trust. But that is another discussion.

That being said, I think we need to look at the big picture here. Something stinks in the case and it stinks bad. There are political aspects to this scandal that we have yet to uncover. And from what I have found out about the parties involved, there is more to this than just some perv trying to get his jollies with some kid. And from what I have read, it looks to me as the Dems are on a full out assault trying to capitalize on this scandal. And it is not that I blame them but I am fairly certain, we have some Democratic hands steering this thing.

Ok, there are two types of communication between Foley and this Page. You have some emails that seem innocuous at best and then you have the instant messages (IMs) that are sexually explicit. Seems to me the Dems are trying hard to blur the line between the emails and the IMs. And that line should not be blurred. Because the emails, as I said, were stupid, but in no way were they sexually explicit. And it is only the emails that anyone, on the Republican side of the House knew anything about. The emails were brought to the attention of the Dennis Hasstert in November of 05 and he took action with Foley. The IMs did not come to light until the last day of the final session of this Congress. Now, the IMs are actually from 3 years ago. 3 Years.

So, I am wondering, who had the IMs all this time and why were they withheld? For 3 years, somebody held on to these IMs and did nothing, putting how many other teenage boys at risk. I don't know if one could be charged with a crime for withholding such information, but somebody needs to go down for that act of cowardice.

Now, the Dems would have you believe that the entire Republican party knew about Foley and his actions while not one single Democrat knew about it. Now, I'm sorry there is just no way.

I just heard Dick Morris on Hannity and Colmes say he's been told by a reporter that the Democratic Leadership knew about this. And that story is for that reporter to break. The question is, will that reporter tell that story? I hope so, because we need to get to the bottom of this.

We need to know, who knew, and when did they know it.

And here's what I don't get. Both sides of the House are acting like this is a big shock. But, the original blog that published the emails, http://stopsexpredators.blogspot.com/ actually posted some other emails he received from interns and pages that he posted here: And check this portion of the 2nd email:

When I was working up there, folks use to refer to the "Terrible Three" Barney Frank, Mark Foley, and Jim Kolbe. Everyone knows about Barney Frank's exploits living with a man who ran a gay prostitute ring out of Frank's house and how he how used to hit on men much younger than him. And Jim Kolbe, everyone who works on the Hill has heard rumors about Kolbe. One of my friends even told me that Kolbe hit on him on several occasions. Despite all the stories, Frank and Kolbe are well respected because when they got caught, they admitted that they were gay. That and neither Frank nor Kolbe have anything on Foley. People were always talking about seeing Foley lurking in locker rooms around DC looking for sex, how he especially likes teenage boys, and frequents gay bars around D.C. and in his district.

Now, this is just a supposed email sent to the blogger involved so who the hell knows if it's legit, but it sounds like Foley was common knowledge. You don't just make up something like "The Terrible Three" and put it in an email. So, if it were common knowledge, why all the shock?

This guy was the head of the Missing and Exploited Children committee in the House of Representatives. The irony in this scandal is mind boggling. And if his sexual appetites were common knowledge amongst pages and interns, how in the hell was it not common knowledge amongst the Congress in general?

If the Republicans knew and did nothing to protect the Congressional seat, then they should fry right next to Foley. But if the Democrats knew about this and sat on it until the best political moment, then they should fry as well. In fact, anyone that knew and did nothing, should fry.

We have a mid term election coming up and there are much larger issues at steak than some pervert. Not to minimize the actions of this sick freak, but in the grand scheme of things, it should not detract from the bigger issues we have before us as a country. I'm not real happy with the Republicans in Congress. I think they're weak and are too worried about being liked. If they would do the job we the American people sent them their to do, elections would take care of themselves. But we are a country at war with an enemy that wants to kill the people both sides of every issue. And the more we fight amongst ourselves, the less time we spend on issues of much greater importance.

Remember what is at stake in this election. The NSA programs that we need to fight the War on Terror. Gitmo. The War in Iraq. The Patriot Act. All these things are far more important than the stupidity and sickness of one Congressman. These sick and stupid acts by one man should not be permitted to put the rest of us in harms way. And the sad thing is, I think that is exactly what's going to happen.