Hint: It wasn’t Jeff Sessions.
In 1991, a reporter for the London Times found a May 14, 1983, memo in the Soviet archives.
It was from Victor Chebrikov, then the top man at the KGB.
It was addressed to Yuri Andropov, then the top man in the entire USSR and a former director of the KGB.
The subject was Sen. Edward Kennedy’s recent request for Russia’s help in defeating Ronald Reagan in the 1984 presidential election.
In exchange, Kennedy offered to visit Moscow to help Soviet officials brush up their propaganda on nuclear disarmament and to arrange for Andropov to enjoy chummy interviews with major American television companies.
In 1992, the reporter published a story about the memorandum in the London Times. Big surprise (NOT), here in the U.S., the left-stream media yawned.
We can either have “peace at any price” OR we can have freedom. There is no in between.
Both Reagan and Obama came into office in the midst of an economic recession. As much as Obama and his lying lapdog media would like us to believe that Obama did a fabulous job, economic indicators show his recovery was slow and weak. This is seen clearly here:
Nancy Reagan, the widow of President Ronald Reagan and passionately devoted keeper of his flame, died Sunday morning of congestive heart failure at 94, according to her spokesperson.
Reagan died at her home in Los Angeles. She’s set to be buried at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California, next to her husband. Prior to the funeral, there will be an opportunity for members of the public to pay their respects at the Library, the spokesperson said. Details had not yet been announced Sunday afternoon.
“Nancy is where she has always wanted to be, with her Ronnie…Now she is at peace,” her stepson, Michael, wrote on Twitter.
Nancy Curtis Reagan, to me, was everything Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama are not. Beautiful, poised, full of grace and class. It is an obscenity that the two aforementioned would ever be included in the same sentence as Mrs. Reagan, Barbara or Laura Bush. Women who had no political aspirations, content to be a wife, mother, and partner to men destined for greatness. She is now with her beloved Ronnie, where she always knew she would be.
The tributes to her will come pouring in, some heartfelt, some as disingenuous as the people who wished nothing but ill will to the Reagans while they were in DC. We saw the same thing when Justice Scalia passed away suddenly. It is a sad, sad day as the true American icons are leaving us to go to a perfect place. Her Ronnie must have missed her.
I recall how she was criticized for the designer dresses that were made for her. The same people would have complained had she worn sackcloth.
Mrs. Reagan on the 8th anniversary of Reagan’s death in 2012.
Remember when President “Tear down this wall!” Reagan helped bring about the demise of the U.S.S.R. and made the U.S.A. the #1 superpower on Earth?
Welcome to 2015, when President “I’m not George Bush” Obama has helped “reset” America’s relationship with Russia and made the U.S.A. not the #1 superpower on Earth.
Forbes “World’s Most Powerful People” list for 2015:
#1 = Russian President Vladimir Putin
#2 = German Chancellor Angela Merkel
#3 = U.S. President Barack Obama
#4 = Pope Francis (n.b., he has no military!)
#5 = General Secretary, Communist Party of China’s Xi Jinping
I just read an article that claimed to show how Obama’s economy had out-performed Reagan’s … except it used apple/orange comparisons like dollar values, numbers of jobs created, and the unemployment rate.
I decided to see for myself how the Reagan and Obama economies compared by using an apple/apple statistic.
I think this clearly illustrates the value of Conservative over Liberal economic policies. Both presidents inherited failing economies, but President Reagan (R) implemented hard-line Conservative policies, while President Obama (D) implemented hard-line Liberal policies. It’s very easy to see which one put more people back to work.
I just read an article at Forbes purporting to demonstrate that Obama-nomics has been way more successful than Reagan-omics was. I should say, “I tried to read an article” cuz the author lost me with his very first graph, which claims to compare Reagan’s Unemployment Rate with Obama’s.
But President Clinton altered the parameters for calculating the Unemployment Rate to make his numbers look better when nothing had really changed. (E.g., he had certain classes of unemployed persons removed from the “Unemployment Rate” data set and shoveled into some other, obscure data set, like “Discouraged Workers.”)
You can’t legitimately compare pre-Clinton and post-Clinton Unemployment Rate data sets; they’re apples and oranges. But the Forbes author does it anyway, without a word of apology. In other words, he is deliberately lying with statistics to make Obama look better than he is. Where oh where is my surprised face?
So far as I know, the Percentage Employed criteria have not been changed, so comparing those for Reagan and Obama should give us some real data. Right off the bat it’s obvious that Reagan’s policies were better. Obama’s percent employed went down while Reagan’s went up. It’s kinda creepy how symmetrical the numbers are, isn’t it?
That Forbes article is named: “Obama outperforms Reagan on jobs growth.” That works only if by “jobs growth” the author means the exact opposite.