Kennedy Family 'Matriarch' Ethel Kennedy 'Loves Che Guevara, Named Her Dog Che'

“Her (Ethel Kennedy’s) family says she’s been a fan of Guevara for years — and makes no apology about it. “My mom loves Che Guevara. Her dog is named Che,” her son, Robert Kennedy Jr., told The Post.” (NY Post 4/15.)

In fact, your humble servant was on this story before the Johnny-come-lately New York Post, right after alert columnist/blogger Sarah Gonzales on April 13th tweeted a picture of Mariah Cuomo and her grandmother Ethel Kennedy with a pic of Che Guevara peeping in the background.

“Why does Andrew Cuomo’s daughter have a framed photograph of communist murderer he Guevara in her living room?! If not her house, who is the Che worshipper of the family? Inquiring minds want to know.”

Your humble servant linked the tweet and posted to the effect that the home’s décor hinted at grandma Ethel’s place. She’s Robert F. Kennedy’s widow, hence JFK’s sister-in-law. This makes the Che Guevara family presence all the more “fascinating,” considering that these Kennedys were America’s twin “commanders-in-chief” during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and during the infamous Bay of Pigs treachery which took place 59 years ago this very week.

Another tip-off hinting at Che as grandma Ethel’s home decoration is this tribute to her on her 92d birthday from son RFK, Jr in People magazine: “She combined skepticism towards orthodoxy, irreverence towards authority, she admired physical and moral courage and surrounded herself with war heroes, and dissidents both political and clerical…she tried to imbue us with a love for justice and an indignation when our country falls short of its ideals.”

Everyone even half-way familiar with Liberal-speak will immediately recognize that–given the historical record– the above personality traits are a sure bet that the affected liberal will worship a cowardly, sadistic, racist, war-mongering, mass-murdering imbecile, whose lifelong craving was to incinerate them.

And sure enough. Even more “fascinating” was yet another picture of Che Guevara detected by your humble servant at the famous Kennedy family estate named Hickory Hill in McLean, Virginia. According to Pinterest the picture of the terrorist mass-murderer whose lifelong craving was to nuke the U.S. was (is) located in the late Robert F. Kennedy’s very home office!

More “fascinating” still the Hickory Hill office pic is the original uncropped version. The famous Che Guevara pic seen on t-shirts and posters was a cropped version of one taken by Alberto Korda in March 1960. Korda’s real name was Alberto Díaz Gutiérrez and he was a KGB agent, as revealed by Soviet-Bloc intelligence defector Ion Pacepa. The cropped picture was spread throughout the world by I. Lavretsky and Giangicomo Fetrinelli, respectively full-time and part-time KGB agents, as also revealed by Pacepa.

Hence, every person you see sporting that t-shirt or poster is a genuine “Russian colluder!”-- though probably unwittingly in about 80 per cent of the cases, when they qualify merely as morons.

Several fascinating questions now arise: Was that Che pic present in RFK’s office in the early 1960’s, when he was head of the famous Operation Mongoose, purportedly a Kennedy/CIA plan to assassinate Fidel Castro and overthrow his regime? If so, there’s no indication the Che pic was used as a dartboard, as it sits alongside what are (presumably) revered Kennedy family members.

CNN (honored as the first western press agency graciously granted a Havana bureau back in 1997) is a particularly persistent publicist of these assassination attempts.

“Survivor Turns 90,” gushed CNN’s perky Patrick Oppmann from Havana back in 2016. “More people have tried to murder the world’s most famous socialist than any man alive, according to the 2006 British documentary “638 Ways to Kill Castro.”

Got it? CNN painted the poor old boy as a victim. And gosh? What in the world, CNN implies, would cause anyone to wish harm upon this inoffensive healthcare provider? After all, his only offense was to dispossess mobsters and provide free and fabulous healthcare and education to his formerly wretched and exploited countrymen.

This pretty much sums up the CNN story. The primary source for the British documentary — and for CNN’s report — by the way, is Fabian Escalante, one of Castro’s oldest and most trusted KGB-trained intelligence officers.

Regarding all those dastardly CIA assassination attempts against Castro so breathlessly reported by Escalante and eagerly transcribed by CNN’s intrepid gumshoes:

In the early ’60s, the late E. Howard Hunt was head of the political division of the CIA’s “Cuba Project.” “So far as I have been able to determine,” Hunt clarified in his book “Give Us This Day,” “no coherent plan was ever developed within the CIA to assassinate Castro, though it was the heart’s desire of many exile groups.” Interestingly, Hunt stressed that killing Castro was his own recommendation. But he couldn’t get any serious takers within the (notoriously and historically liberal) agency higher-ups.

This may have been because there were so many Castro supporters in the CIA at the time. Maybe it was hard to get their hearts and minds wholeheartedly into such a wrenching flip-flop. Consider these quotes from CIA officials:

“Me and my staff were all Fidelistas.” (Robert Reynolds, the CIA’s Caribbean Desk chief from 1957 to 1960.)

“Everyone in the CIA and everyone at State was pro-Castro, except [Republican] ambassador Earl Smith.” (Robert Weicha, CIA operative in Santiago Cuba.)

Even the U.S. Senate’s liberal Church Committee, chaired by Sen. Frank Church in the 1970s, claimed that the assassination stories were largely mythologized:

‘In August 1975, Fidel Castro gave Senator George McGovern a list of 24 alleged attempts to assassinate him in which Castro claimed the CIA had been involved. … The Committee has found no evidence that the CIA was involved in the attempts on Castro’s life enumerated in the allegations that Castro gave to Senator McGovern.“

On the other hand, we have CNN’s Havana bureau earning its keep by transcribing reports of those nefarious CIA assassination plots, as reported to them by Fabian Escalante — one of Castro’s oldest and most trusted KGB-trained intelligence officers.

There was a day when Americans laughed at any U.S. network that regarded on-duty communist intelligence officers as trustworthy news sources.

Now, if the man (Robert F. Kennedy) tasked with overthrowing the Castro regime kept a cherished picture of Che Guevara in his home office, are there any more questions why Fidel Castro died peacefully in bed at 90?

"No, a real lack of profile in courage would be him agreeing to help McCarthy, but then at the very second he is to help, sadistically stabs him in the back"

THAT would've been honest on his part, at least. He was just another sleazy pol.

"However, there’s still some good Democrats like Randall Terry"

Terry isn't someone who could even win a nomination, let alone get elected in a general. The days of even a modest minority of respectable center-right Democrats is long gone.

"Who knows, maybe he learned his lesson from Bay of Pigs and decided to fight to win."

He didn't learn anything. He had his chance there and then to save a Communist nation from tyranny and he let them twist. Done. Over and out. Zero anti-Communist credentials.

"No, if you want an example of someone who was left wing by 1960s standards, I suggest you look at George Lucas"

Lucas was a filmmaker, not a politician. Stating that those guys were Communists is not a revelation. It still doesn't change the fact the Democrats were a left-wing party (had been led as such since 1896) and were dominated by left-wingers who wanted ever-increasing government power and expansion (Socialist) and JFK was no different in that goal.

"Not to mention Bill Ayers and Tom Hayden. THAT’S Left wing by 1960s standards"

They were Communist Revolutionaries (and in Ayres' case, a domestic terrorist). The difference between the left of the Democrat politicians and the ultra-left of the subversives. Both groups wanted to move the country to the left, one just wanted a faster movement.

"So no, even by 1960s standards, JFK was a conservative, maybe a moderate at the very least."

Nope. Still left-wing. Your throwing in Communist revolutionaries into the mix to try to claim "moderate" or "Conservative" credentials won't work. JFK WAS the mainstream left in 1960. Slower-going Socialism is still leftist.

"I’m doubtful JFK would have ever approved of the crap going on right now."

I think he would. He would've gone along with the radicalization of the Democrat Party, indeed, he would've been the avant-garde of it most likely. How do I know ? I look at his contemporary, then-AL Governor John Patterson (now nearly 100 years old). Unlike George Wallace, Patterson was friends with the Kennedys. He ran "ostensibly" as a center-right Democrat with the support of the KKK in 1958, beat Wallace, whom he painted as a left-winger (for being anti-segregationist, which Wallace was in 1958). Remember again, Patterson was the KLAN candidate and was close to the Kennedys. Flash forward decades later and you'd think Patterson would be one of those Democrats who switched to the GOP. Nope. He stayed a tried-and-true Democrat. He endorsed Obama for President, the guy who was the Klan candidate. So, yes, if a guy like Patterson would support the ultra-left movement of his party, JFK certainly would've. All the brothers would've been lock-step to the left.

"At least he didn’t brag about trying to bring about Communism into America"

He didn't have to. It was already here. The Soviets infiltrated our government, education and entertainment industries decades before. Because so-called "liberals" were viscerally opposed to the efforts of McCarthy and others to weeding out that infestation, JFK was not going to take the lead against it, since THESE were the people who put him in office. They didn't want Nixon. Our nation would be vastly different today had Nixon taken office in 1961. Cuba would be free. So would South Vietnam. I don't think we would've had the cultural collapse from the 1960s-onward, either. But all of that happened because JFK took office, for which he did not legitimately win.

"Trump did get Pennsylvania to become Republican again. I think there’s a chance at restoring the GOP to its full glory in Massachusetts."

The GOP put up weak or ringer candidates that didn't adequately compete in PA. Trump captured working-class voters there who had been ancestrally GOP, when the Depression turned them to the Democrats. Conversely, the upper-class suburbs started voting like Bolsheviks. Massachusetts is too culturally embedded to the political left. They actually believe the bull$hit the Stalinazi colleges push. The working-class folks that would ordinarily now be GOP tend to support the big government bureaucracy there, because that's where many of them are employed. You'd have to be a fool to support a party that's going to get rid of your cushy, patronage job. The problem, however, is that this system cannot be maintained indefinitely. There aren't enough non-governmental worker taxpayers to support it. That's also why they want federal government bailouts to keep that gravy train going. It's why the all-Democrat delegation from MA #1 goal is to get as much taxpayer largesse from D.C. as possible. I frankly think it's time to cut off the spigot. If you can't get your state in order economically due to fiscal recklessness, it's not on other states to support a failed system. Cutting them off means their taxes (state and local) will go through the ceiling. That's what needs to happen. No more subsidizing Socialism.

“THAT would’ve been honest on his part, at least. He was just another sleazy pol.”

Not really, because he said he’d help, but then openly stabbed him in the back when the time came (and no, being sent to the hospital is NOT stabbing him in the back under my definition, it needs to be a conscious decision independent of any outside variables). That’s the definition of “dishonest”, last I checked. Actual honesty would be more like him saying no to helping McCarthy from the get-go despite his respect from fellow Irish-Catholics.

“Terry isn’t someone who could even win a nomination, let alone get elected in a general. The days of even a modest minority of respectable center-right Democrats is long gone.”

Don’t be so sure. Back in the 2012 elections, he actually was a pretty huge rival for Obama retaining his chance at the Presidency for his own side, even managed to beat out Obama in Oklahoma, I think, by 18% of the electorate, a whopping 15 counties. It was even reported on here by freerepublic: http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2856578/posts I’m pretty sure he’d stand a good chance for at least winning nominations.

“He didn’t learn anything. He had his chance there and then to save a Communist nation from tyranny and he let them twist. Done. Over and out. Zero anti-Communist credentials.”

Helping the likes of McCarthy and actually getting rid of the missiles from Cuba at all instead of dithering and letting them stay on here like Obama’s nuclear program in Iran counts as “anti-Communist credentials”, last I checked. Sure, may not be enough to fully shift things, but it’s still something. Certainly a lot more than any so-called “anti-Communist” actions that Barack Obama and Bill Clinton did, or for that matter Jimmy Carter or Harry Truman.

“Lucas was a filmmaker, not a politician. Stating that those guys were Communists is not a revelation. It still doesn’t change the fact the Democrats were a left-wing party (had been led as such since 1896) and were dominated by left-wingers who wanted ever-increasing government power and expansion (Socialist) and JFK was no different in that goal.”

He might be a filmmaker, sure, but he’s also had a significant amount of sway towards our government, constantly going to Congress to outright speak regarding political issues of the day (heck, back in the 1980s, he went to Congress to protest colorization of films, and around the time Obama was about to be elected, I think it was when he called Obama a Jedi, he actually did a visit to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce Telecommunications and the Internet subcommittee hearing: https://web.archive.org/web/20080730011925/http://www.examiner.com/blogs-73-Yeas_and_Nays~y2008m6d25-Lucas-Obama-is-a-Jedi), so as far as I’m concerned, he’s every much of a politician, even if he never actually held office. And it also doesn’t help that he’s apparently one of the guys who helped create Obama’s tax hikes back in 2012.

“They were Communist Revolutionaries (and in Ayres’ case, a domestic terrorist). The difference between the left of the Democrat politicians and the ultra-left of the subversives. Both groups wanted to move the country to the left, one just wanted a faster movement.”

Actually, many of the left actually wanted to outright DESTROY government and cause an anarchistic hellhole like CHAZ or CHOP right now. Even Marx wanted government gone, believe it or not. I’ve always said that anarchism and totalitarian government are on the same side (namely, the left), and not actually different. Heck, Lenin went out of his way to get rid of law and order when he took control of the Soviet Union, which is the antithesis of expanding government (expanding government usually entails making more unnecessary laws rather than outright getting rid of laws altogether). Don’t believe me about Lenin, read this bit right here: https://newcriterion.com/issues/2019/10/leninthink

“Nope. Still left-wing. Your throwing in Communist revolutionaries into the mix to try to claim “moderate” or “Conservative” credentials won’t work. JFK WAS the mainstream left in 1960. Slower-going Socialism is still leftist.”

By that same logic, you’ll have to acknowledge that Nixon was also of the left as well (since even ignoring his bungling China, he also was a Keynesian, which naturally demands more government interference), and even Ronald Reagan (and bear in mind, the latter, despite doing a dang good job in taking out the Soviet Union, STILL supported the Marxist plant known as the United Nations’ sovereignty instead of, say, outright dismantling it altogether, which essentially meant he was STILL leftist under that sense, Not to mention pretty much supported Nelson Mandela instead of Apartheid. I’m not fond of the white-supremacist nature of Apartheid, either, but if I had to choose between that and the Communist ANC, I’d back Apartheid, solely because I am NOT going to back a Communist organization or let a communist organization take over South Africa [now, if there were an ANC-esque group that was genuinely anti-Communist, sort of the Nicaraguan CONTRAS, I’d definitely support that group over Apartheid].), and that there IS no right wing right now, if there ever was. Heck, might as well state that Abraham Lincoln is left wing as well, as well as the entire dang Republican Party since the Civil War (I know one guy who runs a pro-Trump blog actually thinks that about Lincoln and the Republican party at the time: https://dissectleft.blogspot.com/)

“I think he would. He would’ve gone along with the radicalization of the Democrat Party, indeed, he would’ve been the avant-garde of it most likely. How do I know ? I look at his contemporary, then-AL Governor John Patterson (now nearly 100 years old). Unlike George Wallace, Patterson was friends with the Kennedys. He ran “ostensibly” as a center-right Democrat with the support of the KKK in 1958, beat Wallace, whom he painted as a left-winger (for being anti-segregationist, which Wallace was in 1958). Remember again, Patterson was the KLAN candidate and was close to the Kennedys. Flash forward decades later and you’d think Patterson would be one of those Democrats who switched to the GOP. Nope. He stayed a tried-and-true Democrat. He endorsed Obama for President, the guy who was the Klan candidate. So, yes, if a guy like Patterson would support the ultra-left movement of his party, JFK certainly would’ve. All the brothers would’ve been lock-step to the left.”

Let me rephrase that, I’m doubtful he’d support the BLM movement or the face masks. Maybe he’d still support the KKK, don’t know, and ultimately, it’s irrelevant at this point. What matters is that most of the Democrat contemporaries right now are supporting an up and out Marxist movement like BLM, not to mention social distancing and all of that (and the Democrats would be committing political suicide if they even tacitly admit that they love commies). I’ve had to personally witness this in Dunwoody, so I’d definitely know that much. I’m not even sure if John Patterson even would support BLM (then again, I don’t live in Alabama, so I wouldn’t know).

“He didn’t have to. It was already here. The Soviets infiltrated our government, education and entertainment industries decades before. Because so-called “liberals” were viscerally opposed to the efforts of McCarthy and others to weeding out that infestation, JFK was not going to take the lead against it, since THESE were the people who put him in office. They didn’t want Nixon. Our nation would be vastly different today had Nixon taken office in 1961. Cuba would be free. So would South Vietnam. I don’t think we would’ve had the cultural collapse from the 1960s-onward, either. But all of that happened because JFK took office, for which he did not legitimately win.”

Really? Because Barack Obama certainly was bragging about bringing Communism about even when it was already there, as were various other current Commie Democrat politicians (for goodness sakes, Bernie Sanders doesn’t even TRY to hide that he’s a Communist, and didn’t bother trying to hide it when he was running Vermont). Besides, I don’t think JFK would have ever supported McCarthy if he himself supported Communism. Heck, if anything, his family during World War II was more likely to support the Nazis than the Soviets/Communists. The only one of the Kennedy clan who actually WAS an up and out Soviet supporter was Ted.

“The GOP put up weak or ringer candidates that didn’t adequately compete in PA. Trump captured working-class voters there who had been ancestrally GOP, when the Depression turned them to the Democrats. Conversely, the upper-class suburbs started voting like Bolsheviks. Massachusetts is too culturally embedded to the political left. They actually believe the bull$hit the Stalinazi colleges push. The working-class folks that would ordinarily now be GOP tend to support the big government bureaucracy there, because that’s where many of them are employed. You’d have to be a fool to support a party that’s going to get rid of your cushy, patronage job. The problem, however, is that this system cannot be maintained indefinitely. There aren’t enough non-governmental worker taxpayers to support it. That’s also why they want federal government bailouts to keep that gravy train going. It’s why the all-Democrat delegation from MA #1 goal is to get as much taxpayer largesse from D.C. as possible. I frankly think it’s time to cut off the spigot. If you can’t get your state in order economically due to fiscal recklessness, it’s not on other states to support a failed system. Cutting them off means their taxes (state and local) will go through the ceiling. That’s what needs to happen. No more subsidizing Socialism.”

That much I agree with.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.