The trouble with serial liars is that eventually they get confused and forget which lie they told previously.  When they get caught lying, it is embarrassing, but not usually fatal.  For example: think of all those inconvenient videos of Obama promising to put the health care reform debate on C-Span.  But occasionally people like this fall into a perjury trap.  They are forced to answer questions in situation where it is a felony to lie.  The most recent example was Lewis Libby.  In his case he was convicted of perjury for allegedly lying to the FBI about an undocumented conversation with Tim Russert.  The jury believed Russert’s version of events, so they convicted Libby of perjury:

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/06/AR2007030600648.html

The problem for Obama is that he gave interviews to the FBI regarding Tony Rezko.  The FBI probably recorded those interviews.  At a minimum, they took very good notes.  Blagojevich is calling Obama as a witness to discredit Rezko.  Blagojevich points out that Rezko has claimed on several occasions to have gotten special favors from Obama.  Rezko’s representations regarding conversations and connections with Obama are very different from what Obama said happened.

Obama is going to try and just squash the subpoena on the basis that, as President of the United States he cannot possibly spare the time.  It’s not like he had time to play a lot of golf!  Unfortunately there is legal precedent for requiring a sitting U.S. President to testify in court regarding incidents that took place before he was sworn into office.  Like him or not, Blagojevich has the right to a fair trial.  The Blagojevich lawyers know this very well and have cited this in their brief.

What makes this worse is that when the Blagojevich lawyers filed their motion they did not do a good enough job in making sure the redacted parts stayed redacted.  Within seconds the full original motion was posted on the internet.  The judge is guaranteed to be pissed, but that doesn’t help Obama.

At a minimum, it is pretty hard to read this motion without realizing that Obama’s relationship with Rezko was far more extensive than reported in the main stream media.  But the real problem is that if Obama does testify and it turns out any of his prior statements were lies, he may just fall into a perjury trap, just like Lewis Libby.  Remember, Lewis Libby was convicted of obstructing justice for allegedly lying about something that was not even a crime.

Odds are pretty high that the people in the Obama administration are trying desperately to find an exit strategy.  In effect, Blagojevich has sent them the ultimate; “let’s make a deal message.”  At a minimum, this is going to be fun to watch.  It is a lot more dangerous for Obama than most people realize.

TDM

White House slams latest ‘birther’ move
CNN, by Ed Henry

This story just will not go away.   Lt. Colonel Lakin, an Army MD, is facing court-martial because he has demanded that Obama produce his birth certificate before he will accept an order to deploy to Afghanistan.   He is either very stupid, or very brave.  Perhaps he is a little of both.  The State of Arizona has passed a law requiring future candidates to prove citizenship before running for President.  The White House is upset.  How unfair is that!  How dare we demand someone prove they are qualified before running for President of the United States.   The next thing you know we will be requiring people to prove their citizenship just to vote!

We are being told by a lot of people, including Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck that this “birther” stuff is just nonsense.    We are told that this issue has been resolved and this is just silliness by a group of die hards who don’t know when to quit.  And, of course, CNN pompously declares that everyone knows that this was all settled long ago when Obama released his birth certificate.

But, the story is just not that simple.  It could be.  It should be.  But it isn’t.  The problem is that if one pays close attention it is clear that Obama has never actually produced an authenticated copy of his birth certificate.  I suspect that everyone reading this has had to produce a certified copy of their birth certificate at some point in time.  What’s the big deal?  But Obama simply has not done that. 

To the best of my knowledge, every other major candidate has produced a certified copy of their birth certificate with little complaint.  McCain did that even though he was born in the Panama Canal zone.  But, when it comes to Obama’s birth certificate, we get sleight of hand tricks similar to what one would expect from a professional magician.  It is the illusion of revealing everything, while not really showing anything at all.

When the Obama campaign was challenged to prove that he had disclosed a true copy of his birth certificate the response was the Director of Health for the State of Hawaii issuing the following statement in October, 2008.

“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures,” Fukino said.

Notice that no one was allowed to look at the actual document or even a verified copy of that document because Barack Obama will not sign a release.  This statement only says that the State of Hawaii has the original document. 

According to the townhall.com blog, which is pretty reputable, the following explains the type of birth certificates available in Hawaii in 1961: (I cannot locate the actual statute, but this certainly looks authentic)

1.    In the State of Hawaii, back in 1961, there were three different birth certificates that were obtainable:
    a.    If the birth was attended by a physician or mid wife, the attending medical professional was required to certify to the Department of Health the facts of the birth date, location, parents’ identities and other information. (See Section 57-8 & 9 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of  Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).
    b.    In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or mid wife, then, up to the first birthday of the child, an adult could, upon testimony, file a “Delayed Certificate”, which required endorsement on the Delayed Certificate of a summary statement of the evidence submitted in support of the acceptance for delayed filing, which evidence must be kept in a special permanent file.  The statute provided that the probative value of the Delayed Certificate must be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence.  (See Section 57-18, 19 & 20 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).
    c.    If a child born in Hawaii, for whom no physician or mid wife filed a certificate of live birth, and for whom no Delayed Certificate was filed before the first birthday, then a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth could be issued upon testimony of an adult including the subject person) if the Lieutenant Governor was satisfied that a person was born in Hawaii, provided that the person had attained the age of one year. (See Section 57-40 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).

Let me summarize.  Suppose one of Obama’s parents gave testimony or a written statement, as required by statue, that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.  The state would accept that as proof of Hawaiian birth, even if no physician or mid wife had ever filed certification of live birth with the Department of Health.   A state official, say the Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, upon review of such a document would say something like this, a statement released in July of 2009: 

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.

In other words, like the magician, this is designed to prove that Obama was born in Hawaii, but if you read this carefully, it really verifies nothing.  Everything in that statement could be true, but it does not answer the real question.  Does the State of Hawaii have documented proof of exactly where and when Barack Obama was born?  If yes; then what is that proof?   If the only evidence is a statement signed by one of Barack Obama’s parents, is that really proof of where he was born?  Based upon the statute in existence in Hawaii at that time, it would be considered sufficient proof.  But, in other states, that would not be adequate.  Obviously the potential for fraud under such a system would be enormous.

Just recently it was announced that Puerto Rico is cancelling every birth certificate issued because of widespread fraud.

http://www.military.com/military-report/puerto-rico-to-cancel-certificates

http://www.identity-theft-awareness.com/birth-certificate-reset.html

Obama’s parents would hardly be the first people to want to make sure their child was registered as a U.S. citizen, regardless of when or where he was born. 

The Obama campaign has allegedly spent millions in preventing anyone from obtaining the official documents.  Why go to all the time and expense if there is nothing to hide?  What, exactly, would be the point?  Is Obama too superior to bother providing the most basic legal document of all?  Is this really an unreasonable request?   I have a hard time believing that he was born in Kenya, but I also have a hard time coming up with an explanation for the obvious sleight of hand routine.  At best it shows an incredible level of contempt for the American public.  At worst, it is covering up something so dangerous that the people protecting Obama will go to any length to keep this hidden.

There are a lot of bizarre documents and theories about this, but the most bizarre is the following.   The first is the document filed by the DNC to put Obama on the ballot in Hawaii:

Next is the document filed by the DNC to put Obama on the ballot in every state other than Hawaii:

These documents are courtesy of Canadian Free Press.  To the best of my knowledge, no one is disputing that these documents are authentic.  The signatures are obviously made by the same people, but they are not identical.  It certainly looks like these are two different, signed and notarized versions of the same document.  One version, the one filed in Hawaii includes the following wording:  “and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution:”  The other version, filed in every other state, does not include this wording.

 The McCain campaign allegedly contained the same wording used by the DNC in Hawaii in every state.

 I do not know why the DNC would do this.  Apparently they claim it was an innocent mistake.  But, this is a notarized document.  It seems possible, a least to me, that according to Hawaii law, Barack Obama has proven his date and place of birth, but, not necessarily according to the laws in other states.  Perhaps this is just a clerical error, or just maybe Nancy Pelosi was afraid to sign a document representing that Obama was legally qualified under the United States Constitution in any state other than Hawaii.  (If that is the logic, it is really dumb, because it would still represent a material misrepresentation, with or without the wording)

 I do not know what is true about this situation, but I certainly know when someone is working very hard to prevent a peek behind the magician’s curtain.  I frankly find this whole situation alarming and I remain astonished that the main stream media, including Fox is so willing to tolerate this nonsense.  Isn’t it about time that someone stands up and says enough is enough.  Yes, acknowledge that the people leading the “birther” charge are pretty pathetic and they personally have little credibility.  But, what we do know, from undisputed sources, raises very serious questions.     

 One thing is sure.  This is a lot more murky than the main stream media is willing to admit.

 TDM

A Disgraceful Evening at Cooper Union by David Horowitz.

http://frontpagemag.com/2010/04/20/a-disgraceful-evening-at-cooper-union-2/

Our new approach to dialog with the Muslim world. 

TDM

The following article is simply shocking:

White House Quietly Courts Muslims in U.S.

By ANDREA ELLIOTT

Published: April 18, 2010

 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/19/us/politics/19muslim.html?ref=us

The Obama administration is moaning and groaning about the homegrown threat from right-wing extremists, like the Tea Party movement.  Bill Clinton even blamed the Oklahoma City bombing on intemperate comments by talk radio.  Actually, Tim McVeigh was on record as saying that his actions were in response to Janet Reno sending in the military to kill all women and children in Waco.  The Oklahoma bombing took place two years to the day after the Waco fiasco.

Janet Napolitano even said that former U.S military personnel should be viewed with suspicion.  But those who actually do represent significant threats with regard to homegrown terrorism are not just given a pass, they are invited as honored guests.  I have seen numerous reports from England showing how Muslim clerics, who seem to be moderate when speaking English, were stoking the fires of Islamic extremism when speaking in Arabic.  For example; the men who planted the bombs on the London subway were inspired by Abu Hamza Al-Masri: 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/20/world/main2380485.shtml?source=RSSattr=World_2380485

Like the two men graciously invited to the United States by Hillary Clinton, Al Masri was once considered to be a moderate Muslim leader who had renounced violence.  But, the problem is that to an Islamic fundamentalist, violence has a different meaning.  Read carefully the following excerpt from the above article.  This was written by Abu Hamza Al-Masri:

“The term ‘violence’ has become a media weapon against Islam and it now serves interested regimes against anyone who defends his faith, himself, and his honor in the face of [the attempt] to rule him by means of legislative and oppressive measures. From the Islamic and realistic point of view, this term [violence] is deceptive and incompatible with Islamic religious law in the struggle for the survival of Islam. The Mujahideen do not recognize this term in any way, because the clear goal of using [this term] is to eliminate the ‘precept of doing good and the prohibition on doing evil,’ at a time that the regimes have a monopoly on terrorism….”

The first person invited was Tarig Ramadan.  His maternal grandfather was Hasan al-Banna, who founded the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928.  His father, Said Ramadan, led the Muslim Brotherhood through the 1950’s until he was exiled to Egypt.  The following is the proclamation made by Hasan al-Banna in forming the Muslim Brotherhood:

.“Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”—Muslim Brotherhood

When Ramadan speaks to a Western Audience he talks about unity and mutual respect.  But, when asked about violence he gives answers very similar to the above quote from Abu Hamza Al-Masri.  There are also consistent reports that when talking to Arabic speaking audiences he talks about his deep-seated hatred of the West.  This is also consistent with Abu Hamza Al-Masri.  He has called for the extermination of Israel.  He endorses Wahhabism, which is considered by some to be the most extreme form of Islam.  He is alleged to have numerous connections to fundamental Islamic militants, and U.S Intelligence reports indicate that he maintains ties with al Qaeda.  This is why the Bush administration banned him from entering the United States.  I checked the Muslim Brotherhood website, and they are thrilled that the enlightened Obama administration had the wisdom to finally allow this great man to visit the United States.

The other person is Adam Habib, from South Africa.  He also was banned by the Bush administration for the similar reasons.  When commenting on the death of a white supremist in South Africa he said that “violence is the product of the polarized nature of our society.”  That is very similar to the things that Ramadan has been saying.  These aren’t really violent people, its’ just that our way of life is so intolerable to them that they can’t help themselves.  This is also similar to the logic expressed by those who say that 9-11 was the inevitable result of U.S. foreign policy toward Muslim nations.

In order to understand what Islamic fundamentalists really want, we just need to listen to what they say.  Perhaps no one explains this better than Osama Bin Laden.  He wrote a letter explaining exactly what he wants.  For those who want to read this letter, following is the link:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

Let me paraphrase.  In order to get him to tolerate us, we must do all of the following:

1.  Convert to Islam.  Discard any religion, opinion, order, or theory that contradicts Islam.

2.   Adopt Sharia Law.

3.  Admit that we are a nation without principles or manners.  Admit that we demand from others things which we do not require of ourselves. 

4.  Stop supporting Israel.  Stop supporting any government that is resisting Muslim terrorists.

5.  Withdraw from every Arab country. 

6.  Stop supporting corrupt leaders in Arab countries (corrupt means those who tolerate Western ideas, such as capitalism).  Do not interfere with their politics or method of education.

7.  Interact with Muslim extremists on the basis of mutual interest and benefits.  Stop supporting Jews.

It is hard to read this letter of demands from Osama Bin Laden without recognizing the obvious comparison to actions already taken by Barack Obama.  The first thing Obama did as President was to travel around the world apologizing for the sins of the United States.  (See Item 3 above)

If Obama is supporting Israel, he has sure fooled a lot of people.  Even people like Barbara Boxer had to speak out with regard to the Obama administration’s policy toward Israel. (See Item 4 above)

He appears to be working hard to withdraw our troops from every Arab country, starting with Iraq, followed shortly by Afghanistan. (See Item 5 above)

Obama is the first U.S. President who has failed to even address human rights issues when talking with Arab nations.  Look at how Obama recently tried to distance himself from Karzai. (See Item 6 above)

Now, Obama has invited Muslim leaders, formerly considered links to international terrorism, to come to the United States to talk about our mutual interests and benefits. 

At best, Barack Obama thinks he can reason with the Islamic fundamentalists.    Unfortunately, this is incredibly naïve.  Islamic fundamentalists are not interested in co-existing with non-believers.  Obama, to a hard-core Muslim, is someone who was raised as a Muslim that later converted to Christianity.  In their eyes, this makes him the worst of all – a Muslim apostate. 

Islamic fundamentalists are only interested in destroying us.  Obama either ignores or does not understand that the first, non-negotiable tenant of Islam is the discarding of any religion, opinion, order, or theory that contradicts Islam.  There is no room for toleration from those who view tolerance itself as evil.

TDM

Sometimes I think God has a sense of humor.  While I am certainly not claiming that the Iceland volcano erupting is retribution for much of the civilized world turning their back on God, it is interesting to consider the following verse from Ezekiel:

Ezekiel 28:18

Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.

 One thing is sure, this volcano should be a wake-up call as to who is really in charge.

 TDM

THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA SPIN!

 Clinton warns of violence from those opposed to Obama administration.  He literally equates this with the Oklahoma City bombing:

 http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100416/D9F4EPUO0.html

 THE REALITY

 Pictures from an anti-war protest in Los Angeles: 

http://www.ringospictures.com/index.php?page=20100320

 Signs from anti-war protestors during Bush administration: 

(You don’t have to read the words, just page down and look at the pictures.) 

 http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621

 Pictures from a Tea Party event in Searchlight, Nevada:

 http://www.lookingattheleft.com/2010/03/showdown-in-searchlight/

 Finally.  The Most Outrageous Depictions From Tax Protests Across The Country, according to the Huffington Post:

 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/16/tea-party-signs-the-most_n_539770.html#s81622

 Why some of these people are literally threatening to vote Democrats out of office.  How dare they? 

 ANY QUESTIONS?

TDM

When a Democratic administration gets a letter like this from Barbara Boxer, the Party is over, at least with regard to the administrations Israel policy.

The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
United States Department of State
Washington, DC 20520

Dear Secretary Clinton:

We write to urge you to do everything possible to ensure that the recent tensions between the U.S. and Israeli administrations over the untimely announcement of future housing construction in East Jerusalem do not derail Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations or harm U.S.-Israel relations. In fact, we strongly believe that it is more important than ever for Israel and the Palestinians to enter into direct, face-to-face negotiations without preconditions on either side.

Despite your best efforts, Israeli-Palestinian negotiations have been frozen for over a year. Indeed, in a reversal of 16 years of policy, Palestinian leaders are refusing to enter into direct negotiations with Israel. Instead, they have put forward a growing list of unprecedented preconditions. By contrast, Israel’s prime minister stated categorically that he is eager to begin unconditional peace negotiations with the Palestinians. Direct negotiations are in the interest of all parties involved – including the United States.

We also urge you to reaffirm the unbreakable bonds that tie the United States and Israel together and to diligently work to defuse current tensions. The Israeli and U.S. governments will undoubtedly, at times, disagree over policy decisions. But disagreements should not adversely affect our mutual interests – including restarting the peace process between Israel and her neighbors and preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

From the moment of Israel’s creation, successive U.S. administrations have appreciated the special relationship between our two nations. Israel continues to be the one true democracy in the Middle East that brings stability to a region where it is in short supply. Whether fighting Soviet expansionism or the current threats from regional aggression and terrorism, Israel has been a consistent, reliable ally and friend and has helped to advance American interests. Similarly, by helping keep Israel strong, the United States has helped to reduce threats to Israel’s security and advance the peace which successive Israeli governments have so avidly sought.

It is the very strength of our relationship that has made Arab-Israeli peace agreements possible, both because it convinced those who desired Israel’s destruction to abandon any such hope and because it gave successive Israeli governments the confidence to take calculated risks for peace. As the Vice President said during his recent visit to Israel: “Progress occurs in the Middle East when everyone knows there is simply no space between the U.S. and Israel.” Steadfast American backing has helped lead to peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan.

We recognize that our government and the Government of Israel will not always agree on particular issues in the peace process. But such differences are best resolved amicably and in a manner that befits longstanding strategic allies. We must never forget the depth and breadth of our alliance and always do our utmost to reinforce a relationship that has benefited both nations for more than six decades.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Barbara Boxer 
United States Senator

Johnny Isakson

United States Senator

Sometimes the most important thing is not what you hear, but what you don’t hear.  Obama challenged critics to explain why they think he is a socialist.  Almost immediately people like Glenn Beck provided quick and well documented answers.  Glenn Beck says that Obama’s grand parents were socialists who like to hang around with communists.  So far, no one has come forward and said that this was inaccurate.  Instead we learn that Stanley Dunham, Obama’s grandfather had an FBI file that was destroyed in 1997.  We may never know, but it wouldn’t be surprising to learn that the FBI had a file on someone who was friends with a known communist like Frank Marshall Davis.

David Remnick, a card-carrying member of the “I Love Obama” media chorus just published a new biography of Obama.  This was reviewed by Jack Cashill, from The American Thinker.   Cashill has an axe to grind, because Remnick rips him for claiming that Obama’s books were actually written by William Ayers, so keep that in mind.  But Cashill writes that Remnick describes Obama as an “unspectacular” student at Columbia.  At least they apparently found someone who remembers him at all.  Cashill also writes that Remnick quotes Communications Professor John McKnight as saying:   “I don’t think [Obama] did too well in college.”   This would be an interesting comment from someone who apparently wrote a letter of recommendation for Obama when he applied for Harvard Law School. 

[A side note.  If Obama did poorly in communications, based on his assumed rhetorical brilliance and speaking skills, he must have been plain awful in his other classes.  There apparently is only one sample of writing by Obama while at Columbia that even Remnick describes as “muddled.”]

Note what you do not hear.  You do not hear anyone saying that Obama’s grandparents and mother were incorrectly characterized as socialists who like to hang around with communists.  You do not hear anyone disputing the characterization of Obama’s performance at Columbia as miserable.   No one has a good explanation why someone who did poorly at Occidental, did poorly at Columbia and won’t release his LSAT scores got admitted to Harvard.  Frankly, the theory of Obama having a rich sugar daddy from Saudi Arabia, who probably made a large donation to grease the skids, makes a lot more sense than the media myth that he was universally recognized as being exceptionally brilliant.

The Rod Blagojevich trial is getting ready to start.  This means that documents will be unsealed and witnesses will be cross examined.  There are a lot of rumors on the internet about Obama’s direct involvement in deals that look a lot like corruption.  Some of these deals allegedly involve Blagojevich.  This trial might be more dangerous for Obama than you think.

Lt. Colonel Lakin is about to be Court Marshaled for refusing to deploy to Afghanistan.  He says he will not deploy until Obama proves he is a U.S. citizen.  He will probably lose, but previous lawsuits demanding proof of Obama’s citizenship were dismissed because the plaintiffs could never establish standing to file a lawsuit.  The Obama administration got them dismissed by saying the plaintiffs could not prove they would be harmed.  It is remotely possible that by being subject to a Court Marshal, Lt. Colonel Lakin may meet the necessary threshold.  It just might result in a court ordering Obama to produce his original birth certificate.  (I find it hard to believe he was born in Kenya, but he sure has spent a lot of time, effort and money to prevent release of this document.)

Obama disappeared over the weekend.  Bizarre story.  Apparently the White House press pool showed up and he was gone.  The story was that he went to his daughters soccer game, but there are other reports there was no game.  Weird.  At best he definitely ducked the White House press pool for some reason.

 Pandora’s Box had been opened and who knows what we will find.

 TDM

President Obama just signed a new nuclear arms treaty with the Soviet Union.  High ranking Democrats willing to bargain with Russia and/or the Soviet Union is not exactly a new trend.  

The Kennedy family is getting a chance to review FBI files on Ted Kennedy before they are released:

 http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/04/12/family_gets_a_say_on_fbi_kennedy_file/

 I wonder if these files will include information regarding alleged activity by Ted Kennedy that many people consider tantamount to treason.

 Following is the text of a letter from Paul Kengor’s book “The Crusader – Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism.  This letter was discovered by Tim Sebastian,  a reporter for the London Times in a review of KGB Documentation.   Naturally, the main stream media just ignored this letter and the serious implications of a U.S. Senator negotiating with the KGB with regard to U.S. foreign policy.

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/kgb-letter-details-kennedy-offer-to-ussr

TEXT OF KGB LETTER ON SENATOR TED KENNEDY
_________________________________________

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 May 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 resistence 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 grandiose, 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 pblished 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, attact 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 interview. 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 term. 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 mutal 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
V. Chebrikov

 The following story from Human Events provides more interesting details:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33301

Apparently the main stream media was uninterested in investigating treason, as long as it was confined to liberal Democrats.  Now that Ted Kennedy is dead and the FBI files are about to be released, perhaps someone will actually report on this.

TDM

I always blamed President Ford, to some extent, about the loss of Vietnam.  I was wrong.  I just read a copy of the speech Gerald Ford gave to a joint session of congress on April 10, 1975.  That was 35 hears ago today.  President Ford practically begged congress to give him the authority to save South Vietnam.  He was unsuccessful.  Sadly, everything bad that he said would happen did happen.  But the Democrats in congress did not care.  They were sick of the war, so they simply looked the other way and tossed all the sacrifices made by our military on the scrap heap of history.  It was a shameful abandonment of our allies.  We are still paying a price today.  If you want to know why Karzai in Afghanistan does not trust Obama to stay the course, just read this speech.  It was a shameful moment in American history.

I was wrong about President Ford.  He made his case.  He did the right thing.  The only thing else he could have done was to defy congress and try to take action on his own.

It is particularly chilling to read the comments about Cambodia.  Approximately 2 million people were killed by the Khmer Rouge as a result of our failure to take action.

 Here, courtesy of flopping aces, is a copy of that speech:

 http://www.floppingaces.net/2010/04/10/the-presidents-address-to-a-joint-session-of-congress/