Illegal Immigration Made Easy The translation on the web site is tounge in cheek (or foot in mouth)

Chris Hawley, of the Arizona Republic, managed to set off quite a firestorm by printing this report about a new Comic book-style guide, titled Guia del Migrante Mexicano, which is for Mexican migrants who are trying to come to the US illegally. According to Hawley:

The 32-page book, The Guide for the Mexican Migrant, was published in December by Mexico’s Foreign Ministry. Using simple language, the book offers safety information for border crossers, a primer on their legal rights and advice on living unobtrusively in the United States.

Dramatic drawings show undocumented immigrants wading into a river, running from the U.S. Border Patrol and crouching near a hole in a border fence. On other pages, they hike through a desert with rock formations reminiscent of Arizona and are caught by a stern-faced Border Patrol agent.

See all of it below

http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=789

The Barack Obama Myth Obama is very liberal. Among his campaign contributors are George Soros, People for the American Way, pro-abortion groups and teacher’s unions. Soros got his money’s worth from Obama, who turned out redmeat antiwar quotations during the run-up to Operation Iraqi Freedom. At an October 2002 antiwar rally, he repeated the false “economy and war” canard of fanatical antiwar liberals

The Barack Obama Myth
By Michael P. Tremoglie
FrontPageMagazine.com | August 6, 2004

If the Democratic National Convention failed to produce a bounce for John Kerry, the same cannot be said of Illinois State Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic Party’s candidate for United States Senator from Illinois. While this rising star in the Democratic Party spouted some conservative themes during his speech, the rhetoric may be deceptive. While Obama spoke of individual responsibility – such as stating that the government cannot teach kids to read, parents must – his ideology and voting record is quite different.

Obama is very liberal. Among his campaign contributors are George Soros, People for the American Way, pro-abortion groups and teacher’s unions. Soros got his money’s worth from Obama, who turned out redmeat antiwar quotations during the run-up to Operation Iraqi Freedom. At an October 2002 antiwar rally, he repeated the false “economy and war” canard of fanatical antiwar liberals. Obama said:

“I don’t oppose all wars…What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Roves to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income…to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.”

When confronted with this quotation by Tim Russert on “Meet the Press,” Obama shrugged it off, not choosing to repeat its conspiracy theories. Russert uncharacteristically did not press the issue. But the quotation would seem to indicate Obama’s inclination to parrot the Michael Moore Left.

In fact, Obama has bristled at being referred to as a mainsteam Democrat. When he was accused by Black Commentator magazine as being co-opted by the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). Black Commentator believes the more moderate rhetoric of the DLC and Bill Clinton’s willingness to compromise with Republicans for political gain have harmed the party. It believes the DLC’s candidates are corrupted by corporations, and refers to conservative black politicians as “black stealth candidates,” which is how they characterized Obama.

Obama was so disturbed by this, he wrote a letter to Black Commentator stating:

“To begin with, neither my staff nor I have had any direct contact with anybody at DLC…I don’t know who nominated me for the DLC list of 100 rising stars…I certainly did not view such inclusion as an endorsement on my part of the DLC platform…I spend much of my time with audiences trying to educate them on the dangers of both the Patriot Act, Patriot Act 2, and the rest of John Ashcroft’s assault on the Constitution…In the last three months alone, I passed and sent to Illinois governor’s desk 25 pieces of major progressive legislation, including groundbreaking laws mandating the videotaping of all interrogations and confessions in capital cases; racial profiling legislation; a new law designed to ease the burden on ex-offenders seeking employment; and a state earned income tax credit that will put millions of dollars directly into the pockets of Illinois’ working poor.”

His voting record certainly displays the ideology characteristic of an indulgent liberal. (Sorry, “Progressive.”)  Obama favors abortion, socialized medicine, and Affirmative Action. Obama sponsored a bill in the Illinois legislature requiring local police departments in Illinois to record the race of anyone stopped for questioning so that the data can be used to track the occurrence of racial profiling. He opposes a $2,000 tax credit for retirement and has voted against private gun ownership, mandatory sentencing and the death penalty. During his tenure as a legislator, he abstained from voting about an abortion parental notification bill and on legislation that would keep pornographic video stores and strip clubs from within 1,000 feet of schools and churches. He has also voted against laws requiring students to complete suspensions before being transferred to other school districts. He abstained from legislation requiring adult prosecution for students who fire guns on school grounds. He opposed legislation making it a criminal offense for accused gang members to associate with known gang members.

Ironically, Obama is the candidate of the racial segregationist. It is not because segregationists want him to be a Senator. It is because he is classified African-American using the standards of racial segregationists.

Obama is called an African–American. However, Obama is half-white. His father, who was black, abandoned him and his mother when he was about two years old. He lived with his white mother and white grandparents.

Considering a mixed race individual an African-American is a typical liberal practice. They routinely refer to anyone who is partially black as black. Tiger Woods, Halle Berry and Mariah Carey are all mixed race celebrities regularly referred to by the liberal media as black. Tiger Woods has had the gall to complain about this. (With good reason; his mother is Asian.)

Ironically, this custom by liberals and Democrats of referring to partially black people as black is simply a reiteration of the old racist, Jim Crow, “one-eighth law.” In racist locales, such as segregation-era Louisiana, people with as little as one-eighth African-American ancestry were classified as black. This classification led to dramatic curtailments of freedom. In Missouri and Mississippi, “The marriage of a white person with a negro or mulatto or person who shall have one-eighth or more of negro blood, shall be unlawful and void.” Obama is black only by the standards of white segregationists. 

By insisting that mixed-race individuals be considered black, Democrats — the party of the unreconstructed South — are displaying their segregationist roots.

Obama the candidate is conservative only when addressing a national television audience. Ironically, the oddball Black Commentator magazine is partially correct. Obama is a stealth candidate – a liberal stealth candidate.

Why you must vote in November Pass this on to your Republican friends The Dems are on thier own

EU’s fight against radical Islam — Religious leaders, politician say only if Muslim immigrants accept western values tensions would subside — (DUSSELDORF) – Henrik Broder, a prominent Jewish journalist in Germany, recently published a book titled, “Hooray! We Surrender!” which criticizes what the author refers to as ‘Europe’s weakness in its battle against Islam.’

Gil Yaron Henrik Broder, a prominent Jewish journalist in Germany, recently published a book titled, “Hooray! We Surrender!” which criticizes what the author refers to as ‘Europe’s weakness in its battle against Islam.’“We must define what sets us aside as a society, and what values we must uphold in our struggle against Islam,” Broder tells Ynet. Broder’s remarks come amid the ever-increasing tension in Europe between the traditional values and those of radical Islam, which are beginning to spread throughout the continent. It began with the Madrid terror attack, which was carried out by a cell of immigrants from North Africa and the Middle East and continued with the London bombings, which were carried out by UK-born Muslims, and the attempts to attack airliners in Britain and trains in Germany. In the interim there were the violent riots in response to the prophet Muhammad caricatures, the outrage and threats over Pope Benedict XVI’s accusations and the public outcry following the UK veils affair.
Muslim Europeans protesting Muhammad cartoons (Photo: AFP)With the end of the Cold War 17 years ago, Europe was able to unite around values of democracy, individualism and a free market. But lately the atmosphere ion Europe has begun to change, and tolerant Europe has started to organize against radical Islam (and some say Islam in general), an ideology that is being referred to more and more as ‘an enemy of modern western society’s lifestyle.

Until recently political correctness reigned in Europe, and those who dared point an accusatory finger at minorities were ostracized. When immigrants attacked their host-countries in Europe, the Europeans blamed western society for ‘inadequately absorbing them.’

Dialogue, not confrontation was the solution to the absorption difficulties of immigrants; criticism of the Muslim minority, part of which refused to accept the social ideals of the majority, was dismissed as racist – and so the Muslims in Europe did not integrate with the western population.

Muslim quarter in Brussels (Photo: Roee Nahmias)

But following Madrid and London attacks, as well as the Muslim riots over the Mohammad caricatures, there are more and more signs indicating that the European Union is beginning to view Islam and the Muslim immigrants as an existential threat.

Mission: Intelligence

About 15 million Muslims live In Europe today, which constitute about 3-4 percent of the population in most European countries. In France, Muslims make up and estimated 10 percent. Police forces across Europe have already started to focus efforts on collecting intelligence information among their countries’ Islamic communities.

For German intelligence, for instance, this is virgin territory. German police, who confer regularly with Jewish officials to assess the threat to their safety, admitted to them that they have know idea of the goings-on in Germany’s Muslim communities.

Senior police officials themselves confessed to Ynet that, “There are whole areas in German cities that in our view are ‘out of bounds’, and we don’t enter them anymore. For too long we thought that as long as we let them manage themselves, they won’t bother us. Now this attitude is taking its revenge on us.”

Germany Defense Ministry official Christian Schmidt, a member of the governing Christian Democrats party (CDU), told Ynet that among the Muslim community in his country, “Thousands tend towards extremism and pose a threat to us.”

He said that contrary to absorption processes in other communities, among Muslims future generations become more fanatic, with “the third generation being the most extremist.”

Currently various German states are considering legislation to obligate imams to carry sermons in German, to “increase the transparency of Muslim communities and abate concern and suspicion.” In effect, this reflects the shortage of Turkish and Arabic speakers in the German intelligence community and the difficulties hindering them from collecting crucial information from this sector.

Tensions between communities have been rising since last summer’s thwarted terror attacks in Britain and Germany. Two and a half month ago plans to blow up two trains in Koln failed to materialize due to technical failures in the makeshift bombs hidden in two suitcases.

German authorities nabbed a number of suspects and the mastermind of the attempted attacks, which prompted a debate about whether the government should make it obligatory for transportation operators to install CCTV cameras on trains.

In Britain a plot to blow up a number of US-bound planes using liquid explosives, shook a nation that was still trying to come to terms with the July 7 attacks two years earlier.

Relations between 1.8 British Muslims and the rest of the country suffered another set back as tension grew and a wide-scale arrest raids conducted against Muslim terror suspects across the country only added fuel to the fire.

The government said it is weighing plans to cut public funds to Muslim schools, although no such plans were considered for the 36 Jewish and 7,000 Christian schools in the monarchy.

In another dramatic development, the Ministry of Education announced new regulation to the higher education system which would make it obligatory for British universities to keep track of the activities of Muslim students and report any suspicious behavior to law enforcement authorities.

Many countries did not suffice with discussions: The governments of Germany and Britain launched dialogue with Muslim organizations in the hope that a European form of Islam – one that is pragmatic and pacifist – would emerge.

In Berlin, the home of many Germans of Turkish origins, Turkish kindergartens would be forced to adopt the German language as the only communication tool in the hope to inoculate minority children with the values of democracy and civil rights.

In Switzerland meanwhile, where Muslims constitute less than one percent of the population, referendums held in a number of cantons reflected the will of an overwhelming majority to limit the spread of Islam. More so, strict immigration laws were introduced, and in many areas the construction of new Mosques has been banned.

Debate on values

But for many this is not enough. While individualism has been a supreme value in Europe for many decades, common European values have been subject to intense debate especially to the backdrop of Turkey’s impending membership in the European Union.

“We need to start public discussions about our values, which we have to communicate in a resolute manner,” Michael Geller, a member of the European parliament representing Germany’s CDU told Ynet.

“Islam is not a threat yet, but a challenge that forces us to define our common values. Citizen rights and the status of women especially are things that should be assimilated among Muslim immigrants,” he said.

Henrik Broder however is a skeptic. “I don’t think Europe know to do something besides to surrender. People have no idea what they are fighting for. We can’t set the clock back, and I don’t want Europe to give up on its Muslims. But when the Dutch justice minister says it is possible for Sharia to become the basis for Dutch laws and when in England there are independent Sharia courts – that’s the end of European society as we know it,” he said.

The Associated (with terrorists) Press

The Associated (with terrorists) Press By Michelle Malkin

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |  The Associated Press proudly calls itself the “essential global news network” and a “bastion of the people’s right to know around the world.” But when it comes to the “people’s right to know” whether Associated Press employees are cooperating with terrorists overseas, the “essential global news network’s” motto is: Bug off.
On April 12, I learned from military sources that an Associated Press photographer in Iraq, Fallujah native Bilal Hussein, had been captured in Ramadi in an apartment with insurgents and a cache of weapons. This was news. I asked the AP for confirmation. Corporate spokesman Jack Stokes informed me that company officials were “looking into reports that Mr. Hussein was detained by the U.S. military in Iraq but have no further details at this time.” After reporting the alleged detention on my blog ( michellemalkin.com/archives/005941.htm), I followed up several more times with AP over the past five months for status updates on Hussein. No reply.

On Sept. 17, the Associated Press finally acknowledged that Hussein was being detained. The AP’s overdue revelation was likely part of an attempt to drum up sympathy for Hussein, who has made critical public statements against our troops in Fallujah, and undermine Bush administration interrogation efforts involving military detainees. The AP article not only confirmed Hussein’s capture, it also revealed (buried deep in the story) that it knew of Hussein’s capture from at least May 7 — when it received an e-mail from U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Jack Gardner revealing bombshell details:

“The military said Hussein was captured with two insurgents, including Hamid Hamad Motib, an alleged leader of al-Qaida in Iraq. ‘He has close relationships with persons known to be responsible for kidnappings, smuggling, improvised explosive device (IED) attacks and other attacks on coalition forces,’ according to a May 7 e-mail from U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Jack Gardner, who oversees all coalition detainees in Iraq.

In fact, the Pentagon said on Monday, after three separate independent reviews, the military had deemed Hussein a security threat with “strong ties to known insurgents . . . involved in activities that were well outside the scope of what you would expect a journalist to be doing in that country.” Hussein “tested positive for traces of explosives.”

Let me repeat that: An Associated (with terrorists) Press journalist gets caught with an alleged al Qaeda leader and tests positive for bomb-making materials. That. Is. News. How does a news organization explain away its decision to sit on it for five months? Like this: “The AP has worked quietly until now, believing that would be the best approach.”

The best approach to journalism? No. The best approach to suppressing a damning connection to terrorists.

The mainstream media enjoys mocking bloggers as journalistic wannabes who don’t do any “real” reporting and have no concern for the “public interest.” But as in the case of the Reuters photo faking debacle this summer, it is bloggers in their little home offices — not the professionals on the ground thousands of miles away — who smoked out a war story with profound national security implications. Well before I reported on Hussein’s capture, military bloggers and media watchdog bloggers had raised persistent questions over the past two years about Hussein’s relationship with terrorists in Iraq and whether his photos were staged in collusion with our enemies. (For a thorough overview, see http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/cat_bilal_hussein.php.)

Hussein’s up-close-and-personal insurgent propaganda photos include a Pulitzer Prize-winning image of four terrorists in Fallujah firing a mortar and small arms at our troops in November 2004, several chilling photos with terrorists before, during and after the Iraqi desert execution of kidnapped Italian civilian hostage Salvatore Santoro, and repeat images of Sunni locals in Theater of Jihad poses.

In an investigation of war photo staging and fakery earlier this spring, National Journal’s Neil Munro exposed another dubious Hussein photo taken in October 2005 of a purported funeral image outside Ramadi. An accompanying article claimed the U.S. had bombed the crowd including 18 children. But according to the military, video footage of the air strike against terrorist roadside bombers in that incident showed only what appeared to be grown men where the bomb struck. Munro reported: “AP officials declined to make Hussein available for an interview.”

The Hussein case may be the tip of the iceberg. In December 2005, AP television footage was used to spread bogus reports (see http://www.rantingprofs.com/rantingprofs/2005/12/who_you_gonna_b.html) of a fake “uprising” in Ramadi. Earlier this spring independent milblogger Bill Roggio identified another suspicious AP/Hussein-photographed scene in Ramadi (see http://billroggio.com/archives/2006/04/a_street_corner_in_r.php). And blogger Clarice Feldman at The American Thinker recently highlighted an Iraqi intelligence document that bragged about “one of our sources (the degree of trust in him is good) who works in the American Associated Press Agency” (see http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=6058).

I e-mailed the AP yesterday to find out whether any other AP employees are currently in military detention. The people have a “right to know,” don’t they?
 

Liberal media allergic to American values

Liberal media allergic to American values http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |By Michelle Malkin CNN founder Ted Turner opened his mouth this week at the National Press Club, and promptly demonstrated why America needs Fox News Channel now more than ever.
Three years after the invasion of Iraq, Turner is still pouting about public displays of patriotism on American airwaves: “I mean, I just really wonder during the, during the last war, you know, what business did it have in the news sets to have the American flag flying in the background. Uh, I mean, it was like the news media covered the Iraq war, at least at the beginning of it, almost as like it was a football game with us versus them.”

Funny, I can’t recall Turner getting his undergarments in a bunch when CNN chose Saddam Hussein’s side and former CNN executive Eason Jordan admitted the global news network had withheld reporting on Baathist atrocities in exchange for inside access and protection of its Baghdad staff. Recall Jordan’s confession published in the New York Times after America toppled Saddam’s regime in April 2003:

“I came to know several Iraqi officials well enough that they confided in me that Saddam Hussein was a maniac who had to be removed. One Foreign Ministry officer told me of a colleague who, finding out his brother had been executed by the regime, was forced, as a test of loyalty, to write a letter of congratulations on the act to Saddam Hussein. An aide to Uday once told me why he had no front teeth: henchmen had ripped them out with pliers and told him never to wear dentures, so he would always remember the price to be paid for upsetting his boss. Again, we could not broadcast anything these men said to us.”

It’s fine and dandy for CNN to wave Saddam’s flag and carry his blood-stained water. But when Fox News sticks a two-postage-stamp-sized American flag on its screen? Only then will Ted Turner declare that journalism and reportorial objectivity have gone to hell.
But Turner’s disdain for putting American citizenship above “citizen-of-the-world” preening isn’t peculiar. It’s the prevailing attitude in our newsrooms. Remember after the September 11 attacks when Stacey Woelfel, news director at KOMU-TV in Columbia, Mo., directed his staff to “leave the ribbons at home” in order to show viewers “that in no way are we influenced by the government in informing the public?” Or how about when ABC News spokesman Jeffrey Schneider told the Washington Post: “Especially in a time of national crisis, the most patriotic thing journalists can do is to remain as objective as possible.(W)e cannot signal how we feel about a cause, even a justified and just cause, through some sort of outward symbol.”
Elite news editors shrug at their reporters’ highly politicized activities — from AIDS fund-raisers to pro-abortion rallies, environmental propaganda, and unhinged Bush-bashing (new case in point: New York Times reporter Linda Greenhouse’s recent moonbatty screed at Harvard University assailing everything from Gitmo to the Mexican-U.S. border fence). But wear a flag pin? Heresy!

When the New York Times blabs classified information about terrorism investigations and is reported to have tipped off FBI investigations of terror charity front groups, ethics mavens yawn. But when Fox News anchor Chris Wallace dares to broach President Clinton’s war on terror failures, the mainstream media caterwauling crescendoes. When Wallace is derided as a “monkey” for doing his job and Fox News head Roger Ailes’ weight is mocked, the civility police in our journalism schools shut their eyes and ears.

When insipid New York Times columnists recycle mediocre columns into their umpteenth books, they score multiple book reviews and fawning magazine covers. When the number one cable talk host tops the best-seller list (again), crickets chirp. Bill O’Reilly’s latest book, “Culture Warrior,” is as much O’Reilly’s story of success as it is Fox News Channel’s. O’Reilly’s fight against America-snubbing “secular progressives” is also Roger Ailes’. When the New York Times disparaged O’Reilly’s war on the war on Christmas as a manufactured hoax, it was disparaging Fox News Channel’s decision to listen to its audience — and respond.

The liberal media’s 10-year allergic reaction to Fox News is triggered by any remotely positive exposure to American values on American airwaves. Well, here’s to the next ten years of giving establishment journalism the hives. Keep Old Glory flying high . It’s driving Ted Turner mad.
 

Multicuturalism or National Suicide?? 2050: AmericaA Nation of Turtles — I don’t agree with Buchanan often but I do on this

By Patrick J. Buchanan
Friday, October 20, 2006

Does it matter who was the 300 millionth “American”? Indeed, it does.

Police keep watch as demonstrators on both sides of the U.S. immigration debate chant slogans against each other’s beliefs in front of the Mexican consulate in New York October 7, 2006. REUTERS/Chip East (UNITED STATES)

If it was a baby born to an American, that is wonderful news. If it was a baby born to an illegal alien, it means we have lost control of our borders. And as Ronald Reagan said, a country that can’t control its borders isn’t really a country anymore. And if it was a Mexican who slipped over the Rio Grande in the early morning darkness of Oct. 17, it may be a harbinger of the end of America, as we knew her. If the people are not celebrating the 300 million along with the editorial writers, it is because there is a strong likelihood the individual added to our number is not an American at all, and because the extraordinary growth of the American family was not the free choice of the American people. We have 300 million here today only because the government of the United States refuses to enforce our immigration laws and the people were misled or lied to when the Immigration Act of 1965 was passed. Who was the chairman of the subcommittee that conducted the hearings? Edward M. Kennedy. And what did Sen. Kennedy promise? Here are his own words of four decades ago: “Our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same. … The ethnic mix of this country will not be upset. … Contrary to the charges in some quarters, S. 500 will not inundate America with immigrants from any other country or area, or the most populated and economically deprived nations of Africa and Asia.” Only haters would make such assertions, Kennedy thundered. “The charges I have mentioned are highly emotional, irrational and with little foundation in fact. They are out of line with the obligations of responsible citizenship. They breed hate of our heritage.” How good were the senator’s assurances? Today, we have 36 million immigrants and their children here, some 90 percent from Third World nations whose peoples have never before been assimilated into a First World nation. A third, 12 million, are here in violation of our laws. Most of those coming now are poor and uneducated, and are unable to speak our language. Some do not wish to become Americans. But they are sending our crime, poverty and disease rates skyward, and pulling U.S. academic scores down toward Third World levels. But what is most significant about these deep and irreversible alterations in the character of the nation is that the American people never voted for it and do not want it. It is being imposed from above, anti-democratically, by a regime that refuses to enforce our laws and is now at virtual war with the American people. Though immigration is the hottest domestic issue in 2006, and every candidate in a close race is taking a hard line on border security — even Hillary Clinton voted for 700 miles of security fence — the will of the people is ignored. According to a poll released Monday by The Center for Immigration Studies, 68 percent of Americans say immigration is too high. Only 2 percent believe it is too low. Yet the McCain-Kennedy-Bush bill would have granted amnesty to millions of illegal aliens and doubled the number of legal immigrants. The failure to restrict immigration so the Melting Pot can work, the refusal to seal the border despite what America wants, suggests ours has ceased to be a democratic republic. “Here, sir, the people rule!” used to be a proud boast. Today, the line is laughable. In my book “State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America,” I projected that by 2050, every city in America would look like Los Angeles, and Los Angeles and the cities of the Southwest would look like Mexico City. And what is happening to Los Angeles? According to Robert Putnam, Harvard political scientist and author of “Bowling Alone,” the trust among people in “this most diverse human habitation in human history” is now at rock bottom, the lowest anywhere he could find. “In the presence of diversity,” said Putnam, “we hunker down. We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it’s not just that we don’t trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities we don’t trust people who look like us.” The more people of different races that live in a community, the greater the loss of trust, said Putnam. “They don’t trust the local mayor, they don’t trust the local paper, they don’t trust other people, and they don’t trust institutions. … The only thing there is more of is protest marches and TV watching.” Welcome to the Brave New World our elites are creating for our children, as they consign the America we grew up in to the compost heap of history.  

KGB Letter Outlines Sen. Kennedy’s Overtures to Soviets, Prof Says

KGB Letter Outlines Sen. Kennedy’s Overtures to Soviets, Prof Says
By Kevin Mooney
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
October 20, 2006

(CNSNews.com) – The antipathy that congressional Democrats have today toward President George W. Bush is reminiscent of their distrust of President Ronald Reagan during the Cold War, a political science professor says.

“We see some of the same sentiments today, in that some Democrats see the Republican president as being a threat and the true obstacle to peace, instead of seeing our enemies as the true danger,” said Paul Kengor, a political science professor at Grove City College and the author of new book, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism.

In his book, which came out this week, Kengor focuses on a KGB letter written at the height of the Cold War that shows that Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) offered to assist Soviet leaders in formulating a public relations strategy to counter President Reagan’s foreign policy and to complicate his re-election efforts.

The letter, dated May 14, 1983, was sent from the head of the KGB to Yuri Andropov, who was then General Secretary of the Soviet Union’s Communist Party.

In his letter, KGB head Viktor Chebrikov offered Andropov his interpretation of Kennedy’s offer. Former U.S. Sen. John Tunney (D-Calif.) had traveled to Moscow on behalf of Kennedy to seek out a partnership with Andropov and other Soviet officials, Kengor claims in his book.

At one point after President Reagan left office, Tunney acknowledged that he had played the role of intermediary, not only for Kennedy but for other U.S. senators, Kengor said. Moreover, Tunney told the London Times that he had made 15 separate trips to Moscow.

“There’s a lot more to be found here,” Kengor told Cybercast News Service. “This was a shocking revelation.”

It is not evident with whom Tunney actually met in Moscow. But the letter does say that Sen. Kennedy directed Tunney to reach out to “confidential contacts” so Andropov could be alerted to the senator’s proposals.

Specifically, Kennedy proposed that Andropov make a direct appeal to the American people in a series of television interviews that would be organized in August and September of 1983, according to the letter.

“Tunney told his contacts that Kennedy was very troubled about the decline in U.S -Soviet relations under Reagan,” Kengor said. “But Kennedy attributed this decline to Reagan, not to the Soviets. In one of the most striking parts of this letter, Kennedy is said to be very impressed with Andropov and other Soviet leaders.”

In Kennedy’s view, the main reason for the antagonism between the United States and the Soviet Union in the 1980s was Reagan’s unwillingness to yield on plans to deploy middle-range nuclear missiles in Western Europe, the KGB chief wrote in his letter.

“Kennedy was afraid that Reagan was leading the world into a nuclear war,” Kengor said. “He hoped to counter Reagan’s polices, and by extension hurt his re-election prospects.”

As a prelude to the public relations strategy Kennedy hoped to facilitate on behalf of the Soviets, Kengor said, the Massachusetts senator had also proposed meeting with Andropov in Moscow — to discuss the challenges associated with disarmament.

In his appeal, Kennedy indicated he would like to have Sen. Mark Hatfield (R-Ore.) accompany him on such a trip. The two senators had worked together on nuclear freeze proposals.

But Kennedy’s attempt to partner with high-level Soviet officials never materialized. Andropov died after a brief time in office and was succeeded by Mikhail Gorbachev.

In his attempt to reach out the Soviets, Kennedy settled on a flawed receptacle for peace, Kengor said. Andropov was a much more belligerent and confrontational leader than the man who followed him, in Kengor’s estimation.

“If Andropov had lived and Gorbachev never came to power, I can’t imagine the Cold War ending peacefully like it did,” Kengor told Cybercast News Service. “Things could have gotten ugly.”

In the long run of history, Kengor believes it is evident that Reagan’s policies were vindicated while Kennedy was proven wrong. In fact, as he points out in his book, Kennedy himself made a “gracious concession” after Reagan died, crediting the 40th president with winning the Cold War.

A vote for civil war —- Interesting concept

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56 other followers