More Resignations

There have been more resignations at the Center for history’s greatest monster.

Apparently, people don’t like the anti-semetic former President’s position on Israel. It’s a shame it took this for these people to resign, considering President Carter has enabled most of the blood thirsty third-world dictators of the past 30 years by providing legitimacy to their murderous regimes.

I don’t consider it partisan to hate Jimmy Carter. I consider it necessary for humanity. He has hidden behind his aw-shucks Bible toting old man-isms, while applauding the likes of Kim Jong Il, Yassar Arafat, Fidel Castro, and Hugo Chavez to name a few. While his wife contended that Ronald Reagan made us comfortable with our prejudices, Carter was out trying to make the world comfortable with the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocents that he turned a blind eye to while applauding the dictators who killed them.

/end rant.

22 comments

  1. buzzbrockway says:

    Remember that Carter ran for Governor as a segregationist, then reversed course once in office.

    That’s not praise for segregation, but criticism for a man who said what ever he thought he needed to to obtain power.

  2. ColinATL says:

    Erick, I’m ashamed of you. Seriously. This is the kind of post that would make me stop reading this blog immediately. I thought you were opposed to such posts?

    What Carter said was bad for his relationship with Israelis and their American supporters. No doubt. But to call him anti-semitic?

    There’s no excuse for that, Erick.

    Hate him all you want, but keep it off your purpotedly moderate blog.

  3. Jmac says:

    Remember that Carter ran for Governor as a segregationist, then reversed course once in office.

    That’s not praise for segregation, but criticism for a man who said what ever he thought he needed to to obtain power.

    You hold the same for folks like Strom Thurmond and George Wallace then, right? You know, politicians who endorsed openly segregationist policies only to see the error of their ways and try to make right what was wrong.

    Regarding Erick’s post … he doesn’t like Carter. I think he’s being overly dramatic, but whatever. His criticism, however, is misguided because it should go for numerous politicians from both parties from the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. Many Republicans holding office today are responsible for some policies which ultimately empowered our enemies of today.

    It cut both ways. Hawks, like Rumsfeld, pursued aggressive policies which turned a blind eye to Saddam’s regime and gave the resources and training to Al-Qaida. Doves, like Carter, sought to use dialogue and diplomacy to work with dictators, thus in some cases further empowering them.

    Neither policy, in hindsight, appears to be that positive.

  4. rugby_fan says:

    “considering President Carter has enabled most of the blood thirsty third-world dictators of the past 30 years by providing legitimacy to their murderous regimes.”

    Now, I should mention, but I will not, that what Carter did was nothing compared to the work that Reagan did to support such vile and contemptuous human beings.

  5. LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

    The Shah of Iran, Pinochet in Chile, Samoza in Nicaragua, Armas in Guatemala….Yeah right, all were enabled by President Carter. And don’t overlook the fact that all came to power by overthrowing democratically elected leaders who’s ideas weren’t inline with the U.S. I’m not saying I wouldn’t have done the same thing. Afterall, a foreign policy should always be based on a county’s self-interest. But, let’s not overlook the big historical picture just to take an unfair shot at Carter.

  6. LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

    And that goes for you Reagan-haters too. Criticize U.S. involvement in Central America during the 80’s, but all of the major Guerrilla wars are over. The end, sometimes, justifies the means.

  7. Jmac says:

    The end, sometimes, justifies the means.

    Well, yeah … but if you take the Reagan administration’s approach here, you’ve seen anti-communist efforts in the Middle East during the 1970s and 1980s lead to the formation of a radical Islamist organization which is waging war against us now. In South America, we’ve seen the rise of hostile, socialist regimes (largely due to our current policies and largely due to extreme poverty in those nations).

    If the end was to stamp out Soviet incursions in Afghanistan … the end was achieved. But it created an entirely new end that must be addressed.

  8. buzzbrockway says:

    You hold the same for folks like Strom Thurmond and George Wallace then, right? You know, politicians who endorsed openly segregationist policies only to see the error of their ways and try to make right what was wrong.

    Different circumstances. Carter ran his campaign for Governor as a segregationist and then almost immediately upon election set about desegregating Atlanta’s schools. That’s not someone who saw the error of his ways, but someone who took a position he didn’t agree with in order to get elected.

  9. ColinATL says:

    buzz, your statement about Carter running as a segregationist doesn’t jibe with what I understood happened.

    What I understood was that Jimmy played up Carl Sander’s connections to prominent blacks (e.g., passing around photos of Carl with black leaders) and played to some people’s fears of that connection.

    Now that’s not an honorable campaign move if it happened, but it certainly doesn’t rise to the level of “running as a segregationist.”

  10. Jmac says:

    Different circumstances. Carter ran his campaign for Governor as a segregationist and then almost immediately upon election set about desegregating Atlanta’s schools. That’s not someone who saw the error of his ways, but someone who took a position he didn’t agree with in order to get elected.

    ColinATL addresses this pretty well, and though I can concede the principle is admittedly wrong – voter deception ain’t good – the end result was an overwhelmingly good thing, wasn’t it?

    I mean, if we had a long-standing and somewhat popular policy of shooting off the toes of people with red hair, and one campaigned as someone who was content with policy because doing so was essential to election … and then said ‘we’re not going to randomly shoot off the toes of redheads anymore because that’s inhumane and ridiculous’ … are we going to quibble over the details?

  11. JRM2016 says:

    The book alone, whose title links Israel with the old South African regime is per se anti-semitic. Actually reading the book is even more disturbing. Carter’s thesis seems to be: we need peace. The Palestinians refuse to make any concession for peace. Therefore Israel should surrender to achieve “peace”.

    But of course, that is not even close to scratching the surface of Carter’s misdeeds.

    We would not have a crazed Hitler wanna-be running Iran if Carter had supported the Shah as he should have.

    We would not have a nuclear North Korea but for Carter’s brokering the pact that providing N.K. with the supplies they needed to build a bomb as part of a sham “peace” deal.

    He has signed off on more crooked elections that I can discuss in this space, providing usually left-wing despots with an undeserved air of legitimacy.

    I could go on and on, but I have to get back to work.

    But before I do let me address this issue about Reagan/GOP supporting strong men and dictators.

    It is true that happened, in order to serve the purpose of defeating the USSR and winning the Cold War.

    The number of democracies trebled under Reagan/Bush. Why? Because of a clear foreign policy that utilized the means available to achieve what is universally recognized as a necessary goal: the elimination of totalitarian communism.

    Reagan/Bush did not seal the victories of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East in the 1970s. Jimmy Carter did. There would have been no mujahadeen to support in Afghanistan in the 1980s had the Shah remained in power in Iran. Which would have been unfortunate for our proxy war there, but not for humanity in the 2000s.

    Erick I will simply say in response to your original posting: Amen!

  12. GOPeach says:

    Erik-

    WOW!!! You are amazing!!!
    I am amazed at your chutzpah!

    THANK YOU!!!
    Finally somebody can see through
    that big fake grin.

    So Scary Actually-

    It seems few here on PP remember Carter’s involvement with the Bilderberg Trilateral
    Commission and The Council on Foreign Relations… ( as was Clinton)…

    This is what they have in common folks!
    They are communists.

    Anyone who associates with them are
    BLIND in one eye and can’t see out
    of the other one.

    I would rather go to my husband’s
    Jewish Temple than to the
    First Baptist Church of
    The Democrat Party.

  13. LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

    Damn! The Trilateral Commission!!!! I bet he’s a Mason Too!!! I also heard that there’s a stash of Nazi Gold buried under the Carter Center.

  14. jkga says:

    JRM-

    I haven’t read the book, but your statement that the title of the book is per se anti-semitic is flat wrong. Criticizing the actions of the government of Israel is not per se (on its own) anti-semitic, any more than criticizing the actions of the government of China is racist against Asians.

    Carter might be guilty of poor judgment and poor policy prescriptions; like I said, I haven’t read the book. But the rush to label him anti-semitic seems counter-productive to the goal of having a rational discourse.

  15. ColinATL says:

    jkga, we have fooled ourselves into believing that rational discourse was a goal in the first place. 😉

  16. JRM2016 says:

    The book’s title compares the Western democratic regime of Israel with the autocratic segregationist regime that formerly ruled South Africa. That comparison is ludicrous and yes, anti-semitic.

  17. jkga says:

    JRM –

    The comparison is ludicrous because it is a Western democratic regime? That’s strange; the US is a Western democratic regime, and I don’t think it would be ludicrous to use apartheid to describe some US policies of the last century. I don’t think it would display any particular hatred for the inhabitants of the US or disrespect towards their culture or religion either. I’m honestly not getting your point.

  18. JRM2016 says:

    OK, let me try to break this down for you.

    Apartheid was the cornerstone of the South African regime that ruled using awful means to acheive segregation and squelched the voice of any minority. It also did not have the rule of law, a cornerstone of Western democracy that ended slavery and Jim Crow in the U.S.

    My point is Jimmy Carter hates Israel. It is evident from the title of the book, the content of the book and his behavior over the last three decades. He prefers the comradeship of Fidel Castro and Kim Jong-Il, as do his cronies from his D.C. days (see Ramsey Clark).

    If you want to be an apologist for Carter, fine. But if you want to actually look at the record (including his despicable tactics in getting elected Governor of GA in the first place) you will find him a contemptible person, though I won’t go as far as Erick and call him a monster.

  19. Bill Simon says:

    I always considered Rosalynn Carter to be a nice person…Jimma, on the other hand, needs to be placed in Hell in a small rowboat without a paddle, surrounded by swimming bunnies…

Comments are closed.