Just want to share with you guys some of my thoughts by the following quotes.

To whom Carter wrote his book:

____________________
... some 10,000 people rallied in the center of metro Detroit's Arab-American community in Dearborn on Tuesday...carried signs saying "Down, down Israel" ...

"We know that the president is being bought by the Zionist lobby. We know that the (U.S.) Congress is being bought by the Zionist lobby ... a speaker held a portrait of Hassan Nasrallah, Hizballah's secretary-general. The crowd burst into applause.

Rana Abbas-Chami, deputy director of the Michigan Chapter of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, called ... The U.S. is just as guilty as Israel is. History will not forgive, nor will it ever forget, these ..."

Many people among metro Detroit's Arab-American population say they believe Hizballah -- considered a terrorist group by the U.S. government ...

BY NIRAJ WARIKOO, FREE PRESS STAFF WRITERS. July 19, 2006
__________________

The people above is exactly the target audience of Carter's book.

See also:
Carter the unbiased observer of the Middle East that he claims to be. He has accepted money and an award from Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan, saying in 2001: "This award has special significance for me because it is named for my personal friend, Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan."

This is the same Zayed, the long-time ruler of the United Arab Emirates, whose $2.5 million gift to the Harvard Divinity School was returned in 2004 due to Zayed's rampant Jew-hatred.

Zayed's personal foundation, the Zayed Center, claims that it was Zionists, rather than Nazis, who "were the people who killed the Jews in Europe" during the Holocaust.

It has held lectures on the blood libel and conspiracy theories about Jews and America perpetrating Sept. 11.

Carter's acceptance of money from this biased group casts real doubt on his objectivity and creates an obvious conflict of interest.

© Copyright 2006 Globe Newspaper Company. Why won't Carter debate his book? by Alan Dershowitz | December 21, 2006.
___________

What was done by Carter 1977-81:

http://pics.livejournal.com/abcdefgh/pic/0009cett

__________________
Suicidal Tendencies Of The West
by Bruce S. Thornton [author, academic] 12/20/06
http://www.californiarepublic.org/archives/Columns/Thornton/20061219ThorntonSuicidal.html
____________

President Carter issued "Letter to Jewish citizens of America":

"I have never claimed that American Jews control the news media, but reiterated that the overwhelming bias for Israel comes from among Christians like me who have been taught since childhood to honor and protect God's chosen people from among whom came our own savior, Jesus Christ."
The Associated Press. Dec. 15, 2006
___________
The same day Carter spoke to NEWSWEEK's Eleanor Clift:
... the powerful influence of AIPAC [the American Israel Public Affairs Committee]... they have a perfect right to lobby, but ... any member of Congress who's looking to be re-elected couldn't possibly say that they would take a balanced position between Israel and the Palestinians, or that they would insist on Israel withdrawing to international borders, or that they would dedicate themselves to protect human rights of Palestinians—it's very likely that they would not be re-elected"

Newsweek Dec. 25, 2006 - Jan. 1, 2007 issue,
________________

Unfortunately Carter is not alone in this his efforts:

Shortly after the attacks on 9/11, some Americans filed a $1 trillion lawsuit against Saudi officials .... Who is a senior partner in one of the law firms Saudi Defense Minister Sultan bin ‘Abd-al-’Aziz hired for his defense? You guessed it: James Baker III.

MensNEWSdaily®, December 08, 2006
_______________

James A. Baker is Senior Partner of Baker Botts, a legal firm very active in Middle East affairs perhaps never more visibly than as legal representation for the Saudi Royal family in the lawsuits brought by the families of 9/11 victims.

© Kos Media, LLC
_______________

Baker Key to "Dubai Ports" Mess

Former Reagan Chief-of-Staff, ex-Treasury Secretary,
ex-Secretary of State, ex-NSC Council Member, ex-GWB chief
legal advisor, etc, and recent US Special Envoy for Iraq debt
is the invisible man in the middle of this mess.

Baker Key to Dubai Ports Mess. Feb 23, 2006

_______________

Iran Reacts Favorably to the Baker-Hamilton Plan. TIME - 16 hours ago
... Responding to the Baker-Hamilton report's proposal that Washington move quickly to engage Iran on talks over stabilizing Iraq, Foreign Minister Manouchehr ...
Jordanian Islamists: Baker report indicative of fading US ...
Monsters and Critics.com, UK - 18 hours ago
Amman - The Islamic Action Front (IAF), Jordan's largest political party, on Saturday considered the Baker Commission report a signal of 'fading US influence ...
PLO Praises Baker-Hamilton Report, would "seriously" Deal with ...
WAFA - Palestine News Agency, Palestinian Territories - 22 hours ago
... It praised the Baker-Hamilton report and asserted that the recommendations in the report are a preface to break the ice of the political process. ...
_________

I don't evenknow where to begin...all I can say is please, PLEASE do your research before making such broad generalizing statements about non-Judeo-Christians. The mere fact that you use that term indicates your lack of understanding on the subject given the fact that Christians were dialectically opposed to Jews up until the mid Twentieth Century, and only after the fallout of WWII have two of the three branches of Abrahamian doctrine been loosely aligned.

As you say here all the time, "mankind is flawed". So I don't see your logic in attributing greater value to one form of mankind's political identity over another (secular v. religious). The fact is that your J-C ethics are the same which, throughout history, has been responsible for millions of deaths (Inquisition, Crusades, KKK, slavery, European colonization and genocide of the Americas and Africa, etc) just as most strict dogmatic belief systems have; including Leninism/Stalinism and Nazism.

(Ed. Note: Anti-Catholic lie deleted).

I can't speak for all "lefties/liberals", but I don't hate the right. I appreciate your existence as a balancing force in a cooperative society. I don't want everyone to think like I do, unlike conservatives/christians. There is room in my world for debate and an exchange of ideas. This is only possible because some of us have progressed past doing what a 2000-year old text tells us. But again, I know spirituality can be beautiful, but as we have seen throughout history it too often gets used as an excuse to do inhumane and irrational things; all in the name of God.

I'd like to imagine if she did exist, God would be disappointed in all those who treat others as less-than in her name...

Anillo,

Do you even know how many people suffered the death penalty in the approximate 600 years the Inquisition existed? 31,912. That is 53 a year...how many are aborted every year just in the United States due to the secularists getting their way? 1,370,000. Who is more blood thirsty?

How many did Stalin kill? Lenin? Hitler? Mao? Pol Pot? Castro? Ho Chi Minh? I don't recall seeing any of them in church...

And we Christians stopped murdering people for dissent ages ago...how many were executed in communist China in 2004? 3,400. They keep that up for another 9 years, and just in that 10 year period they'll have killed more than the Inquisition.

Now, the "genocide" of the native Americans...most of them died of smallpox, whooping cough, measles, mumps, etc...and while they were dying there wasn't one European who had even the slightest clue how the diseases were transmitted...unless you want to condemn Europeans for moving about, you can't assign to them responsibility for most of the deaths. And for those Europeans who were being cruel to the natives, who was demanding they stop? Yeah, that's it - the Catholic church.

Before you come in here casting stones, perhaps you'd better do a bit of research...and if you ever attempt to repeat that anti-Catholic slander again, you'll be banned for good.

AMAZING how much you guys sound like Islamic fundamentalists, e.g. Shayk Yassin of Hamas: Down with secularism, down with the values of the world! Only through religious rule can we live a life pleasing to God! Just a couple changed words:

"There is a flaw out there in our Palestinian civilization - and it is in any and all political ideologies which do not conform themselves to the dictates of Muslim morality. You see, if you have an ideology which considers society a mere aggregation of individuals in space; an ideology which attempts to be utilitarian; an ideology which is infused with Darwinist materialsim; an ideology which asserts there is no absolute moral truth; an idelogy which says we can create heaven here on earth - any of these or any combination of them contained within a political ideology will make it flawed." -Hamas, on why secular Palestinians shouldn't rule

Just astounding the similarities...

Greg,

There is a long and dishonorable tradition among some American politicians to truckle to the Arabs for money...its really sad, and disgusting.

Thank you, Greg, for your excellent contribution to the thread.

I always use a Capital L when I use the word Liberal to describe the new radical Left, as it is actually the most illiberal of movements.

One blatant example of the illiberalism of the Liberal Left is the attitude on college campuses all over the country toward any speaker or even any teacher who does not toe the radical Left line. They shout and protest and march for "freedom of speech" but when it comes to allowing anyone with a dissenting opinion to speak they boycott, heckle, harass, and even attack in efforts to stifle that speech. They threaten administrations, they swarm the podiums, they incite riots, they act like thugs in their determination to control the information made available to college students.

Liberal? What a laugh.....

Jack,

Please find me a Hamas quote which is even remotely like mine...if you can't, then I'll expect your written apology, which I will then post on this blog as an entry where we can discuss how the left just makes up stuff as they to along...

Just astounding the similarities...

Jack-off, just what is "astounding the similarities?" And just how do you "astound the similarities?"

I guess it's only logical that since you can't comprehend what you read, you can't write coherently, either.

And you LIbErals are supposed to be the educated ones...

IWCT, Jack is just being an apologist for the Islamic terrorists by pretending there is no difference between them and Christians. It does demand a total ignorance of (and/or denial of) obvious truths, but then he is a wild-eyed radical Lib and we can't expect anything different.

It's almost like arguing that there is no difference between tigers and rabbits, and "proving" this point by listing the things they have in common---hair, ears, teeth, warm blood....

But it is essential for the Left to undermine religion. Eventually they will ban it, if given a chance, but first they have to weaken its support and encourage this kind of disrespect and distrust.

Why do I think the Left would actually ban religion if they could? Oh, just a knowledge of history......

I suppose this is where we differ.

Yes, you can blame the Europeans for "moving about". The simple fact is the indigenous population was killed directly by the presence of European invaders. Those who didn't die of diseases brought by settlers were killed by guns or eventually driven onto reservations where they still live today without any sort of equality or respect.

And you dismiss Africa, where uncountable millions were killed in colonization and the slave trade, both of which happened for the sake of good christian nations. You can't blame the plight of Africa on Europeans simply "moving about".

And there is a huge difference between comparing the "31,912" who died in your extended Inquisition through torture and abortions in the US. Abortions are performed for a variety of reasons, not just out of 'liberal bloodthirst'. But as your side would have it, we'd let those 1.4 million babies be born then absorbed into the social welfare system the GOP is so eager to bolster...oh, wait, maybe I'm mistaken.

And as for my ban, I don't care. What I said is debatable, although your inclination to censor it shows a spirit of white-washing the past typical of many institutions when in reality we would all be a lot better if we faced our mistakes and learned from them.

You may be surprised, but I respect the Church for more reasons than you would know, and their actions during the 1930s weren't much different than the rest of the world's. But it is people like you who want to believe that some are infallible despite reality.

Anillo,

The plain fact of the matter is that vastly more people were killed by the various secular ideologies of modern times than were ever killed by any religion at any time in the past - including the savage rites of human sacrifice in Mexico which, thank God, was put an end to by the Conquistadores.

As for that African slave trade - "trade" is the operational word there: hardly any slaves were captured by Europeans (plain fact: European ships could only with difficulty approach the shallow African coast...by the time they could put out a boat and row a mile or so to shore, the local Africans would have taken off). The slaves were purchased by Europeans from other Africans (who fought bloody wars with each other for the privilege of selling their fellow Africans into slavery) and Moslem Arabs. And Christians, at great cost in blood and treasure, put an end to it.

Lies and slanders are getting tiresome from the left these days.

And as for my ban, I don't care.

That's reason enough for me. C'mon, Mark, ban the kook. He doesn't care; he can find another blog to pollute. Ban him...

"Trade" refers to the exchange between whites, not Africans. It is a fact that there was slavery and violence on the continent before the Europeans first landed, but it was a system in which slaves could earn their freedom through work, were not systematically abused and raped by their owners, and where their children were most-often born into freedom.

The fact is that there would have been no institutional slavery were it not for the European demand, and thus no market for some African's to sell other Africans to. And besides, not all slaves were exported. More Africans were killed in the Congo by the efforts of Christian King Leopold in the 19th Century than in the entire Holocaust, not just counting the Jews.

And really? The Conquistadores as a virture? I suppose there's nothing in the Bible forbiding men to pretend they're gods, is there?

Almiranta, I won't even call them Liberal with a capital L. They are Leftists. A liberal person is open minded, the American Left is about as closed minded of a political beast as you can find.

I'm with IWCT Mark.

Ban the puke. They can go preach their Darwin theory crap somewhere more monkeys will listen.
Like the Daily Hogs!

A liberal person is open minded, the American Left is about as closed minded of a political beast as you can find.

Exactly--the Left has hijacked the liberal movement, and turned it into the most intolerant, lying outfit on the face of the earth.

What happened to the good old days of smiling hippies with flowers in their hair, throwing frisbees in the park, and giving us all the peace sign? That's how I remember them; now they're just so hateful...

> I've long been of the opinion that Carter is a rather mean, little man who has never been able to forgive the United States for not re-electing him in 1980.

You're nuts. Ya'll right-wingers keep on trying to pull off this "grand illusion" that you aren't in it with the nazis by projecting your image onto your opposition.

Your hate for Carter was never justified.

Evil takes many forms. Carter and his LEGION manifest one form of evil that's targeted against God's Chosen People-the Jews, and against God's Promised Land-Israel. Carter's/the LEGION's actions are wicked.

Anillo,

Oh, yeah - forgot about that: the world of PC-BS history has it that Africans enslaving other Africans was "good" slavery, and it only became bad when non-Africans got into the act...lets just leave aside the fact that the African slave trade was started by the Moslems centuries before the Christians got involved....after all, tiresome facts like that get in the way of a good anti-white tirade.

You do realise that there really isn't any difference between Europeans and Africans, right? You are aware that both are homo sapiens and thus share all the same strengths and weaknesses? Or are you going to tell me that all was Paradise until the evil, wicked white man came along and made a hash out of it?

Please spare me all that - it is an insult to the study of history to try and sell people on such asinine notions....what is next? You gonna try and tell us that the Egyptians founded Greek philosophy and science?

And when given a choice between savages who cut the hearts out of victims and then eat then on the one hand and rapacious freebooters on the other, I'll take the freebooters. Just try and tell me that if you knew of people like the Mexica today you wouldn't be advocating a punitive expedition against such barbarians...a good calendar and some interesting architecture don't make up for human sacrifice and cannibalism.

Mark

Don't forget, when you're so correctly reminding people that the Europeans didn't intentionally kill Native Americans (Indians) with their diseases, the Indians brought tobacco to the Western world and to this day are responsible (by the left's reckoning) for the death of many, many millions of non-Native Americans.

> Stanley Rosenthal at December 23, 2006 11:16 PM wrote to Mark Noonan: "Your hate for Carter was never justified."

Dear Stanley,

Let me continue to follow the basic rull:
"Reasonable until Proven ... to Be a Liberal"

I still suppose that you are an open-minded person. So, please, take a look, if you will have a chance, what Mr. Carter was doing when he was overseas:
________
Carter: No, as a matter of fact, the concerns I exposed have gotten even worse now with the United States supporting and encouraging Israel in its unjustified attack on Lebanon.

SPIEGEL: But wasn't Israel the first to get attacked?

Carter: I don't think that Israel has any legal or moral justification for their massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon.

What happened is that Israel is holding almost 10,000 prisoners, so when the militants in Lebanon or in Gaza take one or two soldiers, Israel looks upon this as a justification for an attack on the civilian population of Lebanon and Gaza. I do not think that's justified, no.

Carter: I think I represent the vast majority of Democrats in this country.

SPIEGEL INTERVIEW WITH JIMMY CARTER. August 15, 2006.
___________

You might want also to know, why he is doing this "strange job" overseas:
_______
Carter's Arab financiers, Washington Times, DC - Dec 20, 2006
_______

You might want also to remind yourself what Carter was doing in Office 1977-81:
- do you remember 444-day Iran Hostage Crisis?
- do you remember what
level of the inflation Carter's administration proudly achieved?

Who is finally Mr.Carter:
____

The latest example of this moral incoherence can be found in the title of ex-President Jimmie Carter’s book Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid.

The use of “apartheid” to describe the measures Israel is forced to take to defend its citizens from being blown up by murderers is obscene.

It recalls the U.N. resolution that condemned Zionism as racism and that was rescinded only because the U.S. threatened to withhold funds.

Carter’s use of this word bespeaks either profound ignorance or an animus against Israel whose roots one can only speculate on.

Carter’s harping on the “Israel lobby,” the latest model of that old “Elders of Zion” calumny in which nefarious Jews rule the world, suggests that Carter may harbor some unpleasant prejudices.

Suicidal Tendencies Of The West by Bruce S. Thornton [author, academic] 12/20/06. theOneRepublic.com
____

You Stanley wrote that you are looking for "nazis". Who are these "nazis"?

Almost all of them now at the left side. They are rewriting "good old" German nazis' slogans and the Jews are their first target again.

There are still only two-three "nazis" at the right side now: Pat Buchanan, Robert Novak and ... that's it.

There are lots of them among the leftists.

Think.

Sincerely,
Greg

I forgot. You can never really do history unless it is from the Western European perspective. Of course there was no real difference between the mechanics of shipping millions of Africans across the ocean and ferrying them between villages. Slave owners in the New World didn't really mean to systematically sever families, tribes, and language bonds between their cargo, it just happened. We should ignore the fact that most slaves owned by Africans in Africa could own property, marry, keep their children, etc, because it really isn't that big of a difference of what happened in the Americas.

And while yes, Africans and Europeans are both the same species, it is odd that you want to ignore such a thing as...oh, what's it called? Culture. If everyone is so similar, why did one continent establish a nation-state system based on markets while another grew into a locality-centric communal society? Or is your point that there's no real difference between capitalists and socialists? No difference between Christians and Muslims? I whole-heartedly agree with you on those points.

I'd rather insult history than the people who have been marginalized and ignored by it. The field is just now beginning to have brave men and women willing to re-examine orthodox scholarship in an effort to shed light on the contribution of those trampled by champions of Western superiority.

Come ON, Stanley----this hysterical determination on the radical Left to define any criticism as HATE is simply silly.

Carter got a pass for decades, because he was seen as a bascially good guy. Inept, in way over his head, but deep-down honest and well-meaning. What was seen as naivete was not scorned. He was accepted as a nice man who meant well but who didn't have a clue.

Hate? Get real.

Even when Carter started to believe his own publicity and started posturing as a "statesman" he was treated kindly. Even when his version of "statesmanship" started to take on a dark tinge of overt anti-Americanism, even when his desire to be loved on the world stage led him into lovefests with brutal dictators, he was not raked over the coals. No, even then he got a free ride, as our befuddled and wrong-headed but sincere and well-meaning ex President who was just being used by the radical Left.

If anything, he was pitied a little, for his so-obvious striving for acclaim and his willingess to do pretty much whatever it took to get it.

But now he has gone too far. And he has set himelf up for valid and well-based criticism for his bigoted and ill-formed "ideas".

And sure enough, here comes a Lefty whining about HATRED.

Let any conservative start to espouse anti-Jewish sentiments, especially while touting his own Christianity, and you all would be lighting torches and sharpening pitchforks. But when one of your own does it, and gets called on it by the supposed (mythical) "Religious Right" all you have to fall back on is the old, worn-out, pathetic snarl of "You are only saying this because you really HATE him".

So get this clear, Stanley---yours is the emotion-based, hate-based, philosophy. Stop projecting, OK?

Native Americans practiced slavery, torture, and genocide, as well as, in some tribes, human sacrifice. The Left is passtionately dedicated to the Disneyesque vision of the noble red man living in harmony with his gods, nature, and his fellow man, but their passion is based on a myth.

Slavery was, and is, bad on any continent, involving any human beings of any race or color. It was bad when the British enslaved the Irish, even though earlier it had been the Irish capturing and enslaving the British.

It is typical Leftist revisionist pap to claim that black Africans capturing and enslaving other black Africans was not the problem---it was the eventual slave "TRADE" which took place once whites bought these slaves that was the problem. In Anillo's lovely pastoral world of pre-European slavery on the African continent, slavery was just a charming cultural artifact, in which slaves were treated well, earned their freedom, and it was really just a form of employment.

Hmmmm. Wonder how eating those captives fit into that mutual-benefit thing. And gee, those slave takers and slave sellers seemed pretty willing to throw over that "I love my slaves" concept once they had a chance to make a profit on them, didn't they?

Nope, Anillo, your pastel-tinted revisionist "history" of all being part of a loving and harmonious nature till the evil Christians and palefaces showed up is just about as childishly ridiculous as your other posturings.

BTW, Anillo, the only remaining slave culture in the world is still in Africa, where black Africans are still enslaving other black Africans. And if you think these poor slaves are not starved, beaten, and sexually exploited, you need to get that tinfoil hat off your head and start to pay attention to what is going on out here in the real world. It's brutal now, as it always has been, and black Africans have always treated other black Africans with far more brutality than any white man or any Christian culture ever has. (Unless you think it is white Christians butchering black Africans in Darfur.)

I was so taken aback by ol' Stan's stupid comment about "hating" Carter that I kinda skipped over this malignant gem:

"You're nuts. Ya'll right-wingers keep on trying to pull off this "grand illusion" that you aren't in it with the nazis by projecting your image onto your opposition."

OK. Stanley says we're "nuts". Stanley tries to act cutsie and colloquial but uses the word wrong. It's "Y'all", Stan, and it is a contraction for "you all". It cannot be used as a substitution for the plural 'you' in all cases, though. New Yorkers always have a hard time with that.

Now we get into gobbeldygook, or as we may soon learn to call it, StanSpeak. "(Plural you)..right-wingers keep on trying to pull off this "grand illusion" that you aren't in it with the nazis .."

OK, I am not going to feel bad about being called a "right-WINGER", given the anatomical designation of the far out radical Lefties. But the part about "trying to pull off (a) 'grand illusion' " of not being "...in it with the nazis.." is simply---insane.

"grand illusion" I get. Stan is trying to say that we are trying to create an impression of something really really big (grand) which is not real (illusion). In other words, he either does not understand what Carter said or has chosen to put that knowledge in that same remote cell where he stashes all those other inconvenient facts that otherwise might get in the way of his malignant fanaticism. But "being in "it" with the "nazis" ' has me baffled.

We (we being the right wingers, or conservatives, I guess) are objecting to anti-Jewish statements by a former President, and this is somehow, after being run through the Rosenthal Filter, transformed into pretending we are not nazis. Hmmmm. Need to work on that one.

No, I don't. It is lunacy, from a loony Lefty, and it would not make sense no matter how much time I wasted on it.

Now I am going to tread on rather sensitive ground here, but....doesn't it strike you as odd that someone named Stanley Rosenthal would fire off a hateful scribble or two calling those of use who object to overt anti-Semitism and anti-Israeli comments "nazis". Wouldn't it make mores sense to apply that word to the man who actually is arguing against the existence of a Jewish state? Or at least arguing that this Jewish state is the source of all that is wrong in the Middle East?

(Sorry---I used the words "Stan Rosenthal" and "sense" in the same paragraph.)

I guess Stan is just more proof that you have to abandon all pretense of intelligence, logic, and even sanity to move that far Left----and that devotion to the radical Left trumps self-interest at all levels.

No one here is arguing pro-slavery. But I am making the point, which you seem to continue to ignore, that the institutional abuses in Continental African and Colonial European slavery were hugely different. Even different colonial systems were vastly different, so your generaliztion needs some rehasing.

And you make a logical mistep in assuming such wide-spread cannibalism among Africans, another orthodox orientalist assumption perpetuated by those who don't look beyond their text books. Not all slaves were exported, as I've pointed out. Colonialism of Africa instituted genocide, racism, and economic plunder unlike was possible before its arrival.

Again, you assume that all Africans are the same in that slave traders who worked with slave buyers are one-in-the-same with African slave owners. They were not. Slavery in Africa was much like serfdom in feudal Europe. No one is trying to paint it "pastel", I'm just trying to shed light on such wide-spread misconceptions as are held by most posters here that Africa was or is a homogenous "dark" continent full of cannibals and spear-throwers. Before you make comments like "its brutal now as it always has been" or whatever, read something like Fanon or Said.

And seriously? Have you not heard of the white slave trade? Millions of women and children are sold into slavery every year across the globe for sex. Far more than any sort of black-African slave system. Again, avoiding broad generalizing statements does wonders for your argument.

Posted by: Almiranta at December 24, 2006 11:04 AM and

Posted by: Almiranta at December 24, 2006 11:38 AM

"Dreamer, You know you are a dreamer
Now you hold your head in your arms, OH NO!" - Supertramp

Anillo,

Who said the Africans were cannibals? I said the Mexica - those who were destroyed by the Conquistadores - were cannibals. I do subscribe to that Euro-centric view of the world which has it that eating people is wrong...call be far out and freaky, but thats just the way I look at things. You want me to say that the Conquistadores were rapacious? Sure they were. Want me to say they could be cruel? Of course they could be. Want me to say they had no business destroying the Aztex Empire? Sorry, can't say that - there is no way to square their religion with anything decent human beings use. Their empire had to be destroyed, for their own good as well as the good of the people they oppressed. Better dead than to be eating your fellow human beings as part of a sick, Satanic religious festival. The massive die-off was just happenstance - the Europeans didn't know they were bringing smallpox, just as the natives didn't know they were passing syphilis to the Europeans.

And African on African slavery was just as cruel - the people were abused, they were ripped from their homes, separated from their families, sold and re-sold. You just like to buy the nonsense that somehow or another it was worse when a white man did it to a black man...that, by the way, is racist...it is to claim that white men are inherently evil, while non-whites are inherently good.

You can put Carter on the shrink's couch, or you can address yourself to his argument.

He is saying that uncritical support of a brutal and unjust occupation is not consistent with our values.

As for how mean and small and all that that he is, he does a lot of good deeds that are uncontroversial.

And you are missing the writer's point by associating him with left-wing ideologies. The writer was saying that he is more of a realist than a liberal.

Liberalism is the "reality based" community, especially these days when Conservatives take the "everything you know is wrong, black is white up is down and short is long" (lack of) ideology.

Stanley Rosenthal at December 24, 2006 03:51 PM wrote:Liberalism is the "reality based" community ...

Are you sure that Liberalism is a "community"?

Liberalism was originally a philosophy of the people who love the freedom. Recently "Liberalism" in US is  a kind of self-comforting religion for the people who prefer to simplify the most sophisticated political subjects. They don't like to think and prefer instead to use the stamps or  the ready to use opinions that other provided to them: 

- Bush- "..." vs. Kerry is a smart guy. 

American people don't think so, but liberals don't care about people opinions. It is pretty clear for any liberal -- see for instance above quoted Carter's interview -- that if American people have always (!!!) favorable opinion about Israel,  it means that "Israel lobby" control  their brain.

Please, Stanley keep in mind that Mr. Carter is a 127% standard type of the American Liberal.

The fact itself that Saudis and other arabs more than 30 years pay him for this his position does not matter. Carter always was a most typical Liberal in USA.

See also:

Community, family, AMERICA ... so I got a word wrong. Over 70% of America is against the occupation of Iraq, that's a Liberal position.

I'm glad ya'll are happy being in the minority, get used to it.

Speaking of corrections, below this post is a little adv. for Matt and Mark's book. And in the text of that adv. is says "Rep. Tom DeLay".

FYI: DeLay had a DeLayed Resignation (tm) and isn't a Rep. anymore. I wouldn't even call him a "good" citizen.

>Stanley Rosenthal wrote at December 25, 2006 05:16 PM:
... I got a word wrong.

Stanley, your problem is not a wrong word -- every of us sometimes use far from the perfect words -- but rather the wrong community that you took part

I can tell you more. You were absolutely right when you wrote at December 24, 2006 03:51 PM that "Liberalism is the ... community".

I fully agree with you, even we have the different opinions in regards of the "Church of Liberalism" as a "community" .

I understand that there are lots of people who perhaps will respectfully disagree with us. They do not consider Liberalism as a community.

Some of them suppose that "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder". Other prefer even more stright forward description that could not be quoted here by the obvious reasons...

Any way both of us unterstand each other and it's a great achievement for this kind of the online discussions.

If understood correctly your recent comment, you finally agreed with above clarifications: who is Mr. Carter and why he strongly disagree with great majotity of the Anerican people in regards of Israel position at the Mead East crisis.

If we agreed with you that Mr. Carter is the Liberal #1 and his recent book can be considered as a valuable contibution to arabs who pay him really good money for his great service, we would be able to go further in our discussion and begin to talk about Iraq as well.

I will be more than happy to continue our discussion concerning any subjects you would like to talk, but prefer to do it "step-by-step".

Meanwhile some of the Leftists / Islamists -- it is not an easy task to separate them now -- suggest that Mr. Carter can do more for them.

They consider his inti-Israel retoric as too soft one and critisize him mostly for his "weak position" at their "propaganda-jihad".

In order to incourage Mr. Carter to make more strong statements -- as long as he is recently one of the Leading Islamist Speakers at the Western countries -- they remind him a lot of his past "bad action":

Often touted by progressives as one of our best Presidents ever, Jimmy Carter has been given a free pass for the egregious international behaviors of his administration. Though he has redeemed himself to a certain extent through his humanitarian efforts since retiring from public life, he still has a great deal of amends to make for his foreign policy initiatives while in office. The United States is an imperialist nation. Our presidents are instruments of that paradigm. But some of them have been more reckless than others. During his term as President, Mr. Carter ordered the CIA to train death squads (benignly labeled "contras") based in Honduras to oppose the Sandinistas after they overthrew the dictator Somoza in Nicaragua. Nice. This little bit of creative obstructionism was expanded during the Reagan administration and would later become what is commonly known as the Iran-Contra scandal. After a coup in El Salvador, Carter sent aid and weapons to the El Salvadoran military who proceeded to massacre tens of thousands of civilians. Good work Mr. Carter. His generous foreign policy initiatives weren't limited to Central America. Carter increased the supply of arms and munitions to the Indonesian government despite their invasion of East Timor. More than 200,000 civilians were slaughtered there, nearly a third of the population. Remember the Islamic fundamentalist Mujahideen? Carter funded their military buildup in order to entice the Soviet Union to invade Afghanistan. This resulted in the complete devastation of that country which led to the rise of the Taliban, friends of Osama Bin Laden, the alleged mastermind of the attacks of 9/11. History has long fingers that touch us in ways never anticipated when its hand is first lifted. The trail of blood left by the Carter administration has dried to a dark stain which is largely ignored by his admirers. Who was it that supported the Khmer Rouge while they committed genocide in Cambodia? Jimmy Carter. He also was a good friend to the Shah of Iran, the monstrous dictator we installed in 1953 after our CIA overthrew the democratically-elected government of Iran. Carter endorsed and supported dictator Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines, brutal Pakistani General Zia al Huq, and Saudi King Faud, among other notable human rights abusers. The list of Mr. Carter's dictatorial pals while he was in office is quite impressive.
_______
by Joe Mowrey www.dissidentvoice.org
December 25, 2006.

Joe Mowrey is a peace and social justice activist living in Santa Fe, New Mexico. He manages ... program connecting students from Bethlehem University in Palestine with partners here in the United States.

> Often touted by progressives as one of our best Presidents ever, Jimmy Carter has been given a free pass ...

Oh really???? We often tout Carter as our best *FORMER* President ever, during his after-Presidency. Clinton was one of the best Presidents ever.

Stanley Rosenthal wrote at December 26, 2006 09:59 PM to Joe Mowrey, who is a peace and social justice activist ... manages ... program connecting students from Bethlehem University in Palestine [sounds like one of the HAMAS local post boxes] with partners [ O Yea!!! "partners" (the photo of a Liberal protester in front of San Francisco Israeli Consulate --July 13, 2006)] here in the United States:

Stanley Rosenthal: Oh really???? We often tout Carter as our best *FORMER* President ever, during his after-Presidency. Clinton was one of the best Presidents ever.

Please, Stanley, do not argue with him. Because -- as he makes it pretty clear ... -- there are lots of 'partners' ... here in the United States.

If/when Carter, Clinton and other highest quolity leading Liberals will help all these "Hizballah/HAMAS-partners" to get finally enough power in this country, the 'partners' will clarify you shortly, why it was not too good habit to disagree with them in ... any subjects.

The Liberals will be exequted by jihadists first, because they are the most visible side of the Western culture.

A Great part of the Liberals do know the best what is going on. Unfortunately they are not able to change their behaviar any way. It is just totally impossible to them.

The main reason is Suicidal Tendencies Of The West

Nobody can stop an individual once he decided to jump from Golden Gate. Especially you could not rely on someone's self-defence instincts in case of the people who intentively choosed the Suicidal way in politics.

At the same time there is a great difference between above two cases. A person who decided to kill himself very seldom tries to kill other people as well. The Liberals do everything what they can to do in order to sacrifice not just their lifes or lifes of their families, but rather to sacrify their country first and then the Western world ...

""San Francisco Chronicle", December 20, 2006. By David Makovsky:

Carter's book bathes Arab leaders in a very positive light and takes Arab statements at face value but casts the Israelis as often being disingenuous.

His depiction of Yasser Arafat after becoming head of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in the late '60s emphasizes that he spent much of his "attention to raising funds for the care and support of the refugees and inspiring worldwide contribution to their cause."

Really? In fact, his group was engaged in the early '70s in a bloody civil war in Jordan, cross-border attacks against Israelis from Lebanon including civilian terror attacks, maintaining a shadowy link to the Munich massacre at the 1972 Olympics, and killing the U.S. ambassador to the Sudan.

An ideological leader of the dems, US Liberal #1, former dems elected President Jimmi Carter always promoted the Terrorist #1 Yasser Arafat as one of his best friends.

So, the question is, who are these guys -- "Liberals" -- and what is their real political role at the time of WWT (War With Terror) ?

The Carter's book provides the first direct answer to this hard question.

At the end of the day President Carter finally decided to clarify American people the very delicate question: at what side of the battle is his sympathy.

Needless to say that American people most definitely will appreciate it.

I am almost sure that it is one of the main reasons, why Carter's book is a best-seller now.

People always prefer to understand "who is who" from the first hands.

If former President Carter wrote that his simpathy -- as an ideological leader of dems and American Liberal #1 -- were always with arab terrorists, we need to trust him.

Because after all he knows this particular subject the best. Arabs began to pay him 30 years ago.

The Carter Conspiracy.
December 16, 2006

Why has the Angry Left suddenly decided to resurrect Jimmy Carter and promote him as some kind of saint? Why is Carter suddenly so full of himself that he writes books like this then refuses to debate?

The answer is simple: Carter is an asshole and the Angry Left is desperate for a hero.

I browsed through the book at Barnes & Noble recently and rather than buying it I wanted to rip it up. Carter’s bias against Israel is so apparent it is loathsome, and his distortion of the facts and glaring inaccuracies in the book make it not even useful as a door stop or paperweight.

In my opinion, Carter has to be the absolute worst President this country has ever been saddled with. His administration made every mistake in the book and then some.

His recent public statements and books only serve to remind me of the mess he made of everything. If you want to read an even better rebuttal of Carter’s book and also to see why Carter refuses to debate Alan Dershowitz, trot on over to the Huffington Post and read Dershowitz’s critique of Carter’s book.

Be sure to read the comments of the Carter sycophants from the Angry Left that Huffington seems to attract.

Like Carter, they spew venom and insanity and refuse to listen to any dissenting opinion. Carter himself refuses to debate the very book he supposedly wrote “to stimulate debate”. That is a clear indication to me that he knows his arguments are just as full of crap as he is. Using the word “apartheid” in the title of a book about the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is nothing more than a sensationalist, self-aggrandizing attempt to clean up his “legacy.”

Carter should do us all a favor and go into retirement before he goes completely senile. He is already halfway there.
________________

Jones. Flanders, NJ responded Dec 16:

Since Jim Carter became the speaker of the left wing liberals, liberalism and anti-Semitism goes hand in hand.

It is about appeasement of the Islamic terrorists and blame Israel and the Jews for the desire of the Iranian evil and barbarian regime of Ahmadinajad to destroy Israel and repeat the holocaust as called upon him in the 7th century Koran.

James Baker who provides personal legal services to Saudi Arabia also claimed that reducing the size of Israel to a seven miles width ghetto surrounded by Islamic terrorists would solve the sectarian war in Iraq where Shiite and Sunnis are killing each other with Islamic vendetta since the 7th century.

Jimmy carter hatred to Israel is so deep that he used in his book ‘unconfirmed’ material [arab street favotite rumors] to make his hateful point for pandering barbarian Islamic terrorists that call for the destruction of Israel.

Stan declaims "Clinton was one of the best ex-presidents ever..." Actually, Stan, Bill IS "one of the best ex-presidents ever.."

He's pretty good at being an EX president---it was being a current president he was so bad at.

Though a presidential historian once said "Bill Clinton was not the worst president we ever had. But he was the worst man we ever had as a president."

But Stan, don't you have some homework to do? Or does you mommy let you play with your computer all day during Christmas vacation?

> The Liberals will be exequted by jihadists first,

Which here in the Unites States are known as "religious fundamentalists".

You know, the James Dobsons, ya'll duds. That's who will do it.

Stanley Rosenthal at December 28, 2006 12:04 AM wrote:

>> The Liberals will be exequted by jihadists first,...

>Which here in the Unites States are known as "religious fundamentalists"... That's who will do it.
___

Let me tell you something Stanley. There are lots of different subjects that can be called by the same words.

You provided a great example indeed. There are "religious fundamentalists" and "religious fundamentalists".

One kind of the "religious fundamentalists" are too hard to communicate with. For instance it was almost impossible for me to discuss with some of them the school cources in regards of "creation theory" VS. "darvinism".

I dont know your position on this particular subject, but I am almost sure that both of us don't like this kind of "religious fundamentalists".

Frankly speaking I prefer do not discuss with them at all. It seems to me that they do not consider me as the "most nice guy at town" as well.

We don't like each other. Sometimes it happened. One of them even do not responded to my greetings yesterday...

They are the "religious fundamentalists" you wrote about and I understand why you don't like them. Me too.

Other type of the "religious fundamentalists" will beheaded you, if you try to disagree with them.

They refuse to discuss without AK-47 or IEDs, and do not accept any arguments other than M16 only.

Feel the differense.

There are different countries and different people , different ideologies and different parties, different religions and different "religious fundamentalists".

Any way you are definitely a smart guy Stan. Let me clarify why I think so.

Your first question here was concerning Mr. Carter. It looks like you got the point and do not rise this question any more. It is a good sign.

Feel free to ask further questions if/when you will have any. You might be sure that it is my pleasure to talk with you.

Thank you Greg. But in response, those type of "religious fundamentalists" here in the States that we both don't care for, are trying to make this country just like those countries where beheading is a more common form of chopping one's head off.

Here in the States, they have to act as say, a few here on this blog are acting by attacking the messenger instead of the message in an effort to silence opposing opinion. It's the modern way of beheading.

But make no mistake about it, if they had their way here they'd be doing beheadings. They've already done enough assassinations!!!!

Stanley Rosenthal wrote at December 28, 2006 10:29:

>"religious fundamentalists" here in the States, are trying to make this country just like those countries where beheading is a more common form of chopping one's head off

Stanley, it looks like we are living in different countries. I still did not have a chance to meet "religious fundamentalists" of any faith that "are trying to make this country just like those countries where beheading is a more common form of chopping one's head off".

I can tell you more -- no one of my friend even hear something like you talking about. Perhaps you were interested in too many special kind of movies recent years. I still very doubt that there are any other sources for these kind of your conclusions.

Please Stan do not get me wrong. I love different type of the movies and do not have anything against horror-movies you quoted above. I just don't think that they are the best sources of info in attempts to understand what is going on in this country.

>Here in the States, they have to act as say, a few here on this blog are acting by attacking the messenger instead of the message in an effort to silence opposing opinion. It's the modern way of beheading.

There are lots of people in different political blogs that will tell you exactly the same words about myself. They don't like my arguments, the way I responded to their comments etc, because they sometimes consider them as ... a personal attack.

Generally speaking the way we are discussing depends from lot of circumstances: current mood, weather, recent tv news and so on.

Any way I am absolutely sure that both of us prefer to continue to take part in discussion where "beheading opponents" (as you called it) means to use not so polite phrases and ... that's it.

In this case we always will have an opportunity to leave the forum that we dont like and by this way to bring our "beheaded body" to some of the other -- a little bit more politely moderated - blog.

Unfortunately there are lots of people overseas and their "partners" here who hope to make some changes ... If they they will succeed in their hard working efforts, the horror movies you wrote about will be transformed to a reality show.

>... if they had their way here they'd be doing beheadings. They've already done enough assassinations!!!!

Exactly. You are right again. Please don't forget that Mr. Carter's book is one of the most effectrive propaganda-tool that helps Mead East terrorists to get this goals.

Carter is not alone. Great part of the Liberals work hard to help arab' terrorists to kill more people in any countries where they can. CNN, NY Times and all other liberal media are the part of the arabs-terror propaganda machine. They constantly ecourage terrorists to continue their Holly War Against West.

The general ifluence of United Arabs-Liberals Movement is growing in this country.

It is a reason why I consider your above comments as a healty fear.

Thanks Stanley for your thoughtful comments.