Chronology of U.S.-North Korean Nuclear and Missile Diplomacy per Arms Control Association

Amid all the talk of the situation regarding North Korea and nuclear weapons there's very little interest in how we got here. The BBC are trying to use this crisis to show that their current hate figure, President Donald Trump, is to blame. However a perusal of this chronology https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dark chronic shows that weaknesses shown by previous US presidents, mostly by Bill Clinton (partly assisted by former President Jimmy Carter) lead us to this position.

However blaming Democrats isn't an option for the BBC so don't expect that sort of analysis.

As an aside, I confidently predict that just as Bill Clinton's policies led to North Korea developing nuclear weapons and threatening the USA, Barack Hussein Obama's policies will lead to Iran being in a similar position within another decade. The left never learn that appeasement and weakness in the face of vile regimes leads not to peace in our time but to bigger problems only shortly into the future.

Meanwhile the BBC cheerlead for US Democrat presidents whatever they do, thus hiding the truth from their public.

If President Donald Trump is a vile racist, so was Jimmy dhimmi Carter

'... "Trump is a monster, a madman and a vile racist. He's just like Hitler. Or Jimmy Carter.

During the Iranian hostage crisis, Carter issued a number of orders to put pressure on Iran. Among these, Iranians were banned from entering the United States unless they oppose the Shiite Islamist regime or had a medical emergency."

He cites two specific actions. One was an order for Iranian students to report to immigration offices in order to determine if they had violated the terms of their visa; if they had, they would be deported. The second was an order to end all future visas for Iranians and to stop issuing most new visas. '

Interesting historical context, of the sort that the BBC will definitely not ever relay.

More here http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2015/dec/17/why-trumps-muslim-ban-idea-isnt-really-same-jimmy-/

Reporting Barack Obama related news the BBC way

If I heard on the BBC that  of the total of 44 US Presidents, Barack Obama had been rated the 5th best President ever; then I would expect the details of the poll results to run:

Reagan, Lincoln, and 5 others tied for first
18 presidents tied for second
17 other presidents tied for third
Jimmy Carter came in 4th
Obama came in fifth

Jimmy Carter

My view of Jimmy Carter is well known so I was interested to read this:

Dershowitz: I Challenge Carter to Human Rights Debate at Cardozo

 

I will come, at my own expense, to debate Jimmy Carter on Carter's own human rights record. If Cardozo will have me, I will come and provide the students, the administration and anyone else that is interested, with a first rate debate about the meaning of human rights and they can decide whether what Jimmy Carter has done, constitutes human rights or human wrongs.

Alan Dershowitz, Felix Frankfurter professor of law at Harvard Law School, has challenged former president Jimmy Carter to a debate on his human rights record.

Dershowitz spoke by telephone to a reporter with The Jewish Press, on Monday, April 8, in response to the news that the Cardozo School of Law’s Journal of Conflict Resolution will be honoring Carter with the “International Advocate for Peace” Award this Wednesday, April 10, as reported that morning.

During the course of the interview, the law professor recounted the widespread death and devastation caused by Carter’s efforts at “human rights.”

“What should be discussed is not Jimmy Carter’s role as a peacemaker, but instead it should be his role as a deal breaker,” said Dershowitz.  He then proceeded to tick off the bases for his reasoning.

“First, it was Carter who advised Yassir Arafat not to accept the peace deal offered in 2000-01.  That failure led to the deaths of more than 4000 Israelis and Arabs.”

“Secondly, by encouraging and supporting Hamas, and always placing the blame on Israel, Carter has guaranteed the continuation of terrorism.”  Indeed, “Carter has embraced Arafat, he’s embraced Mashaal, why, he’s never met a terrorist he didn’t love, and never met an Israeli whom he did.”

“And third,” the professor said, “it was Carter who was responsible for not acting to prevent the death of two million Cambodians at the hands of Pol Pot.  Carter was the president of the United States and yet he did not intervene in that slaughter, he did not lead and prod the United Nations to take action.”

Dershowitz paused, to sum up, “Carter has prevented peace, encouraged terrorism and done more than anyone else to isolate and demonize the Middle East’s only democracy, Israel.”

But Dershowitz wasn’t finished.

“Jimmy Carter has distorted the very meaning of human rights, he has turned the concept on its head, what he does should be called ‘human lefts.’”

What does that mean?

“The way human rights should be addressed is based on ‘worst, first,’ you deal with the most egregious wrongs, the worst kind of abuses committed by governments first,” Dershowitz explained.  “He’s turned everything upside down.  Instead of Israel, just look over a little to the south, “Saudi Arabia is the worst human rights violator in the world: sex segregation, gender preference discrimination, religious discrimination,” that’s where a real human rights activist would focus, said the law professor.

“But Jimmy Carter was bought and paid for by the Saudis.  The Carter Center stopped criticizing the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia when the Saudis started funding it.”

I'd love to see Jimmy Carter try and answer those points but it will never happen. He's a coward as well as a nasty piece of work.

How pickpockets work

Here's a short extract from Adam Green’s recent profile of Robbins:

'He is probably best known for an encounter with Jimmy Carter’s Secret Service detail in 2001. While Carter was at dinner, Robbins struck up a conversation with several of his Secret Service men. Within a few minutes, he had emptied the agents’ pockets of pretty much everything but their guns. Robbins brandished a copy of Carter’s itinerary, and when an agent snatched it back he said, “You don’t have the authorization to see that!” When the agent felt for his badge, Robbins produced it and handed it back. Then he turned to the head of the detail and handed him his watch, his badge, and the keys to the Carter motorcade.'

Jimy Carter - again

Jimmy Carter, former US President and current disgrace to humanity, appeared on Piers Morgan's CNN Tonight show last week. The whole interview was full of inaccuracies, you can see the whole transcript here, but the one that I want to concentrate on is this:

'When I first went to Israel, about 15 percent of the Palestinians were Christians and they were my friends and they were my soul mates in the worship of the same god in the same way. Now they've almost been removed from Palestine because of some pressures and encouragement from the Israelis.'

So Jimmy Carter blames Israel for the reduction in the percentage of Palestinians that are Christian. Jimmy Carter blames Israel, now that's hardly news, the man persistently attacks Israel for one thing or another, but he blames Israel for the diminishing percentage of Christians amongst the Palestinians. First of all Israel does not run the Palestinian Territories, if it did there would be less rocket attacks launched against Israeli civilians from Gaza. Second the real reason for the diminishing number of Christians in the Palestinian Territories is that Islamists have been seizing land from Christians, demanding jiyza (protection money) from them and assaulting those who choose to stay behind in their Holy Land. It should also be notes that the Christian population of multi-faith Israel is increasing not diminishing.


Jimmy 'Dhimmi' Carter gets away with making statements like the above because he was US President, why does nobody ask Jimmy carter about the money he has received from Islamists and whether that money has any bearing on the opinions he spouts so freely?

'What money, I don't know anything about Jimmy Carter receiving money from Muslim countries and organisations? ' I hear you ask. Well take a read of this article by Alan Dershowitz from 2007, here's a few extracts:

'Recent disclosures of Carter's extensive financial connections  to Arab oil money, particularly from Saudi Arabia, had deeply shaken my belief in his integrity. When I was first told that he received a  monetary reward in the name of Shiekh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahayan, and kept the money, even after Harvard returned money from the same source because of its anti-Semitic history, I simply did not believe it. How  could a man of such apparent integrity enrich himself with dirty money  from so dirty a source?

And let there be no mistake about how dirty the Zayed Foundation is. I know because I was involved, in a small way, in helping to persuade Harvard University to return more than $2 million that the financially strapped Divinity School received from this source.  Initially, I was reluctant to put pressure on Harvard to turn back money  for the Divinity School, but then a student at the Divinity School, Rachael Lea Fish showed me the facts.  
They were staggering. I was amazed that in the twenty-first  century there were still foundations that espoused these views. The Zayed Centre for Coordination and Follow-up, a think-tank funded by the Shiekh and run by his son, hosted speakers who called Jews "the enemies of all nations," attributed the assassination of John Kennedy to Israel and the Mossad and the 9/11 attacks to the United States' own military, and stated that the Holocaust was a "fable." (They also hosted a speech by Jimmy Carter.) To its credit, Harvard turned the money back. To his discredit, Carter did not.

Jimmy Carter was, of course, aware of Harvard's decision, since it was highly publicized. Yet he kept the money. Indeed, this is what he said in accepting the funds: "This award has special significance for me because it is named for my personal friend, Sheik Zayed bin Sultan  al-Nahyan." Carter's personal friend, it turns out, was an unredeemable  anti-Semite and all-around bigot.

...

The extent of Carter's financial support from, and even  dependence on, dirty money is still not fully known. What we do know is deeply troubling. Carter and his Center have accepted millions of  dollars from suspect sources, beginning with the bail-out of the Carter family peanut business in the late 1970s by BCCI, a now-defunct and  virulently anti-Israeli bank indirectly controlled by the Saudi Royal family, and among whose principal investors is Carter's friend, Sheikh Zayed. Agha Hasan Abedi, the founder of the bank, gave Carter "$500,000 to help the former president establish his center...[and] more than $10 million to Mr. Carter's different projects."

Carter gladly accepted the money, though Abedi had called his bank, ostensibly the source of his funding, "the best way to fight the  evil influence of the Zionists." BCCI isn't the only source: Saudi King Fahd contributed millions to the Carter Center "in 1993 alone...$7.6  million" as have other members of the Saudi Royal Family. Carter also received a million dollar pledge from the Saudi-based bin Laden family,  as well as a personal $500,000 environmental award named for Sheikh  Zayed, and paid for by the Prime Minister of the United Arab Emirates.  It's worth noting that, despite the influx of Saudi money funding the Carter Center, and despite the Saudi Arabian government's myriad human  rights abuses, the Carter Center's Human Rights program has no activity whatever in Saudi Arabia. 

...


By Carter's own standards, therefore, his views on the Middle East must be discounted. It is certainly possible that he now believes them. Money, particularly large amounts of money, has a way of persuading people to a particular position. It would not surprise me if Carter, having received so much Arab money, is now honestly committed to their cause. But his failure to disclose the extent of his financial dependence on Arab money, and the absence of any self reflection on  whether the receipt of this money has unduly influenced his views, is a form of deception bordering on corruption.

I have met cigarette lobbyists, who are supported by the cigarette industry, and who have come to believe honestly that cigarettes are merely a safe form of adult recreation, that cigarettes are not addicting and that the cigarette industry is really trying to persuade children not to smoke. These people are fooling themselves (or fooling us into believing that they are fooling themselves) just as  Jimmy Carter is fooling himself (or persuading us to believe that he is  fooling himself).

If money determines political and public views as Carter insists "Jewish money" does, Carter's views on the Middle East must be deemed to have been influenced by the vast sums of Arab money he has received. If he who pays the piper calls the tune, then Carter's off-key tunes have  been called by his Saudi Arabian paymasters. It pains me to say this, but I now believe that there is no person in American public life today who has a lower ratio of real to apparent integrity than Jimmy Carter.  The public perception of his integrity is extraordinarily high. His real integrity, it now turns out, is extraordinarily low. He is no better than so many former American politicians who, after leaving public life, sell themselves to the highest bidder and become lobbyists for despicable causes. That is now Jimmy Carter's sad legacy.'

Remember those facts about Jimmy Carter the next time his 'expert & impartial' views are sought  about Israel and the Middle East.
 

Dear Jimmy

Following this morning's piece about Jimmy Carter's report on his trip to Egypt, I thought that I would ask the former US President for an explanation, so I emailed him:

'A query regarding your report on your visit to Egypt

Nota Sheep	09:58 (2 minutes ago)
				to carterweb

Your report on your recent trip to Egypt (http://www.cartercenter.org/news/trip_reports/egypt-011712.html) included this section:

'Tuesday morning we received detailed analyses by experts on the election process and political affairs, and then had a thorough discussion with Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, head of the SCAF and acting as de facto president of Egypt.

I was received with a friendly welcome as I congratulated the military leaders for what seemed to be a successful election, and then asked a number of questions. It seemed that the SCAF had full confidence that there would be accommodation to their demands by the Muslim Brotherhood and their coalition partners as the new government is formed. Instead of the reported 12,000 mostly political prisoners being held for trials in military courts, the Field Marshal stated that there were no more than 3,000, all of whom were guilty of criminal acts and being tried in civilian courts. He stated that the widely promulgated videos showing military attacks on demonstrators and a woman "with the blue brassiere" were all falsified. He said the soldiers were actually helping the woman re-clothe herself with what was provocative attire. '

You don't seem to question that which the Field Marshall said to you. Perhaps you could spare less than a minute to look at this YouTube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vf_0p4a_GwI) of the girl in the blue bra and let me know whether you think the video was falsified or shows the woman being repeatedly beaten by Egyptian soldiers.

Your thoughts on this matter would be welcomed.

NotaSheep MaybeaGoat'

I wonder if I will get a reply and if it will be any more informative than a reply to a complaint to the BBC?

What is wrong with Jimmy Carter?

Watch the above video, it's fairly obvious what the members of the Egyptian army are doing to that poor girl isn't it? Not if your former US President Jimmy Carter it isn't.

The video's description runs thus:

'Egypt. beating of a veiled woman in Cairo helmeted officers charging toward a woman in Tahrir Square, drag her on the ground, beat her with clubs and kicking her in head stomp on her stomach and breast drag her by hair also kick and clubbed people in the head ripped off the top clothing grabbing by veil... One soldier even pulled her veil over her head stomps on her breasts, the overthrow of former dictator Hosni Mubarak was in February.'

Jimmy Carter, however, knows better:

'Tuesday morning we received detailed analyses by experts on the election process and political affairs, and then had a thorough discussion with Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, head of the SCAF and acting as de facto president of Egypt.

I was received with a friendly welcome as I congratulated the military leaders for what seemed to be a successful election, and then asked a number of questions. It seemed that the SCAF had full confidence that there would be accommodation to their demands by the Muslim Brotherhood and their coalition partners as the new government is formed. Instead of the reported 12,000 mostly political prisoners being held for trials in military courts, the Field Marshal stated that there were no more than 3,000, all of whom were guilty of criminal acts and being tried in civilian courts. He stated that the widely promulgated videos showing military attacks on demonstrators and a woman "with the blue brassiere" were all falsified. He said the soldiers were actually helping the woman re-clothe herself with what was provocative attire. '

No questioning of the Field Marshall's claims, no wondering at how his claims fit with the evidence? Just what I would expect from Jimmy Carter.


Thanks to Elder of Ziyon for the heads up.

Israel's 'partners in peace' - and yet Israel will always be blamed for the failure of the 'peace process'

Big Peace report the results of the latest opinion poll in the Palestinian territories:

'Data have just been released from a survey completed this week which confirm the implacable, murderous irredentism of Israel’s Palestinian Muslim “peace partners.”

American pollster Stanley Greenberg performed what is described as an “intensive, face-to-face survey in Arabic of 1,010 Palestinian adults in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.”

Here are the salient, pathognomonic findings:

First, a mere 73% of the Palestinians surveyed agree with the annihilationist dictates of this canonical hadith (the words and deeds of Islam’s prophet Muhammad which have a weight often equal to the Koran), quoted in the Hamas Covenant.
...
Second, 80% agreed with the quoted sentiments expressed in article 15 of the Hamas Covenant (subtitled, “Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine is a Personal Duty”) elucidates classical jihadist theory—including jihad martyrdom (i.e., homicide bombing) operations—as well as its practical modern application to the destruction of Israel by jihad,  and the need to recruit the entire global Muslim community, or “umma” in this quintessential Islamic cause:The day the enemies conquer some part of the Muslim land, jihad becomes a personal duty of every Muslim. In the face of the Jewish occupation of Palestine, it is necessary to raise the banner of jihad. This requires the propagation of Islamic consciousness among the masses, locally [in Palestine], in the Arab world and in the Islamic world. It is necessary to instill the spirit of jihad in the nation, engage the enemies and join the ranks of the jihad fighters. The indoctrination campaign must involve ulama, educators, teachers and information and media experts, as well as all intellectuals, especially the young people and the sheikhs of Islamic movements…
It is necessary to establish in the minds of all the Muslim generations that the Palestinian issue is a religious issue, and that it must be dealt with as such, for [Palestine] contains Islamic holy places, [namely] the Al-Aqsa mosque, which is inseparably connected, for as long as heaven and earth shall endure, to the holy mosque of Mecca through the Prophet’s nocturnal journey [from the mosque of Mecca to the Al-Aqsa mosque] and through his ascension to heaven thence. “Being stationed on the frontier for the sake of Allah for one day is better than this [entire] world and everything in it; and the place taken up in paradise by the [horseman’s] whip of any one of you [jihad fighters] is better than this [entire] world and everything in it. Every evening [operation] and morning [operation] performed by Muslims for the sake of Allah is better than this [entire] world and everything in it.” (Recorded in the Hadith collections of Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi and Ibn Maja). “By the name of Him who holds Muhammad’s soul in His hand, I wish to launch an attack for the sake of Allah and be killed and attack again and be killed and attack again and be killed.” (Recorded in the Hadith collections of Bukhari and Muslim)

Third, 72% backed denying the thousands of years of Jewish history in Jerusalem.

Fourth, 62% supported kidnapping IDF soldiers and holding them hostage

Fifth, 53% were in favor or teaching songs about hating Jews in Palestinian schools.


Even the findings which delusive “peace processors” obsess over contained no silver linings. When respondents were queried about President Barack Obama’s statement that “there should be two states: Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people and Israel as the homeland for the Jewish people,”, only 34% said they accepted that idea, while 61% rejected it. And 66% admitted that the Palestinians’ real goal should be to start with a two-state solution but then move to it all being one Palestinian state, i.e., destroy Israel as a Jewish State..'

As I have said over and  over again, don't listen to what the likes of Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter say the Palestinians want and think, instead listen to what the Palestinians themselves say they think and want.

'73% of Palestinians Want Jews Annihilated
53% were in favor or teaching songs about hating Jews in Palestinian schools
66% admitted that the Palestinians’ real goal should be to start with a two-state solution but then move to it all being one Palestinian state, i.e., destroy Israel as a Jewish State..'

'Partners in peace'? I don't think so. I look forward to the BBC reporting of this opinion poll.... Sorry my mistake; for a moment I forgot that the BBC is institutionally biased against Israel.

Now if you saw the above line and said but why should the BBC cover this story, it's a minor opinion poll and is of no interest to the UK population, ask yourself this - would the BBC have covered the story if it had been about an opinion poll carried out in Israel that revealed that 73% of Israelis wanted to annihilate all Muslims?

John Lennon was a closet Republican!

So says this report in the Totonto Sun:

'John Lennon was a closet Republican, who felt a little embarrassed by his former radicalism, at the time of his death - according to the tragic Beatles star's last personal assistant.

Fred Seaman worked alongside the music legend from 1979 to Lennon's death at the end of 1980 and he reveals the star was a Ronald Reagan fan who enjoyed arguing with left-wing radicals who reminded him of his former self.

In new documentary Beatles Stories, Seaman tells filmmaker Seth Swirsky Lennon wasn't the peace-loving militant fans thought he was while he was his assistant.

He says, "John, basically, made it very clear that if he were an American he would vote for Reagan because he was really sour on (Democrat) Jimmy Carter.

"He'd met Reagan back, I think, in the 70s at some sporting event... Reagan was the guy who had ordered the National Guard, I believe, to go after the young (peace) demonstrators in Berkeley, so I think that John maybe forgot about that... He did express support for Reagan, which shocked me.

"I also saw John embark in some really brutal arguments with my uncle, who's an old-time communist... He enjoyed really provoking my uncle... Maybe he was being provocative... but it was pretty obvious to me he had moved away from his earlier radicalism.

"He was a very different person back in 1979 and 80 than he'd been when he wrote Imagine. By 1979 he looked back on that guy and was embarrassed by that guy's naivete."'

So John Lennon grew up; who would have thought that? I always had him down as a man-child. Still prefer Paul McCartney's tunes (Frog Chorus and Ebony & Ivory excepted)...

By your friends you shall judge them

Daily Caller reveals that:

'According to a column in the Feb. 24 edition of the Falls Church News-Press by Nicholas F. Benton, the editor-in-chief of the publication, the paper’s newest columnist Helen Thomas had a surprise waiting for her after an extraordinary interview she gave to HLN’s Joy Behar last week. That was flowers from Rosie O’Donnell, who had been on the record for defending Thomas in the past.

However, as Benton noted, at the time of the Thomas’s infamous remarks, there were very few willing to defend her other than O’Donnell and the 39th President of the United States, Jimmy Carter'

Jimmy Carter a truly nasty man who cheerfully supports some of the nastiest people and most evil regimes in the world.

Jimmy Carter, until recently, the worst American President in my lifetime, explains why the Muslim Brotherhood are no threat in Egypt

Only someone who hates Israel could think that an Islamic organisation with strong links to Hamas and Hezb'allah will present no threat in Egypt.


Thanks to A Tangled Web for the spot.

I think this should be filed under - Good, about time

The JC reports that:

'The former US President Jimmy Carter is facing legal action from readers who claim he misrepresented Israel in a book about the Middle East conflict.

Mr Carter, who was president between 1976 and 1980, could have to pay more than £3 million if the case is successful.

The dispute is over his 2006 work “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid”, in which Mr Carter compared the Israeli government to the leaders of apartheid South Africa.

He wrote: “When Israel does occupy this territory deep within the West Bank, and connects the 200-or-so settlements … with a road, and then prohibits the Palestinians from using that road, or in many cases even crossing the road, this perpetrates even worse instances of apartness, or apartheid, than we witnessed even in South Africa”.

The case, filed at the Manhattan Federal Claims Court by a group of readers, accuses Mr Carter of filling his book “with demonstrable falsehoods, omissions and knowing misrepresentations intended to promote [his] agenda of anti-Israel propaganda".

According to court papers quoted by the New York Post, the group who filed the case said Mr Carter was wrong to have promoted the book as “non-fiction".

The papers added: “This lawsuit challenges the defendants' actions in attempting to capitalise on Carter's status as a former president of the United States to mislead unsuspecting members of the reading public who thought they could trust their former president to tell the truth."

Mr Carter, who as president oversaw the historic peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, is a prominent critic of the Israeli government. In 2008 he described Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip as “one of the greatest human-rights crimes on earth”.

The lawsuit is directed at both Mr Carter and his publishers, Simon & Schuster.

A spokesperson for the company said the lawsuit was "frivolous".'

Until recently I had always believed Jimmy Carter to have been the worst American President since the end of World War II. Of course Barack Obama is providing strong competition now...

Jimmy Carter = Barack Obama. Barack Obama = Jimmy Carter

Not an original thought I know but this Dry Bones cartoon summarises it well:

Thanks to Theo Spark for the spot.

'the moral compass of the State-Controlled Media'

'The moral code, the moral compass of the State-Controlled Media is something to behold. Now, some of you may not know the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize Winner hosted a state dinner last night for Hu Jintao of China. Hu Jintao is holding the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize Winner in prison in China. Not making it up. The 2009 Nobel Peace Prize Winner hosted a dinner for the guy holding the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize Winner in prison, and the media does not get the irony of this at all. They're too busy running around chasing Sarah Palin and radio talk show hosts over "civility." Our media is so fraudulent. No talk about the political prisoners. No talk about the gulags.

A question about human rights, the ChiCom leader is allowed to slither out of the answer by saying, "I did not hear the question. I thought President Obama was going to answer that." There's no talk about how they harvest organs from prisoners in China -- and there's Obama, telling the head of this depraved society that we're all pleased with his country's progress. Meanwhile, the very same media is attacking innocent American citizens who have nothing to do with a horrible crime. The moral compass of our media is just stunning -- and, by the way, the media laughed when Hu Jintao side-stepped the question about human rights. Jimmy Carter has won a Nobel Peace Prize as well, and Jimmy Carter also attended Hu's dinner.

So you had two American Nobel Peace Prize Winners effectively honoring the head of a country who's holding 2010's Peace Prize Winner in prison -- and we had to listen to our fearless leader talk about aaaaall the great progress the ChiComs are making and how pleased we are with all that progress.'

Not a word on the BBC about the discgusting lack of moral courage expressed by the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner, Barack Obama and his predecessor Jimmy Carter; but who would expect any?

The quotation is from Rush Limbaugh.

Protecting their heroes

Can you imagine the BBC's coverage if it emerged that George W. Bush had mislaid the card with the codes to open the nuclear briefcase? Headline news and the source of much hilarity on the News Quiz. However whilst The Telegraph manage to report that

'For several months during Bill Clinton's administration, a former top military officer says the White House lost the card with a set of numbers for opening the briefcase containing the codes for a nuclear attack.

Gen Hugh Shelton, who was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time, said in his new memoir, "Without Hesitation: The Odyssey of an American Warrior" that "the codes were actually missing for months. That's a big deal -- a gargantuan deal."'

On the BBC not a word about this story of Democrat President negligence.


Interestingly The Telegraph also report that:

'Former president Jimmy Carter was rumoured to have once left the '"biscuit" in a suit that was sent to the dry cleaners.'

What is it with Democrats and national security/being responsible?

Conservative Bloggers Select The 25 Worst Figures In American History

Right Wing News lists the 'The 25 Worst Figures In American History' according to Conservative Bloggers.

Take a look, I feel that Barack Obama (2nd) will overtake Jimmy Carter (1st) and be the worst Figure in American History.

Is it a "lefty leader" thing

Sean Linnane reports the words of Ronald Kessler about the men who guarded US Presidents from JFK to BHO. Apparently Jimmy Carter was the "least likeable" president. Carter was "moody and mistrustful" and sought to micromanage everything, agents told Kessler.

"Moody and mistrustful"; does that remind you of a certain UK Prime Minister?

"Kessler discloses that Carter "would regularly make a show of going to the Oval Office at 5 a.m. or 6 a.m. to call attention to how hard he was working for the American people."

In fact, "he would work for half an hour, then close the curtains and take a nap," Robert B. Sulliman Jr., who was on Carter's detail, told Kessler.
"His staff would tell the press he was working.""

I wonder if the same is true of the same UK Prime Minister, renowned for being a hard worker and "getting on" with the job.

"GSA managers found that when Carter stayed at the townhouse, he would take down the photos of Republican presidents Ford and Nixon and put up a half-dozen large photos of himself."

Vanity as well, this sounds more like the aforementioned Prime Minister's predecessor, or maybe his wife.


Ronald Kessler's book "In the President's Secret Service: Behind the Scenes With Agents in the Line of Fire and the Presidents They Protect" sounds like a good read.

Jimmy Carter the question that should be asked

For context read this.




Thanks to Theo Spark for the spot.

Who's a racist Jimmy?

Jimmy Carter was accusing some opponents of Barack Obama as being motivated by racism, so I was interested to read at Donal Blaney's blog this from The National Review:

"When former president Jimmy Carter accuses the opponents of Barack Obama’s policy of nationalizing broad aspects of our economy and spending us into bankruptcy of being “racists,” perhaps he should look in the mirror. In his 1982 book, Keeping Faith, Carter disingenuously said he “was not directly involved in the early struggles to end racial discrimination.” No kidding — in fact, he directly and unambiguously supported segregation. When Carter returned to Plains, Georgia, to become a peanut farmer after serving in the Navy, he became a member of the Sumter County School Board, which did not implement the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision handed down by the Supreme Court. Instead, the board continued to segregate school children on the streets of Carter’s hometown.

As Laughlin McDonald, director of the ACLU’s Voting Project, relates in his book A Voting Rights Odyssey: Black Enfranchisement in Georgia, Carter’s board tried to stop the construction of a new “Elementary Negro School” in 1956. Local white citizens had complained that the school would be “too close” to a white school. As a result, “the children, both colored and white, would have to travel the same streets and roads in order to reach their respective schools.” The prospect of black and white children commingling on the streets on their way to school was apparently so horrible to Carter that he requested that the state school board stop construction of the black school until a new site could be found. The state board turned down Carter’s request because of “the staggering cost.” Carter and the rest of the Sumter County School Board then reassured parents at a meeting on October 5, 1956, that the board “would do everything in its power to minimize simultaneous traffic between white and colored students in route to and from school.”

I am not aware that Rep. Joe Wilson has ever supported segregation or engaged in the same type of reprehensible, racist behavior. The idea that opposition to Obama’s policies reflects “racism” is absurd; even the White House has rejected it. All of this raises a larger issue about Carter’s remarks. When he makes such a claim, is he projecting his own inner racial beliefs? Is he so guilt-ridden over his past racist behavior that he wants to make amends to the race-baiters that today populate the Left? Or is he just cynically helping them score political points?"

Who's a racist? Who was a racist?