The wages of appeasement, the fruits of hypocrisy

What Did You Say About Muhammad?!

RTWT, here’s a sample:

…the West has perpetuated a vicious cycle wherein Muslim sensitivities are ever heightened and outraged at the slightest slight, and Western freedoms of expression are correspondingly diminished and trampled upon…

…if you voluntarily act like a dhimmi — a subjugated non-Muslim who must live in debased humility — you will be treated like a dhimmi…

Emphasis mine. It’s why former President Carter is known around here as Dhimmi Carter.

Also please note the “Support South Park” widget is removed from this site. Comedy Central caved to an Islamist blogger and then announced they are considering launching a series titled “JC,” mocking Christ.

I have no problem with mocking religion, or God, but such selective mocking is a disgusting appeasement perpetrated by the vertebrally challenged. How do the hypocrites in charge of Comedy Central even stand upright?

Confronting Islamist fanatics over their exquisite and false sensitivities is important, and bringing the Comedy Central cell to heel would be a good start.

Mea Culpa Americana Contest

We have an answer to yesterday’s question about Dhimmi Carter’s whereabouts – he’s been meeting with Hamas – and another reason to despise them both: Carter to Obama: Remove Hamas From Terror List

…two Palestinian sources told FOX News that the group [Hamas] had discovered two roadside bombs planted near a crossing between Israel and Gaza on a path Carter’s convoy took to meet with the group’s leaders…

They (Hamas, not FOX News) do seem to be able to prevent violence given sufficient motivation:

“Nobody in Gaza will touch this man, [Carter]” Hamas adviser Ahmed Yousef said. “He is on a noble mission. Everyone here respects him.”

So does everyone at the UN and the Nobel Prize Committee.

As to weapons used in defense rather than for murder, Carter is noted as saying:

…he feels personally responsible that American weapons were used to fight in Gaza Strip last year, when Israeli Defense Forces entered the strip to stop the launch of rockets from there into Israel.

This is the same Gaza Strip Israel ceded to the “Palestinians,” and from which it expelled thousands of Israelis. It was designed to give the “Palestinians” a chance to demonstrate that they were capable of self-governance. We know how that has worked out.

Dhimmi did not acknowledge any personal angst about Iranian rockets supplied to Hamas, an axis of cutthroats he’s done more to encourage than he did for any American. He did not go so far as to say he wished he’d had a second term in which to dismantle America’s military so that he could now feel less “personally responsible” for assisting an allied democracy against fascist aggression.

It is to difficult understand why he takes this personally. It is impossible to tell if he would have felt better if Kalashnikovs, MiGs and Hinds had been substituted. Perhaps he is objecting, in principle, to the idea that Israel should defend itself. If so, the source of the weapons used against his beloved terrorists is only important in that it allows a Cartersneer™ at the country he used to lead, and is a form of one-upmanship in his undeclared Mea Culpa Americana contest with Obama.

Whatever his intent, Carter has at least helped Obama by staking out some territory farther to the anti-semitic left than Obama has yet assayed.

The only surprising aspect of this story is that it didn’t include Carter’s in absentia certification of the Iranian election.

On that topic, there are good links to more coverage of happenings in Iran here.

Mr. Malaise

… goes optimistic.

Now that President Obama is setting new standards for depressing confidence in the economy and priming the inflation pump to a degree unprecedented, Dhimmi Carter goes all positive on us:

”There is no comparison to the Great Depression and where we are now,” he said. “The Great Depression was much more severe. Right now, we have 7 percent unemployment. In the Great Depression, it was four times that. Back then, there was no money.”

He also said that economists and government officials have learned the lessons of the Great Depression and are now more able to deal with similar crises.

And he expressed confidence in President Barack Obama’s stimulus plan, but said he expected the economy to get worse before it gets better.

Mr. Malaise is actually more optimistic about the economy than President Obama. It wasn’t always so. Carter, 1979:

“We must face the fact that the energy shortage is permanent,” he said in one televised address. Then in 1979 Carter disappeared into seclusion at Camp David to reconceptualize his presidency. Meeting with one group of advisors he lamented, “I think it’s inevitable that there will be a lower standard of living than what everybody had always anticipated. The only trend is downward. But it’s impossible to get people to face up to this.”

Perhaps Carter can’t remember 1979, or maybe he sees his record as most pessimistic President being threatened by a hopeandchange reverse finesse. He could have said last Thursday, “Not only are things not nearly as bad as during the Depression, they don’t even approach our woes of 1979 when I called on people to abandon hope. This new guy spreading doom and gloom is a piker. By 1980 I had 7.5% unemployment rate, but I’d also gotten inflation up to 13.5%. Let’s see Obama match that.” Unfortunately, I think this challenge will not go unanswered.

I don’t know which is worse, Obama’s one-upping Carter on malaise by running around the country in permanent campaign mode invoking fear and uncertainty, or Carter’s assurance that things will get better because of ObamaBucks.

Carter’s idea of “[F]ac[ing] up to this,” now covers putting people to work hand-feeding $30 million in C-notes to salt marsh harvest mice living in Nancy Pelosi’s district. Carter must feel a certain vindication that those ignorant people have to get down on all fours to “face up” to tiny rodents, since when not otherwise engaged in giving group hugs to gangs of weasels like Hamas, Carter has been a leading American expert in sucking up to such jumbo rodents as Yasser Arafat, Hugo Chavez, Bashar Al-Assad, and Kim Jong Il.

Carter has reaffirmed his confidence in government. He’s never had any in the American people. Carter’s optimism is a worse portent than Obama’s fearmongering.

Ex-president – by the Grace of God

I called it Legacy of the Dhimmi when I asked the rhetorical question, “Who ‘lost’ Iran?”

The answer, of course, is Dhimmi Carter. The Jerusalem Post makes the same point by noting that the Dhimmer is Father of the Iranian revolution:

…Let’s look at the results of Carter’s misguided liberal policies: the Islamic Revolution in Iran; the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (Carter’s response was to boycott the 1980 Moscow Olympics); the birth of Osama bin Laden’s terrorist organization; the Iran-Iraq War, which cost the lives of millions dead and wounded; and yes, the present war on terrorism and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

…Carter pressured the shah to make what he termed human rights concessions by releasing political prisoners and relaxing press censorship. Khomeini could never have succeeded without Carter. The Islamic Revolution would have been stillborn.

Gen. Robert Huyser, Carter’s military liaison to Iran, once told me in tears: “The president could have publicly condemned Khomeini and even kidnapped him and then bartered for an exchange with the [American Embassy] hostages, but the president was indignant. ‘One cannot do that to a holy man,’ he said.”

Investor’s Business Daily has some thoughts on Dhimmi’s most recent perfidy, Carter’s Nutzpah. They begin with another rhetorical question:

Has Jimmy Carter gone off the deep end? He’s now scolding the West for refusing to bankroll Hamas terrorists who’ve just seized power at gunpoint in Gaza. It’s a new low in coddling terrorism.

As the Gaza Strip flamed into Hamas gang warfare and the West Bank slid into another civil war, Carter — cozy in distant Ireland accepting another “human rights” award — found cause Tuesday to blame America first for all the violence.

Amid wine, cheese and good feeling, America’s worst ex-president drew a bead on the West. The refusal by the U.S., Israel and the EU to support Hamas, an armed terror group that just launched a coup d’etat and civil war in full view of the world, was nothing but a “criminal” act at the root of the trouble there, Carter asserted.

“The United States and Israel decided to punish all the people in Palestine and did everything they could to deter a compromise between Hamas and Fatah,” he said.

The statement was so malevolent and illogical as to border on insane. Carter wasn’t honest enough to say he was rooting for terrorists who started a terrifying new war in the region and trashed what little democratic rule the Palestinians had. Instead, he tut-tutted the West for being insufficiently sensitive to the fact that Hamas thugs were democratically elected in 2006 in an “orderly and fair” vote.

With his persistent delusional relativism, Jimmy Carter has done far more to promote amorality than anyone since Lenin. People will say, “His intent is good.” So what? We see that all the difference that makes is to compound the power of evil in the supposed service of moral principle. A congenital inability to comprehend the nature and existence of evil may get you a Nobel Prize, but it does not make you a Saint. Rather, you become evil yourself by giving to it aid and comfort when you could have opposed it. There’s a special place in Hell.

If you doubt Carter is unhinged, please explain how he can commend murderers, without recognizing the elephant-in-the-room irony.

…Carter said Hamas, besides winning a fair and democratic mandate that should have entitled it to lead the Palestinian government, had proven itself to be far more organized in its political and military showdowns with the Fatah movement of Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.

Hitler was also far “more organized,” politically, and more efficient, militarily, than his opposition. He became Führer in a democratic process, after eventually receiving about 40% of the popular vote – like Hamas. Upon assuming the Presidency, he immediately abolished the office along with the democracy. Sort of what Hamas just did – only they did it with more up-front general violence.

Paul von Hindenburg, the Presidential incumbent and winner of the 1932 Weimar Republic election (its last), helped make Hitler’s reign of terror possible. Hindenburg agreed to appoint Hitler as Chancellor of Germany in 1933, and Hitler assumed the Presidency upon Hindenburg’s death in 1934.

Hitler’s first act was to eliminate the office of the President, replacing it with the Führer und Reichskanzler. AKA, Nazi totalitarianism. What followed was a larger, even “more organized” version of Hamas’ recent successes in Gaza and Lebanon. Hamas is still in the planning stages for Israel’s destruction, but to cement the German parallel, Hamas has sworn to exterminate the Jews. Neither Hitler, nor Hamas, ever showed any sign they could be dissuaded from such genocidal intent. Dhimmi Carter is not interested in the attempt.

We can see a parallel to Hitler’s ascension to power, but completing the analogy is more difficult, because it is not clear whether Carter should be assigned the role of Paul von Hindenberg, Vidkun Quisling, Lord Haw Haw, or Jane Fonda. Perhaps a combination.

Neville Chamberlain is excluded from such consideration because he was a far better man than Jimmy Carter will ever be.

Legacy of the Dhimmi

Why is the general population in Iran of a far more moderate mind than those in the rest of the region? The Captain’s Quarters notes:

Iran Nearing The Tipping Point?

…The Iranian people as a whole are a lot more cosmopolitan than the provincial clerics that act as dictators over them. Until recently, the creation of an Islamist state has kept Muslims from reacting to the oppression, especially as the mullahs acted to give limited expression of popular dissent after the death of the revered Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, as a safety valve against an explosion of resentment.

There is certainly evidence that Iran’s people are restive now because they remember life under Shah Pahlavi. Could it be that the Shah, who was deposed on Dhimmi Carter’s watch, should be credited for the present undercurrent of dissent in Iran?

…His [the Shah’s] White Revolution, a series of economic and social reforms intended to transform Iran into a global power, succeeded in modernizing the nation, nationalizing many natural resources and extending suffrage to women, among other things.

…[By 1979 the] exiled monarch had become unpopular in much of the world, especially in the liberal West, ironically his original backers and those who had most to lose from his downfall.

To be sure, the Shah was no democrat, but the 1979 revolution was not about achieving democracy. It was about restoring 14th century Islamic values. Here are the major points of the Shah’s White Revolution. Compare these to the current government. The Iranian people are.

1- Land Reforms Program and Abolishing Feudalism: The government bought the land from the feudal land lords at a fair price and sold it to the peasants at 30% below the market value, with the loan being payable over 25 years at very low interest rates. This made it possible for 1.5 million peasant families, who had once been nothing more than slaves, to own the lands that they had been cultivating all their lives. Given that average size of a peasant family was 5, land reforms program brought freedom to 9 million people, or 40% of Iran’s population.

2- Nationalization of Forests and Pasturelands: Introduced many measures, not only to protect the national resources and stop the destruction of forests and pasturelands, but also to further develop and cultivate them. More than 9 million tress were planted in 26 regions, creating 70,000 acres of “green belts” around cities and on the borders of the major highways.

3- Privatization of the Government Owned Enterprises, manufacturing plants and factories by selling their shares to the public and the old feudal lords, thus creating a whole new class of factory owners who could now help to industrialize the country.

4- Profit Sharing for industrial workers in private sector enterprises, giving the factory workers and employees 20% share of the net profits of the places where they worked and securing bonuses based on higher productivity or reductions in costs.

5- Extending the Right to Vote to Women, who had no voice and were suppressed by Islamic traditions. This measure was widely criticized by the clergy.

6- Formation of the Literacy Corps, so that those who had a high school diploma and were required to serve their country as soldiers could do so in fighting illiteracy in the villages. At this point in time 2/3 of the population was illiterate.

7- Formation of the Health Corps to extend public health care throughout the villages and rural regions of Iran. In 3 years, almost 4,500 medical groups were trained; nearly 10 million cases were treated by the Corps.

8- Formation of the Reconstruction and Development Corps to teach the villagers the modern methods and techniques of farming and keeping livestock. Agricultural production between 1964 and 1970 increased by 80% in tonnage and 67% in value.

9- Formation of the Houses of Equity where 5 village elders would be elected by the villagers, for a period of 3 years, to act as arbitrators in order to help settle minor offences and disputes. By 1977 there were 10,358 Houses of Equity serving over 10 million people living in over 19,000 villages across the country.

10- Nationalization of all Water Resources, introduction of projects and policies in order to conserve and benefit from Iran’s limited water resources. Many dams were constructed and five more were under construction in 1978. It was as a result of these measures that the area of land under irrigation increased from 2 million acres, in 1968, to 5.6 million in 1977.

11- Urban and Rural Modernization and Reconstruction with the help of the Reconstruction and Development Corps. Building of public baths, schools and libraries; installing water pumps and power generators for running water and electricity.

12- Didactic Reforms that improved the quality of education by diversifying the curriculum in order to adapt to the necessities of life in the modern world.

13- Workers’ Right to Own Shares in the Industrial Complexes where they worked by turning Industrial units, with 5 years history and over, into public companies, where up to 99% of the shares in the state-owned enterprises and 49% of the shares of the private companies would be offered for sale to the workers of the establishment at first and then to the general public.

14- Price Stabilization and campaign against unreasonable profiteering (1975). Owners of factories and large chain stores were heavily fined, with some being imprisoned and other’s licenses being revoked. Sanctions were imposed on multi-national foreign companies and tons of merchandise stored for speculative purposes were confiscated and sold to consumers at fixed prices.

15- Free and Compulsory Education and a daily free meal for all children from kindergarten to eighth grade. In 1978, 25% of Iranians were enrolled in public schools alone. In that same year there were 185,000 students of both sexes studying in Iran’s universities. In addition to the above there were over 100,000 students pursuing their studies abroad, of which 50,000 were enrolled in colleges and universities in the United States.

16- Free Food for Needy Mothers and for all newborn babies up to the age of two.

17- Introduction of Social Security and National Insurance for all Iranians. National Insurance system provided for up to 100% of the wages during retirement.

18- Stable and Reasonable Cost of Renting or Buying of Residential Properties (1977). Controls were placed on land prices and various forms of land speculation.

19- Introduction of Measures to Fight against Corruption within the bureaucracy. Imperial Inspection Commission was founded, consisting of representatives from administrative bodies and people of proven integrity.

That Iran’s government is populated primarily by thuggish religious fanatics today, is but another thing for which Dhimmi Carter needs to answer.

What would a moderate, modern Iran mean to us at this moment? Who “lost” Iran?

From laughingstock to pariah

Even assuming it to be true of the United States, the latter of which is Dhimmi Carter’s view, I’ll take the latter thank you. It is certainly true of Carter.

Christopher Hitchens skewers Dhimmi Carter.


The latest absurdities to emerge from Jimmy Carter’s big, smug mouth.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, May 21, 2007, at 11:35 AM ET

Almost always, when former President Jimmy Carter opens his big, smug mouth, he has already made the psychological mistake that is going to reduce his words to absurdity. When he told the press last week that the Bush administration had aroused antipathy around the world, he might have been uttering no more than a banality. But no, he had to try to invest it with a special signature flourish.

Read it all at the link above. Highly recommended.

Any of those longing for surrender in the mid-East and price controls on gasoline, who were ten years old or more during Carter’s putative presidency, should be required to read this before they next vote.

OTOH, they shouldn’t vote even then. Not because they are doomed to repeat a past they can’t remember, but because they’re ignorant of current events.

I would like to nominate Mr. Carter for a new category of Nobel Prize: “Most evil committed in the name of smug good intentions.” Extra credit for vacuous preening.


Update: 6:43PM

Alice the Camel reminds me of a great passage from Paul Johnson’s Intellectuals. It serves as a partial explanation for Mr. Carter.

Almost all intellectuals profess to love humanity and to be working for its improvement and happiness. But it is the idea of humanity they love, rather than the actual individuals who compose it. They love humanity in general rather than men and women in particular. Loving humanity as an idea, they can then produce solutions as ideas. Therein lies the danger, for when people conflict with the solution as idea, they are first ignored or dismissed as unrepresentative; and then, when they continue to obstruct the idea, they are treated with growing hostility and categorized as enemies of humanity in general.

Update: 7:45PM

Hitchen’s article and an email from me prompted Paladin to supply a list of the worst Presidents of the 20th century:

Here’s my list of the 10 worst in the 20 century only (Sorry, Andy Jackson):

1. Carter
2. Johnson
3. Nixon
4. Wilson
5. FDR (would be higher but for WWII)
6. GHW Bush
7. Hoover
8. Truman
9. Teddy
10. Harding

Which connects a question being asked by Amy Ridenour…

An Ode to FDR?
After this, what next for the libertarians? An ode to FDR?

…to a conversation Paladin and I had about Libertarians this afternoon.

I suggested one might look to the Reason Foundation and/or Reason Magazine as a source for viable Libertarian congressional candidates.

Lynn Scarlett, the Rachel Carson apologist who elicited Ridenour’s question, is a former president of the Reason Foundation, a libertarian nonprofit based in Los Angeles.

The problem might be that the libertarian tent, by definition, is too big. Lynn Scarlett must be considered a libertarian spokesperson, and she’s praising the junk scientist responsible for big government decisions resulting in millions of deaths from malaria? Amy Ridenour might better have asked about an Ode to Pol Pot. Or Carson’s natural heir, Al Gore.

How do I know Carson’s science is junk? Well, it’s only fair to give Reason Magazine a chance to rebut. It is a big tent.