Reminder: Jimmy Carter Is Our Worst Ex-President

Joe Scarborough is Wrong. Jimmy Carter Is Our Worst Ex ...

The Federalist

By

At the age of 95, Jimmy Carter is now the longest-living U.S. president in history. “Great men are a dime a dozen,” MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough noted on the former president’s birthday. “Jimmy Carter has always been something far greater than that. He has lived his life as a good man. And that is exactly what America needs right now.”

Now, I realize the Trump-obsessed Scarborough is attempting to juxtapose the former president with the present one. But the canonization of Carter has always been transparent revisionism. Habitat for Humanity or not, the world would have been a far better place had Carter retired from the world stage after his presidency. Carter’s post-presidency is a stark reminder, in fact, that “good” personal decorum doesn’t necessarily translate into “good” political actions.

“Great men” do not, as Carter has his entire post-presidential life, use freelance diplomacy abroad to undermine elected American governments. They do not coddle and legitimize tyrants and murderers around the world. They do not undercut liberalism by allowing despots to use them as props. It is one thing to meet with detestable characters as president — diplomacy and American interests often dictate it — but it is quite another to ally yourself with them as a free man. Yet, that’s what Carter has done for 40 years.

Carter was the first, and only, ex-president to visit communist Cuba. “I look forward to this opportunity to meet with Cuban people from all walks of life and to talk with President Castro,” Carter claimed. While there, Carter would spin fantasies about Cuba’s “superb systems of health care and universal education,” while offering perfunctory attention to the hundreds of political prisoners who were, as he tossed around a baseball with Castro, being imprisoned and tortured.

Then again, there are few communist strongmen who haven’t sung Carter’s praises. Before the socialist cratering of Venezuela, Carter had been one of Hugo Chavez’s most important international allies. In a speech at the Carter Center, three weeks before Venezuelans voted in 2012, the former president noted that “of the 92 elections that we’ve monitored, I would say the election process in Venezuela is the best in the world.” (You won’t be surprised, I suspect, to learn that the United States was “one of the worst” because it allowed all citizens to spend money on campaigns.)

Numerous international pro-democracy groups disagreed with Carter’s assessment. In Venezuela, Chavez was the only one with access to unlimited funds — not to mention the state’s infrastructure and media — while anyone who opposed him was cowed into silence lest they lose their property and be deported. Carter, like many others these days, forgets there’s a lot more to liberalism than voting.

It must have been a tragic blow to the opposition to have watched a former American president, one endlessly celebrated by liberals in his own country, preemptively endorsing the authority of Chavismo. After a 45-minute chat with Carter, Chavez, just “as Fidel says,” called the former president “a man of honor.”

He wasn’t alone. Nicaragua communist Daniel Ortega, an ally since Carter helped him establish a Sandinista dictatorship in 1979, surely agreed. As did Haitian military martinet Raoul Cedras. As did strongman Joaquin Balaguer, who won another term in the Dominican Republic in 1990 after Carter ignored widespread fraud.

It was Carter, who takes far too much credit for the Camp David Accords, who “monitored” the 2006 Palestinian elections in which Hamas toppled the ruling Fatah in Gaza. Not only did Carter legitimize Hamas’ theocrat rule, he argued the only way toward a genuine peace was recognition of the terror group by the international community.

The Great Man has always had a soft spot for the murders of Israeli citizens. As Douglas Brinkley described it, Carter’s “fondness” for the godfather of modern terrorism, Yasser Arafat, “transcended politics, based on their emotional connection and the shared belief that they were both ordained to be peacemakers by God.”

Yet, not even after Hamas had begun tossing Arafat’s Fatah officials off rooftops and summarily executing them in the streets did Carter change his mind. Even today, as Hamas targets civilians and murders American citizens, Morning Joe’s hero argues that the group deserves “legitimacy as a political actor” because it is “committed” to peace.

The most consequential of Carter’s meddling, though, was his “brokering” of a disastrous deal with North Korea in 1994. Carter actively undercut the Clinton administration’s international efforts to stop the dictatorship from attaining nuclear weapons. The former president, who was not empowered to make any agreements, struck one with Kim Il Sung, and then publicly released it to pressure the administration. Carter would admit as much, explaining, “I hoped that it would consummate a resolution of what I considered to be a very serious crisis.”

Talk about Logan Act violation. One Clinton aide called Carter’s actions “near traitorous.” The mess you see now is, in part, the result of Carter’s handiwork.

So, at worst, Carter is a knowing supporter of bad actors, and at best, a naïve moral relativist. Bruce Klingner argues that the former president “habitually adopts a value-neutral, even-handed treatment of all countries, ignoring the reality that some are belligerents and others are victims.” This seems charitable framing for a man who was once the leader of the world’s most powerful nation. Whatever the case, no modern ex-president has been more destructive to the interests of liberalism.

A good man, maybe? A great one?  No way.

While the Media Accuses Trump of Collusion w/Russia, He’s Fighting Russia in Venezuela

Frontpage Mag

 

Obama colluded with Venezuela’s regime, the way that he had with Putin.

Nine years before the Socialist tyranny became a nightmare of mass murder, repression and hunger, he was pressing its tyrant’s flesh.

After several days of the US and Cuba trading warm words that have hinted at a détente after a half century of hostility, Mr Obama said that he was seeking “a new beginning” with Havana.

But it was his unexpected handshake and the smiles he exchanged with Mr Chavez that caught many at the summit by surprise.

Asked what he had said to Mr Chavez, Mr Obama replied with a smile: “I said como estas”.

Hugo Chavez, the socialist president of Venezuela, told state television: “I hope this doesn’t harm Obama, but if I was from the United States, I’d vote for Obama.”

Chavez, who like Obama is seeking re-election, also called the American president “a good guy,” reports Reuters.

“I think that if Obama was from Barlovento or some Caracas neighborhood, he’d vote for Chavez,” said the Venezuela leader.

It’s quite a contrast to how Chavez described Obama predecessor George W. Bush — as “the devil.”

Chavez predicted both he and Obama would win re-election, possibly leading to better American-Venezuelan relations. He said both he and Obama were battling the “extreme right” in their election battles.

“Obama’s atrocious statement on Chavez’s death” was a Washington Post headline in 2013.

While Obama had pandered to Russian clients like Cuba, Venezuela and Iran, President Trump stood up to them. And he’s doing it now.

Private military contractors who do secret missions for Russia flew into Venezuela in the past few days to beef up security for President Nicolas Maduro in the face of U.S.-backed opposition protests, according to two people close to them.

Russia, which has backed Maduro’s socialist government to the tune of billions of dollars, this week promised to stand by him after opposition leader Juan Guaido declared himself president with Washington’s endorsement.

It was the latest international crisis to split the global superpowers, with the United States and Europe backing Guaido, and Russia and China urging non-interference.

Yevgeny Shabayev, leader of a local chapter of a paramilitary group of Cossacks with ties to Russian military contractors, said he had heard the number of Russian contractors in Venezuela may be about 400.

Meanwhile the Democrats are doing everything possible to undermine America’s standing in the world and our foreign policy. Moscow no doubt appreciates the assistance that Pelosi and Schumer are providing it. Much as it appreciated Obama’s assistance.

Venezuela’s gun ban is working out perfectly for the socialist agenda

Hot Air

Jazz Shaw

 

While it may seem hard to believe, there was a time when the citizens of Venezuela were allowed to keep and bear arms. This wasn’t the distant past we’re talking about either. It was only in 2012 that the socialist government of Hugo Chavez enacted the “Control of Arms, Munitions and Disarmament Law.” When it was passed, the authors of the legislation pulled no punches, saying that the explicit purpose of the law was to “disarm all citizens.”

That bill was spectacularly successful, massively reducing the volume of privately owned firearms. Then, when the new tyrant, Nicolas Maduro took power and sent his swarms of federal troops and government “militias” out into the streets to crush any opposition to his regime, the unarmed populace had little recourse in the face of government guns. This fact is highlighted by a Venezuelan educator now living in exile in Ecuador. (Fox News, emphasis added)

As Venezuela continues to crumble under the socialist dictatorship of President Nicolas Maduro, some are expressing words of warning – and resentment – against a six-year-old gun control bill that stripped citizens of their weapons.

Guns would have served as a vital pillar to remaining a free people, or at least able to put up a fight,” Javier Vanegas, 28, a Venezuelan teacher of English now exiled in Ecuador, told Fox News. “The government security forces, at the beginning of this debacle, knew they had no real opposition to their force. Once things were this bad, it was a clear declaration of war against an unarmed population.”

The unarmed population in question probably couldn’t afford to purchase any replacement firearms at this point even if it were legal. Keep in mind that most of Venezuela is so starving and impoverished at this point that families are renting caskets to display at funerals for their deceased loved ones and then burying them in plastic bags.

The effectiveness of the Control of Arms, Munitions and Disarmament Law was regularly highlighted by the government on state-run television. Here are a few of the items they featured.

  • A program allowing citizens to voluntarily trade in their arms for electrical goods
  • A tally of only 37 recorded voluntary gun surrenders
  • Meanwhile, more than 12,500 gun confiscations were conducted by force
  • Broadcasted displays of public weapons demolitions in the town square

Any of this sounding familiar to you yet? Government offers of gun “buybacks” (even if it’s in trade for goods)… mandatory gun confiscations… the destruction of weapons rather than having them go back into circulation? In case you don’t feel like clicking through, all of those linked stories in this paragraph come from events here in the United States, not in some foreign ****hole country.

If you’re watching what’s happening under expanding gun control programs in Democrat/socialist run blue states these days, consider the end game. And to do so, look no further than Venezuela. It’s really working out gangbusters for them, isn’t it?

Socialism at Its Finest: Venezuela Facing Toilet Paper Shortage

toiletpaper

The Daily Sheeple

Beginning in the late 90’s and early 2000’s, numerous Latin American countries underwent a left leaning shift that has been dubbed “the pink tide.” This moniker was created to contrast itself with the more extreme “red” socialism that stood for the abject failure of the Soviet Union.

It was supposed to be a more moderate form of socialism, perhaps more in line with the welfare states of Europe. In theory, it would have all the supposed benefits of communism, like equal rights, land reform, and cheap government services, but without the single party politics and death camps.

In practice, socialism has never had any of those supposed benefits, and if they do, they usually accomplish them by burying their country in debt and poverty. You can paint a fresh face on socialism, but it’s still the same vile system of exploitation that killed millions of people in the 20th century; and much like their hated rivals, the crony capitalist systems of the West (i.e. not truly capitalist in any sense of the word), their system still engenders an elite cartel of despots that lord over their impoverished people.

This supposedly moderate “pink tide” was led by Hugo Chavez’s gang in Venezuela, after he won the 1998 election. Within 6 years, the people of Uruguay, Chile, Brazil, Argentina, and the Dominican Republic had all elected leftist governments. Within a few more years, Paraguay, Peru, Nicaragua, Honduras, and Ecuador would follow.

But since the death of Hugo Chavez in 2013, the fate of the pink tide nations has never looked so bleak. Venezuela was the poster child of this movement, and their country is currently enduring one of the most devastating economic calamities in modern history. They just don’t understand that no matter what shade of socialism you create, it will always fall apart. In this case, Venezuela is facing one of the classic symptoms of a failed Soviet state. That is, shortages of basic necessities.

Continue reading

Just Shoot Me

American Thinker

These  days, it feels as if a drone has been hovering over my house, and now that it is  “legal,” as well as “ethical” and “wise” to kill American  citizens from afar, I fear for my life.

Since  our president has given new meaning to the phrase drone on and on and on,  principled opposition to a president is no longer patriotic, and patriotism  is no longer defined as fidelity to the constitution and the  nation.

Patriotism,  like truth, is now whatever Barack Obama says it is — and if he says it is  patriotic to vaporize me and any other human being standing in my vicinity —  citizen or not — then, who am I to object?

In  any case, I have for years exercised my First Amendment rights of unprincipled  opposition to a man I consider — hands down — America’s worst president. I  suppose, taking that into account, my inevitability as a target became a  foregone conclusion the day the EPA declared CO2 a pollutant. After all, I’ve  been known to exhale. In fact, some have labeled me a windbag.

Continue reading

Obama’s Second Declaration of War on America

Family Security Matters

Sitting down to parse President Barack Obama’s second inaugural  address of January 21st, one’s eyes begin to glaze over while  scanning the transcript of the speech. There again are the same old platitudes,  bromides, and catch phrases and secret coded messages. There again is the  sanctimonious delivery of a person who wants to be remembered for something,  because otherwise he is a zero who can only recite a speech someone else wrote  and polished and ensured that no gaffes or unintended meanings were in the text.  But he read the speech, he vetted it and approved of it, and he delivered it,  so, it’s his speech. He owns it, for better or for worse. And the unrelenting  theme is worse.

Worse for the country, because he means to “transform” it. Which, to anyone  who values freedom and governing his own destiny, means to damage it, perhaps  irreparably.

Continue reading

Venezuela bans civilians from private gun ownership

Hot Air

Venezuela has major crime problems — we hear a lot about the systemic violence in Mexico, but by at least one count, Venezuela’s murder rate is four times higher than that of Mexico’s and the highest in all of South America. As such, violent crime is one of the most dominant political issues in the socialist nation, and will factor hugely in their upcoming October elections.

And so, in a typically misguided move to cut down on crime, the government has decided to ban the commercial sale of firearms and ammunition. How and why making it illegal for lawful citizens to own firearms is supposed to make anyone feel more “secure,” I’ll never comprehend.

Continue reading