It isn't just Carter, though. He may be front and center, but the State Department, the FBI and CIA, the university professors of MESA nostra, the President, all his advisors, the generals in the military, they are all cut from the same cloth.

Posted by: Jewel Atkins at April 18, 2008 3:59 AM

Someone said it already - "There's no fool like an old fool." Dhimmi "Peanut" Khata fits this description to a tee.

Posted by: Eastview at April 18, 2008 5:53 AM

“Rome will be conquered, just like Constantinople was, as was prophesized by our prophet Muhammad,” Hamas member and Palestinian parliamentarian Yunis al-Asal has pledged.

Maybe it's time the West seriously considers a concerted effort to "take back" Constantinople. I don't know exactly how this would be done, but restoring the Hagia Sophia to its original function would be a good first step and would help counter such triumphalistic clap trap as this.

Posted by: Eastview at April 18, 2008 6:03 AM

Carters handling of the embassy takeover was a pitiful excuse of leadership..I think he did not want to do anything to offend his terrorists buddies. He never intended to do anything. THe new incoming president said he would fix the problem and the hostages were immediately released.

Posted by: pulsar182 at April 18, 2008 6:33 AM

Let us never forget the account of the UN official who in 1979 sat in on negotiations to free the hostages between the Ayatollahs and a joint US-UN delegation. The Carter Admin. officials were eager to agree with any and every condition put forth by the Ayatollahs. It was the UN officials (as hard as this is to believe) who were demanding reciprocity from Iran, and that the Iranians adhere to diplomatic norms.

Whatever the failings of the government bureaucracy, it was Jimmy Carter himself who played the lead dhimmi in this vile production.

Posted by: Cornelius at April 18, 2008 6:55 AM

Carter is not clueless. He knows exactly what he is doing and why. He is bankrolled by Arabs and owes them. He is in this for the self-aggrandisement and admiration of the many who are fooled by his myopic peace seeking, knowing full well the nature of Islamic ideology and supremacism. It's worse than clueless. He's perverse and degenerate.

Posted by: johndoe at April 18, 2008 8:17 AM

Maybe it's time the West seriously considers a concerted effort to "take back" Constantinople. I don't know exactly how this would be done, but restoring the Hagia Sophia to its original function would be a good first step and would help counter such triumphalistic clap trap as this.
Posted by: Eastview

This would be a necessary first step to stop the tide of Eurabianism, to restore Hagia Sophia to its original use as a place of Christian worship, not the religion of the conquerors, nor a secularized museum, but a Cathedral. The foolish 'missiles' built around her can come down too, they spoil the fine architecture.

If Islam's grand mosque in Rome http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/6953?eng=y is allowed to stand as the largest in Europe, and if Mecca will not allow the grandest Christian cathedral to be built, then the compromise is to return Sophia. Otherwise, the grand mosque in Rome should come down. No more concession, no more jizyah, but real dialogue.

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at April 18, 2008 9:55 AM

Did you see the sickening comments at the end of the article in the Boston Herald? The only good one was by someone named Joval: "i think if president carter really wants to help, he should strap on a suicide vest whenever he meets the leadership of hamas and do us all a favor."

Posted by: JeffS at April 18, 2008 10:07 AM

Carter is just as dangerous now, if not more so considering recent events, than he was as our President. On top of that, I believe Carter is creating a new, heretofore unwritten, constitutional category for former presidents, something the Framers never considered, they being men of honor who accepted when they were voted off the political stage. His dragging Secret Service personnel into Hamas' territory, his laying a wreath at Arafish's grave, his allowing North Korean nukes, and on and on, all while out of office, is revolting. Not only that, though, he is using the prestige of his title of 'former President' to set this country on two opposing policy courses (his and the sitting President's). Like the Great Obama, Carter is divisive, and at a time when we truly must be united in our stand against the rising tide of islamic domination. Instead, again like the Great Obama, there is no tyrant or thug, religious or otherwise, who is not debased enough to whom he can surrender fast enough. Carter's not elected to make that decision for me. The fact that presidential candidate Obama wants to do the same thing is frightening. After one term, Carter's screwups were so bad that we are still paying for them, and will pay more dearly down the road. One can only guess at how bad off we'll be after Obama should ever get into the Oval Office. While this would make Michele proud for the first time of her country, which her husband will 'lead' to hope, che'nge and ruin, I'll pass on making her feel good and instead will allow her to be bitter and cling to reverunatthemouth for her self-esteem. It's the least any of us can do.

Posted by: Rick at April 18, 2008 10:46 AM

Have a little mercy on Dhimmi Carter.

I'll bet he spent a lot of his political life trying to impress Democrat bigwigs that his Southern Baptist faith didn't mean that he was going to speak in tongues and roll in the aisle during important political meetings, and that he was just an ordinary guy like everyone else.

As President, he was trying desperately to show that the USA was "just one of the guys", too--you know, desiring Marxist-style "liberation" and a world to be divided between Moscow and Beijing, and reserving his human rights ire for South Korea, Taiwan, Israel, and others who dared run afoul of the Revolutionary Marxist machine.

Further, all of us raised under the influence of the 18th century so-called "enlightenment" dearly, dearly, dearly love to think that everyone is at bottom sweetly reasonable according to canons framed somewhere between Locke, Rousseau, and Kant. All of us influenced by 19th century materialism also desperately want to believe that as long as someone has a full tummy and a good roof over his head, he won't be dangerous. Hence, we "understand" ourselves silly over tribes of savages and cannibals in the so-called Tiers Monde and tax the Bejayzus out of our own people to placate them--and teach them that if they wrap Uncle Sam's eagle in a hair shirt and kick him everywhere from Capetown to Cairo and then from Vientiane to Venezuela, he'll molt beautiful, negotiable golden feathers.

Dhimmi Khadr has set up these idols alongside his Baptist God and hence goes on these fruitless junkets hither and yon.

No, I don't want him to strap on a suicide belt and pull the trigger when he meets the Hamas leadership. I don't even want that sweet old woman to be taken hostage. I just hope that the storehouse of explosives under the Hamas headquarters gets accidently touched off as soon as the Dhimmi's a/c limousine is a safe distance away.

Posted by: Kepha at April 18, 2008 11:46 AM

Posted by: Eastview
Maybe it's time the West seriously considers a concerted effort to "take back" Constantinople. I don't know exactly how this would be done, but restoring the Hagia Sophia to its original function would be a good first step and would help counter such triumphalistic clap trap as this.

If it had not been for the British, the Hagia Sofia would ave been a Church today.

Under pressure from the British and having suffered enormous losses by some estimates about 200,000 men Russia accepted the truce offered by Ottoman Empire on January 31, 1878, but continued to move towards Constantinople.

The British sent a fleet of battleships to intimidate Russia from entering the city, and Russian forces stopped at San Stefano. Eventually Russia entered into a settlement under the Treaty of San Stefano on March 3, by which the Ottoman Empire would recognize the independence of Romania, Serbia, Montenegro, and autonomy of Bulgaria.

Alarmed by the extension of Russian power into the Balkans, the Great Powers later forced modifications of the treaty in the Congress of Berlin.

Posted by: InfidelK9 at April 18, 2008 12:51 PM

I just can't go on believing that Carter, or anybody else, is that naive.

Carter has a history with this stuff going back to the 70's.

He's had way more than enough time to notice what is almost immediately and inescapably obvious to the rest of us.

I'm pretty well convinced that he is motivated by malice -- that Carter has some kind of terrible soul rot -- and that he is acting on raw hatred and an appetite for destruction.

The degree to which he is conscious of himself in these matters is a mystery to me. He may be entirely consumed and hidden from himself by narcissism. He may know.

Either way, the bastard is plain downright evil.

He's vulnerable to prosecution under the Logan act.

Somebody has got to put a stop to his treasons.

Posted by: joeblough at April 18, 2008 1:14 PM

"The ideology of Hamas derives from something more enduring than “Mein Kampf,” “Das Kapital” and the sayings of Chairman Mao. It is rooted in a 1,400-year-old religion."

Let me suggest that the ideology which informs and motivates Jimmy Carter is even older than Islam itself.
It's called Jew-hatred.
Carter is a Jew-hater and will always despise Jews.

Posted by: MJ at April 18, 2008 4:25 PM

Infidelk9 -

yes. It is tragic, isn't it?

Constantinople, and indeed, Hagia Sophia, is where, according to legend, the investigators from Kiev, from a pagan kingdom seeking a new religion, decided they had found what they were looking for, after having considered, and rejected, Judaism, western catholicism, and Islam.

"We knew not whether we were in heaven or on earth", the legend says, concerning the report they took back to the ruler of Kiev, after they had witnessed the sacred liturgy performed within the walls of Hagia Sophia.

Thus, with the help of Byzantine missionaries invited by the ruler of Kiev, the seed was sown that became the Russian Orthodox church. Neither the Mongol hordes nor the Tsarist despots nor the Soviet torturers and mass murderers succeeded in rooting out the Faith: it may have been practised ignorantly and compromised with corruption and state power, it is marred by many sins, but...it endured. It is the Russian church, a Russian artist, that gave us one of the loveliest visual summaries of the Christian conception of God - Reblev's 15C icon, 'The Trinity, or the Hospitality of Abraham', a vision of godself as an endless open conversation of love. Solzhenitsyn wrote, in the Gulag Archipelago, of the many humble Russian Christians who suffered imprisonment, torment and even death, under the communists, rather than renounce their faith - "a silent procession carrying invisible candles".

One wonders - had Infidels Western and Eastern been able to make common cause, had Russia in the 19th century been allowed or even encouraged and helped to rescue Hagia Sophia, their 'mother' church, from the Turkish Muslims, might not many things have happened differently?

Would the genocide of the Armenians have taken place, had Russia, not Islam, been in possession of Turkey?

In the last analysis, despite its many disastrous sins (worst of all, antisemitism and the pogroms ) 'russia' has a strong christian presence and is therefore capable of change and renewal (see the film 'Repentance'); whereas islam is islam is islam...It is tragic that the British in 1878 failed to see that, even despite imperial rivalries, they had more in common with the Christians of Russia (however illiterate and badly ruled) than with the barbarian Muslims.

who knows? If a great Christian revival were to sweep Russia, affecting not only ethnic Russians but the non-Russian peoples, and gathering up formerly Muslim peoples into the church, and healing the deadly damage done by the soviets and their mafiosi heirs, then it may one day be a re-born, Christian-majority free Russia that will repay their ancient spiritual debt by delivering their 'mother church' from the claws of Islam.

Pray for the spiritual healing of Russia.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at April 18, 2008 9:13 PM

'If it had not been for the British, the Hagia Sofia would ave been a Church today.

Under pressure from the British and having suffered enormous losses by some estimates about 200,000 men Russia accepted the truce offered by Ottoman Empire on January 31, 1878, but continued to move towards Constantinople.

The British sent a fleet of battleships to intimidate Russia from entering the city, and Russian forces stopped at San Stefano. Eventually Russia entered into a settlement under the Treaty of San Stefano on March 3, by which the Ottoman Empire would recognize the independence of Romania, Serbia, Montenegro, and autonomy of Bulgaria.'
-- from a posting above

During World War I, one of the war aims of Russian liberals such as Prof. Pavel Miliukov, leader of the Kadets (Constitutional Democrats), was to free Constantinople -- then 50% non-Muslim -- from Islamic rule. It could then have been accomplished. It was not.

Posted by: Hugh at April 18, 2008 11:00 PM

Perfidious Albion

Posted by: John C at April 19, 2008 12:42 AM

dumbledoresarmy

Thanx for an enlightening post.

Posted by: InfidelK9 at April 19, 2008 1:14 AM

Nut-Job:

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/images/Jimmy%20Carter.jpg

Posted by: champ at April 19, 2008 2:04 AM

Regarding Russian entry into Constantinople in 1878:

My history of this region of the world is a little rusty, but hasn't it been Western policy since forever to deny a Russian naval breakout into the Mediterranean, and otherwise to prevent their acquisition of a warm water port? Control of Constantinople and the Dardanelles would have given the Russian Empire direct access to the Mediterranean from the Black Sea, hence provide a challenge to British dominance. So, given the geopolitics of the day, keeping the Russians out of Constantinople was seen as more important than strengthening Christianity in the Ottoman Empire.

There was potentially another chance to restore Byzantine control of Thrace and Constantinople following World War I. That fell through, too.

Times change, though. The geopolitics of the 21st century is quite different than it was in the 19th and early 21st centuries. If Islamists continue to agitate for the conquest of Rum and Reconquista de Andalusia, then perhaps a fitting counter would be to publicly announce that the goal of the West is to restore Christian control to the territories of Byzantium. Even though this would not appear to be practically realizable if cast in these terms, at least it gives notice to Islam of the intention of the West not only to resist their ongoing encroachments but to roll back their gains where ever possible. And it would be in terms they understand.

Posted by: Eastview at April 19, 2008 2:16 AM

"The geopolitics of the 21st century is quite different than it was in the 19th and early 21st centuries."

That should obviously have read "early 20th centuries".

Posted by: Eastview at April 19, 2008 2:19 AM

"IN November 1, 1916, during a speech in the State Duma, Miliukov highlighted numerous governmental failures with the famous question "What is that? Stupidity or treason?"

we could ask the same question today...

Posted by: pulsar182 at April 19, 2008 8:05 AM

thanks JeffS. ;)

Did you see the sickening comments at the end of the article in the Boston Herald? The only good one was by someone named Joval: "i think if president carter really wants to help, he should strap on a suicide vest whenever he meets the leadership of hamas and do us all a favor."

Posted by: JeffS at April 18, 2008 10:07 AM

Posted by: joval at April 23, 2008 6:01 PM