SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT: Getting Down and Dirty with Bernie Sanders — reblogged

When we elect someone to public office, we make a moral choice. We choose someone to make and enforce our laws. We elect someone to enforce values that we consider so important that we are willing to punish anyone who refuses to adhere to those values.

If someone murders, we try to catch that someone. If the crime is sufficiently heinous, we may execute at someone.

If someone steals, we try to imprison the thief.

If someone rapes, we try to shame and lock up the rapist.

If someone refuses to pay their taxes, we seize their property. We may even throw them in jail.

If someone runs a traffic light, we fine that someone. Repeat offenders lose their driving privileges. The more stubborn we lock up.

And consider who is running to lead our land. You have hear, no doubt, about Hillary Clinton’s email server. What about Bernie Sanders? Consider insanitybytes22‘s post.

For those who don’t know, in 1972 Sanders penned an article called “Man… and a Woman” which ran in the Vermont Freeman. You can find a link to the article in its entirety here.

It’s not a bad article, although a bit graphic and perverse, in which Sanders presents many of the tropes of sexual politics that began in the 60’s and continue to exist today in certain quarters. What is remarkable, or not for those with jaded eyes, is how Sanders somehow managed to declare that women fantasize about rape, and yet he suffered absolutely no political fall out for it. It is the hypocrisy here that astounds me, or perhaps not, because I have grown accustom to it. Were a conservative or a Republican or even a measly little Christian blogger not even running for office, to have stated such a thing, the social fallout would have been astounding.

Instead of NOW protesting, and the local Feminists United staging a demonstration, I am surrounded by progressive and feminist Bernie-dines who believe he is just the cat’s meow. Women who are highly educated about sexual politics, about culture and sociology, have “Bernie, he’s our man,” signs posted in their yards and all over their facebook pages. (continued here)

We have a large number of Republicans running to be our president this year. Unfortunately, the news media is urging them to pick fights with each other. Instead of a serious discussion of the issues, the news media wants an entertaining brawl. Not only is that immature, it is immoral.

Consider what we ask politicians to do, and this is the way we pick the ones we elect? When we consent to shallow news media shows of this sort (do nothing about it), we become part of the problem.

31 thoughts on “SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT: Getting Down and Dirty with Bernie Sanders — reblogged

  1. What was Sanders running for when the article was published 43 years ago, and how do we know that the article didn’t cause him some difficulties with both men and women who didn’t agree with the archetypes he posits (although its main theme – pressures of confronting changing roles between the sexes seems kind of pedestrian even for 1972)?

    Candidates say a lot of things, some of them are just mistakes that they make when fatigued, some of them may be windows on the type of people they really are. It’s fair game to explore that to an extent, I think, but one has to retain some discernment about how much a given remark reveals about the very core of the candidate.



    1. Discernment? Yep! We get a lot of that from people who pretend to be something they are not. My “favorite” are the journalists who pretend to be objective and seriously concerned about the welfare of our country. Pitting the candidates against each other is just the sort of great sport our entertainment deprived nation needs, right?

      Frankly, I think what Sanders wrote in 1972 fits in with where he is today. You don’t?

      One of the favorite staples of presidential conventions is going through the nominee’s life to show how he got to where he is on the day of his nomination. Given Sanders’ years, that could be a long show. So if Sanders receives the D. nomination, I doubt they will have time to highlight that article he wrote in 1972. Consider my post just a little assist. We would not want them to miss anything so important.


  2. Well, there will be only one nominee, and there are a whole bunch of candidates, so I guess they do sort of get pitted (or pit themselves) against one another.

    I don’t know much about Sanders, and, more particularly, I don’t know much about his views of gender roles. I doubt I’ll be in a position to vote for or against him, as I vote in Republican primaries and I don’t think he will get the Democratic nomination. Nonetheless, the 1972 article doesn’t strike me as a remarkable item for that time, considering the forum and location in which he was publishing. I don’t think it has much importance at all 40+ years later. There must be other things of far more import.



    1. Unremarkable? Is not the fact the article is unremarkable is part of the problem? Don’t we want presidents to be remarkably moral people?

      Anyway, it seems to me that you as much said you don’t think the article is not relevant for these three reasons:
      1. It is unremarkable.
      2. You don’t know much about Bernie Sanders.
      3. It is old.

      As to the candidates being pitted or pitting themselves against each other.
      1. It is not the job of the news media to pit the candidates against each other.
      2. The RNC should not allow the news media to run these debates.
      3. We need a president who is running to lead our nation. We need someone with a vision, not someone with a talent for carpet bombing a debate with ridiculing one liners.


  3. Paragraph 1: I think we want presidents to remarkably competent people with a strong sense of what is exceptional about the American democratic experiment. I want a pope (to use a current example) to be a remarkably moral person. If we place American presidents on a spectrum of morality (everyone will do this a bit differently, I suppose, but in my mind after all of 30 seconds thought, I have Bill Clinton on one end and Jimmy Carter on the other), I guess the guys that impress me most lie somewhere in the zone slightly bending toward Carter.

    Paragraph 2: It’s at least as old as Bob McDonnells’ Regent University term paper that I thought got unfair emphasis in the 2009 election. As for the rest of it, you sum it up pretty well.

    Paragraph 3: I think the candidates do a pretty good job of pitting themselves against themselves, Tom. The broadcast media are just sitting there watching and reporting. I agree with the point (if that is your point) that the two major parties should hold out for different formats. I like the idea of a random array of three or four candidates sitting around a table to talk about a randomly drawn theme (e.g., the Middle East, the economy, the budget, etc.). There needs to be someone who acts as a kind of Air Traffic Controller, to prevent any one person from monopolizing the conversation and to keep time, but I don’t know why this serial press conference thing has taken such a hold.

    And, of course, everyone agrees that “we need a president who is running to lead our nation.” The one-liners are a product of the artificial format. If you are standing there for three hours and you may get a maximum of 10 minutes lip-flapping time, you tend to look for zingers that will make you stand out from the mob. But you’re quite right that this isn’t really the skill set (particularly since these things are thought up by paid staff days before the “debate”) we are looking for in the next President.



    1. @ *scout, who wrote many surprising things, including:

      If we place American presidents on a spectrum of morality (everyone will do this a bit differently, I suppose, but in my mind after all of 30 seconds thought, I have Bill Clinton on one end and Jimmy Carter on the other), I guess the guys that impress me most lie somewhere in the zone slightly bending toward Carter.

      One of these sold out the US in return for money from Communist China, the other in return for money from Islamist Saudi Arabia. Which one of these do you have on the highly moral end of the spectrum?

      And I am intrigued by your ideal being in the middle — i.e., not highly moral, and in fact that’s not even an ideal to you, it is undesirable, as you’re most impressed by a person of indifferent morality “bending slightly toward” the antisemitic Saudi sellout.

      On a note of agreement, however, I thought that the two-person sitting debate arranged between Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain focused on economics was an excellent concept, and I’d like to see much more like this. It was closer to the Lincoln-Douglas debates, and was both civil and quite informative of the candidates’ detailed policy positions on the topic.

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

      Liked by 1 person

      1. @Keith

        That is kind of strange choice. Where the contrast between Bill Clinton’s and Jimmy Carter’s honest.

        I think Carter gets a lot of credit for his involvement in Habitat for Humanity. However, every time he involves himself in politics…..

        One thing about the Lincoln-Douglas debates is that the “moderator” kept his trap shut. The candidates did all the talking. When it comes to a debate between the candidates, why should we care what the journalists think? They are not running for office.


      2. I’m not sure I’d classify anyone in politics, Keith, as being on the “highly moral” end of the spectrum. I was responding to Tom’s notion that we want our presidents to be “remarkably moral people”. My reaction was along the lines of (I’m paraphrasing myself here) that I’m not sure that my first selection criterion for a president is that he/she be a “remarkably moral” person. (of course, there is a branch discussion on this, about private versus civic morality, but in the context of the post, we’re talking about the former, because I think it is clearly implicit in Tom’s view that the 1972 article by Sanders marks the man for all time as being morally defective in a personal sense). My 30 second ranking of presidents from least moral to most moral was based on my view of their personal morality, a view that may be skewed by presentism (the ends of my spectrum were separate in their terms by only 12 years) and all I don’t really know about the morality of, say, Franklin Pierce, and many others. So I wouldn’t either put too much stock in that exercise or, for that matter, get too concerned about it, if I were you.

        You have piqued my curiosity, however. Which one of my spectrum bookends sold out to the Chinese and which to the Saudis? I like to keep these things straight. What was the price, and did we get to keep the money in the Treasury, or did they pocket it? I missed all that as I wandered through both of those presidencies, neither of which I was very fond of, but for very different reasons.



        1. I am not surprised that you are unaware of Carter’s being funded by Saudi Arabia’s royal family, before, during, and after his presidency. And I’d guess you were unaware of his paid attacks on Israel being so blatantly antisemitic that when he published his first anti-Israel book, many of his personal staff — seeing it for the first time — resigned in protest. Carter’s work continues to be funded by the Saudis, but these days that could be said of the Clintons as well. I don’t know what the total is; it’s in the millions, but it went to Carter’s foundation after those arrangements were formalized subsequent to his departure from the Presidency. From Wikipedia:

          The Carter Center’s funding by Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries has been criticized.[44] Alan Dershowitz alleges that the Carter Center’s consistent criticism of Israel, while calling the United Arab Emirates “almost completely free and open” has been influenced by the fact that some of the Center’s funding comes from Middle Eastern sources.[45] One of the initial contributors to the Center was Bank of Commerce and Credit International founder Agha Hasan Abedi, who donated $500,000. Abedi and BCCI also donated $8 million to Carter’s Global 2000 project.[46]

          According to The Carter Center, 3 percent of the total amount of contributions the Center has received since its founding in 1982 have been from donors in Mideast Arab nations.[47] Before his death in 2005, Saudi Arabia’s King Fahd made several large donations to the Center, including a 1993 gift of $7.6 million. As of 2005, the king’s nephew, Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, had given at least $5 million to the Carter Center. In 2001 the government of the United Arab Emirates gave the Center $500,000. The previous year, ten of Osama bin Laden’s brothers had jointly pledged $1 million, as did Sultan Qaboos bin Said of Oman in 1998. The Saudi Fund for Development has been another major contributor, as well as the Kuwait Fund for Arab Economic Development. In addition, Morocco’s Prince Moulay Hicham Ben Abdallah has collaborated with the Carter Center on various initiatives.[48]

          Of the donations from the Middle East, the Center states: “Seventy-eight percent of those funds have helped to support health programs in Africa, 14 percent have gone to the institution’s endowment, 4 percent were for original construction of buildings at headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia, and 4 percent for projects to directly promote peace, such as specific election observations.[47]

          Wikipedia, pro-leftist and downplaying this, still portrays this in a way that is clearly problematic. Note that adding up these numbers and other readily-available Middle Eastern donations, then applying the “3% of the total amount” bit, suggests that Jimmy Carter’s little foundation has raked in well north of a billion dollars.

          And this is talking about the Carter Center, which was begun in 1982. Years previously, prior to Carter becoming president, his failing peanut business got a $4.6 million dollar bailout under illegitimate banking circumstances in which Abedi was involved, who had Carter’s buddy and indicted banker as a “consultant.” Once Carter became president, Abedi paid off Carter’s loan and, with his help, took over the bank. And Carter’s anti-Israel rhetoric continued to ramp up. The famous Camp David peace accord came about despite Carter’s opposition, oddly.

          As for Clinton, that whole episode is summed up in the holophrastic “Chinagate.” It is what Clinton should have been impeached for, and almost was, but the media distracted this into the Monica Lewinsky scandal not anticipating that Clinton would deny everything and then get himself in further trouble. The discussions of Chinagate on the Senate and House floors are instructive, and involve primarily Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry. I tried to encapsulate this in some poetry years ago. Sadly, some of the evidentiary links in that piece have suffered from bit rot since.

          I was amused when reading the California appellate opinion that required the Democratic National Committee to pay for the defense of a communist Chinese spy (who had been caught making 40-plus trips from the White House to the Chinese embassy with classified documents), since they were the spy’s employer at the time and the spy was ferrying communist cash to Clinton and the Democrats in evident return for the classified info. Certainly Clinton’s letter for the communist military leaders to show to missile bases, requiring them to show the Chinese their technology, was damning enough.

          I was directly, but peripherally, involved in the missile technology aspect. I was a client on that same launch, and had dinner with Bernie Schwartz of Loral who orchestrated the transfer of far more accurate missile guidance circuitry to the communist military. The outraged investigation into Loral stopped when CEO Schwartz made what was at the time the largest donation to a presidential re-election campaign ever. Later, under Bush, Loral was found liable and fined $20 million.

          How many millions were involved? Tens, but the amount is unclear. Clinton gave back only a couple of million, and the DNC similar. But I am reminded of Hillary Clinton getting a $1.8 million donation from Peter F. Paul, then when the media found out that he was a felon and couldn’t legally donate anything, Hillary gave him back only $2,300 — the maximum legal donation amount, swearing under oath that this was all she got. Paul sued, and wound up with his office raided and him spending years in jail. He may still be there. The famous Citizens United case is about the resulting “Hillary the Movie,” which can be found on YouTube now. Why was Paul a felon? Because, decades before, Democrats went after him when he ran a sting operation against Fidel Castro. More recently, Paul’s doings were important for bringing the Marvel comic characters into the world of major movies: he was Stan Lee’s business partner.

          These days, the Clintons get so much from so many bad actors that tens of millions of dollars is pretty small potatoes. But this was big stuff to them at the time, as it was to Carter.

          If you want a “remarkably moral” president who was a Democrat, look at Grover Cleveland. He was the last Democrat before the progressive corruption took over, and he fought it. He was of sterling character, and even his enemies were quick to admit this.

          ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle


        2. @Keith

          Do you remember the “debate” over whether or not character matters? At the time I was somewhat flabbergasted. How could that be debatable?

          We get this stuff because we don’t care enough about the morality of the people we elect. We don’t care enough to refuse their bribes with “other people’s money.” So now we have foreign governments bribing the residents of the White House. Is it any wonder that our foreign policy is so obscenely weird?

          Here are some sample articles.

          The Obama administration has had similar issues, but each succeeding Democrat administration seems to have gotten better at covering its tracks. Not that their actions are not public enough. The problem is that not enough of us care.


    2. @novascout

      Bob McDonnell and his thesis paper? That’s funny. The mainstream media slings out mud just to see if it will stick. Then they claim to be unbiased and objective. I point to a short, easily read article and make no pretense of not taking sides.

      By definition a Socialist (Sanders own word to describe himself) wants to run everything. That includes sex education. Hence his views on everything become relevant. Stupid, but that is where Socialism drives us.

      On his issues page, Sanders headlines “Fighting for Women’s Rights.” His idea of fighting for women’s rights is fighting for Planned Parenthood, that is, abortion. 13 years olds and abortions? No relationship? Of course, there is one. So yeah, I think linking that old article to the candidate makes sense. What has he learned since then?


      1. I think you’re agreeing with me about Bob McDonnell’s paper being misused. I generally don’t have much trouble figuring out when you and I differ on something, but when we’re saying the same of similar things, you have a gift for sounding disagreeable about it.



  4. I give credit where credit is due. Mr. Sanders admits to be a socialist, he believes the USA is not socialist enough, and he would like the USA to become like the socialist EU — yikes! We know where Mr. Sanders stands. Mrs. Clinton, on the other hand, well, we never know, really. (Not even she knows!) Her viewpoints ebb and flow with the whisk and whim of the people — what is expedient. For instance, she is starting to change her views more to the left owing to the growing popularity of Mr. Sanders.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Keith – you are quite right that I am “unaware of his [i.e., Jimmy Carter’s] paid attacks on Israel . . . .” which you describe as “blatantly anti-semitic.” I don’t immerse myself in Carter utterances, but if he was paid to make anti-semitic statements about anyone of anything, including Israel, I would be very surprised. I doubt the man has an anti-semitic molecule in his body and I further doubt that money would make him depart from the kind of Christian values that have so clearly characterized his private life. He remains my least favorite president of my now embarrassingly long life and the one whose departure I most celebrated. But his high personal standards are not, in my opinion, subject to reasonable dispute. I suspect that you are attempting to disparage disagreements he has expressed with Israel’s policies in Palestine and other parts of the Middle East by attributing them to anti-Semitism for hire, a very noxious charge, particularly against someone like Carter.

    As for the Clintons, I think you hit much closer to the truth. Your comment brings back to me the horrible stench that surrounded the White House in those days. Much of this I had completely repressed, I think, once those people left the White House. But it all came flooding back as I read your account of filthy lucre being shuttled around. I very much doubt that the Clintons sold out the national interest to the Governments of either China or Taiwan (both seemed to be in play, and there were no doubt others), but I have no doubt that, where money was concerned, these people (i.e., the Clintons) had virtually no boundaries. The bad smell will waft over us again (although now their nests are very well-feathered and the graspiness may be a thing go the past) if Mrs. Clinton continues to be a possibility for high office.



    1. @ *scout, who wrote:

      I doubt the man has an anti-semitic molecule in his body.

      I have to wonder why you even mentioned Jimmy Carter, since you know so little about him. Even leftists and progressives accept (and generally agree with) Carter’s very obvious antisemitic doings and writings. A couple of examples, from the leftist Washington Post:

      And since Carter’s antisemitism was so obvious to so many people (with the notable exception of you), even people explaining it away paint a pretty damning picture of the utterly immoral and fiercely anti-American Jimmy Carter:

      Jimmy Carter was arguably the most hapless president in all American history, and indeed, today most presidential historians today rate him at or near the very bottom of the list. … But with the publication of Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, his ignorant rant against Israel, many in the American Jewish community believe that Carter is not just a loser but an anti-Semite. I disagree. Jimmy Carter is not so much anti-Semite as anti-intellectual, not so much a Jew-hater as a boor. The real explanation behind his limitless hostility to Israel is a total lack of any moral understanding. …

      Rather than develop any real understanding of a conflict, immediately he sides with the weaker party, however wicked or immoral. Israel has tanks and F-16’s. The Palestinians don’t. Therefore the Palestinians are being oppressed. Never mind that the Palestinians have rejected every offer to live side by side with Israel in peace and elected a government pledged to Israel’s annihilation. Their poverty dictates the righteousness of their cause even if their actions speak otherwise. If Israel builds a barrier to cordon off the Palestinians, it is not to prevent their suicide bombers from dismembering children but to punish them for having darker skin.

      Carter’s obsession with the unrighteous underdog has embarrassed him many times before. It was what motivated him to visit and legitimize Fidel Castro and take his side in a bio-weapons dispute with the United States. Castro runs a tiny island in the shadow of the world’s superpower. He must therefore perforce be a victim of American bullying, even if he is a brutal dictator and tyrant. Championing the unrighteous underdog also led Carter to praise the murderous North Korean tyrant Kim Il Sung with these words: “I find him to be vigorous, intelligent… and in charge of the decisions about this country.” Carter added, “I don’t see that [the North Koreans] are an outlaw nation.” He also hailed Marshal Joseph Tito as “a man who believes in human rights,” and said of the murderous Romanian dictator Ceausescu: “Our goals are the same: to have a just system of economics and politics… We believe in enhancing human rights.” Championing the underdog also had Carter tell the Haitian dictator Raul C dras that he was “ashamed of what my country has done to your country.” …

      No, Carter is not anti-Semitic so much as a man whose lack of judgment and shallowness render him absolutely incapable of telling right from wrong. Carter’s obscene comparison of Israel with apartheid South Africa ignores the fact that Israel is the first country to airlift tens of thousands of black Africans to become free and full citizens in its borders, a phenomenon that has no precedent in the history of the world. But by saying that the Palestinians are being subjected to apartheid Carter has grossly maligned not Jews, but black South Africans. Whereas black South Africans inspired the world with their humane capacity for forgiveness and peaceful coexistence with their white brethren, even after having been so egregiously wronged, the Palestinians have unfortunately embraced murderous hatred and racism.

      Arab newspapers routinely publish grotesque caricatures of Jews, and the Palestinians teach kindergarten children to grow up and blow up Israeli buses. Nelson Mandela rose to become the world’s greatest statesman with his articulation of brotherhood and reconciliation. But Yasser Arafat fathered international terrorism and stole hundreds of millions of dollars from his own people. Which leads to one conclusion: Before one runs around the world as a global do-gooder, one should first develop the ability to identify the good.

      If you decide to google[“jimmy carter” anti semitic] you’ll find hundreds of thousands of articles and letters that will point you to the one or more molecules of Jew-hatred to be found in Jimmy Carter.

      One recent letter was interesting — it was from a Jew encouraging Jimmy Carter to follow-through on his boycott of everything Jewish. The writer, an 89-year-old survivor from Poland, suggested that Carter refuse treatment using any therapy that involved Jews in its invention, development, and testing.

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Is it not strange that the Jews have been so inventive? Jewish history seems to be a long list of improbable events.

        I sometimes wonder if those anti-semitic molecules are nothing more than simple jealousy, an unconscious complaint against what appears to be partially by God for the Jews. If we were not speaking of human beings, such stupidity would be astounding. Yet as far as I am concerned, what appears to be a Jewish surname is as close as I want to get to being a Jew. Who in their right mind would voluntarily submit themselves and their progeny to the persecution that the Jews have experienced?

        A great honor to be the people who gave birth to the savior? Yes, but what a bitter price. I am too fearful to want to pay it. I am more inclined to thank those who did. Even if they choose not to honor Christ, I am quite content to let the Jews have their glory.


  6. Keith, there’s no question that Carter has major disagreements with the Government of Israel concerning its policies with regard to Palestinians. Your original comment, however, stated that he was paid to be “anti-Semitic” by Arab monied interests. I do not believe anything like that occurred.

    Carter has come to regard certain Israeli governmental policies, particularly with regard to the West Bank, East Jerusalem, settlements, rights of Israeli Arabs and other non-Jews, and the Palestinian state as ill-considered and antithetical to the national interests of the United States, Israel and to the cause of peace in the Middle East. The term “anti-semitism”, in my mind, implies a prejudicial animosity to Jews and Arabs as humans, particularly the former. It’s a kind of religious and/or ethnic racism. I don’t think Carter is of that persuasion. I do think he has a very strong antipathy toward recent Israeli statecraft on the issues mentioned above. While I don’t share many of his views on this point, I do think it is possible for people of good will, including Jimmy Carter, to be very concerned about negative impacts of Israeli policy (and there are such negative impacts), and to express those views, while still very much supporting the concept and reality of a State of Israel in Palestine and being completely committed to maintaining the security of that state. More specifically, I do not regard those kinds of reservations or opposition to the policies of the Government of Israel to in any way reflect personal antipathy toward Jews. If that were the case, these positions would not be shared by Jews, and many of them are. The converse illustrates the point: I think Mr. Netanyahu has acted in ways and taken positions that are very much against the security interests of Israel. I do not, however, believe that he is anti-Semitic, nor do I believe he is being paid to act against Israel’s interests. I think he is just mistaken.

    By the way, as I’ve indicated before, I think Carter was the worst president of my lifetime. I disliked LBJ more, and blamed him personally for the debacle of Viet Nam, but Carter made a bigger mess out of a better inherited position, and, unlike LBJ, had no offsetting accomplishments. Good intentions, deep religious faith, and a pure heart are often not adequate to the demands of the world the United States must operate in. I rejoiced when Reagan was elected. At that time, I lived in California and Carter had made the error of conceding before the polls closed on the West Coast. I still made the trip to my neighborhood polling station to pull a lever for the Gipper.



    1. Technically, Carter IS antisemitic and is paid by Arab monied interests. It isn’t that the latter causes the former; there’s a certain amount of that, but Carter was known to be prejudiced against Jews for a long time, and the Saudis probably believed that he’d be a good investment for them. Events have proved them right.

      Remember that Southern Democrats, and their satellite organization the Ku Klux Klan, were not just anti-black; they hated Jews, Catholics, and blacks about equally. But Carter is a special case; he doesn’t just have an antipathy toward Jews, he lies about them. This has been known for decades … but you didn’t know about it, and still can’t believe it, and still persist in asserting that this is not true. Carter’s own staff, when they actually read his Jew-hatred “apartheid” book, were embarrassed and some of them simply quit. They had not seen the book previously.

      The story of how the Middle East peace came about, including Egypt’s recognition of Israel, and how Carter fought to undermine this, is intriguing. It gives an insight into the very flawed thinking of this bigoted man. And to support the jihadists at every turn, despite having access to everything a president could know about their actions, is unconscionable.

      Incidentally, while Arabs are technically from Semitic stock, the word “antisemitic” is not talking about antipathy to Arabs, any more than calling someone a “girl” means you don’t know what gender they are (using a much earlier meaning of “girl”). Carter despises Jews and likes Arabs … or at least, is quite happy to take Arab money and has been for decades.

      Carter has railed against Jews controlling everything in the US, the “secret Jewish cabal” that runs Congress and Hollywood and so on. This is not “policy differences” with the nation of Israel. And Carter’s defense of Israel’s murderous neighbors is famous; Carter’s meetings with the heads of designated terrorist organizations, in defiance of US policy, are infamous. He’ll happily take part in celebrations of jihadist “martyrdom operations” against Jews, while lying about Israel’s actions.

      Carter is nominally an evangelist Christian, the first one to be a US president. He’s still evil. Pat Robertson, whom most people consider a “right-wing religious Republican,” originally campaigned for Carter. Carter encouraged the jihadist takeover of Iran in a similar manner to Obama encouraging the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood in their takeover of Egypt.

      And remember that the US arming and sending jihadists to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets began under an explicit executive order by Jimmy Carter. What Reagan and Bush did not know was that Carter had brought the jihadists’ passwords to Washington and destroyed them so that the jihadists could not return to their original countries.

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

      Liked by 1 person

  7. What does it mean to be “technically anti-semitic”? Perhaps you could link me to a clip of Carter referring to the “secret Jewish cabal”. I very much doubt he said that. (I would consider that kind of statement to be on a par – although not as obscene – with Ann Coulter’s recent tweet – I assume you saw that). I do believe that his differences with Israel are policy differences, not hatred of Jews as a religion or ethnicity. You believe otherwise. So be it. Having said that, I do further believe that Carter, far more than many public figures, assigns considerable responsibility for the current state of affairs in the Middle East to Israel and has bluntly said so. This is not a popular take in the United States.

    Your last paragraph particularly puzzles me. What are you trying to say there? These “passwords” – were they written on slips of paper or something? How does a president destroy them? How did they control who went where?



    1. A mistype. It was autocorrected from “passports.”

      Go Google the hundreds of thousands of references to Jimmy Carter’s anti-Jew sentiments. Go argue with them.

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle


  8. I’m sure on the internet one can find almost anything about anybody. People say extraordinary things at times.

    Again, I doubt that there is any instance of Jimmy Carter railing against a “secret Jewish Cabal” (the quotes are yours, so I assume you heard him say it and that there is a link if this really happened). And I am still at a loss of what a “technical” anti-Semite might be (as opposed, for example, to and anti-Semite).



    1. @ *scout,

      You’re making up your own phrases, and challenging me to explain them. I never used the phrase
      ” ‘technical’ anti-Semite” — you made it up. I never used the phrase “technically anti-Semitic” — you made that one up, too. And your assumption that anything that I write in quotation marks is because I personally heard it uttered is more typical *scout absurdity.

      I remember it, from decades ago. But even trying to find a link — for example, to his speech to the jihadists at University of California Irvine, just a few miles from where I sit — would do no good, as it is on the Internet and you have asserted this to be unreliable. You passed all that content off with the line “I’m sure on the internet one can find almost anything about anybody. People say extraordinary things at times.” In so doing, you evince the notion that you have no way to discriminate the veracity of what you read on the Internet.

      Perhaps you are right. Perhaps you really are so ill-prepared for life. But I do not believe it.

      You are an utter time waster, *scout.

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

      Liked by 1 person

  9. You said, Keith, that “Technically, Carter IS anti-semitic. . . .” My question went to your use of the word “technically”. You said it, I didn’t make it up. It shows up on my screen that way. It’s still up there. Your denials seem pretty hollow, frankly. “Technically” It seems a strange word when used to modify anti-semitism. I would think either one is or is not anti-semitic, and there couldn’t be much, if anything, that would qualify it. Hence my query.

    And,to bolster your point about Carter being anti-semitic, you said: “Carter has railed against Jews controlling everything in the US, the ‘secret Jewish cabal’ that runs Congress and Hollywood and so on.” You put the phrase in quotes in describing something Carter is alleged to have said. That phrase “secret Jewish Cabal” indeed has anti-semitic overtones, and if Carter used it, your point would begin to have some merit. But the phrase has such deep anti-semitic roots (hearkens back to the Protocols), that to use it in quotation marks around an allegation about things Carter has said, implies fairly clearly that he said it. If you didn’t hear it, you must have read it. If you read it, you or I could find it. I can’t find it and, when you say “you remember it”, I do not trust your memory.

    And my reference to the internet was intended to imply that your powers of discernment of what you read on the internet were deficient, not mine. I very much doubt, even with all the information we have access to in that medium, that you or anyone else can find situations in which Jimmy Carter has taken anti-semitic (as opposed to anti-Israel) positions. I do know that there is a bad habit abroad in the land to try to dumb down important policy discussions about the Middle East by accusing those with reservations about Israeli policy of anti-semitism. I even suspect, that there are some people out there (Ann Coulter is now high on my list, based on her recent comments) who do harbor anti-Jewish feelings and who may let that influence their policy evaluations. But I’ll pay more attention to your anti-semitism charges, technical or otherwise, when you show me where Carter has ever embraced anti-semitic sentiments – and by that I mean generalize hatred or disdain for Jews because of their religion or ethnicity.



    1. @novascout

      I think you are deliberately missing an important point. If we debate someone long enough, we can trip them up on their words. That’s not much of an accomplishment.

      Keith pointed to Carter’s own book for evidence of his views about Jews. The Internet just happens to be where he obtained the book review, but complaining about the Internet is silly, a time waster. Yes, everybody with half a brain knows the Internet has websites that contain trash. Did Keith reference such a website or not?


  10. The book Keith cited to is Carter’s critique of Israeli policy toward Palestinians. He linked to an article in the Jerusalem Post that is entitled “Why Carter is not an Anti-Semite”, although, beyond its title, it is quite predictably very critical of Carter’s views. I am not representing that Carter’s opinions on the situation in Israel, Palestine and the West Bank is wildly popular within the State of Israel.

    I’m not complaining about the Internet. I am asking Keith for some indication that Carter harbors hatred for Jewish people based on their religion or ethnicity. He has leveled very serious charges which I think are counterfactual. If he has evidence, he should advance it. Opposition to Israeli governmental policies doesn’t cut it unless there is something more.



    1. It also predicable that when someone receiving substantial sum from certain party, they are probably in accord with that party. If the Muslims in the Mideast don’t hate Israel, their behavior is wholly inexplicable. As it is, it is just illogical, stupid, malicious,…. all too human, I fear.

      When Keith made a thoughtful case, you just blew it off. You responded to my personal criticisms, not Keith’s arguments.


  11. I was responding to your 1019 comment.

    There are a lot of frictions in the Middle East along many lines. I do not doubt, given the way that governments try to manipulate public opinion, that there some of these frictions express themselves as “hatred”. I know quite a few Israelis and work for a few of them. I sometimes see in some of them a hatred for their neighbors. I have also know Arabs who express their feelings about Israel in ways that have the scent of personal hatred in them. But I also know many people from all over that region, Israelis and Arabs, who can maintain a fairly rational discussion of the problems there, problems which are extremely complex and which go beyond Arab-Israeli issues to include intra Muslim conflict (i.e., Sunni/Shia and, within particularly the Sunni side, intra-Sunni), conflicts which no doubt have cultural roots, beyond any particular religious component (although opportunistic pols will try to drag religion into it – e.g., Persian/Arab, Israeli/Arab, Israeli/ Persian, Turkish/Kurd, Alowite/Sunni etc. etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseam). I also know of a strain of sentiment that would hate Israel even if it were a Buddhist state – the momentum of this element coming from the idea that Israel is a trans-planted body that is most reflective of the pre-WWII colonial era, rather than any other higher ideal. I agree with you that some of these views are illogical and even malicious, but there is a lot of underlying friction in the region that is grounded in historical perceptions of grievance that have some grounding in fact. It is, in short, complicated.

    As for Keith, I think I did respond to him directly. I expressed my view that Jimmy Carter has disagreements with the Government of Israel on policy issues, but that he is not driven by hatred or animus toward Jewish people either as a religion or as an ethnic group. That is the essence of my discussion with Keith. He feels otherwise. Thus the boundaries of our disputation are marked. I doubt that either of us will influence the other, but I must say if he comes up with evidence supporting his opinion, I will take a look at it. Right now, all I have seen or have been able to find is policy disagreement. And I am very aware that there is a strong tendency within the US either to regard or to try to disparage disputation of Israeli statecraft with the charge of anti-Semitism. That is very unfortunate, because true anti-Semitism is so evil, so relatively recently the cause of so much human suffering, that to use the charge in foreign policy debate tends, in my opinion, to trivialize the immense destruction and horror of the last century.



    1. @novascout

      I am happy to take Keith’s side in your dispute with him. That includes that fact you were not responsive.

      Given the fact Keith decided you are just playing a game, and he thinks this game is a waste of time……

      Are you deliberately trying to waste time? I don’t really know. Look at what you wrote at September 27, 2015 at 10:53 pm. It is not about objective facts or the application of established principles. It is not even about the interpretation of objective facts or the application of established principles. It is about your personal impressions.

      You wrote the same sort comment here =>

      When someone lays out a facts and applies basic principles to interpret those facts, what do you do? Do you address the facts? Do you consider whether basic principles were appropriately applied? Rarely. Usually, your comments are well-written renditions of your general impressions. I feel this. I feel that. Keith and I don’t even know you. Even if it made sense, how are we suppose to debate your personal impressions? With our own? What would be the point? It is like wrestling a tar baby. You don’t think so? Then try making the case against one of your own comments.

      Are you this internally focused in your private life? I doubt it. I expect you apply considerable wisdom in your private life, but this sort if thing is why limited government is necessary. It is to easy to spend other people’s money wastefully. It is easy to run other people’s lives thoughtlessly. You are no fool, but with respect to public policy even smart people often think their personal impressions are sufficient when it is somebody else’s money, somebody else’s life.

      By the way, what does this have to do with Conservative/Liberal issues? We Conservatives don’t want the state messing around with our religion. Can I count you in on that proposition? (from =>

      Whenever a Conservative debates with a Liberal — whenever a Conservative presents a logical argument and points out the weakness of man — the Liberal responds with how he feels about the matter. The Liberal doesn’t want to admit we are sinful. The Liberal wants to believe man can save humanity. Yet the facts say otherwise. Long established principles say otherwise.


  12. My point is that it is a sound conservative principle that we don’t want government officials teaching our children religion. I would be surprised if you think otherwise. However, having followed your views on pubic education for around a year or so, I get the impression that your primary criticism of public schools is that they don’t teach religion. I strongly disagree. I think government schools are the last place I would want anyone teaching religion. Again, I don’t think this position neatly divides on a liberal/conservative fault line, although I do think conservatives like me would be in near unanimity on that point. I would expect, however, to get support from folks who consider themselves liberal also.

    I apologize if I must decline your invitation to contest one of my own comments. Why would I do that?



Comments are closed.

Blog at

Up ↑

Through Ink & Image

...Pursuing a God Inspired Life

Oh Lord, It's Monday!

Understanding The Bible In A Way That Transforms You And Your World

D. Patrick Collins

liberating christian thought

Musings Of An Imaginary Billionaire

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Way Online

Christian Insight Through God's Word

Conservative Government

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Night Wind

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Reclaim Our Republic

Knowledge Is Power

John Branyan

something funny is occurring

In Saner Thought

"It is the duty of every man, as far as his ability extends, to detect and expose delusion and error"..Thomas Paine

Christians in Motion

Christians in Motion


Faithful servants never retire. You can retire from your career, but you will never retire from serving God. – Rick Warren


"Behold, I have come to do your will, O God." Heb. 10:7

All Along the Watchtower

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you ... John 13:34

The Sheriff of Nottingham in Prince William County

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Bull Elephant

Conservative and libertarian news, analysis, and entertainment

Always On Watch: Semper Vigilans

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Family Foundation Blog - The Family Foundation

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Cry and Howl

Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off. I Kings 20:11

Dr. Luis C. Almeida

Professor Of Communication


Heal the past. Free the present. Bless the future.

Dr. Lloyd Stebbins

Deliberate Joy


The place where you can find out what Lillie thinks

He Hath Said

is the source of all wisdom, and the fountain of all comfort; let it dwell in you richly, as a well of living water, springing up unto everlasting life



PUMABydesign001's Blog

“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts.” Ronald Reagan.


The view from the Anglosphere

Freedom Through Empowerment

Taking ownership of your life brings power to make needed changes. True freedom begins with reliance on God to guide this process and provide what you need.

bluebird of bitterness

The opinions expressed are those of the author. You go get your own opinions.

Pacific Paratrooper

This site is Pacific War era information

The Isaiah 53:5 Project

Life: the time God gives you to determine how you spend eternity


People Healing People


Daily Thoughts and Meditations as we journey together with our Lord.

Silence of Mind

Where God Speaks and Creation Listens

My Daily Musing

With God we will gain the victory, and he will trample our enemies. Psalms 109:13

My Walk, His Way - daily inspiration

Nickel Boy Graphics

Comic Strips (Some Funny, Some Serious)

Rudy u Martinka

What the world needs now in addition to love is wisdom

Truth in Palmyra

By Wally Fry

Kingdom Pastor

Living Freely In God's Kingdom

The Life Project

Finding Clear and Simple Faith

In My Father's House

"...that where I am you may be also." Jn.14:3


Life through the eyes of "cookie"

The Lions Den

"Blending the colorful issues of life with the unapologetic truth of scripture." ColorStorm

%d bloggers like this: