Folks, read your Constitutions. Study American history. Study world history. Study the rise and fall of republics and come to understand that conservatives and conservatism does not sit here wanting to manage your life, wanting to manage your social affairs or what have you. Conservatism exists to defend, to defend what was good, to defend the greatest revolution and its result – this nation – in the history of man.

No other revolution in the history of the world ever resulted in a more free society. They simply don’t. When there are revolutions, they have one like they have in Cuba, and a dictator arises. When there’s a revolution, they have one like they had in Russia, and the tsar’s head is cut off, and Lenin arises. Ours is the only – and we should be damn proud of this. And we’re stupid and foolhardy to think that we can improve on it. Ours is the only revolution in the history of the world, the American Revolution, the only one that produced more freedom than existed before it began.

I challenge you to show me another one because there isn’t one.

BIKE NIGHT

I'M NO PERRY COMO, SANTA -- BUT I DO BELIEVE I WILL TOAST A FEW FOR YOU! AND MAYBE I'LL GET MY CHRISTMAS PRESENT -- A FEW BOOBIES TO SEE TONIGHT.

TRI-FECTA?

1940s Movie Heartthrob Van Johnson Dies

'50s Pin-Up Queen Bettie Page Dies

Why Not Cut Gubbmint Jobs Too Obama?

THIS IS A EXCERPT FROM THE MIKE CHURCH SHOW; SIRIUS SATELLITE RADIO
A FAV OF MINE -- THE KING DUDE HAS HIS SHITE TOGETHER!
Mike: Well, let me tell you, you can’t print your way out of this crisis. You cannot continue to manufacture cash out of thin air, have it be worth something, and print your way out of this just because there’s more money in circulation, which is what they’re doing. Which is what the President, or the office of President-elect Obama, which is what he’s doing. And you sit there, and you scratch your head, oh, it’s so rotten, we’ve lost 170,000 jobs lost since [Mike sobbing], I know all these things, I’ve seen it [Mike sobbing]. And then he goes on to say, well, and I’m going to announce the appointment of two people that are going to fix it. Why, we’re going to have a health – we’re going to have a health secretary. Tom Daschle’s going to lead us into health care nirvana. He’s going to fix all this.You guys messed it up. They screwed it up. They broke it. And they broke it because, not because they’re bad people, but because they believe in the power of coercion. They believe in the power of government brute force. You cannot fix, make, mend, or have a functioning economy that functions as a result of the government’s brute force applied to it. That’s when you get what we have now. We have the brute force of regulatory boards and agencies and what have you, telling our merchants, our businesses, and our industries what they can do, when they may do it, and how they will do it. That is not a recipe for success And it never will be. We can sit here from now until we’re all literally poor and living in a Third World nation, and just keep printing wazoo out – or money out the wazoo, out the wazoo, out the wazoo. We can pile up mountains. What’s the next number after a trillion? Rev, is that quadrillion? We can print quadrillions of dollars of dollars. It won’t matter. There’s nothing to back it up. You are not increasing the productivity or the capital.
Mike: The only way we’re going to get out of this is to grow our way out of this. Understand this. Well, Mike, Mike, how do we grow our way out of it? [Whiny Voice] You’re such a – that is stupid conservative game. You don’t know anything.[end Whine] Here’s how you grow your way out of it. You cut the government. They consume. It is a beast. It is an unwieldy living organism, folks. It is a beast. That’s why I call it “Leviathan.” Here’s how you grow your way out of it. You cut the government. They consume. It is a beast. It is an unwieldy living organism, folks. It is a beast. That’s why I call it “Leviathan.” It consumes resources. It does not produce them. It consumes them whole and then poops out tax bills for you and I to have to pay back. It is the engine of destruction. It is not the salvation. And we’ll be sitting here, I’m telling out, we will be sitting here from now until they stop this or we force them to stop it. Talking about the same thing. If you want the same result, well, then, just keep nodding your head and tell Obama, appoint Daschle to take over this industry, appoint Nazi Pelosi to take over the automobile industry, have this czar and that czar. You’re going to have czars out the wazoo. If czars worked so well, well then Imperial Russia would still be run by Nicholas VI. And there would have been no need for the Bolsheviks to have a revolution, now, would there have been?You grow your way out of this. You grow your way out by minimizing the drain that the government and other external forces have on this nation that is so wealthy. We had the capital. We have the manpower. We absolutely can grow our way out of this in a matter of months. Now, let me give you the recipe here. You don’t have a plan. All you conservatives love to whine. You don’t have a plan, you stupid idiot. You think you’re so smart. Obama’s smarter than you. I’ll take that bet. You’re going to regret because I guarantee you I’m smarter than that loser.Here’s how you grow your way out of it. President-elect ends his press conference, but proposes a couple of things, and tells the Congress, don’t send me any bills that don’t have this in it because I’m going to veto ‘em. Number one: Freeze government spending. Freeze it. No COLA increases for government employees. You don’t like it, screw you. Go out and get a real job, loser. Number two: If you quit, you call in sick, we fire your ass. You’re done. And no, you’re not getting your pension. You don’t like it, screw you. You’ll live like the rest of us live. Number three: Through the method of attrition, as previously mentioned, you begin the exact same process for the government agencies. When something comes up for renewal, don’t renew it. Suspend it. Number four: You order the Treasury Department immediately, you order it immediately to suspend the collection of all income taxes. Just like Congressman Gohmert proposed. But you do it indefinitely. Number four: You announce to the world that the United States of America is the home for big business. And you cut the corporate tax rate to 10 percent. Just cut it, 10 percent. Number five: You announce to the rest of the world that, if you have capital invested here, now is a good time to cash it in and apply it to productive measures. We are slashing the capital gains tax rate to zero. And this will be in effect for a minimum of three years.Now, if you do those – and then you order the Treasury Department, you order the Treasury Department to tell the Federal Reserve that it is out of the business of dictating interest rates. You will no longer tell us what the interest rate will be. We will return to the monetized banking system where the banks are actually responsible for this. And you begin this in an orderly fashion. Get back to some sound money that’s actually worth something. You do those things, you’ll have mountains of foreign cash coming in here that we don’t currently have, and that could be put to productive measures. You get the government out of the way. You take the money that the government is currently confiscating and consuming and not putting to productive measures, and you return it to the people that will.

And then we can grow our economy truly, and we can begin to pay back this massive debt that we are going to irresponsibly and unconscionably pass on to our children and grandchildren.

That’s the great crime of our generation. We don’t seem to care.

Real Threat to Democracy

Last week, Fox News reporter Chris Wallace rightfully challenged Ron Howard's comparisons of George W. Bush to Richard Nixon, whose illegal behavior while president led to his resignation. Howard, who is director of the new film, Frost/Nixon, which chronicles reporter David Frost's interviews with the disgraced Nixon after he left office, seems to think, like many on the left, that George Bush was not only a bad president but a lawbreaker who should face investigation and possibly criminal sanction.
Specifically, George W. Bush's execution of the War on Terror and efforts to keep America safe in the wake of September 11 have sparked more than just concert reprimands from the likes of Bruce Springsteen. Bush faces accusations of "war criminal" and "imperial president." Wallace correctly pointed out to Howard after a screening of Frost/Nixon, however, that "to compare what Nixon did, and the abuses of power for pure political self-preservation, to George W. Bush trying to protect this country -- even if you disagree with rendition or waterboarding -- it seems to me is both a gross misreading of history both then and now."
Not only does it represent a gross misreading of history and a blatant neglect for facts, but the suggestion that George W. Bush should face repercussions for political decisions made while president is to invite a threat to democracy, given the implication it could have on future presidential decision-making and the corrosion of any hope for bipartisanship. And the suggestion would not seem so alarming if it were limited to entertainment flakes like Howard or Springsteen. However, presumably serious individuals, like Vice President-elect Joe Biden, have also suggested that the Obama administration might investigate Bush officials for crimes committed.
They are well-stablished legal maxims that "we are a government of laws and not of men" and that "no man is above the rule of law." However, the notion that George W. Bush violated clearly established laws is based on hyperbolic ignorance. Implementation of the policies at issue, from the war in Iraq, to the NSA wiretap program, to waterboarding, had legitimate legal justification and were executed with the good faith belief, and without clear precedent to the contrary, that the Commander in Chief possesses the requisite authority.
Others may hold a different view of the president's constitutional or statutory power. However, those disagreements are part of our constitutional system where not every question has a clear legal answer. The recourse for those legitimate disagreements is what we held on November 4 of this year: elections.
Furthermore, if members of Congress, such as Joe Biden, believed that the president was acting extra-constitutionally while in office, they could have passed legislation declaring waterboarding per se torture or the war in Iraq illegal and unauthorized going forward. If the president, consistent with his constitutional power, vetoed such legislative efforts, Congress could have attempted to override his veto or challenged the president's authority in the federal courts. Had the Supreme Court issued an unambiguous ruling that the president defied, then there might exist a plausible argument that he acted lawlessly. That never occurred, however, nor is it what Bush's critics argue. In most cases, Congress either relented or reached a constitutional compromise with the President, precisely how the system ought to work.
To argue now that Bush acted illegally and "shredded the Constitution" because his administration's legal analysis of ambiguous issues did not comport with the interpretations of certain law professors is folly. Pursuing these accusations would amount to a politically motivated witch-hunt, which anyone who respects the health of our constitutional system should oppose.
When the president takes the oath of office, he says that "I…will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." While he is not above the law, the president, as the head of one of three co-equal branches of government, deserves a degree of deference and freedom to exercise executive judgment without fear of prosecution after leaving office. This is especially important when the president is pursuing his most crucial and noble duty: protecting the American people.
Threats of legal comeuppance for Bush should not only concern Republicans or conservatives either. Congress, in response to Richard Nixon's executive excesses, passed the Independent Counsel's Act in 1978, creating an independent counsel's office that could investigate officials within the executive branch. The law was challenged in the Supreme Court as a violation of the separation of powers doctrine, since Congress had established an office that possessed power over, but was separate from, the executive.
In Morrison v. Olson, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the act. There was a lone dissenter, Justice Antonin Scalia, who warned of the political dangers that such an office could pose given the temptation for a special prosecutor to engage in politically motivated investigations or prosecutions. It was not until years later when a special prosecutor named Kenneth Starr was appointed to investigate a series of transactions known as "Whitewater," which ultimately culminated in the Monica Lewinsky scandal and President Bill Clinton's impeachment, that those on the left finally appreciated Scalia's warning.

For liberals anxious to retaliate against Bush, they should consider the future dangers that their antagonism would pose to both political parties, if not the moral implications of demonizing the president.

To ignore that is truly to invite a threat to our democracy that no patriot should ever want.

By Brett Joshpe

OF COURSE THIS IS BIKE WEEK

BEGAN SNOWING LAST NIGHT IN THE BAY AREA JUST NORTH OF GALVISTON.

Yes with all the motocycle venders setting up, this looks as if there is'nt going to be any --how can I say -- BOOBY-shots to be seen during bike week.

IT IS JUST OUR MONEY

Last week, a $34 billion bailout for the Big Three was on the table. Today, it appears a $14 billion compromise has been reached.
It's likely the Senate will vote on this compromise later in the week. I urge you to call your two Senators at 202-224-3121, or at the links to the right under "THE WALL" and tell them your thoughts about the bailout.

YOUR CALL

Somehow, I don't believe him: "I believe in common-sense gun safety laws, and I believe in the Second Amendment. Lawful gun owners have nothing to fear. I said that throughout the campaign. I haven't indicated anything different during the transition. I think people can take me at my word." --Barack Obama, who still promises to make the so-called "assault weapons" ban permanent (on his site under Crime and Law Enforcement), which would ban most of the guns Americans have been buying since the election

Something cool that Xerox is doing.

If you go to this web site, http://www.letssaythanks.com/ you can pick out a thank you card and Xerox will print it and it will be sent to a soldier that is currently serving in Iraq . You can't pick out who gets it, but it will go to some member of the armed services. How AMAZING it would be if we could get everyone we know to send one!!! This is a great site. Please send a card. It is FREE and it only takes a second.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if the soldiers received a bunch of these?

Whether you are for or against the war, our guys and gals over there need to know we are behind them.

IF YOU THINK YOU HAVE IT BAD - YOU COULD HAVE COME HOME TO THIS

OK, IS THIS ONE OF MY HORSES? I WOULD NOT BE SURPRISED TO COME HOME AND SEE THIS. THEY ALWAYS SEEM TO BE GETTING INTO SOMETHING.

Hitler and the Grand Mufti

Does this have anything to do with the Holocaust? Maybe it has something to do with the conflicts of today? Maybe the powers of the world have all been in another “secret” struggle for world domination, and the Nazis and Muslims allied with each other like the Americans and the Jews are allied today. The Muslims wanted and still want a return of the Ottoman Empire. But the British-American Empire defeated them and the Nazis earlier last century. Today the American Empire is the only empire in the world and the Muslims are still trying to restore their empire. This seems really like what the Bible predicted. Many, and especially the most recent wars in this world, are all stemming from the Holy Land and over religious factions. It seems this Jewish/Arab (also American/Nazi) conflict has deep roots, and the wars we see today are just the modern manifestations of the wars that have lasted millenniums.

The title of Grand Mufti (Arabic: مفتي عام‎) refers to the highest official of religious law in a Sunni Muslim country. The Grand Mufti issues legal opinions and edicts, fatwa, on interpretations of Islamic law for private clients or to assist judges in deciding cases. The collected opinions of the Grand Mufti serve as a valuable source of information on the practical application of Islamic law as opposed to its abstract formulation. The Grand Mufti's fataawa (plural of "fatwa") are not binding precedents in areas of civil laws regulating marriage, divorce, and inheritance. In criminal courts, the Grand Mufti's recommendations are generally not binding either. In the Ottoman Empire the Grand Mufti was a state official, and the Grand Mufti of Constantinople was the highest of these. The British retained the institution in some Muslim areas under their control and accorded the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem the highest political stature. In countries such as Australia where the office of Grand Mufti receives no official seal of government imprimatur, clerics can be elected to the position by one segment of the Islamic community in that country and yet not be recognised by other Muslim communities in that country.
In 1941, Haj Amin al-Husseini fled to Germany and met with Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, Joachim Von Ribbentrop and other Nazi leaders. He wanted to persuade them to extend the Nazis’ anti-Jewish program to the Arab world. The Mufti sent Hitler 15 drafts of declarations he wanted Germany and Italy to make concerning the Middle East. One called on the two countries to declare the illegality of the Jewish home in Palestine. Furthermore, “they accord to Palestine and to other Arab countries the right to solve the problem of the Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries, in accordance with the interest of the Arabs and, by the same method, that the question is now being settled in the Axis countries.” In November 1941, the Mufti met with Hitler, who told him the Jews were his foremost enemy. The Nazi dictator rebuffed the Mufti's requests for a declaration in support of the Arabs, however, telling him the time was not right. The Mufti offered Hitler his “thanks for the sympathy which he had always shown for the Arab and especially Palestinian cause, and to which he had given clear expression in his public speeches....The Arabs were Germany's natural friends because they had the same enemies as had Germany, namely....the Jews....” Hitler replied: Germany stood for uncompromising war against the Jews. That naturally included active opposition to the Jewish national home in Palestine....Germany would furnish positive and practical aid to the Arabs involved in the same struggle....Germany's objective [is]...solely the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere....In that hour the Mufti would be the most authoritative spokesman for the Arab world. The Mufti thanked Hitler profusely. In 1945, Yugoslavia sought to indict the Mufti as a war criminal for his role in recruiting 20,000 Muslim volunteers for the SS, who participated in the killing of Jews in Croatia and Hungary. He escaped from French detention in 1946, however, and continued his fight against the Jews from Cairo and later Beirut. He died in 1974. The Husseini family continued to play a role in Palestinian affairs, with Faisal Husseini, whose father was the Mufti's nephew, regarded until his death in 2001 as one of their leading spokesmen in the territories.

GRAB THE BRAKE ! ! !

To late Pam - I do believe - has hit the WALL !

WHAT A SHAME --------

Gov. Rod Blagojevich and his chief of staff, John Harris, were arrested today by FBI agents for what U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald called a "staggering" level of corruption involving pay-to-play politics in Illinois' top office.

"F--- them,"

Patricia Blagojevich is the wife of Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich. She is a real estate agent and former business partner of convicted felon Tony Rezko.

She is also mentioned a number of times in the FBI affidavit accusing her husband and his chief of staff of corruption.

WHAT WE NEED IS A GOLDILOCKS GOVERNMENT

This is a favorite of mine; has some interesting views. Especially today's

Stupid is as stupid does

After the most recent presidential election, when, as you may recall, our once great nation exposed its collective flank -- unmitigated ignorance -- to the world, a reputable pollster, John Zogby, endeavored to determine how 66 million of us could be so profoundly stupid.

We reported his findings in our "Non Compos Mentis" section two weeks ago, including, for example, that 56.1 percent of Obama supporters did not know his political career was launched by two former terrorists from the Weather Underground; that 57 percent did not know which political party controlled congress; that 72 percent did not know Joe Biden withdrew from a previous presidential campaign because of plagiarism in law school; and that 87 percent thought Sarah Palin said she could "see Russia from my house," even though that was "Saturday Night Live" comedian Tina Fey in a parody of Palin.
The Zogby polling was designed to determine how much influence the media had on shaping public opinion, and, thus, the outcome of the election. Of course, establishing that the political landscape would look very different if the media were neutral is filed under "keen sense of the obvious."
However, a report issued last week by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute is more relevant to understanding why Barack Obama received so much support from those between 18 and 30 years of age -- support that put him over the top.
For the last two years, ISI has assessed the civil literacy of young people at American colleges and universities, testing both students and faculty. The civics test included a cross section of multiple-choice questions about our system of government, history and free enterprise -- questions to assess the knowledge that all Americans should possess in order to understand their civic responsibility and make informed decisions in matters such as elections.
More than 14,000 freshmen and seniors at 50 schools nationwide were given the 60-question exam. More than 50 percent of freshmen and 54 percent of seniors failed the test. (So they get dumber?)
This year, ISI went beyond the "institutions of higher learning" to assess civic literacy across demographic groups. The 2008 civics quiz asked similar questions to those asked to college and university students in previous years, but also included questions about civic participation and policy issues. The results were then subjected to multivariate regression analysis in order to determine if college and university graduates had a higher civic IQ than the rest of society.
As you might expect, 71 percent of Americans failed the test, with an average score of 49. Educators did not fare much better, scoring an average of 55 percent. As the researchers noted, "Fewer than half of all Americans can name all three branches of government, a minimal requirement for understanding America's constitutional system."
College grads flunked, answering 57 percent of the questions correctly, compared to 44 percent for high school grads.
Less than 24 percent of those with college degrees knew that the First Amendment prohibits establishing an official religion for the United States. Further, only 54 percent can correctly identify the basic tenets of the free enterprise system.
Would you be shocked to know that elected officials have a lower civic IQ than the public they ostensibly serve? Indeed, these paragons of representative government answered just 44 percent of the questions correctly. Almost a third of elected officials could not identify "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as the inalienable rights in our Declaration of Independence.
Our Founders, those venerable Patriots who signed our Declaration of Independence and codified the liberty that is declared in our Constitution, understood that liberty could not long survive an epidemic of ignorance.
According to George Washington: "The best means of forming a manly, virtuous, and happy people will be found in the right education of youth. Without this foundation, every other means, in my opinion, must fail."
John Adams wrote: "Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right, from the frame of their nature, to knowledge, as their great Creator, who does nothing in vain, has given them understandings, and a desire to know; but besides this, they have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge; I mean, of the characters and conduct of their rulers. ... Wisdom and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused generally among the body of the people, being necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties..."
Thomas Jefferson insisted: "Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. ... If a nation expects to be ignorant -- and free -- in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
James Madison agreed: "A people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. ... What spectacle can be more edifying or more seasonable, than that of Liberty and Learning, each leaning on the other for their mutual & surest support?"
Today, however, it would seem that ignorance is not only blissful but virtuous.
By Mark Alexander
Boy did I feel like a big DUMB @SS missed some real easy ones -- scored 69.7 --23 out of 33. But hey the good news is the avg. is 74.5 % ---------- I still feel STUPID!

OUR FOUNDING FATHERS -- HAD THEIR HEARTS AND MINDS SET IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION

"National defense is one of the cardinal duties of a statesman." --John Adams

Is Bush 43 the Worst President of the Past 50 Years?

..So who was the worst president in the 20th Century --

and for the sake of this argument, let's include the present President Bush in the group.To me, the present Bush gets few points for anything EXCEPT the War on Terror, on which he's been, if not exactly a rock, at least a piece of hard wood.The War on Terror elevates the present President Bush off the rubbish heap of bad presidents.So who then is the WORST President?I have a head and heart argument about this. My heart wants to say that the FIRST President George Herbert Hoover Bush was the worst President. But then my HEAD tells me, no, that cannot be when choosing from a list that includes Jimmy Carter.George Herbert Hoover Bush was a fumbling, incoherent president. Next to him, his verbally-challenged son the current President waxes as eloquently as Winston Churchill.The reason Bush babbled at us was because he had no vision. Indeed, he converted the very word "vision" from a noun to an adjective, when he derisively referred to "vision" as "the vision thing.""Vision thing" indeed. Well, if you have no vision yourself, you certainly WOULD be blind to the need to have vision, now wouldn't you?What tipped me over the edge into a Niagara falls' worth of disgust over GHHB was his refusal to extend the Gulf War to Baghdad, and the resulting betrayal of all the insurgents who rose up against Saddam.Stopping the Gulf war at the Iraq border was insane. It was like, if Stalin had stopped the Red Army at the Oder River in April, 1945, just as it was on the verge of final victory agaisnt Naziism, or if Eisenhower had stopped the Western armies at the Elbe River at the same time, thereby giving Hitler and the rest of the Nazis a break.You can say what you want about Bill Clinton's ineffectual pinpricks against Saddam Hussein in the subsequent years, and you can say what you want about the current President Bush's handling of the Iraq War, but in retrospect, it is CRYSTAL CLEAR that GHHB bequeathed a horrible hand to both of his immediate successors.Saddam believed he was going to win the Gulf War. As a result, he was totally unprepapred for defeat. There would have been little problem with post-Saddam insurgencies, especially, since that time was still shortly before the rise of present-day Islamic terror.But by 2003, even Saddam was under no illusions. He had a long time to prepare for post-war insurgencies, and plenty of time to hide his WMD. The subsequent Iraq War was 100 times harder to fight than it would have been in 1991. GHHB left a big mess for his son to clean up. When Light Bulb Johnson became President, he asked the then-Commandant of the USMC what to do about Vietnam. The Commandant replied that when you have a snake in the grass, you have two rational choices. You can leave it the hell alone, but if you decide that you just cannot tolerate its further existence, then, if you decide you must do away with it, you must then ruthlessly stomp it to death as mercilessly as you can, with all the power you can muster.But the ONE THING you NEVER do with a snake in the grass, said the Commandant to LBJ, is to PLAY WITH ITS TAIL. That only angers the snake and make sit even more dangerous.Just as Light Bulb Johnson ignored the Commandant and decided to play with the snake's tail with a policy of gradual escalation, so too did GHHB play with Saddam's tail by not ruthlessly blasting the Ba'athist regime out of existence when he had the opportunity, thereby assuring Saddam's perpetual enmity.Refusing to march on Baghdad then and there was the single biggest American blunder of the 20th Century. When GHHB announced the cease-fire on that February day in 1990, I almost threw my shoe through the TV screen I was so disgusted. Ever since then I loathed GHHB deeply. .

I never had any illusions about Slick Willie in 1992, but if Ross Perot could not win, then Clinton was a distinct IMPROVEMENT over GHHB Sr. And in retrospect, Clinton was a FAR MORE CONSERVATIVE President than GHHB ever was.So my heart always wants to place GHHB in the role of the Worst President.But then my HEAD tells me, no, it gotta be one James Earl Carter. And how can I argue with my reasonable head?I was wary of Mr. Peanuts from the outset. When he promised us a Government that would be as "fine and decent as the American People themselves," I said to myself, "Self, now I KNOW we are in DEEP TROUBLE."

One statement he himself made tells me everything I ever wanted to know about Mr. Peanuts . When the USSR invaded Afghanistan in 1979, he said this single act told him more about the USSR than he'd leanred over the course of his entire life.OH REALLY, YOU DOPE??!! HOW WAS IT THEN THAT I, AS AN TEEN, ALREADY KNEW EVERYTHING I'D EVER NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE USSR -- AND THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS ONLY DEEPENED AND CONFIRMED MY MIND???

It was bad enough that Carter allowed the white regime in Rhodesia to go under in favor of the Hitler of Africa, Robert Mugabe -- but at least that one does not threaten the security of the United States. Carter's fumbling with Iran DOES threaten the USA to this very day. Mr. Carter's problem was that he believed Communist propaganda about right-wing dictatorships being intrinsically evil but not left-wing dictatorships. And so it was with the Shah of Iran. Carter allowed and aided the revolution against the Shah and supported his replacement with Khomeini. The Shah begged him... Carter didn't know what he was doing, because the mullahs would turn out to be far worse than he himself had been.But Carter bleeped it up and the result has been we've been stuck with Iran in its present state ever since. It most of all has been a catastrophe for Iran.Someday the mullahs will be overthrown and Iran will go through a period similar to the post WWII denazification, in which all the vast crimes of the Khomeini regime will be unearthed and exposed.Carter actually had a chance for a do-over when Iran attacked the embassy and seized the hostages.Think about it. An embassy is INVIOLATE. Legally, an embassy is part of the sovereign territory of the nation it serves. The American embassy in Teheran was every bit as much a part of the United States as is the Statue of Liberty, the World Trade Center, or the White House.An attack on an EMBASSY is the same thing as the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor -- even WORSE, actually, since the Japanese only ATTACKED Pearl Harbor; they didn't actually and subsequently OCCUPY it.Seizing the embassy was a clear Act of War.When countries commit Acts of War against others, the ONLY proper response -- is a formal Declaration of War.

Carter needed to go to the Congress the very next day after the hostages were taken and ask Congress to Declare War on Iran. Not only would he have had international law on his side; he'd not have been plagued with the shackles of having to beg the UN for its permission and its rules of engagement, which is what stymied GHHB in 1990. Had Carter done so, the US could have gone straight to Baghdad, deposed the mullahs, installed a friendly government, and Iran today would be not only happier and more prosperous; it would be NO THREAT to the world.But instead, he sat back and did nothing but allow the US to be a pitable, helpless giant. His one flaccid attempt at rescue was a fiasco.

Carter too played with the Iranian snake's tail.

And as a result, they are now on the verge of nuclear weapons. Carter has placed a terrible decision in the hands of the current and next president.In summary, the title of Worst President is a neck-and-neck race between George Herbert Hoover Bush and James Earl Carter -- but Carter wins.