You assert that the American electorate was happier under Carter and forgave him his flaws in geopolitics because he showed honesty and integrity.  But the American electorate soundly voted him out of office in 1980 -- that doesn't look like forgiveness to me.  Do you mean they forgave him once he was out of office?  They also "forgave" Ford, as the laudatory comments upon his death demonstrated--Carter is no exception in seeing his standing rise once out of office.  About your second assertion:  as an American who lived through the Carter years, I can assure you that the general atmosphere at that time was not one of happiness, as Carter himself admited, though he famously blamed the national malaise on the electorate, not on his poor leadership.

Except to correct your infantile statement that inflation was 10% or less during Carters term, I will leave you to your delusions.  The economy was in tattars with inflation topping 18%, interest rates were at 18% at times topping 20% and unemployment was at high for US 7 to 8%. The economy was whipped with high prices, low productivity and bleak business and consumer confidence.  Here is one report of the time which confirms much of this: 

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,921854,00.html

You may spread your lies and delusions at a place where they may be beleived - may I suggest Iran or kindergarten?

Spraynasal, your comments are not rational and really don't deserve debate or consideration.  You exhibit the demeanor of a spoiled child who waste their life following utopiac dreams and trying to convince others in irritating ways that your dreams are realities instead of nightmares and useless bilge.

Carter was irrational and dangerously so.  Interest rates were astronomically high for the US.  Gas lines were long and gas was scarce.  Hostages were held without action for a lengthy time.  The "rescue mission", when it finally came was inefficient and a failed action.  The country teetered close to the edge of collapse in confidence in political, economic and morale.  Carter's activities were appeasing and promoted ideas consistent with communist goals.  Here is one comment on his dangerous flirtation (more a marriage) with communisims advancement: 

http://www.tldm.org/News7/CommunismCarter.htm

Your comments are typical of close minded liberals who shout ignorance which is based on leftist soundbites and unreality.  Blow your nose instead of putting blow into it and you may have a chance of getting back to a semblance of reality.  Carter is past that point.  You show by your irrationality and faith in all your heroes who have grown up to be leftists that you are not just a misguided liberal who may benefit from rational discussion.

@ spraynasal

Indeed "hate feeds terrorism".  That is why there is so much terrorism, and the "hate" is taught in madrassas and mosques, not in US public (nor private) education.   

Moreover, 'selfhatred leeds to extinction", and that is certainly applicable to you and Jimmy Carter.  There are also few Americans who have done more to create absurd 'justifications' for anti-american hatred than Noam Chomsky, both at home and abroad.

Whatever one's particular opinions, it is always a bad sign when one refuses to face facts.  And when you 'argue' with strawmen, then all discussion becomes silly.  More specifically:

-- You have not seriously addressed a single point that I made in my previous post about Carter.

-- The US inflation rate did reach about 15% at the end of the Carter presidency, and it took Volker and later Greenspan about two decades to 'wring' it out of the system again.  Brazil is a totally different story.

--  There is little argument among geopolitical experts that close to 20 countries fell into the soviet orbit during the Carter years.  They were distributed over South America, Africa and Asia. Read Gorbatshev's memoirs if you don't believe me.  That was not all Carter's fault, but his weakness and dillydalling contributed mightily to that outcome.

--  The 'peace' between Israel and Egypt was made by Rabin and Saddat.  Both were murdered for that 'peace'.  If you believe that there is genuine peace today between Egypt and Israel, you are very naive. (Just read any Egyptian newspaper, and learn something, but I doubt that you can.)  And if you believe that the 'peace' between Rabin and Saddat was made by an American president, ANY American president, you are even more naive.

-- Where did I claim that "my iron-fisted God is a Christian one"?  I have nowhere in our discussion used the word "God", nor "Christian".   It is clear therefore that rational discussion with you is impossible.  You do not address arguments, but will parrot opinions whether they are relevant to the line of argument in a discussion or not.

@ spraynasal

1) Your confusing "weapons of mass destruction" with "weapons of self destruction" suggests a lack of rigorous thinking on your part.

2) Whether one is better off than 6 years earlier depends on many factors, not all of which are under the control of your government, nor of yourself.  For instance, it would be ludicrous to blame Roosevelt in 1942 for his country "being worse" off than 6 years earlier.  Neither is the 'long war' with radical islam something your government voluntarily chose.  It is something that was forced upon them.  You can of course endlessly debate about how one should go about fighting that 'long war', but it is ludicrous to blame your goverment for terrible and irrational behavior of South Americans and of Arabs elsewhere in the world.  They are all responsible for their own behavior.   

3) Jimmy Carter has his pros and cons.  But, from a geopolitical perspective, he was the worst postwar2 American president.   You refuse to face facts.  Carter's presidency ended up with 15% inflation, falling productivity levels in the US economy, and 18 countries falling in the Soviet orbit.  There is no doubt that it extended the life of the Soviet Union and gave them a brief respite.  And the spectacle of a whole American embassy with over 50 people being held hostage, for over a year by a foreign government, destroyed  American 'deterrence' on which the postwar 'peace' had been based.    

Moreover, at this moment in our time, when your country is at war with radical islam simultaneously in several countries in the muslim world, when your own soldiers (fellow citizens) are being killed by people with totalitarian 'agendas' (and with the active connivance of so-called moderate governments), 'your' Jimmy Carter went to the muslim world (with which your country is in large part at war) and in the middle of the Arab world, on SEVERAL occasions, he publicly attacked his own country and its government.  As an American citizen, and certainly as a former American president, he should fight his political battles in the democratic space provided at home, and certainly not give comfort to his country's enemies on their home turf.   No sensible politician, let alone a former former head of state, of almost ANY country in the world would  behave in such a way and survive.  Only in America do they (the public at large) tolerate such selfhatred.  It is therefore extremely disappointing that you could have "deep respect" for such a vain person as Carter and for such uncivic behavior.   A society that will keep producing such selfindulging presidents cannot endure in our cynical and hypocritical world.  

I'm not sure which report of wikipedia spraynasal is using.  Here is a link to one which seems sufficiently authoritative and factual which shows how the 2000 election votes came out in Florida: 

  http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2000

I'm surprised that even novices have a problem separating fact and fiction based on emotional empathy with lost causes.  Gore was a loser and will always be one, and so are the fanatical supporters who either support him or suffer from BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome).  It is tiring to hear them continue the tirade which is based on unfamiliarity with the constitutional process and unwillingness to accept fact.

I am not commenting on the guilt or innocense of Hank Skinner because I haven't found a source which appears factual and unbiased in order to review the unbiased facts.  The sites I google appear to be ones with an agenda for various reasons, most having to do with being against the death penalty.  If facts are available to exonerate Mr. Skinner, I think the exhaustive review and appeal proceedures will bring them out.  I don't know many Texas judges who would be afraid to render a decision they thought was lawful and supported by the evidence in a capital case regardless of any power which tried to intervene.  They would relish defying anyone, particularly a president.  The statement that:

 "no judge dares to order a review of his judgement, out if fear of the republican senators and the Presidential statement that "there is no innocent in death row in Texas"..."

is another comment that is self-delusional.  I suggest  a change in nasal sprays and a more rational and mature consideration of facts.

@ spraynasal

Some people will never face reality, if they don't like it, and you are obviously one of them.  It is incredible that you are still - today - trying to count votes of 2000 in Florida!   That 'dispute' has been discussed and litigated at great length through the courts, and - as I reported - independently studied long afterwards (in peace and quiet) by the Gore-friendly media, and the result of all the 'recounting' was that Bush's miniscule winning margin in Florida widened slightly further. That gave him the win in the Electoral College in 2000,  but not in the nationwide popular vote.

If you want to see the difference between a truly 'democratic' country and a not-so-democratic country, you should compare the differences in 'systemic' reactions to the extremely-close (and therefore always disputable) elections results in Mexico (last year) and in the USA (in 2000).  With your 'unreasonable' attitude you wouldn't be out of place in Mexico City.  The world is not perfect, it never is, but in the USA they do have regularly power alternation.  There was another federal election in 2004, which even more so re-affirmed the results of 2004.  Your 'harping' on the disputes of 2000, therefore, can only be construed as the whining of an 'unreasonable' mind. 

Things could of course always "go better for the USA".  That is indeed a "truism", but not a particularly meaningful one.  It is about as 'meaningful as saying that the sun will come up again at some time in the future.  But your need to seek 'approval' or applause from South Americans or Arabs is certainly a form of "populism".  And, I repeat, your blaming your own country for the irrational behavior of others - whether your country's policies are exactly the 'right thing to do', or not - is a stupidity that is very much in the Jimmy Carter mold.  During his 4 years, 18 countries fell into the Soviet-camp worldwide, Iran fell to the ayathollas, and radical islam learned that the US could be a 'paper tiger' again.  Reagan reversed the soviet threat, but the challenge from radical islam became only severe after the soviet collapse and during the Clinton 'vacation from history'.   That vacation is long over and you better get used to it. 

So, if your irrational media-fed Bush-hatred leads you to support Democrats, I would say there is nothing wrong with that in principle, but you better choose a Democrat with backbone, with no illusions about the rest of the world, and definitely one who is free of (cultural) selfhatred.  In other words, someone different from yourself.     

@ Spraynasal

We are all entitled to our own opinions, but we do ourselves a disservice by parroting falsehood.  You do the latter by repeating falsehood about 'Florida 2000'.  While the legal battle that ensued was very interesting and instructicve for constitutional scholars and for others, the facts about the 'election' in Florida itself were established about a year later by an exhaustive investigation by the major media.  That investigation, with the 'liberal' New York Times in the lead, has clearly confirmed that Bush had won in Florida.  It is dishonest to keep on repeating that he did not ("if Gore had asked for a recount in the whole Florida state" etc...).    

There is no dispute among serious nonideological people anymore that Bush won the electoral college vote 'squarely and fairly', and the 2000 election was held under the constitutional provisions pertaining to the Electoral College.   That does not preclude of course debate about the pros and cons of the Electoral College itself, but I would warn you against populism as a valid manifestation of 'true democracy'.  Venezuela proves that point today.  You are, however, right to say that the civil war proved the point about the limited 'sovereignty' of individual US States.   

At the same time, it is very stupid to blame US policies and US 'legal dispensations' (like the Electoral College) for stupidities elsewhere in the world.   If parts of South America are again swinging from rightist caudillos (authoritarianism) to leftist caudillos (totalitarianism), that is THEIR fault, and nobody else's.  They will have to live with the consequences, and history teaches that the consequences of totalitarianisms are much worse than those of authoritarianisms.  Similarly, it is also very stupid to blame your own democratic country for the extremist opinions in the Arab world.  Indeed, it is a form of perverse western selfhatred to blame 'yourself' (your own democratic polity) for irrational behavior in others.   

There is a big difference between doing 'the right thing' as you see it, and seeking popularity among others.  You should hold your own leaders accountable, and reason (verb!) in that debate with your fellow citizens.  But you should NEVER allow the irrational (and often manifestly immoral) behavior of others in the world to become an 'argument' in trying to determine what "doing the right thing" should mean.  Your populist road of thinking is the road to 'dhimmitude' or, worse, to selfdestruction.

"I hold to the ideal that denying our roots in Christianity will be the end of civilization as we know it."

Certainly, Christianity is a cornerstone of Western civilisation, however, there are other major components such as Greco-Roman and other pagan traditions, and the environmental factors of divisive geography and uneven resources. Additionally, pre-Christian and non-Christian societies flourished, many even emphasizing the human rights and egalitarian fundamentals that are central to Christianity.

"Idealists...fail to recognize the reality of the Holy War we truly are in."

Is this Holy War against Muslims, other Christians, non-Christian religions, agnostics, atheists, or any or all of the above?

"God is still the head of both [church and state] and that those who believe in the leadership and gift of Jesus Christ are more enlightened to take us in the right directions than those who worship no one."

The church is a cultural institution; the people are the head of the state, which governs on the principle of popular sovereignty and maintain's that people's national self-determination.
 
"It seems they [our laws] almost have to be [Christian] to make any moral sense."

This is true only if one is terrified of residing in an amoral universe where creativity and destruction are intertwined. In the centre of our galactic core is a black hole some 2 million times the mass of our sun. At once it is devouring all that enters its event horizon and yet it gives rise to new stars that orbit it; instead of engulphing the galaxy it binds it together. It is an amoral object yet one that engages in destructive creationism and is truly the closest thing to a God, Great Creator, or Prime Mover that we've yet discovered.

Everything the left does praises the superiority of man over God.  They wish to eliminate God from the public vocabulary because they wish men to view the state as being more mighty and indisputeably looked to for guidance on all matters.

The God beleiver will never accord the state that status.  A person who knows God is aware that God gives man free will to choose and that it is up to the individual to choose their life course. Christianity does not force compliance by man but encourages him to betterment of himself and society.

The left does not grant individuals that right of choice and is more restrictive than even the most fundamentalist church (for the adherents to that church).  The state makes the choices for all individuals in the leftist system and deviation from the "needs of the state" are severely sanctioned.

Rougman is correct that the US constitution acknowledges that the rights therein come from God.  It is also true that the rights of all men come from God and no constitution is necessary for them.  The left wants to avoid references which acknowledge to citizens the rights available to them from God.

The state and leftists have no right to take those rights away and they become illegitimate when they attempt to do so.  Men just need to understand where their rights are truly from and be willing to defend them.  That includes retaking them when they are wrongfully usurped.

I hold to the ideal that denying our roots in Christianity will be the end of civilization as we know it.  Idealists can talk all they want about how God has no place in our laws and society and that religion is solely for private practice, but they fail to recognize the reality of the Holy War we truly are in.

Sure, I believe in the separation of Church and State, but I believe God is still the head of both and that those who believe in the leadership and gift of Jesus Christ are more enlightened to take us in the right directions than those who worship no one.

I'm struck by the testimony following the death of Gerald Ford who seemed to have the use of Faith more in perspective than many of us ever realized.  It seems he was as devoted to Jesus Christ as Jimmy Carter, but he chose to lead without making his Faith an issue where Carter wore his beliefs on his sleave.  The history books will demonstrate that Ford was an effective leader that probably deserved re-election and his Faith was one of the main reasons.

As a democracy, we allow people to worship Jesus, Allah, a buddah or even Lucifer, but this doesn't mean our basis for our laws cannot be rooted in Christianity.  It seems they almost have to be to make any moral sense.

Lord, grant me the strength to change the things I can;

the serenity to deal with the things I cannot change;

and the wisdom to know the difference.

I personally much prefer our US Constitution where it is clearly stated that certain rights come from an authority higher than government.  Government granted rights change whenever the political landscapes change. 

When rights spring from government the government becomes God.

 Particularly between Christian and Muslim religions.

Yeah sure, we Christians will do all of the talking, and the Muslims will do all of the sword swinging/suicide bombing.....Nice dialouge, woudn't you say????

In his new book, The Enemy at Home, D’Souza argues that the cultural Left (the media, the nonprofit sector, and the universities) is allied with the radical Muslims, and that conservatives and "decent liberals" have no choice but to join forces with the traditional Muslims to combat the radical Muslims and the cultural left. He seems to be unaware that Islam is also the ally of Fascist and anti-Semite groups such as Aryan Nations - under the influence of Julius Evola there is within the political right aan ultra-right wing that endorses and sympathizes with Isam and consequently also has declared war against the United States and the West (on Evola's support for Islam and Tradition against cultural decadence, see his "Revolt Agains The Modern World", pages 243 - 244).

In his claim that the religious and socially conservative Muslims are our moral allies against the left, D’Souza relies on a distinction between traditional and radical Islam. According to him, we should encourage a split between "radical" Muslims (who engage in jihad) and "traditional" Muslims who are conservative in their political views and deeply devout in their religious practices. D’Souza not only stands with conservative Muslims in their protest against the publication of the Danish cartoons, he should supports Muslims against Israel!

D’Souza’s position is that of Patrick Buchanan who claims that we ought to win Muslim hearts and minds (http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005053.html).

Also, Jean-Marie Le Pen is waning in support these days, courtesy of his sell-out to Muslims; the Front National has many immigrant members, and some muslims have been elected.

The political landscape has become confusingly divided, not between left and right, but between an open-ended vision of the future versus.some notion that it should be controlled or managed or perhaps kept stable in a past form.

In his new book, The Enemy at Home, D’Souza argues that the cultural Left (the media, the nonprofit sector, and the universities) is allied with the radical Muslims, and that conservatives and "decent liberals" have no choice b

At long last they are thinning the proposed constitution instead of adding more random crap to please every lobby group in the union.