Awesome article, thank you so much for posting it!!! Clearly showing proclivities of both parties to integrate a faction which tolerates corruption to outnumber we who don't so the US government can create and maintain a designed state of elitist kingdom and serfdom the US Constitution guards against.. Hasn't changed one bit in years, just continued moving forward with this past election. Mentioned GHW Bush certifying a fraudulent election, believe Carter did the same thing too.

Does an infraction of Carter justify a fraudulent action of GHW Bush? Geez....will this nonsence ever stop?

Believe Carter in 2004 followed GHW Bush's example in 1988, when Carter certified Chavez's "election."


"President Jimmy Carter: Venezuela Election Trip Report, Aug 13-18, 2004

http://www.cartercenter.org/news/documents/doc1801.html

Per article posted please note dates: ".... Bush openly endorsed Salinas after the latter’s fraudulent election in 1988, a favor that Salinas returned four years later when he met only with Bush and snubbed his Democratic rival, Bill Clinton. ...."

Accidentally omitted this quote "In April 2000, candidate George W. Bush followed in his father’s footsteps when he tacitly but unambiguously endorsed the candidate of Salinas’s ruling party against a then little-known opposition figure named Vicente Fox, perhaps believing that the official-party candidate, the former secret-police chief Francisco Labastida, would engage in a quid pro quo as president."

We always need to question a politician's motives. In many cases, it's a hidden agenda and in others it's masked by smiles and promises. What often motivates leaders to serve is something most of us don't understand, at least I don't. Whether one feels he/she has a true mission from God to fulfill or simply enjoys the power to control others, the drive and determination can often blemish even the purist of motives.

This isn't a blog about Jimmy Carter, but since there are at least a couple of comments about him, I want to add my 2 cents. I used to admire him, but I've often questioned his humanitarian efforts. For example, his book "Peace Not Apartheid" is full of inaccuracies. The Palestinians have been offered free housing, jobs and assistance from the Israeli government for many years, but their only goal is to kill every last Jew. There are millions of Arabs living, working and going to school in Israel, but most people I meet don't know that. In fact, Arabs in Israel have more rights than in any Arab country. Most people don't know that either. If I'm not mistaken, Arab women can't vote in the Middle East except in Israel. I hate war, and keeping refugees in camps without basic needs is deplorable, isn't it? However, they're there because they were told they'd be murdered if they tried to escape, but not by Israel. For years the PLO ordered them not to accept any peaceful compromise & more recently Amnesty International & other Human Rights activists found solid proof that Hamas murdered several children in Gaza, blaming Israel, just to fuel the hostility against the Israelis. Imagine living with that much hate. Before anyone accuses me of being biased, here is a statement from the 14 advisers who resigned from his staff after the book was published.

"You have clearly abandoned your historic role of broker in favor of becoming an advocate for one side," the departing members of the Center's Board of Councilors told Carter in their letter of resignation.

So when it comes to immigration, I also question if some of the laws are for the good of our country or to shape a personal agenda. When I was 11 or 12, I wrote a paper about Thomas More and Utopia. I thought a Utopian government was possible. I'm a lot older now.

The goal of a statist (Obama, Carter, etc.) is to re-formulate the United States into a sort of utopia, where everyone has "equality", socially and economically. As you say, such a utopia is not possible, and ultimately the only true purpose of the statist is the accumulation of centralized power and control of all property, both physical and intellectual. (A statist cannot achieve social and economic equality *without* seizing and then re-distributing property -- think about it.) And since an individual's control of their property and fruits of their labor is directly tied to their liberty, the statist deprives the individual of their liberty. That is why a statist, who claims to be bestowing liberty to the masses, is actually engaged in tyranny -- the opposite of liberty.

If you read one non-fiction book all year, read Liberty and Tyranny, by Mark Levin. (http://www.amazon.com/dp/1416562850/speednet-20) It is riviting and eye-opening. His writing style is refreshingly intelligent and efficient, and the book is a very quick read.

Do you want to understand how religion is crucial to our society and our liberty? It's in the book. Wonder why statists try so hard to remove even the mention of the word "God" from every public institution? It may not be why you think. It's in the book.

Just reading Chapter 1 -- which goes by in a flash -- will double or triple your knowledge of the founding of this country.