Welcome Guest
( Log In | Register )
The time is now 10:46 am
You last visited January 17, 2017, 9:54 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

"A Failed Former President

Published:

Carl Sanders, Governor of Georgia which Jimmy Carter defeated is remembered as one of the finest, most effective governors Georgia has ever had, Jimmy Carter as probably the least effective in modern history.
Carter's failed presidency speaks for itself through documented history, not his feeble attempts at rewriting it ..... the old "you didn't see what you saw, you didn't hear what you heard .... which is also being used by Clinton.
______________________________________________
"Known as "Georgia's Education Governor," (Carl) Sanders led the state from 1963 to 1967 (elected at the age of 37), and worked to move Georgia politics beyond race and into issues such as education and economic development -- factors that could improve the quality of life for all. Sanders is credited with the expansion of the University System of Georgia and increased spending to support public schools. He also secured authorization from the state legislature for the study of public education from kindergarten through graduate school. Today, Sanders manages the Atlanta law firm Troutman Sanders LLP, one of Georgia's largest firms, with more than 300 lawyers, and is involved in several companies." http://www.georgiacenter.uga.edu/gcq/gcqfall97/sanders.html
__________________________________________
"A Failed Former President
By Ben Johnson
FrontPageMagazine.com 

The only thing more painful than listening to Jimmy Carter lecture President Bush on how to conduct a successful presidency was living through his disastrous attempt to turn his advice into reality.

As I noted earlier this week, Carter has channeled his hatred of non-leftists, secular and religious, into a glut of slanders in his new bestseller, Our Endangered Values. He charges his opponents with, among other things, countenancing female circumcision, defending the murder of federal judges, torturing innocent Islamofascists, and forcing North Korea to manufacture nuclear weapons. Jimmy once again offers himself as the nation’s savior-by-acclamation, leading his errant people, like a latter-day Moses, to the Promised Land. Every time he flashes his toothy grin before an adoring interviewer, the American people should ask why they should listen to anything he has to say. Jimmy Carter’s presidency could be summed up by a Billy Joel couplet: “Ayatollahs in Iran/Russians in Afghanistan.” However, this would omit so much: “malaise,” the misery index, soaring interest rates, a “helpless giant” foreign policy, stagflation, gas lines, record deficits, and killer jackrabbits. The former president doesn’t ignore his record in his book; he lies about it.

Carter provides a portal into his alternate reality in chapter one, where he insists, “As a Southern moderate and former career naval officer, I espoused a conservative fiscal policy and a strong defense.” [1] Insert laugh track. He boasts, for instance, that he brought religious liberty to China (on p. 26), although his book hit #1 on the New York Times bestseller list the week Chinese Communists sentenced three Christians to a total of six-and-a-half years in prison for distributing Bibles. His tome is replete with such Carter revisionism.

 
Above all else, Our Endangered Values book drips with self-congratulation for his enlightened racial views and clear intimations his opponents are bigots. Modern “fundamentalists” – especially the conservatives Carter relentlessly smears – have made “racial reconciliation” a defining priority. Evangelicals don’t need racial tolerance lectures from the man who campaigned for governor of Georgia as a self-proclaimed “redneck”; whose campaign distributed a photo of gubernatorial opponent Carl Sanders being embraced by black basketball players to a Ku Klux Klan rally; who pledged to invite George Wallace to Georgia; [2] and who said he was “proud” to have Lester Maddox as his lieutenant governor in 1970, calling him “the essence of the Democratic Party.”As Maddox’s successor, Carter turned criminals loose as part of “a competition over who could reduce his prison population the most.” [3]
 
In 1972, he promised – then broke his promise – to the newly crippled George Wallace to nominate or second him at the 1972 Democratic National Convention, jumping at the opportunity to give the nomination speech for Henry “Scoop” Jackson. But Jimmy had just begun his self-promotion. According to his son, Jack Carter, the governor had his surrogates lobbyaggressively to become ultra-leftist George McGovern’s vice president. Carter had invited McGovern and fundraiser Morris Dees to the governor’s mansion, where this “Southern moderate” soon “found himself much more compatible with George McGovern than he had expected.” [4]
 
The peanut farmer chartered his own course to the Oval Office by hoodwinking Southern conservatives. Twenty-five years after being chased out of the White House, Carter has discovered the perils of evangelical “marriage” to politicians. He writes such “a political marriage is in conflict with my own belief in the separation of church and state – I would feel the same even if the marriage were with Democrats.” [5] His actions tell another story. His self-described “campaign autobiography,” Why Not the Best? – which he wrote to advance his 1976 presidential run – was published by Broadman Press, the publishing arm of the Southern Baptist Sunday School Board. Carter admits, “They print all the Southern Baptist literature, and I had some influence with them as a member of the Baptists’ Brotherhood Commission.” During the North Carolina primary, he had his sister, Baptist evangelist Ruth Carter Stapleton, write a letter “to her extensive network of religious friends and contacts around the country” in which she declared:
 
My reason for writing you is to acquaint you with an important facet of Jimmy, one that couldn’t possibly be pursued with any depth by the press and television, and that is his quality of deep personal commitment to Jesus Christ and his will to serve Him in whatever capacity he finds himself…please pray for Jimmy. And if you share my feelings that he is the best candidate, I urge you to actively support him. [6]           
 
After finding people responded positively to the term “Born Again,” Carter wore his religion on his sleeve as he snookered evangelicals into enthusiastically supporting his campaign. Pat Robertson, Tim LaHaye, and the vast majority of “fundamentalists” Carter now derides campaigned tirelessly for Carter in 1976. Carter may have conveniently forgotten; the evangelicals certainly have not. Carter belittles Robertson by name three times in his book, LaHaye once. [7] Common mythology aside, Carter actually won the Southern Baptist vote in 1976 and 1980. [8]
 

The Foreign Policy Fiasco

 

Upon his inauguration, he provided a “strong defense” by slashing defense spending$6 billion (in 2003 dollars) in the first two years of his administration, canceling the B-1 bomber, and decimating the U.S. fleet. [9] Gerald Ford warned this would devastate military preparedness in their second debate but was instead remembered for quipping, “there is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe.”

 

Carter boasts as president he set about “convincing the Soviets of our ability and resolve to respond.” [10] Unfortunately, his response was naïvete and unilateral surrender. Carter failed to consult either the Pentagon or the Kremlin before removing U.S. missiles from South Korea within hours of his inauguration, a move Brezhnev interpreted as weakness rather than conciliation. In 1979, Brezhnev refused to remove Soviet submarines and aircraft from Cuba.

 

Carter now frets, “A recent announcement of withdrawal of U.S. troops farther away from the demilitarized zone has caused increasing concern in South Korea that hard-line leaders in Pyongyang and Washington might precipitate the threatened conflict.” Hard-liners “in Pyongyang and Washington,” Mr. President? [11] Beyond his reprehensible equation of President Bush with Kim Jong-il, Carter apparently forgot that he offered to remove all troops from South Korea during his presidency.

 
His “positive inducements” and warnings about America’s “inordinate fear of Communism” led the Soviets, and Cubans, to believe the Third World was fair game. In his book, Carter praises himself for “establishing diplomatic relations” with Cuba in 1977. [12] That policy consisted of standing by as Castro kept Cuban soldiers fighting in Angola and sent 16,000 more to Ethiopia. He cut off aid to El Salvador, which was fighting a Communist insurgency, but gave more than $90 million in aid to the Nicaraguan Sandinistas. He soon halted diplomatic recognition of our allies on Taiwan and recognized Beijing in their place. The man who declared “human rights is the soul of our foreign policy”showered accolades upon Tito, Ceausescu, Ortega, and Kim il-Sung (the last, after his presidency). [13]
 

Meanwhile, brother Billy tried to open trade relations with Libya in 1978 after depositing a generous $220,000 “loan” from Qaddafi. He registered as an agent of a foreign government two years later. (Billy exerted no influence over his brother, although Jimmuh made his teenage daughter an ad hoc nuclear advisor.)

 
Carter further demonstrated his mettle by surrendering the Panama Canal after a few riots. Ports at either end are now controlled by a front for the Chinese military: Hutchison Whampoa Ltd., and this month, President Bush had to plead for “equal access” to the canal. More troubling, it now stands at risk of a potential terrorist attack. In 2001, the canal was visited by Adnan Gulshair El Shukrijumah, a 30-year-old Saudi-born al-Qaeda terrorist dubbed “the new Mohammed Atta.” Last summer, this most-wanted operative surfaced in Honduras, possibly recruiting for the strike. In response, a dozen nations participated in a simulated terror assaulton the isthmus. [14]
 

The ex-prez now asserts he did a better job of collecting international intelligence than Bush-43. “It was quite different when I was there,” he told Tim Russert. He called his CIA chief “Stansfield Turner, a notable man…an admirable person in every respect, and he gave me unequivocal intelligence regularly…We didn’t have any secret intelligence agencies established within the Defense Department” that already had “a commitment to go to war with Iraq.” To this day, he says, “there hasn’t been any allegation of impropriety” of his use of intelligence.

 

Stansfield Turner gutted the CIA, cutting 820 human intelligence positions. Without assets of its own, Langley had to rely on the intelligence agencies of foreign governments. Thus, on New Year’s Eve 1977, Carter would toastthe Shah’s Iran as “an island of stability in one of the more troubled areas of the world…[due] to the respect, admiration and love which your people give to you.” Eight months later, the CIA issued the report Iran in the 1980s, in which Carter’s spooks surmised, “Iran is not in a revolutionary or even a ‘prerevolutionary’ situation.” As tensions mounted, Carter withdrew U.S. support from the Shah, turning Iran into a beacon of hope for jihadists around the world. Before admitting the exiled Shah to America, he accepted Iranian guarantees they could secure our embassy, one of the costliest miscalculations in the history of American foreign policy. If al-Qaeda was emboldened by American reversals in Beirut and Somalia, one can only imagine their glee at the 14-month-long hostage crisis. Carter ultimately agreed to pay a ransom of $8 billion (of which, Iran netted $3 billion), [15] although Ronald Reagan’s toughness and resolution was the decisive factor in ending the crisis.

 

Nonetheless, in his book Carter presumes to advise George W. Bush on how to deal with Iran. [16] Without Carter’s policies, the Iran-Iraq war would not have raged for nearly a decade; the United States would not have had to form an unsavory alliance of convenience with Saddam Hussein, in order to hem in the mullahs; Hezbollah would not receive $100-$200 million a year from Tehran’s coffers; al-Qaeda would not have received training in Iran in 1992; and Iran’s nuclear ambitions, if they existed, would be of no consequence to the West whatsoever.

 

Jimmy Carter’s presidency was the lowest point of American prestige in modern history. The missteps he made during those critical years continue to threaten the United States and the West.

 

The Domestic Disaster

 

Today, Carter’s foreign policy failures nearly obscure the mess he made of his country in every other way. President Carter enacted his “conservative fiscal policy ” by running annual deficits more than twelve times larger than Richard Nixon’s and increasing the federal debt by 42 percent, more than previous president who had not fought a world war. Had his agenda been implemented, that total would have been higher yet. (Before Hillarycare, he proposed a national health insurance plan, in 1979.)

 

In Our Endangered Values, Carter advises Bush on how to achieve “far more savings” on the price of oil. [17] Average gas prices more than doubled during Carter’s presidency, reaching $1.25 a gallon by election day 1980, or roughly $3.00 a gallon today. Carter’s price controls gave us gas lines, shortages, and rationing. Prices continued to rise until Reagan abolished price controls by executive order. Rather than stand up to OPEC during the 1979 gas crisis, Carter cracked down on the American auto industry, and blamed the American people for their “crisis of confidence” in his incompetent leadership.

 

Carter has discussed his views on reducing abortion through a combination of social welfare spending (such as WIC, which he created) and economic prosperity. [18] However, abortion increased to near-record highs under Carter, skyrocketing from 1.3 million in 1977 to nearly 1.6 million in 1981.

 

President Carter’s economic genius created the situation that, by 1980, interest rates stood at 21 percent, inflation at 13.5 percent, unemployment at 7 percent, and the “misery index” he coined during the 1976 campaign reached 20.5 percent.

 

Carter was so vulnerable a half-hearted primary fight from a wounded Ted Kennedy presented a major challenge. During his re-election campaign, the best pitch he could make was, “I'll be a better president in the next four years.” The New Republic (which endorsed John Anderson that year) editorialized, “He has made our society less prosperous without making it more generous. He has made this country less respected and feared abroad without making it more loved.” Jimmy Carter pulled out all the stops, even dispatching Armand Hammer to negotiate for Soviet interferencein his race against Ronald Reagan. (Hammer told Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin, “Carter won't forget that service if he is elected.” Perhaps this was what he meant about show the Soviets he intended “to respond.”) Still, to this day, Carter excuses his landslide defeat by slandering columnist George F. Will.

 

The Post-Presidential Peril

 

It has long been an unwritten rule for former presidents not to criticize the incumbent officeholder, especially on foreign policy. Those who have broken that law in the last 100 years include Herbert Hoover, Jimmy Carter, and, as of yesterday, Bill Clinton. History has judged all as failed presidents. But no former president actively sabotaged the foreign policy of a sitting president before Jimmy Carter.

 

Carter began his long history of interfering in his successors’ affairs in 1984 by again suggesting Dobrynin interfere in a U.S. election, this time on behalf of Walter Mondale. During the meeting, Carter complained, “there would not be a single agreement on arms control, especially on nuclear arms, as long as Reagan remained in power.” He and other Democrats maintained relations with the Soviets out of concern that Ronald Reagan was an extremist.

 

Before Operation Desert Storm, Carter wrote a letter to UN Security Council members, asking them to oppose the war. Five days before military operations were to commence, he again wrote to Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, “I urge you to call publicly for a delay in the use of force while Arab leaders seek a peaceful solution to the crisis.”

 

However, it was during the Clinton administration that his personal diplomacy reached its zenith. Carter writes that, in 1994, when North Korea began threatening to build nuclear weapons, he left on negotiations “with the approval of President Bill Clinton” [19] Clinton allowed Carter to visit, after Al Gore pushed for the trip. However, as President Bill Clinton tried to convince Pyongyang all options were on the table including a military response, Carter “unilaterally” promised that even economic sanctions would not be forthcoming. When asked about this discrepancy, President Clinton told reporters, “None of us have talked directly with President Carter. We don’t know what he said.” [20] For once, Bill Clinton sounded believable. Carter’s behavior in North Korea led a Clinton administration Cabinet member to call him a “treasonous prick.”

 

During his 1994 trip to North Korea, Carter found time to bolster the image of the Stalinist enclave, saying he didn’t see anyone starving, and the well-stocked groceries of Pyongyang reminded him of the “Wal-Mart in Americus, Georgia.” Soon, he worked out agreement to give Pyongyang 500,000 metric tons of oil, tons of grain, and a light-water nuclear reactor – and he pressed the Clinton administration for a weaker agreement yet. The unverifiable agreement Carter designed allowed North Korea to develop as many as half-a-dozen nuclear weapons – which he now blames on George W. Bush.

 

Despite his previous betrayal, Clinton sent Carter to Haiti the following September to restore Marxist Jean-Bertrand Aristide to power. Carter was to tell Lt. Gen. Raoul Cedras an invasion would follow imminently if he did not step down. He instead legitimized Cedras, allowed him to stay past the deadline, and offered his own policy views on CNN – before reporting to the White House. When Clinton finally called his bluff by launching “Operation Restore Freedom,” Carter said he was “distressed.” (The move worked; Cedras resigned. Aristide proved no better than his predecessors.)

 

Carter has hobnobbed with murderous tyrants throughout his post-presidency. He once pounded out a speech delivered by Yasser Arafat. In 2004, he certifieddubious election of pro-Castro strongman Hugo Chavez.

 

However, he distinguished himself for useful idiocy by visiting Castro’s Cuba in 2002. Then as now, he opposed the Cuban embargo while acknowledging “the benefits of Cuba’s superior services in education and health.” [21] At this time, then-Undersecretary of State John Bolton stated Castro had some form of biological weapons research in progress, an allegation dating back to the Clinton administration. From overseas, Carter called him a liar, because he had not seen evidence of these programs during his tour. Condoleeza Rice quickly responded, “That’s not how biotech weapons work. And they’re actually very easy to conceal.”

 

Carter’s crusade to embrace every two-bit thug in the world garnered him a 2002 Nobel Peace Prize, awarded on political grounds, as Carter opposed Operation Iraqi Freedom. Gunnar Berge, chairman of the Nobel Peace Prize committee, said the honor “should be interpreted as a criticism of the line that the current administration has taken.” Carter was happy to administer the criticism in a speech pointedly criticizing U.S. policy on Iraq.

 

He has escalated his criticism ever since. In a 2004 “Hardball” interview, Carter told his former speechwriter that Operation Iraqi Freedom was like the Revolutionary War, because “in some ways the Revolutionary War could have been avoided. It was an unnecessary war.”

 
Now in 2005, Carter has launched this book tour to convince the American people George W. Bush is leading the nation over the precipice and smear the Southern Christians he once courted, all the while feigning concern over Democrats and abortion. His book is a roadmap to the familiar oblivion he forced upon this nation and the world during his misrule. Nonetheless, the American Left now encourages the greatest president since Ronald Reagan to accept advice from the worst president since James Buchanan. [22]
 
This is part two of a series of articles on Jimmy Carter’s new book, Our Endangered Values. Click HEREto read Part One.
 
ENDNOTES:
1. pp. 7-8.
2. Bourne, Peter G. Jimmy Carter: A Comprehensive Biography from Plains to Post-Presidency. (NY: Lisa Drew/Scribner,1997), pp. 192-3.
3. “Tim Russert Show.” Saturday, November 5, 2005. CNBC. An identical account is found in his book, Our Endangered Values, p. 79.
4. Bourne, p. 225.
5. Carter, Jimmy, p. 39.
6. Bourne, p. 304.
7. Robertson on pp. 20, 60, and 67, LaHaye on p. 113.
8. Carter, Stephen. God’s Name in Vain. (NY: Basic Books, 2000), pp. 46-47. Carter won 59.1 percent of the Southern Baptist vote in 1976 to Gerald Ford’s 37.6 percent, and 50 percent in 1980 over Reagan’s 46.6 percent.
9. D’Souza, Dinesh. Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader. (NY: The Free Press, 1997), p. 143. 
10. Carter, Jimmy, p. 149.
11. pp. 110-111.
12. pp. 102-103.
13. Ambrose, Stephen. Rise to Globalism (NY: Penguin Books, 1993 ed.), pp. 281-302.
14. This author recognizes good people were on both sides of the Panama Canal debate, particularly William F. Buckley Jr. and George F. Will. However, these problems would have been unthinkable under U.S. control.
15. Ambrose, pp. 295, 297, 302.
16. Carter, Jimmy, p. 142.
17. pp. 167-168.
18. pp. 71-78. Nearly all media appearances have discussed the abortion issue; to his credit, he has said he does not believe in Partial Birth Abortion. It is unknown where the courage of his convictions were when President Clinton repeatedly vetoed the PBA ban and banished pro-life Pennsylvania Governor Robert Casey from the 1992 convention.
19. p. 107.
20. Gertz, Bill. Betrayal: How the Clinton Administration Undermined American Security (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 1999), p. 116.
21. p. 104.

22. Grant and Harding may have been weak and corrupt, but they didn’t set totalitarianism on the march, decimate the U.S. economy, and transform an allied nation into an exporter of Islamist fundamentalism – all in one term. The presidency itself was a weaker institution in their day. By the modern era, the American president acted as leader of the free world. In that capacity, Carter choked during the most strategic moment of the Cold War. If the sundering of the Union would not have sanctioned slavery and diminished America’s role in advancing liberty throughout the world in the following century, Carter would qualify as the worst president ever.

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20232
Entry #113

Comments

1.
ToddComment by Todd - November 18, 2005, 12:10 pm
Amen to ALL OF THAT.

Carter was, without a doubt, the biggest failure of a president the United States has ever known.

The fact that he left the country (and by extension, the world) in such an utter mess makes Ronald Reagan's fix-it job even more spectacular.

-Todd
2.
konaneComment by konane - November 18, 2005, 12:29 pm
Every time a Democrat steals the office of POTUS through dead people and dogs voting to increase "popular vote," they always take credit for both accomplishments and clean up done by a former Republican presidents. Carter did, Clinton did too and both have and will be proven to be two of the greatest failures to ever hold that office.

Remember Clinton was offered bin Laden on a silver platter and would not extradite him. All in a previous post along with verified voice print recording link of Clinton admitting he made the mistake by not taking that offer.
3.
Comment by shalini - November 19, 2005, 12:28 am
Just for the record, failure Clinton might have been but surprisingly a very popular ex-President overseas.
I can't comment on either otherwise since I am not very familiar with their achievments or the lack of them anyway!
4.
ToddComment by Todd - November 19, 2005, 8:03 am
Shalini,

Correct! Clinton is hailed like a hero overseas because he is very much against the traditionalist views in America, that we should have less government control and more personal freedoms. What Clinton and his wife stand for are bigger, more involved government that holds every citizen's hand from cradle to grave -- which increases the government's power. They are socialists. They are also proponents of a strong world government, which eventually would hold sway over the entire world's population. And that's not science fiction -- it is the end goal.

-Todd
5.
konaneComment by konane - November 19, 2005, 10:32 am
Clinton is charismatic, he is a genius but read an article which said his genius is not a reasoning type genius ...... in that he remembers information but can NOT analyze it and can NOT come to any comprehensive decision about how to use the information. Makes him the ideal sock puppet ..... guess who's first string puppet master???

The term SOCIALIST as defined by the far left is a STEALTH term for a REDUX OF COMMUNISM which didn't work in other incarnations but they're hell bent on converting the US government to socialist no matter what. That's what all the noise is about on the left in Washington. That's why the main stream media has been serving as the re-education machine for them for years.

I'll defer to this rather long quotation which sums up the undercurrent I intuitively felt when "we are the president" ruled the White House.


"WorldNetDaily 7/22/99 J R Nyquist ". I first heard of Bill Clinton 16 years ago. Here is how it happened. I was getting a teaching credential, and one of my classes was on adolescent psychology. The professor in this course, who was a very admirable teacher, seemed to favor me. One day, after class, she invited me to a 7 p.m. meeting at the Science Lecture Hall. At the time I didn't know she was a Marxist, and I didn't know the meeting would be political. She said that if I cared about education in the state of California I would attend. Having the night off from work I decided on going, partly owing to curiosity. Well, I couldn't have been more surprised if it had been a coven of witches. Arriving early at the Science Lecture Hall, I found communist literature -- books and pamphlets -- stacked on tables in the lobby. A visiting professor was the speaker. He gave a rousing talk on overthrowing the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" in America. How would this be accomplished? By taking over the Democratic Party through its left wing. The speaker said it was possible to elect a stealth socialist president, who would effect a peaceful transition to socialism during the next great economic down-turn. Capitalism would be unmasked as a bankrupt system. The people would then support a new socialist system. All businesses would be nationalized by the government and run like the Post Office. This socialist president, said the speaker, could be elected in either 1988 or 1992. The only problem was that of timing. When would the next major economic downturn hit? Some days later I went to visit my professor at her office hours. We talked about the speaker and the book he had written. We talked about Marxism and the idea of changing the system. Then, suddenly, my professor said: "We have such high hopes for this young Arkansas governor, Bill Clinton." That was the first time I heard Bill Clinton's name. ."

WorldNetDaily 7/22/99 J R Nyquist ". But it wasn't the first time I'd heard this idea of taking over the left wing of the Democratic Party and electing a stealth socialist president. I'd first heard that idea in 1981, when I was a senior at the University of California. The left wing activist, Derek Shearer, came to speak on the subject of "economic democracy." Two radical friends of mine dragged me to hear him, though I had my heart set on a game of chess that day. So I went to listen to Shearer's talk, and I sat there in the front row, concentrating on his theory of "economic democracy," thinking to myself: This is just like Marxism. After Shearer finished speaking I went up and asked him, point blank. "Mr. Shearer, what is the difference between Marxism and "economic democracy"? He looked at me a bit suspiciously for a second, then he said, "I probably shouldn't say this, but there is no difference." I had a long discussion with Shearer about why he wasn't a forthright Marxist. He said that Marxism was unpopular with the American people, who have a knee-jerk negative reaction to words like "socialism" and "communism," even though -- according to Shearer -- these are perfectly good words. Therefore, in order to win Americans over to socialist ways of thinking, you need to create a new, euphemistic language -- a kind of linguistic deception. Shearer also talked about taking over the Democratic Party through its left wing and electing a stealth socialist president. As it happens, Derek Shearer is a friend of Bill Clinton..."

WorldNetDaily 7/22/99 J R Nyquist ".Does anyone remember that Hillary Clinton arranged to give $15,000 to the National Lawyer's Guild -- an organization founded in the 1930s as a branch of the Communist Party USA -- when she chaired the New World Foundation? Does anybody deny her assistance to various Marxist-inspired causes, from the Black Panthers to the Christic Institute and CISPES (a front for Central American Marxist terrorists)? Bill Clinton was not merely a draft evader during the Vietnam War. The truth is, he was for the Viet Cong terrorists. And that is why he went to Moscow and Prague almost 30 years ago. That is why he married the young radical, Hillary Clinton. And that is why he was friends with Derek Shearer. It also explains why my professor of 16 years ago, who was a Marxist, had such high hopes for that young governor, Bill Clinton. Seven months ago an intelligence professional, whose credentials are impeccable, told me something quite alarming. He told of a taped conversion between two Czech Communist officials. They were discussing a young American college student -- Bill Clinton -- who was then visiting Prague. They mentioned that he was expected to attend a meeting at a certain place which was reserved for the recruitment of Communist bloc agents. "Where is this tape now," I asked. "Nobody seems to know," he answered..."


WorldNetDaily 7/22/99 J R Nyquist ".In February there was another curious incident involving a retired CIA official. This particular fellow was genuinely alarmed at information he had on President Clinton's ties to the Russian security services. When pressed by a famous journalist to provide details, the CIA man shrank away. Publicity is death to people involved in secret intelligence work. And now, more recently, I have received information from a third source inside U.S. intelligence. His story is even more fantastic. It is so fantastic that I dare not repeat what he reported.."

http://alamo-girl.com/0341.htm

You must be a Lottery Post member to post comments to a Blog.

Register for a FREE membership, or if you're already a member please Log In.