Barry O’s caught with his pants down (Bubba-style) on this one.  Full details here.

Exit question: How long until we hear from the Obamessiah that the blog authors “aren’t the people I’ve known all these years”?

This will further boost his anti-Semitic credentials. From FNC:

Former President Jimmy Carter is reportedly preparing an unprecedented meeting with the leader of Hamas, an organization that the U.S. government considers one of the leading terrorist threats in the world.

The Arabic-language newspaper Al-Hayat reported Tuesday that Carter was planning a trip to Syria for mid-April, during which he would meet with Khaled Meshal, the exiled head of the Palestinian terror group Hamas, on April 18.

Deanna Congileo, Carter’s press secretary, confirmed in an e-mail to FOXNews.com that Carter will be in the Mideast in April. Pressed for comment, Congileo did not deny that the former president is considering visiting Meshal.

Exit observation: Jimmah endorsed Barry O last week, and since Barry O has an anti-Semitic military adviser prone to Zionist conspiracy theories, this is the last thing that Osamabama needed.

Lemme guess: Barry O can no more disown this man than he could disown his own family!  From Capt. Ed:

The interview of Tony McPeak in the Oregonian has turned into a bigger headache for Barack Obama than first thought. Obama’s chief military adviser told the newspaper in a 2003 interview that the US should keep troops in Iraq for “a century … if we do [the war] right,” echoing exactly the same sentiments that Obama has ridiculed as “a hundred years of war” when John McCain made them. Now Obama has to explain why the former Air Force Chief of Staff blames the Jews for the Iraq war:

In an interview with The Oregonion about five years ago, McPeak argued that the influence exerted by American Jews is responsible for the lack of progress in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. According to the general the problem was New York and Miami.

“We have a large vote here in favor of Israel. And no politician wants to run against it,” he said.In the same interview, McPeak spoke of his personal experience with Israel.

“I’ve spent a lot of time in Israel, worked at one time very closely with the Israeli Air Force as a junior officer,” he said, “but that’s maybe the more cosmopolitan, liberal version of the Israeli population.”

McPeak also charged that Jews and Christian Zionists manipulated American foreign policy in Iraq. “Let’s say that one of your abiding concerns is the security of Israel as opposed to a purely American self-interest, then it would make sense to build a dozen or so bases in Iraq,” he said.

McPeak’s formulation uses a little more subtlety than most of the Jewish-cabal conspiracy theorists, but the thrust is the same. Jews and “Christian Zionists” operate from a concern for the interests of Israel over America. It’s not that protecting the region’s only democracy and our strongest ally somehow doesn’t fall within our own interests, but that this group of Americans act against our national interests to manipulate American policy at the expense of our country.

Basically, Jews and Christian Zionists are traitors, according to McPeak.

How can Obama explain this away? Will this be yet another “crazy uncle” whose views on Israel Obama will disavow while not repudiating McPeak? The last one, Jeremiah Wright, included anti-Israel rants in newsletter from the church that Obama has attended for 20 years and to which Obama has contributed tens of thousands of dollars. The animus towards Israel among Obama advisers has begun to form a distinct pattern, one that shrugs and wan, partial denials cannot hide.

And it’s not just the animus towards Israel that Obama has to explain, either. Why does Obama associate with people who indulge in conspiracy theories to explain reality? Wright believes that the government created HIV to commit a genocide; his replacement believes that the CIA created crack cocaine to destroy African-American communities; and now his military adviser believes that Jews and Christian Zionists conspire to undermine America. Is this the kind of Cabinet we can expect to see in an Obama presidency? 

McPeak echos McCain’s sentiments about being in Iraq for a century, then he blames the Jews for forcing us into Iraq.  I’d say he’s not doing Osamabama any favors by opening his piehole.

Who knew that the laws of physics operated differently around those with different skin pigmentation?  But hey, don’t try and tie such moonbattery to Obama, m’kay?  From Gateway Pundit:

More Dirt on a Dirty Church–
Obama’s Church published anti-Semitic articles claiming Jews were working on “ethnic bombs.”

Sweetness and Light and American Thinker discovered this “Open Letter to Oprah” today from Obama’s church newsletter the Trinity United Church of Christ. The letter describes how Israel was working on an ethnic bomb that would kill Arabs and Blacks:

[ pictures of the newsletter here ]

Carl from Jerusalem reported this ethnic bomb:

Israel was the closest ally to the White Supremacists of South Africa. In fact, South Africa allowed Israel to test its nuclear weapons in the ocean off South Africa. The Israelis were given a blank check: they could test whenever they desired and did not even have to ask permission. Both worked on an ethnic bomb that kills Blacks and Arabs.

Arabs have always supported the dismantling of this racist government. In 1962, African-Arab Sudan granted Mandela a passport to travel with to gain international support in his struggle to free his people. Libya, among other Arab states, provided Mandela and other African liberation movements, political as well as material support. As a result, Libya was designated by the White House as a terrorist rogue state. What a great honor!

That’s going to be hard to explain.
Obama was not only listening to a nutty racist anti-American preacher but he was reading anti-Semitic literature from the church bulletin.
It looks like its time for Bambi to start working on another race speech.
Maybe he can blame white America for this, too. 

I’m sure Barry O didn’t know anything about this, just like he didn’t know his pastor was a barking bigoted moonbat (before he confessed that he did know), right?

UPDATES AT BOTTOM.

I’ve been saying for quite some time that Dr. Doofus and his Merry Moonbat Legion are a cadre of conspiracy nuts, Aryans, anti-Semites, etc. Many of the literate and articulate Paul supporters (yes, they do exist) argued that he can’t be held responsible for the kooks that he attracts. I somewhat agree and disagree with that position (how Kerryesque of me, I know), but I’ve often wondered what is it about Crazy Ron that makes him appealing to these miscreants.

Perhaps now we know. From Pajamas Media:

A damning New Republic expose on Ron Paul shows the “libertarian” Republican candidate to be a racist, a homophobe and an anti-Semite. Will his diehard supporters continue to defend a man who called Martin Luther King a gay pedophile? Daniel Koffler, a former Paul sympathizer, has a compendium of the Texas congressman’s creepiest hits, pulled straight from his decades-old newsletter.

There’s more there, so please read it.

I want to emphasize that the original piece was written by The New Republic, who we know stood steadfastly by the slanderous anti-Iraq work of fiction written by fabulist (and since discredited) Scott Beauchamp. As such, feel free to take the original story with a huge shaker of salt. That said, LGF makes this point better than I ever could:

The Only Man Who Can Save America tries to save himself from The New Republic’s article: Ron Paul Statement on The New Republic Article Regarding Old Newsletters.

“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It’s once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”

The problem for Dr. Paul is that there was a lot of this stuff. It stretches credulity to the breaking point to believe he had absolutely no idea what was being published in his name for that long. Doesn’t pass the sniff test.

And the newsletter isn’t the only source of the odor. There are Dr. Paul’s numerous appearances on the whacked-out conspiracy radio show hosted by 9/11 Troofer Alex Jones—and there are all those Nazis and New World Order types hanging around, who somehow, somewhere got the impression that Ron Paul was their kind of candidate.

I’ve laid out the bait for the Paulbots. Let’s see if I can catch any with it.

UPDATE (1/08/2008 - 9:02 P.M. EST): If you can put up with a couple of F-bombs, go over to Ace and see him completely annihilate the apologists who try to argue that Dr. Nutso didn’t write this claptrap himself. Awesome!

From Allahpundit, regarding the Bircheresque crank known as Ron Paul:

“Ron Paul will take money from Nazis. But he won’t take telephone calls from Jews.”

*

“And the next time he’s tempted to label Rudy Giuliani a ‘fascist,’ perhaps he should pause and consider who actual, self-described fascists are supporting for president.”

How long will it take before one of Captain Ron’s Ships of Crazy descends here to tell me how awesome Paul is and how he is the “Only Man Who Can Save America”?

Allah nails Jimmah on this one.

And to think I was worried that that supergroup he formed with Mandela might not be helpful.

“There is a legal definition of genocide and Darfur does not meet that legal standard. The atrocities were horrible but I don’t think it qualifies to be called genocide,” he said. Washington is almost alone in branding the 4 1/2 years of violence in Darfur genocide. Khartoum rejects the term, European governments are reluctant to use it and a U.N.-appointed commission of inquiry found no genocide, but that some individuals may have acted with genocidal intent. Carter, whose charitable foundation, the Carter Center, worked to establish the International Criminal Court (ICC), said: “If you read the law textbooks … you’ll see very clearly that it’s not genocide and to call it genocide falsely just to exaggerate a horrible situation I don’t think it helps.

The point here isn’t that he think Darfur fails to qualify as a textbook case of genocide; other international bodies agree, although most prominent American politicians do not. The point is that he’s resorting to a textbook definition in the first place. If you’re dealing with murder on a scale so massive that it might arguably constitute genocide, by what insane logic is it preferable to err on the side of saying that it isn’t genocide and thereby eschew the tremendous moral force that comes with that term? If it’s genocide then thoughts turn to the Holocaust and the world is compelled to intervene. If it isn’t then it’s a civil war gone bad that’ll work itself out — eventually. Jimmeh likes the latter approach because it appeases the Sudanese government and, theoretically, makes them more amenable to negotiations. After they’ve already killed 200,000 people.

That’s one reason why using the textbook definition is offensive. There’s another reason, too: namely, that Carter hasn’t always been such a stickler for precision when applying that vaunted moral yardstick of his. If it’s so desperately “unhelpful” to go throwing around the concept of genocide even when it arguably applies, explain this. 

The last link above shows where Peanuthead says that Israel is doing much worse than what’s happening in Darfur.  But no, Jimmah isn’t an anti-Semite who coddles dictators and mass murderers while poormouthing his own country!  Why would anyone think otherwise?  For those of you on the left, the prior two sentences were sarcasm.

Any time a leftard says how the Euros are so much more “evolved” than Americans, I roll my eyes in disgust and disbelief. I can easily rebut such a ludicrous claim, and stories like this make rebuttal even easier. From the Financial Times:

Laws that make denying or trivialising the Holocaust a criminal offence punishable by jail sentences will be introduced across the European Union, according to a proposal expecting to win backing from ministers Thursday.

Offenders will face up to three years in jail under the proposed legislation, which will also apply to inciting violence against ethnic, religious or national groups.

I certainly don’t have a problem with criminalizing the inciting of a riot, and I wish we had a law like that here in the States. Oh, wait…we DO have such a law, don’t we? It just applies to everyone not named “Sharpton”! My bad. But I digress.

I most certainly have a problem with criminalizing people saying stupid things like “The Holocaust never happened”! While such idiots are certainly worthy of our contempt and scorn, throwing someone in jail for being a moron is going a bit far. If we had such a law here, many of our politicians would be in jail. Hmmmm…I’m kind of undermining my own point, aren’t I? (For those of you on the left, that was a joke.)

Wait a minute! Something just dawned on me. Recall how Ellen Goodman of the Boston Goob said that global “warming” skeptics were the same as Holocaust deniers? Well, I’m a global “warming” skeptic, so I wonder if that would make me a criminal were I to ever grace the Euros with my presence? I should probably be quiet about that, so as not to give the Euros any more bright ideas like this one.

What is it about freedom that stumps the Euros so badly?

From LGF:

Now featured in a diary at Daily Kos, a video clip from the neo-Nazi site Vanguard News Network (vnnforum.com): Daily Kos: Portrait of a Great Taboo: The Power of the Israel Lobby in the United States. (Hat tip: Killgore Trout.)

LGF has the link to the Kos-tards’ site, as well as a screen capture of their anti-Semitic diary, so I shan’t link to them.

As one commenter at Hot Air notes: “So I guess if you go far enough crazy left (Kos) you end up on the crazy right (Nazi)? They’ve come full circle!” Good point, except I would argue that despite stereotypes that reflexively categorize Nazis as extreme right-wing, I consider them extreme left-wing since they were National Socialists. If socialism is right wing, then Bill Clinton is president of the Promise Keepers.

Dennis Prager, via RCP:

In her last column, Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman wrote: “Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers . . . “

This is worthy of some analysis.

First, it reflects a major difference between the way in which the Left and Right tend to view each other. With a few exceptions, those on the Left tend to view their ideological adversaries as bad people, i.e., people with bad intentions, while those on the Right tend to view their adversaries as wrong, perhaps even dangerous, but not usually as bad.

Those who deny the Holocaust are among the evil of the world. Their concern is not history but hurting Jews, and their attempt to rob nearly six million people of their experience of unspeakable suffering gives new meaning to the word “cruel.” To equate those who question or deny global warming with those who question or deny the Holocaust is to ascribe equally nefarious motives to them. It may be inconceivable to Al Gore, Ellen Goodman and their many millions of supporters that a person can disagree with them on global warming and not have evil motives: Such an individual must be paid by oil companies to lie, or lie — as do Holocaust deniers — for some other vile reason.
…
A second lesson to be drawn from the Goodman statement is that it helps us to understand better one of the defining mottos of contemporary liberalism: “Question authority.” In reality, this admonition applies to questioning the moral authority of Judeo-Christian religions or of any secular conservative authority, but not of any other authority. UN and other experts tell us that there is global warming; such authority is not to be questioned.

Third, the equation of global warming denial to Holocaust denial trivializes Holocaust denial. If questioning global warming is on “a par” with questioning the Holocaust, how bad can questioning the Holocaust really be? The same holds true with regard to Nazism and the George Soros statement. Claiming that America in the Iraq War is morally equivalent to Nazi Germany in World War II trivializes the unparalleled evil of the Nazis.

Fourth, the lack of response (thus far) of any liberal or left individual or organization — except to defend Ellen Goodman — or from the Anti-Defamation League, the organization whose primary purpose has been to defend Jews, is telling. Just imagine if, for example, an equally prominent Christian figure had written that denying America is a Christian country is on a par with denying the Holocaust. It would have been front-page news in the mainstream media, the individual would have been excoriated by just about every major liberal individual and group, and the ADL would have cited this as an example of burgeoning Christian anti-Semitism and Holocaust trivialization. But not a word at the ADL on Soros’s comments about de-Nazifying America or Goodman’s Holocaust-denial comment.

Fifth, and finally, the Ellen Goodman quote is only the beginning of what is already becoming one of the largest campaigns of vilification of decent people in history — the global condemnation of a) anyone who questions global warming; or b) anyone who agrees that there is global warming but who argues that human behavior is not its primary cause; or c) anyone who agrees that there is global warming, and even agrees that human behavior is its primary cause, but does not believe that the consequences will be nearly as catastrophic as Al Gore does.

If you don’t believe all three propositions, you will be lumped with Holocaust deniers, and it would not be surprising that soon, in Europe, global warming deniers will be treated as Holocaust deniers and prosecuted. Just watch. That is far more likely than the oceans rising by 20 feet. Or even 10. Or even three.

I’m still waiting on that Big Oil paycheck that Gore said I was supposed to be getting to compensate me for my skepticism!

Or, as Ellen Goodman would put it, “global warming skeptic.” From the Examiner:

In a bizarre attack, a well-known author and Holocaust scholar was dragged out of a San Francisco hotel elevator by an apparent Holocaust denier who reportedly had been trailing him for weeks.

Police escorted Elie Wiesel to San Francisco International Airport on Feb. 1 after a man accosted Wiesel in the elevator at the Argent Hotel, at 50 Third St., after Wiesel participated in a panel discussion at a peace conference and before Wiesel was scheduled to catch a flight back to New York.

Wiesel, a Holocaust survivor and author of more than 40 books, including the memoir “Night,” about his experiences at Auschwitz, won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986. Last fall, the Boston University professor was suggested as a possible replacement for Israeli President Moshe Katsav, who faces sexual assault charges.

Police confirmed this week that the attack took place and that officers escorted Wiesel to the airport following the attack. According to police, the suspect accosted Wiesel in the hotel elevator at around 6:30 p.m., saying he wanted to interview him. Wiesel said he would do the interview in the lobby. That’s when the attacker pulled him out of the elevator, police reported.

In a posting Tuesday on the anti-Zionist Web site ZioPedia, a writer using the name Eric Hunt takes credit for the attack: “After ensuring no women would be traumatized by what I had to do (I had been trailing Wiesel for weeks), I stopped the elevator at the sixth floor. I pulled Wiesel out of the elevator. I said I wanted to interview him.”

Wiesel grabbed at his chest and yelled for help, according to the posting. “I told him, ‘Why don’t you want people to know the truth?’ His expression changed, and he began screaming again. …” the posting reads.Police reported that the suspect tried to force Wiesel into one of the rooms, but ran away when Wiesel started yelling.

The online posting states that the writer intended to “bring Wiesel to my hotel room where he would truthfully answer my questions regarding the fact that his non-fiction Holocaust memoir, Night, is almost entirely fictitious.” Later in the posting, the Holocaust is portrayed as a “myth.”

Attacks like this may warm the glacial hearts of anti-Semites like Jimmy Carter, Pat Buchanan, Wes Clark, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton, but the rest of normal America finds it disgusting.

No word on whether or not Hunt believes in global “warming” or not. Hey, I may be a global “warming” skeptic, but contrary to Goodman’s assertion, I’ve never had an inclination to go whack a Jew for it.

Via Newsbusters:

Former President Jimmy Carter has gotten himself into more hot water, although it seems quite unlikely that any in the media will pay much attention to this recent faux pas (h/t LGF).

In a seemingly absurd response to a call by The Simon Wiesenthal Center for members and supporters to send letters to Carter concerning his book “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,” the former president penned a handwritten note to the organization’s well-respected founder and Dean.

In it, Carter suggested that the Center lied about him and his book in order to raise money.

Think I’m kidding? Well, put this in your Middle East peace pipe and smoke it:

1/26/07
To Rabbi Marvin Hier

I don’t believe that Simon Wiesenthal would have resorted to falsehood and slander to raise funds.

Sincerely,
Jimmy Carter

In reality, there was absolutely nothing in the Center’s news release concerning Carter’s book asking for money. And, there was nothing disrespectful about the letter the Center was encouraging recipients to send to the former president:

Dear President Carter:

We respect your historic achievement in forging peace between Egypt and Israel in 1979 which only deepens our disappointment and concern over your one-sided book, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.”

President Carter there is no Israeli Apartheid policy and you know it. I join with the Simon Wiesenthal Center in respectfully reminding you that the only reason there is no peace in the Holy Land is because of Palestinian terrorism and fanaticism.

In 2000, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak went to Camp David and offered Yasser Arafat 95% of the West Bank, 100% of Gaza and part of the Old City of Jerusalem, along with $30 billion in compensation for Palestinian refugees. Arafat’s response was the launching of the bloody Intifada which targeted innocent civilians in restaurants, malls, schools, and religious services with suicide terror attacks. Had Arafat accepted Israel’s offer at Camp David there would have long been a Palestinian State alongside Israel.

Mr. President, when the Palestinian people repudiate their fanatics in favor of a course of moderation, then there will be peace in the Middle East.

Pretty innocuous letter to elicit such a response from a former president, wouldn’t you agree?

Nothing in the letter to indicate that the Jewish center was asking for money? Why, if I didn’t know any better, I’d swear that Jimmy the Dhimmi was insinuating that Jews are obsessed with money! Nah, that couldn’t be the case! I mean, that would be stereotyping, and we all know how Carter has no history of anti-Semitic thought or behavior, don’t we? It’s not like he and Wesley “Call them ‘New York Money People’ and not ‘Jews’” Clark have a habit of poormouthing Jews, right?

By the way, with the exception of an AP story on Tuesday, the MSM was quieter than Hillary’s bedroom. Nope…no liberal media bias!

Jimmah with his usual “deer in headlights” look

Just when you think that Jimmy “the Dhimmi” Carter’s anti-Semitism knew no bounds, he exceeds those bounds even further. From the Israel Insider:

The more we learn about Jimmy Carter’s one-sided and biased views towards Israel and her supporters in this country, the more reason we have to be deeply troubled by what he represents and the dangerous mischief he continues to foment.

There is not enough space to repeat the detailed and well documented critiques of his best selling book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. They are, however, aptly summarized by Dr. Kenneth Stein, one of the many former aides and colleagues publicly to have disassociated themselves from the former president, who charged that: “[the book] is not based on unvarnished analyses; it is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments.”

One of the book’s most egregious - and now infamous passages — is found at page 213, where Carter advises “the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups” to make clear that “suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism” will end once when Israel accepts the ultimate goals of the “Roadmap.” Thus the former president sanctions — indeed encourages — continued suicide bombings until Israel meets Arab demands. In fact, what seems to trouble him most about such Arab acts is not that they kill innocent Israeli civilians, but that they may damage sympathy for the Palestinian cause.

Despite the in depth criticism of his thesis, Carter has dug in, stubbornly insisting that his book is both “accurate and needed,” blaming the firestorm he has triggered on Jewish American organizations and while he accuses the pro-Israel community of trying to stifle him or any debate on Middle East policy.

And, let’s not ignore his interview on the Al Jazeera network during which he astonishingly proclaimed that Palestinian missile attacks against Israeli citizens do not, to his way of thinking, constitute acts of terror. Even his apparent condemnation of the killing of children and bombing buses is problematic, as it is couched in terms of damaging sympathy for the Palestinian cause. This approach is reminiscent of that employed by Arafat who, to the extent he ever was in any way critical of acts of terror, complained only because he thought it was tactically disadvantageous.

Not surprisingly and very tellingly, Carter’s frontal attacks have been warmly embraced by a nasty cast of scoundrels, including white supremacists groups and websites such as Stormfront and Aryan Nations as well as David Duke and the notorious Holocaust denying Institute of Historical Review.

It is with good reason that Democrat leaders Nancy Pelosi, John Conyers and Howard Dean have publicly distanced themselves from Mr. Carter, a lead which hopefully others will follow. No Democratic leader or official has come to Carter’s defense, and partisan attempts to use his comments to smear all Democrats as anti-Israel and anti-Semitic should not be tolerated.

The ongoing controversy, including the Carter Center’s acceptance of millions of dollars from anti-Israel Arab sources, including the Saudi royal family, and the Bin Laden family prompted me last month to reveal to the JTA a disturbing 1987 encounter I had with Mr. Carter, while I was the Director of the Office of Special Investigations in the Justice Department, as he took up the cause of the family of an admitted Nazi SS concentration camp who had been stripped of citizenship by a federal court and removed from the country. (Read about it here.)

If one didn’t know better, you’d think that we were not talking about a former president, but rather Pat Buchanan. After all, it was Mr. Buchanan, was it not, who over the years: denigrated Israel by calling it, among other things, an albatross around this country’s neck, as he blamed her for the wars in Iraq; demeaned the pro-Israel lobby for having turned Capitol Hill into what he calls “Israeli occupied territory”; and came to the aid of Nazi criminals being pursued by our government, even while serving as communications director in the Reagan White House.

As troubling as all of this is, there is more. I have received correspondence which ineluctably leads to the comparison of Jimmy Carter to the darkest side of Richard Nixon.

In response to my earlier Op Ed, on December 27 of last year I received an email from Professor Monroe Freedman, a distinguished member of the faculty of Hofstra Law School in New York. He had been the first executive director of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council, which had been created during the Carter administration. Working closely with Elie Wiesel, Freedman put forward to the White House a list of Council members. The recommendations came back disapproved, and Freedman remembers well the reason: “In the top corner, in Carter’s handwriting and with his initials was the notation: ‘Too many Jews’.”

It certainly looks like Mr. Carter took a page right out of the playbook of the disgraced Nixon, who, in a most paranoid and bigoted of moments, instructed an aide to count the Jews in the Labor Department where he believed his economic policies were being obstructed.

To all those who doubt that Jews are an extraordinary people or that Israel is an extraordinary nation, I ask: who else could bring together and find common cause between the likes of Richard Nixon, Pat Buchanan David Duke and Jimmy Carter? Enough said.

In related news, Jimmah also complains that maternity wards have “too many babies being born”, high school proms have “too many teenage kids dancing”, zoos have “too many animals”, schools have “too much learning going on”, doctors’ offices have “too many sick people”, and Code Pink rallies have “too many moonbats”! OK, that’s a bit of a stretch…he’d never think there’s a such thing as too many moonbats!

It’s a known fact that former (and worst ever) president “Jimmy the Dhimmi” Carter has coddled terrorists, dictators, and evil slime all across the world. However, his depravity has sunk to new lows: taking up the cause for a former Nazi soldier responsible for the deaths of scores of Jews. From Arutz Sheva:

A former U.S. Justice Department official disclosed to Arutz-7 that former U.S. President Jimmy Carter’s advocacy extended beyond the Palestinians, when he interceded on behalf of a Nazi SS man.

Neil Sher, a veteran of the U.S. Justice Department’s Office of Special Investigation, described a letter he received from Carter in 1987 in an interview with Israel National Radio’s Tovia Singer. The letter, written and signed by Carter, asked that Sher show “special consideration” for a man proven to have murdered Jews in the Mauthausen death camp in Austria.

“In 1987, Carter had been out of office for seven years or so,” Sher recalled. “It was a very active period for my office. We had just barred Kurt Waldheim – he was then president of Austria and former head of the United Nations – from entering the U.S. because of his Nazi past and his involvement in the persecution of civilians during the war. We had just deported an Estonian Nazi Commandant back to the Soviet Union after a bruising battle after which we were attacked by Reagan White House Communications Director Patrick Buchanan. (Looks like Pat Buchanan’s anti-Semitism goes back quite a while, doesn’t it? - Ed.)

Maybe Carter’s just a really forgiving guy? That would be admirable, were it true. But it’s not true. We know that because of (a) Carter’s reflexive disdain for America; (b) his reflexive solidarity with terrorist leaders and oppressive regimes; (c) his reflexive contempt for all things favorable to Israel, including her survival; and (d) this:

The family approached several members of Congress. “The congressmen would, very understandably, forward their claims over to our office and when they learned the facts they would invariably drop the case,” Sher recalled.

But there was one politician who accepted the claims without asking for any further information.

“One day, in the fall of ’87, my secretary walks in and gives me a letter with a Georgia return address reading ‘Jimmy Carter.’ I assumed it was a prank from some old college buddies, but it wasn’t. It was the original copy of the letter Bartesch’s daughter sent to Carter, after Bartash had already been deported.

“In the letter, she claimed we were un-American, only after vengeance, and persecuting a man for what he did when he was only 17 and 18 years old.

“I couldn’t help thinking of my own father who returned home with shrapnel wounds after he joined the U.S. Army as a teenager to fight the Nazis and hit the beaches at Normandy at that same age on D-day.

“On the upper corner of the letter was a note signed by Jimmy Carter saying that in cases such as this, he wanted ‘special consideration for the family for humanitarian reasons.’

“I didn’t respond to the letter – the case was already over and he was out of the country – but it always stuck in my craw. A former president who didn’t do what I would expect him to do - with a full staff at his disposal – to find out the facts before he took up the side of this person. But I wasn’t going to pick a fight with a former president. We had enough on our plate.”

Now, following Carter’s book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, Sher has decided to go public with the hope that a public made aware of Carter’s support and defense of a Nazi SS man will help illustrate why the arbiter of the Camp David Accords came out with a book defending the Palestinians after the landslide election of the Islamist Hamas terror group.

“It always bothered me, but I didn’t go public with it until recently, when he wrote this book and let it spill out where his sentiments really lie,” Sher said. “Here was Jimmy Carter jumping in on behalf of someone who did not deserve in any way, shape or form special consideration. And the things he has now said about the Jewish lobby really exposes where his heart really lies.”

Why would Carter need facts at his disposal to help him come to an informed decision? Considering that the Nazi in question was responsible for the atrocities committed against legions of innocent Jews, he probably has a special place in ol’ Jimmah’s heart.