ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Islam Means Peace - Part 1,863

Or, The Recent Poll of Muslim Americans and Implications for Homeland Security

The results of this poll have been portrayed widely as positive news - positive in the sense that "a majority of American Muslims" don't believe suicide bombings (aka terrorism) is justified. Alarmingly, as Michelle Malkin points out at NRO, it's the size of the minorities which should cause us concern:

Tiny Minority, Big Problem
Even a few suicide-bomber sympathizers is still far too many.

By Michelle Malkin

If we believe the spin of Associated Press headline writers, there’s little cause for concern about a new Pew poll of American Muslims. “Most U.S. Muslims reject suicide bombings,” the AP headline writer blithely reports.

But the details of the poll show that the always-downplayed tiny minority of jihadi sympathizers in America is cause for big concern.

The poll found that while 80 percent of U.S. Muslims believe suicide bombings of civilians to defend Islam cannot be justified, fully 13 percent said they can be justified, at least rarely. One in four younger American Muslims find suicide bombings in defense of Islam “acceptable at least in some circumstances.”

About 29 percent of those surveyed had either favorable views about al Qaeda or did not express an opinion. Yes, they either gave al Qaeda thumbs-up or had no opinion about the terrorist group responsible for slaughtering nearly 3,000 of their fellow Americans on 9/11 and responsible for a global bloodbath from Bali to Britain, the Middle East, and beyond.

A third of those polled believe the invasion of Afghanistan to take out al Qaeda training camps after 9/11 was wrong. [ed - Apparently, Michael Moore & Cindy Sheehan have some fans in the Muslim community!] In addition, only 40 percent of all American Muslims believe Arab men carried about the 9/11 attacks — joining Charlie Sheen, Rosie O’Donnell, and the inside-job conspiracy mongers. The poll focused particular concern on jihadi sympathy among young Muslims and black Muslims:
Muslim Americans reject Islamic extremism by larger margins than do Muslim minorities in Western European countries. However, there is somewhat more acceptance of Islamic extremism in some segments of the U.S. Muslim public than others. Fewer native-born African American Muslims than others completely condemn al Qaeda. In addition, younger Muslims in the U.S. are much more likely than older Muslim Americans to say that suicide bombing in the defense of Islam can be at least sometimes justified.

“It is a hair-raising number,” Radwan Masmoudi, president of the Washington-based Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, told the AP. Indeed. The numbers should be a wake-up call, not another excuse for the mainstream media to downplay the threat of homegrown jihad.

The poll comes on the heels of the Fort Dix jihadi terror bust involving young, American-raised Muslims and the conviction this week of Muslim doctor Rafiq Abdus Sabir — born in Harlem, based in Florida — who had pledged loyalty to al Qaeda and vowed to treat injured al Qaeda fighters so they could return to Iraq to kill Americans. A Brooklyn bookstore owner and a Washington, D.C., cab driver also pleaded guilty and were sentenced to prison in the case. The tiny minority of jihadi sympathizers aren’t just sitting around stewing harmlessly about their beliefs. They are recruiting, proselytizing, plotting, and growing.

I’m reminded of a similar poll conducted in Indonesia last fall. One in ten Indonesian Muslims was found to support bombings in defense of Islam. They took the news a little more seriously in “moderate” Indonesia. One in 10 in Indonesia, you see, equals 19 million Muslims for violent jihad. That’s just Indonesia.

Recent polling in Britain found that 13 percent of British Muslims believe the London subway bombers are righteous “martyrs,” and 7 percent approve of suicide bombing attacks on civilians in Britain in some circumstances.

Now, add that to the 16 percent of French Muslims, 16 percent of Spanish Muslims, 7 percent of German Muslims, 28 percent of Egyptian Muslims, 14 percent of Pakistani Muslims, and 46 percent of Nigerian Muslims who told Pew last summer that “violence against civilian targets in order to defend Islam” can be justified “often/sometimes.”

A few fringe jihadists here, a few fringe jihadists there, and soon you’re talking about bloody real numbers.

So, similar to the Muslims of Europe, the elder generations are less radical and more assimilated than their progeny. This, despite the fact that America is much more tolerant towards those of other beliefs, ethnicities, etc. than any country in Europe. And it should be noted that ethnic & religious minorities are much more successful in the US than in any other country in Europe.

Given these results, I would be interested in a parallel poll of Christians, Jews, and those of other religious (or non-religious) persuasions. I would bet anyone that the results would demonstrate that adherents of Islam - particularly those in the younger demos - are atypical when compared to those of other faith or of atheists.

It'd be instructive to test this hypothesis, though. For years, we've been told that profiling by the Dept of Homeland Security (and the Transportation Security Administration in particular) of Muslim-Americans cannot be tolerated - and all passengers, from my 2 year old daughter to a 95 year old great-grandmother, need to be searched.

Well, given the proclivity of young Muslims to support or tolerate terrorism, why are we continuing with our suicidal policies?

I mentioned several weeks ago that Islam, as evidenced by this and previous polls:
  1. is either an extremely violent, intolerant religion that justifies death & destruction of unbelievers (men, women, & children);
  2. or it has a serious marketing/branding problem and we just aren't getting the complete picture.
I fear that with this recent poll of American Muslims - the "most moderate" Muslim community in the world, that it may be the former and not the latter.

While many say that "Islam Means Peace," they are incorrect. Islam means submission. Perhaps I should take the lead of Kent Brockman on The Simpsons and welcome our new Islamic Overlords. But I think I'll hold out for a little while longer.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

John Ashcroft rehabilitated

Jonah has an excellent article in NRO today, detailing political rehabilitation in modern day Washington, specifically with regards to John Ashcroft. Jonah delivers well deserved praise:

Former deputy attorney general James Comey’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee electrified Washington last week. With almost cinematic drama, Comey recounted a story of grasping Bush administration officials trying to badger then-attorney general John Ashcroft — in his hospital bed — into authorizing sweeping domestic-surveillance powers that had already been deemed unlawful by the Justice Department. Ashcroft strained to lift his head off the pillow and castigate then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and chief of staff Andrew Card for trying an end-run around Comey, the acting attorney general. Ashcroft and his aides reportedly threatened mass resignations if the White House didn’t address their concerns. President Bush apparently did that, defusing the crisis.
In 2001, Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) led the Democratic opposition to Ashcroft’s nomination, casting Ashcroft as a terrifying religious zealot lacking the integrity, temperament and racial “sensitivity” to be attorney general. Last week, Schumer saluted Ashcroft’s “fidelity to the rule of law.” The liberal website Wonkette praised Ashcroft’s “heroic stand.” The Atlantic Monthly’s Andrew Sullivan, who has become a Jeremiah about the dangers of the Christian right that Ashcroft has long personified, dubbed him “an American hero.” Ashcroft’s rehabilitation was sealed by a Washington Post story about how the former AG was often the only firebreak against the Bush White House. Even Ralph Neas, the hyperpartisan president of People for the American Way, managed to mumble to the Washington Post that Gonzales had managed to make Ashcroft look like a “defender of the Constitution.”
In almost every way, Ashcroft was the Bush administration’s most exemplary Cabinet official. An undisputed hawk on the war on terror, he was nonetheless immune to the groupthink that has plagued the Bush White House. From the sound of it, that independence improved administration policymaking.

It also improved Bush politically. In his first term, Ashcroft was the face of the Christian Right in the Bush administration, serving as a valuable lightning rod, making Bush seem, and perhaps be, more reasonable. In his second term, Bush picked Gonzales, a quintessential yes man, to replace Ashcroft’s useful contrary voice. This only reinforced the bunker mentality that has so ill-served the White House.

I concur. John Ashcroft was precisely the man to have "on the scene" at the AG office on the morning of 9/11 and in the aftermath. The democrats using his "bedside stand" for political points against Gonzales is pure politics.

The final paragraph from Jonah is telling:
Lastly, history — even freshly minted history — has a remarkable way of erasing conventional wisdom. If in 2002 I had written that by 2007 Democrats would be singing Ashcroft’s praises as a man of integrity and sound temperament, I would have been laughed out of the room. Right now, predicting a rehabilitation of George W. Bush elicits similar guffaws from the same crowd. But the fact is, if Ashcroft can be rehabilitated, anyone can be.
Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: Brian

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

The Gore/Bush House Comparison - A Tale of Two Houses

Though this item from has been around for some time now, this comparison really makes the point clear:

HOUSE # 1:

A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated by gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not in a northern or Midwestern "snow belt," either. It's in the South.

HOUSE # 2:

Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university, this house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction can provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes 25% of the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers and shrubs native to the area blend the property into the surrounding rural landscape.

HOUSE # 1 (20 room energy guzzling mansion) is outside of Nashville, Tennessee. It is the abode of that renowned environmentalist (and filmmaker) Al Gore.

HOUSE # 2 (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas. Also known as "the Texas White House," it is the private residence of the President of the United States, George W. Bush.

So whose house is gentler on the environment?

Yet another story you WON'T hear on CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC or read about in the New York Times or the Washington Post.

Indeed, for Mr. Gore it's truly "an inconvenient truth."

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: NontereyJohn

From Our Friend at Scrappleface - Chrysler Sale

I needed a laugh and Ott provided it.

For Sale: Used Chrysler, Some Rust, Runs: $7.4 Billion

By Scott Ott, Editor-in-Chief, ScrappleFace.comNews Fairly Unbalanced.
We Report. You Decipher.

FOR SALE: Used Chrysler, 82 yrs old, recently owned by German family for rec
use only. Carries 80,000 passengers plus heavy union baggage. Some rust. Runs.
Bought 9 yrs ago at $36 billion. U can own it today at $7.4 billion OBO. Act now
and we’ll throw in $18 billion in long-term liabilities, no extra charge.

Ask for Dieter
Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: MontereyJohn

History's Greatest Monster Gets a Smackdown

Christopher Hitchens (my favorite socialist) provides additional evidence as to why Jimmah "Should I part my hair on the left or right today?" Carter is History's Greatest Monster:

Peanut Envy
The latest absurdities to emerge from Jimmy Carter's big, smug mouth.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, May 21, 2007, at 11:35 AM ET

Former President Jimmy Carter Click image to expand.Former President Jimmy Carter
Almost always, when former President Jimmy Carter opens his big, smug mouth, he has already made the psychological mistake that is going to reduce his words to absurdity. When he told the press last week that the Bush administration had aroused antipathy around the world, he might have been uttering no more than a banality. But no, he had to try to invest it with a special signature flourish. So, he said instead:
I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history. The overt reversal of America's basic values as expressed by previous administrations, including [those of] George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon and others, has been the most disturbing to me.
Leave aside the sophomoric slackness that begins a broken-backed sentence with the words "as far as" and then cannot complete itself. "Worst in history," as the great statesman from Georgia has to know, has been the title for which he has himself been actively contending since 1976. I once had quite an argument with the late Sen. Eugene McCarthy, who maintained adamantly that it had been right for him to vote for Ronald Reagan in 1980 for no other reason. "Mr. Carter," he said, "quite simply abdicated the whole responsibility of the presidency while in office. He left the nation at the mercy of its enemies at home and abroad. He was the worst president we ever had."

I still think Richard Nixon has to be the prime candidate here, but you will notice that Jimmy Carter evinces nostalgia for that period, too. Apparently, the Christmas bombing of Vietnam, the invasion of Cambodia, the subversion of democracy in Chile, the raising of illegal slush funds, and the attempt to bug the Democratic National Committee offices were assertions of America's "basic values." Leave aside Carter's newfound admiration for Ronald Reagan, who is now undergoing a more general historical revision thanks to the work of professors Diggins and Brinkley, and just concentrate for a moment on what he says about George Bush Sr. What did he say at the time? Many people in retrospect think Bush did a good job in assembling a large multinational coalition, under U.N. auspices, for the emancipation of Kuwait from Iraqi occupation. But Jimmy Carter used his prestige, at that uneasy moment, to make an open appeal to all governments not to join that coalition. He went public to oppose the settled policy of Congress and the declared resolutions of the United Nations and to denounce his own country as the warmonger. And, after all, why not? It was he who had created the conditions for the Gulf crisis in the first place—initially by fawning on the shah of Iran and then, when that option collapsed, by encouraging Saddam Hussein to invade Iran and by "tilting" American policy to his side. If I had done such a thing, I would take very good care to be modest when discussions of Middle Eastern crises came up. But here's the thing about self-righteous, born-again demagogues: Nothing they ever do, or did, can be attributed to anything but the very highest motives.

Here is a man who, in his latest book on the Israel-Palestine crisis, has found the elusive key to the problem. The mistake of Israel, he tells us (and tells us that he told the Israeli leadership) is to have moved away from God and the prophets and toward secularism. If you ever feel like a good laugh, just tell yourself that things would improve if only the Israeli government would be more Orthodox. Jimmy Carter will then turn his vacantly pious glare on you, as if to say that you just don't understand what it is to have a personal savior.

In the Carter years, the United States was an international laughingstock. This was not just because of the prevalence of his ghastly kin: the beer-sodden brother Billy, doing deals with Libyan President Muammar Qaddafi, and the grisly matriarch, Miz Lillian. It was not just because of the president's dire lectures on morality and salvation and his weird encounters with lethal rabbits and UFOs. It was not just because of the risible White House "Bible study" sessions run by Bert Lance and his other open-palmed Elmer Gantry pals from Georgia. It was because, whether in Afghanistan, Iran, or Iraq—still the source of so many of our woes—the Carter administration could not tell a friend from an enemy. His combination of naivete and cynicism—from open-mouthed shock at Leonid Brezhnev's occupation of Afghanistan to underhanded support for Saddam in his unsleeping campaign of megalomania—had terrible consequences that are with us still. It's hardly an exaggeration to say that every administration since has had to deal with the chaotic legacy of Carter's mind-boggling cowardice and incompetence.

The quotation with which I began comes from an interview that he gave last week to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. He also went on the British Broadcasting Corporation to make spiteful and cheap remarks on the retirement of Prime Minister Tony Blair, calling him "loyal, blind, apparently subservient." Yes, that's right, Mr. Carter. Just the way to make friends and assert "America's basic values." Show us your peanut envy. Heap insults on a guest in Washington: a thrice-elected prime minister who was the first and strongest ally of the United States on the most awful day in its recent history. A man who was prepared to risk his own career to be counted as a friend. A man who was warning against the Taliban, against Slobodan Milosevic, and against Saddam Hussein when George Bush was only the governor of Texas. Leaders like that deserve a little respect even when they are wrong—but don't expect any generosity or courtesy from the purse-mouthed preacher man from Plains, who just purely knows he was right all along, and who, when that fails, can always point to the numberless godly victories that he won over the forces of evil.

ahh, nothing like a good Carter-bashing to start the day.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Monday, May 21, 2007

Future Democratic Presidential Candidate Jesse Macbeth

Expect to hear more about Jesse Macbeth in about 30 years:

Phony Soldier Charged With Making Up Claims of Atrocities in Iraq
Sunday , May 20, 2007

SEATTLE — A man who tried to position himself as a leader of the anti-war movement by claiming to have participated in war crimes while serving in Iraq is facing federal charges of falsifying his record.

Jesse Adam Macbeth, 23, formerly of Phoenix, garnered attention on blogs and in some alternative media after he began claiming in 2005 to have been awarded a Purple Heart for his service, which he said included slaughtering innocents in a Fallujah mosque. His story was contradicted by his discharge form, showing that he was kicked out of the Army after six weeks at Fort Benning, Ga., in 2003 because of his “entry level performance and conduct.”

A complaint unsealed Friday in U.S. District Court in Seattle charged him with one count of using or possessing a forged or altered military discharge certificate, and one count of making false statements in seeking benefits from the Veterans Administration.

Macbeth’s public defender, Jay Stansell, declined to comment.

Organizations that opposed the war, including Iraq Veterans Against the War, posted videos or statements containing Macbeth’s claims on their Web sites. In one videotaped interview, a skinny, stuttering Macbeth, dressed in a camouflage jacket, described slaughtering hundreds of people in a mosque: “We would burn their bodies ... hang their bodies from the rafters in the mosque,” he said.

Iraq Veterans Against the War and other organizations removed the claims after learning they were false.

“He approached us in early 2006, posing as a war veteran. He seemed very emotionally distressed about his experiences,” said Amadee Braxton, a spokeswoman for Iraq Veterans Against the War, based in Philadelphia.

Macbeth claimed in an application for benefits to have served from May 2001 to June 2004, to have been shot in Iraq and to have suffered post-traumatic stress disorder, LaMont E. Stokes, an agent with the VA’s Office of the Inspector General, wrote in the charging papers. He also collected more than $10,400 in benefits to which he was not entitled, Stokes wrote.

Stokes said he interviewed Macbeth in a Tacoma jail, where he has been serving a sentence for fourth-degree assault, and that Macbeth admitted falsifying the documents because he was homeless and wanted to “sucker” anything he could out of the government.

Of course, it's a shame that he was found out before he could throw his medals over the White House fence and give some "compelling testimony" to the Defeaticrats that took over Congress in 2006.

I wonder if he has a Boston accent? Perhaps he could work in a line or two from the fellow soldier and "patriot" that he so obviously is emulating. At the very least, he could use this line:
Personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of [Iraq] in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

The future of the Democratic Party has been identified!

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Andrew "I hate W because he won't let me marry" Sullivan Attacks Instapundit

Andrew Sullivan has lost any toehold he had to reality when, in this post, he claims that Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) and Tom Maguire (JustOneMinute) are pro-torture:

But what Reynolds and Maguire and others support is the permanent routine use of torture, legally protected, and a cadre of professional CIA torturers trained to do it on a regular basis.

Not sure where he got that information - no doubt from his friends at DailyKos, Glenn Greenwald, et al.

Instapundit reacts with this post, the key snippet of which is:
[..]If Sullivan thinks it's an injustice to point this out about McCain, then what kind of injustice is Sullivan doing to me?

A sad and predictable one, I guess, made sadder by Sullivan's failure to even link my post, allowing him to put a rather dishonest spin on my alleged beliefs. I've tried, honestly, not to get in these pissing matches with Andrew, but apparently he can't help himself with this stuff. But to be clear: I'm against torture. I'm also against moralistic, dishonest, self-righteous preening about torture. Andrew is a repeat offender in the latter category, and it's gone beyond embarrassing to pathetic.

Various people in and out of the blogosphere have wondered exactly when, how, and why Andrew lost it. But lost it he has.

Dan Collins at ProteinWisdom asks us to note when we became aware that Andrew "lost it." For Dan, it was when Andrew started talking approvingly of blogs like Glenn Greenwald.

Well, I'd have to say that it was when Andrew started to attack Bush because he preferred to not force states to have a pro-same sex marriage policy. That's around the time that we put Wizbang's Andrew Sullivan Freak-Out Advisory Meter on the right-hand sidebar.

And let's be honest - while Andrew is conservative on some issues, when it comes to the major issues of the day (war, questions of jurisprudence, etc), he's no different than the hordes of Kossacks - always ascribing the worst possible motives to Bush (HALLIBURTON!!!) and the GOP.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Sunday, May 20, 2007

McCain - Toast (McCain-Kennedy)

Well, regardless of whether McCain-Kennedy Illegal Immigration bill passes the House & Senate, this is the end of the McCain campaign. Because this picture will be used in every primary campaign.

As regular readers of ARC know, I am doggedly pro-immigration - which sometimes is not a popular position and I receive significant grief from Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies. However, it should be noted that I'm pro-LEGAL immigration and, while I do support some sort of guest worker program, before any such policy were to be enacted, the border would have to be secure (both North & South) and a significant improvement in the capabilities of the INS to process applications. I also am for making English the official language of the US and eliminating the multi-cultural, anti-assimilation policies which are so fashionable currently. However, I don't subscribe to the nativist tendencies that immigration should be halted or restricted.

With regard to the 2008 campaign, the sponsorship of this bill kills McCain's chances. Rudy is toast as well, due to his pro-gun control and pro-choice positions. That leaves Romney (my personal favorite for now), Thompson (would throw my support his way if/when he enters), an unlikely Gingrich, and perhaps Huckabee.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

History's Greatest Monster Attacks Bush

History's Greatest Monster, President Jimmy Carter, has (once again) thrown caution (and convention) to the wind and is attacking the current President:

Carter Blasts Bush on His Global Impact
May 19, 7:08 PM (ET)

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) - Former President Carter says President Bush's administration is "the worst in history" in international relations, taking aim at the White House's policy of pre-emptive war and its Middle East diplomacy.
Interesting that Carter should focus on international relations and foreign policy within the Middle East in particular. I mean, has he forgotten that when it came to radicalized mullahs, Jimmy C was all to eager to do nothing - for a year and a half.

You'd think that he wouldn't want to bring up a subject in which his administration showed so much indecisiveness and fecklessness.

And let's not forget Carter's other foreign policy achievements:
  1. inviting the Soviets to invade Afghanistan;
  2. eliminating the policy of containment for the USSR;
  3. trusting that Kim Il Sung wouldn't build nukes (and giving them light water reactors);
  4. prematurely certifying the Venezuelan election, despite evidence of fraud and complaints from the ueber-right-wing European Union about the results and restrictions on election monitors - claims which international observers wanted to at leats investigate before some idiot world-leader jumped to save the commie's bacon;
  5. coddling Castro in Cuba - being the only US President to visit the country since Castro seized power;
  6. Backing the commies in Nicaragua while ignoring human rights abuses in El Salvador;
  7. promoting the initial inclusion of Robert Mugabe in elections and then certifying sham elections held ever since;
  8. signing over the one of our country's largest investments of the 20th century in the Western Hemisphere, the Panama Canal, to the Panamanians.
  9. his overt antisemitism over the years and support for those with virulent hatred for Jews, such as lobbying on behalf of a former Death Camp guard from Hitler's SS.
Quite a list... Of course, when a guy can't decide how he should part his hair from one day to the next, you have to lower your expectations.

Well, back to the story:
The criticism from Carter, which a biographer says is unprecedented for the 39th president, also took aim at Bush's environmental policies and the administration's "quite disturbing" faith-based initiative funding.

Ahhh, probably doesn't like the fact that Bush is lukewarm towards a modern-day pseudo-religion (environmentalism), but thinks that non-profit organizations with a foundation in actual religious faith shouldn't be excluded from the teat of government largess (since charities with a spiritual focus have a higher success rate in improving people's lives than secular charities).
"I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history," Carter told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in a story that appeared in the newspaper's Saturday editions. "The overt reversal of America's basic values as expressed by previous administrations, including those of George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon and others, has been the most disturbing to me."

Carter spokeswoman Deanna Congileo confirmed his comments to The Associated Press on Saturday and declined to elaborate. He spoke while promoting his new audiobook series, "Sunday Mornings in Plains," a collection of weekly Bible lessons from his hometown of Plains, Ga.

"Apparently, Sunday mornings in Plains for former President Carter includes hurling reckless accusations at your fellow man," said Amber Wilkerson, Republican National Committee spokeswoman. She said it was hard to take Carter seriously because he also "challenged Ronald Reagan's strategy for the Cold War."

Ahh, a new audio-book. Anytime there's something to promote, it's time to attack the Bush Administration, regardless of the content of the item being promoted. It's so predictable and shameless.

*** UPDATE ***
Jim Hoft @ Gateway Pundit is also covering History's Greatest Monster

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler