Jimmy Carter...

No one in their right mind would assert this former President deserves to be remembered as anything better than mediocre during his term. The best thing to be said about his presidency is that his debacle opened the door for Ronald Reagan.

After leaving office he focused on The Carter Center and dabbled in some worthwhile service programs like Habitat for Humanity. He apparently was good at pounding nails.

For the last several years Carter and his far left followers have attempted to transform this foreign policy failure into some sort of elder statesman who has developed the ability to bring about peace in the world.

I went back and read the speech Carter gave after winning the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 (click here to read) hoping to get some insight into his current belief that meeting with leaders of Hamas will promote peace.

Carter spoke of his first career in the military and acknowledged that he "realized that we had to be ready to fight if combat was forced upon us, and we were prepared to give our lives to defend our nation and its principles. At the same time, we always prayed fervently that our readiness would ensure that there would be no war."

Then he describes how he "bore the sobering responsibility of maintaining global stability during the height of the Cold War," which he obviously failed at as there was no global stability during his term. Many would argue the height of the cold war occurred when Reagan escalated it to break the economy of the Soviet Union and bring freedom to countries held behind the iron curtain. Details, details...

Carter spoke of the need to have military strength balanced with "aggressive diplomacy" as countries seek to build friendships with those that "share a common cause."

The truth that a country should build friendships with those that share a common cause is obvious. The real issue seems to be Carter's misguided and erroneous efforts to build these friendships with leaders of Hamas, or Cuba or Venezuela or name any other country run by socialist or communist dictator or religious zealot that Carter seems to put on a moral pedestal.

What exactly would be the common cause the United States shares with Hamas?

Carter mentions Andrei Sakharov in his 2002 speech as a person he reached out to during the cold war. Sakharov was not the leader of a country, he was a Russian scientist who was integral to the early development of nuclear technology in the the Soviet Union yet ultimately critical of the country's leaders. It is nice they became friends but not really relevant to building relationships with countries around the globe.

In 2002, Carter spoke of the U.S. being the only remaining superpower and expressed his belief that that was unlikely to change in our lifetimes.

Sadly, people who agree with Carter have worked to shrink our military, limit our government's funding of foreign intelligence gathering and promote a culture in which the values of multiculturalists demonized American culture at home and around the world.

Today, the United States is faced with several growing threats- one of the greatest being fundamentalist Islamic culture. Radical Islam is followed by China (a country that increasingly is connected to practices that jeopardize the health and safety of United Statians), illegal aliens who ignore our laws, worsen our schools, and increasingly utilize more and more of our social service and health care dollars during a time when the U.S. is facing growing economic challenges and finally Russia, a country with vast natural resources and an educated population that may or may not want to continue on the path that leads to free markets and democracy.

In 2002, Carter proclaimed "Constrained and inspired by historic constitutional principles, our nation has endeavored for more than two hundred years to follow the now almost universal ideals of freedom, human rights, and justice for all."

Did he really believe that freedom, human rights and justice for all were universal ideals? Does he believe this today? Does he think Hamas is really interested in human rights? These things are clearly universal ideals that are rejected by countless countries around the globe, many of which belong to his cherished United Nations.

Carter's lecture continued: "It is clear that global challenges must be met with an emphasis on peace, in harmony with others, with strong alliances and international consensus. Imperfect as it may be, there is no doubt that this can best be done through the United Nations, which Ralph Bunche described here in this same forum as exhibiting a "fortunate flexibility" - not merely to preserve peace but also to make change, even radical change, without violence."

Carter joins with many of his cronies in support of the ridiculous, and dangerous, notion that the UN is the entity best able to bring about international consensus, as though consensus is always the goal.

While it actually may be true that the UN is the global body most able to bring about global consensus, global consensus may often be at odds with U.S. interests. To be sure, there are many, many countries around the world who want nothing more than to diminish the strength of the United States. There are many countries who seek to redistribute the wealth of the United States to other countries around the world. In fact, this redistribution has been occurring for years and we are now seeing the consequences of "free trade" with countries like China. Our weakened economy is certainly tied to jobs leaving the US and the inability of American companies to compete with offshore entities not bound by American laws that, for example, protect workers.

If the UN member states join together against the United States in a push to move the world towards becoming a global community where socialist ideals can be forced on the United States- then there could be consensus. This consensus would undermine the sovereignty of the U.S. The UN can promote treaties to protect the environment that would bind the US, but not India and China. The UN can do many things. Global consensus is not always, or often, in the interests of the United States...

Carter went on to discuss personal responsibility: "We deny personal responsibility when we plant landmines and, days or years later, a stranger to us - often a child – is crippled or killed. From a great distance, we launch bombs or missiles with almost total impunity, and never want to know the number or identity of the victims.

I would love for Jimmy Carter and his supporters to actually engage in a discussion about personal responsibility. He speaks of the "we" who plant landmines taking personal responsibility for the consequences. Certainly land mines are wrong but in the scope of the harm being dome to children around the world there are many more serious problems, like child labor that often borders on or is slavery, abuse and neglect, abandonment, the adoption markets created by western demand for children...

I am interested in the failure of individuals around the world to take responsibility for their actions and the resulting consequences. One of the best examples:

• The people who knowingly engage in sexual behavior that exposes uninfected partners to HIV/AIDS. We spend billions of dollars fighting a disease that could be eradicated if infected people ceased having sexual intercourse or engaging in needle sharing with people who are not infected. Women of childbearing age who are infected should not have sexual relationships unless they are unable to get pregnant. There are MILLIONS of children left orphaned because people failed to behave responsibly. This is a worldwide crisis that could be stopped in a generation...
  

The world community needs to work together to help people victimized by the actions of others, like the children left orphaned in Africa, like the Christians being murdered in Darfur by Islamic fundamentalists, like the billions of people enslaved in countries like China. The examples could go on and on...

As Carter concluded his speech he stated: "The bond of our common humanity is stronger than the divisiveness of our fears and prejudices. God gives us the capacity for choice. We can choose to alleviate suffering. We can choose to work together for peace. We can make these changes - and we must."

Carter is right, we who want peace can choose to work together for peace.

Carter continues to be unable to recognize who actually wants peace. His seemingly blind acceptance and belief that dictators care about their people, or others, diminishes his already questionable legacy.

The Carter Center explained that he is going to the Middle East "with an open mind and heart to listen and learn from all parties." (click here for Reuters article on Carter's trip)Hamas is not an agent of peace. He shouldn't need to go on a "study mission" to discover this.

If only Carter and his supporters would listen to the United States State Department with the same open mind and heart...