As President, his foreign policy was a disaster. He was out of his league in domestic politics, let alone the global arena. I used to think his intentions were, at least, honorable, but in light of recent events, I now see I was wrong about that as well. And don't hand me SALT II. That was signed by the USSR more for their own reasons that anything to do with a desire to get along with us. It helped ease the financial burden of keeping up with the USA in the arms race(not that it worked)and had little to do with his grace and diplomacy.

Does a burning embassy, burning American flags and dirty, frightened and blindfolded American hostages being shouted down as they were marched out for the world to see ring any bells? How about smoking helicopters in the desert and charred bodies on display in Tehran?

And don't talk to me about the release of the hostages 444 days later being brokered by Carter. Horesepucky! Ronald Reagan's election is what brought Iran to what little senses it had. He would surely have gone in, guns blazing, until the hostages were released or Iran was a desolate wasteland and the Ayotallah's knew it. They may have been crazy, but they weren't stupid and we didn't hear another peep from Iran until Uncle Tom got involved by taking advantage of an America divided by politcal manuvering and political correctness such as not seen since the seventies.

Fast forward 29 years. Jimmy Carter decides to stop doing good by building houses for the needy, takes a sabatical, possibly using taxpayer dollars from the Carter Center, and jets off to the Holy Land to broker an unsolicited peace argeement between Hamas and Israel.

HAMAS! ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Hamas is a terrorist organization. The fact that they took control in the last general elections of the Palestinian National Authority does little to change that fact or legitimize Hamas. As they boycotted elections in 2005 when their popularity was low, it seems as if they only participate in diplomacy when it suits them..Kind of like right now! They are desribed by the non partisan Council on Foreign Relations only as the "Largest and most powerful Palestinian militant movement". Indeed, the man generally recognized as the leader of Hamas, Khaled Meshal lives in exile in Syria!

Oh, their supporters will say how much good they do with social programs in the disputed territories, but in reality they exist for, essentially, one true reason. The destruction of Isreal and the complete control and occupation by fundamental Muslims of Gaza, the West Bank and "every inch of disputed Palestinian lands.

Their Charter, penned in 1987, said specifically that "under no circumstances would Israel ever be recognized as a nation" and that it was their duty and obligation to "Wipe all Zionists from the face of the Earth". Sounds pretty cut and dried to me. Enter the imbicile from Plains. He thinks they deserve a global audience and the same recognition as legitimate governments. Lending Hamas this legitimacy is akin to lending the KKK legitimacy in global diplomacy. It just doesn't really work when you look at it in those terms, now does it?

Then this rube comes home to America waving a piece of paper wherein he claims Hamas agreed to play nice with Israel for ten years. Well isn't that special? I am sure the folks in Tel-Aviv are relieved and will sleep better. The problem is that after Carter announced his diplomatic victory, even Meshal said on al-Jezeera that he made no such promises. Hmm..Who should we believe? I think I just stick to believing the words of Hamas' original charter.

It has always bee US policy NOT to deal with terrorists in any way except to kill them when presented the opportunity. Hamas' place in the PA changes nothing in my mind or the minds of Israel. Condoleza Rice recommended that Carter not make the trip, but he said she was "misinformed" on the intentions of Hamas and "out of line" in her recommendation. His own government asks him not to go, but he does anyway. I guess since he decided not to listen to the people as president, why shoud he start now? I guess I'd like to know where this peanut farmer get off defying long standing US policy. Does his status as a former president give him the right, as an ordinary citizen, to engage in foreign policy with a terrorist orginazation. A sworn enemy to one of our allies? Maybe he has had too many talks with Jesse Jackson and Sean Penn.

I am outraged, as are many others. There is now a bill that has been sent to the floor called "The Carter Act" aimed at at stopping the tax dollars(about five million a year) his foundation receives. I hope it succeeds.

This man did all he could to drive America into the ground as president, but I fear he is even more dangerous as a private citizen because congress can't reign him in and this time it is the world he trying to screw up.

His past and current actions will cause the Jewish population to rail against him. I only hope everyone else follows suit. He needs to be stopped and put to pasture before his meddling causes great harm to our Israeli brothers.

One problem(of many, actually)...It doesn't work. It never has and it never will. No matter how hard people try or how badly the true believers want it to be different there will always be the "have's" and the "have not's". Somebody has to be in charge and if the history of socialism has proven nothing else, it is that those who end up in charge are generally tyrannical despots who end up doing great harm to those whom they purported to be a brother as they ascended their powerhungry, political staircases. I can't think of one true socialist society that has existed without this truth. You could cite the late, great U.S.S.R., but even though Gorbachev seemed to be a decent guy, his predecessors were far from it and, in the end, it wasn't a success anyway. From Stalin to Chavez, these leaders have very little in common with the people they claim to praise as their brothers in the struggle. Who knows how many "comrades" Stalin or Mao had put to death to ensure the survival of their power? This is the legacy of Socialism.

I know there are those idealists who still think it can work, but history has proven it simply doesn't. Even if it WERE feasible, I don't like the idea of a utopia based on the sharing of wealth. I prefer personal utopia, one that is earned through hard work, perserverance and wise investment, and if one can pass the fruits of that success to their progeny, so be it!

I don't want to live in a gray house, drive a gray car and have gray neighbors. I don't want gray entertainment, gray medical care and a gray life. I want my life to painted with the brushes I purchase with my hard work and success, to whatever extent that may be. I want my life to be a canvass filled with all the colors of the spectrum. One that reflects my portrait of life and I don't want my freedom and creativity squashed by the drab realities of socialism. The only thing people in socialist societies seem to have in common is misery and I am perfectly capable of creating that for myself without the government imposing it upon me.

I am sure there are Americans who still think we should shed the Blue and the Red for Gray, but they are in the minority. I may not agree with the liberals, but I support their right to shout across the aisle at me and I derive a sort of comfort from the knowledge that they are always out there doing just that. That we can argue whatever points we like without fear of our "Brothers" kicking in our doors or shutting down our media outlets. Americans, as a whole, are loathe to give up what so many have fought so hard for so long to achieve, no matter what the media would have us believe recently. The only people who like the idea of socialist utopia are the lazy, unmotivated and uninspired.

To think that socialism would or could be any different in America than anywhere else is a fallacy and a pipedream to those who actually dream about it. Although a socialst society would, most likely, cure the illegal immigration issue, I say that I would rather deal with that as a point of law and leave socialism to those without true vision or courage.

I was wrong. About what? You may ask. Well, about the fact that people everywhere are willing to fight and die to ensure freedom. I was wrong. I guess just because I am willing to go to such extremes doesn't mean everyone else is. As I read the article today about the Iraqui's abandoning their posts in the face of battle I realized that some people just aren't cut out for freedom. The Iraqi's, by and large, seem to be one of those peoples. It is becoming clear that they neither want, nor do they deserve it.

One would think that after living in constant fear of Sadaam's quirky and random pararnoid witch hunts, midnight kidnappings by his goons and death squads, the threat of reprisals by whatever terrorist orginazation felt threatened by rational men, the lunacy and oppression of the radical clerics and their hate filled disciples and the general mayhen associated with such an existence, that true freedom would have an irresistable appeal. Well, one would be wrong. These people are straight up cowards. There, I said it. Cowards. And cowards will never deserve anything because that are all too afraid to fight for anything. Afraid to fight and afraid to kneel. They live in fear of everything and so will always have nothing. Like a man afraif to stand up to the bully, they will never know the thrill of victory OR the agony of defeat. All they will ever know is the humiliation and oppression of cowardice. They are so used to life in the dark ages, so used to fear and oppression that it seems to be a genetic defect.

What saddens me so much is that we are stuck trying to convince these "sheeple" that there is a better way and that it IS worth fighting and dying for. We can say what we like about the mess over there, but the war on terror was going to lead us there eventually, just as eventually it will lead to Iran. There is simply too much at stake to ignore that fact. The trouble is that, like in Vietnam, the vast majority of people there don't really care who is telling them what to do as long as they are not the ones who have to make that decision themselves. So ingrained is their fear of a wrong decision, they simply don't want to make any decisions at all. It sickens me.

I hate that we are fighting what amounts to another limited war and it seems that the war on terror is going to be that way. Maybe what we need to do is stop pussy-footing around, beat living crap out of anyone and everyone who looks at us the wrong way over there and get the Iraqi's to fear US more than they fear al-Qaeda. Maybe then we could get them to see the light and eventually teach them to be self reliant once they figure out we aren't going to pursue them with firing squads for saying they disagree. Who knows..In three or four generations their fear may even be bred out of them!

I still think we did and are doing the right thing. Sadaam and al-Qaeda had and have to be stopped and, despite what the media would have us believe, we are making progress, it's just going to be a slow process. I would just like to see those for whom we are fighting to protect and teach become our true allies and learn to stand and fight beside us, and eventually, on their own to rid the world of radical Muslim terrorism.

I also have a one year old(OK Cassie..SIXTEEN months!)grandson who I babysit fairly often and I LOVE it(shhhhh..don't tell Cassie). Cassie(my 26 year old)also likes to come by and visit and enjoy one of my famous enchilada dinners and somewhere in there I manage to squeeze in time for my girlfriend.

All that jazz leaves me little spare time in which to indluge in my hobbies and passions. Most of that spare time is spent on my beloved guitars. The other bits and pieces are split up between the Harley, the dirtbike, reading, spending time with friends, and lately, the Sunday Morning Family Breakfast which rotates from one house to the other(Me, Mom, my Nephew and his wife and Dad), all of which brings me to the point of this post.

Very little of that time is spent on the computer, and after shooing the kids off once or twice a week, I spend an hour catching up on the 50-100 e-mails I generally have, didddling with "myspace", doing research, and downloading photos. It all leaves me with very little time to spend posting or even reading posts on the site. So when I put up a post on some old piece of news or do some "hit and run" replies, please understand I am not being rude, arrogant or suffering the effects of a two week drunk! It's just a matter of time.