Jimmy Carter, Hands Down, Worst President in US History

In response to Jimmy Carter’s previous statement that G.W. Bush was “the worst president in history,” the editorial board at Investors Business Daily have put together a comprehensive yet concise 10 part series proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Jimmy Carter, by far, was THE worst president in U.S. History. It is called “Profiles in Incompetence.”

When Carter left office, the Soviet Union was on the march from Grenada to Afghanistan, control of the strategic Panama Canal had been given away, our military had planes that couldn’t fly and ships that couldn’t sail for lack of trained crews and spare parts, production of the B-1 strategic bomber had been canceled and our economy was in no shape to resist Soviet expansion.

Jimmy Carter, the man who makes Neville Chamberlain look like Dirty Harry, made his remarks about President Bush while promoting his audiobook series of Bible lessons for children. Jimmy, thou shalt not bear false witness against your president and country. Haven’t you done enough damage? If you want to see our worst ex-president, look in the mirror.

This is a must read especially given the fact that we essentially have a modern day Democrat Party that in many ways are on the verge of implementing many of the same failed policies Jimmy Carter instituted. For those of you who may not be that familiar with just how destructive the Carter years were for America and the world, this series is a great refresher course. If we fail to understand history we are doomed to repeat it. And if we elect Democrats in 08′ make no mistake about it, we will return to the Jimmy Carter years. America will be perceived as a weak “paper tiger” internationally and Democrat high taxes and socialist welfare state programs will destroy our robust economy making us less competitive globally and less able to maintain our status as the “world’s superpower.” Perhaps in that sense, Democrats will get what they want.

The series includes:

How the Dem Party of today is treating Islamic Terrorism the same way Carter treated Communism (via appeasement and conciliation).

Just as Carter lamented America’s “inordinate fear of communism,” Democrats today accuse the president of imagining Islamic terrorists are under the bed. (By the way, some of those “imaginary” terrorists were just caught plotting to kill thousands by blowing up New York’s JFK Airport.)

How Carter didn’t cause the “oil crisis” but did significantly exacerbate it with his feckless poliices including many of the same initiatives Dems are calling for now such as windfall profits taxes, price controls, and opposition to domestic production :

But let’s be clear: OPEC ended its embargo in 1974. Despite that, government-imposed price controls on output and prices remained in place. They weren’t fully removed until 1981. And that is Carter’s fault.

How the Camp David “Peace” Accords were not the success many in the media have hailed it:

How Carter projected American weakness by gutting military and vital defense initiatives and how it emboldened our enemies similar to what Democrats like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Ted Kennedy are doing today. Carter in the name of “human rights” established diplomatic relations with Fidel Castro, ceded the Panama Canal to Panamanian dictator, Omar Torrijos, opposed the democratically elected president of Nicaragua Somoza and propped up the Marxist Sandanistas, ended our support for Taiwan and South Korea, praised Kim Jong Il for his “humanitarianism” and gave him $4 billion dollars for his “promise” to end his nuclear weapons program (which he re-started right after getting the cash), propped up Africa’s worst dictator Robert Mugabe, and facilitated the election of Venezuelan Marxist Dictator Hugo Chavez.

Carter’s inability to distinguish intentions from results through his “human rights” policy has led to more human rights violations around the world than any dictator could have done on his own.

But he didn’t just undermine human rights; he undermined the U.S. and its legitimate security interests. His legacy is the spread of tyranny, making him the U.S.’ worst president for human rights.

Carter’s persistent pessimism shared by the vast majority of “puting pundits of pessimism” (to quote Brian Westberry) in the Democrat Party today.

“I think it’s inevitable that there will be a lower standard of living than what everybody had always anticipated,” he told advisers in 1979. “The only trend is downward.”

How Carter gave rise to the Islamic Revolution in Iran- the very beginnings of the Islamic Jihad against America because of his percieved weak response especially to the taking of our hostages in Iran- a weakness and indeciciveness shared by the vast majority of hand wringing petulant Democrats today.

The initial plan was for the terrorists to hold the embassy for only a few hours. But the Iranians sensed weakness in Carter and decided to keep the Americans long term. Carter’s attempts to win the hostages’ release through diplomatic and economic pressure were met with scorn.

How during the Carter years more terrirtory was lost to Communist Tyrannies than at any other time since Yalta:

In 1982, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Reagan’s U.N. ambassador, perfectly summed up the Carter administration:

“While Carter was president there occurred a dramatic Soviet military buildup, matched by the stagnation of American armed forces, and a dramatic extension of Soviet influence in the Horn of Africa, Afghanistan, southern Africa and the Caribbean, matched by a declining American position in all these areas.”

Jimmy Carter’s legacy will always be that he weakened America to the point where many pundits were writing our obituary. He was definately the worst president in US History. No president has done more damage to America in such a short time. He weakened us militarily and economically. His fecklessness emboldened our Communist and Jihadist enemies around the world. The question Americans should be asking themselves is whether or not we want to return to those ugly Carter years. Because that is exactly where the Democrats of today will take us if elected in 08′.

The Editors at Investors Business Daily ask an important question:

Sen. Hillary Clinton’s fans suggest that her brilliance outshines her character flaws. But if she’s so smart, how did she flunk the D.C. bar exam, one of the easiest in the nation?

It’s obvious to me as I research my new book, that Hillary Clinton is not as “smart” as many believe. We know that Democrats are always trying to portray Republicans like Bush as “stupid” even though Dubya got slightly better grades at Yale than Kerry and scored higher on his military intelligence tests than Kerry- not to mention the fact that he got a 3.6 GPA at Harvard Business School.

We also know that “Mr. Carbon Footprint” himself Al Gore failed out of Seminary School and dropped out of law school and was barely a c student at Harvard Undergrad- although he did invent the internet. So it wasn’t like he was a total failure.

And it was Ted Kennedy, not Bush, who got caught cheating at Harvard and was kicked out-prior to killing Mary Joe. And now we find this out about Hillary “the smartest woman in the world.”

From another biography, we also now learn that the esteemed senator failed to read the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq before she voted to authorize President Bush to use force in 2002. She now regrets the decision, claiming she was misled by faulty intelligence she never bothered to read.

Turns out Clinton had to be “briefed” by staffers on the details of one of the most important government reports ever printed. What, the smartest woman in the world couldn’t scan a 90-page dossier? She had to get the Cliffs Notes?

These latest revelations make us wonder if Hillary Clinton’s vaunted IQ isn’t just another Clinton fabrication. Is this why she refuses to release her Wellesley and Yale transcripts?

Now I know that not every Rep and Senator doesn’t read every word of every piece of legislation. But I would argue that the NIE on Iraq may have been the most important government report in our nation’s history. It was 90 pages long. I am a slow reader and could have knocked it out in 2 hours.

For a woman who wants to become commander and chief doesn’t she have a responsibility to level with the American people as to why she claims that she was “misled” about national security information she never even read?

I hope that there are some reporters who will have the courage to pose this question to Hillary and also ask her if she will reveal her college trascript that until now she has refused to make public.