OCCUPY MOVEMENT HAS BEEN ‘RELATIVELY SUCCESSFUL'; AMERICA IS ‘EXTRA STINGY’
Ex-peanut farmer Jimmy Carter is back in the news – and he’s just as nuts as ever. The perpetually-bitter Mr. Carter said Wednesday that the Occupy movement has been “relatively successful” because it has focused national discussion on wealth disparity.
Really, Jimmy? Seems to me that the Occupy movement has focused national discussion on vandalism, violence against police, drug abuse, rape, trespassing, and stupidity.
“It‘s been relatively successful even acknowledging there’s no leadership, there‘s no coherence and there’s no single list of issues they want to succeed. That issue was basically ignored by the Congress and the news media a year ago. I believe they’ve achieved putting that back on the agenda.”
I’ll bet you a 50-lb. bag of Georgia peanuts that if you were to conduct a national survey and ask: “What is the first thought that comes to mind when you think of the Occupy movement?”, “focus on wealth disparity” will be nowhere on the list of answers. Vandalism? Violence? Drug abuse? Trespassing? “All of the above.”
In another example of the “wisdom” of the man from Plains, Carter said that traveling the world since he lost the 1980 election to Ronald Reagan has helped him realize the U.S. is “extra stingy” about sharing its wealth with developing nations, particularly when compared to European democracies that put an emphasis on foreign aid.
Memo to Jimmy: These are the same European democracies that are on the brink of financial ruin, having discovered much too late that Socialism, much like it’s big brother, Communism, is a bankrupt ideology.
Helping the less fortunate, Carter said, should be viewed as a moral obligation and not an act of charity. (Unless your president is Barack Obama, in which case it’s more of a Robin Hood situation.)
“It dawned on me they [people in "developing" nations] were just as intelligent, they were just as ambitious, and their family values were just as good as mine. It’s not a matter of superiority or generosity or handing out gifts to others who are less than you. They just haven’t had a chance in life.”
Well now. I just love liberal “logic.” Just as intelligent? Just as ambitious? But they just haven’t had a chance in life? If “they” are so intelligent and ambitious, Jimmy, who is preventing “them” from “a chance in life”? And that part about it not being about “generosity or handing out gifts?” Didn’t you just say that America is “extra stingy” about sharing its wealth with developing nations? So which is it – not about American generosity, or America being extra stingy?
Mr. Peanut is a walking contradiction, but hell – he’s a damn fine liberal.
Just another gift that keeps on giving.