14 Carter Center Advisers Resign Over Former President Jimmy Carter's Book

[Logan13]

14 Carter Center Advisers Resign Over Former President Jimmy Carter's Book
fox news
01/12/07

WASHINGTON — Fourteen members of a leadership group under former President Carter's think tank resigned Thursday over concerns that Carter's book on the Middle East does not represent "the Jimmy Carter we came to respect and support."

The members of the 200-member Board of Councilors, a leadership advisory group founded in 1987, join a longtime Carter aide, Jewish groups and lawmakers who have publicly criticized the former president's best-selling book "Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid" for inaccuracies and distorting history.

"It comes to the result of deep soul searching and a tremendous amount of angst," said Steve Berman, a member who was appointed six months ago.

Berman, an Atlanta commercial real estate developer, said he was led to resign after becoming deeply troubled after reviewing Carter's book, shocked by factual errors and a message that doesn't serve the cause of peace.

"We're trying to send a message that the issue of the Middle East is very complicated and complex," Berman said. "There are two narratives that need to be heard."

Berman refers to two narratives between the Israelis and Palestinians in contesting one piece of land. "Palestinian leaders have had chances since 1947 to have their own state, including during your own presidency when they snubbed your efforts," the letter reads.

The members submitted a joint resignation letter, saying the book confuses opinion with fact.

"We can no longer endorse your strident and uncompromising position. This is not the Carter Center or the Jimmy Carter we came to respect and support. Therefore it is with sadness and regret that we hereby tender our resignation from the Board of Councilors of the Carter Center effective immediately," the letter said.

Liane Levetan, a former Georgia state senator who served on the board for about 10 years, said Carter's book "really hurt me."

"To me, it's a situation of telling the facts that are the facts. This is not a piece of fiction," Levetan said. "There are some things in life that you just cannot overlook. The truth is something that has got to be told. And certain portions of this book do not tell the truth."

Levetan said despite her respect for the Carter Center, she could not remain quiet over concerns of the book.

"When you are convinced that there's something that's wrong or not truthful, you can't sit by on the sidelines and let things get by," Levetan said.

The list of members resigning includes Alan Abrams, Berman, Michael Coles, Jon Golden, Doug Hertz, Barbara Babbit Kaufman, Levetan, Jeff Levy, Leon Novak, Ambassador William B. Schwartz Jr., William B. Schwartz III, Steve Selig, Cathey Steinberg and Gail Solomon. Another member plans to resign privately, Berman said.

The members say the book "portrays the conflict between Israel and her neighbors as a purely one-sided affair with Israel holding all the responsibility for resolving the conflict."

"In light of the publication of your latest book 'Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid' and your subsequent comments made in promoting the book, we can no longer in good conscience continue to serve the Center as members of the Board of Councilors," the letter reads.

Carter stands by his book and defends it against what he called "lies" and "distortions" against his book in an op-ed published in the LA Times last month.

Carter Center Executive Director John Hardman said the members of the group aren't a governing board or associated with implementing work of the center.

"We are grateful to these Board of Councilors members for their years of service and support for The Carter Center in advancing peace and health around the world," Hardman said in a statement.

The resignations come after Kenneth Stein, director of the Institute for the Study of Modern Israel of Emory University, resigned in December, saying the book distorts history to shape the reader's opinion to one side of the issue.

"I just want to be sure that when people write history, people don't do it for purpose of special pleading," he said. "They write it the way it was. They don't try to shape a person's opinion and slide them down a path in order to come to an inevitable conclusion."

Stein said the book contained "factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions and simply invented segments."

Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean and founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, an international Jewish human rights group based in Los Angeles, received more than 23,000 signatures for an online petition urging action against "Carter's one-sided bias against Israel."

Hier said he agrees with the 14 members decision to cut ties to the Carter Center because the book offers a distorted view of the Middle East.

"I think they did the right thing," Hier said. "I think that the book was unworthy of a former president of the United States."

The latest resignation also follows other questions to surface over the book.

Last month, Ambassador Dennis Ross, a former Mideast envoy and FOX News foreign affairs analyst, claims maps commissioned and published by him were improperly republished in Carter's book.

"I think there should be a correction and an attribution," Ross said. "These were maps that never existed, I created them."

After Ross saw the maps in Carter's book, he told his publisher he wanted a correction.

When asked if the former president ripped him off, Ross replied, "It sure looks that way."

[Logan13]

Carter Board of Councilors Resignation Letter

1/11/2007

The Honorable Jimmy Carter

The Carter Center

One Copenhill

453 Freedom Parkway

Atlanta, GA 30307

Dear President Carter,

As members of the Board of Councilors each one of us has been proud to be associated with the Carter Center in its noble struggle to repair the world. However, in light of the publication of your latest book Palestine; Peace Not Apartheid and your subsequent comments made in promoting the book, we can no longer in good conscience continue to serve the Center as members of the Board of Councilors.

In its work in conflict resolution the Carter Center has always played the useful and constructive role of honest broker and mediator between warring parties. In your book, which portrays the conflict between Israel and her neighbors as a purely one-sided affair with Israel holding all of the responsibility for resolving the conflict, you have clearly abandoned your historic role of broker in favor of becoming an advocate for one side.

The facts in dealing with the conflict are these: There are two national narratives contesting one piece of land. The Israelis, through deed and public comment, have consistently spoken of a desire to live in peace and make territorial compromise to achieve this status. The Palestinian side has consistently resorted to acts of terror as a national expression and elected parties endorsing the use of terror, the rejection of territorial compromise and of Israel’s right to exist. Palestinian leaders have had chances since 1947 to have their own state, including during your own presidency when they snubbed your efforts.

Your book has confused opinion with fact, subjectivity with objectivity and force for change with partisan advocacy. Furthermore the comments you have made the past few weeks insinuating that there is a monolith of Jewish power in America are most disturbing and must be addressed by us. In our great country where freedom of expression is basic bedrock you have suddenly proclaimed that Americans cannot express their opinion on matters in the Middle East for fear of retribution from the “Jewish Lobby” In condemning the Jews of America you also condemn Christians and others for their support of Israel. Is any interest group to be penalized for participating in the free and open political process that is America? Your book and recent comments suggest you seem to think so.

In the past you would inject yourself into this world to moderate between the two sides in the pursuit of peace and as a result you earned our admiration and support. Now you repeatedly make false claims. You wrote that UN Security Council Resolution 242 says that "Israel must withdraw from territories" (p. 38), but you know the word “must” in fact is not in the resolution. You said that since Mahmoud Abbas has been in office there have been no peace discussions. That is wrong. You wrote that Yassir Arafat told you in 1990 that, "The PLO has never advocated the annihilation of Israel” (p. 62). Given that their Charter, which explicitly calls for Israel's destruction, was not revised until the late 1990s, how could you even write such a claim as if it were credible?

You denied on Denver radio on December 12 that Palestinian Prime Minister Haniyah said he would never accept or negotiate with Israel. However the BBC monitoring service reported just the opposite. In fact Haniyah said: "We will never recognize the usurper Zionist government and will continue our jihadist movement until Bayt al-Maqdis (Jerusalem) and the Al-Aqsa Mosque are liberated. When presented with this fact you said, "No he didn't say that, no he did not do that, I did not hear that." These are not points of opinion, these are points of fact.

And finally, it is a disturbing statement to write: "that it is imperative, that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel." In this sentence you clearly suggest that you are condoning violence against Israelis until they do certain things (p.213). Your use of the word “Apartheid,” regardless of your disclaimers, has already energized white supremacist groups who thrive on asserting Jewish control of government and foreign policy, an insinuation you made in your OPED to the LA Times on December 8, 2006: "For the last 30 years, I have witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts.” According to Web site monitoring by the Anti-Defamation League, U.S. white supremacists have enthusiastically embraced your suggestion that the Israel lobby stifles debate in this country, saying it confirms Jewish control of government and foreign policy as well as and the inherently "evil" nature of Jews. If you doubt the support you are giving and receiving, please refer to:

From there you can get to the postings of four different White Supremacist organizations that both support and make use of the contents of your book and what you have said in public.

As a result it seems that you have turned to a world of advocacy, including even malicious advocacy. We can no longer endorse your strident and uncompromising position. This is not the Carter Center or the Jimmy Carter we came to respect and support. Therefore it is with sadness and regret that we hereby tender our resignation from the Board of Councilors of the Carter Center effective immediately.

[eliteforce]

So basically it's a few Jews resigning from some irrelevant 'carter center' in which they have almost no role other than being 'advisors' .. and there critique that the book is 'one sided', like I guess the entire US media and political system isn't one-sided in favor of Zionism, we can't have this 1 book with another perspective.

The point of the book is that Israel is a racist-aphartied state, what difference how it got that way or if some map is a little bit 'innacurate'. and that Palestinians are not offered a 'state', now or in the 1970's, they are only offered obvious urban ghettos or bantustans..

and why do Jews always complain about "white supremact groups", American and Israeli Jews are mostly white people, caucasian white people, and they keep the indeginous dark skined Palestinians oppresed in an aphartied scheme..the KuKluxKlan isn't doing this, there not doing anything but talking, the real 'white supramasts' are American Jewish Zionists and Christian Zionists-all white people, it's always white people that have empathy for Zionism, Africans and Asians, and many europeans just see it as oppresion.

[Logan13]

So basically it's a few Jews resigning from some irrelevant 'carter center' in which they have almost no role other than being 'advisors' .. and there critique that the book is 'one sided', like I guess the entire US media and political system isn't one-sided in favor of Zionism, we can't have this 1 book with another perspective.

The point of the book is that Israel is a racist-aphartied state, what difference how it got that way or if some map is a little bit 'innacurate'. and that Palestinians are not offered a 'state', now or in the 1970's, they are only offered obvious urban ghettos or bantustans..

and why do Jews always complain about "white supremact groups", American and Israeli Jews are mostly white people, caucasian white people, and they keep the indeginous dark skined Palestinians oppresed in an aphartied scheme..the KuKluxKlan isn't doing this, there not doing anything but talking, the real 'white supramasts' are American Jewish Zionists and Christian Zionists-all white people, it's always white people that have empathy for Zionism, Africans and Asians, and many europeans just see it as oppresion.

Carter lied in his book(factually) on at least 3 occasions, this is why they resigned. I wonder why he had to lie, doesn't the truth hold enough weight to prove his point? Obviously not.............

[mcpeepants]

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242

The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

Affirms further the necessity

For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

Requests the Secretary General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.

source: wikipedia

There complaints of the word "must" seems pointless because the text still says "Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war".

Have the even proved Carter has lied or are they just saying he did. Resignation letter complains more about him criticizing Israel than what is in the book. It seems to validate Carter's point that they don't want debate and that they would rather slander anyone who criticizes Israel. Racists are going to be racist and even if Carter hadn't written the book, they would still be racist.

[mcpeepants]

the 14 guys who resigned to mention things like this which Carters book is about:

Israel approves new housing in West Bank

By MARK LAVIE, Associated Press Writer Mon Jan 15, 4:15 PM ET

JERUSALEM - The Israeli government published plans on Monday to build new homes in its largest
West Bank settlement, defying American opposition to such construction just as Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice was in the region on a peace-seeking mission.
ADVERTISEMENT

Winding up three days of talks, Rice announced she would take part in a summit between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in the coming weeks. The settlement issue — one of the thorniest — was likely to arise at the meeting.

In public statements, Rice repeatedly endorsed the 2003 "road map" peace plan, which requires
Israel to halt all settlement building and specifically bans construction for "natural growth" or growing families among the settlers.

But Israeli officials said that was the reason for continued building in Maaleh Adumim, a settlement of 30,000 two miles east of Jerusalem. On Monday, the Housing Ministry published ads in Israeli newspapers asking developers to bid on the construction of 44 new houses in the settlement.

Olmert spokeswoman Miri Eisin said the government was "committed to the continuing growth, natural growth, of the settlements that are in the perimeter around Jerusalem."

Israel has often declared that even under terms of a final peace accord, Maaleh Adumim would be included in Israel. Palestinians demand removal of all West Bank Jewish settlements.

"Building 44 new houses in the Maaleh Adumim settlement is one more Israeli violation of signed agreements with the Palestinians," said Khalil Tofakji, a geographer and former Palestinian negotiator.

In an interview published Monday, Rice expressed general U.S. displeasure with settlement expansion.

"We are very committed to the road map and to the obligations there, and I talk all the time to the Israelis about their activity that is prohibited by the road map," Rice told the Palestinian daily Al-Quds.

"The most important commitment that the President (Bush) has made is that the United States does not accept that unilateral steps can prejudge the outcome of final settlement," Rice said.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, who was traveling with Rice, said he was not aware of the construction plans.

"Our policy hasn't changed," he said. The U.S. has always objected to Israeli settlement in the West Bank.

Even so, Bush has signaled his support for allowing Israel to keep major settlement blocs, including Maaleh Adumim, under a final peace settlement. Most of the 250,000 Jewish settlers in the West Bank live in the blocs. Most are near the "Green Line," the 1949 cease-fire line that marks the boundaries of the West Bank.

Kobi Bleich, the Housing Ministry spokesman, said the timing of the bid's publication had no connection to the Rice visit.

"As soon as the Housing Ministry gets legal authorization to issue a bid, it does," Bleich said.

Settlement expansion was one of the reasons the road map foundered soon after it was presented. The plan also calls on the Palestinians to dismantle militant groups, a step they have failed to take. One of those groups, the Islamic Hamas, won an election a year ago and now controls the Palestinian parliament and Cabinet.

[eliteforce]

It's easy to say about any book that "he lied on 3 occasions" in the book. What exactly are these 'lies' and to what significance, is it really a 'lie' or simply a sentence or paragraph that some people don't aggree with?

For example: when Ehud Barak or Clinton say that they offered the Palestinians a 'state' at the camp david negotiations that would have given the P's "90% of the WB" I consider this is 'lie' because they didn't include 'israeli access roads' when calculating this 90% and 'temporary israeli soverignty zones' that had no end date, and they fail to mention that E Jerusalem would be cut up into 4 cantons to 'contain' the P population-with no palestinain sovergnty in E Jer., and that the WB water resources would stay under Israeli control, or that the center of Hebron would stay under Israeli sovergnty, or many other restrictions they attached to this so called 'offer', they are liars gues what, politians are called liars every day, it doesn't mean that the book is a bunch of lies.

so maybe you should put down exactly what these 'lies' you mentioned are so we can take a look at these 'lies'

[Logan13]

It's easy to say about any book that "he lied on 3 occasions" in the book. What exactly are these 'lies' and to what significance, is it really a 'lie' or simply a sentence or paragraph that some people don't aggree with?

For example: when Ehud Barak or Clinton say that they offered the Palestinians a 'state' at the camp david negotiations that would have given the P's "90% of the WB" I consider this is 'lie' because they didn't include 'israeli access roads' when calculating this 90% and 'temporary israeli soverignty zones' that had no end date, and they fail to mention that E Jerusalem would be cut up into 4 cantons to 'contain' the P population-with no palestinain sovergnty in E Jer., and that the WB water resources would stay under Israeli control, or that the center of Hebron would stay under Israeli sovergnty, or many other restrictions they attached to this so called 'offer', they are liars gues what, politians are called liars every day, it doesn't mean that the book is a bunch of lies.

so maybe you should put down exactly what these 'lies' you mentioned are so we can take a look at these 'lies'

Why not do what I do and RESEARCH it for yourself. It may take some time, but I like to come to my own conclusions, not let someone make them for me. The fact is that these men, different individuals on different occasions, were with Carter during some negotiations. What occurred and what was said during these negotiations were spun a full 180 degrees for his book. The truth is your friend.

[eliteforce]

But it seems like most, if not all of those 14 people are white Jewish people, and they are 14 out of 200; they are more likly to be biased toward Israel than Carter who is a white southern christian, would be biased toward Arabs-people who are completly foreign to him, culturally and racially.

Bt they are going to far in their critiqe by saying the book is full of "lies, inaccuacies, invented material" - this is a published book by a major publisher, it has been edited, proof read; there are no "lies" in this book, these people have a difference of opinion, thats it. just like the example I listed above: most of these are closed door sessions, Yossi Beilen-who was Israels top negotiator at camp david and Taba disputed what Barak and Clinton had said about the negotiations-that a real offer had ever been made-and he wrote a book about what he said happened at the negotiations, is he a liar too, or only these people no exactly what was said at the negotiations and exactly what maps were used, and exactly what was offered and everyone else is a liar.

[Bigen12]

So basically it's a few Jews resigning from some irrelevant 'carter center' in which they have almost no role other than being 'advisors' .. and there critique that the book is 'one sided', like I guess the entire US media and political system isn't one-sided in favor of Zionism, we can't have this 1 book with another perspective.

So you're saying that all of the people who resigned were Jewish?

Where have you heard that from?

[Logan13]

But it seems like most, if not all of those 14 people are white Jewish people, and they are 14 out of 200; they are more likly to be biased toward Israel than Carter who is a white southern christian, would be biased toward Arabs-people who are completly foreign to him, culturally and racially.

Bt they are going to far in their critiqe by saying the book is full of "lies, inaccuacies, invented material" - this is a published book by a major publisher, it has been edited, proof read; there are no "lies" in this book, these people have a difference of opinion, thats it. just like the example I listed above: most of these are closed door sessions, Yossi Beilen-who was Israels top negotiator at camp david and Taba disputed what Barak and Clinton had said about the negotiations-that a real offer had ever been made-and he wrote a book about what he said happened at the negotiations, is he a liar too, or only these people no exactly what was said at the negotiations and exactly what maps were used, and exactly what was offered and everyone else is a liar.

Carter lied, and these men called him on it. Remember that most of these men have been with Jimmy Carter since the mid-80's. I have always thought Carter a kook, he had a failed presidency and took this country into it's worst econimic depression since the Great Depression. He has no grounds to stand on anything. His policies failed back than and continue to do so.

[eliteforce]

I'm assuming, most of them are probably, just by looking at the 2 names up there but even if they are not, they are stae senators or whatever, if they are democrats or republicans then they are looking at their political careers and they no that the zionist lobby is huge place for campaign contributions and influence; the arab lobby (assuming it exist) couldn't get you a part time job at the local pet store. Carter is retired and nearing the end of his life, he's the one that has no reason to be biased in favor of either side.

[Logan13]

I'm assuming, most of them are probably, just by looking at the 2 names up there but even if they are not, they are stae senators or whatever, if they are democrats or republicans then they are looking at their political careers and they no that the zionist lobby is huge place for campaign contributions and influence; the arab lobby (assuming it exist) couldn't get you a part time job at the local pet store. Carter is retired and nearing the end of his life, he's the one that has no reason to be biased in favor of either side.

I think that Carter, for whatever reason, has always had a distorted view of the world. He has done some good things, like Habitat for Humanity, which I am proud to be part of here in Iowa.

[Logan13]

I'm assuming, most of them are probably, just by looking at the 2 names up there but even if they are not, they are stae senators or whatever, if they are democrats or republicans then they are looking at their political careers and they no that the zionist lobby is huge place for campaign contributions and influence; the arab lobby (assuming it exist) couldn't get you a part time job at the local pet store. Carter is retired and nearing the end of his life, he's the one that has no reason to be biased in favor of either side.

Zionist lobby has a long history with the Democratic party.

[biglouie250]

jimmy carter having that big of a following and support is the big news in this story.

[Bigen12]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/statica...icle53954.html

Jimmy Carter: Too many Jews on Holocaust council
Former president also rejected Christian historian because name sounded 'too Jewish'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 25, 2007
11:07 p.m. Eastern


By Aaron Klein
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com



Monroe Freedman
TEL AVIV – Former President Jimmy Carter once complained there were "too many Jews" on the government's Holocaust Memorial Council, Monroe Freedman, the council's former executive director, told WND in an exclusive interview.

Freedman, who served on the council during Carter's term as president, also revealed a noted Holocaust scholar who was a Presbyterian Christian was rejected from the council's board by Carter's office because the scholar's name "sounded too Jewish."

Freedman, now a professor of law at Hofstra University, was picked by the council's chairman, author Elie Weisel, to serve as executive director in 1980. The council, created by the Carter White House, went on to establish the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C.

Freedman says he was tasked with creating a board for the council and with making recommendations to the White House on how best to memorialize the Holocaust.

He told WND he sent a memo to Carter's office containing recommendations for council board members.

He said his memo was returned with a note on the upper right hand corner that stated, "Too many Jews."

The note, Freedman said, was written in Carter's handwriting and was initialed by Carter.


Freedman said at the time the board he constructed was about 80-perent Jewish, including many Holocaust survivors.

He said at the behest of the White House he composed another board consisting of more non-Jews. But he said he was "stunned" when Carter's office objected to a non-Jew whose name sounded Jewish.

Freedman said he could not provide the historians name to WND because he did not have the man's permission.

"I got a phone call from our liaison at the White House saying this particular historian whose name sounded Jewish would not do. The liaison said he would not even take the time to present Carter with the possibility of including the historian on the board because he knew Carter would think the name sounded too Jewish. I explained the historian is Presbyterian, but the liaison said it wouldn't matter to Carter."

Freedman said he was "outraged by this absurdity."

"If I was memorializing Martin Luther King, I would expect a significant number of board members to be African American. If I was memorializing Native American figures I'd expect a lot of Native Americans to be on the board.

"I do not for a moment consider it inappropriate to build a Holocaust council with a significant majority of the board being Jewish," Freedman stated.

Freedman describes himself as "self-proclaimed liberal." He said he decided to speak out after the release of Carter's latest book, "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid," which some have accused of being biased against Israel.

This would not be the first time Carter's messages on right hand corners of letters generated a Holocaust-related scandal.

Last week, in an interview with the Tovia Singer Show on Israel National Radio, a former U.S. Justice Department official said he received a letter advocating "special consideration" for a confessed Nazi SS officer accused of murdering Jews in the Mauthausen death camp in Austria.

Neal Sher, who served in the Justice Department's Office of Special Investigation, said that in 1987 he received a note from Carter petitioning for re-entry into the U.S. for Martin Bartesch, who had been deported by Sher's office to Austria after it was established he served as an SS officer.

Sher said his office had "extraordinary evidence" Bartesch shot Jews.

Bartesch originally immigrated to the U.S. and lived in Chicago. He later admitted to Sher's office and the court he had voluntarily joined the SS as a teenager and served in its Death's Head Division at the Mauthausen concentration camp where many thousands of prisoners were gassed, shot, starved and worked to death. Bartesch also confessed to having concealed his SS service at concentration camp from U.S. immigration officials.

Sher said the Justice Department obtained a journal kept by the SS and captured by the U.S. Armed Forces listing Bartesch as having shot to death Max Oschorn, a French Jewish prisoner.

Bartesch's daughters, who still lived in the U.S., attempted in 1987 to appeal to politicians to allow the former Nazi officer to enter the country. They wrote a note in which they claimed it was "un-American" to persecute a man for crimes committed when he was only 17 and 18 years old.

Sher said he was shocked when he received the daughter's letter replete with a handwritten note from Carter on the upper right corner stating the former president wanted "special consideration" for the Bartesch family for humanitarian reasons.

The note, containing Carter's signature, was obtained this week by the NY Sun.

[juicedOUTbrain]

Zionist lobby has a long history with the Democratic party.

the zionist lobby has a history with both parties...

but ill agree it used to be mostly democrats, but you should agree that the tables have turned for the most part...The zionist lobby favors any party in power

[Kärnfysikern]

A nuclear engineer and he has seen a UFO

Sounds like one hell of a former president