posted December 01, 2006 12:45 AM            

2 sicko Democrats
Posted: November 30, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
Joseph Farah

I'm going to be covering two different subjects in this column today, so stay with me.

The only thing these two subjects have in common is that they both involve seriously demented and morally bankrupt Democratic politicians – neither of whom is really worthy of a full-blown column themselves.

First, there's Jimmy Carter. This is always a tough topic. How many different ways are there to say "wrong"?

Nevetheless, one cannot let his recent remarks on ABC's "Good Morning America" pass without correction and comment.

Here are some of the lowlights: (And please forgive that he tends to start all sentences with the word "and.")

"And contrary to the United Nations resolutions, contrary to the official policy of the United States government, contrary to the Quartet so-called road map, all of those things – and contrary to the majority of Israeli people's opinion – this occupation and confiscation and colonization of land in the West Bank is the prime cause of a continuation of violence in the Middle East."

He continues: "And what is being done to the Palestinians under Israeli domination is really atrocious. It's a terrible affliction on these people."

Now, I could easily write a book dealing with just the lies told in these three poorly crafted, inarticulate sentences. But I'll be brief.

There is no occupation by Israel in the West Bank. There has been no confiscation of land in the West Bank. And there is no colonization of land in the West Bank. Israel is withdrawing from lands it won in hard-fought defensive combat with hostile enemies as fast as it can. The faster it retreats, the more attacks it faces from an ungrateful populace of Arabs who have been anti-Semitic from the day they were born. That's their excuse. I wonder: What's Jimmy Carter's?

It is so ludicrous to charge that Israeli policies are the "prime cause" of violence and conflict in the Middle East. Sunnis and Shiites are killing each other in Iraq. Saudi Arabia is preparing to develop nuclear weapons for fear of Iran's. Syria just knocked off another Christian politician in Lebanon. The biggest war in the Middle East was fought between Iran and Iraq and resulted in the deaths of more than 1 million. None of this had anything to do with Israel.

So-called "Palestinians" living in Israel are the freest Arabs on the planet, with the possible exception of those, like me, who live in the U.S. They vote. They serve in the Knesset. They publish newspapers. They broadcast their hate speech on television. They even hold their Muslim religious services on the Temple Mount, the holiest site in all of Judaism. What is Carter talking about?

If he ever had them, which I doubt, Carter has lost his moral bearings. He is devoid of any ability to discern right from wrong. When given the choice to stand up for good or evil, he will choose evil every time.

Now let me turn my attention to another sicko Democratic politician – Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y.

"If a young fellow has an option of having a decent career, or joining the Army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq," he said on "Fox News Sunday," in remarks strikingly similar to those that got John Kerry in hot water before the midterm elections. "If there's anyone who believes these youngsters want to fight, as the Pentagon and some generals have said, you can just forget about it. No bright young individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits. And most all of them come from communities of very, very high unemployment."

You see, this is what materialists like Carter and Rangel and their fellow Democrats believe. It's all about jobs and money and opportunities. They must have missed the stories of Lt. Ilario Pantano and Pat Tillman, who walked away from prosperous and exciting careers to serve their country in combat.

Rangel couldn't possibly understand why someone would do that. In fact, most of the men serving in Iraq and Afghanistan made similar choices – even if they weren't successful stockbrokers or professional football players.

There's something Rangel hasn't factored into the equation. It's called patriotism – the desire to serve and defend one's country, even if it means risking one's life.

It's a concept so foreign to Rangel, he might just as easily be living in another country than the one Pantano or Tillman knew when they put their lives on hold to answer the call of duty – and in Tillman's case, gave the ultimate sacrifice.