opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Chuck Norris
Chuck Norris
6 Nov 2015
A New Definition for Better Living Through Chemistry

Although I have had an interest in the subjects of health and fitness my entire life, I never pretend to be … Read More.

10 Feb 2015
The Defend Freedom Tour

Patrick Henry once said, "The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave."… Read More.

3 Feb 2015
Operation Digital Delta Force

I was humbled and honored to see on various global news networks how my action movies that were pirated into … Read More.

A Carter Déjà Vu?


As I gazed onto a parade route sprinkled with red, white and blue everything on July Fourth, I thought about what patriots past and present have sacrificed for our freedom. I also thought about the people in Iran fighting for "azadi," the Persian word for "freedom."

The White House has offered what amounts to diplomatic dribble in response to their plight for liberty. I'm not saying our president should send a militia to muscle the mullahs, but shouldn't he at least show stronger solidarity for the protesters? Isn't it time his actions superseded his rhetoric? Negotiating with extremists has never worked. Trying to reform them only morphs them into different monsters.

Is it just I, or are others experiencing a Carter déjà vu?

Former President Jimmy Carter didn't do enough to support an Iranian popular revolt. His foreign policy was ridiculously idealistic. Carter believed that he could negotiate his way out of anything. He tried to pacify every party. Carter believed international thugs and terrorists could be swayed from extremism by our simply presenting them what he thought was a better way.

Carter is a major reason that we are in our Middle Eastern dilemma with Iran today because, while allegedly fighting for human rights, he set the stage for the rise of two of the worst human rights violators in history — Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and ultimately his modern successor, the current president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

As many recall, during the early 1970s, democratic-flavored reforms flourished in Iran because of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, from economic and educational reforms to increased rights for women, religious minorities, etc. And the Nixon and Ford administrations applauded and rewarded these reforms.

With Carter's induction as president and push for human rights in international affairs, the Shah of Iran's popularity declined because of accusations that he tortured thousands of prisoners. Carter demanded the shah release political prisoners, break up military trials, and permit free assemblies, among other requests — all of which only fostered political and social unrest.

Carter's push for social reform in the name of human rights prompted the further uprising of extremists and anti-government rallies. And by the fall of 1977, anti-shah Shiite clergy and university students were conducting well-organized resistances. Carter's connection to and influence over the shah prompted this pro-Western leader's backlash in Iran and around the world.

Even while visiting the White House in November 1977, the shah and his empress were met by thousands of protesters.

Instead of bringing further social reform to Iran, Carter fed the fire for a political revolution and the return of Ayatollah Khomeini, who was then a 78-year-old theological scholar and cleric who provided leadership to Shiites. Having spent more than 14 years in exile in Iraq, in 1978 he was kicked out of the country by none other than Saddam Hussein (a tension that would lead to the eight-year war between the countries, from 1980 to 1988).

Khomeini, however, would not return to Iran until the shah was disposed. And so, on Jan. 16, 1979, the shah left Iran on an "extended holiday," not to return. Two weeks later, Khomeini stepped back onto Iranian soil, with 6 million welcoming him and the full fanfare of even Western media.

In power, Khomeini reversed many of the shah's reforms and ushered in an era of Islamic extremism that would serve as a model and catalyst for future terrorist groups. Nine months after Khomeini came back to Iran, the U.S. Embassy in Tehran was taken over by extremists, and 52 Americans were held hostage for 444 days. (It is reported that among the extremists was none other than 23-year-old Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, though he personally denied it to Time magazine and others. Whatever the exact nature of his involvement, he eventually would become a Khomeini successor and the president of Iran — he who denies the Holocaust, wants to wipe Israel off the map, and is in the process of building a nuclear arsenal.)

And who's to thank for Ahmadinejad's rise to power? Among the primary contributors is Jimmy Carter's "fight for human rights" with the shah and Iran.

Carter carried on a political policy that ultimately enabled dictatorial rule and disabled democratic resistance, and it appears our current president is, as well. When will we learn that soft talk and small sticks get you beat up on the playground of world affairs? That is why even Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently advised President Barack Obama to crank up his lukewarm lingo.

The recent civil unrest in Iran is a clear indicator that the people there are not happy with the present regime and their rule and oppression by severe Shariah law. I think what Iranians need is a new government in Tehran — and not just Mir Hossein Mousavi versus Ahmadinejad. They need a regime change and an overthrow of the 1979 Islamic revolution. They need a truly representative form of government. But that is not what our president is going to fight for.

But then, what is he fighting for? One thing is for sure: We all will reap what he sows.

To find out more about Chuck Norris and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at




2 Comments | Post Comment
Dear Chuck Norris, if politicians are allowed to continue 'bowing down' to foreign countries, selling America, one job at a time, borrowing trillions, without Taxpayers' consent, isn't it about time Taxpayers show them 'Enough is Enough' by selling them a 'one-way ticket (after taking their assets to pay off the trillions they've borrowed with no accountability as to where the money was put), put them on a slow boat to GITMO with only the clothes on their backs, and this should tell them something, hopefully, what they've done to bankrupt America; thus leaving Americans with no food, no roof over their heads, and no possible way to make a living!

I'm quoting John Adams - “There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation.
One is by the sword, the other is by debt.” America is now an enslaved nation with
trillions of dollars in debt and all because of deceit and greed. Surely, you
remember history and the Dictator that said “We'll destroy America and never lift a
finger!” If this doesn't wake you up, nothing will!

If American Taxpayers are smart, they'll demand to go back to “Pay as you go”
system for medical expenses, insurance, and everything else, that includes
stopping politicians and insurance companies from taking the last penny from you!

Taxpayers don't really care about your party affiliation; therefore, the article under
HPE Guest Column 6/28/09 “GOP Health plan doesn't address real issues” I'm
quoting ‘Then maybe there wouldn't be 45 million uninsured in America!' According
to statistics, population shows approximately 305 million Americans, subtract the
45 million (that's mentioned in article) - which is 15% of us, right, with no health
insurance. This leaves 255 million, or 85%, with insurance; therefore, as usual,
something doesn't add up, does it?

America doesn't need anything else controlled by a radical and socialist
government, let alone National Healthcare! ‘Fair Tax', to include property taxes,
and ‘pay as you go' for doctors and hospitals, would cut theft and tons of useless
paperwork. Trillions would be saved by Taxpayers for their own families!

At no time have Taxpayers, that have a job at present, heard the words “We, the
politicians, in order to pay off trillions we borrowed without Taxpayers consent, are
going to reduce our salaries and retirements to $12,000.00 yearly, which would
benefit America!”

This is one actual insurance/government billing. Stop and wonder “Where's the
money” for this joke of a healthcare for all? ‘Explanation of Benefit' in which
Medicare and your private insurance, which you pay, in addition to what little they
pay out for you to your doctors after you've paid big bucks. If your doctor billed for
$233.00, Medicare paid $76.20, and your private carrier said it was OK to pay
$19.05, I don't suppose it will ever occur to receivers that this type ‘welfare
program' is OK. May articles have been written that Social Security/Medicare paid
dearly for people's care, including gastric bypass (which one could start by
pushing their chair away from table) which they couldn't afford, including the
Viagra, Cialis, Intense, and TV Programs telling the world about your sex life! “If
you don't work, have never paid social security, why should you receive anything
that Taxpayers have worked for?”

Being self employed, never accepting any type government/grant money, and
remembering when insurance became Mandatory started myself and my
employees to thinking ‘if our insurance was running $100.00 month for a family of
three (3)', what would it be when we had to start paying the insurance companies to
handle paperwork for government/politicians, illegitimates, social and welfare
programs and anything else that was forced on Taxpayers and small business
owners! Well, now we know, don't we?”

Comment: #1
Posted by: Shirley deLong
Tue Jul 7, 2009 8:55 AM
Thanks for your analysis, Chuck, insightful as always. I wouldn't refer to Muslim extremists, though. They are simply Muslims who believe the Qur'an word for word and they will be the 'shot callers' in the Muslim world. You are right to urge for a fundamental regime change that will give proper representation in Iran. However, I suggest that in the Orient, the only representation that ever happens is that of those in power and their supporters. I suggest what's happening in Iran is a conflict between two rival groups. Neither one will give the other serious representation when it is in power. Such representation as we have in our countries is of course being steadily eroded until the US and UK are in danger of becoming dictatorships every bit as heavy handed as Iran. I suggest what we are seeing may be a precursor to Daniel 8, where Iran becomes powerful but is eventually defeated by a Western power, or coalition, the respective powers in ancient times being represented by Media-Persia (Iran was called Persia until recent times) and Grecia, Greece, under the initial leadership of Alexander the Great. The Western victory over troublesome, rogue-state Iran will allow the modern Alexander or final 'Obama' to consolidate his worldwide power, Daniel 8:10. That is what I think will happen. We'll just have to watch events to see how they actually turn out.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Alan O'Reilly
Fri Jul 10, 2009 4:37 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right: comments policy
Chuck Norris
Nov. `15
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Lawrence Kudlow
Lawrence KudlowUpdated 13 Feb 2016
Mark Shields
Mark ShieldsUpdated 13 Feb 2016
diane dimond
Diane DimondUpdated 13 Feb 2016

23 Oct 2012 Obama's Class Warfare: Don't Get Fooled Again

22 Feb 2011 Feds and Unions: Foes to Educational Reform

23 Nov 2010 A Leader We All Can Follow