July 7, 2009
In his WorldNetDaily column this week, Chuck Norris suggests that the Obama administration’s reaction to the disputed Iranian election results is a Carter déjà vu.
In his column he says that:
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 – the Ayatollah Khomeini and ultimately his modern successor, the current president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Norris claims that the Shah was a progressive, parroting the rhetoric of the John Birch Society which claims that the anti-Shah movement was an Islamic-Marxist conspiracy. In the article, Iran and the Shah: What Really Happened in the Birch Society’s publication The New American, the deposing of the Shah is described as a Bilderberger-Council on Foreign Relations campaign to defeat a friend of America.
As many recall, during the early 1970s, democratic-flavored reforms flourished in Iran because of the 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's popularity declined, because of accusations that he tortured thousands of prisoners. Carter demanded the Shah release political prisoners, break up military trials, permit free assemblies, among other requests – all of which only fostered political and social unrest.
And who's to thank for Ahmadinejad's rise to power? Among the primary contributors is President Jimmy Carter and his "fight for human rights" with the Shah and Iran.
The sadness of the story is that Carter abandoned an American friend. The tragedy is that the course of history has been changed by one man. Carter would not support the Shah of Iran while he was in power, which allowed the Ayatollah Khomeini to seize power. And, as a result, we are now reaping the harvest of the anti-American fanaticism and extremism.
In his bid to oppose Obama, Norris seems to oppose anything the man he must consider an enemy proposes. But when a self-described Christian relies on a well-known, historically anti-Semitic organization one must wonder how he reconciles his Obama hatred with scripture’s mandate that “what fellowship can light have with darkness.” It is this blind devotion to partisan politics that is leading many away from the Republican Party.