On December 8, 2015, conservative blogger Daniel Greenfield posted an article on FrontPageMag.com suggesting that President Jimmy Carter's sanctions against Iran during the hostage crisis lasting from 1979 to 1981 were no worse than Republican Presidential hopeful Donald Trump's notions of shuttering mosques and mandating that Muslims register in a national database.
In response to the rather fair parallels drawn between Donald Trump and genocidal Nazi leader Adolf Hitler, Greenfield alleged that The Carter administration deporting several thousand Iranians was closer to Hitler's Final Solution, because:
"Classifying Iranians as a group is closer to racism than classifying people by a racist supremacist ideology that calls for the mass murder and enslavement of non-Muslims, as ISIS is doing today."
In addition there was a half-assed photo-collage showing Carter's head on Hitler's body.
My curiosity began to fire up, so I began reading about the hostage crisis. It was fascinating to learn that the majority of the Iranian students ordered to the INS offices and found in violation of their visas were able to be granted political asylum and that from 1979 to 1981, about 30,000 Iranians successfully immigrated to the U.S.
Having found that Greenfield's assertion was presented completely without context, I wrote a rebuttal and published it on Daily Kos the day after Greenfield's cheap shot hit the web. Caught in a cheerfully obnoxious mood, I Tweeted my piece to him.
A short while later, he replied.
Though, come to think of it, given his remark that "Trump's proposal [to register Muslim's in a database, compel them to wear identification badges, and shutter mosques] is far more legitimate than Carter's [sanctions against Iran], he probably would be comfortable with the Donald building camps to exterminate Muslims. I first pointed out the most obvious parallels between Donald Trump and Adolf Hitler:
Then, I demonstrated how his comparison of Jimmy Carter to Adolf Hitler did not hold:
Greenfield countered.
Of course, I brought the illustration accompanying his piece to his attention.
I mean seriously, he might as well have insinuated that President Carter had a view to exterminating Iranians if he threw together a crappy Photoshop job showing Carter's head on Hitler's body. Greenfield claimed:
However, let's not forget that in his piece, Greenfield stated, "Carter targeted people by nationality."
Though, interestingly enough, even if he accuses Carter of bigotry because the latter “targeted [Iranians],” Greenfield himself doesn’t have a problem with Donald Trump being willing to consider closing mosques.
Anyway, staying the courser, I then decided to let him know specifically how he fucked up.
He then stated:
Of course, I pointed out that he was wrong.
I might like to add, for a respected Jewish writer to violate Godwin’s Law just to defend a turgid, bigoted, fascist blowhard like Donald Trump by discrediting a well-meaning former President who hasn’t posed even the remotest challenge to his side since 1981 is just sad and he should know better.
Anyway, Greenfield then tried to play the slippery eel.
But, remember. Greenfield said in his piece that:
"Carter targeted people by nationality."
Anyway, I reiterated what Trump more or less said:
Greenfield replied with a limp, patronizing ad hominem:
Oh, is that true? The guy does a piece about how “Carter targeted people by nationality” and now he means to say that he was JOKING?
Of course, Greenfield tried to downplay Donald Trump’s bigoted sentiment.
Now, if I could be taken in by Daniel’s hair-splitting apology for Donald Trump’s bigotry, I would, but I can’t, because I know better.
Of course, Greenfield just had to try to win the argument.
I just wasn’t having it, though.
It’s not surprising that Greenfield would get all weaselly when he was found in the wrong. Of course, I wouldn’t be surprised. I mean, even though he is Jewish, he shills for a political party funded by Nazi sympathizers, and also fawns over the worst political elements in Israel, which only means he is willing to stand against his own principles just to have some kind of advantage. Of course, when I called him on this, he hit me back with one of those annoying “you-too” fallacies.
Of course, I wasn’t going to be having any of that either.
Incidentally, by accusing George Soros of collaborating with the Nazis, Greenfield was just parroting some bullshit that Glenn Beck said back in 2010, and as we all know, Glenn Beck believes everybody with whom he disagrees is a Nazi, even former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, who is Jewish. But despite Glenn Beck’s own history of spouting of anti-Semitic innuendo, as long as he hates George Soros, he’s basically O.K. as far as Daniel Greenfield is concerned.
Photo credits: Daniel Greenfield (screenshot from YouTube), James Conrad (via Facebook).