It's important not to talk about any ones dad here, it tends to distract from the point.
All we need to look at is simply his votes and his words. Obama picked a person, for a very very important position who supported the Iraq war, not just when it happened but even years after with no regret. Is not critical of Israel, a state that is constantly breaking international laws, human rights violations. (Except for one occasion in which he felt that Israel should not of turned away some african refugees)
The people who voted for 'change' should be upset at this choice. Simple as that.
But why should I be shocked that they are not? They backed Biden, another pro Iraq war tool.
we can't expect fundamental change from Obama, that's rediculous. Support for Israel is a prerequisite for even running for president, of course his staff is going to have pro-Israeli personnel.
we can't expect fundamental change from Obama, that's rediculous. Support for Israel is a prerequisite for even running for president, of course his staff is going to have pro-Israeli personnel.
I have an Issue that his supporters think its fine, they dont even care or think its strange that one must be so pro israel to run for president in the first place.
btw Obama already won, he does not really have to put such pro israeli people in such powerful places. I mean Rahm is right at the top for his support for israel and his position in this new Obama admin.
But lets see who else he picks, time will tell. But I suspect that if he continues picking people like that, he will still be given the famous 'pass'.
At what point is he going to act like the change he speaks of and pick someone that really is 'change'?
I have an Issue that his supporters think its fine, they dont even care or think its strange that one must be so pro israel to run for president in the first place.
btw Obama already won, he does not really have to put such pro israeli people in such powerful places. I mean Rahm is right at the top for his support for israel and his position in this new Obama admin.
But lets see who else he picks, time will tell. But I suspect that if he continues picking people like that, he will still be given the famous 'pass'.
At what point is he going to act like the change he speaks of and pick someone that really is 'change'?
Not some old clinton Zionist or pro war Biden.
it came down to a very simple statement for me.
small changes in policy can mean life or death for many people.
I'm not giving him a pass..I'm realistic. fundamental change comes from the people, not from the president.
small changes in policy can mean life or death for many people.
I'm not giving him a pass..I'm realistic. fundamental change comes from the people, not from the president.
You know I understand that, but the American people have a history of apathy. Look, Obama won on a bad economy. They say that if the economy was healthy McCain had a better chance because most people thought he was better on foreign policy than Obama, as voted the economy came first for voters. Which in essence means that Americans truly only get active when their money is at stake.
So based on that I dont think we can expect any fundamental change from the most American people and one must put trust in the people we vote in.
You know I understand that, but the American people have a history of apathy. Look, Obama won on a bad economy. They say that if the economy was healthy McCain had a better chance because most people thought he was better on foreign policy than Obama, as voted the economy came first for voters. Which in essence means that Americans truly only get active when their money is at stake.
So based on that I dont think we can expect any fundamental change from the most American people and one must put trust in the people we vote in.
good point. but when times get tough Americans will rise up, like when FDR was elected. history gives him the credit for saving the economy and all that bs, in reality it was the people demanding action, with city wide general strikes and massive public protest, forcing the gov't to react.
good point. but when times get tough Americans will rise up, like when FDR was elected. history gives him the credit for saving the economy and all that bs, in reality it was the people demanding action, with city wide general strikes and massive public protest, forcing the gov't to react.
I don't hink we're too far away from that.
Here is to 'hope' for a rise up. Let's see.
But keep in mind, the opposite may happen, they may also fall back down onto their faces. I mean once they see that their money is safe they may have no reason to rise up anymore. I think it has something to do with being lazy.
But Indeed america has many good people who I really hope will not allow their government to continue it's backwards policy towards the rest of the world. To hold It's government accountable and demand real change. Also take a hard look at Israel and see that they are not friends. 'cough' 'cough' false flag Mossad...ahem. sorry had to clear my throat.
Depends. Did he come home and conduct his home life like a classroom textbook as well?
Freedom fighters never turn off so to speak. It becomes ingrained in their personal beliefs, handed down, and affects all that get to know them personally....not stuff like pronunciation or grammar, but how to hate people and harm them. Some fathers like to teach their sons about life if you know what I mean.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
During the United States election campaign, racists and pro-Israel hardliners tried to make an issue out of President-elect Barack Obama's middle name, Hussein. Such people might take comfort in another middle name, that of Obama's pick for White House Chief of Staff: Rahm Israel Emanuel.
here is what i think....blah (tounge sticking out)
just another conspiracy looking for something to be against rather than for....oh i am so tired of the blathering of the people
HOB 10.05.2005, E Rutherford 06.03.2006, The Gorge 07.22.2006, Lolla 08.05.2007, West Palm 06.11.2008, Tampa 06.12.2008, Columbia 06.16.2008, EV Memphis 06.20.2009, New Orleans 05.01.2010, Kansas City 05.03.2010
"The go-between with the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee was Rep. Rahm Emanuel, a fellow Chicagoan and a onetime civilian volunteer to the Israeli army and son of a Jerusalem-born pediatrician.
Until today, Emanuel, a superdelegate, had remained uncommitted in the Democratic presidential contest because he is close with the Clintons after serving six years in Bill Clinton’s White House. “I’m hiding under the desk,” he had said as the only Democrat in Illinois’ congressional delegation who had not endorsed Obama.
But if Emanuel didn’t step into the breach until after Obama became the presumptive Democratic nominee, his advocacy with AIPAC leaders today helped mollify concerns that Obama may be too sympathetic to the Palestinian cause or too soft on Iran. Later, his office released a statement saying that he had also endorsed Obama.
Emanuel, the fourth-ranking Democrat in the House, is the son of Benjamin Emanuel, who worked with a Zionist paramilitary organization in Israel in the 1940s. The elder Emanuel emigrated to Chicago where he met his wife, Martha Smulevitz, an American Jew who worked as an X-ray technician.
Before his family moved to the lakeshore suburb of Wilmette, Rahm Emanuel attended Bernard Zell Anshe Emet Day School, a Jewish high school endowed by billionaire Sam Zell. Inheriting his father’s passion for Israel, Rahm Emanuel worked as a civilian volunteer in Israel in the 1991 Gulf War, rust-proofing brakes on an army base in northern Israel.
Beyond Emanuel’s private introduction to AIPAC’s executive board, Obama sounded all the important themes in his public remarks. He vowed to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and insisted Jerusalem will remain the undivided capital of the Jewish state.
“Let me be clear. Israel’s security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable,” he said. “The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper . . . But any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel’s identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders.”
Obama got several standing ovations, including sustained applause after observing, “We must not allow the relationship between Jews and African Americans to suffer. This is a bond that must be strengthened. Together, we can rededicate ourselves to end prejudice and combat hatred in all of its forms.”"
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Basically THE guy running the Whitehouse. He is the general manager. He controls personel and staff, he controls the President's schedule. He controls access to the President. Every request tends to go through him.
Depending on the Chief of Staff he can be a very, very powerful man in Washington. Some say only the President is more powerful.
Thanks for the answer.
And I agree, that's a really shitty choice wich definitely sends out the wrong message. However the thread title is a little childish. Rahm Emanuel is the chief of staff, not his father, who cares what he was?
Freedom fighters never turn off so to speak. It becomes ingrained in their personal beliefs, handed down, and affects all that get to know them personally....not stuff like pronunciation or grammar, but how to hate people and harm them. Some fathers like to teach their sons about life if you know what I mean.
Do you know and/or spend time with freedom fighters? Because that was either a very wild guess or an educated indepth profile.
Do you know and/or spend time with freedom fighters? Because that was either a very wild guess or an educated indepth profile.
Yes I do, and it's a pretty common realization if you hang around any armchair activist.
ingrained core beliefs....parents pass them on to their children whether they want to or not.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
It amuses me to find so many folks freak out over Emanuel...from 93-98 he was an advisor to Clinton..and has been in the House of Reps since 02. Smart move for Obama if ya ask me. After all, when Cheney asserted that he as Vice President didn't fall under the Executive branch of government, it was Emanuel who moved to cut Cheney's Vice Presedential office funding (almost 5 million) from appropriations set aside to fund the Executive Branch of governemnt. You may not like him or his name, but Rahm Emanuel has the balls to stand up to anyone.
It amuses me to find so many folks freak out over Emanuel...from 93-98 he was an advisor to Clinton..and has been in the House of Reps since 02. Smart move for Obama if ya ask me. After all, when Cheney asserted that he as Vice President didn't fall under the Executive branch of government, it was Emanuel who moved to cut Cheney's Vice Presedential office funding (almost 5 million) from appropriations set aside to fund the Executive Branch of governemnt. You may not like him or his name, but Rahm Emanuel has the balls to stand up to anyone.
Everything that has happened thus far has led us up to this point.
Repeating actions of the past is considered what exactly? Change? I don't think it would be a stretch to refer to Rahm as a pro Israel hardliner.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Haha, fucking hell. You guys say Obama is anti-Israel, now you accuse his Chief of Staff of pro-Israeli terrorist ties. Make up your minds before you start spouting this shit. Oh big deal, Emanuel's dad did some stuff 60 years ago. Is half of Ireland a terrorist because they knew or are related to someone who was related to a member of a paramilitary organisation?
I love this guilt by association thing. You guys are insane.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
The fact that Dick Morris and Sean Hannity have freaked out over this choice is all I need to know that I like it.
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
The fact that Dick Morris and Sean Hannity have freaked out over this choice is all I need to know that I like it.
They freaked out because he's a liberal, not because he's pro-Israel.
In other news,
"In an interview with Ma'ariv, Emanuel's father, Dr. Benjamin Emanuel, said he was convinced that his son's appointment would be good for Israel. "Obviously he will influence the president to be pro-Israel," he was quoted as saying. "Why wouldn't he be? What is he, an Arab? He's not going to clean the floors of the White House." The Ma'ariv article also quoted Dr. Emanuel as saying that his son spends most summers visiting in Tel Aviv, and that he speaks Hebrew, but not fluently."
"bill Clinton's former adviser turned john mcmadman McCain supporter dick morris was on a segment of the 06 November 2008 broadcast of the faux news hannity & colmes show.
mr. morris spoke candidly about what a disgusting person barack obama's new white house chief of staff rahm emanuel is.
mr. morris maintains that emanuel cannot be trusted and that he works only for himself - "rahm is for rahm." mr. morris says that bill Clinton never trusted emanuel.
mr. morris says obama "is making a huge mistake in picking this guy."
====
The Israeli Who Will Run the Obama White House
Written by Christopher Bollyn
Thursday, 06 November 2008
"Obama's first pick: Israeli Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff" is the headline of a November 6 article in Ha'aretz, the Israeli newspaper. The Israeli editors at Ha'aretz proudly proclaim that Obama's first pick was "Israeli Rahm Emanuel" to run the next administration. Americans should be aware that Obama's chief of staff will be an Israeli, with terrorist roots and a clear loyalty to the state of Israel."
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
"bill Clinton's former adviser turned john mcmadman McCain supporter dick morris was on a segment of the 06 November 2008 broadcast of the faux news hannity & colmes show.
mr. morris spoke candidly about what a disgusting person barack obama's new white house chief of staff rahm emanuel is.
mr. morris maintains that emanuel cannot be trusted and that he works only for himself - "rahm is for rahm." mr. morris says that bill Clinton never trusted emanuel.
mr. morris says obama "is making a huge mistake in picking this guy."
====
The Israeli Who Will Run the Obama White House
Written by Christopher Bollyn
Thursday, 06 November 2008
"Obama's first pick: Israeli Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff" is the headline of a November 6 article in Ha'aretz, the Israeli newspaper. The Israeli editors at Ha'aretz proudly proclaim that Obama's first pick was "Israeli Rahm Emanuel" to run the next administration. Americans should be aware that Obama's chief of staff will be an Israeli, with terrorist roots and a clear loyalty to the state of Israel."
"now, now now ... in Dick Morris' defense .... he is a lying sack of shit."
(start at the 2:45 mark .. or watch the whole thing)
Now, on a serious note, I've been watching Dick Morris on Fox for the past few months, the guy is an idiot ... in that very same interview Roland posted, go to the 7 minute mark, on Hannity and Colmes, he SERIOUSLY tried to pass the notion that the week before the election, the market surged as people thought McCain was going to win, (name one pollster that suggested McCain was closing the gap or that didn't have an over 300 electoral count for Obama), then it tanks Wednesday and Thursday because of Obama winning ... COMPLETELY leaving out the fact news of horrible retail sales, auto makers, and 200k job losses etc that were announced.
Today the Market went up 250 points ... what now ... DICK!
He's a fucking propogandist moron. And of course, a frequent Fox News contributor.
He and Hannity go off on the fairness doctrine, how talk radio is going to be stifled ... Obama has said over and over he is against the Fairness Doctrine ... GIVE ... IT ... UP ... fucking scare tactics.
People need to settle down and give this, oh ... a WEEK and we'll see who the other appointees are ...
"You're one of the few Red Sox fans I don't mind." - Newch91
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
They freaked out because he's a liberal, not because he's pro-Israel.
In other news,
"In an interview with Ma'ariv, Emanuel's father, Dr. Benjamin Emanuel, said he was convinced that his son's appointment would be good for Israel. "Obviously he will influence the president to be pro-Israel," he was quoted as saying. "Why wouldn't he be? What is he, an Arab? He's not going to clean the floors of the White House." The Ma'ariv article also quoted Dr. Emanuel as saying that his son spends most summers visiting in Tel Aviv, and that he speaks Hebrew, but not fluently."
Honestly do you think he was chosen because of his Pro-Israel stance. Newsflash our entire government is pro Israel. He was chosen for his experience int he Clinton White house, his long standing in the House of Representatives, and his ability to stand up to the Right on important issues.
I'm all for the choice.
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
Honestly do you think he was chosen because of his Pro-Israel stance. Newsflash our entire government is pro Israel. He was chosen for his experience int he Clinton White house, his long standing in the House of Representatives, and his ability to stand up to the Right on important issues.
I'm all for the choice.
You need to read his 2006 book. Then think about his position (chief of staff) and then think about where America may be headed.
Honestly do you think he was chosen because of his Pro-Israel stance. Newsflash our entire government is pro Israel. He was chosen for his experience int he Clinton White house, his long standing in the House of Representatives, and his ability to stand up to the Right on important issues.
I'm all for the choice.
Pro-Israeli is one thing. This guy is BEYOND that. Do you guys not realize that he JUSTIFIED POLITICAL ASSASSINATIONS OF PALESTINIAN FIGURES. This is a guy who thought Bush wasn't pro-Israeli enough...
That should speak volumes.
This is a guy who didn't want the puppet Prime Minister of Iraq to speak to Congress because he criticized Israel.
That should speak volumes.
Where will this guy lead us to in terms of our standing in the world? Obama wants the US to be the 'beacon of light' in the world. how can we do something like that if we reject people from speaking to our government? what do you think his stance will be on Iran, in terms of Israel? Lebanon? Syria? do you honestly think this guy will lead us to a better status in the world? our fundamental and unilateral support of Israel is a HUGE problem, and this guy will only further these things, not help make them better, and certainly not even keep them the same. The fact that people are so quick to excuse these things is absurd.
Also, I believe he's only been a Representative since the 2003... that's not really "long standing", though that's beside the point.
"Forget the Honeymoon
Getting down to bizness with Obama
by Justin Raimondo
When I hear talk of a "honeymoon" for the President-elect – to last as long as six months, by some accounts – I think: "Fine. You lay off, and I'll do the same." But oh no, it doesn't work that way. Obama has already started in on us, and he hasn't even taken the oath of office yet. I'm talking about his appointments, starting with Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff.
Hey, I thought we were gong to be treated to a bipartisan approach by the Obama administration, that he was going to "reach across the aisle" – what happened to that? Señor Emanuel is known as a street-fightin' Democrat, and that's understating it. A Rolling Stone profile of Emanuel had this to say:
"There's the story of how, the night after Clinton was elected, Emanuel was so angry at the president's enemies that he stood up at a celebratory dinner with colleagues from the campaign, grabbed a steak knife and began rattling off a list of betrayers, shouting 'Dead! . . . Dead! . . . Dead!' and plunging the knife into the table after every name. 'When he was done, the table looked like a lunar landscape,' one campaign veteran recalls. 'It was like something out of The Godfather.'"
He's mean, he's ultra-partisan, and he's a fully-paid up member in good standing of the War Party: during the Democratic primaries in 2006, when Emanuel headed up the Dems' congressional operation, he backed pro-war candidates over antiwar Democrats every time. As Bill Safire put it on "Meet the Press" just before Tim Russert died:
"What about Rahm Emanuel [for Vice President], the most powerful voice in the House of Representatives that agrees with Hillary Clinton on foreign affairs? He's a hawk. And although he's a rootin' tootin' liberal on domestic affairs, he is a hawk on foreign affairs. I was at the – a roast for him for Epilepsy Association, and Hillary Clinton was there, and I said, quite frankly, here you have the hawkish side of the Democratic Party. If they get together, the bumper sticker will read 'Invade and bomb with Hillary and Rahm.'"
When the House Democratic majority passed a military appropriations bill slated for Iraq, a clause that would have prohibited an attack on Iran without a vote in Congress was deleted at the instigation of Emanuel and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. When Rep. John Murtha presaged the popular rebellion against the Iraq war by coming out against it in no uncertain terms, Emanuel urged Pelosi to refrain from endorsing his call for withdrawal, arguing that it would hurt the Democrats politically.
With the smiling face of Don Obama serving as a front for the knife-wielding Emanuel and his "legendary intensity" – as Rolling Stone writer Joshua Green puts it – one has to wonder: what (or who) else does the Prez-elect have in store for us?
The answer is: Jane Harman – as head of the CIA! (If she doesn't get it, not to worry: she's also up for head of Homeland Security – and if she doesn't get that, she's on the short list for National Intelligence czarina).
Will somebody go see if Glenn Greenwald is okay? I fear he may have done something drastic, especially after all that gushing he's done over the Dear Leader.
Harman has always taken the side of the Bushies when it comes to eavesdropping: during Gen Michael Hayden's confirmation hearings for CIA director, she was against making government eavesdropping an issue. When the New York Times revealed the illegal eavesdropping program authorized by Bush, she was outraged – at the Times, which she strongly hinted ought to be prosecuted. She was pro-war, and did her part in spreading the "bad intel" she now claims to have been fooled by – declaring not only that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but also purveying the rather far-out notion that al-Qaeda had taken up residence there prior to the US invasion.
Harman's ambition is matched only by her recklessness: she came up against the FBI, in 2006, when she was investigated for going a little too far in her aggressive campaign to retain her seat as head of the House Intelligence Committee. Apparently she had AIPAC officials and major Democratic donors personally lobby Pelosi, in return for the promise that she, Harman, would intercede on behalf of Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, two top AIPAC officials currently being prosecuted for stealing US top secret intelligence and passing it on to Israeli officials. Law enforcement officials aver hard evidence for this quid pro quo was never uncovered. I'm hoping, however, that some Republican back-bencher has the balls to bring it up at her confirmation hearing. Perhaps they could call Pelosi as a witness.
Combined with the foreign policy views of Dennis Ross, Obama's senior advisor for Middle East affairs – who is reportedly up for the National Security Advisor slot – what seems to be shaping up is a perfect trifecta of trouble on the horizon. The old adage that presidents rarely govern in synch with the way they campaign applies here, and in spades. Change? Not in the foreign policy realm, buster. Indeed, if any change is involved, it may well be for the worse.
By the time Obama is through making his appointments, all those Hollywood liberals over at the HuffPuffPost will be huffing and puffing with outrage: and, in true Hollywood style, they'll be screaming: "Forget the honeymoon – I want a divorce!"
But it will be too late for that. The Big O marches on, with all sorts of plans for our future, including perhaps "national service," and – for sure – a significant ratcheting-up of the war in Afghanistan. In the meantime, Iran continues to loom large as an issue.
Just as Obama was claiming his victory, the Iranians were warning us to stay away from their airspace – there have apparently been a number of close calls recently. Also, the Russians announced they were putting missiles near their border with Poland, to counter the sophisticated anti-missile "defense" systems put in place by the US and its Eastern European ally. Adding insult to injury, the official explanation for the US deployment is that the anti-missile system is there to guard against an Iranian attack. Whether the Obama-ites buy into this sort of malarkey or not isn't clear. What is all too obvious, however, is that President Obama will continue the West's war of words – and "soft power" – against the Russians, a prospect that bodes ill for the cause of peace.
So, you thought you were turning over a whole new leaf for the country when you marked your ballot for the Dear Leader – didn't you? Well, surprise – surprise!" http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13728
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
By the time Obama is through making his appointments, all those Hollywood liberals over at the HuffPuffPost will be huffing and puffing with outrage: and, in true Hollywood style, they'll be screaming: "Forget the honeymoon – I want a divorce!"
Comments
All we need to look at is simply his votes and his words. Obama picked a person, for a very very important position who supported the Iraq war, not just when it happened but even years after with no regret. Is not critical of Israel, a state that is constantly breaking international laws, human rights violations. (Except for one occasion in which he felt that Israel should not of turned away some african refugees)
The people who voted for 'change' should be upset at this choice. Simple as that.
But why should I be shocked that they are not? They backed Biden, another pro Iraq war tool.
I have an Issue that his supporters think its fine, they dont even care or think its strange that one must be so pro israel to run for president in the first place.
btw Obama already won, he does not really have to put such pro israeli people in such powerful places. I mean Rahm is right at the top for his support for israel and his position in this new Obama admin.
But lets see who else he picks, time will tell. But I suspect that if he continues picking people like that, he will still be given the famous 'pass'.
At what point is he going to act like the change he speaks of and pick someone that really is 'change'?
Not some old clinton Zionist or pro war Biden.
small changes in policy can mean life or death for many people.
I'm not giving him a pass..I'm realistic. fundamental change comes from the people, not from the president.
You know I understand that, but the American people have a history of apathy. Look, Obama won on a bad economy. They say that if the economy was healthy McCain had a better chance because most people thought he was better on foreign policy than Obama, as voted the economy came first for voters. Which in essence means that Americans truly only get active when their money is at stake.
So based on that I dont think we can expect any fundamental change from the most American people and one must put trust in the people we vote in.
I don't hink we're too far away from that.
you'll need to scroll down the page a bit to get to the article.
Hail Hail HIPPIEMOM
Wishlist Foundation-
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
info@wishlistfoundation.org
Here is to 'hope' for a rise up. Let's see.
But keep in mind, the opposite may happen, they may also fall back down onto their faces. I mean once they see that their money is safe they may have no reason to rise up anymore. I think it has something to do with being lazy.
But Indeed america has many good people who I really hope will not allow their government to continue it's backwards policy towards the rest of the world. To hold It's government accountable and demand real change. Also take a hard look at Israel and see that they are not friends. 'cough' 'cough' false flag Mossad...ahem. sorry had to clear my throat.
Depends. Did he come home and conduct his home life like a classroom textbook as well?
Freedom fighters never turn off so to speak. It becomes ingrained in their personal beliefs, handed down, and affects all that get to know them personally....not stuff like pronunciation or grammar, but how to hate people and harm them. Some fathers like to teach their sons about life if you know what I mean.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
here is what i think....blah (tounge sticking out)
just another conspiracy looking for something to be against rather than for....oh i am so tired of the blathering of the people
"The go-between with the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee was Rep. Rahm Emanuel, a fellow Chicagoan and a onetime civilian volunteer to the Israeli army and son of a Jerusalem-born pediatrician.
Until today, Emanuel, a superdelegate, had remained uncommitted in the Democratic presidential contest because he is close with the Clintons after serving six years in Bill Clinton’s White House. “I’m hiding under the desk,” he had said as the only Democrat in Illinois’ congressional delegation who had not endorsed Obama.
But if Emanuel didn’t step into the breach until after Obama became the presumptive Democratic nominee, his advocacy with AIPAC leaders today helped mollify concerns that Obama may be too sympathetic to the Palestinian cause or too soft on Iran. Later, his office released a statement saying that he had also endorsed Obama.
Emanuel, the fourth-ranking Democrat in the House, is the son of Benjamin Emanuel, who worked with a Zionist paramilitary organization in Israel in the 1940s. The elder Emanuel emigrated to Chicago where he met his wife, Martha Smulevitz, an American Jew who worked as an X-ray technician.
Before his family moved to the lakeshore suburb of Wilmette, Rahm Emanuel attended Bernard Zell Anshe Emet Day School, a Jewish high school endowed by billionaire Sam Zell. Inheriting his father’s passion for Israel, Rahm Emanuel worked as a civilian volunteer in Israel in the 1991 Gulf War, rust-proofing brakes on an army base in northern Israel.
Beyond Emanuel’s private introduction to AIPAC’s executive board, Obama sounded all the important themes in his public remarks. He vowed to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and insisted Jerusalem will remain the undivided capital of the Jewish state.
“Let me be clear. Israel’s security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable,” he said. “The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper . . . But any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel’s identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders.”
Obama got several standing ovations, including sustained applause after observing, “We must not allow the relationship between Jews and African Americans to suffer. This is a bond that must be strengthened. Together, we can rededicate ourselves to end prejudice and combat hatred in all of its forms.”"
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
And I agree, that's a really shitty choice wich definitely sends out the wrong message. However the thread title is a little childish. Rahm Emanuel is the chief of staff, not his father, who cares what he was?
Do you know and/or spend time with freedom fighters? Because that was either a very wild guess or an educated indepth profile.
Yes I do, and it's a pretty common realization if you hang around any armchair activist.
ingrained core beliefs....parents pass them on to their children whether they want to or not.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Everything that has happened thus far has led us up to this point.
Repeating actions of the past is considered what exactly? Change? I don't think it would be a stretch to refer to Rahm as a pro Israel hardliner.
interesting points made here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xkm-RJx_OHg
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Finally, a voice of reason!!
and still jonesing for another show....
"the waiting drove me mad..."
for example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m96chUuvoe0
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
In other news,
"In an interview with Ma'ariv, Emanuel's father, Dr. Benjamin Emanuel, said he was convinced that his son's appointment would be good for Israel. "Obviously he will influence the president to be pro-Israel," he was quoted as saying. "Why wouldn't he be? What is he, an Arab? He's not going to clean the floors of the White House." The Ma'ariv article also quoted Dr. Emanuel as saying that his son spends most summers visiting in Tel Aviv, and that he speaks Hebrew, but not fluently."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1225910047157&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzFLmIUVCk8
"bill Clinton's former adviser turned john mcmadman McCain supporter dick morris was on a segment of the 06 November 2008 broadcast of the faux news hannity & colmes show.
mr. morris spoke candidly about what a disgusting person barack obama's new white house chief of staff rahm emanuel is.
mr. morris maintains that emanuel cannot be trusted and that he works only for himself - "rahm is for rahm." mr. morris says that bill Clinton never trusted emanuel.
mr. morris says obama "is making a huge mistake in picking this guy."
====
The Israeli Who Will Run the Obama White House
Written by Christopher Bollyn
Thursday, 06 November 2008
"Obama's first pick: Israeli Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff" is the headline of a November 6 article in Ha'aretz, the Israeli newspaper. The Israeli editors at Ha'aretz proudly proclaim that Obama's first pick was "Israeli Rahm Emanuel" to run the next administration. Americans should be aware that Obama's chief of staff will be an Israeli, with terrorist roots and a clear loyalty to the state of Israel."
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
"now, now now ... in Dick Morris' defense .... he is a lying sack of shit."
(start at the 2:45 mark .. or watch the whole thing)
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086&title=sarah-palin-gender-card
Now, on a serious note, I've been watching Dick Morris on Fox for the past few months, the guy is an idiot ... in that very same interview Roland posted, go to the 7 minute mark, on Hannity and Colmes, he SERIOUSLY tried to pass the notion that the week before the election, the market surged as people thought McCain was going to win, (name one pollster that suggested McCain was closing the gap or that didn't have an over 300 electoral count for Obama), then it tanks Wednesday and Thursday because of Obama winning ... COMPLETELY leaving out the fact news of horrible retail sales, auto makers, and 200k job losses etc that were announced.
Today the Market went up 250 points ... what now ... DICK!
He's a fucking propogandist moron. And of course, a frequent Fox News contributor.
He and Hannity go off on the fairness doctrine, how talk radio is going to be stifled ... Obama has said over and over he is against the Fairness Doctrine ... GIVE ... IT ... UP ... fucking scare tactics.
People need to settle down and give this, oh ... a WEEK and we'll see who the other appointees are ...
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
Honestly do you think he was chosen because of his Pro-Israel stance. Newsflash our entire government is pro Israel. He was chosen for his experience int he Clinton White house, his long standing in the House of Representatives, and his ability to stand up to the Right on important issues.
I'm all for the choice.
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
You need to read his 2006 book. Then think about his position (chief of staff) and then think about where America may be headed.
That should speak volumes.
This is a guy who didn't want the puppet Prime Minister of Iraq to speak to Congress because he criticized Israel.
That should speak volumes.
Where will this guy lead us to in terms of our standing in the world? Obama wants the US to be the 'beacon of light' in the world. how can we do something like that if we reject people from speaking to our government? what do you think his stance will be on Iran, in terms of Israel? Lebanon? Syria? do you honestly think this guy will lead us to a better status in the world? our fundamental and unilateral support of Israel is a HUGE problem, and this guy will only further these things, not help make them better, and certainly not even keep them the same. The fact that people are so quick to excuse these things is absurd.
Also, I believe he's only been a Representative since the 2003... that's not really "long standing", though that's beside the point.
"Forget the Honeymoon
Getting down to bizness with Obama
by Justin Raimondo
When I hear talk of a "honeymoon" for the President-elect – to last as long as six months, by some accounts – I think: "Fine. You lay off, and I'll do the same." But oh no, it doesn't work that way. Obama has already started in on us, and he hasn't even taken the oath of office yet. I'm talking about his appointments, starting with Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff.
Hey, I thought we were gong to be treated to a bipartisan approach by the Obama administration, that he was going to "reach across the aisle" – what happened to that? Señor Emanuel is known as a street-fightin' Democrat, and that's understating it. A Rolling Stone profile of Emanuel had this to say:
"There's the story of how, the night after Clinton was elected, Emanuel was so angry at the president's enemies that he stood up at a celebratory dinner with colleagues from the campaign, grabbed a steak knife and began rattling off a list of betrayers, shouting 'Dead! . . . Dead! . . . Dead!' and plunging the knife into the table after every name. 'When he was done, the table looked like a lunar landscape,' one campaign veteran recalls. 'It was like something out of The Godfather.'"
He's mean, he's ultra-partisan, and he's a fully-paid up member in good standing of the War Party: during the Democratic primaries in 2006, when Emanuel headed up the Dems' congressional operation, he backed pro-war candidates over antiwar Democrats every time. As Bill Safire put it on "Meet the Press" just before Tim Russert died:
"What about Rahm Emanuel [for Vice President], the most powerful voice in the House of Representatives that agrees with Hillary Clinton on foreign affairs? He's a hawk. And although he's a rootin' tootin' liberal on domestic affairs, he is a hawk on foreign affairs. I was at the – a roast for him for Epilepsy Association, and Hillary Clinton was there, and I said, quite frankly, here you have the hawkish side of the Democratic Party. If they get together, the bumper sticker will read 'Invade and bomb with Hillary and Rahm.'"
When the House Democratic majority passed a military appropriations bill slated for Iraq, a clause that would have prohibited an attack on Iran without a vote in Congress was deleted at the instigation of Emanuel and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. When Rep. John Murtha presaged the popular rebellion against the Iraq war by coming out against it in no uncertain terms, Emanuel urged Pelosi to refrain from endorsing his call for withdrawal, arguing that it would hurt the Democrats politically.
With the smiling face of Don Obama serving as a front for the knife-wielding Emanuel and his "legendary intensity" – as Rolling Stone writer Joshua Green puts it – one has to wonder: what (or who) else does the Prez-elect have in store for us?
The answer is: Jane Harman – as head of the CIA! (If she doesn't get it, not to worry: she's also up for head of Homeland Security – and if she doesn't get that, she's on the short list for National Intelligence czarina).
Will somebody go see if Glenn Greenwald is okay? I fear he may have done something drastic, especially after all that gushing he's done over the Dear Leader.
Harman has always taken the side of the Bushies when it comes to eavesdropping: during Gen Michael Hayden's confirmation hearings for CIA director, she was against making government eavesdropping an issue. When the New York Times revealed the illegal eavesdropping program authorized by Bush, she was outraged – at the Times, which she strongly hinted ought to be prosecuted. She was pro-war, and did her part in spreading the "bad intel" she now claims to have been fooled by – declaring not only that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but also purveying the rather far-out notion that al-Qaeda had taken up residence there prior to the US invasion.
Harman's ambition is matched only by her recklessness: she came up against the FBI, in 2006, when she was investigated for going a little too far in her aggressive campaign to retain her seat as head of the House Intelligence Committee. Apparently she had AIPAC officials and major Democratic donors personally lobby Pelosi, in return for the promise that she, Harman, would intercede on behalf of Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, two top AIPAC officials currently being prosecuted for stealing US top secret intelligence and passing it on to Israeli officials. Law enforcement officials aver hard evidence for this quid pro quo was never uncovered. I'm hoping, however, that some Republican back-bencher has the balls to bring it up at her confirmation hearing. Perhaps they could call Pelosi as a witness.
Combined with the foreign policy views of Dennis Ross, Obama's senior advisor for Middle East affairs – who is reportedly up for the National Security Advisor slot – what seems to be shaping up is a perfect trifecta of trouble on the horizon. The old adage that presidents rarely govern in synch with the way they campaign applies here, and in spades. Change? Not in the foreign policy realm, buster. Indeed, if any change is involved, it may well be for the worse.
By the time Obama is through making his appointments, all those Hollywood liberals over at the HuffPuffPost will be huffing and puffing with outrage: and, in true Hollywood style, they'll be screaming: "Forget the honeymoon – I want a divorce!"
But it will be too late for that. The Big O marches on, with all sorts of plans for our future, including perhaps "national service," and – for sure – a significant ratcheting-up of the war in Afghanistan. In the meantime, Iran continues to loom large as an issue.
Just as Obama was claiming his victory, the Iranians were warning us to stay away from their airspace – there have apparently been a number of close calls recently. Also, the Russians announced they were putting missiles near their border with Poland, to counter the sophisticated anti-missile "defense" systems put in place by the US and its Eastern European ally. Adding insult to injury, the official explanation for the US deployment is that the anti-missile system is there to guard against an Iranian attack. Whether the Obama-ites buy into this sort of malarkey or not isn't clear. What is all too obvious, however, is that President Obama will continue the West's war of words – and "soft power" – against the Russians, a prospect that bodes ill for the cause of peace.
So, you thought you were turning over a whole new leaf for the country when you marked your ballot for the Dear Leader – didn't you? Well, surprise – surprise!"
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13728
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Classic,