• All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out.

  • I.F. Stone

zaterdag 8 november 2008

Obama 41

'President Obama will be dependent on the information and advice given to him. Since the time when President Eisenhower warned against the military-industrial complex as a potential problem, it has fed and grown on public funds with a life of its own to the extent that it might be impossible to scale back. The Iraq war, for example, not only enriches politically influential individuals but also provides employment for many ordinary workers. The loss of these jobs would have important political effects for individual members of Congress and the Sentate. The scale of the US’s overall military spending is appropriate to its perceived global mission rather than defence of the US itself. It may be expected that there would be strong resistance to reducing this drain on the economy, unproductive though it is, due to the loss of both career opportunities and civilian jobs supported by military expenditure. Presidential advisers have their personal and sectoral interests at heart rather than the best interests of the American people, much less the rest of the world. This is particularly true of the powerful Zionist lobby. The information and briefings that President Obama receives will always be biased. How he deals with them will depend on his personal world view, about which we know nothing. To be realistic, beyond the euphoria of seeing this charismatic man supplant what is probably the worst US administration in its history, what we have seen to date has been a marketing exercise to achieve his election. Obama looks good. America and the world need someone who looks like this but we shall see what he can do. There are some critical test cases by which he will be judged, among them, his policies on Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Russia, NATO and Israel/Palestine. I hope I’m wrong, but I confess that I am not hopeful. I wish I could be. Anthony Blair looked good too when elected, but there was rot in his heart. The American case is different, to be sure, but it’s the American mission that worries me. Perhaps I would be more optimistic for Barack Obama if it had not been for Colin Powell who seemed to be the articulate, liberal, fair-minded soldier and a potential presidential candidate – until he made his United Nations speech. Complete rubbish. If I could give President Obama a few words of advice they would be: “Remember Colin Powell.”'

Chef Staf Rahm Emanuel 13

'Obama’s Trojan Horse
By Paul J. Balles
8 November 2008

Paul J. Balles considers the implications of the appointment by US President-elect Barack Obama of an Israeli, Rahm Emanuel – a Zionist, pro-war Israel lobbyist – as White House chief of staff.

Much of the world has been rejoicing over the election of Barack Obama as the next president of the United States. The fact that Obama has overcome more than 200 years of slavery morphing into bigotry is worth celebrating. Obama has realized Martin Luther King’s dream.We can only be hopeful that the president-elect will be neither too naive nor too clever to perform at least 50 per cent better than his predecessor, who winds down eight of the worst presidential years in history with a popularity rating of 26 per cent.As might be expected, the liberal media praised both Obama and his public, and the conservatives began looking for faults. It didn’t take long for the Rupert Murdoch crowd at Fox News to pick up the story of how Obama chose an Israeli/American as his chief of staff.But, for the liberals, listen to the enthusiastic celebratory voices coming from the op ed columnists for the New York Times:Gail Collins bubbles with enthusiasm when she writes, "Today, you can bask in the realization that there are billions of people around the planet who loathed our country last week but are now in awe of its capacity to rise above historic fears." What are those billions going to think when they discover that an Israeli (according to Haaretz) has been chosen as Obama's chief of staff, one of the most important and powerful positions in the administration?Maureen Dowd happily gloats, "Some people said that a President Obama would make the White House the Black House. The opposite is true: Barack Obama has the chance to make the White House pristine again." How pristine is it when slating Emanuel for chief of staff cancels the message from Barack Obama that the Iraq war was something we shouldn’t have fought in the first place. Emanuel plugged vigorously for the Iraq war.Nicholas Kristof seems to believe that the country will be led by a president who won't pander to the wealthy. He's quoted as saying, "Barack Obama’s election may be a political milestone, ending an era in which Republicans succeeded at winning votes from the working poor to cut taxes for billionaires."Emanuel is only a millionaire who made his wealth in the same way that the billionaires did. Emanuel went into investment banking, reportedly earning 18 million US dollars in just over two years at Wasserstein Perella & Co and Dresdner Kleinwort.Roger Cohen seems to think of Obama as "perfecting the union", and writes, "Barack Obama’s idea, put simply, was that America can be better than it has been. It can embody once more what the world still craves from the American idea: hope."What hope can a clear-headed observer have faced with an Obama chief of staff whose father was a member of the Israeli terrorist group Irgun and who, himself, briefly joined the Israeli Defence Force in 1991?Matt Mendelsohn found only a few to photograph at the Lincoln Memorial on the night of the election, and writes, "The crowd standing in the shadow of Lincoln had the scoop, a profound event to themselves, of the people and by the people."Why was “for the people” omitted from Lincoln’s “...of the people, by the people, for the people...?” For which people? Israelis?Colson Whitehead, a skinny black guy writing about a skinny black guy, told the New York Times: "A lot of bigots woke up yesterday to the reality of our modern world.” Wait until all of us wake up to the reality of tomorrow’s world, with Emanuel steering the helmsman!
Paul J. Balles is a retired American university professor and freelance writer who has lived in the Middle East for many years. For more information, see http://www.pballes.com/.

ShareThis
Copyright © 2000-2008 Redress Information & Analysis.All rights reserved.'

De Pro Israel Lobby 81




Nog meer informatie die de Nederlandse commerciele massamedia verzwijgen.

'"I am a Zionist. You Don't Have to be a Jew to be a Zionist!"
Biden and Israel
By ROBERT WEITZEL

“If I were a Jew, I would be a Zionist. I am a Zionist. You don’t have to be a Jew to be a Zionist.”
- Senator Joseph Biden
Considering the last eight years and the current (viable) options, I’ll admit to wanting Barak Obama in the White House in January. Undoubtedly, more people around the world will have a better chance of surviving the next four years with his finger on—or rather off—the button. However . . .For all of Obama’s campaign promises of “change,” his choice of Joseph Biden as his running mate sends a clear signal to Israel’s lobby in Washington and its right-wing government in Jerusalem that for the next four years there will be no change in the United States’ unconditional support or its annual $6 billion in direct and indirect aid.Predictably, neither will there be a change in the hopelessness and the impotent rage of the Arabs suffering under a U.S.-supported Zionist ideology in Palestine.Senator Biden is the ardently pro-Israel chair of the Foreign Relations Committee. He is a 36-year veteran politician whose specialty is foreign policy. When he told a reporter from the Jewish cable network, Shalom TV, that he is a Zionist, he knew the implications of that admission for the Palestinians, the entirety of the Arab world, and America’s global “war on terror.”Matt Dorf, the Jewish outreach coordinator for the Democratic National Committee, said that “Israel would have no better friend in the vice president’s office than Joe Biden.” Dorf might just as easily—and as honestly—have said, “Palestinians would have no greater foe in the vice president’s office than Joe Biden.”Commenting on the unrest in Palestine in 2007, Biden planted his flag deep in Israel’s camp: “The responsibility rests on those who will not acknowledge the right of Israel to exist, will not play fair, will not deal, will not renounce terror.”
Obama’s running mate has chosen his side. He cannot be a neutral American statesman brokering a Middle East peace or he cannot be a Zionist.One cannot be a Zionist and place the suffering of Palestinians on the same moral plane as that of Israeli Jews.One cannot be a Zionist and demand that Israel dismantle its illegal settlements that co-opt nearly half the land in the Gaza Strip and Occupied West Bank.One cannot be a Zionist and place the blame for sixty years of violence and the deaths of innocent thousands—both Palestinian and Israeli—on the cold-blooded determination with which the Zionist cadre executed the ethnic cleansing of 800,000 Palestinians from the land they had inhabited for untold generations. One cannot be a Zionist and contemplate the return of Palestinians to their homes that are now occupied by Israeli Jews or the rebuilding of the 500 Palestinian villages destroyed during the great Nakba (catastrophe) of 1948.One cannot be a Zionist and abandon the dream of Eretz Israel in order to live as equals with an Arab neighbor in a truly democratic Palestine-Israel.One cannot be a Zionist and demand that Israel’s apartheid wall be torn down.One can be a Jew. One can be an Israeli. But one cannot be a Zionist.Joseph Biden is neither a Jew nor an Israeli. He is the Democratic vice presidential candidate who unabashedly declared, “The Democrats’ support for Israel comes from our gut . . . and ends up in our heads.” Sound familiar? Haven’t we already had eight years of a president who “thinks” with his gut and expects the rest of us to behave like dung beetle larvae? Speaking strictly for myself, I’m tired of their balls of poo.Could it be there is no difference, no possibility of change as Obama promises, between the Democratic and Republican parties’ subservience to Israel’s shadow government on K Street or their tacit support of Israel’s internationally condemned policies toward the Palestinians?Could it be that the two parties’ overt support for Israel’s regional aggression exacerbates the “war on terror” and makes the people their candidates swear to God to protect and defend less safe? Could it be that the “ball of dung” being fed to the American people by both parties conceals the obvious truth that there is no strategic value in our irrational alliance with Israel?Commenting on the unrest in Palestine in 1921, Winston Churchill, one of the architects of the modern Middle East, told the House of Commons: “The cause of unrest in Palestine, and the only cause, arises from the Zionist movement, and from our promises and pledges in regard to it.”Joseph Biden’s self-professed Zionism plays well on Shalom TV, but it is a liability for the United States in the global “war on terror” and a death warrant for Palestinian and Israeli innocents.
Robert Weitzel is a contributing editor to Media With a Conscience. His essays regularly appear in The Capital Times in Madison, WI. He can be contacted at: robertweitzel@mac.com

Obama 40

Nu verkrijgbaar bij uw locale dealer voor 29 euro en 99 cent.


Tijdens het gesprek van vanochtend op dat zonnige terras over Obama zei de enige vrouw in het gezelschap tegen me: 'Geloof je niet in de Vooruitgang? Wat een buitengewoon somber wereldbeeld heb jij dan. Wat afschuwelijk,' en ze keek me aan zoals een moeder naar een foto van haar verloren zoon kijkt. Het simpele Vooruitgangsgeloof is eigenlijk nog het enige van waarde dat de westerse blanke middenklasse bezit. En dat geloof is een grove, ernstig vervormde manifestatie van het verlangen naar harmonie, rust, liefde. Ik reageerde als volgt: 'Ik geloof niet in de Vooruitgang zolang die beperkt blijft bij een materiele vooruitgang, er is geen sprake van morele of intellectuele vooruitgang wanneer de mens niet langer meer elkaar met een knots maar met een kernwapen te lijf gaat. Integendeel, gezien het effect van een kernwapen is een knots van een moreel veel hogere orde. Ik denk dat alleen een mentale vooruitgang een werkelijke vooruitgang betekent.' Het gezelschap zweeg tot mijn Friese vriend weer met het voorbeeld van zijn vader aankwam die landarbeider was geweest en een zoon had die kon studeren. Maar omdat dit het onderwerp niet was van het gesprek ging ik er verder niet op in. Wat me opviel was het gebrek aan intellectuele vaardigheden, het onvermogen van mijn oude vrienden om buiten de strak omlijnde kaders te denken, ik merkte hoe gevangen ze zaten in cliche's, hoe manicheïstisch hun wereldbeeld is, waarbij wij westerlingen natuurlijke de goede partij zijn, hoe conservatief ze zich gedroegen, hoe weinig het leven ze nog liet spelen.

Gisteren schreef Henk Hofland, wiens geest en ledematen nog steeds uiterst soepel zijn, zoals ik op gezette tijden kan constateren, in de NRC naar aanleiding van een Amerikaanse studie het volgende: 'Het is heel moeilijk, de fundamentale opvattingen van iemand na zijn vijftiende nog te veranderen. Ben je in een liberal gezin opgevoed, dan blijf je waarschijnlijk liberal tot je laatste snik. (Liberal is in Amerika een vorm van links die bij een grote meerderheid bij voorbaat verdacht is). Voor conservatief en reactionair geldt mutatis mutandis hetzelfde. Mij lijkt het plausibel. Radicale politieke bekeringen zijn betrekkelijk zeldzaam. Veel waarschijnlijker is het dat de kinderen die na hun vijftiende in grote trekken gevormd zijn, daarna op zoek gaan naar alles waarin ze bevestiging van hun gelijk vinden.'

Misschien is dit wel de verklaring. Wat mij is opgevallen is dat veel mensen die in de jaren zestig modieus links waren, midden jaren zeventig steeds behoudender werden, en dat hun opvattingen begonnen te lijken op de ideologische praatjes van hun ouders.

Obama 39

Vanochtend sprak ik op een zonnig terras in het centrum van Amsterdam een aantal oude vrienden van me, die laaiend enthousiast de verkiezing van Obama als president van de VS bespraken. Na een tijdje te hebben geluisterd merkte ik op dat ik veel sceptischer was over Obama en zei dat de toekomstige president, in strijd met het internationaal recht, voor de Israelische bezetting van Oost-Jeruzalem was en dat hij een pro-Israel lobbyist tot op 1 na machtigste man in het Witte Huis had benoemd. Een man, wiens vader een oud terrorist was die desgevraagd verklaard had: 'Obviously, he (zijn zoon svh) will influence the President to be pro-Israel," said the elder Emanuel, who immigrated to the U.S. from Israel in the 1950s."Why shouldn't he do it? What is he, an Arab? He's not going to clean the floor of the White House."' Hoe de activiteiten de volgens Haaretz Israeli Rahm Emanuel in de praktijk zullen uitwerken weet niemand, maar het belooft weinig goeds dat na acht jaar Bush een pro-Israel lobbyist via de achterdeur het Witte Huis binnen wordt gesluisd.

Het was alsof ik een bom had gegooid in het gezelschap oude vrienden, allen blanke, goed opgeleide Nederlanders, die ieder voor zich een interressante positie in de Nederlandse hierarchie hebben bekleed of nog steeds bekleden. 'Ja, maar Stan gelooft niet in de Vooruitgang,' was de mening van 1 van hen. Over de Vooruitgang had ik niet gesproken, maar deze reactie was ook een absurde poging mijn feiten te weerleggen. Vervolgens werden mij allerlei opinies in de mond gelegd, die ik niet en nooit eerder had verkondigd. Ik was enigszins verbaasd over de geweldig felheid waarmee mijn oude vrienden het beeld van Obama verdedigden. Ik zeg beeld, omdat we nog steeds niet precies weten wat Obama's politieke inzichten zijn, en welke politiek hij zal weten te verwezenlijken.
'Dat er wel degelijk sprake is van Vooruitgang blijkt uit mijn achtergrond,' zei een vriend van me, 'mijn vader was een landarbeider in Friesland en ik heb kunnen studeren.' Ik kon hem niet aan zijn verstand brengen dat zijn vooruitgang natuurlijk een feit was, maar dat daarmee niets over de wereld werd gezegd, waar tenminste 900 miljoen mensen elke dag weer honger lijden, en dat men het een niet kan loskoppelen van het ander. De Vooruitgang van mijn vriend, wordt mogelijk gemaakt door het arme deel van de wereld, waar wij onze grondstoffen van betrekken tegen grotendeels door ons bepaalde prijzen, en waar bijvoorbeeld vrouwen in Indonesie voor 1 dollar per dag in sweatshops, zijn kleren en onze schoenen maken. Maar deze feiten waren voor hem nonsens. Die onderstrepen volgens hem geenszins dat er ook een andere, zwarte kant aan de Vooruitgang zit. En toch heeft deze oude vriend van me kunnen studeren. Het gaat ook niet zozeer om kennis, maar om inzicht, om datgene wat men met die kennis doet, om het vermogen die kennis vruchtbaar te maken. Veel mensen lukt dat niet. Het is geen kwestie van domheid, maar een kwestie van simpel geloof. De gelovigen in de Verlichting kunnen evenmin als de gelovigen in God twijfel toestaan. Allen geloven in een zwart/wereld, goed/kwaad, dom/intelligent en tegen simpel geloof is geen enkele kennis bestand. Paradoxaal genoeg, ook tegen het Verlichtingsgeloof niet. Natuurlijk geloven ze niet echt in de Verlichting, want dan zouden ze juist de twijfel toelaten, zoals een echte gelovige in God durft te twijfelen.
Geen van de mensen in mijn gezelschap wist meer over Obama dan het beeld dat de commerciele massamedia van hem hadden opgeroepen. En daarom bezat deze Nederlandse blanke middenklasse een rotsvaste opinie over Obama. Ik zei verbaasd te zijn over het Nederlandse enthousiasme voor een conservatieve politicus die geen respect blijkt te hebben voor het internationaal recht zodra het Israel aangaat. Nog meer woede, die leidde tot de beschuldiging dat ik een 'cynicus' was. Ik zei dat ze zich vergisten, dat er een verschil is tussen cynisme en scepsis. Bovendien, zei ik, is het heel merkwaardig dat de bewoners van een land dat na de Tweede Wereldoorlog nooit een gekleurde minister heeft gekend ineens zo enthousiast is dat de kiezers in de VS een zwarte president hebben gekozen. Mijn gespreksgenoten ontploften bijna. En de razernij was totaal toen ik zei dat doorgaans de houding van Nederlanders consequentieloos is. Men beweert maar wat, ventileert een meninkje, en klaar is Kees, terwijl in de rest van de wereld de consequenties moet dragen van in dit geval het gewelddadig beleid van de VS.
Op weg naar huis realiseerde ik me dat mijn oude vrienden zich met veel verbaal geweld zullen vasthouden aan hun hoop. Temidden van alle dagelijkse chaos hebben ze niets anders en dan ineens is er Obama en lijkt het alsof er weer sprake is van hoop. En degene die daarin niet voetstoots meegaat, is een bedreiging. Hij verstoort de mythe. Feiten spelen daarin geen rol. Het zijn emoties, die de drijfveren zijn. Een van mijn vrienden zei dat wanneer hij Obama hoorde spreken, hij voelde dat de man meende wat hij zei, want dat voelde hij met zijn instinct. Maar wat had Obama dan verklaart? Nou ja, Change!
Het is duidelijk: de eerst komende tijd zal de mythe van Obama overeind worden gehouden, al was het maar omdat mijn blanke vrienden niet zonder die mythe kunnen. De wereld is al gruwelijk genoeg, men heeft hoop nodig, en degene die twijfelt krijgt de wind van voren. Het is niet anders, ze blijven mijn oude vrienden.

Ondertussen blijf ik kijken naar de feiten. Wat Obama precies gaat doen weten we niet. Het is afwachten. Wie weet, 1 ding weten we in elk geval, Obama zal de blanke middenklasse moeten redden, anders komt de Amerikaanse parlementaire democratie in gevaar. Ik was dan ook niet verbaasd dat de Volkskrant vandaag op de voorpagina bericht: "De volgende Amerikaanse president Obama kondigde vrijdag in Chicago een 'reddingsplan voor de middenklasse' aan." Want alles goed en wel, de middenklasse is bereid in een mythe te geloven zolang ze er zelf beter van wordt. En dat geldt ook voor mijn oude vrienden. De rest zijn praatje voor de vaak.

Chef Staf Rahm Emanuel 12


'Sonja heeft een nieuwe reactie op uw bericht "De Commerciele Massamedia 159" achtergelaten: Nog een dan.Interessant interview bij The Real News gisteren, Who is Rahm Emanuel?. O.a. wordt naar voren gebracht dat Emanuel in Washington heeft gelobbiet om de oorlog in Irak nog twee jaar te laten voortduren. Niet zozeer omdat "Rahmbo" voor die oorlog is, maar om sterker te staan tegenover de Republikeinen tijdens de verkiezingscampagne. Geplaatst door Sonja op stan op 8:58 AM'

Ik email al deze berichten naar mijn collega's bij de commerciele massamedia, louter en alleen om te kijken hoelang ze deze informatie kunnen verzwijgen. Doet u dit ook svp. Het is interessant te weten hoe lang ze doof en blind kunnen blijven, hoe lang ze relevante informatie kunnen achterhouden.
En iedereen die me berichten over Rahm Emanuel opsturen, bedankt.

Chef Staf Rahm Emanuel 11

Een foto van Obama en Emanuel uit 2004 toen Obama nog niet bekend was.

Dit is wat de Nederlandse commerciele massamedia verzwijgen:

'Rahm Emanuel is pro-Israel, pro-Iraq war Zionist lobbyist
By Redress Information & Analysis
7 November 2008

US President-elect Barack Obama has chosen a former Israeli soldier, Israel lobbyist and son of a Zionist terrorist as his chief of staff, dashing misplaced hopes that his presidency would usher in a change in Washington’s unconditional support of Israeli crimes in the Middle East.Israel-first Rahm Israel Emanuel (born 1959) is, or was, a dual Israeli-US citizen (the Israeli newspaper Haaretz describes him as “Israeli”).On 6 November 2008, Emanuel accepted an offer from President-elect Barack Obama to become the White House chief of staff in Obama’s administration, which begins on 20 January 2009.Rahm Emanuel was reportedly born in Chicago, Illinois. His father, the Jerusalem-born Benjamin M. Emanuel, is a former member of the Irgun, a Zionist terrorist group active in the British Mandate of Palestine between 1931 and 1948.Rahm Emanuel was a volunteer in the Israeli Occupation Forces in 1991.Open Secrets reports that Rahm Israel Emanuel “was the top House recipient in the 2008 election cycle of contributions from hedge funds, private equity firms and the larger securities/investment industry”.Following the end of the Clinton presidency, Emanuel went into investment banking, reportedly earning 18 million US dollars in just over two years at Wasserstein Perella & Co and Dresdner Kleinwort.During his original 2002 campaign, Emanuel “indicated his support of President Bush’s position on Iraq...”Emanuel held a seat on the quasi-governmental Freddie Mac board, which paid him 231,655 dollars in director’s fees in 2001 and 31,060 dollars in 2000... During the time Emanuel spent on the board, Freddie Mac was plagued with scandal involving campaign contributions and accounting irregularities...”A 2006 Chicago Tribune article raised speculation regarding a possible connection between Emanuel’s Congressional election success and convicted former Chicago water department boss Don Tomczak.USA Today reported in late January 2007 that Emanuel failed to disclose that he was an officer of a family charity, a violation of law requiring members of Congress to report non-profit leadership roles. The charity does not ask for outside donations and is funded by Emanuel and his family.Emanuel, whose father was in the Irgun Zionist terrorist group, is a strong supporter of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and personally introduced Barack Obama to the organization’s directors during the 2008 presidential campaign.
What other people say about Israel Rahm Emanuel
Christine Cegelis. Cegelis is an information technology professional in the Chicago area who ran as the Democratic nominee for Congress against longtime incumbent Henry Hyde in 2004, winning an unexpected 44 per cent of the vote. After Hyde announced he would be retiring, she attempted to run again in 2006, but Emanuel – then head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee – backed a Democrat less critical of the Iraq war, Tammy Duckworth, who defeated Cegelis in the primary. Duckworth ended up losing in the general election.Cegelis said today: “Emanuel has never backed off from his initial support of the invasion of Iraq; he says even knowing everything we know now, he’d still back it. I fear that slating Rahm Emanuel for chief of staff in a sense cancels out the message from Barack Obama that the Iraq war was something we should not have fought in the first place.” See “Democratic House Officials Recruited Wealthy Conservatives.”
David Swanson. Swanson is co-founder of After Downing Street and Washington director of Democrats.com.He said:
Reuters quoted Republican strategist John Feehery happily predicting that Emanuel “is going to spend most of his time cracking Democratic heads, getting them to move from the left to the middle.” It’s a reasonable prediction, because Emanuel has spent the past two years doing that on various issues, most notably Iraq. As chair of the DCCC [Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee] in 2006, Emanuel directed campaign funding overwhelmingly to the more pro-war Democratic candidates and recruited opponents to run against promising anti-war candidates like Christine Cegelis and Jerry McNerney.In January 2007, as chair of the Democratic Caucus when the 110th Congress took office with the clearest anti-war mandate in national history, Emanuel spoke to the Washington Post, which reported: “Don’t look to Emanuel’s Democrats for solutions on Iraq. It’s Bush’s war, and as it splinters the structure of GOP [Grand Old Party – the Republican Party] power, the Democrats are waiting to pick up the pieces.” For two full years,”‘Emanuel’s Democrats” maintained that ending the war on Iraq would require passing legislation, when in truth they could have simply stopped funding it, a conclusion reached by a hearing chaired by Senator Russ Feingold. Their pretence that legislation was needed allowed the Democrats to blame the war on Republican senators’ filibuster power and presidential vetoes.Those excuses may be gone now, but my concern is what we’ve learned about Emanuel’s priorities.”

Zie: http://www.redress.cc/americas/redress20081107

Chef Staf Rahm Emanuel 10

De New Yorkse krant de Daily News bericht:

'Dr. Benjamin Emanuel, once a member of the Irgun militia that fought for Israel's statehood, was asked in an interview with the Hebrew daily Maariv if his son's appointment would be good for Israel.
"Obviously, he will influence the President to be pro-Israel," said the elder Emanuel, who immigrated to the
U.S. from Israel in the 1950s.
"Why shouldn't he do it? What is he, an Arab? He's not going to clean the floor of the White House."'

Ook uit de laatste opmerking van dr. Benjamin Emanuel, de vader van de straks op 1 na machtigste man in het Witte Huis, blijkt in wat voor een racistisch milieu Rahm Emanuel is opgegroeid. Arabieren zijn in de ogen van dit soort zionisten lui die het vuile werk moeten opknappen, en joden zijn er om presidenten van het machtigste land op aarde te beinvloeden. Dr. Benjamin Emanuel was lid van de zionistische terreurgroep Irgun die aanslagen pleegden op Palestijnse burgers en Britse militairen waarbij honderden doden vielen, onder wie bijna alle inwoners van het dorp Deir Yassin. Het opmerkelijke is dat dr. Benjamin Emanuel nadat hij via terreur meegewerkt had aan de etnische zuivering van Palestina, naar de VS verhuisde. Dat wat betreft zijn zionistisch geloof.

Nu de uitspraak: "Obviously, he will influence the President to be pro-Israel," said the elder Emanuel, who immigrated to the U.S. from Israel in the 1950s." De juistheid van die uitspraak spreekt voor zich. Obama leeft niet in het luchtledige. Hij wordt geflankeerd door leden van de invloedrijkste belangengroepen in de VS, de mensen die hem uitkozen om gekozen te worden. De mensen die genoeg kapitaal en dus invloed hebben om de volstrekt onbekende Obama vanuit de obscuriteit te parachuteren op het wereldtoneel. En toen dat was gebeurd, was het slechts een kwestie van het marketing van het product. Maar dat is een verhaal dat u niet in de westerse commerciele massamedia zult lezen. De mythe moet blijven bestaan dat we hier te maken hebben met een democratie.

Dit is wat de Amerikaanse president Woodrow Wilson in 1913 schreef in zijn boek 'The New Freedom: A Call For the Emancipation of the Generous Energies of a People, chapter 8': "A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men who, even if their action be honest and intended for the public interest, are necessarily concentrated upon the great undertakings in which their own money is involved and who necessarily, by very reason of their own limitations, chill and check and destroy genuine economic freedom."

Maar wederom, deze informatie van een Amerikaanse president zelf, die uit ervaring sprak, zult u niet snel via de westerse commerciele massamedia vernemen en wel omdat deze feiten niet in het propagandabeeld van een parlementaire democratie passen. Vandaar ook dat u niet snel de racistische uitspraken van de terrorist dr. Benjamin Emauel in de Nederlandse commerciele massamedia zult lezen. De Volkskrant van vanochtend bijvoorbeeld is nog steeds bezig met de verkoop van het sprookje van Obama. 'Wereldwijde superstatus voor Barack.' Interessanter zou zijn als de Volkskrant zou onderzoeken hoe Obama een 'superstatus' verkreeg. In elk geval niet door kennis van zijn politieke inzichten. Ik hou het erop dat de pers hem goed verkocht heeft. Branding, marketing van het product, dat zijn de sleutelwoorden in de moderne wereld. Maar daar zit een kwalijke kant aan, net zoals Coca Cola ernstige nadelen kent. Daarover straks meer.

vrijdag 7 november 2008

De Commerciele Massamedia 159


De Israelische kwaliteitskrant Haaretz bericht:
'William Daroff, the director of the Washington office of the United Jewish Communities (UJC), an umbrella organization representing 155 Jewish Federations and 400 independent Jewish communities across North America, said Thursday "Rep. Emanuel is among the smartest political tacticians and policy-makers that is on the scene in Washington." [...] "Rep. Emanuel is also a good friend of Israel, coming from good Irgun stock, davening at an Orthodox synagogue, and sending his children to Jewish day schools," Daroff concluded.'
Zie: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1035128.html

De toekomstige chefstaf van het Witte Huis, Rahm Emanuel, komt dus volgens de joodse gemeenschap in de VS, verenigd in de United Jewish Comnmunities, uit 'een goede Irgun familie'.

Op de foto's hierboven liggen de Palestijnse slachtoffers van onder andere de Irgun, bewoners van het Palestijnse dorp Deir Yassin die op 9 april 1948, aan de vooravond van de Israelische Onafhankelijkheidsverklaring, door joodse terroristen werden vermoord. In totaal werden, volgens de New York Times, 254 Palestijnse mannen, vrouwen en kinderen afgeslacht. Deir Yassin is een begrip voor zowel de Palestijnen als voor de joods-Israelis. Zie: http://www.deiryassin.org/index1.html

Menachem Begin, de leider van de Irgun, een van de terroristische bendes verantwoordelijk voor dit bloedbad, werd later premier van Israel. Na Deir Yassin verklaarde hij trots: "We created terror among the Arabs and all the villages around. In one blow, we changed the strategic situation... Arabs throughout the country, induced to believe wild tales of 'Irgun butchery,' were seized with limitless panic and started to flee for their lives. This mass flight soon developed into a maddened, uncontrollable stampede. The political and economic significance of this development can hardly be overestimated.''

En juist door de zionistische etnische zuivering van Palestina waarbij tenminste 750.000 Palestijna burgers van hun grondgebied werden verdreven, kwalificeert de woordvoerder van de Amerikaanse joodse gemeenschap de toekomstige chefstaf van het Witte Huis als iemand die afkomstig is uit 'een goede Irgun familie.' Dat de United Jewish Communities terreur verheerlijken mag in Nederland niet bekend worden gemaakt door de commerciele massamedia. En dus zwijgen ze over deze - voor de toekomst - relevante informatie. Dat allemaal in het kader van de persvrijheid.

Chef Staf Rahm Emanuel 9


Het King David Hotel in Jeruzalem na de bomaanslag van de zionistische terreurgroep Irgun, zoals u op deze afbeelding in het Irgun Museum in Tel Aviv kan zien, waar men nog steeds trots laat zien hoe de aanslag gepleegd werd waarbij meer dan 90 mensen vermoord werden. Op het embleem van de Irgun kunt u zien dat deze zionistische terreur-organisatie ook Jordanie had willen veroveren. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing

Foto's van zionistische terroristen die in het Irgun Museum in Tel Aviv worden vereerd.

De Israelische kwaliteitskrant Haaretz bericht:
'William Daroff, the director of the Washington office of the United Jewish Communities (UJC), an umbrella organization representing 155 Jewish Federations and 400 independent Jewish communities across North America, said Thursday "Rep. Emanuel is among the smartest political tacticians and policy-makers that is on the scene in Washington." [...] "Rep. Emanuel is also a good friend of Israel, coming from good Irgun stock, davening at an Orthodox synagogue, and sending his children to Jewish day schools," Daroff concluded.'

De Irgun was een joodse terreur-beweging die de Palestijnse burgerbevolking en de Britse militairen als doelwit nam voor hun terrorisme.
Hierboven ziet u foto's uit het het Irgoen Museum in Tel Aviv. Zoals u kunt opmaken uit het bestaan van dit museum waarin de terreurdaden van de Irgoen openlijk worden verheerlijkt en uit de uitspraak van de directeur van de United Jewish Communities in de VS is de zionistische achterban trots op de joodse terreur. Immers, de toekomstige chefstaf van het Witte Huis, Rahm Emanuel wordt door William Daroff gezien als "coming from good Irgun stock." De vader van Rahm Emanuel had zich bij de Irgun aangesloten. Dat het terroristische milieu waaruit de toekomstig chefstaf van het Witte Huis komt voor de joodse lobby van belang is, blijkt wel uit deze uitspraak. Desondanks verzwijgen de Nederlandse commerciele massamedia angstvallig deze informatie, alsof het totaal irrelevant zou zijn, een opvatting die de United Jewish Communities absoluut niet delen.

Chef Staf Rahm Emanuel 8


'Saturday, July 19, 2008

Rahm Emanuel Was A Freddie Mac Board Member
With the Fannie and Freddie in the news.It's important to look at how the GSE's lobbied Congress to build their dishonest balance sheets.NPR has a list of the politically connected that made it to the GSE boards.Before coming to Congress,Rahm Emanuel was a Freddie Mac board member.This means Rahm Emanuel has some explaining to do.The Chicago Sun-Times reported on Rahm Emanuel's background :
Escapes controversy during impeachment. Leaves White House in 1998, never having to hire a lawyer. Clinton loyalist.Chicago: Returns to Ravenswood, makes millions as an investment banker in a few deals; tapped by Clinton for a plum spot on Freddie Mac board; Daley appointee on CHA board. Wins House seat in 2002 with help of Daley Machine. Daley loyalist. Here's Rahm Emanuel promoting housing in front of a Congressional hearing,after he left Freddie Mac.What did Congressman Emanuel khow about Freddie Mac's balance sheet? What did he vote on as a board member? We wonder if the MSM is going to investigate a key member of Congress on this issue.Can you think of many members of Congress who were on the board of directors of a company caught up in a major scandal before coming to Congress? You'll notice, at the time of this proxy statement, Rahm Emanuel was by far the youngest Freddie Mac board member at 40 years old.Do you know many or any people who are on the board of directors of an S&P 500 company by the time they are 40 years old?
Posted by Steve Bartin at 7:06 AM'

Chef Staf Rahm Emanuel 7

Haaretz: 'VIDEO / U.S. Jews laud Obama pick of Rahm Emanuel for chief of staff
By Natasha Mozgovaya and Anshel Pfeffer, Haaretz Correspondents
Tags: Barack Obama, Israel News

America's Jewish community welcomed U.S. President-elect Barack Obama's pick of Rep. Rahm Emanuel for the post of Chief of Staff, saying that the choice demonstrates that Obama has learned from the mistakes of previous Democratic presidents. On Thursday, Obama announced that Emanuel, a key official in the Clinton administration, had accepted his offer and will serve as the next White House Chief of Staff. William Daroff, the director of the Washington office of the United Jewish Communities (UJC), an umbrella organization representing 155 Jewish Federations and 400 independent Jewish communities across North America, said Thursday "Rep. Emanuel is among the smartest political tacticians and policy-makers that is on the scene in Washington." "He was singularly responsible for guiding many of the top legislative priorities of the Clinton administration when he was a senior White House aide. He crafted the House Democrats plan to regain the majority when he was their campaign committee chairman," Daroff went on to say. "Choosing Rep. Emanuel is a sign that President-elect Obama is learning from the mistakes of the two most recent Democratic Presidents, who brought in Washington outsiders to run the White House, and did so at their own peril - often finding themselves in battles with the Washington Democratic establishment. Emanuel's selection will avoid such 'freshman mistakes'," The UJC official continued. "Rep. Emanuel is also a good friend of Israel, coming from good Irgun stock, davening at an Orthodox synagogue, and sending his children to Jewish day schools," Daroff concluded. Ira N. Forman, Executive Director of the National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC), echoed Daroff's approval, saying in a statement Thursday that "Obama made an outstanding selection. Emanuel has been a forceful and effective leader within the Democratic Party. His voting record and leadership in support of the U.S.-Israel relationship are outstanding." "Emanuel has deep Jewish roots and strong ties to the Jewish community. Emanuel, the son of an Israeli immigrant, has a proven commitment to Israel's security and served as civilian volunteer on an Israeli military base during the Persian Gulf War of 1991," the statement continued. "We congratulate Emanuel and look forward to continuing to work with Emanuel in his new role in the Obama administration." Forman added. Emanuel, a hard-charging Chicagoan, accepted Obama's offer for the job after struggling over family and political considerations. By moving into a top White House job for a second time, Emanuel will have to put aside hopes of becoming speaker of the lower chamber. The son of a Jerusalem-born pediatrician who was a member of the pre-state Irgun, Emanuel was a key figure in the administration of former President Bill Clinton, where he was known for his blunt management style. His selection is a shift in tone for Obama, who chose more low-key leadership for his presidential campaign.'

Chef Staf Rahm Emanuel 6

'Onomstreden is de nieuwe stafchef niet. De Republikeinen in het Congres spraken van een 'ironische' keuze voor een president die juist beloofd heeft de stijl van politiek in Washington te veranderen... Emanuel onderhoudt ook nauwe banden met invloedrijke Democratische geldschieters. Hij verdiende zelf in een paar jaar tijd een fortuin op Wall Street. De familie Emanuel behoort tot de joodse elite in Chicago. Emanuel zelf ging in 1991 naar Israël, zodat hij kon meevechten als de eerste Golfoorlog uit de hand zou lopen.'

Obama 38

Be careful what you wish for Obama a False Hope 11.03.2008
By Nausherwan Hafeez

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”-Mark TwainBarack Obama has been extensively vetted during the past twenty months of his campaign. During this time, Obama has effectively managed to mobilize a diverse group of supporters ranging from young voters, to African-Americans and liberal professionals. He has steadily gained support through a savvy campaign and charismatic charm. He comes from a diverse ethnic background and purportedly offers a “change we can believe in.” With Election Day just around the corner a close analysis of his policies and track record will indicate what kind of President Obama would actually be. In particular, what would an Obama Presidency mean on both progressive issues and issues that affect American Muslims? A close look at his record paints a disturbing picture of a future Obama Presidency.Before turning to Obama, it is important to understand that the American Muslim community is no monolithic group. The estimated seven-million American Muslims are a diverse community that consists of both an indigenous African-American and immigrant population. American Muslims are an under-represented constituency in political affairs even though the Muslim vote could play a critical role in determining who becomes President. There are large clusters of Muslims in key swing states such as Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. In the 2000 election, Muslims played a critical role in getting George W. Bush elected. Delinda C. Hanley, a News Editor at The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, wrote that:
After surveying the community and making overtures to both Bush and his opponent, Vice President Al Gore, the American Muslim Political Coordinating Council Political Action Committee (AMPCC-PAC), comprising the four major American-Muslim organizations—the American Muslim Alliance (AMA), American Muslim Council (AMC), CAIR, and Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), recommended that its members vote for Bush.According to CAIR figures, that recommendation resulted in 78 percent of Muslims voting for George W. Bush. In Florida, the most crucial state in the last elections, exit polls showed that 91 percent of the 60,000 Muslim Americans who voted supported Bush.Muslims were attracted to Bush for his stance on civil liberties, foreign policy, and social values. Muslims turned their support away from Bush after he reneged on his campaign promises and turned out to be a bellicose warmonger. Hanley went on to note that a “June CAIR poll of Muslims who had voted for Bush in 2000 found that 50 percent planned to vote for Kerry, 26 for Nader, only 3 percent for Bush, with the rest not yet sure.” In 2004, the Muslim Electorate Council of America conducted a study that found that there are more than 2 million Muslims eligible to vote in the United States and about 57 percent of them were registered to vote. This election cycle the Muslim vote appears headed towards Obama with the tacit—though not explicit—endorsement by both CAIR and MPAC. Progressives care about a wide range of issues, from universal health-care to an end of our imperialistic wars abroad. Many progressives voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 but have been so cowed by the Bush Presidency that they are willing to sell their ideals short for the lesser of two evils. This strategy will ensure that the Democratic Party will continue to take the progressives vote for granted and we will not see real change. However, progressives still appear to be flocking to Obama.In spite of this, progressives and American Muslims need to temper their enthusiasm for Obama. A close look at his record on civil liberties, foreign policy, economic policy, and personal actions indicate that support for Obama is misplaced.Civil LibertiesOver the past eight years, civil liberties have rapidly declined and this has been a cause for consternation amongst progressives. Issues such as the National Security Agency’s (NSA) illegal warrantless wiretapping program, the Patriot Act, and Faith-Based initiatives have curtailed basic rights. Obama’s stance on these issues has been both highly pernicious and seriously misplaced. Furthermore, he slighted the Muslim community during his March 18, 2008 Speech on Race.NSA WiretappingThe NSA wiretapping is arguably the most blatant government intrusion on American citizens in a generation. This secretive program was exposed in December 2005 by the New York Times and allowed the Bush Administration through to illegally monitor—without warrants—phone calls, e-mails, Internet activity, text messaging, and other communications involving any party believed by the NSA to be outside the U.S. In May of 2006, the USA Today exposed how the NSA had been secretly collecting the phone records of millions Americans with the help of AT&T, Verizon, and BellSouth. This program went above and beyond the legal method to monitor the electronic communication of Americans which was to obtain a warrant from the secret court authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Russel Tice, an NSA whistle-blower, explained:
The FISA court—it’s not very difficult to get something through a FISA court. I kinda liken the FISA court to a monkey with a rubber stamp. The monkey sees a name, the monkey sees a word justification with a block of information. It can’t read the block, but it just stamps “affirmed” on the block, and a banana chip rolls out, and then the next paper rolls in front of the monkey. When you have like 20,000 requests and only, I think, four were turned down, you can’t look at the FISA court as anything different.So, you have to ask yourself the question: Why would someone want to go around the FISA court in something like this? I would think the answer could be that this thing is a lot bigger than even the President has been told it is, and that ultimately a vacuum cleaner approach may have been used, in which case you don’t get names, and that’s ultimately why you wouldn’t go to the FISA court. And I think that’s something Congress needs to address. They need to find out exactly how this system was operated and ultimately determine whether this was indeed a very focused effort or whether this was a vacuum cleaner-type scenario.With the government and telecommunications companies involved in an explicitly illegal wiretapping program, this should have been something that was easily opposed. Since listening in on the private conversations of American citizens without warrants is a felony under U.S. law—punishable by up to 5 years in prison and/or a $10,000 fine for each offense—this program should have been opposed and the criminals involved prosecuted. James Bamford, author of several books on the NSA, explained how the program worked:
[The NSA] picks up communications from satellites, it taps undersea and underground fiber-optic cables, it gets information any way it can, and then some of the information is encrypted, and it’s responsible for breaking those codes and then sending the information that it gets from these intercepts to other agencies. The massive amount of information that the government has obtained illegally is a serious intrusion on all Americans civil liberties. However, Barack Obama opposed prosecution for the criminals involved in this program and, in fact, endorsed the White House’s illegal actions.So how did Obama do this? After the NSA illegal wiretapping program was exposed, the Bush Administration called for an overhaul of the FISA Act. They temporarily received the fix that they wanted in the Protect America Act, but a permanent fix was more elusive. The two major issues that held up a revised FISA bill were the issue of prosecution for those involved in this program and how the new act should be structured. A spokesman for Barack Obama initially stated on October 24, 2007 that:
“To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.”This was the right stance to take. Yet when the final FISA bill came to a vote in the Senate—which included retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies—not only did Obama NOT filibuster the bill, he voted in favor of cloture—a technique that closes discussion on a bill and brings it up for vote—and voted in FAVOR of the revised FISA bill. This was a two-part flip-flop by Obama; he sold out both civil rights activists and did the exact opposite of filibuster this flawed act. The New York Times editorialized that:
[This bill would make it] much easier to spy on Americans at home, reduce the courts’ powers and grant immunity to the companies that turned over Americans’ private communications without a warrant.…The real reason this bill exists is because Mr. Bush decided after 9/11 that he was above the law…Proponents of the FISA deal say companies should not be “punished” for cooperating with the government. That’s Washington-speak for a cover-up. The purpose of withholding immunity is not to punish but to preserve the only chance of unearthing the details of Mr. Bush’s outlaw eavesdropping. Only a few senators, by the way, know just what those companies did.So Obama voted for a severely flawed FISA bill that reduces our civil liberties. The major problems with this bill are that the government can tap any communications Americans have with people overseas and that it granted telecommunication companies retroactive immunity. The criminal activities of the telecommunications companies and the government officials will not be prosecuted. Our constitution will be weaker because of this and Obama is both an enabler and complicit in this government cover-up. Patriot Act...'

Tom-Jan Meeus van de NRC 5


Zes kolommen heeft de NRC vanavond ingeruimd voor informatie over 'Straatvechters Chicago betreden Witte Huis,' waarbij de pro-Israel lobbyist Rahm Emanuel, die guitig aangekondigd wordt als 'Rambo Emanuel' extra aandacht krijgt. Maar geen woord van correspondent Tom-Jan Meeus over het feit dat Emanuel de zoon is van een zionistische terrorist en zelf uitgesproken pro-Israel standpunten in het Congres verdedigde en wat dat betreft als een havik bekend staat. Deze informatie mag de 'slijpsteen voor de geest' niet geven, want het past niet in het consensusbeeld dat door de westerse commerciele massamedia in stand moet worden gehouden. Het spreekt voor zich dat als Rahm Emanuel de zoon was geweest van een Palestijnse terrorist dit dan met een vet gedrukte kop op de voorpagina van de kwaliteitskrant was bekend gemaakt. Wel bericht Tom-Jan dat - geheel in de stijl van de Mafia - Rahm Emanuel 'er prat' opgaat 'dat hij politieke tegenstanders in een enveloppe vis liet sturen.' Enfin, c'est la vie. Niet iedereen kan en mag de waarheid vertellen. Sommigen moeten, in de woorden van de VPRO-journalist Chris Kijne, een 'hoger belang' dienen dan 'de waarheid, niets dan de waarheid.' En in dit geval is dat het belang van de machtige pro-Israel lobby. Relevante informatie die de politiek van het Witte Huis wezenlijk zal bepalen, moet daarbij worden verzwegen.

Obama 37


'Wall Street Fat Cats Are Trying to Pocket Billions in Bailout Cash
By Nomi Prins, AlterNet. Posted November 7, 2008.

They got us into this mess, and now they want to cash out -- will President Obama stop them? The election results pretty much confirmed the extent to which Main Street is rightly livid about the Wall Street mentality that led to our financial crisis. During his historic victory speech, President-elect Barack Obama told supporters, and the rest of the world, "If this financial crisis taught us anything, it's that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers."
But, it seems that Wall Street didn't get that memo. It turns out that the nine banks about to be getting a total equity capital injection of $125 billion, courtesy of Phase I of The Bailout Plan, had reserved $108 billion during the first nine months of 2008 in order to pay for compensation and bonuses (PDF).
Paying Wall Street bonuses was not supposed to be part of the plan. At least that's how Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson explained it to Congress and the American people. So, on Oct. 1, when the Senate, including Obama, approved the $700 billion bailout package, the illusion was that this would magically loosen the credit markets, and with taxpayer-funded relief, banks would first start lending to each other again, and then, to citizens and small businesses. And all would be well.
That didn't happen. Which is why it's particularly offensive that the no-strings-attached money is going to line the pockets of Wall Street execs. The country's top investment bank (which since Sept. 21 calls itself a bank holding company), Goldman Sachs, set aside $11.4 billion during the first nine months of this year -- slightly more than the firm's $10 billion U.S. government gift -- to cover bonus payments for its 443 senior partners, who are set to make about $5 million each, and other employees.
Whereas Wall Street may not believe in higher taxes for the richest citizens, it does believe in higher bonuses for the head honchos. No matter what the market conditions are on the outside, steadfast feelings of entitlement tend to prevail.
Last year, when the financial crisis was just brewing, the top five investment banks paid themselves $39 billion in compensation and bonuses, up 6 percent over 2006. Goldman's CEO, Lloyd C. Blankfein, bagged a record bonus of $60.7 million, including $26.8 million in cash. That amount was nearly double the $38 million that Paulson made at the firm in 2005, the year before he became the Treasury secretary, a post for which he received unanimous approval from the Senate on June 28, 2006.
Two of those firms, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, went bankrupt this year. Bank of America is acquiring a third, Merrill Lynch. Shares in the remaining two, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, took a 60 percent nosedive this year.
Yet, that didn't stop their campaign contribution money from spewing out. Goldman was Obama's largest corporate campaign contributor, with $874,207. Also in his top 20 were three other recipients of bailout capital: JP Morgan/Chase, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley.'

Chef Staf Rahm Emanuel 5


Gisteravond vertelde de Amerikaanse wetenschappelijke medewerkster van onder andere The Transnational Institute, Phyllis Bennis, een zaal geinteresseerden in Amsterdam dat de toekomstige chefstaf van het Witte Huis, Rahm Emanuel, na de Congresverkiezing van 2006 zeven pas gekozen democratische Congresleden bedreigde. Zij waren door de kiezers gesteund vanwege hun felle oppositie tegen de illegale Amerikaanse bezetting van Irak. Het dreigement van Emanuel hield in dat als de volksvertegenwoordigers zouden volharden in hun anti-oorlogshouding hij zou zorgen dat ze niet meer herkozen zouden worden, een dreigement die buitengewoon effectief was omdat bekend is dat Congresleden die niet onvoorwaardelijk de belangen van Israel steunen ogenblikkelijk gedwarsboomd worden door de machtige joodse- en christelijke zionisische lobby. Die zorgen er dan voor dat de campagnefondsen van de tegenstanders van de dwarsliggers zo rijkelijk gevuld worden dat ze geen enkele mogelijkheid meer hebben om te worden herkozen. Ook in dit geval kozen de Amerikaanse volksvertegenwoordigers eieren voor hun geld en staakten hun uitgesproken verzet tegen de Amerikaanse bezetting. Overigens onstaat er ook onder de elite een groeiend onbehagen over het feit dat de belangen van Israel in de Amerikaanse politiek voor de nationale belangen gaan.

Chef Staf Rahm Emanuel 4

Informatie die de Nederlandse commerciele massamedia niet verstrekt omdat het niet in het officiele beeld past. Daarbij mag niet bekend worden dat de toekomstige chefstaf van het Witte Huis een pro-Israel lobbyist is die in een joods-Israelisch milieu opgroeide dat zionistische terreur toejuicht.
How Rahm Emanuel Has Rigged a Pro-War Congress
Election 2006: The Fix is Already In
By JOHN WALSH

"In 1964 Barry Goldwater declared: 'Elect me president, and I will bomb the cities of Vietnam, defoliate the jungles, herd the population into concentration camps and turn the country into a wasteland.' But Lyndon Johnson said: 'No! No! No! Don't you dare do that. Let ME do it.'"
Characterization (paraphrased) of the 1964 Goldwater/Johnson presidential race by Professor Irwin Corey, "The World's Foremost Authority."
"Democrats Split Over Timetable For Troops; In Close Races, Most Reject Rapid Pullout," the headline atop page one of the Sunday Washington Post informed us as the election season got underway (8/27). Stories like this abound these days, and they should all be prefaced with the single word, "betrayal." Only 17% of rank and file Democrats are for "staying the course," 53% want immediate withdrawal and another 25% are for gradual withdrawal. Among all voters, only 30% want to stay the course, 37% want immediate withdrawal and 26% a "gradual withdrawal (Gallup poll - 9/24/06). According to recent Pew Polls, 52% of voters want a timetable for withdrawal while only 41% oppose setting a timetable.
In contrast to voters' sentiment, 64% of the Democratic candidates in the 45 closely contested House Congressional races oppose a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Note carefully: not only do these Democrat worthies oppose the Murtha or McGovern bills for rapid withdrawal or defunding the war; they oppose so much as a timetable. (The number of Dem candidates supporting the Murtha or McGovern proposals is vanishingly small.) The position of these Dem candidates is indistinguishable from that of George W. Bush. How did this betrayal of the Democratic rank and file come about? Who chose these Democratic candidates that oppose rank and file Dems on the number one question on voters' minds, the war on Iraq? How could such candidates get elected in the primaries? Two primary campaigns, now largely forgotten, give us the answer. They are near perfect case studies, and they deserve some reflection although the Dem establishment would dearly like us to forget them.
The first case is the Democratic primary race between Christine Cegelis and Tammy Duckworth in Illinois's 6th CD, a Republican District, which has elected the disgusting Henry Hyde from time immemorial. Then in 2004 Christine Cegelis, who is only mildly antiwar (1), ran as the Democrat with a grass roots campaign and polled a remarkable 44% against the hideous Hyde in her first run. It was not too long before Hyde decided to retire, and the field seemed to be open for Cegelis in 2006.
Enter Rahm Emanuel, chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, who dug up a pro-war candidate, Tammy Duckworth. Although she had both her legs blown off in Iraq, she has remained committed to "staying the course" in Iraq (2). Duckworth had no political experience and did not live in the 6th District, but Rahm Emanuel raised a million dollars for her and brought in Dem heavyweights Joe Lieberman, Barak Obama, John Kerry, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton to support her. Despite all this help and with the Cegelis campaign virtually penniless, Duckworth barely managed to eke out a victory by a measly four percentage points. According to a recent Cook Report, Duckworth is not the smashing success that Rahm Emanuel had dreamed of; she remains tied at 41% of the vote with her rookie Republican Rival, Peter Roskam, the same percentage that Cegelis had against the entrenched Hyde in 2004! Recently (9/30), Duckworth was pushed onto the national scene to help her campaign, providing the "rebuttal" to Bush's weekly Saturday radio address. AP, in its story on the exchange where Duckworth was supposed to differ with W on Iraq, concluded thus: "She offered no proposal for an immediate withdrawal or a timetable for withdrawal."'

Chef Staf Rahm Emanuel 3


Informatie die door de Nederlandse massamedia wordt verzwegen:

'December 9, 2005
Only Millionaire-Fence Straddlers Need Apply
Meet Rahm Emmanuel, the Democrats' New Gatekeeper

By ANDREW COCKBURN
WASHINGTON D.C.

At a recent meeting of House Republicans, members ruminating on the disastrous state of their party reportedly murmured with gloomy jocularity about the administration of "President Hastert". A CounterPuncher familiar with the proceedings reports "they were only half joking".
Yet, as they contemplate political ruin in next year's election, these Republicans can take solace in the fact that, if defeated, their replacements may not differ in any meaningful way on important issues of the day. That at least is the hope and dream of Democratic apparatchik Rahm Emmanuel and the corporate toadies he represents. Ominously, Emmanuel, a relict of the Clinton White House, heads the Democratic National Campaign Committee.
As such, he decides which candidates for the House should get money and other support from the national party. At a time when any fool can see that the public hates the war more this month than last, and will hate it even more next month and the month after that, Emmanuel is doing his best to recruit candidates, preferably rich ones, guaranteed to eschew vocal opposition to the war.
Clear evidence for this proclivity is evident in the race to succeed Henry Hyde, in Chicago's 6th District.
In the last election progressive candidate Christine Cegalis actually got 44.2 per cent of the vote against the sixteen-term Hyde, despite being outspent $700,000 to $160,000 in a conservative district with no elected Democrats at all.
Following this commendable showing, Cegalis figured that with Hyde retiring and the Republicans melting down, she stood a better than even chance of garnering the seat in 2006.
However it seems that in Emmanuel's opinion, Cegalis stinks. Never mind that excellent record against the giant Hyde, forget her well-crafted support network in the Chicago district, Cegalis has not yet raised a million dollars and, even more damningly, she is calling for troop withdrawal from Iraq. So Emmanuel set out to recruit a more suitable candidate. Initially, he approached two millionaires and urged them, serially, to run against Cegalis in the primary.
They refused. Now he is pinning his hopes on a double amputee women Iraq veteran, Tammy Duckworth
Duckworth, who is not from the district, has ignited hopes at DCCC headquarters that she would campaign on a "pro-business/centrist platform". Queried by a Chicago Sun Times columnist for her opinion on the war, she replied, "There's good and bad in everything".
That sort of equivocation must certainly have commended her to Emmanuel, who greeted Congressman Murtha's fervent and well-informed denunciation of the war with the words "Jack Murtha went out and spoke for Jack Murtha" and has declared that "At the right time we will have a position" on the war.
Cegalis' position is clear: "I support Jack Murtha", she tells CounterPunch. "If Jack Murtha is calling for withdrawal, then I go with that."
If Emmanuel and his like succeed in displacing Cegalis and similar candidates, thereby undercutting any claim the Democrats might have to either principle or votes, he will only be concluding the work he began in the 1990s.
Cegalis reports that the economy has become the key issue in DuPage County, roughly coterminous with the district. "DuPage has lost jobs for the first time in fifty years." As manufacturing jobs disappear to Mexico or China, voters can mull the benefits of free trade and the Democrats who fostered it.
Most clear-minded observers would agree that among the mortal body blows that have brought the Democrats to their present ebb, the passage of NAFTA in 1993, with consequent evisceration of the American industrial economy, must count as among the most lethal.
Key to that passage was Emmanuel, who directed the Clinton White House operation to get the treaty passed by any means necessary.
The inevitable consequences of misery and want inflicted on Americans and Mexicans alike did not of course hinder his career, which took him, following his departure from the White House in 1998, to a well upholstered post in a Chicago banking firm before he won election to Dan Rostenkowski's old Chicago seat.
Now, with the Democrats presented by their opponents with their best chance in years, Emmanuel is ready to ensure that, come what may, nothing will really change, except for the worse.
Andrew Cockburn is the co-author, with Patrick Cockburn, of Out of the Ashes: the Resurrection of Saddam Hussein.'
Zie: http://www.counterpunch.org/andrew12092005.html

Chef Staf Rahm Emanuel 2


As a follow up to my previous post, I would like to introduce Rahm Emanuel to those of you who are not familiar with him. Here are three excellent articles which I highly recommend to you all:Andrew Cockburn: Meet Rahm Emanuel John Walsh: How Rahm Emanuel Has Rigged a Pro-War Congress John Walsh: Emanuel's War Plan for Democrats I think these three are a *must read* for anyone contemplating an Obama vote. Currently Obama is being very oblique when asked to confirm the reports that he approached Emanual to offer him this position. This makes sense. Obama is clearly a puppet in all this, and the real decisions will be taken by the puppeteers, In fact, there is a good chance that Emanuel himself is one of the puppeteers in this story so the decision to come out from the safer world of behind the scenes politics is probably his to make. Still, Chief of Staff is an immensely powerful position to hold (just remember Don Regan) and it would allow Emanuel to control Obama's activities 24/7.Again, the mere fact that Obama would even contemplate placing himself in the hands of a Uber-Zionist like Emanuel should obliterate any hopes anyone could have harbored about Obama being a lesser evil or a candidate for change (although the "change" thing really got voided at the choice of Joe Biden for VP, the ultimate non-change politician).Guys, don't do it! You will hate yourself for at least four years if you vote Obama.Either abstain, or vote Nader or McKinney, but don't do this to your conscience. Don't vote for AIPAC's puppet!'

De Israelische Terreur 464


De Israelische elite smeekt om oorlog: 'Livni: Obama readiness to talk to Iran could be seen as weakness Earlier Thursday, Foreign Minister and Kadima Chairwoman Tzipi Livni said on Thursday Obama's stated readiness to talk to Iran could be seen in the Middle East as a sign of weakness in efforts to persuade Tehran to curb its nuclear program. "We live in a neighborhood in which sometimes dialogue - in a situation where you have brought sanctions, and you then shift to dialogue - is liable to be interpreted as weakness," Livni said when asked on Israel Radio about policy change toward Tehran in an Obama administration. Her remarks sounded the first note of dissonance with Obama by a senior member of the Israeli government since the Democrat's sweeping victory over Republican candidate John McCain in the U.S. presidential election on Tuesday. Asked if she supported any U.S. dialogue with Iran, Livni replied: "The answer is no."'

Dit in reactie op dit:

'Iran's Ahmadinejad offers congratulations to Obama
By News Agencies

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Thursday congratulated Barack Obama on his election win - the first time an Iranian leader has offered such wishes to a U.S. president-elect since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Ahmadinejad sent a message to Obama in which he congratulated the Democrat on attracting the majority of voters in the election. The text of the note was carried by the official IRNA news agency.

In the message, Ahmadinejad also said he hopes Obama will use the opportunity to serve the [American] people and leave a good name for history during his term in office. Iran and U.S. have no formal diplomatic relations since 1979 and the hostage drama when militant Iranian students held 52 Americans captive 444 days. In his message to Obama Thursday, Ahmadinejad went on to say that nations of the world expect changes from Obama - mostly that he will change current U.S. foreign policy. That policy, the note claimed, was based on "warmongering, occupation, bullying, deception and humiliation, as well as discrimination and unfair relations and has led to hatred of all nations and majority of governments toward the U.S. leaders." Ahmadinejad also said that Obama is expected to replace such a policy with an approach based on justice and respect, as well as lack of intervention in the affairs of others. "Iranians will welcome such changes," Ahmadinejad added.'


Zie: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1034964.html

Gezien de Israelische reactie op Iran's pogingen om de houding met de VS te normaliseren, is het ook zo gevaarlijk dat de pro-Israel lobby nu ook al in het Witte Huis zit.

Chef Staf Rahm Emanuel

Rahm Emanuel en Barck Obama.
Het Irgoen Museum in Tel Aviv.

notice that Irgun's vision of israel is comprised of both modern israel and jordan, the entire territory of british mandate palestine.





bomb making supplies @ the irgun museum






scale model representation of the destroyed king david hotel.



milk can bomb replica (used to destroy king david hotel). The ensuing explosion caused the collapse of the southwestern corner of the southern wing of the hotel. 91 people were killed and 46 were injured, with some of the deaths and injuries occurring in the road outside the hotel and in adjacent buildings. Zie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing


Foto's uit het Irgoen Museum, de zionistische terreurorganisatie waar de vader van de toekomstige chefstaf van Obama, Rahm Emanuel, aanhanger van was. Opmerkelijk is dat een bepaald zionistisch milieu zich niet schaamt voor het zionistisch terrorisme. Integendeel zoals uit de foto's blijkt is men er trots op. Jaren geleden bezocht ik dit museum in Tel Aviv en werd er samen met mijn joods-Israelische vriend, wijlen Toma Sic die steeds woedender werd, rondgeleid door een voormalige terrorist die uiterst trots en omstandig over talloze joodse terroristische daden vertelde. Toen hij verklaarde dat dit 'de goede oude tijd' was, ontplofte Toma. Het was ook absurd. En al deze informatie wordt al meer dan een halve eeuw verzwegen door de westerse commerciele massamedia, waardoor veel westerlingen een volkomen vertekend beeld hebben gekregen van wat eufemistisch heet 'het Palestijns-Israelisch conflict'.
Uiterst wrang is ook dat dit museum op door zionisten etnisch gezuiverde grond staat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Manshiyya
http://www.nakbaonline.org/Acre/al-Manshiyya/index.html

The Empire 374

'Overextension: our American way of life is not sustainable

Written by Chris Clugston

Editor's Note: Chris Clugston is the kind of independent researcher and commentator who has the corporate and academic background to put numbers together. Fortunately, it is for the big picture. Few environmentalists are willing to tackle overpopulation, but Clugston actually quantifies it. -JL

Through our relentless pursuit of the American Dream and our blind adherence to our American way of life, we have become overextended -- we have exceeded America’s capacity to sustainably support our existing population at our current standard of living. That is, the natural resources and economic resources required to support our ever-increasing consumption levels by our ever-expanding population are simply not available; nor is the capacity of our habitat sufficient to assimilate the ever-increasing amounts of waste disgorged by our ever-expanding population.
To compound our predicament, we have become "irreversibly" overextended -- we are past the point of "painless" return. We have so consistently and drastically overshot our sustainable consumption and population levels that returning to sustainable levels will necessarily involve significant lifestyle disruptions -- living standard degradation, population level reduction, and the possible loss of sovereignty; there can be no "soft landing."
Note: We are temporarily able to maintain prosperity and growth, despite our overextended condition, because the adverse effects associated with our continuously accumulating ecological and economic indiscretions -- which enable our current prosperity and growth -- have yet to be felt. We are essentially living on borrowed time.
Quantifying American OverextensionIn order to fully appreciate the extent to which America is overextended and to understand why our American way of life is not sustainable, it is necessary to quantify American overextension; that is, to compute the difference between our current consumption and population levels, and the consumption and population levels at which America could subsist sustainably and self-sufficiently going forward into the future.
One method by which these metrics can be determined is through the use of "ecological footprint" data. Ecological Footprint
The Global Footprint Network [GFN] defines ecological footprint as "a resource management tool that measures how much land and water area a human population requires to produce the resources it consumes and to absorb its wastes under prevailing technology." Thus, a country’s ecological footprint equals the earth’s surface area required to produce the resources consumed by its population and to assimilate the waste generated by its population, over the course of a year.
For example, by 2003 GFN calculations, Iraq had a per capita ecological footprint of 2.5 acres, China 4.0 acres, India 1.7 acres, UK 13.8 acres, world average 5.4 acres -- and America 24.0 acres.
This means that, on average, approximately 24 acres of planet earth’s surface area are required to produce the resources consumed and to assimilate the waste generated by every American each year. Interestingly, America’s "biocapacity", the domestic US surface area available to produce resources for consumption and to assimilate resulting waste, is only 11.6 acres per capita—leaving an "ecological deficit" of 12.4 acres per capita.
This means that over half of America’s current subsistence -- production of the resources that we consume and assimilation of the waste that we generate -- is enabled through excessive consumption; that is, by "importing biocapacity, liquidating existing stocks of ecological capital, or allowing wastes to accumulate and ecosystems to degrade" [quote from GFN website].
In fact, America has been running increasingly large annual ecological deficits since the 1960sUS Ecological Footprint

The ecological footprint analysis conducted by Redefining Progress [RP], an organization that defines ecological footprint in somewhat broader terms, is even more alarming. RP calculated America’s 2001 per capita ecological footprint to be 267 acres and our per capita biocapacity to be 50 acres, leaving a per capita ecological deficit of 217 acres.
This indicates that over 80% of America’s current subsistence is enabled by excessive consumption!

How does ecological footprint data translate into sustainable US consumption levels and population levels? America’s 2006 Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was approximately $13.2 trillion—which can be considered a financial proxy for our "current consumption level". At the end of 2006, America’s population stood at approximately 300 million, which can be considered our "current population level".
Using GFN Data
According to the GFN ecological footprint analysis, America’s biocapacity, our domestic surface area available to produce resources for consumption and to assimilate resulting waste, currently provides for only 48% of our actual annual subsistence; 52% of our annual subsistence is enabled by importing biocapacity, drawing down resource reserves, and degrading our habitat.
Therefore, in order to live sustainably and self-sufficiently within the constraints imposed by our domestic US biocapacity, while maintaining an average living standard roughly comparable to that which we enjoy today, we would have to reduce our aggregate annual consumption level and total population level by approximately 52%.'