I've written a number of things about Rahm Emanuel lately, because he is a political Zionist and a religious Zionists. Rahm Emanuel has been chosen by President-elect Barack Obama to be White House Chief of Staff (the person who, next to the President, controls the President's appointment book and much correspondence: Phone calls, letters, emails, etc., from the public and many others in government — a very powerful and influential position). Emanuel's background and upbringing are a major problem concerning which Rahm has dealt with publicly ever so slightly and only due to recent events concerning his father, Benjamin.
Rahm is a Wall Street insider who has been able to raise huge sums for the Democrats from Wall Street. Rahm served in the IDF (Israeli Defense Force) as a volunteer. He may have dual citizenship, which raises the issue of loyalties for those who are concerned about U.S. security. I'll speak to that more below. We don't know the extent to which he has ever been involved with Mossad (Israeli intelligence; Israel's CIA).
Now, Rahm's father gave an interview (to Israelis apparently) in which he answered a question as follows: "Obviously, he will influence the president to be pro-Israel. Why wouldn't he? What is he, an Arab? He's not going to clean the floors of the White House."
Let's parse that. "Obviously, he will influence the president to be pro-Israel." This is obvious to Rahm's father, Benjamin, and Benjamin is stating that it ought to be obvious to the Israelis (to everyone, frankly). Why is this so? It is obvious that Rahm will influence Obama to be pro-Israel, because of Rahm's history. We'll go into that a little more too below.
"Why wouldn't he? What is he, an Arab?" This is of course loaded, and we can't impart everything that it says in one post without talking about the whole of creation and Heaven and Hell. Let's look into it some though to discuss its direction whether one agrees with that direction or not (I, for one, disagree with it).
"Why wouldn't he?" Well, if we put aside his history and focus more on what other Jews with different outlooks think, we'll see that there are timid and not so timid Americans of Jewish ethnic descent and persuasion (Jewishness, to use the amorphous term) who do not advocate dual loyalties or split loyalties with the prime loyalty going to Israel. Truthfully, split-loyalty is contingent in that those who hold it will only remain loyal to the U.S. to the extent that the U.S. is entwined with political Zionism at the least. If the U.S. stops showing ethnic and religious favoritism to the Jewish ones of the nation-state of Israel (or Zionist entity, as many Arabs and Persians/Iranians term it), then the one(s) with split loyalties will side with Israel against the U.S.
This might not be an issue for many, but Israel has been caught spying on the U.S. in the largest spy ring ever uncovered in the history of America. ("THE ISRAELI SPY RING SCANDAL: The Story That Will Not Go Away.Fox News: Israeli Spyring." It contains the full transcript of the news report by Fox. It also links to the video that was duplicated before Fox scrubbed it and the text from the Fox website. People did own VCRs and other recording equipment at the time." by Michael Rivero. What Really Happened. This link is not a blanket endorsement. The article raises questions that directly, openly, and fully need to be addressed in public by the highest officials of the U.S. government. It they don't do that, they are hiding things that should not be concealed. There is no excuse for hiding the answers. National security is no excuse. National security would not be compromised by exposure. It would be enhanced. The U.S. would be more esteemed around the world — including by Muslim Fundamentalists — if it were to come clean on these things, including the whole truth about 9/11 no matter where it would end up leading the people. That's a fact. See also, "
That story, originally by Carl Cameron of Fox News, was scrubbed from the mainstream news by those behind the scenes who control the media, because they own it. They are so intertwined in American government that they made that happen. If you are one who believes that America must rise or fall with the fate of the secular Zionist project, you'll be fine with it. I don't hold with that though. The Zionist project was, and remains, an error. It was founded on faulty principles of greed, covetousness, violence, terrorism, and all the rest of what is wrong. I will say that the people of the Zionist project are far from the only people who've made these kinds of errors. That though does not mean that the Zionist project shouldn't be corrected or that the other errors should not also be corrected. In very truth, all errors should be corrected. The thing we ought to do is work to do that in a way that is as perfect as we all can make it.
Leibnitz was right that this is the best of all possible worlds; however, I must add that it is changeable, obviously. This world is an exact fit for its past. Its future is an exact fit for what is going on now and will be. This raises a paradox, but we needn't split hairs indefinitely. We need only to be reconciled to peace, love, and truth — giving and sharing, total pacifism, and sexual purity. With which part of that unselfish destination do you disagree?
The Zionist project is a misnomer. Zionism is peace. However, those of the Zionist project have twisted the term thereby lessening the higher calling. It is sinful to do that to great words, such as "Zion." I abhor such twisting. Such twisting misleads people into the utter darkness. Such twisting comes out from the dark side. It comes from hardened hearts and leads to hardheartedness.
The religious Zionists need to read their own scripture.
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! (Isaiah 5:20)
Can't they read? What is their level of comprehension?
The Zionist project has been taken up by many people calling themselves Christians who likewise twist the message of Jesus into an abomination of desolation. These false Christians call for war. It is sin.
As for Jews who do not share the ideology of Benjamin Emanuel, there are the now the famous Mearsheimer and Walt. Those two professors braved to an extent the slings and arrows of fanatical political Zionists by pointing out the problem of loyalty to Israel while greatly influencing American policy. Mearsheimer and Walt may as well have been writing about Rahm Emanuel by name. They were certainly writing about AIPAC by name, Rahm's close associates.
"What is he, an Arab?" Now this is exactly what Colin Powel, for all his own faults, was speaking out against when he announced his support of Barack Obama for President. Powel, correctly in this case, made the case for taking people without ethnic bigotry. Benjamin Emanuel though shows by his statement that he lumps all Arabs together as being incapable of putting humanity above Arabness, just as Benjamin doesn't appear to put humanity above Jewishness as he sees Jewishness that is Zionist (of the Jabotinsky variety; Irgun, etc.).
The fact is that there are Arabs who are definitely ready, willing, and able to put the whole of humanity above Arabs. I have known such Arabs intimately. I have known a number of Christian Arabs for instance — very fine people, not that they don't have room for improvement. Who doesn't?
Vladimir Jabotinsky (aka Ze'ev Jabotinsky) was a revisionist Zionist of the Zionist project who was instrumental in vastly increasing the militancy (violence; murderousness) of the movement. He founded the Irgun, which was designated a terrorist organization by the British when the British held the British Mandate of Palestine — meaning that the British were the imperial power with power over Palestine that at the time include present-day Israel and which power was granted after WWI to Britain under the League of Nations (precursor to the United Nations).
Benjamin Emanuel was a follower of Jabotinsky. He was a member of the Irgun. He agreed with the terrorist activities carried out by his organization. They did commit terrorist acts resulting in many deaths of the innocent. Benjamin Emanuel raised his son, Rahm Emanuel.
Now, why Benjamin Emanuel would fight for the creation of the Zionist project in Israel and then permanently move to the U.S. is a question. Why would anyone do that? Did he not like Israel enough to remain after he had been a member of Irgun to create Israel?
Now his son is about to become White House Chief of Staff. The only reason this doesn't raise more concern is because of the breath and depth of the penetration of the Zionist project in America. Is that a good thing? I say it is not. I don't say it, because I am a racist or ethnic bigot. In fact, it is Benjamin Emanuel who is the ethnic bigot, obviously. I say it, because the Zionist project is a bad ideology. It was a bad idea from the start. It completely ignored the issue of the consent of the people who were already occupying the land through no coercive fault of their own. If we look back at history, the Jews were not cleared from the area by the Palestinian Arabs to the extent they were cleared. In fact, there are many people who believe that Jews (a remnant) remained in Palestine right from the time of the Roman invasion and the sacking of Jerusalem and destruction of the Jewish Temple. I would tend to agree.
What has happened though is that via terrorism, the British gave up the Mandate and the Zionist project pushed the Arabs out rather than incorporating them as part of the people the consent of whom must be taken into consideration and respected under God. Let me clearly state here that I don't hold with coercive government. As a Christian now, I follow Jesus's lead wherein he also made clear that we are not to force others to abide by our ideology or religious faith. We are only to maintain our religious faith within those places where people have voluntarily entered of their own freewill. There are issues concerning visitors and strangers, but that is a subject for another post. I raise this issue of coercion in anticipation of those who will invariably point to Jesus cleaning the Temple as authorization to clean the planet by violence. It must be said here though that Jesus drew no blood when he cleaned the Temple. He chased out greed from where it had no business being. Yes, the Temple was symbolic of how the whole Earth is to become. Regardless, it will never become that by force. That's the point. Those who force end up under Satan, not God.
"He's not going to clean the floors of the White House." This can be taken a number of ways. For many Arabs, no doubt, it is meant to be strictly demeaning. Let me say that I have cleaned floors. I see nothing wrong in it. I didn't and don't consider it demeaning. It is a good and necessary bit of work. It is a service. It may be looked down upon by some, but I don't join them in that attitude. It would do old Benjamin some good to rub elbows with some floor cleaners for a while. It would benefit his heart unless he is beyond reach. He may not have had it in mind to be about simply slighting Arabs. He may have been referring to the obviousness that the White House Chief of Staff is not hired to push a broom. His statement though is not an either/or. He could, and probably did, mean it both ways.
So, Benjamin's statement made a stir. The world is a smaller place now with the speed of communications and with people watching and monitoring the news and statements of opinion around the world via the Internet and phones, etc. The powers that be are alarmed by these developments and many seek to create firewalls to censor truth.
Well, as a result, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee sent Rahm a letter. Rahm called the Committee and apologized and offered to meet at some future convenient moment.
The news reported that, "some political analysts have said Rahm Emanuel, a veteran Democratic congressman, should not be held responsible for the actions of his father." It would be interesting to know which political analysts said this.
I hold that offspring are not to be punished for the sins of their fathers. That's Biblical by the way. The Bible evolves from punishing successive generations to prophesying that that will stop being the case. However, the issue is that Rahm's father's sin is also the position Rahm has held only in a more nuanced and subtle manner. The "higher" one goes in the mundane, secular ranks, the more one must appear to compromise while still remaining deceptive in the heart.
Emanuel said, "From the fullness of my heart, I personally apologize on behalf of my family and me. These are not the values upon which I was raised or those of my family."
Who raised him then? Didn't Benjamin raise him? He needs to explain.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)