PART 3, RAHM EMANUEL: RAHM EMANUEL, BENJAMIN EMANUEL, ZIONISM, IRGUN, TERRORISM, LOYALTY
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.THE ISRAELI SPY RING SCANDAL: The Story That Will Not Go Away," 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, "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.
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.
- Technorati Tags: 9/11, abomination of desolation, AIPAC, American policy, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Americans, apologize, Arab, Arabness, Arabs, Barack Obama, Benjamin Emanuel, Bible, Biblical, Britain, British, Carl Cameron, censor, changeable, Chief of Staff, Christian, Christian Arabs, Christianity, Christians, CIA, cleaned floors, coercion, Colin Powel, comprehension, compromise, consent of the people, covetousness, culture, current affairs, current events, dark side, deceptive, demeaning, democracy, Democrats, destruction, dual citizenship, ethnic, ethnic bigotry, faith, firewalls, floor cleaners, Fox News, freewill, giving and sharing, God, greed, hardheartedness, Heaven, Hell, ideology, IDF, imperial power, Iranians, Irgun, Isaiah 5:20, Israel, Israeli Defense Force, Israeli intelligence, Iranians, Israelis, Jabotinsky, Jerusalem, Jesus, Jewish, Jewishness, Jews, League of Nations, Leibnitz, liberal, love, loyalties, loyalty, mainstream news, Mandate of Palestine, Mearsheimer, Mearsheimer and Walt, media, Michael Rivero, militancy, misnomer, Mossad, mundane, murderousness, Muslim fundamentalists, national security, news, nuanced, ethnic bigot, Palestine, Palestinian Arabs, paradox, peace, Persians, philosophy, political analysts, political Zionism, political Zionist, politics, President-elect, pro-Israel, prophesying, racist, Rahm Emanuel, reconciled, religion, religious, religious faith, religious Zionists, revisionist Zionist, Roman, sacking, Satan, scripture, scrubbed, secular, sexual purity, sin, slighting, society, spirituality, spy ring, spying, subtle, technology, Temple, terrorism, terrorist organization, theology, Tom Usher, total pacifism, truth, twisting, United Nations, violence, Vladimir Jabotinsky, voluntarily, Wall Street, Wall Street insider, Walt, war, What Really Happened, White House, WWI, Ze'ev Jabotinsky, Zion, Zionism, Zionist, Zionist entity, Zionist project

by...






Tom Usher
Standing Comment, all posts and pages:
To all homosexuals and their supporters, condoners, promoters, accepters, confirmers, and the like:
Unless you have something completely new that hasn't already been refuted, don't bother. It won't show up.
Rehashing what has already been refuted is a waste of everyone's time.
I'm not interested in casting pearls before swine, giving the children's bread to the dogs, or rebuking a forever scorner.
Learn or go away: There is zero wisdom in homosexuality. Homosexuality is wrong. Nothing any homosexual or anyone else can say or do will alter it. No one needs the Bible to know it either. It's prima facie. There's no such thing as an unrepentant-homosexual Christian. There never has been and never will be. That's the way of it. If you don't like it, change.
Do site searches on the various topics concerning homosexuality to determine if your "point" has already been handled. Currently, I provide three different search methods. The "WordPress" search is still the most thorough.
The same can be done regarding militarism, capitalism, coercion, and many other main issues and themes.
TREATMENT, RUDENESS, POLITENESS, OFFENSE, TRUTH
Many times over the course of this website's existence, I've had commentators complain about how I've treated them and/or others. Much less frequently has anyone taken exception to those commentator's comments. I assume that's because for one, I appear to be holding my own.
Often, I have raised the fact that Jesus called certain people "serpents." I've often also mentioned how he cleaned the temple with whip in hand, not that he used it on anyone. It certainly doesn't say that he did, and neither was he charged with it in the kangaroo court of the serpents who ended up murdering him by proxy just for, among other wonderful things, speaking out and speaking truth.
If I say that those who are engaged in serpentine behavior are the New Testament "serpents," then why take offense at my saying it rather than standing with Jesus and me about it?
If others don't like it that I treat others or them the way I have in this regard, why don't they take it up with the serpents and/or their own consciences and God?
If I wanted to catch flies, I'd use honey. I don't want flies on this level. Human beings aren't to be on the level of flies. If the truth is bitter as vinegar, then ask yourself why and learn to taste it as sweet but not sickeningly so. Why attack the message and messenger, as the serpents did, and become a serpent by so doing?
The issue is not "name calling" on some bratty, childish level. When Jesus said "serpents," he was not being as a brat. His level was completely adult to adults and children. He dared say that the children understood the clear and plain truth before the adults who, afterall, had been abused and socialized by the serpents. He still calls adults back. Those who hear him and know his voice (truth) turn around and do the other required things together as well.
What is it for a human being to be more serpentine or reptilian than what God initially gave? What was and remains Jesus's point? What is the reptilian brain versus the vastly higher human brain with its cerebral cortex and frontal and temporal lobes and specific areas of altruistic sentiments and abilities? What are those higher areas before they are damaged, before the communication pathways to them and between them are diminished by evil that is always some form of abuse? How are those pathways reestablished or created where they never were in this fleshly life?
The snake lays its eggs. The eggs hatch. The snake parent doesn't nurture or raise the offspring. It's every snake for itself. Human parents and family are not designed to be that way. Humans hand down the learning of nurturing. Many people get better training than do others, and many people have a greater aptitude for learning and predisposition for the higher and highest virtues. Many are less abused. People can change for the better and best though, no matter where the starting point. They only can't if they don't — if they reject it.
Snakes, of course, also come in venomous varieties and in strangling varieties, etc., such that they have been attackers and even devourers of humans for eons, guilty and innocent alike.
Now, Jesus knew that most people could relate to what were, and still are, largely considered "good" parenting skills and "good" "family" relations. He regularly used those concepts to get people to consider the wider implications for the whole of humanity. He did know that many would refuse. He let them go. He didn't demand secular or false-religion legislation to rein them in with threats of violence and imprisonment. He was not and is not coercive. Even his Church is a voluntary place to be.
What he still teaches (through the written words in the New Testament and as those connect with the Old and also teaches through the Holy Spirit he definitely sent as he said he would) is, among many other things, that "good" is vastly better than has been commonly accepted and that real "family" is everyone left after all the rest have rejected the higher and highest good. He raised the standards far above the Old Testament and far above the "modern" standard.
The American Empire and the American people in general aren't even touching the hem of his garment, let alone even attempting to stand upright and side-by-side with him.
I point out that Jesus was, and is, a Real Liberal Christian. He is the one who brought back this censored truth that is the light. After he had spoken it and lived it and was murdered for doing so, the censors set about to re-censor it and did. They couldn't put it out though — couldn't completely extinguish the truth. I wouldn't be saying it now again with all credit to God, just as Jesus, if they had been able to completely block it.
I point out that each of those terms ("real," "liberal," and "Christian," along with "Church") are actually redundant terms — synonyms that are so close that they become one. The term "liberal" here is not the common usage, which common usage is a deliberate corruption of the term. There is no harm in real liberalism. There is no vileness in it. There is only beneficence. "Real" may be understood as the opposite of false-hearted, dark side, and dead of the Holy Spirit. Christian is both real and liberal in those senses. To arrive at living, doing, being those full senses requires what Jesus lives, does, and is in the highest. Finally, the Church is the whole.
Who are they who want to drag it down, censor it, work against it, lessen it, ignore it, etc.? Well, who sides with Jesus and who sides against him? Did the serpents side with him then? Do they now?
We call war-mongers "hawks." We call "peacemakers" blessed and "doves." Why do the hawks not take offense at "hawks" but do take offense at "serpents"? "Hawks" is not yet as telling to the general public, but I must tell you that all hawks are serpents. Why do some say, "Greed is good" but take offense at "serpents"? I tell you there is no difference between the selfish and the serpents. Why do people take offense at serpents when they do not take offense at homosexuality? I tell you the homosexual spirit also comes out from the dark side. It is a choice. It is harmful. Many are abused with it. Many never overcome it. Their very brain matter is transformed by it. Then they claim it is good when it remains confusion and definitely wrong and harmful.
Many arguments were put forth in support of tolerance. I understood that Jesus "tolerated," as in he did not execute wrath but rather told the truth and let the blind follow the blind (blind to the truth) into the ditch of their own making. I have watched while the movement has been corrupted into condoning what was once only to be tolerated. I have watched further while it has moved from condoning to promoting even to the youngest children to get to them before the truth does. I have seen evil at work, and I sound the alarm. I face censorship and other negative reactions for it.
As the American Empire claims to be a light to the world, it murders innocent babies by Hellfire missiles fired from predator drones controlled by armchair, video-gaming serpents in uniform. It tortures those who are not even suspects. It spies on its own without even probable cause or reasonable suspicion. It lies its way into wars for spoils and control. It neglects its poor, whom it treads down for the sakes of the superrich — for the sake of the massive flow of mammon from the bottom up (no trickledown — trickledown is a farce and always has been). All is claimed to be okay in America though — that America is headed in the right direction — because soon, even "don't tell, don't ask" will be a thing of the quaint past and homosexuals may be able to sleep together and have sex in the barracks with the "blessing" of the Empire while they practice murdering the innocent for the sake of homosexual, greedy plutocrats who own them and who, in turn, are owned by the dark-side spirit named by God and Jesus as Satan.
Whose side are you on? I speak truth to warn. I don't tell the secular government what to do other than occasionally to say what at least would be less hypocritical within their fallen, unenlightened system. I do so for spiritual reasons. What I want is the Christian Commons.
Now, if you submit a comment:
What you write here against the Real Liberal Christian Church founded by Jesus Christ will mark you in the Biblical sense unless you show that you have turned and are repenting in time to escape the damnation of your own choosing. That's the way of it. Don't be tempted by the devil to stand opposed to the call of righteousness. Overcome such evil temptation. Help others to help yet others to come to righteous behavior through-and-through.
Check out how even after reading this, people will still take it out of context and twist it to an evil end.