Daily Kos: "Son Of A Zionist Terrorist Should Not Be Obama's White House Chief of Staff"

" liberal warhawks"

Are they anything like "anti-semitic-Zionists"?

(curious minds wantto know :-)

My sides hurt from laughing so hard! LOL!!!

Krishna,

You're laughing but I'm not!  I'm sorry for Gideon.  He's really fooled himself into believing this nonsense.  Certainly, that's quite a pitiable condition...

Yes we can , indeed.

Even since the '60s you can see there have been changes and that there are admirable goals that survive to be energized by the slogan.

Gideon - it's interesting to note your Evanston connection.  I lived there for many years while a student at Northwestern U and at my first newspaper job in Rogers Park (a Chicago far north neighborhood).  I still live in the Chicago area.  Surely you would recognize progress here that would diminish your judgement against the observably obscene racist attitudes over the past 40 years.    

How bizarre is this rather specious article? The responses to the article are even more odd. How paranoid are people that such crap is so easily believed.

Yep. As time eternal has sadly proved, when you need a scapegoat, the Jews are always there for insecure, weak minded ignorant cowards to blame.

...the Jews are always there for insecure, weak minded ignorant cowards to blame.

 amend to read: ...the Jews are always there for anti-semitic, insecure, weak minded ignorant, genocidal, racist, terrorist-minded cowards to blame.

It's terrible that people still hold bigoted views, but what can you do but laugh about it!

You're laughing but I'm not!  I'm sorry for Gideon.  He's really fooled himself into believing this nonsense.  Certainly, that's quite a pitiable condition...

Mystic,

I just don't understand how you and people like worldnightboy just brush things off as nonsense. One of the great benefits of blogging with people around the world is it allows information to be shared in ways that you couldn't do decades ago. It allows intelligent individuals to look things up and learn, debunk or agree. When you dismiss something as 'nonsense' without looking it up or providing known debunking facts, that makes you foolish. I realize that people will ALWAYS have different points of views. But people like Gideon and myself come on these blogs to inform and challenge people to educate themselves about what is going on. But the great thing is that if you disagree, you have the opportunity to present your facts and discuss it intelligently.

You may think that it's enough to sprinkle your sarcastic comments in each blog but ultimately the joke is on you.

You may be okay with it but in the last 8 years:

YOUR freedom and privacy has been significantly reduced by the 'Patriot Act'

YOU may have a family member or friend fighting in these illegal endless wars

You or someone you know may some day be incarcerated illegally without rights

Some random Information for you:

YOUR president has close associate Rabbi Dor Zakheim (zionist) that worked as his 'Undersecretary of Defense', is the CEO of 'System planning Corporation'--> a company that specializes in technology involving flying planes via remote control.. so called 'CTS Technology. Also he co-authored an article Sept. 2000 outlining an agenda for "Building America's Defenses" -> in it he describes "The process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a NEW PEARL HARBOR"............this was published exactly one year before 9-11

I challenge you to start looking up some of this. I challenge you to look up a little bit about Rupert Murdoch, he's that guy that controls almost HALF of everything you watch on T.V.

Don't brush things off as silly just because it doesn't fit into your convenient life.

Bernard-

Please excuse me for not buying into your conspiracy theory crap.

Regarding your comment about Dor Zakheim, I do not believe that being a Zionist is a bad thing (I am a Zionist, after all) so you're going to have to try a bit harder.  

If you think I am in love with Bush you are sorely mistaken.  The man is a menace and, frankly, I'll be happy when he's out of office.

Alas, Bernard, we must now return to the topic of discussion.  This seed is supposedly discussing Rahm Emmanuel as Obama's choice for CoS.  Why are you so off topic?

::brushes Bernard off as silly:: G*d, that was easy.

(I am a Zionist, after all)

Sometimes some answers are simple...

As for Rahm Emanuel (which you mis-spelled BTW..) has a good record, his ties and background make me a bit nervous given what I know... but I indeed HOPE that things will go well. I'm optimistic about Obama and his choice of staff.

Hope I say... 'Yes we can'

Oh no, I spelled Emanuel wrong!  I must be punished!!!!!!!!!

Good grief, Bernard.  You were WAY off topic with your stupid response to my comment from yesterday and now the best you can come up with is calling me on a typo?

Wow.

It is your choice if you want to embarass yourself on this forum.

But what has happened in this country and where we stand today is far more serious and goes far beyond ALL your the sarcastic remarks.

That you can't respond INTELLIGENTLY to any of these messages speaks for itself...

Playground insults now, Bernard?  For what it's worth, I think you're a dummy too.

Bernard ,  this can go in boid circles and skip simple the simple facts you mentioned in your posts.   If sharing your country,s policies and vital decisions with mutual citizenship House Chief who has record and whose loyality is for a different ideology and interests is a ''benign issue''  that could be masked by sarcasm  ,  then  everything is possible and we can be sarcastic over lives and Trillions of dollars wasted for some michievious war agenda and interests in Iraq ,  the war that Emanuel stood for.   

And we can avoid the ugly truth about the misled US,s policies in the ME by laughing when the next war agenda is on  , Obama has already  accelerated his tone against Iran

"Obama has already  accelerated his tone against Iran"

Good for him! Nice to see he has the cojones to stand up up totalitarianism-- and one of the worst human-rights violaters in the middle east!

Good for him! Nice to see he has the cojones to stand up up totalitarianism-- and one of the worst human-rights violaters in the middle east!

Although you really wouldn't know it from all the UNHRC does.

And we can avoid the ugly truth about the misled US,s policies in the ME by laughing when the next war agenda is on  , Obama has already  accelerated his tone against Iran

Fada,

I agree there is more than enough going on to raise concerns. Your points are well taken. I'm hoping that given the availability of information today things will be a little more transparent. The hope also is that Obama will run the country the same way he ran his campaign,, with 'the people' who elected him, holding him accountable for his decisions and actions.

I think we both agree that the complacent Americans that have shut their minds from the truth are the ones that make progress more difficult. As an activist I am used to this and I don't let it stop or discourage me from sharing the truth. That said, Americans all over and more than ever are getting it and awakening to the reality that the mainstream media version of the news is agenda driven and often hardly correlates with the true story... in particular when it comes to the wars and the "terrorist" threat.

or maybe as an activist you have your own agenda, and only look for information that fits what you want to believe, while ignoring anything that would show otherwise?

Or is it something more sinister?

It,s something more sinister , seeing the simple truth that some agenda intends to hide

or maybe as an activist you have your own agenda, and only look for information that fits what you want to believe, while ignoring anything that would show otherwise?

danwill,

I only care about the truth and for years I, like you, DID believe ONLY what the mainstream media told me to believe, but then I started researching the truth for myself. I learned to question things, when will you?

If you have "anything that would show otherwise" to show me, please DO...

Americans all over and more than ever are getting it and awakening to the reality that the mainstream media version of the news is agenda driven and often hardly correlates with the true story...  

 Bernard ,     I didn't know anything about the processed lying of corporate media during the ninties , I believed every single word mentioned about first Gulf war and sanction , neither I knew anythng  about the process of ignoring the unfavoriing news and the heavy coverage of favouring news

Now it,s easy with researching to find out the most likely true news ,   sometimes it,s the controversial news even if some of the news was told by who the mainstream media is calling ''the enemy''        I knew this first time from the weird news told by Iraqis about Abou-Ghraib porn-torture which was ridiculed for a while by all US media before the ugly truth jumped at the  faces with photos and clips...here, the corp media changed its statements with brazen faces.           I also,ve learnt that when the controversial view is a good one that has credence you may not face true discussion about it.     The discussion will turn into dodging and joking and sometimes name calling and you will hear void cliches'   like conspirasy and leftist and totalitarianism and whatsoever , but true discussion

even if some of the news was toldby who the mainstream media is calling ''the enemy''       

1)You don't think that the Islamists want to take back everything that was Muslim at one time or another throughout history? (this includes Spain)and will use any means to achieve their goals?

2) you can find any kind of junk, espousing any kind of stupidity you want on the internet.

moreover, I have seen many of the 9/11 conspiracy sites, and virtually every point is either a meaningless coincidence that means nothing (ie , so and so owned a company that was working on remote-control planes){ Yeah, they are called RPVs}, (put options on airline stocks were bought on 9/10) {Old news, I've known about this since the first week after, it was announced on the MSM.  Osama bin laden had over 200 million dollars of his own, not to mention other Saudis that may have had an inside line isn't it possible that Al-Queda was who made the profit?)

the list goes on....

Most are absolutely riddled with logical fallacies, factual inconsistencies, and total lack of documentation for the more "super secret" things.

The radical islamist sites want you to blame either the jews, or bush. (do you REALLY think that they are a more reliable source?)

The radical left just wants to blame bush period (incompetence is not a crime, nor is breaking your promises if you are a politician)

Abu ghraib? Even if the media ridiculed it, I said to myself "that wouldn't surprise me"

But it is a LOOONG ways to make the leap from a bunch of out of control guards, and a bunch of extremely questionable(morally) "renditions" to deliberately bombing the WTC

The Islamists want at a minimum all lands that were muslim controlled at one time or another throughout history. they truly believe that the world should be converted to Islam, by force if necessary. at the very least, put under Sharia law.

These groups include Al-Queda and the Muslim brotherhood.

The Islamists do NOT represent the majority of Muslims in the world.

I don,t know what you,r talking about , I was not talking about any Islamist news or media webs of Ben laden

I was talking about something existing since 100 years called professional journalism  of Arab states .            It,s not my problem if you are thinking - from TV limited views - that All governments and citizins in all states of the middle east are sitting in one big Cafe with Ben Laden and extreme Islamists

You by mentioning silly things like [restoring control at Spain!!!] are turning arround the kind of true news I meant and it was mentioned first  in those Arab state journals  and ridiculed with chants  by  westen media , before the same western sources had to admit the credence of those news and  to publish it --as if it was them who brought the news first--    

Some of those ridiculed news that was proven to be true after a while are :  -The Arabic articles written before the war about WMD deception.       -The old Iraqi news about AbouGhraib torture that was called [enemy lies] before the photos put on internet.        - Topics about War for Oil that was called enemy propaganda before the war be culminated in dispute over the unfair [Iraqi Oil Law] that allows international companies a free hand in 80% of national Iraqi resources

This is the true state news I am talking about , not the fallacious news you are bringing from nowhere about ''muslems want to control the world'' !! they only want to control their stolen resources and their occupied countries

I did say that the islamists did NOT represent most muslims. so, no, I do not think that most muslims want to control the world. just a deranged and dangerous minority.

I also stated that I thought that the AbouGhraib (your spelling) situation had some credibility while the us msm was calling it nonsense.(it wouldn't surprise me)

It is the islamists that I consider the "enemy", not the muslim world as a whole.

It was your comments about "the enemy", and bernards comments in 3.11  and 34 that I was responding to 

If you want to compare baseless claims and accusations, I could also (with some digging in some boxes) bring up examples of saudi university professors making deranged claims of things like "rabbis sacrificing gentile babies in secret ceremonies".

both have made some rather bizarre and unfounded claims.

If you want to compare baseless claims and accusations   // "rabbis sacrificing gentile babies in secret ceremonies". 

Such news are disgusting and maniac.      I don,t like Saudian media and Saudian hypocritic Royals anyway.     Why do you  expect that I should defend Saudia?,    I told you in my last post that we are not sitting in one big cafe in the ME

The hypocrites Saudian gov sentenced 2 doctors from my country with 1500 lashs and 15 years jail , just for prescribing drug for an addict Saudian Princess when she insisted to get shot of morphine ...

1500 lashs in the 21st century

But American politics are favouring Saudian Royals with all respect , and I have to live with that.

moreover, I have seen many of the 9/11 conspiracy sites, and virtually every point is either a meaningless coincidence that means nothing (ie , so and so owned a company that was working on remote-control planes){ Yeah, they are called RPVs}, (put options on airline stocks were bought on 9/10) {Old news, I've known about this since the first week after, it was announced on the MSM.  Osama bin laden had over 200 million dollars of his own, not to mention other Saudis that may have had an inside line isn't it possible that Al-Queda was who made the profit?)

Danwill, I CHALLENGE YOU to study and look things up instead of casually glossing over VERY SERIOUS facts and brushing EVERYTHING away, not because you have solid evidence but because it doesn't fit into the way you have been taught.

People like myself and Fada ADMIT to have at one time believed like you... then what happened to us? We decided to actually look things up.. THATS the difference between a closed mind and an open mind. Your mind is shut. You DON'T WANT to believe that your perception of the good ol USA is wrong. You WANT to believe that the U.S. is always right and justified in invading these countries and torturing people because they are 'terrorist' ..... The magic word here is 'terrorist'. This is the green light to go ahead and do whatever you want. We don't buy this nonsense anymore but if you want to you can. 

Here are some other magic words used in U.S. history books:

"Pilgrims", "forces", "missionary", "treaty",,, "manifest destiny", "liberation", "militia", "socialism", "anti-american", "nationalism", "loyalty",,,, but the biggest one of all time is "weapons of mass destruction"

You DON'T WANT to believe that your perception of the good ol USA is wrong. You WANT to believe that the U.S. is always right and justified in invading these countries and torturing people because they are 'terrorist'

bernard; You make assumptions that are inaccurate; I thought that invading Iraq was a bad idea from the beginning, and my assessment has proven correct. having said that, I also think it is a bad idea to leave before some kind of reasonably stable government exists in either Iraq, or in the partitioned  remnants.

I think that the actions of the bush administration reek of incompetance, ignorance. and "wishful thinking" far more than being sinister. Just one (of many) example is when the war first started some bush staff hack giving a cost estimate for the war, which was something like 2 billion. I said that he was off by at least a hundredfold. turns out even I was low.

There is also the matter that I think that a certain percentage of the religious right(like the bush administration) are "true believers" themselves, and they too see "the work of satan" hiding behind every tree. (end times thinking). Of course this plays right into the beliefs of the radical islamists, who also believe that satan is behind every tree, and have their own "end times thinking".

The magic word here is 'terrorist'

This is the proper phrase I was searching for to put a figure for the whole mess that was run deliberately by this adminsration after 9/11 attacks

Yes there was an evil attack at civilians in 9/11 , but Bush has made up his mind in minutes to go after Iraq , not Saudia ''his staunch Oi friends'' .   He went to search for al-quaeda where there was no al-quaeda but there was a tantalizing big reserve of Oil.      Then he improvised mission of ''Ousting Saddam and liberating Iraqis'' ..good of him!!  

Then every one word issued by this adminstration after 9/11 proved to be part of the biggest deception in History, no WMD , no al-quaeda link, no nothing but drafting the bizzare Oil Law to allow the family oil companies of Bush and Cheney to leap into the lucrative contracts before anybody else.     Conspiracy?   Bush would like to see people still defending his war and calling all solid facts ''Conspiracy''

Bush-linked Texas company signs oil deal with Iraqi Kurds

He will defend his war after leaving the office with drivels like  [his anti-terror war was for defending US against Iraqi terrorists who,r attacking US soldiers]

Some people are still believing this upside down logics , the hen came first or the egg      There was no Iraqi terrorists 'insurgents'' when there was no Americans in Iraq.  In fact ''Antiterror was'' caused terrorism to grow and get recruit worldwide

And some still know nothing  37% of Americans still believe Iraq had WMDs

If it's criminal, what statute does it violate?

i_n_h - agreed that the guilt by association  argument is very weak (as well noted during the McCain campaign).

The terrorist label is a judgement call.  The NYT used the label in their 1947 reporton an incident in Jerusalem.  It's a youthful view that sees it as pertinent only in the context of Islamism.  

but then OBAMA does choose warmongers, zionists, and that is criminal, 

Wow, Eric, I didn't know that choosing a "Zionist" is a criminal offense.  /sarcasm

Eric, you're absolutely ridiculous.

It's a youthful view that sees it as pertinent only in the context of Islamism. 

It's far more prejudicial than actually informative in any other context.  It essentially means someone who uses arms and is "bad."  At least with Islamic terrorism we can agree that those people are terrorists. 

Can you come up with a reasonable definition of "terrorism" that includes only those militant groups popularly considered terrorists and no groups not considered terrorists?

It's far more prejudicial than actually informative in any other context. 

Did you think the NYT was prejudicial against Jews in it's use of the term terrorist?

The use of the word "terrorism" need not be prejudicial.  Though I'd agree that it is loaded by the culture or society's notionof what is sufficiently threatening to cause terror.  I'd suppose the 1947 firebombings in Jerusalem were considered terrorism because of the high level of fear they generated.  If you went back another 50 years the newspaper headlines at the turn of the century were declaring the "anarchists" to be terrorists. 

A reasonable definition might be that terrorism is a tactic.  This implies the user has an agenda or a cause and that tactic elicits a high level of fear. 

Beyond this some people refine terrorism to mean that is only used by non-state actors.  Here the agents of a nation state are considered exempt from use of terrorism as it's cause is assumed to be the best interest of the nation or that an act that generates a high level of fear is justified by the authority of the nation.

Sometimes people further narrow the meaning of terrorism by specifying the target of the tactic as innocents.  

 It essentially means someone who uses arms and is "bad."

What is considered "bad", what is consider "popular", changes.  Those are social norms that would not apply from one culture to the next.  Why restrict the meaning of terrorism to the use of arms?  It's possible to terrorize, generate a threat, without using arms (say, a jumbo jet into a building). 

"Wow, Eric, I didn't know that choosing a "Zionist" is a criminal offense.  /sarcasm"

Well, its quite obvious from his comments that Erik is quite naive politically. (Although his naivete is exceeded, perhaps, only by his arrogant self-righteous know-it-all attitude).

But-- I am a Zionist. Does that make me a "criminal"? When are they coming to lock me up, Erik?

I know, Krishna, I was wondering if I should stand outside and wait for the cops to come get me.

Did you think the NYT was prejudicial against Jews in it's use of the term terrorist?

No, I think it was just sensationalistic and inaccurate. 

A reasonable definition might be that terrorism is a tactic.  This implies the user has an agenda or a cause and that tactic elicits a high level of fear.

Then you've based terrorist-ness not on the tactics of the potential terrorist but on the victims.  So if no one is scared by pipe bombs in, say, Ireland, but those same tactics elicit terror in Sri Lanka, does that mean that the bombers in Sri Lanka are terrorists while those in Ireland are not, despite those two bombers acting identically?

What is considered "bad", what is consider "popular", changes.  Those are social norms that would not apply from one culture to the next.

Yup.  That's why the term is inaccurate per se.  I'm saying that the term is only really applicable at this point to Islamic terrorists, but if people wanted to use a different word for Islamic terrorism, they could do so.

Yes, I think a terror tactic is gaged to elicit a reaction from knowledge of what will elicit terror from the intended victims.  Is the state agent who drops the "shock and awe" bombs a terrorist?  Not in the usual parlance. 

I don't disagree that the common popular notion of a terrorist is an Islamic jihadist.  I'm just saying it's not particular useful to restrict the use of the word to one particular form or identity.  

Yes, I think a terror tactic is gaged to elicit a reaction from knowledge of what will elicit terror from the intended victims.  Is the state agent who drops the "shock and awe" bombs a terrorist?  Not in the usual parlance.

So we're saying a terrorist is a non-state actor that intentionally causes widespread terror?  I agree that's a generally accepted definition, but I would submit that it's quite arbitrary, useless and inconsistently applied as defined.  First, differentiating between state and non-state actors is arbitrary.  If Estonia (I just picked a country randomly) sent suicide bombers into Latvia, would that not be terrorism?  Yes, I think so.  Second, it's tough to measure intention.  If Estonia sent suicide bombers into Latvia, not intending to detonate them, but they all detonated accidentally, would that not be terrorism?  The effect is still the same.  However, if Estonia dropped bombs from planes on the same locations where the suicide bombers would have detonated, that would simply be war, not terrorism.

It seems, then, that we define terrorism largely by tactics -- anyone who engages in tactics associated with asymmetrical warfare (e.g. suicide bombing, car bombing) is a terrorist.  This, too, is a ridiculous definition, because there's nothing per se wrong with using asymmetric tactics and "terrorist" clearly has negative connotations.

I don't disagree that the common popular notion of a terrorist is an Islamic jihadist.  I'm just saying it's not particular useful to restrict the use of the word to one particular form or identity. 

I'm saying that the word is pretty damn useless as it is.  Restricting it to its popular conception would allow it to be used in a substantive way as a shortcut for "Islamic jihadist" or whatever we're supposed to call them now.  It probably would be more useful to just drop the term.

Rense is your classic "Jews control the world" anti-Semitism.

Or David Duke (I do not think it appropriate to link to hate sites here, so I will not). But the point is, there's lot of hate on the 'net. IMO it is best ignored-- linking to it or repeating some of that garbage only makes things worse.

If you really want to be entertained or reviled depending on your outlook, check out Jew Watch and Stormfront sometime.

With 90% of the whole World, I was delighted that Obama won. The alternative was a nightmare

Inside and outside US, people were busy of the red herring 'Obama,s backgrounding' to notice his political and economical false statements.     

A moderate Islamic scholar issued an interesting prediction over Obama,s policies in the middle east

on the eve of the U.S. elections Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi expressed his preference for Sen. John McCain as president:

"Personally, I would prefer for the Republican candidate, [John] McCain, to be elected.   This is because I prefer the obvious enemy who does not hypocritically [conceal] his hostility toward you… to the enemy who wears a mask [of friendliness]."

Al-Qaradhawi: The Democrats Are Like a Snake That "Kill[s] You Slowly Without You Noticing"

a follow up re:  #9 - remark made by Emanuel's father -

 US president-elect Barack Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel apologized to an Arab-American group on Thursday for comments disparaging Arabs made by his father.

link 

"You can't blame a son for his father's crimes..."

Gideon can. And-- he can claim someone is both Zionist and anti-Semitic. When you enter his Newsvine column-- you are entering..the Twilight Zone! (cue strange music). Anything is possible-- the more absurd the better (Btw, did I mention that the lunar landing never happened-- it was all a hoax--perpetrated by anti-Semitic zionists!).

Heh :-)

Rhetorics aren,t  adding anything  or ruling out anything ,   it doesn,t refute that the House Chief is Zionist whose loyality is for Israel not US , and it doesn,t rule out that his father was a member of terrorist Irgun 

What exactly 'the more absurd' here to be discussed?    A Zionist anti-semite?   may be this,s a figure for anti-self.    Besides,  are all Semites from Zionists...or all Zionists from Semites?

Fada there is no proof that his father was in Irgun, unless of course you'd like to link such proof?

What is the kind of accepted proof JahRagga?    From corporate media sources?   logically  they won,t mention anything about that .       Even ''Rham,s website'' has been deleted recently     http://www.house. gov/ emanuel/ aboutrahm. shtml

But there are other sources that would be of course slandered as anything but telling the truth , so let us start with Israeli source ''Haaretz''

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1034855.html

Emanuel, a former Bill Clinton adviser, is the son of a Jerusalem-born pediatrician who was a member of the Irgun (Etzel or IZL), a militant Zionist group that operated in Palestine between 1931 and 1948

"Obama is a pro-Israeli leader and will be a friend to Israel," he said, adding that he was pleased with Obama's election.

http://www.rense.com/general83/eman.htm

http://www.erichufschmid.net/TFC/Bollyn-Emanuel.html

rahm's website has been deleted???...that was quick i just viewed it last night...

You mean this website?  The one I had no problem getting to?

http://www.house.gov/emanuel/

or maybe his biography?

http://www.house.gov/emanuel/biography.pdf

What is the kind of accepted proof JahRagga?    

Something that has been verified Fada nothing less is acceptable.

Haaretz lies too about Israeli citizen dr.Benjamin?

"  it doesn,t refute that the House Chief is Zionist whose loyality is for Israel not US"

You must believe that Obama is really , really a stupid person-- if he appoints as his CoS someone whose  loyalty is to a foreign power and not to the U.S.

Your deluded views don't really say anything about Obama-- but they do give us a clearer picture of "where you are coming from-- it seems you are about as clear thinking as an Erik Albert...

(Not that it matters, but just thought I'd mention it-- I disagree highly with your negative assessment of Obama's intellectual prowess :-)

You must , Your deluded views , where you are coming from ,  it seems you  , with your m

Please don,t adress me any replies as you look obcessed with the persons not the issues put for discussion. 

I don,t know you and I am not a friend argueing with you in some cafe to allow yourself to analyse me .     

All what you have here is the right to talk about the seeded topic   which is :

Son Of A Zionist Terrorist Should Not Be Obama's White House Chief of Staff"

Wikipedia deletes Benjamin Emanuel entry (a little sign of the "new" times?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_M._Emanuel

In the blog article Wikipedia deletes Benjamin Emanuel entry (a little sign of the "new" times?)  They stated the following:

The old entry is no longer even in Google cache. The Progressive Mind was forward-thinking enough to save the original entry, including the original links. Here's what is used say:

They are wrong, here's the cached version:  http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:NMVg2T3WhCMJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_M._Emanuel+/wiki/Benjamin_M._Emanuel&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Wikipedia's deletion policy is here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy

Except of deletion policy:

Reasons for Deletions:

Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following (subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page):

• Copyright violations and other material violating Wikipedia's fair-use policy
• Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages which exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish
• Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)
• Content forks (unless a merge or redirect is appropriate)
• Articles which cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles which are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)
• Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
• Articles whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)
• Articles which breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons
• Redundant or otherwise useless templates
• Categories representing overcategorization
• Images that are unused, obsolete, or violate fair-use policy
• Any other use of article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace.
• Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia

Here's the discussion on the deletion of the wiki entry on Benjamin Emanuel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Benjamin_M._Emanuel_(2nd_nomination)

Excerpt:

The result was Delete. Those opposing the article's deletion have generally failed to cite any relevant Wikipedia policies or guidelines, instead insisting on "transparency" and positing various conspiracy theories. In addition, the vast majority of those opposing deletion are new editors, or editors who have not edited Wikipedia for months, only to suddenly show up here demanding the article be kept. The fact that this deletion discussion has been widely advertised offsite (e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4]), with people there agitating that it should be kept, explains their presence here. Those supporting deletion of the article have cited relevant guidelines (e.g. WP:N, WP:POVFORK), and point out that the actual sources used, aside from one, aren't about the subject. Another relevant policy is WP:CSD G4. Perhaps most importantly, the only purpose of this article appears to be as a means of attacking Emanuel or his father; thus WP:BLP comes into play. This AfD also needs to be closed quickly, as this deletion page itself is becoming a violation of WP:BLP. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

" I think he knows what he is doing."

What-- dop you really believe that Obama is better informed than-- Eric Albert (Peace Be Upon Him)?

/sarcasm

No kidding?! Maybe Eric should be Obama's CoS then huh? How could Obama have overlooked that?

In answer to 11.5 (above) Because Obama is a Christian he subscribes to scripture that says a son can't be held for sins of his father and not one scripture says a son must denounce the father's actions...

btw... the family of 3- boys (quite wealthy from hard work in America) are investigating this Kos article to see if either libel or defamation laws apply, since, the man in question is Not Related to The Emanuels (i know a lot of people with that last name, so, i guess the error is possible) i'll wait for the lawsuit....  

It may be prudent to observe how things unfold before rushing to a conclusion.

Agree. Obama hasn't even been sworn in yet. Let's see how things play out before jumping off the deep end.

Let's see how things play out before jumping off the deep end

If ever there was anything in the statement "keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer", this might be a time to test it!

There is no connection whatsoever between Benjamin Emanuel and Lihe or Irgun other than he named one of his children after a Lihe member that was killed. 

Did you mean Lehi (Lihe)?  There is some connection there.  Check this June,1997 NYT article about the Emanuel brothers.  I hope it will also add some context to the association. 

Yes I meant Lehi thanks Meloney.  I've already read that article and it doesn't have any "proof" that Benjamin was a member or performed any specific acts of terrorism for either Lehi or Irgun. 

Given that Rahm's father, Benjamin, was born in Jerusalem (1937) and the political circumstances there at the time that he was a young man (he came to the US in the 50's) I don't have reason to question the background as revealed through the interview (snipped from the NYT article):

The Boys went to summer camp in Israel, and reveled in the family lore: in 1933, after their uncle Emanuel Auerbach was killed in a skirmish with Arabs in Jerusalem, the family changed its last name to his first, as a tribute.

No, it does not implicate Benjamin as a "terrorist" (that's a judgement call) but it provides a strong connection to particular political entities in Israel.

No, it does not implicate Benjamin as a "terrorist" (that's a judgement call) but it provides a strong connection to particular political entities in Israel.

It does provide a link to Zionism sure, but as you said it proves nothing about Benjamin's relationship at all in any way to anything himself.  I'm just very careful about this whole attempt to do the guilt by association thing.  I want proof nothing less otherwise this is rumor at best.

As a Chicago area resident I'm familiar with Rahm from way back.  The strengths he brings to this position are his familiarity with both the WH & Congress plus his close relationship to the president elect Obama.  He's smart and well connected.  I'm uncertain how his personal ideological views might play into his effectiveness in this office.

The guilt by association and the eagerness to trash Obama for this choice are vehicles for expressing opposition to the views Rahm is assumed to have.  I understand the discomfort with the thought of a highly activist Israeli being in a position to have the ear of the President.  This might have been avoided by the appointment of someone like Tom Daschle but it would be at the sacrifice of a pre-existing close personal relationship.

There is no point in denying the connection Rahm has to Israel.  Let's accept it for what it is and be optimistic that he'll be an effective WH Chief of Staff based on his clear strengths.      

So much for Obama's promise to be a "different kind of politician" and an emissary of "hope and change."

Chicago crimes and better schools should be a priority for the Chicagoans.

...a little off topic but yes, det, those are big issues in Chicago.

The mayor was quick to say he is grateful to be looking forward to working with a federal administration that does not need to be educated on urban issues.   Obama already understands.

Mel,

I know, I know.  Everybody understands. Didn't the Mayor was in touch with a Federal Administration before? 

Yes det.  The mayor's brother was even Commerce Secretary during Clinton's second term.  There are lots of connections between Chicago & DC. 

What the mayor meant was that the Bush Administration was insensitive or unresponsive to urban issues. 

Let's add the Pope to that list also, PIK! Ex-Nazi and member of Hitler youth.

The rampant paranoia and conspiracy theories are downright frightening. Please, please read various sources and don't jump to conclusions based one questionable article.

As the famous New Yorker cartoon dog said to the other dog, "On the internet no one knows you're a dog."

Here's a thought, kinda new and revolutionary ...

- How about burying predictions based on ideology, whislt desparately trying to sound the most reasonable guy in the world

- Burying position taking whilst trying to sound reasonable, but getting in line to moan or duck out if proved wrong

- Credit people for their actual abilities, not count the numbers of "Democrats", or "Republicans" in teams and committees

- Start believing that others also have common sense and intellect, and allow them to at least start to do their job before yelling at every minute thing they do, claiming the end of the world is nigh.

- Start being patriotic, not just intone it; start being bi-partisan, not just intone it; start actively seeing what you can do to help, not just intone it and knee destruction of all those who dare do something you dont like.

- Acknowledge that the phrase "work as a team" applys to groups of more than one person

- Start being Human Beings again, not go down another road to the same old tired destination of personal wealth, power, and position, and recognise that tired old crap got everyone into this mess in the first place.

Then we have all got a fighting chance of getting out of this mess.

::sigh:: if only that would happen.

It's so sad that there are still people hanging onto the vine that wish to perpetuate this kind of blatant hatred.

"Its finally dawned on people that the route of spewing hate and fear does not resolve issues,"

Well,I think that's true in many cases. (And let's not forget that Obama, despite all the nonsensical & highly delusional attempts at character assassination we are seeing-- he is the first African-American to be elected president. Sure-- there's still racism in America-- but this election is a strong indication that things are moving isignificantly-- n the right direction).

However, in terms of "cerebral retards" spewing hate, dicvision, fear etc... unfortunately that still does exist to some degree-- one only has rto scroll upwards here and see that sort of hatred right here in this discussion.

Readers of this column: if you do see that sort of thing, please be aware that it is not only obnoxious-- but a violation of the CoH as well. You can help-- if you do see a comment that is inflammatory-- click the ! on the lower right side of theat comment box and report it as such.

Here's another true story. A while back I met a guy from Alabama named Pat. (No need to mention his last name here). His grandfather was a high Klan official-- I believe he was actually the "Grand Dragon"-- of the KKK in Alabama!

Well-- knowing that, I suppose some of Newsvine's obnoxious (but relatively few) hate-mongers would start foaming at the mouth with their ususal attmeptys at inflamming this discussion. Based, as is so often the case, on their lack of knowlege of the facts.

Because, you see-- I met Pat some time ago-- at the timeI was doing civil rights work in the south. Pat (who was a white guy from Alabama-- whose roots were pure "red-neck") had decided to dedicate that part of his life to working for equality-- racial harmony. He had a part time job that allowed him to subsist on a modest income-- but devoted most of his waking hours to being a civil rights activist.

Should we diss the guy-- because of what his grandfather was?

I must admit, up to this point in reading all the comments it will be hard for me to settle my mind. Okay an anti-semitic zionist. Seems like that would be like an anti-negro African. (excuse me, I'm Black you know). But anyway, I started out trying to read all the back and forth here about Rahm, his father, blah blah blah and I channeled off and found this:

Presenting Zionism and Israel

Be Proud. Don't be afraid to say that you support Israel and that you are a Zionist, but always be careful to explain that 'Zionism' may not be what your audience may think it is.

You are a Zionist. You are not Zionism. Always be clear to separate between your opinions and personal ideas from Zionism.

Remember the audience. You don't need to convince committed Zionists. Arguments that may be "convincing" to you, don't necessarily carry weight with those of other faiths and backgrounds. You aren't going to convince members of the Aryan Nation or the Hamas either, so there is no point arguing directly with them.

The Zionist community in Palestine, despite meager resources and Arab and British opposition, rescued hundreds of thousands of European Jews who would have otherwise perished in the Holocaust.

There is much more. 

http://zionism-israel.com/proud_zionist.htm

"Get Smarter Here" I'm certainly trying. Join me.

Worry not, the story is a stretch at best. Terrorism is the boogeyman of the day. Fear is the tool that kept Bush, the terror president, in power.

Obama represents an active rejection of this lead by terror.

I HOPE you are right George. Hopefully a strong accountability to the people, with the use of the Internet and such, will be established to over come this!

Thanks for the source link. This is astounding and these are the issues we must hold Obama to starting day 1

So WWII was also a plot by dark, hidden, zionist cospirators?

credibility=null

COMMUNISM was the magic word to justify Vietnam.

Oh, don't forget Korea also.

WWII, The Korean war, Vietnam, the cold war, Iraq, 9/11,

ALL PROOF OF THE GREAT ANTI-SEMITIC ZIONIST CONSPIRACY!!!

ROFLMAO

Forgot to add the following:

Go to the top of this page and check the author's column out.  That should explain this whole bunch of "sins of the father's" thing he wrote.

And correct me, but when the President-elect hires someone, isn't he also allowed to FIRE them if he wants.  Don't they serve "at the pleasure of the President".  Just wondering, you know.  

Haaretz and Ynet are not laughing and not suggesting deletiion of the same news

Yes-- and here's another revealing article-- that certsainly gives some indication into the direction in which Obama may be proceding: Obama: 'Iran must stop aiding terror groups'

Haven't gotten to krishna's link, but I'll highly recommend Raat's to Spagnoli's article. Light rather than heat.

Thanks Miss J. Playing devils advocate, there's also another article that should be read.

The Book That Can’t Be Published In America

Alan Hart, the author, is a former Middle East Chief Correspondent for Independent Television News, and former BBC Panorama presenter specialising in the Middle East. source: wiki

I am baffled why the book cannot be published in America.

 It makes the polemics I see here look stupider than ever.

Agreed, UG! Sadly, agreed.

hey wkb, just read thru this entire thread...you know me, gettin' around the vines..amazing, amazing stuff here.....I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry!

I keep coming back to one question, even after reading this whole conversation.....what is an anti-semitic Zionist? No, don't answer....please....can't take it any more....my sides are beginning to hurt.....rofl........

"hey wkb, just read thru this entire thread...you know me, gettin' around the vines..amazing, amazing stuff here.....I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry!

I keep coming back to one question, even after reading this whole conversation.....what is an anti-semitic Zionist? No, don't answer....please....can't take it any more....my sides are beginning to hurt.....rofl........"

Some real lunacy being expressed here...no doubt about it. I wonder..must be a full moon? (Or-- another possibliity...even scarier...maybe its not a full moon...maybe they're always this nutty...wery, wery weird!)

Well, Denn, its almost worth the few laughs this kind of article provides, except one has to go through incredible bigotry to see how laughable it is.

You're all very kind.  This is xenophobic tripe.  It's truly disgusting.

Hitler had clones. Haven't you ever seen "The Boys from Brazil?"

That's it!, arnold shwarznegger is an enhanced adolf hitler clone!

Clear proof of the anti-semetic, zionist, 9-11 conspiracy! 

Oh no, danwill, and now California will go down the tubes!!  ::warbling wail of despair::

As I recall, the command to attack for the killer dobermans in "The Boys from Brazil" was the word "action." "Action" is the command commonly used by film directors for actors to commence acting as in "Lights, camera, action." Schwartzenegger was an "action" hero in film. Thus, Schwarzenegger is a Nazi. It's all so clear to me.

LOL, Dev Null!!  Great "deduction".

Elementary, my dear Watson, elementary!

By the way, did you know Sherlock Holmes employed inductive as opposed to deductive logic to determine the conclusions of his cases? He kept saying it was deduction, but it wasn't!