tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30603050.post8763640227602612893..comments2023-10-10T12:29:32.468-04:00Comments on Bleier's Blog: Stephen Zunes: Rahm Emanuel: Single Loyalty? --To IsraelRonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06894911763711058827noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30603050.post-41396770804637891962008-11-13T22:48:00.000-05:002008-11-13T22:48:00.000-05:00For more enlightened reading, please see reknown h...For more enlightened reading, please see reknown historian Paul Johnson’s History of the Jews, as well as Daniel Pipes and Steven Emerson for a reality check.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30603050.post-42387016016737750172008-11-13T22:43:00.000-05:002008-11-13T22:43:00.000-05:00Xymphora: Such fantastical ravings; I’m sure Goeb...Xymphora: <BR/> <BR/>Such fantastical ravings; I’m sure Goebbels is doing a jig in hell. Too bad you didn’t live in Nazi Germany at that time; I’m sure you could have been a daily contributor to Der Sturmer. The Jews always look more powerful in anti-Semitic newspapers and blogs. Too bad they don’t have all the influence you attribute to them. I’m sure the world would be a better place.<BR/><BR/>If Jewish lobbyists had any power, then Israel would not be the only country to secede from land they conquered in wars that were imposed upon them. <BR/><BR/>If Rahm was an ardent Zionist, then he wouldn't have advocated on behalf of the Oslo “peace” process, an agreement that would have pushed Israel back to Auschwitz borders.<BR/><BR/>If there are a handful of Jewish billionaires, they would pale in comparison to the myriads of OPEC lords.<BR/><BR/>And…<BR/><BR/>If you could just hate the greatest contributors to mankind just a little bit more, then I'm sure you would do us all a favor and implode.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30603050.post-39542366202528197532008-11-12T22:18:00.000-05:002008-11-12T22:18:00.000-05:00Tuesday, November 11, 2008Nice to see that popular...Tuesday, November 11, 2008<BR/>Nice to see that popular Canadian Blogger, Xymphora (he got 173 comments on this blog) and I were on the same wave length on the question of whether Obama might have picked up trick from Lincoln and brought Emanuel into the tent instead of having him circumscribe whatever justice he can try to manage for the Palestinians from outside. It's a big hope but we still have a few weeks where hope will be largest before the fall.<BR/>Ronald<BR/><BR/><BR/>Blogger Xymphora wrote:<BR/>11 November 2008<BR/>Barack Machiavelli<BR/>Rahm Emanuel, the son-of-a-racist-terrorist son-of-a-bitch Israeli firster, as Obama's chief of staff seems to send an awful message, that despite all the damage that American fealty to Zionism has done - to itself, Israel, and the world - and despite all the hopes and wishes of true American progressives - who of course can't elucidate what they really want without being slurred! - Obama is just another traitor who couldn't wait to don the shackles of the Jewish Billionaires. I wouldn't give up being suspicious, but I think the Rahm appointment may have been a bit of genius.<BR/><BR/>Rahm has to be dealt with. He has an immense power base in the Democratic Party. He isn't going anywhere. If Obama had left him in the House, Rahm would have been running things, and could have held Obama's legislative agenda to ransom for the only issue that concerns Rahm, ultra-Zionism. Making Rahm chief of staff, a position which sounds good, but carries no real power, cuts Rahm's balls off. It was a brilliant move - a position important enough that Rahm couldn't turn it down (and Obama made sure the offer was made public to put the pressure on Rahm), but a position that denies Rahm any real sway over American politics. The Head Jew, whose approval Rahm would have had to seek to ensure the move was in accordance with the tenets of Organized American Zionism, must be shaking his head at the cleverness of this schwartze.<BR/><BR/>Don't give up on Obama yet. The Rahm move could be a sign of American patriotism, not more treason. I am still convinced that the people pulling Obama's strings are the Old American Establishment, and the Old American Establishment really wants to try to save American power (and don't forget that American economic woes caused by the Wars For The Jews have greatly reduced the wealth and power of the Jewish Billionaires - this kind of embarrassment would not have been necessary before they lost their power). To do so, there can be no more Wars For The Jews, and there needs to be a real final settlement of the Jewish Holocaust against the Palestinians, a settlement that the United States can take credit for. In order to make this happen, needless to say, Obama's senior cabinet has to be Judenfrei. That's because there are simply no Jewish American political operatives who are not Zionists. It remains to be seen whether Obama is an American Machiavelli or another American traitor.Ronaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06894911763711058827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30603050.post-42714457178512572682008-11-10T14:33:00.000-05:002008-11-10T14:33:00.000-05:00Joe wrote:Zunes is a zionist...ii outed him a coup...Joe wrote:<BR/>Zunes is a zionist...ii outed him a couple years ago...and he stated that ,Yes, I am a zionist. He is not a jew but his wife is. he is also a leftist. Joe<BR/><BR/><BR/>M began by quoting my blog entry:<BR/><BR/>Could it be that, like Lincoln, Obama is cleverly including opposition to change within his administration. Also by choosing Emanuel, Obama might be trying to soften blows he might otherwise receive from AIPAC and the Israeli lobby in case he hints at a more just U.S. Mideast policy. <BR/> <BR/> M commented;<BR/>On what basis do you suppose that Obama is even considering a more just US mideast policy? What has he ever done to merit that supposition? And what is this stuff about "cleverly including opposition to change within his administration"? He has never represented much change, which has been for the most part an empty slogan which people are eager to believe. Indeed, it was Emanuel who pointed out that whichever candidate could claim to be a change, usually spurious, wins the election. I simply cannot fathom why Obama gets this benefit of the doubt. . . maybe that's what "charisma" means. If I had a crystal ball, I would predict that his administration will be like that of Clinton, who everyone was so smitten with that despite disappointment after disappointment, they continued to hope that something good would happen. . . M<BR/><BR/>Sam wrote:<BR/>If there's to be change, how do you "(include) opposition to change?" <BR/><BR/>Obama's change can be very little if it means change from the extremely far right of Bush. He did not say that was not the change he would make. We can hope for more, but is there evidence it will be left of center or even to center? Perhaps on some domestic issues but in foreign affairs?<BR/><BR/>I suspect Obama's main contribution to history has already occurred: a minority is to be resident of White House. Therefore, his greatest "change" may be social, not political. The electorial process seems set up to vet anyone who might give us true political change. So we wait to see. <BR/><BR/>Best,<BR/>Sam<BR/><BR/>M quoted another writer:<BR/><BR/>I suspect Obama's main contribution to history has already occurred: a minority is to be resident of White House. <BR/><BR/>And M replied:<BR/><BR/> It has gone largely unreported but another "social" change against a population group occurred during the election: the State Senate of New Hampshire finally has a female majority. Anyone cheering?--M<BR/><BR/>S wrote:<BR/>What's got New Hamshire to lead the world? <BR/><BR/>Of the 349 (Swedish) parliament members, 47 percent are women (164 people). After the last election in 2002, women made up 45.3 percent of parliament. <BR/><BR/>Sweden remains the second most gender-balanced parliament in the world, after Rwanda, where 48.8 percent of representatives are women, according to the Inter-Parliamentary Union. The next most successful country in Europe is Norway, where 37.9 percent of seats are held by women.<BR/><BR/>A wrote:<BR/>Why is it that liberals insist of seeing political change in terms of demons and saviors?<BR/>I hate to tell you Ronald, but its really about class struggle...<BR/>and in this game, deceiving the people is a long time tactic...<BR/>how is it that you have forgotten this lesson?<BR/>but that's OK...<BR/>the financial oligarchy will teach it to you again....Ronaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06894911763711058827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30603050.post-27338067553319916532008-11-09T23:11:00.000-05:002008-11-09T23:11:00.000-05:00I expect this kind of insidious response from a Sa...I expect this kind of insidious response from a Saudi funded chair. He’s concerned about Rahm Emanuel but not about Farakhan, Davis, Ayers, or Rashidi. The U.S. should always act in its best interest. German sympathy was a major obstacle to entering WWII. Antisemitic rants called it a “Jew war” up until Pearl Harbor; we still have not learned the lesson of 9/11. The Arab world only respects strength and their agenda is confirmed by how good, kind and generous we are.<BR/><BR/>Israel, the buttress of the west, has held back the Islamofascists’ aspirations of conquering and dominating the world. Will it take another catastrophe for the world to show a little gratitude for G-D's chosen people?<BR/>P.S . Please see Nonie Darwish and Brigitte Gabriel for more enlightened reading .Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com