You have articulated my thoughts about RE. I am happy about Obama simply because McCain would have been worse. But I am weary that he is already being co-opted before he even takes office.

Even at huff post, the news of RE being offered the COS position has elicited a lot of negative comments - everyone was worried that a pro war Zionist was getting such an important appointment. I'd be very happy if the news is really premature and that people are just floating the idea ahead of the fact.

But, it did cause me to step back and question whether I had jumped the gun too early, which is not at all a bad thing for me to do. So, I began doing more research into Rahmbo in a feeble attempt to follow up on Lazlo's suggestion that I write more.

However, you and others began a flurry of posts containing much of what I had been finding out about this creachture. I was very happy to see that you had found the Walsh piece from 2006 and rushed it's republishing here. LH posted Rahmbo's father's intriguing comments from his Hebrew only interview with Ma'ariv and quoted in a jpost article moments before I had intended to do so.

What I started thinking about was the level of discovery and vetting of the Bush/Cheny cabal eight years ago. How would things have been different had there been as many net-savvy people then as there are today who may have unearthed the worms only to be found much later, too late to use for productive fishing.

I believe nothing coming from public serpents in government anymore. I assume everything to be a lie to be exposed as quickly as possible. I see Oblamala and the Praetorian Guard being assembled to isolate, insulate, and manipulate him as no friend to 9/11 Truth and Individual Liberty and therefore, no friend of mine. No quarter, I say.

"A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money."
~~ attributed to Senator Everett Dirksen

and I say mainstream. the word is most definitely problematic. by it I mean that it is openly discussed, that media can't get away with not covering it because so many people don't just know but are concerned and yes, upset enough to hold everyone around them to account for their position on it.

psychology plays an enormous role in all of this. I just had a conversation with my close family to express to them my concerns about everything. I asked them point blank what they thought about 9/11 and what they had learned about it from me. I was prompted to do this by a brief conversation preceding about the relative talents of Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann, whom my family said they enjoyed watching (knowing full well it was fluffy pseudo-journalism.)

They answered first that yes, there were obvious problems with the way the buildings including building 7 were destroyed. They also assured me that they did discuss the issues whenever the opportunity came up, however seldom. I pushed them on the fact that if they understood these issues why they did not seem to display more urgent concern, or more specifically how they could stand watching either Maddow or Olbermann given their positions. They replied that they simply didn't expect such bravery from what were essentially entertainers and threw out the old "so you think EVERYONE is in on this?"

I aksed them where they would draw the line on people claiming not to understand or believe the issues they knew full well were real. I asked them if they would find it odd, for example, if someone argued to them that OJ was found not guilty so that to continue to assert suspicion of his guilt was a sign of racism. Would that opinion be dismissible as inappropriate?

I then changed tack and began to explain why I was having this conversation with them--that we were entering a dangerous new period with a new administration that like Clinton's might wel be targeted by what we will be told were "right wing domestic terrorists" and that tehre would be efforts to paint people like me with that broad brush, as absurd as the charge would be. I told them abot the Wiesenthal Cneter linking Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth to internet terrorism, which shocked them. I asked them what they remembered about the Oklahoma City bombing and of course it was Tim McVeigh, that other guy (Nichols) and their truck bomb.

I then asked them to watch the news reports from the day of the OKC bombing with me to show them how the story had changed from the initial unambiguous reports of multipole devices discovered in the building. This was a revelation to them, and they then asked to see what wikipedia had to say about it. They realized that the wikipedia article on OKC gave the most minimal treatment to the news reports--not even mentioning their existence, instead stating that "some people believe" there is a conspiracy to conceal the presence of other bombs with no link to the news reports. They found this as suspicious as do.

These family members have known of my efforts of the last 5 years and more and had still not given the subject enough attention to make the connection between OKC and 9/11. One had even watched Painful Deceptions with me years ago, a film which includes the OKC news reports! The facts obviously did not make much of an impression on him at the time as he did not seem to recall having been exposed to the information already.

Experiences like these serve to support my belief that having clear evidence of the facts available and presented to a person once do not guarantee that they will fully grasp the significance or importance of doing something more than saying "oh yeah, I know" when the issue of 9/11 truth is brought up. My family seemed genuinely surprised by the extent of my concern about what the future could bring. These are the people who are closest to ma and who love me more than anyone else in the world--what can we expect from people who do NOT count truthers among their closest loved ones? People with every reason to believe that the newly elected president is a very real force for change and hope and who does not give credence to "bizarre conspiracy theories?"

We know that people like David Griffin and Bill Christison originally dismissed the case for 9/11 truth, and that each eventually, not immediately, came around and became its forceful advocates. This fact suggests to me a rule that we should bear in mind which is never to assume that someone is averse to the truth on principle unless they are actively fighting it like Bill Maher and George Monbiot to use two simple examples. This includes Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow. While we may be wrong about them in particular, we may not, and we should not be alienating people who hold them in high regard when we can reap so much more support from pointing out the incredibly flawed anti-truth arguments of Bill Maher and Popular Mechanics, for instance.

A man like Obama is in a unique position to help or harm the cause of full disclosure with regard to 9/11. We owe it to ourselves to work smarter, not harder, to increase the chances that he will either become aware of the realness of the issue or if he already is to realize that he is morally obliged regardless of the risks to help bring about the right course of action. To say that if he doesn't, now that he is elected, immediately declare 9/11 a fraud and call for a new investigation that he is "obviously" against the revelation of the truth is to shoot ourselves in the foot. It will simply take our most natural base of support--those fed up with the Bush years--and give them a great reaosn (in their minds at least) to not give truthers the tiome of day much less the sustained considered attention that we *know* is needed in many cases for people to come to accept the facts as they are.

I say all of this in part to make clear that the website and blog that I maintain is in the end going to be devoted to the approach that I deem best for its continued effective existence (not to mention for my own welfare!)

Those who disagree with me that it is of the utmost importance not to play into the hands of what is a clear strategy that will be used against us--to link our cause to extremist elements (real or fabricated) who are violently opposed to the government, who blur the lines between anti-Zionism and anti-Jewish-personism, and who glorify violent "resistance to oppression" are asked to find a new forum for expressing their views. This is a request but if it is not respected it will be enforced swiftly and without appeal by the withdrawing of posting privileges.

Having myself been wrongly accused of being a provocateur I understand how some may feel unjustly singled out for criticism on these points but we unfortunately do not live in an ideal world, as we all know. And while some may attribute my views on this to paranoia I can only say to them that it's my right to err on the side of caution even if that means, well, erring--including offending or unjustly disassociating people from the site who are in fact genuine activists. I can only hope that if I *am* in error in such cases that those individuals will continue to do good work for the cause of truth elsewhere and thereby continue to grow the movement and spread the cause of real truth to a wider audience without rancor.

remember when people thought Mike Delaney was just a regular anti-Zionist?

Advocacy Groups Ready for Domestic Push
They Hope a Jewish Chief of Staff Will Give Weight to Their Capitol Agenda

By Nathan Guttman and Anthony Weiss
Thu. Nov 06, 2008

Barack Obama will move forward with his domestic agenda with the son of a former Israeli resistance fighter as his first appointment and second-in-command.

Rahm Emanuel, a Jewish congressman from Chicago and former Clinton White House staffer, accepted the post, which will put him in charge of implementing Obama’s policies. That will make him the point person for the many Jewish groups gearing up to push their domestic agenda in what they expect will be a far more hospitable political environment.

Though the Jewish community is, at times, seen as more hawkish on foreign policy, its communal agenda puts it squarely in line with the mainstream Democratic philosophy that the recent election has brought to power, in the form of president-elect Barack Obama and larger Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress.

As a result, based on a combination of campaign positions, party philosophy and early rumors of Cabinet appointments, Jewish groups are ready to promote an expanded agenda focused on social issues. But they will do so in an environment shaped by a deepening economic crisis, and with a president whom they expect will pick and choose his battles in the early days of his administration.

“The fact that they’ll all be from the same party should help our issues,” said William Daroff, United Jewish Communities’ representative in Washington, referring to the Democratic leadership in both Houses and in the White House. But an expanded social agenda “is not a slam dunk,” he added, pointing to the shrinking economy and growing needs that may limit the funding available for such issues as health care, public housing and welfare.

All of those issues will go through Emanuel, the son of a former member of the Irgun, Menachem Begin’s underground militia who volunteered in Israel during the first Gulf War. He is a familiar face to Jewish groups from his years as a senior policy adviser under President Bill Clinton, as well as from his stint in Congress. He is known both for his political talent — he engineered the Democrats’ takeover of the House in 2006 — and his intense, bristly personality.

He also comes from a notable family. His brother, Ari, a Hollywood agent, is the basis for the main character on HBO’s Entourage, while older brother Ezekiel is a prominent bioethicist.

Emanuel is Jewishly active — his children attend a day school in Chicago, and during the most tense days of the financial crisis, he asked his Orthodox rabbi if he could take a conference call about the bailout package during Rosh Hashana. (His rabbi said he could.) Emanuel’s moderate Democratic views on domestic policy also put him in sync with much of the organized Jewish community. 
“He’s extraordinarily smart and disciplined, very focused, knows what needs to get done, and very organized in moving it forward,” said David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism. “There’s not a lot of shmoozing, but a lot of extremely good work.”

Based on the Washington rumor mill, the Obama administration is expected to prominently feature several other Jewish names, as well.

While there is much overlap between the Jewish agenda and Obama’s declared ambitions on health care, assistance to poor and middle-income families, and renewable energy, the issue of immigration may face a tougher hurdle. In one sense, the Democratic sweep in this election strengthens the chances that comprehensive immigration reform — a failure during the Bush administration, mainly because of opposition by conservative Republicans — will be a higher priority in the next Congress.

But Jewish activists who back immigration reform are cautious, predicting that action may be delayed in favor of issues that are seen as more pressing and less controversial. “While we’re going to be pushing for an immediate return to the comprehensive immigration debate, there is a lot of competition at present, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it took somewhat longer than we wish,” said Gideon Aronoff, president and CEO of the Hebrew Immigration Aid Society, a group that led the lobbying effort for a more welcoming immigration policy.

One place where the Jewish community may split is on Obama’s declared intention to continue and even expand the Bush administration’s controversial program of funding social services through faith-based organizations. One restriction that the president-elect has already suggested is to limit the ability of groups that receive government funds to discriminate in hiring workers based solely on their faith.

“This is something we’re concerned about,” said Nathan Diament, the Orthodox Union’s public policy director, who opposes such restrictions. He added that Obama “was not clear enough” regarding his intentions on this issue.

But other Jewish groups have come out strongly in favor of such restrictions. Saperstein said he hoped that the Obama administration would clarify its views on the issue. “We agree strongly with the concept, but there is a wide range of views on how to implement that concept,” Saperstein told the Forward. “We hope it’s implemented in a way that both prevents discrimination and preserves religious freedom and autonomy.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thu. Nov 06, 2008

i had a professor a couple years back who asked the class if they thought wiki was a reliable source for info. i laughed initially, but then realized i was the only one to say no. huh? are you peeps alright? prof also thought it was a good source for info. then again, he was an unkempt zombie from england making ridiculous "art."