R.I.P. Chicago?

It’s official: Rahm Emanuel won the election and will be Chicago’s mayor for the next four years. God help us.

I say “God help us” – not just because I think there’s nothing Rahm can do to save the city. Oh, to be sure, Rahm will go through the motions and appear on lapdog-media TV making “Rah-Rah, let’s go Chicago” speeches. He’ll appear before all the right public fora and mouth all manner of clichés. But I personally don’t believe Rahm will be committed to anything more than lining his own pockets as the City of Broad Shoulders maintains its slow but steady decline.

The low turnout

I must admit surprise at the low turnout for this particular election. Out of 1.4 million registered voters, only 42% had bothered to vote for mayor. That’s especially surprising since voting early by mail was an option. That is, voters didn’t even have to bother to go to their polling places. Out of those 42%, 55% voted for Rahm – and the media calls that a landslide. Perhaps so, but there’s another way of looking at those numbers: Only 23% of Chicago’s registered voters cast their ballots for Rahm.

Worse yet, in my book: For every two who voted, there were three who didn’t.

How to explain that? Maybe those “three who didn’t” realized that none of these candidates could save the city:

Rahm Emanuel (with 55.27% of the vote), Gery Chico (23.93%), Miguel Del Valle (9.26%), Carol Moseley-Braun (8.99%), Patricia Van Pelt-Watkins (1.64%), and “Dock” Walls (.91%).

That is, these voters concluded that the city was past saving. So, rather than compromise their dignity by voting at all, these good citizens simply ignored the election. That seems to be the likeliest reason, though I wish they had considered the following:

“Chicago may well be past saving. But I want to make a statement by rejecting the four Machine front-runners and voting for the only plausible independent on the ballot – Patricia Watkins.”

But those good citizens might have also thought: “If Watkins becomes mayor, then we’ll only have a return to Council Wars, as during the days of Mayor Harold Washington. But this time, the Council will be a bunch of Democrats pissed-off that a Machine Democrat didn’t win the mayor’s seat.”

Blame the candidate?

I was almost tempted to blame Watkins for not running a more inspired campaign. When I viewed footage on her website of a few of her public speeches, I thought: “This person seems too self-effacing, almost apologetic.” I’m not saying she should have tried to out-asshole Rahm Emanuel at his worst, but surely she could have done more than roll over and play dead.

The lapdog-media did its best to exclude or minimize her. She was not even listed as an option when most public opinion polls were conducted. She was not invited to speak with the front-runners during any of the three televised debates. And of course the whole brouhaha over whether Rahm was even eligible to be on the ballot served his purposes quite well – by allowing a circus-like atmosphere to envelope the campaign to the exclusion of any serious debate on the issues. [He couldn’t have planned that any better…hmm..(?)]

And then of course media occasionally got cute, with remarks like this appearing on the CBS website*: “Braun and Del Valle trail, along with two other candidates – [Watkins] and [Walls] – who did not participate in the debate.” They didn’t “participate” because they hadn’t been invited!

I’d even read one mainstream account of how Rahm’s people tried to spin his potty-mouthing and belligerent past. They claim he has matured over time. I beg to differ. Rahm’s behavior, back in the day, was not a sign of immaturity. It was a sign of mental illness – which, by the way, doesn’t just go away over time…it just manages to mask itself.

Should Watkins have tried some high-visibility, grandstanding maneuvers, like showing up outside the debate locations with busloads of supporters, demanding to know why she’s being excluded? Should Watkins have indulged in a bit of guerrilla theater by arranging for her mock crucifixion in the middle of Daley Plaza? Should Watkins have (repeatedly and unceasingly) asked THE embarrassing question of Rahm Emanuel:

“How is it that you were able to ‘earn’ $16.2 million during your two-and-a-half-years of employment with an investment banking firm, even though you had no training or experience whatsoever in this field? Don’t you think you should come clean with Chicago voters on this issue, since they might well wonder if you’ll similarly ‘earn’ even more once you achieve supreme political power as their mayor?”

Should Watkins have promised to use her training as a Certified Public Account to “get to the bottom” of Chicago’s fiscal mess?

I had even sent e-mails to her campaign with suggestions on how she might proceed. By the way, these e-mails were never acknowledged. So I don’t know why Watkins didn’t run like she meant it. To my mind, there are three possibilities:

• She and her campaign staff were incapable of envisioning bolder campaign strategies.

• She ran a token campaign this time around, with a view toward running more seriously four years from now.

• She was threatened to “tone it down”…or else. [This is Chicago and these boys play rough.]

At this point, though, I want to thank Patricia Van Pelt-Watkins for at least having made an effort.

The only real, long-term solution

Years ago, an actor friend of mine was crying in his beer about how people just don’t go to see live theater any more. But then he remembered something: “If you want an audience, you have to go out and get one. You have to find a way to grow an audience. And if your message is too subtle, you have to find a way to raise consciousness.”

I suggest that a Coalition of Independents do just that. They can organize, resolving to run at least one independent in each of Chicago wards in the next election to oppose incumbent Democratic aldermen. Chicagoans have been lulled into apathy; consider:

“Between 1972 and 2009, a total of 30 Chicago aldermen were indicted and convicted of federal crimes such as bribery, extortion, embezzlement, conspiracy, mail fraud and income tax evasion.”**

But even such negativity can be overcome, if only a power base can be established. And that base should come from the local universities, since they (unlike the labor unions, for example) haven’t been sucked into the culture of corruption that is uniquely the City of Chicago’s and the State of Illinois’. These universities, from among their ranks of professors, could be a source of independent candidates as well as a forum of opposition to the “business as usual” Democratic Party gangstas.

Of course, anything can be corrupted – even a reformist movement. This is Chicago, after all, and the elite have much to lose if their grip on power slips even a notch. So I suggest that any sincere potential members of such a Coalition keep it simple. Don’t, for instance, name your group the People’s Collective or Chicagoans for Socialist Change. Calling yourselves simply the Coalition of Independents adequately makes the point.

The mission of such a group is to seek out and enlist/draft potential candidates among academics (or other pillars of the community) who would be willing to run for election, and to serve if elected. The Coalition could also serve to advertise their existence, and promote the necessity of dismantling the One Party system in this town. They could even ask embarrassing questions like, “Why isn’t the money that’s been collected under the TIF programs been spent on economic development, as it’s supposed to be?”

Chicagoans don’t have to just lie down and take it any more. But they do need a focal point and visible leadership, which such a Coalition could provide.

If enough well-intentioned men and women do nothing, then we’ll always have business as usual and we’ll always lack viable alternatives. And we’ll always have people like Daley, Emanuel, and Edward Burke in charge. “Oh well, people are always free to leave if they don’t like it” – that’s what a cynic might say. Right! People are leaving – at least, those who can. As for those who get “left behind,” they might as well get used to comforting themselves by thinking, “Oh well, at least we have Democrats in charge here.” [Put that on your tombstone, dammit!]

Somehow, though, I don’t think that will be much consolation to our remaining residents, who will see their city sinking further while the boys at the top (and their cronies) manage to keep doing very well, thank you very much!

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“The only thing that can save Chicago is a strong mayor, strong city council model – with independents at the helm” – Steve.

   *  http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/02/17/major-chicago-mayoral-candidates-debate/

  ** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_City_Council

Anatomy of a Chicago election – Feb, 2011

Thesis: In a calculated attempt to throw the election to Rahm Emanuel, Carol Moseley Braun was chosen to be the so-called “consensus Black candidate” for Mayor of Chicago.

Disclaimer: Since I wasn’t a fly on the wall (nor did I engage in illegal wiretapping), I couldn’t prove my thesis in a court of law. What I’m about to offer is my best attempt to deduce the realities behind this election.

As for the two leading Black candidates:

Danny Davis has been serving in the US House of Reps since 1997. James Meeks has been in the Illinois state senate for 8 years, his term ending in 2012.

Either of these two gentlemen would have had a better chance than Carol Moseley Braun – that is, if they had really been serious about running for Mayor in the first place. Which, I’m convinced, they weren’t. The biggest reason? Neither really wanted to give up their relatively safe positions only to be raked over the coals as mayor. They both, correctly I believe, see that Chicago is in such fiscally bad shape, nothing they would do could pluck this city from the jaws of disaster.

That’s how bad it is. So, you might ask, why would Rahm Emanuel want the job? Answer: To line his pockets before Chicago totally tanks.

Davis and Meeks aren’t stupid. They know Chicago is teetering on the brink of disaster and they don’t want a Black mayor to be the fall guy. They’re perfectly willing to wait for a Black to try to dethrone Rahm, while allowing him (as his reward for service to Obama) to line his pockets as the house of cards comes tumbling down. In that sense, they’re good Democrats trying to please their Commander in Chief.

That’s why they settled on Moseley Braun.

What about Carol?

CMB tried to act all indignant when challenged to produce her income tax records. She had to know well in advance that she would be challenged, along with the other candidates, to produce these documents. But she said, no – basically because she didn’t feel like it. But…the very next day, she produces them. Are we to believe that she hadn’t thought this out? That she didn’t think she’d be asked, though she had been in a previous election? She knew she’d be asked. And she intentionally gave a “flippant” answer [“Because I don’t want to”], knowing she would reverse herself almost immediately.

What people would walk away with, upon analyzing her forms: Carol, who wants to run this city, doesn’t have her own personal finances in order. In fact, one could call her situation a “train wreck.”

She also said she was committed to transparency in government and that her decision to release her tax forms was not a “flip flop.” Like anybody could believe either statement. Which is exactly the point. Nobody could believe those words, which is exactly why she said them. To sink her own candidacy. She doesn’t really want to be mayor.

As if that weren’t convincing enough, she falsely accused fellow candidate Watkins (whose campaign hadn’t gained much traction at all) in these words at a public candidate forum:

“Patricia, the reason you didn’t know where I was the last 20 years is because you were strung out on crack.”

The net effect of her antics is to undermine her credibility with Black voters. If enough of them stay home and don’t vote, Rahm Emanuel will emerge with enough votes (50% + 1) to win the election outright, without forcing a runoff. Of course, there's another possibility: If enough Blacks are disgusted with Carol, they'll vote for Rahm since they think that's what Obama wants.

In summary

Danny Davis and Reverend Meeks purposely participated in a scheme to back the weakest “major” Black candidate, complete with that candidate’s complicity, in order to throw the election to Rahm Emanuel. And they are confident that Emanuel not only won’t be able to save Chicago from (literally) decades of mismanagement, but he doesn’t even want to.

Patricia Van Pelt-Watkins for Mayor

I personally believe Watkins is sincere, though I was a bit crestfallen to see her campaign literature identify her as a Democrat. I’m sure her campaign thinks that was a wise move. Wiser, though, would have been to present her as an Independent since, before too long, Chicagoans will be so sick of the Democratic Party stranglehold on this city, they will be willing to embrace Independent candidates. However, in order for that to work, all 50 aldermanic incumbents will have to be challenged by a coordinated coalition of independents.

I’m also disappointed in Watkins not challenging Chicago’s rampant corruption by saying:

“If elected, I will use my training as a certified public accountant to get to the bottom of previously hidden fiscal chicanery. And I will call in auditors from the state and federal governments in order to finally clear the air of any and all financial mismanagement – legal as well as illegal.”

Watkins could have blasted Gideon’s trumpet on this issue, yet she chose not to. My best guess? Simply that she wants to live. [These boys play rough – believe it!]

Perhaps her current campaign is in preparation for a run against Mayor Emanuel in the next election. Maybe at that time, the media won’t be so obviously dismissive of her campaign by means, among others, of not even including her name on opinion polls. It’s been too obvious that all major media have bought into anointing Rahm, shamelessly I might add.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“Whenever oddities or outright strangeness pops up in a campaign, look for underlying strategies” – Steve.

Chicago’s Blacks elect Jewish mayor

If Rahm Emanuel becomes the next mayor of Chicago, our newspapers should run this headline: “Chicago’s Blacks elect Jewish mayor.”

For the only way Rahm can become the next mayor of Chicago will be if Chicago’s Black voters elect him.

And why should Blacks elect Emanuel?

Conventional wisdom has it that a “vote for Rahm” will somehow benefit President Obama. That’s the real gist of the matter – the real argument. But is this argument valid?

No, it is not. The money machine that Obama will need for his reelection is already in place. Rahm’s input will not be necessary in this regard. Whether Obama secures his party’s nomination for a second term will not depend on Emanuel becoming Chicago’s mayor. It will depend on Obama, and as of this writing – Obama has his destiny firmly in hand. At least in terms of any potential challenge from within his own party.

As for a GOP challenger? Again, Rahm won’t have any influence in that regard. Chicago will vote Democratic in the next presidential election, baring any earthshaking blunder on Obama’s part – which isn’t likely.

So there is no truth to the argument that “a vote for Rahm is a vote for Obama.” There’s simply no longer any connection between those two men.

Why Blacks shouldn’t vote for…

Voting for Rahm will not change Chicago’s status as the nation’s most racially-polarized city. When Whitey speaks of Rahm as a man who can “get things done,” he’s talking about getting things done for Whitey.

Voting for Carol, Gery, or Miguel will only be a vote for the regular Democratic “business-as-usual” Party. Translation? Business-as-usual means, the politically connected insiders will continue to profit as the schools and the rest of the city’s infrastructure (especially in the bad neighborhoods) will continue to disintegrate.

William “Dock” Walls III, the only Black male running for mayor, is a somewhat shadowy character. Dock’s days of glory were as an aide to Chicago’s first and only Black mayor, Harold Washington. Since then, he has campaigned for a number of public offices – quite unconvincingly, I might add. I was unable to determine exactly how this man earns his daily bread – he’s not a lawyer (though is a graduate from law school) and he touts himself as the director of the Committee for a Better Chicago. About which I was unable to garner any specifics.

Moreover, exactly why does he call himself “Dock?” If that’s supposed to be short for “doctor,” then shouldn’t he call himself “doc?” What’s up “Dock?”

But why vote for Watkins?

Patricia Watkins is exactly the kind of role model the Black community needs, one who deserves their wholehearted support. She has a Ph.D. in Management and is a Certified Public Accountant. Her work as a community activist is of long duration, successful, and well-documented. And she is an Independent political outsider who won’t be obligated to put the fortunes of the Democratic Party before those of Chicago’s ordinary citizens.

Patricia came from an impoverished background, and she overcame. She admitted she had been a drug user over 30 years ago, but she overcame. Patricia’s name has not even been listed on opinion polls attempting to gauge the public’s interest in the various mayoral candidates. I sincerely hope she will overcome that.

Isn’t this what the Black empowerment struggle is supposed to be all about – overcoming? As in, “We shall overcome?” And yet, the pundits would have you believe that Chicago’s Black community will snub Dr. Patricia Van Pelt Watkins. Those are the same pundits who have treated Carol Moseley Braun as a serious, major candidate. Even though her personal finances are a train wreck and she had the nerve to call Watkins a crack addict (she later apologized for this blatant inaccuracy).

If, however, Chicago’s Black community helps elect Rahm Emanuel, they will have only themselves to blame for what will surely follow. Chicago will remain the most racially-segregated city in the US, with disproportionate attention paid to its minority citizens.

Some day in the future, a young teenage Black kid will ask his dad, “Why do Jews, who are a minority just like us Blacks, seem to have so much power and influence? How did a manipulative Jew like Rahm Emanuel ever get elected mayor in a city with a white minority?”

I hope the answer isn’t, “Well, son, we were decisive in electing Rahm because we thought, somehow, that would help President Obama. Now we know we were conned against voting for our own best interests. We should have voted for the only highly-qualified Black candidate on the ballot. But then, Jews have always been better than Blacks at supporting their own. And they’ve always been better at getting support from constituencies other than their own.

“That seems to just be the way things are.”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“The rich will continue to get richer, only as long as the poor continue to believe that should be the natural order of things” – Steve.

Rahm Israel Emanuel for Mayor?

CONTENTION:  I contend that Mayor Richard M. Daley of Chicago was told*, in no uncertain terms, to retire. That is, he was ordered to not seek reelection in 2011. Why? To make room for Israel** Emanuel to take over. Israel, as Obama’s Chief of Staff, had to make sure the president made no false moves against the state of Israel (and succeeded marvelously). Now he is free to claim his reward – the crown of the Mayor of Chicago, my hometown. [Obama, as a lame duck president, is in no position, now, to make any bold Mid East peace initiatives.]

*NOTE: I will refer to him as Israel Emanuel to make a point: This man’s first and foremost loyalty is to the state of Israel.

**NOTE: Actually, Obama was ordered to “choose” Israel as his Chief of Staff, but that’s another story.

And how do I “know” this?

How do I know Daley was told to resign?

I’ll be up front and say I’m not clairvoyant, and I don’t have access to insider information. But I do have common sense and I know how to look at a photograph. The latter is something I picked up from my best friend, Mike (who died 12 years ago), who was a photographer. Mike was more than that, though; he could walk into a room and “see” what was really going on.

For instance, in his twenties, Mike had an opportunity to interview (Chicago) Alderman Ed Burke in his office. I think the context was an assignment Mike was working on in college. Anyway, after the interview, Mike shared with me an insight he had upon meeting Burke: “This guy is mafia all the way.” Naturally, I asked how Mike knew this. He said, you sense such things when in the presence of a guy like this. Mike had absolutely no doubts, and (knowing my friend as well as I did and having heard some of his other observations), I too have no doubts.

Mike taught me how to look deeply, to see what other people don’t want seen. I beheld such a “Kodak Moment” when looking at a series of photos of Daley announcing his retirement. I did not “see” a man who voluntarily left, even though he claimed this was a “personal decision” allowing him and his family to begin a “new phase of our lives.”

I didn’t buy that explanation for a moment. The way Daley ran the city (or, more precisely, figure-headedly ran it), he could have run for reelection, won, and still had lots of time on his hands for his wife and family.

So, who told Daley to resign?

The best way to answer that question: An interlocking directorship of high-level interests.

Members of this directorship include the kind of people Israel Emanuel routinely tapped when he was a fund-raiser. Prominent among them were wealthy fellow Jews. [What? You think he had some kind of natural knack for fundraising?] Some of these donors made it a priority to assure that Emanuel himself would someday become a wealthy man, as befits one who does the bidding of an elite.

And then there are the mob connections to consider.

Chicago is still very much a mob-run town. Sure, the mob doesn’t visibly dominate as it did during the Capone days. But that’s not necessary any longer. The mob is still very much alive and well, but the truth of the matter is, they’ve learned to be more subtle and (more importantly) to share. No single political force (and the mob is exactly that, a political force) has all the say. The various Powers-that-Be share that say and the spoils that go with it.

It used to amuse me to see Chicago newspaper columnists dance around the issue of mob influence as if it didn’t exist. Trivializing it. Even lampooning it. But I am a life-long resident of this burg, who has heard too many stories, too oft-repeated by a wide variety of parties to be false. Too many stories of Chicago’s legendary corruption, which didn’t go away simply because a couple of headliners ended up in prison.

Paving the way for Israel Emanuel

One of his most serious opponents for mayor, Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart, “unexpectedly” bowed out of the race. His excuse was, more or less, he had to take care of his family. Okay, I’ll say it: It’s a lot easier to take care of your family when alive than dead. And I mean that. The people who want Israel Emanuel as mayor wouldn’t have any problem eliminating even a sheriff if that’s what it would take. And Tom Dart knows this.

The “elimination” of a major white opponent leaves Emanuel as the only viable candidate who isn’t black or Hispanic.

The formation of Israel Emanuel

I now focus on Emanuel’s crudeness, intensity, and (especially) his anger. Where do these things come from? Looking at his formative years, one key figure is his father. He (Benjamin Emanuel) was once a member of a group known as Irgun, which was a Zionist paramilitary group. In 1948, even the State of Israel saw fit to legally classify Irgun as a terrorist organization.

Israel is what I would call a ritualistic Jew – that is, a fanatical tribalist. I would not, though, identify him as religiously Judaic, though many people confuse the two. It’s about time people take a closer look at what it means to be raised as a ritualistic, rather than as a (truly) religious, Jew.

The Holocaust Exaggerator [an old post]

I now insert, in its entirety, a piece I’d posted (on the now defunct site Gaia) on Mar. 20, 2007. Try to think of Israel Imanuel as you read this, and you’ll see (if you know anything of his personal reputation as Rahmbo) the kinds of influences that warped this poor man.

[BEGINNING of old post]

We all know what a Holocaust Denier is. Today, I'll define what I mean by "Holocaust Exaggerator."

First, a tell-tale incident:

When I was about 6 years old (in 1957), I was outdoors playing with one of the neighborhood children, also about 6-years old. It was getting dark, when my mother walked up and said, "It's time to come home, Steve."

My playmate asked if I could please stay with him and my mother said, "No, it's supper time and Steve has to come home to eat."

Then he threw a temper tantrum, blurting out, "You're not letting Steve play with me because I'm Jewish."

My mom said, "I don't care what you are, it's late and it's time for supper."

[NOTE: Over the years, I’ve seen how quickly and unjustifiably the because I’m Jewish card is played.]

Twelve Short Years Earlier

Ah, 1957. Twelve years prior to that was the end of WW II and the Nazi Holocaust. My poor playmate was undoubtedly the recipient of too much "Never forget," and "Never again." Sometimes, parents teach their children too well. And this poor child learned...what? He learned that his own personal pain and that of his people far outweigh any pain the Other could feel. And soon, he would come to think of the Other as someone not quite human, especially if the Other is his half-brother and is competing for the same piece of real estate.

Definition

A Holocaust Exaggerator is someone who thinks his group's particular Holocaustal experience is more profound than another's. And that gives him the right to obsess over his own pain, over and over and over again [to even celebrate that pain]. There have been many holocausts throughout human history, but they don't seem to teach us anything. For instance, no sooner were the French liberated from the Nazis, then they wanted their old colonies back. The idea that some groups are inherently superior to others seems to die hard. You've heard it all before: Manifest Destiny, the White Man's Burden, Pax Romana, the Master Race, Project for the New American Century, and even the Chosen People (at least to the degree that term has been misunderstood).

Quote from Kiddushin:

QUOTE (page 190): Kiddushin 49b states: "Ten measures of lewdness descended to this world, nine were taken by the Arabs."UNQUOTE.

Response to Quote: Is this how you embrace the stranger, by embracing such slander as this?

Source of Quote: "Maimonides Mishneh Torah: Hilchot Teshuvah: The Laws of Repentance: A new translation with commentaries, notes and index" [by: Rabbi Eliyahu Touger; Publisher: Moznaim Pub. Corp: New York / Jerusalem; copyright: 1990 [by MPC]

From the Torah:

Tough Love: The following quotes are from the Jewish Holy Book, the Torah, which Jews know and love well. Some might say it is not my place to say what I'm about to say, but I will make it my place:

"Your Lord did not merely ask you or suggest that you tolerate your neighbor or suffer his existence. He commanded that you love your neighbor. You have great power to change the Middle East into a New Garden of Eden. And I believe your Lord will do more than stand by your side as you do so. You can, and must, fix this."

Deut. 10:19: "Love ye therefore the stranger; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt."

Lev. 19:18: "...but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."

[END of old post]

And then there’s the Purim festival

Purim is a holiday on the Jewish calendar meant for remembrance of deliverance of the Jewish people, who were about to be murdered as a result of a plot by the Persian king’s vizier Haman. It is one thing to express gratitude for deliverance. It is quite another to use the occasion as a venue for a variation of the Orwellian [1984] Two Minutes’ Hate. It is quite another to use this occasion as an excuse to indoctrinate the young members of the tribe into continuing a millennial Hate Affair with the Iranian people. It is quite another to use this occasion to get shit-faced drunk (look it up, it’s not only true but it’s expected).

About Israel’s not-quite Mega Millions

And no one questions this? No red flags? No raised eyebrows?

QUOTE:

After serving as an advisor to Bill Clinton, in 1998 Emanuel resigned from his position in the Clinton administration and joined the investment banking firm of [Jewish] Wasserstein Perella (now Dresdner Kleinwort), where he worked until 2002. Although he did not have an MBA degree or prior banking experience, he became a managing director at the firm’s Chicago office in 1999 and, according to Congressional disclosures, made $16.2 million in his two-and-a-half-years as a banker.

:UNQUOTE [source: Wikipedia’s article on Rahm Emanuel]

Not only didn’t he have an MBA, but he had absolutely no training for such work. His BA is in Liberal Arts and his MA is in Speech and Communication.

Okay, I’ll say it: Looks pretty clear to me that Israel was either rewarded for past work well done (probably for the state of Israel) and/or for work yet to be done (for the same).

Bottom line:

Israel Emanuel is the kind of Jew who has become overwrought by siege mentality. He has forgotten, or never knew, that he and his people were to be a “light among nations.” Instead, Israel Emanuel behaves much like any dedicated gangbanger does the world over, whether the gang is the Crips, the Bloods, or the Bilderbergs. He has that gangbanger loyalty, as do all good tribesmen from the whitest of White Houses to the darkest reaches of Africa. He takes care of his people and they take care of him. It’s really as simple as that. He may well come across (as he does, more frequently in recent years) as a nice guy.

But the underlying reality is, he does not care anything at all for anyone except a very well-defined circle, dominated by Zionist Israelis.

Israel Emanuel is not a nice guy.

What’s in a name?

Consider the name: Rahm Israel Emanuel [source: www.thinkbabynames.com]:

“Rahm” means “pleasing; supreme”

“Israel” means “God perseveres, contends”

“Emanuel” means “God is with us”

That’s quite a name to live up to. However, nothing in Rahm suggests he can live up to this glorious name or even wants to try.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of the Private Contractors’ Party

“If you think Israel Emanuel can rid Chicago of its love affair with corruption, then you know nothing of either Chicago or Israel.”