Jews and their leadership are hell-bent to give the "first son", President George W. Bush, a death of thousand slashes. They have made the cabinet nominees of President Bush as a political football and they are playing this card well to discredit him. Instead of making the anti-Bush campaign as a Jewish issue, they have turned it into a national and moral issue. This tactic is the most lethal weapons in the hands of Jews and their leadership. Any individual or leadership that does not serve their illegitimate interests, is attacked by them on moral grounds. He is portrayed as anti-people and not fulfilling the national aspirations. Jews and their leadership are never "wrong", they are always "right". That is what they claims.

There was only one way to lessen the pressure which the "first son" was facing. He drenched his hands with the Muslim blood by attacking Muslim Iraq. The Jews and the Jewish leadership clapped, including the Jewish Senator of Brooklyn and Tel Aviv, Charles Shumer. After the attack, "first son" was the "unifier" and not the "divider".

"First Sin" of the "First Son"

What is the first unforgivable "sin" in the eyes of the Jews and their leadership that the "first son" committed after being elected. Like president Clinton, President Bush did not stud its cabinet with 5 Jews in its cabinet (Five Jews served in President Clinton's Cabinet. No Jews named to Bush Cabinet, JTA, Jan.3) Instead, he nominated members of the minorities of color for his cabinet. This insults the Jews and their leadership. "

The President has chosen a leadership team that, as President Clinton liked to say, looks very much like America. It includes three women, two African Americans, two Hispanics, an Arab American and an Asian American, Mr. Mineta. For a Republican Cabinet, the breadth of representation is astonishing.

"Given that inclusiveness, however, it's hard to note the absence of any Jewish Americans at the top. Not that Jews need some sort of ethnic tribune. When particular Jewish concerns arise, allies will be found, as they always have. Should sensitivity and nuance be needed, individuals will step forward - White House staffers, lobbyists, Republican donors - to articulate a Jewish perspective.

"The significance of the Cabinet nominations is symbolic, not practical, it was symbolism led the president-elect to create the rainbow coalition represented in his nominations. Mr. Bush reached out to black, Hispanics and Asian Americans not because those groups vote Republicans - they don't -but because he wanted to send a message. He chose not to include Jews in that message." American Jews have long since outgrown the need for symbolic gesture to reassure them that they belong. On the other hand, we don't expect symbolic snubs." Bush's Bipartisanship, Forward, Jan.5.

Besides Forward, an other Jewish paper laments. " As promised, the cabinet of President-elect George W. Bush is looking like one of the most diverse in history. But that this diversity apparently has its limits! " The cabinet will include a Japanese-American Democrat, a Hispanic, an Arab American and several African-Americans, but no Jews." Bush Cabinet Complete: No Jews At The Table, Diversity is name of game, but one ethnic group is left out, The Jewish Week, January 5.

Jewish Telegraph Agency also joins the choir: " As President-elect George W. Bush unveiled his cabinet over the last few weeks, the buzz word has-been diversity.

"A Republican Party with a reputation for appointing mostly white males welcomed several members of ethnic minorities to the administration's highest office. Jews, however, were left out of the mix.

"The omission has left several Jewish leaders concerned about their relationship with the new White House, but most dismiss the notion that Jews must have a representative in the cabinet." No Jews named to Bush Cabinet, but most Jewish Groups don't care, JTA, Jan.3.

In practical terms the inclusion of Jews in the cabinet does not make any difference. President Reagan and President Bush both have no Jews in their administrations. Even then these administrations were as pro-Jews as the Clinton administration.

Resentment Unjustified

Is resentment against the inclusion of the minorities of color is justified by the Jews and the Jewish leadership? The answer is no. At least Jews and their leadership have no right to criticize this "symbolic" inclusion. This only demonstrates that they are anti-minorities of color (African, Caribbean, Latinos and Asians). Their only priority is to grab their votes and then to abandon them. No Jew can win the election of House of Representative and the Senate without the overwhelming support and votes of the minorities of color. Case in point among many is the victory of the Jewish Senator of New York Charles Schemer against a Catholic Al Fanso Demato.

Second, the Jews and their leadership want that minorities of color remained in the Democratic party. Any defection of them from Democratic party to Republican party, Reform Party, Green Party or any other parties will hurt Jewish representation on city, state and federal level more than the White Democrats who are Christians. Why? Because White Christians Democrats can win elections even without the votes of the minorities of color in some constituencies whereas Jews can not. Jews are less than 2 percent of the national population and even this tiny portion of the 281 million Americans is huddled in few states.

Third, the objections and venomous campaign against the make-up of the Bush's cabinet have a hidden agenda. They want to serve a notice to the Bush administration. Do not dare to pack the Supreme Court with "conservative" justices. If we can make your life miserable on the make-up of your cabinet, you should know what we can do to you and to your Administration if you do not choose Supreme Court justices of our choice.

Fourth, if any body has dared to challenge the nomination of 5 Jewish in the Clinton Administration and the nomination of 2 Supreme Court Justices by President Clinton on the basis of ethnicity, he would have been labeled as "anti-smite". He would have been labeled anti-democracy, and so on. Every body knows that a single word direct or indirect against the monopoly of the Jews and their leadership on the political system of the US is enough to seal the fate of that individual. President Clinton had the opportunity to nominate two Supreme Court Justices in his eight years of presidency.

Out of about 50 million African Americans, 31 million Hispanics and 18 million Asians, he could not find a single individual to be nominated for this prestigious poHe could not find any one among the Catholics and Protestants who are about 90 percent of the US population. And he nominated the Jews in broad day light. No body could challenge him or criticize him. Every body knew the dire consequences of opposing a Jewish nominee.

Fifth, if nominees of the Bush's cabinet would have been all White, It was O.K. for the Jews and their leadership with one qualification. The nominee should be acceptable to them.

No body can criticize the Jews and their leadership. But for them it is quite legitimate to grill any body about whom they have a slightest doubt that he would not serve their illegitimate interests. So they criticized some nominations of Bush nominees which thought were not completely on their side.

Case in point is the nomination of the Senator Ascroft.

Name Calling

Name calling is a long tradition of the Jews and their leadership. Note the epithets that are used by the Jewish media and their mouth-pieces in mainstream media about some of the members of the Cabinet who are not acceptable to them and the Cabinet itself. (This is very important to note that Jews and their leadership never forgive any journalist who does not join with them when they are waging a war of smear against any individuals or organization. The non- Jewish journalists know that they would be remembered and rewarded for taking side with them and will be destroyed if they did not.

Forget about joining the other side). "Representatives of the militant minority", fundamentalists" Bible belt", hard-right Republicans", "conservative wing of the Republican party", "Christian conservatives", "Christian right", "Texan Iron triangle", " representatives of ultra-conservative political views", "right-wing zealots", "assortment of right-wing ideologues", and so on. The media on the pay-roll of the Jews and their leadership went so far to declare the make-up of the cabinet anti-national. Some of the comments from the Jewish and pro-Jewish media on the make of the Bush Cabinet is an eye-opener for any body. Some view the Cabinet not a "unifier" but a "divider".

"Having completed his Cabinet nominations, President elect Bush has presented the nation with a lineup that may fairly be judged as indicative of the sort of government he intends to run. The initial signs are mixed. Mr. Bush has presented a Cabinet that is impressive in its diversity, suggesting that his compassionate conservatism represents a genuine philosophy and not mere sloganeering. On the other hand, the roster's conservative cast suggests that hopes for national reconciliation between left and right, so closely and bitterly divided during the election, may prove illusory." Bush's Bipartisanship, Forward, Jan. 5. For some the make of the Cabinet is an ominous sign for the new millennium. "

Inauspicious? Hardly. This new millennium begins not inauspiciously. In the United States, the president-elect has assembled a national security team that is more powerful than any in recent memory: Secretary of State-designate Colin Powell, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Secretary of Defense-designate Donald Rumsfeld, who has been defense secretary before, as has Vice-President Cheney. Congress will not have an easy time resisting this unprecedented co-equal trio of dark stars. (Nor, for that matter, will Mr. Bush, if for some reason he is ever disposed to resist them). They are, all three, members in excellent standing of the Washington nomenclature, people whose power derives less from substantive achievement than from having been part of the system for so long." The Year of Living Blamefully, Forward, Jan.5.

For others, President Bush has declared a war against the rights of the "women to choose what they want to do with their own body" by nominating attorney general like Senator Ascroft. " President-elect Bush's nomination of Senator Aschroft for the post of attorney general is far more than the selection of a qualified legal mind to fill a key post in the Bush administration. It is a declaration of war against the landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Roe v. Wade, a decision that forbade any state from enacting legislation that bar or restrict a woman's rights to choose as to whether she wishes to terminate a pregnancy or to carry the child-to-be to full term." Mr. Aschroft and the Limits of Integrity, Forward, Jan.5.

Jews are for "abortions" for the Christian ladies but not for their ladies.

For some journalists "The age of embarrassment" has dawn. "The price America pays for putting an underachiever in the White House.

"Forget all the rhetoric during the campaign from George W. Bush about morals, virtue, honor and restoring America to her former glory. The Age of Embarrassment is upon us, and if you think you were humiliated by Bill Clinton's shenanigans in the Oval Office, baby, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

"Junior Bush's cabinet choices are composed of an assortment of right-wing ideologues, fat cats, has-beens, vannabes, and plain 01' opportunists. Not a visionary in the bunch, and no one in sight who seems capable of imaging this nation or the world absent the status quo or corporate capitalism. From soon-to-be Secretary of State Colin Powel to Gale Norton, nominated to head the Department of Interior .... The Age of Embarrassment, MSNBC, dated Jan.3.

One Option Left

Bombarded with this type of propaganda, son of Bush has only one way to prove its pro-Jewish credentials and lessen the pressure. Bomb the Muslim Iraq. So he did.

Gulf between Jews and Religious Christian

Does this strategy will work? Answer is no. Why? Gulf between Jews and "Religious Christian" can not be bridged now. The Jews and their leadership will never tolerate that religious Christians (whom they call with different derogatory labels)) have a foot-hold in the US politics. These religious Christians played a vital role in the victory of the son of Bush. The more US society will move to religion, the less the Jews influence will be on the US political system. The Jews and their leadership know this fact very well. And they are trying their best to stop it. " American Jews are wary of religion's role in politics and reluctant to accept any increased influence of religion in public life, a new study shows.

"Following a presidential campaign that often threw religion into the spotlight, the study seems to buttress long-held views that Jews are still concerned about the negative consequences of heightened? in American public life." Study: Jews more wary of religion in public life than other Americans, JTA, Jan.9.

"Take the Muslims. Earlier this month the New York Post reported that Muslim students at two Brooklyn public schools were granted permission to be 15 minutes late for class at midday during Ramadan, when they are required to pray. In additions, these students were allowed to use a cafeteria or auditorium for their prayers. No sooner did the story appear then the Board of Education ordered the school to stop." Wars of Religion.

Establishment - Clause extremists don't only pick on Christians, The Wall Street Journal, Dec.29.

But this principle does not apply to the Jews. They are exempt from participating in any test or other activity which is scheduled on Saturday, their religious day by the city, state and federal government. Only Muslims and Christians are not allowed to observe their religious obligations on their religious days, Friday and Sunday respectively. Confrontation between the religious Christians and the Jews is unavoidable. Wait for that day.