The Bible on the Poor


So many of the “religious” right seem to think that if you are poor it is your fault because you are lazy or of “inferior stock.” (Yes I have actually heard that term used on many radio talk shows.)  Many in the tea party actually seem to almost fear the poor. Why? Maybe because they feel they are different from them and thus even could be dangerous.


Even the compassionate populace who want to help those who have found themselves living in poverty don’t want to get too close to this group because (they say) it is depressing to dwell on the condition that so many of our citizens find themselves.


So Americans who view themselves as living in the most Christian nation in the world, find themselves in conflict with the Bible that they are constantly calling on to support their views on so many social issues.  

There are more than 300 passages on the poor, social justice, and God's deep concern for both. Find them, read them. You will find that poverty and oppression are always on God's mind.

Many readers might argue that God loves us all rich and poor.  This is true. However, God and Jesus have both given us their character as a model for all humans.  So if God values the poor, we need to also. But what does that mean?  The Bible isn’t that cryptic.

Consider Deuteronomy 15:7 -- If there is a poor man among you, one of your brothers, in any of the towns of the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand to your poor brother; but you shall freely open your hand to him, and generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks. Stay in the Book of Deuteronomy and read 26:12 where it says “When you have finished paying the complete tithe of your increase in the third year, the year of tithing, then you shall give it to the Levite, to the stranger, to the orphan and the widow, that they may eat in your towns, and be satisfied.”

Why did God destroy Sodom? Many of the religious right would probably tell you that God destroyed Sodom because of it inhabitants’ wickedness and debauchery. But that’s not why God brought his wrath down on Sodom.  Read Ezekiel 16:49 and you will find that God destroy Sodom because it "had arrogance, abundant food, and careless ease" and it’s citizens "did not help the poor and needy.

It is clear that God considers it a sin to merely ignore the poor.  

Here are a few more examples that are right on point.

Proverbs 29:7  The righteous is concerned for the rights of the poor; the wicked does not understand such concern. 

Proverbs. 31:8. Open your mouth for the dumb, for the rights of all the unfortunate. Open your mouth, judge righteously, and defend the rights of the afflicted and needy.

Psalms. 140:12. I know that the LORD will maintain the cause of the afflicted, and justice for the poor. Proverbs. 31:8. Open your mouth for the dumb, for the rights of all the unfortunate. Open your mouth, judge righteously, and defend the rights of the afflicted and needy.

Psalms. 140:12. I know that the LORD will maintain the cause of the afflicted, and justice for the poor. Isaiah 10:1-3. "Woe to those who enact evil statutes, and to those who continually record unjust decisions, so as to deprive the needy of justice, and rob the poor of My people of their rights.”

James 5:1-6. Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries which are coming upon you. ...Behold, the pay of the laborers who mowed your fields, and with you have withheld, cries out against you; and the outcry of the harvesters has reached the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth.

Luke 16:19-25. "Now there was a certain rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, gaily living in splendor every day. And a certain poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores, and longing to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table; besides, even the dogs would come and lick his sores.  Now it came about that the poor man died and he was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried. And in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes, and saw Abraham far away, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried out and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue; for I am in agony in this flame.' But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony...'"

These Biblical passages do not mean that the rich man is being punished in hell because he was responsible for Lazarus's condition; but that the rich man was responsible for Lazarus as a fellow human being; the rich man was aware of Lazarus’s suffering at his door and did nothing to help.

What I am trying to say is that being an advocate for the poor and underprivileged is something that a religious person so do without even thinking.  A Christian doesn’t stay silent.  A Christian advocates for the poor in every venue -- among their friends, in their church, within their community, within their place of work, within their political party.

  ¶ 6:05 PM

  The American Dream/Nightmare
  ¶ 1:35 PM

  21st Century Feudalism The U.S. seems to be headed toward a version of what I call "21st Century Feudalism," which I define a regime dominated by a privileged few who possess financial or social power and prestige through exploitation of the remaining populace who provide the labor but also spend their hard earned money to purchase the goods and services they deliver. Consider the following evidence:

1.  It is almost impossible to exploit an educated and informed population .  An education that teaches much more than the 20th Century "reading, writing and arithmetic" is needed to succeed in today's labor market.  But rather than expanding our educational system so the "average joe" can make a middle class living in today's employment environment, state after state is cutting funding for education.  I realize many states are dealing with funding shortfalls, but why is education always on the top of the list for revenue cuts?  Why not legislative salaries and benefits?  Why not raise more revenue by taxing oil, gas and coal companies rather than giving them large tax breaks -- they don't need it!

    Books could be written on the ramifications of a poorly educated population.  But for the purpose of this blog I'll concentrate on the dumbing down of our citizens.  How many read AND UNDERSTAND what they read about their local, state and federal government.  How many follow blindly whatever the "flavor of the month" is telling them?  How many are too lazy, too unmotivated or too uneducated to determine if what they hear and read is factual or truthiness or outright untruths?  It's easy to lead the undereducated or uneducated to a conclusion that may not be in their best interest.  That is what is happening today.

    Higher education is expensive.  And I'm not just talking about a four year degree.  Even technical schools run into the thousands.  Most families cannot afford such costs so they obtain education loans which means years of debt that cannot be wiped off the books by bankrupty even though corporations can wipe any type of debt off their books. Today's citizen has no choice though -- to make even a moderate income you must have some type education that goes beyond a high school degree.

2.  Protection against corporate greed.  Today union busting is rampant.  Many people consider unions as the "bad guy."  Why?  They are in place to protect the worker against corporate excesses.  Unions gained their place in the workplace due to corporate abuses.  I do agree that unions did get "too big for their britches" in the 60s and 70s.  But they've had their wings clipped since then and now work almost exclusively to protect employees against employer abuses.  Without unions what would prevent corporations from going back to their abusive ways?  The government?  Give me a break!

3.  Taxing citizens into poverty.  This has been discussed to death but... Our tax system is totally unfair with the lower and middle class bearing most of the burden.  The peasants are being taxed to death with the economic elite pay little (but complain the most).  Why is this happening?  Perhaps because the peasants have lost their voting power  because so many are so uninformed and thus willing to follow whoever gives "lip service" to their latest needs, wants and desires. Once everyone was taught the lesson of the Herbert Hoover campaign promise of a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage.  Then came the 1929 stock market crash and the great depression and Hoover couldn't deliver on his promise.  Now it is jobs and cheap energy.  No one every says how their political system will deliver jobs except by keeping taxes low for the "job creators" translated into those that already have money and thus either have already created the jobs and are looking for ways to lessen the employment burden or ways to offshore their employment costs.   And the cheap energy is obtained by giving tax cuts to corporations so they will spend their hard earned money to explore for energy IN THE U.S. and if we don't give them tax cuts they won't explore.  Now does that make sense?  NO!!!  They will fight each other to the bitter end to get every drop of oil, gas etc. out of our soil, tax breaks or not, as long as it produces revenue. But if you don't have a good education it might difficult to understand some of the complex issues of energy exploration, costs to the consumer and how they might or might not work.  Then let's not even get into the speculation that goes on in these markets.  

  
  ¶ 2:25 PM

  GOP's and AARP's collusion in Medicare's Demise

According to a Newsday.com November 29, 2003 article, "There's no need to panic yet over the uncertain fate of Medicare or the loss of the prescription drug benefits you have or hoped for. The Medicare drug benefit and the radical changes in the program passed by the Republican congress won't begin taking effect until 2006 - time enough for elections that could reverse the changes." The article goes on to say, "AARP's surprise endorsement of the Republican Medicare bill, following a one-on-one White House meeting between executive director William Novelli and the president, was a turning point for its eventual passage. Republican political strategists were exultant."

It's clear that the turncoat AARP gets most of the credit for the passage of the drug benefits bill. AARP also should take the blame for aiding in the re-election of Bush, who avows that he will devote his next term to remaking Social Security.

The question is why did AARP cave? The current legislation bares little resemblance to the measure AARP told its 35 million members it would fight for. While AARP avowed that the drug benefit had to be "in" Medicare to administer it efficiently and to contain the drug costs -- that is not what this legislation provides.

Also, even though only the Republicans who wrote the bill had seen its distasteful details, Novelli and AARP endorsed it anyway. In other words, Novelli had no idea what was the exact makeup of the bill when he ordered the production of the AARP's $7-million television ad campaign, which by the way, was ready to roll prior to his meeting with the president. So while Novelli had no idea what was in the bill's 700 pages of fine print, he joined the Republican campaign to win passage of this bill -- legislation which will eventually bring down Social Security.

Don't believe me? Maybe you'll believe Newt Ginrich, the form Republican Speaker of the House who crows that this bill took the most significant step so far toward ending Medicare. (He had previously predicted that with the Republicans in power, it would take just a few years for Medicare to "wither on the vine.") Of perhaps you should listen to what Sen. Robert Byrd, (D-W. Va) and Sen. Edward F. Kennedy, (D.-Mass.), both of whom voted for the creation of Medicare in 1965, warnings -- "The passage of this bill means the eventual death of Medicare."

This reprehensible legislation is the first step in the GOP's campaign to bring about the eventual demise of Medicare, so why did AARP endorse it and even produce an ad campaigning for it's passage?

I and others feel that AARP betrayed us. Here's an example of the results of that betrayal. Rep. Bill Thomas (R-Calif.), who for years has been trying to turn Medicare over to the insurance companies and who was the chief architect of the bill made a speech to increase support for the bill. In that speech he actually touted AARP's support when he cried: "If we are trying to destroy Medicare, why is the AARP supporting us?"

Why did AARP break so many of its promises to its membership and Medicare recipients at large?

1. AARP avowed that drug benefit had to be "in" Medicare so Medicare could administer it efficiently and could contain the drug costs. But that is not what this legislation provides. This bill requires beneficiaries to buy a drug-only policy, or join an HMO that provides a drug benefit outside of Medicare. Although Medicare will have a role in managing the program, the benefits will be administered by the dozens of private insurers, and - get this - Medicare is prohibited from "interfering" to force lower drug prices.

2. AARP also had promised to oppose "premium support" proposals -- government subsidies for participating insurance companies, ostensibly to cut costs and encourage Medicare to compete for business.

According to the NEW REPUBLICAN AARP, the real motive for premium support is to encourage beneficiaries to leave Medicare. Of course, AARP's argument is that it caved on the grounds that premium support doesn't begin until 2010.

3. AARP said it was opposed to "means testing benefits." Yet, low- income seniors will have to submit to Medicare's first-ever means test, baring their bank accounts and assets to get subsidized drug coverage.

4. AARP had said it would not support a bill that threatened the loss of retiree drug coverage from former employers. The bill provides as much as $70 billion in tax credits to employers who maintain coverage for retirees once benefits begin in 2006. But if the subsidies do not save employers enough money, nothing in the legislation prohibits an employer from cutting coverage to the level of benefit in the bill. Nor does a tax credit help retirees from state and local governments or nonprofits.

Could greed by the reason?

Some critics suggest AARP, which earned $217 million last year from its insurance business, supported the Medicare bill because it could sell some of the $400 billion in drug insurance that the legislation will pay for over the next 10 years.


  ¶ 4:43 AM

  Report Links Iraq Deals to Bush Donations
By LARRY MARGASAK, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Companies awarded $8 billion in contracts to rebuild Iraq (news - web sites) and Afghanistan (news - web sites) have been major campaign donors to President Bush (news - web sites), and their executives have had important political and military connections, according to a study released Thursday.

The study of more than 70 U.S. companies and individual contractors turned up more than $500,000 in donations to the president's 2000 campaign, more than they gave collectively to any other politician over the past dozen years.


The report was released by the Center for Public Integrity, a Washington-based research organization that produces investigative articles on special interests and ethics in government. Its staff includes journalists and researchers.


The Center concluded that most of the 10 largest contracts went to companies that employed former high-ranking government officials, or executives with close ties to members of Congress and even the agencies awarding their contracts.


Major contracts for Iraq and Afghanistan were awarded by the Bush administration without competitive bids, because agencies said competition would have taken too much time to meet urgent needs in both countries.


"No single agency supervised the contracting process for the government," Center executive director Charles Lewis said. "This situation alone shows how susceptible the contracting system is to waste, fraud and cronyism."


J. Edward Fox, an assistant administrator at the U.S. Agency for International Development, took issue with Lewis' statement and aspects of the report.


"It would ... be incorrect to suggest that there is no overall oversight of this process," he wrote the Center. "The USAID inspector general's review of all Iraq contracts which was requested by USAID Administrator Andrew S. Natsios on April 14th has shown that all Iraq contracts to date have been done in compliance" with federal regulations.


State Department spokesman Richard Boucher, defending the way contracts are awarded, said: "The reason that these companies get the contracts has nothing to do with who may have worked there before. Those people in senior positions have no influence over the decision."


He added, "Competitive procedure is very, very important to us, and we have done that in Iraq."


The top contract recipient was the Halliburton subsidiary KBR, with more than $2.3 billion awarded to support the U.S. military and restore Iraq's oil industry.


Halliburton was headed by Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) before he resigned to run with Bush in 2000.


Halliburton's top executive, Dave Lesar, said Wednesday he was offended by criticism of the company's Iraq work but believed it was "less about Halliburton and more about external political issues."


"As a company uniquely qualified to take on this difficult assignment, we will continue to bring all of our global resources to bear at this critical time in the Middle East. We have served the military for over 50 years and have no intention of backing down at this point," he said.


Bechtel was second with a $1 billion capital construction contract involving Iraq's utilities, telecommunications, railroads, ports, schools, health care facilities, bridges, roads and airports.


The company's Internet site says, "We do engage in the political process, as do most companies in the United States. We have legitimate policy interests and positions on matters before Congress, and we express them in many ways, including support for elected officials who support those positions.


"We do not expect or receive political favors or government contracts as a result of those contributions."

The Center's analysis of contractor political donations showed:

_The top 10 contractors contributed $11 million to national political parties, candidates and political action committees since 1990.

_Fourteen of the companies won contracts in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Those companies, combined, have given more than $23 million in political contributions since 1990.

_Most contractors, their political action committees and their employees have contributed just under $49 million to national political campaigns and parties since that year.

_In the same time period, contractor donations to Republican Party committees outpaced contributions to the Democrats, $12.7 million to $7.1 million.

Many of the companies with large contracts have important political connections.

Former Secretary of State George Shultz is a member of Bechtel's board of directors, although he has no management role, according to the company's Web site.

Riley Bechtel, the chairman and chief executive officer, was named early this year to the President's Export Council, which advises the president on programs to improve U.S. trade.

Jack Sheehan, senior vice president in Bechtel's petroleum and chemicals business, served on the Defense Policy Board, which advises the defense secretary on a variety of issues.

Other contractors also had connections. Among those cited by the Center:

David Kay, head of the Bush administration's search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, is a former vice president of Science Applications International Corp. He left the company in October 2002.

Christopher "Ryan" Henry left the same company as a vice president in February 2003 to become principal deputy undersecretary of defense for policy.

Scott Spangler, principal owner of Chemonics International, was a senior U.S. Agency for International Development official during the first Bush administration. The company receives 90 percent of its business from USAID.

Sullivan Haave Associates Inc. was founded by Carol Haave, currently the deputy assistant secretary of defense for security and information operations.

The Center's findings are based, in part, on 73 Freedom of Information Act requests and an analysis of a federal contractor database.

Center for Public Integrity


  ¶ 1:06 PM

  BUY AMERICAN

To keep America strong we MUST buy American. Want to reverse the jobless trend? Buy American!

So many manufacturers have moved their facilities overseas, so it may be a bit difficult to find a specific product that is American-made. But it can be done.

Howtobuyamerican.com website can help; so can this Union website.

Use them -- they can help you find just about any type of product you need.

Also shop at the Buyamerican.com website, it sells only American-made products.

  ¶ 9:52 AM

  For Your Reading Enjoyment

I ran across three blogs that I thought my readers might find interesting:

Rightwingslayer

Newscompass

Sickofbush


Check them out. Note, however, the first two blogs lean a bit more to the "left" than this blog. Also, the Rightwingslayer's anti-Bush rhetoric is more pronounced than what this blogger espouses, still he makes some valid points.

The Sickofbush blog, despite it's name, seems to take the most moderate approach of the three in its reporting on the Bush administration.

MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN

For those wondering about the reference to MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN in the Righwingslayer's "A Fable by John Liechty" -- it refers to the prophecy found in the Bible (Daniel 5:25-28), which reads as follows (depending on the Bible):

Dan 5:25 And this is the inscription that was written:

MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN.

:26 This is the interpretation of each word.
MENE: God has numbered your kingdom, and finished
it;
:27 TEKEL: You have been weighed in the balances, and
found wanting;
:28 PERES: Your kingdom has been divided, and given to
the Medes and Persians.
  ¶ 5:54 AM

  Al Sharpton -- The Liberal O'Reilly

I like Sharpton, but he is not presidential material -- not because he's black, but because he has a "problematic" past. Rather than running of President, he should host his own news program. He could do more good hosting his own nightly news show. I would jump at the chance to watch him; I believe his take on world events would be a breath of fresh air.

Some of you may not know what I mean about his "problematic" past. Let me explain. I'm talking mainly about the 1987 Tawana Brawley incident. Sharpton, while wearing two hats -- as a civil rights activist and a plaintiff's lawyer -- repeatedly accused a white prosecutor and other law enforcement officers of raping Brawley (a black teen-ager), in upstate New York. A grand jury later found that the girl lied about the incident and, in 1998, Sharpton (and two others involved in the case) was successfully sued by the prosecutor for defamation.

When asked about the Brawley case, Sharpton defends his actions by saying that he thought she was telling the truth, and thus had gone to her defense (at the request of her parents). I believe his explanation. I lived in New York at the time and I know that there was reason for the black community to distrust the law enforcement community.

Sharpton also has made some very unpolitic and incendiary remarks in his career, some of which have been viewed as anti-Semantic. Take the comments he made at Gavin Cato's funeral in August 1991. Cato, a black boy from Crown Heights, was killed when a car in a Hasidic rabbi's motorcade accidentally veered off the road and hit him. That accident touched off a number of racially motivated incidents including the knifing of a Jewish boy by a gang of black youth.

Sharpton said of Cato's death: "The world will tell us he was killed by accident. Yes, it was a social accident. ... It's an accident to allow an apartheid ambulance service in the middle of Crown Heights. ... Talk about how Oppenheimer in South Africa sends diamonds straight to Tel Aviv and deals with the diamond merchants right here in Crown Heights. The issue is not anti-Semitism; the issue is apartheid. ... All we want to say is what Jesus said: If you offend one of these little ones, you got to pay for it. No compromise, no meetings, no kaffe klatsch, no skinnin' and grinnin'. Pay for your deeds." ("The diamond merchants right here in Crown Heights," was a reference to the Brooklyn neighborhood's Orthodox Jewish population.)

Like most people, Sharpton isn't the same person he was 10 years ago. After he became a candidate for President, he told the Washington Post in June 2003, "I've grown … I'm not as brash. There are ways I look at life now that I would not have when I was a younger man from the ghetto." Still, such incidents and remarks will prevent him from being a viable presidental candidate. However, they wouldn't stop Sharpton from being a good Cables News Show Host. That group thrives on controversy.

Give Sharpton His own News Show
Hopefully, once Sharpton gives up his bid for President, the cable news networks will give him his own news program. CNN or MSNBC would be well served by Sharpton. He is smart, quick-witted, and has a young audience. His show would probably attract the same audience as "The Daily Show" on the Comedy Channel. What more could a network ask for?

Anyone that has watched the Democratic Candidates' debates, or last night's "Hardball" where host, Chris Matthews, interviewed Sharpton in a "candidate forum" broadcast live from Harvard's Institute of Politics, couldn't help but agree. Sharpton quickly won over the audience and more than once put the fast talking Matthews in his place.

Although I'm not among the above-described demographics, I know that in addition to the "20 somethings," much of the black community, and others (e.g. myself and many liberals), would watch such a show. So Cable News Networks -- break the mold -- give this smart, intelligent, and witty, black man a show. It would surely be like no other on televison. You won't be sorry.

  ¶ 6:21 AM

  Anti-Semitism

A few incidents in recent days got me thinking about Jews, Zionism, and Anti-Semitism.

1. Malaysian Prime Minister, Mahathir Mohamad, who is labeled a "moderate Muslim" gave a speech to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, where he uttered the phrase "Jews rule the world by proxy, they get others to fight and die for them" (among other things), which got a resounding round of applause. That phrase and the audience's response to it, caused an uproar in the U.S. But I noticed that there was not the same feeding frenzy in other parts of the world (at least in the print media).

2. Two new books recently hit the bookstores: Never Again?: The Threat of the New Anti-Semitism by Abraham Foxman (Foreword by Elie Wiesel); The New Anti-Semitism: The Current Crisis and What We Must Do About It, Phyllis Chesler

3. The October edition of the Whistleblower magazine, had a piece titled "The New Anti-Semitism," and the U.S. News & World Report magazine headlined a recent issue "The New Anti-Semitism" and devoted quite a bit of print to the subject.

But is there really an upsurge of Jew hatred around the world? Or is it just a rise in criticism of Israel and its policies?

I, for one, wholeheartedly disagree with Israel's Palestinian policies and if you ask, many Israeli's and Jews also disagree. Yes, they must protect themselves against suicide bombers but they also must ask themselves what has made young Palestinian's so desperate that they are willing to die in such a horrible manner.

In my own humble way, I held a summit meeting (albeit via chat) with three, well-educated, Jewish friends. All three live in the U.S. and all have doctorates of some kind or the other. Here is what I found out.

All Jews have an ultra sensitive radar when it comes to any anti-Jewish comment or action. All three believe (and say many of their family and friends also believe) that the unwillingness to even tolerate any discussion that is critical of anything Jewish, including Israel is unhealthy. However, they also say that the American Jewish community has been very successful in dampening any critical discussions concerning Israel.

To my shock, one friend pointed out that one of the reasons that so many in the U.S. are amazed at the rise in Anti-Semitism is because the U.S. media is controlled by Jewish interests (I investigated this comment later and she is right -- virtually all television news and a great majority of newspapers are controlled by people of the Jewish faith), thus the U.S. public is basically kept in the dark about many things, especially when it comes to Israel. Admittedly, I had noticed the marked difference in the coverage of the Israeli / Palestinian conflict among the world media -- the world media's coverage of the conflict is basically balanced (but only if you read more than one newspaper on the subject), U.S. coverage (no matter which newspaper you pick up or news channel you watch) is another story -- our media makes very little mention of the Palestinian dead, seldom try to deal with the issues confronting the Palestinian people due to the Israeli occupation, or try to understand what caused this latest uprising (other than "the Palestinians hate the Jews").

I was also told during this mini-conference that while there is little discussion of the reason for this last round of Israeli / Palestinian violence in the U.S. media, it is all they talk about when in a family gathering. All three feel that the U.S. public needs to better understand the history, economics, and politics of the region. But feel it will never happen -- most Americans have little interest in their own history, economics or politics, so how can you expect them to care about Israel's? They are right.

But again, is there a rise in Anti-Semitism? The consensus: Outside the U.S. undoubtedly; in the U.S. maybe. I have noticed more unsupportive comments about the Israeli / Palestinian conflict among my circle of friends, co-workers and acquaintances. One of my friends noted that a newsletter recently circulated around her office pointed out the preponderance of Jews in the Bush Administration. (??) (I guess at some point I should investigate.) That led to a discussion of how many Jews served in the U.S. Congress. Although three of us felt that there was a proportional representation (i.e. we had no idea), one said that there were a lot of Jews in Congress and after a bit, named them off. Later she e-mailed me a list of Jews serving in Congress. She said that there is a website that notes Jewish VIPs and among that list is the following:

108th Congress
Senate (11— 2 Republicans, 9 Democrats)

Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Herb Kohl (D-WI), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), Carl Levin (D-MI), Charles Schumer (D-NY), Arlen Specter (R-PA), Norm Coleman (R-MN),
Ron Wyden (D-OR).

House (26— 1 Republican, 24 Democrats, 1 Independent)

Gary Ackerman (D-NY), Shelley Berkley (D-NV), Howard Berman (D-CA), Eric Cantor (R-VA), Ben Cardin (D-MD), Susan Davis (D-CA), Peter Deutsch (D-FL), Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), Eliot Engel (D-NY), Bob Filner (D-CA), Barney Frank (D-MA), Martin Frost (D-TX), Jane Harman (D-CA), Steve Israel D-NY), Tom Lantos (D-CA), Sander Levin (D-MI), Nita Lowey (D-NY), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Steve Rothman (D-NJ), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Adam Schiff (D-CA),
Brad Sherman (D-CA), Henry Waxman (D-CA), Anthony Weiner (D-NY), Robert Wexler (D-FL).

I asked that since Jews only make up about 2% of the U.S. population, if Sarah is right (name changed), why do they think there is such a disportionate representation? Their take: Due to their history, the Jews have always pushed education and knowledge. They also have always endeavored to participate in public affairs not only to better their lives but the lives of others around them. Those are the very traits that lead many people (Jewish or otherwise) into public service.

That led me back to the media. If the U.S. media is in the control of the Jews (now I know it is), how do they think U.S. media ended up in their control? Their take: Again it’s the emphasis on education and knowledge, but add to that mix the Jewish family's tendency to nurture a child's interests (whatever they may be) and you have the perfect ingredients for a successful actor, musician, writer, poet. If a Jewish couple has a child that wants to be in the arts -- they encourage that child, support him or her long past the time other ethnic groups would have pushed the child out of the nest. In fact in many famous Jewish directors, producers, actors, interviews they tout the full, unequivocal support of their family.

But that still doesn't answer how Jews could end up controlling so much of the news media. The group didn't have an answer, except to say that because of their education, the continuing thirst for knowledge, and interest in public affairs -- mixed with hard work -- quite a few to end up in the news business.

That brings me back to the Malaysian Prime Minister's remarks. Yes, they could see how it could appear that the Jews rule the world by proxy because of their influence in the U.S. But they were also quick to point out that outside the U.S. it is different -- there is not as much participation in government, they believe, due to discrimination. The media, as a whole, though, still attracts many Jews no matter where they might live.

Are they worried about an up rise in anti-Semitism in the U.S.? Yes, especially if the war in Iraq continues to go bad -- inevitably that will cause more and more to view the Iraqi situation as an extension of the Israeli / Palestinian conflict, especially after the Israeli raid on Syria.

But they also are optimistic; they believe that even if there begins to be a growing discontent within the U.S. population concerning Israeli, that discontent will not spill over into outright anti-Semitism. Why? Because Jews no longer live in their own little enclaves, they are part and parcel of everyone's everyday life, just like Catholics, Buddhists, Mormans, Asians, and to a growing extent Blacks and Hispanics.

  ¶ 5:29 AM