Like Lewinsky, Rich, and Libby, Madoff Scandal Exposes Jewish Social Cohesion in Establishment

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2008/12/13/boston_donors_bilked_out_of_millions

more

is this how zionism ends?

Oh yeah, the ranking of members in a society by occupational status and degree of purity or pollution as determined by their birth.

So, RB, what is your point?

What is your historical example of an economic system that has done better for most under it than capitalism? Everybody knows the evils in fact of historical capitalism, and most on this blog I'd assume
can easily see its horrible results now, but other than some unvoiced ideal in your head that never has happened, again, what's your point?

Please enlighten us all. Give us an example of someplace, sometime in history when there was governance by some power
better than what we see, for example, in the USA or Europe now.

And then some day talk about Meyer Lansky and Cuba and Vegas, and B.Clinton and the facilitation of the global cocaine trade. Talk about Lansky's org. getting blackmail material on sex-tourist WASP's cutting loose in anything-goes pre-Castro Havana.
Vice makes great blackmail. An age-old hustle.
Talk about the subsequent intolerance of homosexuals in Castro's Cuba at least in part because children were being bought and sold sexually down there back then.
Talk about who's running the drug business right now at the very top as maybe not being a bunch of Italians, or a bunch of Latin Americans.
Talk about the Prez Bushes and Clinton creating increased profits for the global drug biz everywhere they moved their pawns and tokens.
And then make shadowy inferences as to why H.Clinton kept making those bizarre hyper-tense faces during the campaign. As if she was under three different kinds of unbearable pressure.

Why don't you answer my questions?

ALso, lease tell us what to what extent caste plays out in the USA now, and what is your definition of caste?

Of what caste is Obama, Phil, Rachel Corrie? Witty, SOG, Ed, American?

Further, RB, I agree with you that without the role of money, usury, special treatment of capital gains, the world would be different, but the caste system per se as practiced in India historically, for example, it certainly wouldn't be more fair in terms of opportunity. Which "certain system of religious taboos is necessary to keep the castes from becoming familiar with one another"? And, are those taboos you refer to–something more than purely religious in the non-Jewish sense (since nobody can fairly clearly separate Judaism from religion,ethnicity, culture, "peoplehood" ,etc)?

I'm not sure if it's right to say they fell for it, in the sense that they were deceived. Madoff's clients were smart enough to know that there was something fishy about those kind of returns. They just chose not to look too closely.

If they were deceived, it was in believing he was too powerful to ever be brought down.

Sailer's take IS interesting. He notes that a lot of ethnocentric Jews seem to have gotten caught up in the crash. He quotes John Kenneth Galbraith: "Recessions catch what the auditors miss." The clear implication is that a corrupt, Mafiosi-like network of ethnic Jews has been "rigging the game" for a long time, and the crash is now unraveling all their schemes like a runaway thread on a yarn sweater.

Sailer also notes a lot of Jews make their money in media, casinos and entertainment, the first two of which are in dire straits.

Interesting how both economics and nature eventually find a way to sort out the mooches from the solid producers. The mistake that American business made was mixing itself in with corrupt Wall Street banksters who have completely shattered the American people's faith in the markets, and hence their own solid companies are going down the tubes along with the corrupt ones — all because the "referees" turned out to be rigging the game. The teams playing in the Super Bowl may be solid, but if the refs can’t be trusted, who can know for sure?

I guess that's what business gets for selling its soul. Hopefully the corrupt politicians will be the next shoe to drop.

I find this interesting for a lot of reasons.

Without going into details uber zionist observers already probably know…like what the FBI was watching in jewish/zionist circles even before the AIPAC spy thing came up…it has been evident for some time that the FBI and most likley related agencies have had their sights set on certain cabals, financial frauds and political intrigue in the Jewish/Israeli community. As we know, many times if you can't get your target on what you want to actually get them on, you get them on something else that puts them out of commission.

I am wondering if this is a new trend in the judical backrooms. I personally think it is valid becuase contrary to what the article claims there have been many instances of jews fleeing to Israel…that were not extridated back to the US. One particulary bad case was jewish teenager in Virginia who killed another boy and whose parents smuggled him out of the US to Israel. The Va DA tired to get him back to the states for trial but couldn't. Most likely some political strings were pulled in congress and the boy ended ups serving time in Israel…6 whole months…for murder. Figures.

There is nothing unusual about denying bail to people who might be flight risk and the US jew and Israeli thingy makes them even more of a fight risk so I think the judge had a extrax valid concern. The ptrotevted moinority status ofjews needs to end so they can be treated like any other citizen in the US and not use the jewish excuse as an out in the legal system.

http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c36_a14246/News/New_York.html

Feds Argue Return Law Makes Jews Flight Risk

by Stewart Ain
Staff Writer

In a legal argument called “astounding and very troublesome,” a federal prosecutor has argued that Israel’s Law of Return makes American Jews a flight risk and therefore ineligible for bail.

The claim, believed to be unprecedented, came in the bank fraud case of Sholom Rubashkin, the former Jewish head of the embattled Iowa kosher slaughterhouse, Agriprocessors, Inc.

And the federal judge in the case, Magistrate Jon Stuart Scoles, cited the Law of Return in his Nov. 20 decision denying Rubashkin bail.

“Under Israel’s Law of Return, any Jew and members of his family who have expressed their desire to settle in Israel will be granted citizenship,” the judge wrote, adding that the government had claimed that at least one other Agriprocessors’
defendant had already fled to Israel.

Rubashkin’s lawyers wrote in their appeal filed last Friday: “It is ironic that a law designed to provide refuge to persecuted Jews has now become the basis for detaining a Jew who might otherwise have been released pending trial.”

Deborah Lauter, director of the civil rights office of the Anti-Defamation League, said the prosecution’s “referencing the Law of Return is highly unusual.”

Marc Stern, acting co-executive director of the American Jewish Congress, called the move “very troublesome.”

“All Jews are suspect because of the Law of Return?” he asked. “It’s a very astounding and troubling argument. It’s different from saying he might run to Israel — whether or not there is a Law of Return.”
Stern said the government’s argument is “probably impermissible, but it’s hard to say without being more closely involved. … I think it’s an argument that’s too aggressive and I think they need to justify it by evidence that I can’t imagine them producing.”

In last Friday’s legal papers, defense attorneys for Rubashkin asked Scoles to reconsider his decision. And, in order to preserve their right to appeal, they also filed papers with federal District Court Judge Linda Reade in the event Scoles does not grant Rubashkin bail.

Defense attorneys F. Montgomery Brown and Guy Cook argued in their papers that the U.S. has an extradition treaty with Israel and that therefore “the Law of Return should have played no role whatsoever in the analysis.”

They noted that when they argued that position in court, the office of U.S. Attorney Matt M. Dummermuth countered by insisting that the extradition process “could take years.” And the prosecutor also introduced a copy of the Law of Return.

The defense attorneys said their research “has not uncovered a single instance involving a Jewish criminal defendant where the prosecution invoked the Law of Return in support of detention.”
And they quoted an attorney with years of experience in the Brooklyn and Manhattan federal district courts as saying he too could “recall no instance where the prosecutor invoked the Law of Return in arguing that an American Jew is a bail risk.”

Bob Teig, a spokesman for Dummermuth’s office, said the defense papers were filed last Friday and that “we have had no chance to file a response.”

Asked if the defense’s characterization of the government’s argument was correct, he replied: “The judge’s order speaks for itself.”

Laura Sweeney, a Justice Department spokesperson, said when asked about the prosecutor’s argument, “This is an ongoing matter and therefore the department declines comment.”

In their request to deny bail after his second arrest in November — he had been arrested in October on charges alleging that he hired illegal workers for his plant — prosecutors noted that Rubashkin had $20,000 in his home, much of it in a travel bag that also contained his birth certificate and his children’s passports; he has 10 children. He and his wife surrendered their passports after Rubashkin’s first arrest.

One of Rubashkin’s lawyers, Baruch Weiss of New York, acknowledged the cash was in the house but said that much of it was in one-dollar bills that had been collected for charity. And he said the rest was used to pay expense. He noted that a $1,700 car bill had recently been paid in cash.

Rubaskin’s Iowa defense team contended in their papers that in “the prosecutors’ view, anyone subject to the Law of Return is an increased flight risk. Consequently, under that view, ‘every Jew’ is to be viewed for bail purposes as a greater risk of flight than a non-Jew. That means that 5.3 million Americans would be viewed as heightened bail risks simply because they are Jews.”

They pointed out that would include Attorney General Michael Mukasey, Homeland Security head Michael Chertoff and two U.S. Supreme Court Justices, Steven Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

In their papers, the defense lawyers said the extradition treaty the U.S. has with Israel “has always been workable,” and that after recent amendments it is “now better than workable.”

“It applies to everyone, Jews and non-Jews,” they said. “It even applies to Israelis. This treaty will ensure that Rubashkin — even if he were to become a citizen of Israel under the Law of Return — will be returned to the United States, tried in the United States and if convicted, that he will serve any sentence in the United States. Were he to flee to Israel, he would be detained pending extradition. Because of this treaty, the Law of Return is irrelevant.”

In addition, the defense lawyers said that by denying Rubashkin bail, the court was denying him the constitutional right to equal protection.

“Jews are a protected class for Equal Protection purposes,” they wrote. “Thus, singling Jews out in any way when determining bail is unconstitutional…

“The government has failed to demonstrate a compelling government interest in a rule that implicates all Jews, and has failed to demonstrate that its interest here cannot be met with a more narrowly tailored approach. … The government introduced no evidence that Jews are more likely to flee because of the Law of Return than non-Jews.”
The defense lawyers concluded that “rather than locking Jews up with greater frequency, the United States could rely on a general array of bail conditions, and then utilize the valid, streamlined, regularly-invoked extradition treaty with Israel in those few cases where the defendant actually flees. Certainly it is better to have the government on rare occasions be forced to resort to this streamlined extradition than to brand over 5 million Americans a bail risks. … Otherwise, the government slurs Americans because of a law passed by a foreign country over which these Americans have no control and which they may have no desire to invoke.”

This blog is hard enough to navigate already, without people posting long, off-topic articles because they "find them interesting."

Wikipedia gives Paulson's religion as "Christian Science".

It's not about Jews or Christians, Hebrews or English, Israelis or Americans, it's about ego. It's about the ego that killed Jesus when he suggested to the Western ego it shares.

All people are not to be trusted, including Jews and whites. Said politically correct, you can ALWAYS trust all people to do what is best for them 100% of the time. Protect yourself. Always protect yourself. No one else can or will.

Obama is just another phase in the scam from NYC. Protect yourself because nothing will change. It's always about getting money without doing work or taking risk. Why do dead beats make more money than people who do the hard work? It's irrational. Madoff should have made $30 an hour, tops. NYC, DC, and Hollywood are Ponzi schemes, Protect yourself. That's the lesson. Always protect yourself.

Regarding Paulson. If you are hired by Jews, to do Jewish dialogue or fulfill a Jewish agenda, you say what you are paid to say. Paulson, Bush, Obama will say what they are paid to say. Those with the gold make the rules. That is the political golden rule.

It's about the ego, the agenda. What is the agenda? Same as the natural world, to invade, kill, steal, and lie about it. Animals kill for food and sex. Humans kill for money and sex. We are mammals. We want to take over the world like all other mammals. That is the curse of the mammal ego when it's fears and desires are excited. That is why all people need over sight and why all people want a secret cult, a secret agenda, to steal like Bernie Madoff did. For animals it's the food for the stomach. For people it's the money, always the money. People kill for money or sex. There really is no other reason to kill for. Killing financially is killing.

I want to know if people are members of a cult or secret organization. I want to know if people are Jewish or Christian or Muslim because these groups have global agendas.

Like I said. Protect yourself.

I lived 5 years in washington and did political work. I can only say that I enterd without any bias but ended up being befuddled about the role of Jews everywhere. In Congress, if AIPAC entered, it was never, if they asked us to jump, why but how high. I used to be very pro-Israel but left the town with the feeling that the Palestinians had not the slightest chance of ever getting an even slightly fair treatment. Jews still did as if there were a vulnerable minority but they are in fact part of the center of power. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. No reason for conspiracy theories but a good reason to ask questions. Don't turn Madoff into the one ad apple. Don't be like many muslems who nver dare to be self-critical.