Jewish privilege contradicts Democracy...
In a number of countries which like to think of themselves as isocratic democracies, Jews benefit from laws that give them a government-enforced privilege by law against offensive expression, that is not given to any other group.
This protection from offensive expression is not extended to Christians, Muslims, or any other religion. In law, this is known as “privilege”. In a truly isocratic democracy, a privilege is never enacted in law to one ethnic, religious or racial group over all others. If it is, the nation is no longer isocratic, i.e. treating all racial, religious and ethnic groups as equal beneficiaries of its laws.
Germany, Austria and the United States have cast aside the fundamental principle of isocracy - equality under the law for every citizen – which is almost universally associated with democracy. In the US this Jewish privilege in law is reflected in the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act.
Global Antisemitism Review Act...
This Act benefits only Jews, not Muslims, not Christians or any other religion or group. It requires the US government to "report" and to “combat” anti-semitism only, which means a bureau, a staff, a budget, and programs.
A true liberal democracy is an isocracy, i.e. a government that makes every racial, religious or ethnic group an equal beneficiary of its laws. Once the principle of equality is breached, as with this Act, the “slippery slope” phenomena takes place and the disadvantaged may reasonably fear the incremental extension of privileged status.
If the US, Austria, Germany, or other countries that single out Jews for special benefits under freedom of expression laws really want to combat resentment against Jews, they would not have such laws of privilege, or would extend their benefit to all like groups.
In a society that supposedly embraces isocracy, i.e.“equal protection under the laws”, it is natural and justified to resent people or a group singled out in law for special privilege....
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Hill-aides-CBO-to-project-12T-apf-13990391.html
With seams showing on Wall St, King Continuity and Rahm the Don have ample evidence to use to pressure fat cats to swing their campaign donations toward the obscure party...., the power behind the power in USA.
More on the Greenberg Bush-backers come out soon.... AIG=CIA3
Greenberg Iceberg tip #1:
http://www.propublica.org/article/did-aig-hide-its-losses-1030
"Evidence suggests that what changed wasn’t so much the market, but AIG’s accounting. An AIG accounting expert, hired specifically to watch over the Financial Products unit, testified in a letter to Congress pdf) that he’d been blocked from inspecting the unit’s swaps portfolio. In March, the former head of that unit, Joseph Cassano, resigned after AIG announced that its auditor PricewaterhouseCoopers had identified problems in AIG’s accounting."
Greenberg Iceberg tip #2:
http://businessmirror.com.ph/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3931:aigs-offshore-strategies-hide-a-scam&catid=28:opinion&Itemid=64
"The company getting the biggest US bailout operated a scam to help clients cheat on US taxes, regulators say. It is AIG, American International Group, the world’s largest insurance conglomerate. AIG was run by Maurice “Hank” Greenberg. He was ousted as CEO in 2005 by the board of directors after the New York Attorney General charged him with fraudulent business practices, securities fraud and other violations. These charges did not mention a captive insurance scam that Greenberg, famous as a hands-on manager, would have been involved in approving. AIG took inflated fees from customers, set up reinsurance companies for them in Bermuda, and bought reinsurance from them, effectively giving their clients tax-free cash in that offshore island. Would Greenberg have known that his company was writing such a tax-evading policy for the likes of Victor Posner, a notorious crook who was banned from public companies by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in 1988? Very likely.
Greenberg Iceberg tip #3:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122662579362126965.html?mod=djem_jiewr_AC
"American International Group Inc. is in a battle with the Internal Revenue Service over $329 million in back taxes and penalties in part stemming from the company's use of a type of transaction the IRS has called "abusive," securities filings show. The tax dispute puts AIG -- recipient of a $150 billion federal bailout -- in the peculiar position of effectively using government funding to fight the U.S. government.
Posts
