---

---

In Orthodox Jewish beliefs, feminists can take a hike because, Jewish men do not let their wife divorce without their permission.


So, now we know that an observant Jewish belief toward women sound much more like Muslim beliefs than they are to Christian beliefs.

Both a "Good Jew" and a "Good Muslim" treat their wives like property; to be used as the men see fit.


Seems that a "Good Rabbi" remarkably resembles a "Good Imam".

Imam's issue religious "fatwas" allowing violence, while
Rabbis issue religious  "rabbinical decrees" allowing violence.

Kidnapping and torture of even fellow Jews is a devoutly holy decree.


Now we know why neo-Con Jews (i.e. observant religious Jews), thought that there was nothing wrong with George W. Bush doing waterboarding on captured criminals.

Why, we now know that Rabbis electrocute members of their own congregation.


When Jewish boys are young, they "get" their genitals tortured by way of circumcision.

When Jewish boys grow up to become Rabbis, they get their genitals electrically tortured for a "get", by yet another Rabbi.


We have brought this up many times in the case of Rabbis who abuse the rabbinical students they teach and abuse the Jewish women they counsel. Rabbis whose crimes never get reported, because they are brought to Jewish courts called Beth Dins, instead of being reported to the police. (LINK) 

We brought this up because the Jews who seemed to never miss the opportunity to endlessly cover grand jury to sentencing proceedings against Roman Catholic priests, can never seem to find a Rabbi who has abused children worst than any priest had done. (LINK)


Rabbi Epstein speaks the truth.

These odorous Rabbis get mere slaps on the hand, if anything, and the Gentile public never knows the truth because the Jew control the MSM.

Obviously they will report these things or we would not know about it. But it has not led the nightly news for years on end, as the case of a priest doing the abuse.

Now that we know the bizarre and immoral Jewish divorce scene, let's review the state of Christian divorce, which Jewish lawyers have played a huge part in reshaping.

---

---

After the 1970's -->     No-Fault = No-Crime

How did did the California legislature of 1969 get talked into passing their no-fault divorce law?

It was certainly not because happily-married or even unhappily-married American Christians (i.e., the ones who vote) were clamoring the California legislature to have laws passed so they could split up their families.

Closer to the truth as to the origins of this mess begins with filthy rich "secular" Jewish movie directors, producers, actors and actresses in California's Hollywood who found when  their marriages were breaking up right and left, that their "secular" Jewish lawyer cousins were making a mint off of them.

They are the ones who wanted to come and go from multiple marriages, but that would not sell to mainstream Christian America.

So, an argument had to be created to sell the idea of no-fault divorce to the goy Christian majority.

The argument to sell the idea was to present  ordinary Christian families as destitute by divorce fees from filthy rich lawyers who had no self-interest in settling matters amicably.

The more legal fighting they could muster up, the  more money they made.

"No fault" divorce was just the answer to cut out the middle-man Jewish lawyer.

No need to legally prove fault, then no divorce lawyers needed.

We all know now that the result of making something easy: you get much more of it.

No Fault implies No Shame, and No Shame means more divorce.

The man or woman who used to stay married because the expense and shame kept them together, eventually working things out because they had to, were now bragging about starter wives, and men started saying, "Why buy the cow when the milk is free?"  (Quote from the movie Norbit")

Results: we had tons of "no-fault" divorce, necessitating an entire family court industry to be created to handle what happens AFTER the "no fault" divorce, such as  child support, custody  hearings,  alimony and so on. Or, in the case of the free milk, when the man finds that he still has "to pay for what he had broke".

"No Fault Divorce" was a teaser rate for a law product where the real costs were to come later.

We didn't put any rich Jewish lawyers out of business.

Exactly as planned --  we created an army of Jewish divorce lawyers.

Then of course we were talked into the infamous "Family Court", a so-called "court for families" where no crime had to have been committed for "justice to be dispensed" by the army of Jewish divorce lawyers.

Before the 1970's  -->      No-Crime = No-Divorce

Before the 1970's, that is, before the Jewish MSM talked Christians into secular no-fault divorce, Christians had believed that a religiously illegal unrepentant adulterer or a religiously illegal bigamist, or even someone who had committed religious perjury at the alter attesting to a virility they knew they did not have, had to be present for there to be religious grounds justifying divorce.

The Christian view had been that one woman melted into one man - who would become each other's family. 

They were a member of this spousal family for the rest of their lives just like they were with their mother, father, sister, brother, son, and daughter, who would be family for the rest of their life. No one had a right to take away a mother, father, brother, sister, son or daughter, grandson or granddaughter even, just because the married couple thought they argued too much or got bored with each other.

But heh, once again, that Jewish ridicule of Christian beliefs was all aimed at hick Christians holding onto their out-dated medieval Christian beliefs.

All part of feminism you see.

Christian men were holding Christian women in marriages they wanted out of. And with no fault divorce, you can see this in who files the predominances of the divorces -- our women.

Before the 1970's,
Christians were lovingly told to keep their families intact "for the kids".

After the 1970's,
Christians were hatefully told they should break up their families "for the kids".

U.S. Accuses 2 Rabbis of Kidnapping Husbands for a Fee LINK In Brooklyn’s ultra-Orthodox Jewish neighborhoods, Mendel Epstein made a name for himself as the rabbi to see for women struggling to divorce their husbands. Among the Orthodox, a divorce requires the husband’s permission, known as a “get,” and tales abound of women whose husbands refuse to consent. While it’s common for rabbis to take action against defiant husbands, such as barring them from synagogue life, Rabbi Epstein, 68, took matters much further, according to the authorities. For hefty fees, he orchestrated the kidnapping and torture of reluctant husbands, charging their wives as much as $10,000 for a rabbinical decree permitting violence and $50,000 to hire others to carry out the deed, according to federal charges unsealed on Thursday morning. Rabbi Epstein, along with another rabbi, Martin Wolmark, who is the head of a yeshiva, as well as several men in what the authorities called the “kidnap team,” appeared in Federal District Court in Trenton after a sting operation in which an undercover federal agent posed as an Orthodox Jewish woman soliciting Rabbi Epstein’s services. Paul Fishman, the United States attorney for New Jersey, said in an interview that investigators have “uncovered evidence” of about a couple dozen victims. Many are men from Brooklyn who were taken to New Jersey as part of the kidnappings. In court, the lead prosecutor in the case, R. Joseph Gribko, explained how the abductions were carried out. “They beat them up, tied them up, shocked them with Tasers and stun guns until they got what they want,” Mr. Gribko, an assistant United States attorney, said. Mr. Gribko said the defendants had been motivated by money, not faith. While the case might surprise some New Yorkers, accounts of such kidnappings have percolated through the Orthodox Jewish community in Brooklyn for years. In 1996, for instance, a rabbinic council in Williamsburg issued a statement denouncing the rogue men who subjected husbands to such beatings, according to a news report. Rabbi Epstein was sued in the late 1990s by another Brooklyn rabbi, Abraham Rubin, who claimed that a group of men shoved him into a van as he left synagogue, hooded him, and applied electric shocks to his genitals in an effort to force him to provide a get to his wife. The lawsuit was dismissed. According to newspaper accounts from the late 90s, other men, too, have come forward with similar tales of curbside abductions and mistreatment. How such violent practices, if proved, would have been able to persist for so long may be an indicator of the challenges that local law enforcement agencies face in trying conduct investigations of insular religious groups including the ultra-Orthodox. Rabbi Epstein seemed confident that local authorities wouldn’t investigate too closely. In a recorded meeting with the female undercover F.B.I. agent, Rabbi Epstein explained that his preferred torture techniques, like electric shocks, offered little physical evidence of abuse, according to the complaint. Without obvious visible injuries, Rabbi Epstein said, the police were unlikely to inquire too deeply if any victims came forward. “Basically the reaction of the police is, if the guy does not have a mark on him then, uh, is there some Jewish crazy affair here, they don’t want to get involved,” Rabbi Epstein explained, according to the criminal complaint. Rabbi Epstein made his living appearing before the rabbinical courts, known as beit din, where he advocated on behalf of a spouse seeking an exit, another rabbi said. He took a special interest in the constraints that wives faced, speaking about the rights of women in terms not often heard in his deeply conservative community. When two undercover F.B.I. agents — one posing as a woman seeking a divorce, the other as her brother — asked a rabbi for help, the rabbi explained how Rabbi Epstein might be able to assist them. “You need special rabbis who are going to take this thing and see it through to the end,” Rabbi Martin Wolmark, a respected figure who presides over a yeshiva in Monsey, N.Y., said in a recorded telephone call on Aug. 7. He described Rabbi Epstein as “a hired hand” who could help, according to the criminal complaint in the case. When the undercover agents met with Rabbi Epstein a week later, he said that he was confident he could secure a get once his “tough guys” had made their threats. “I guarantee you that if you’re in the van, you’d give a get to your wife,” he said to the male undercover agent posing as the brother. “You probably love your wife, but you’d give a get when they finish with you.” The undercover female F.B.I. agent told Rabbi Epstein that she wanted to divorce her husband, described as a businessman in South America, who refused to grant her request. Rabbi Epstein urged her to lure the man to New Jersey, which she pledged to do. Next Rabbi Epstein and Rabbi Wolmark convened their own rabbinical court, complete with legalisms and formalities, to issue a religious edict “authorizing the use of violence to obtain a forced get,” according to court records. The undercover agent offered testimony before the two rabbis, who were joined by other religious figures. Told that the husband was arriving in New Jersey, eight of Rabbi Epstein’s associates met at a New Jersey warehouse to finalize the kidnapping plan, according to court documents. At that point F.B.I. agents moved in to arrest the group. The agents seized masks, ropes, scalpels and feather quills and ink bottles used for recording the get they anticipated. On Thursday, the 10 defendants were denied bail after appearing in court in Trenton on the kidnapping conspiracy charges. Juda J. Epstein, the lawyer for Rabbi Epstein, declined to comment. A neighbor, Rose Davis, who lives opposite his home in the Kensington section of Brooklyn described him as a respected figure. Ms. Davis said she was skeptical of the charges, and suggested they might be the concoctions of enemies he had made as an expert in divorce work: “There’s always a loser,” she said, referring to divorce cases. ---------------------------------------------------------- Jon Hurdle and Alex Vadukul contributed reporting. Susan Beachy and Jack Begg contributed research.