Joe Bruno wrote:
> Waldo wrote:
> > Brian Huntley wrote:
> > > (Cross-postings removed)
> >
> > Cross-postings restored - there may be parties who are interested in
> > seeing this Snopes article answered.
> >
> > > Waldo wrote:
> > > > Kosher Certification means ONE thing: That the product conforms to
> > > > Jewish Religious Superstition - or as in the case of bleach above, that
> > > > the Jewish Kash-R-Us agencies are unscrupulous con artists that are
> > > > busily doing what Jews have always done best - separating gullible
> > > > Gentiles from their money.
> > >
> > > I doubt I can change your mind, but for the edification of others,
> > > here's the Snopes page about this:
> > > http://www.snopes.com/racial/business/kosher.htm
> >
> >
> > Thanks for not attacking me with insults and epithets, Brian. As you
> > were kind enough to post the Snopes article, would you indulge my
> > commentary on the article and Barbara Mikkelson's analysis?
> >
> > My comments will appear in [brackets].
> >
> > Begin Snopes article:
> >
> > <quote>
> >
> > _______________________________________
> >
> > Claim: Certain symbols displayed on the packaging of a variety of
> > grocery items signify that their manufacturers have paid a secret tax
> > to the Jews.
> >
> > [First, Mikkelson is starting with a false premise: That the fees paid
> > to the Kashrus (Kosher Certification) agencies, and the costs incurred
> > by the companies in fulfilling the demands placed on them by the
> > Kashrus agencies is a "tax". It is true that many ignorant and/or
> > overzealous persons have incorrectly used the word "tax" to
> > describe this financial burden, which is ultimately born by *all*
> > consumers of the affected products, but the term is inaccurate, and
> > defenders of the Kosher Kabal try valiantly to use this error to
> > pooh-pooh the entire scheme]
> >
> > Status: False.
> >
> > [Remove the word "tax" form the false premise, and you can replace
> > Mikkelson's "false" with "true".]
> >
> > Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2002]
> >
> > [It should be noted that Mikkelson was obviously careful to select an
> > article that was written by persons who are ignorant on the subject,
> > and have no credibility. Aztlan? Oh please!]
> >
> > [<begin article that Mikkelson intends to "debunk">]
> >
> >
> > The "Kosher Nostra Scam" on the American Consumer
> >
> > By Ernesto Cienfuegos
> > La Voz de Aztlan
> >
> > Los Angeles, Alta California - (ACN) La Voz de Aztlan receives
> > quite a few "news tips" per week from our many subscribers and readers.
> > Some we dismiss immediately but a very few catch our attention. Last
> > week we receive an e-mail asking us if we knew the significance of the
> > small encircled letter "U" or letter "K" that can be found printed on
> > many food cans, food packages and on other kitchen products. The
> > message gave us some clues and suggested that we do some research into
> > the subject. What we found certainly was "news" to us and it both
> > shocked and angered us.
> >
> > On arriving at my residence, I immediately went to the pantry to
> > verify that what I had just learned was actually true. Sure enough,
> > most of the packaged and canned foods from major companies, like
> > Proctor & Gamble and others, did have the (U), the (K) or other similar
> > markings. The Arrowhead water bottle, the instant Folgers Coffee, the
> > Kelloggs box, the Jiff Peanut Butter, the Pepper container, the Trader
> > Joe's tea box and even the Glads plastic sandwich bags carton had the
> > (U) or (K) mark on them.
> >
> > [All true]
> >
> > We needed a little more verification so we called two major
> > companies to asked some questions. We chose Proctor & Gamble that
> > markets the Folgers Coffee and the Clorox Company that manufactures the
> > Glads plastic zip lock sandwich bags. Each of the two companies, as
> > well as most others, have 1-800 telephone numbers printed on their
> > packages for consumers to call in case they have any questions about
> > their products. When we asked the Proctor & Gamble representative what
> > the (U) meant on their Folgers Coffee container, she asked us to wait
> > until she consulted with her supervisor. She came back and informed us
> > that the mark meant that the coffee was " certified kosher". We than
> > asked her how and who certified the coffee to be "kosher" and whether
> > it cost any money to do so. She refused to answer these and other
> > questions. She suggested that we write to their Corporate Public
> > Affairs Department.
>
>
> What's wrong with that? You called the wrong department, fool. Public
> affairs
> is the ones who answer questions from the public. Only you would be
> arrogant enough to tell a huge private corporation how to make policy
> and run it's internal affairs.
>
> It's none of your business, arrogant asshole.
>
>
>
> We than called the Clorox Corporation to ask what
> > the (U) meant on the package of their Glads plastic sandwich bags and
> > she also said that the (U) meant that the plastic bags were "kosher"
> > but refused to answer questions concerning payments the Clorox
> > Corporation has to make in order to be able to print the (U) on their
> > products.
>
> Financial info like that will be listed in the financial statements, if
> they are required to report it by the SEC. If the SEC does not require
> that be reported, they won't divulge it.
> You don't understand that the financial affairs of a private
> Corporation, beyond what the SEC requires to be reported, are none of
> your business.
>
> >
> > [Of course I can't verify the phone conversations, but all of the
> > above appears to be factual. Indeed, companies are *very* tight lipped
> > when it comes to their Kosher certification processes. I suspect that
> > this is because of non-disclosure agreements they were required to sign
> > when they entered contractual agreements with the Kashrus agencies.]
>
>
> Your suspicions are not evidence.
> >
> > What we learned next, pretty much floored me personally. I learned
> > that major food companies throughout America actually pay a Jewish Tax
> > amounting to hundreds of million of dollars per year in order to
> > receive protection.
>
> It's not a tax if government doesn't impose it. A tax would affect all
> of the brands, not just a few of them.
> >
> > [While I take exception to the words "tax" and "protection",
> > the above statement is fairly accurate, though I have never found a
> > reliable source citing the dollar amounts involved.]
> >
> > This hidden tax gets passed, of course, to all non-Jewish consumers of
> > the products.
>
> People who buy Kosher products compare prices just like those who don't
> keep KOSHER
> do.
> >
> > [Actually, the "tax" gets passed on to *all* consumers of the
> > products, but as non-Jews outnumber Jews at a ratio of 49 to 1, you can
> > guess who bears the bulk of the cost.]
> >
> > The scam is to coerce the companies to pay up or suffer the
> > consequences of a Jewish boycott.
>
> BULLSHIT. Then how come there are companies like Von's, Albertson's,
> Kroger and Springfield who don't sell any Kosher products? These are
> HUGE companies.

You are mistaken, I bought my Weetabix cereal from Vons and it is
clearly marked with a "u" on the front. Vons is now Safeway and
Ralphs
is now Kroger. Many of their products have the "u" on them. On
jewish
holidays they have a special section of kosher products so why can't
they
keep *all* kosher products in one section at all times.

> > Jewish consumers have learned not to buy any kitchen product that does
> > not have the (U) the (K) and other similar markings.

> Bullshit. I don't even look for those markings.
> Nobody in olur family keeps Kosher and none of us look for them.

So it's rather a waste of time then isn't it?