Datasets:

lzw1008

/

COLING25-FMD

like 2

FMD_test_1300

Is Kosher Food Certification a 'Jewish Scam'?

05/23/2002

People sometimes search for proofs of their darkest imaginings everywhere, including on the shelves of grocery stores. One example of this phenomenon is that packages bearing marks whose meanings aren't readily apparent to the average shopper have been interpreted by those always on the sniff for a Jewish conspiracy as signs that Big Business is in league with the Jews: The "Kosher Nostra Scam" on the American Consumer By Ernesto CienfuegosLa 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. 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. 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. 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. This hidden tax gets passed, of course, to all non-Jewish consumers of the products. The scam is to coerce the companies to pay up or suffer the consequences of a Jewish boycott. Jewish consumers have learned not to buy any kitchen product that does not have the (U) the (K) and other similar markings. Another shocker was learning who is actually behind these sophisticated "Kosher Nostra Scams." It turns out that the perpetrators of these elaborate extortion schemes are actually Rabbinical Councils that are set up, not just in the U.S. but in other western countries as well. For example, the largest payola operation in the U.S. is run by those who license the (U) symbol. The (U) symbol provides protection for many products sold here in Aztlan and in the United States. This symbol is managed by the The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations with headquarters at 333 Seventh Avenue in New York City. The scam works like a well oiled machine and is now generating vast amounts of funds, some of which are being utilized by the Union of Orthodox Rabbis to support the Ariel Sharon Zionist government in Israel. The website of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations is full of pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian propaganda. The "Kosher Nostra" protection racket starts when an Orthodox Rabbi approaches a company to warn the owners that unless their product is certified as kosher, or "fit for a Jew to eat", they will face a boycott by every Jew in America. Most, if not all of the food companies, succumb to the blackmail because of fear of the Jewish dominated media and a boycott that may eventually culminate in bankruptcy. Also, the food companies know that the cost can be passed on to the consumer anyway. The food companies have kept secret from the general consumer the meaning of the (U) and the amount of money they have to pay the Jewish Rabbis. It is estimated that the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, which manages the (U) symbol protection racket, controls about 85% of the "Kosher Nostra "certification business. They now employ about 1200 Rabbi agents that are spread through out the U.S. Food companies must first pay an exorbitant application fee and than a large annual fee for the use of the (U) copyright symbol. Secondly, the companies must pay separate fees each time a team of Rabbis shows up to "inspect" the company's operations. Certain food companies are required to hire Rabbis full time at very lucrative salaries. The amount of money that the non-Jewish consumer has paid the food companies to make up for the hidden Jewish Tax is unknown, but it is estimated to be in the billions since the scam first started. The Orthodox Jewish Councils as well as the food companies keep the amount of the fees very secret. The Jewish owned Wall Street Journal wrote about the problem many years ago, but they have stopped writing about it now. Only public awareness concerning the "Kosher Nostra Scam" will eventually help stop this swindle of the American consumer. Public education of the scam may lead to an eventual non-Jewish boycott of all products with the (U), (K) or other Jewish protection symbols. I certainly do not need to pay extra for "kosher water", "kosher coffee" or "kosher plastic sandwich bags". In fact, I demand my money back for all the money I had to pay over the years for the hidden and illegal Jewish Tax. Are there any bright attorneys out there that could bring a class action suit against the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations on behalf of the citizens of Aztlan and other non-Jewish people? The rumor that the presence of those mysterious markings signifies that the manufacturers of those products have paid a secret tax to the Jews of America has been afoot for decades, and the e-mail quoted above is merely a more recent manifestation of this age-old canard. The claim is wholly false, and we wonder at the twisted minds that would advance such a slander. No "Jewish Secret Tax" exists, or ever has. The markings pointed to in the rumor are real; however, their purpose is entirely different from the one asserted by the rumormongers. They do not signal that a secret tax has been paid or that corporations have succumbed to blackmail; they are there to indicate to members of a particular faith that such items have been vetted as having met the strictures their religion imposes. (If the notion of a religion imposing dietary requirements upon its followers sounds like an outlandish proposition, keep in mind that only in recent times have Catholics taken to eating meat on Fridays, and that Muslims still eschew pork.) As to what those markings mean: The letter "K" simply means "Kosher." Kosher, in Hebrew, means fit or proper, and is generally used to describe foods that are prepared in accordance with special Jewish dietary laws. These laws are stringent and almost incomprehensible to those not versed in them. The small "u" in a circle or ("OU") stands for the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations and shows that the food underwent rabbinical supervision in its preparation. (An "OUD" marking shows that the package contains dairy products, while an "OUM" indicates the presence of meat.) "Parve" (also "pareve") is Yiddish for "neutral." The presence of this word on packaging signifies that the contents of the package contain neither milk nor meat and thus can be combined with other ingredients in recipes. (Jewish dietary law forbids the mixing of meat and dairy, thus a packaged food that contained cheese could not be combined with, say, hamburger.) This variety of markings used on packaged foods alert consumers that items contained therein either meet the strict dietary constraints imposed by Judaism on its followers or that the contents of the package can be mixed with other foods or can touch them. Not all Jews keep kosher, nor even among those who do are the strictures always adhered to rigorously, but those determined upon being truly pious are aided in this endeavor by the presence of those markings. The devout go so far as to maintain two separate sets of utensils, cookware, and cutting surfaces so that meat and dairy never encounter one another in their kitchens. It is for their benefit that otherwise puzzling kosher certifications on non-foodstuff items are there (e.g., certifications are placed upon dishwashing liquid because dishes used for dairy cannot be washed using a soap made from animal fats). Less observant Jews do not bother themselves overly much about the kosherness of everyday items; they avoid the out-and-out no-nos such as pork and shellfish but don't lose much sleep over the animal fat content of their washing-up liquid, nor do they fret that cold cuts might now be resting upon a plate that had months earlier been used to serve cheese. The proponents of the "Jewish Secret Tax" slander often assert that a sub rosa Jewish cabal forces large companies to comply via the threat of a nationwide boycott, backed by the underlying presumption that all Jews can be marshalled into turning their backs on products that fail to display kosher certification marks. That is not the case Jews buy and use non-kosher items too, so although lack of kosher certification keeps the ultra-conservative crowd from buying certain products, it doesn't prevent the less stringent from making such purchases, nor would a "don't buy that because it's not kosher" directive have much effect even if there were a secret Jewish cabal to issue it. Those seeking kosher certification for their products have to adhere to kosher practices through the manufacturing process, use only kosher ingredients, and have their facilities regularly vetted by qualified inspectors. Kosher certification companies do charge for this service, which is the backbone of the "secret tax" claim it costs money to obtain and maintain kosher certification, thus this is an extra expense a manufacturer must bear if he's determined upon having that certification. Where the rumor and reality part ways, however, is where the money goes. Fees paid to kosher certification companies go to keeping those businesses afloat with the profits siphoned off by those companies' owners; they do not flow off into some special Jewish fund used to advance Zionist causes. These are businesses, not charities, and those who run them do so with every expectation of making a living, in the same manner that someone who owns a hardware store does so with the notion of making enough from the endeavor to support himself and his family. Does certification add to the price of a product? Certainly, but the amount is miniscule, especially compared to the advertising, packaging, shipping, research, testing, admin and finance-related costs, and a myriad of other components that contribute to the process of bringing a product to market or making it better appeal to consumers. One might as well rail against the costs associated with selecting the ink colors and style of lettering used on a package it's all legitimate business expense, even though no one ever rails against the "Secret Red Ink Conspiracy" or rants about the "Helvetica Font Tax." <!-- A Kosher Primer (Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America)--> Brunvand, Jan Harold. The Mexican Pet. New York: W. W. Norton, 1986. ISBN 0-393-30542-2 (pp. 106-107). Morgan, Hal and Kerry Tucker. More Rumor!

FMD_test_1301

Is This a Prescription Written for Elvis One Day Before He Died?

12/05/2018

On 3 December 2018, the Facebook page Pictures in History posted what appeared to be a prescription written by Elvis Presleys doctor, George Nichopoulos, the day before the singer died at his Graceland estate in Memphis on 16 August 1977: posted Several clear indicators show this document to be a forgery. First, the ZIP code 34108 does not correspond to Memphis, Tennessee, but rather to part of Naples. The forger transposed a couple of digits, as the correct ZIP code for the Memphis address is 38104. Naples correct Second, we find it unlikely that a doctor would spell his own name incorrectly. Presley's controversial personal physician (colloquially referred to as "Dr. Nick" even after he lost his medical license in 1995) was Dr. George Nichopoulos, not George Nichopolous. Even if Dr. Nick had accidentally misspelled his name in this one instance, though, it's still the case that the handwriting on the prescription in no way matches Nichopoulos actual signature. Below is his real signature as it appeared on a loan agreement between Presley and Nichopoulos signed in 1975 and the signature on the forged prescription for comparison: loan agreement Real Not real That being said, the forged document does speak to some historical realities. The faux prescription lists a variety of drugs that were frequently prescribed for Presley while he was a patient of Nichopoulos. Dilaudid (hydromorphone) and Percodan (oxycodone/aspirin) are both narcotic painkillers, Amytal (amobarbital) and Quaalude (methaqualone) are sedative drugs that Presley used to sleep, and Dexedrine (dextroamphetamine) and Biphetamine (amphetamine salts) are both stimulants similar to Adderall. Dr. Nichopoulos prescribed them all: prescribed Between 1975 and 1977, he had prescribed 19,000 doses of drugs. In the first eight months of 1977 alone, he had written 199 prescriptions totaling more than 10,000 doses of sedatives, amphetamines and narcotics: all in Elvis's name. Nichopoulos was blamed for the singers death and branded a Dr. Feelgood in the media. In September 1981 he faced trial on 14 counts of overprescribing uppers, downers, and painkillers to Presley, entertainer Jerry Lee Lewis, himself, and eight others: September 1981 The two counts of the indictment dealing with Presley allege Nichopoulos "unlawfully, wilfully and feloniously" prescribed for the entertainer "certain quantities" of the synthetic narcotic, Dilaudid; the painkillers Percodan and Demerol; the sedatives Quaalude and Parest; the barbiturate Amytal; the stimulants Dexedrine and Biphetamine; and the appetite suppressant Ionamine from May 17, 1976, to Aug. 16, 1977 -- the day Presley died at the age of 42. Nichopoulos was acquitted on all counts in November 1981, but in 1995 the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners permanently suspended his medical license, stating that he had been overprescribing to numerous patients for years. acquitted 1995 Nichopoulos died on 24 February 2016 at the age of 88. died EssentialElvis.com. "Loan Agreement for the Nichopoulos' Home." Accessed 4 December 2018. Higginbotham, Adam. "Doctor Feelgood." The Guardian. 10 August 2002. Murphy, Pamela. "Elvis' Doctor Goes on Trial, Charged With Overprescribing Drug." United Press International. 26 September 1981. The New York Times. "Presley's Doctor Acquitted on All Prescription Charges." 5 November 1981. Grimes, William. "George C. Nichopoulos, Elviss Last Doctor, Dies at 88." United Press International. 26 February 2016.

FMD_test_1302

Vern Buchanan. His old business was caught illegally funneling over $60,000 in campaign donations to Buchanan to influence his election.

06/24/2011

When it comes to illegal campaign cash, the wheels of justice move slowly. So when a May 2011 court filing brought fresh attention to old claims involving illegal campaign contributions to U.S. Rep. Vern Buchanan, Democrats jumped, airinga radio adin his Florida district. Congressman Vern Buchanan. His old business was caught illegally funneling over $60,000 in campaign donations to Buchanan to influence his election, the narrator of the ad says. Tell Buchanan to come clean.The ad ran from June 13-17 and was paid for by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. It relied onnews articlesabouta lawsuit filedby theFederal Election Commissionagainst a business Buchanan once owned, the DCCC said.The 'old business' Buchanan, 60, is awealthy Republicanfrom Longboat Key serving his third term in Congress representing Florida's13th Congressional District. He built his wealth founding a chain of print shop franchises in Michigan, leaving for Florida in the 1980sas the chain struggledand investing in a range of new businesses, including Florida auto dealerships.One of those dealerships is at the heart of this claim.Buchanan had owned a majority interest in Hyundai of North Jacksonville,the FEC says, when his business partner Sam Kazran arranged for dealership employees and relatives to donate to the Vern Buchanan for Congress committee, then be reimbursed by the business. This went on during the 2006 and 2008 campaigns, the FEC says. (We should note that the date Buchanan legally parted ways with the dealership is a matter of disagreement.The FEC saysBuchanan owned 51 percent of the dealership until Kazran completed his purchase of Buchanan's stake to become the sole owner in 2008 after the suspect contributions were made. Buchanan spokeswoman Sally Tibbetts says Buchanan sold the dealership to Kazran in 2005, putting more distance between the congressman and the illegal contributions. )What's the big deal with reimbursing contributions? It violates federal election law, which says (n)o person shall make a contribution in the name of another person. The Federal Election Campaign Act also limits how much a single contributor may give to candidates' campaign committees. Funneling cash through employees would have made it possible for the dealership to bust through that limit.The Buchanan campaign said they brought the questionable contributions to the attention of the FEC, which then launched the investigation. We can't independently confirm if that's the case, because the FEC does not comment on open cases. However, we found no evidence to the contrary. The commission combined the complaint withone filed in 2008 by a Washington groupand two employees of a Venice dealership, which you canread more about here. The FEC investigated,finding probable causeto believe that the Hyundai dealership and Kazran had illegally reimbursed $67,900 in campaign contributions, but it didn't go after Buchanan.Instead, it's now seeking $67,900 in fines from Kazran.Kazran, for his part,admits reimbursingcampaign contributions, but told theBradenton Heraldhe did it at Buchanan's direction. I've been caught in this political nightmare that I have nothing to do with, he told PolitiFact Florida. But he failed to reach an agreement with the Federal Election Commission andfailed to respond to the complainton behalf of Hyundai North Jacksonville, which is no longer in business. That means facts in the case stand uncontested. So the commission voted to sue him to collect the fines, asking a judge for a default judgement.The FEC told the U.S. District Court that the dealership illegally spent $67,900 in an attempt to influence an election for Congress, presumably believing this to be a worthwhile investment. And that's the May suit that prompted stories in aWSJ.com blog, theSarasota Herald-Tribuneand theBradenton Heraldthat the DCCC cited as it released the script for its Florida radio ad. Jesse Ferguson, speaking on behalf of the committee, theofficial campaign armof the Democrats in the U.S. House, used partial quotes from the lawsuit when he said, The FEC is seeking fines from a business that Vern Buchanan owned at the time for an 'extensive and ongoing scheme' of 'secret illegal contributions' to help his campaign and were going to make sure his constituents know about it.Buchanan's responseWhat does Buchanan's team say? That the FEC has cleared Buchanan himself so the ad linking the behavior of Kazran and his dealership to the congressman is misleading and dishonest.It creates the false impression that Vern Buchanan has done something wrong when in fact he has been fully exonerated by the FEC, said Sally Tibbetts, his spokeswoman.Arelated news releasethat says Buchanan has been completely exonerated is the subject of its own fact-check, andwe found the claim to be Barely True. But we'll summarize here by saying that what little information is available so far from the FEC doesn't fully clear Buchanan though it does mean the commission won't take any further action against him in the case.Information's limited because the case isn't yet closed, soconfidentiality rulesapply.That means for the purposes of this fact-check, we'll rely on what's in the public record information that the DCCC had access to when it scripted its ad.The rulingThat ad starts by naming the congressman, then says his old business was caught illegally funneling over $60,000 in campaign donations to Buchanan to influence his election.The FEC and Buchanan's team agree that he owned a significant stake until at least 2005, when suspect campaign contributions started. The FEC says the dealership reimbursed more than $60,000 in contributions. The money went to Buchanan's main campaign committee, and the FEC says the money was spent in an attempt to influence an election for Congress.What is contested is Buchanan's role in the scheme.The FEC has said it will take no further action against him, closing his file. But it didn't go further to declare it had no probable cause to believe he was involved which would have better supported his team's claim that he's been cleared. Meanwhile, his former business partner still says Buchanan put him up to it, and says he plans another lawsuit to prove it.While we think the DCCC could have done a better job noting it was Buchanan who turned in the illegal contributions, we rate this ad Mostly True.

FMD_test_1303

Says Ronald Reagan reversed his worlds largest tax cut and raised taxes when revenues did not match the expectations.

09/25/2015

Stephen Colbert has intervieweda slew ofpresidential candidates in the first weeks of his new job hosting CBSThe Late Show, including Jeb Bush, Donald Trump, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. His time with Cruz on Sept. 21 stood out for a fact-filled back and forth about a major Republican role model, President Ronald Reagan. Colbert asked Cruz if he could agree with Reagans support of amnesty for undocumented immigrants and record of raising taxes amid budget shortfalls. Cruz said of course not before pivoting to Reagans most conservative accomplishments, one being that he signed the largest tax cut in history and spurred economic growth. You know, when Reagan came in, from 1978 to 1982, economic growth averaged less than 1 percent a year. Theres only one other four-year period where thats true. Thats true from 2008 to 2012, Cruz said. Colbert jumped in, saying But when conditions changed in the country, he reversed his worlds largest tax cut and raised taxes when revenues did not match the expectations. So its a matter of compromising. PolitiFact explored Cruzs point about economic growth inanother fact-check. We wondered if Colberts retort was on the money or overstated. (Its our first fact-check ofColbertin his new role and the first one in five years, period.) Did Reagan really shift course on tax cuts when the growth stopped? A CBS press contact did not return an email for comment. Reagans tax cut As Cruz said, the Gipper really did cut taxes with the help of Congress in his first year as president. The largest tax cut in history that Cruz mentioned is in reference to the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, a $38 billion phased-in cut ($99 billion in 2015 dollars). Put in the way that economists prefer to discuss tax cuts, it represented 1.91 percent of the countrys gross domestic product. This law included across-the-board cuts of about 30 percent to statutory income tax rates. As Colbert said, Reagan raised taxes, too. Two laws, one in 1982 and another in 1984, were especially dramatic. These laws generally raised taxes by removing tax loopholes, not by raising the tax rate, said Dean Baker, a liberal economist and co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. Still, Baker said, the loopholes were big ones. Reagans tax increases 1982:The most significant tax increase Reagan signed was also the first. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (yes, another law with a very sexy name) increased taxes by almost 1 percent of GDP. The 1982 tax increase was probably the largest peacetime tax increase in American history, said economist Bruce Bartlett, who advised Reagan on domestic policy and then worked as Treasury deputy assistant secretary for economic policy in the George H.W. Bush administration. (An analysis by Jerry Tempalski, an analyst in the Office of Tax Analysis with the U.S. Department of the Treasury,agrees.) This law was driven by pressure to attack the federal budget deficit, as well as the impression that Reagans tax-cutting was partially responsible for lower-than-expected tax revenues. Bartlett, who reviewed Reagans tax record forTax Notesin 2011, cited aTreasury estimatethat the 1982 law raised taxes by almost 1 percent of GDP, or about $150 billion in modern dollars. Specifically, it rolled back some but not all of the 1981 tax cut for writing off equipment, and it repealed 1981 safe harbor leasing provisions, said Stephen J. Entin, senior fellow at the Tax Foundation and former deputy assistant secretary for economic policy in the Reagan administration. 1983:A law Reagan signed in 1983 aimed to keep Social Security afloat by increasing payroll taxes and taxing Social Security benefits for some high-earners. This cost $24.6 billion, or almost $50 billion in 2015 dollars, through 1988, according to an administrationestimate. 1984:The Deficit Reduction Act that Reagan signed rolled back part of the 1981 cut on buildings, Entin said, with the idea that Congress would enact spending cuts. But many of those cuts were either never enacted or were later restored, Entin said. This led to $25 billion in tax receipts. Reagan also signed tax increases in 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988 (as well as a couple other laws with revenue reductions). So where does that leave Reagans tax record on the whole? Its mixed. On one hand, revenues were lower as ashare of GDPin his last year in office (17.6 percent of GDP in 1988) compared to the year before he took office (18.5 percent of GDP in 1980), according to the White House Office of Management and Budget. However, the thrust of the 1981 tax cut that Cruz touted on Colberts show didnt prove to have lasting effects on the whole. A 2006 Treasury Departmentanalysisoffers another view of the plunge after the 1981 law and the subsequent changes that wound it back. Reagans staff tallied up the effect of major legislation on tax receipts over his tenure for his final budget proposal (page 4-4). The 1981 tax cuts comprised most of the total $275 billion in tax relief, but the other side of the ledger listed $133 billion in cumulative tax increases. Thus, Reagan took back about half the 1981 tax cut with subsequent tax increases, Bartlett wrote. Our ruling Responding to Cruzs assertion that Reagan signed the largest tax cut in history, Colbert said he reversed it and raised taxes when revenues did not match the expectations. Legislation that Reagan signed over his time in office and raised taxes did not completely reverse the 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act. But the broader point Colbert makes is on point. Reagan agreed to raise taxes to deal with budget deficits, even if he wasnt enthusiastic about it. We rate the claim Mostly True.