Jewish Newspaper Condemns Agriprocessors But Not The Plant's Complicit Rabbis & OU
Don Gabacho
By Lois Goldrich | Published Today | Editorial |
N.J. Jewish Standard
Lois Goldrich
View all articles by Lois Goldrich
Monday’s raid at the Agriprocessors plant in Postville, Iowa — the
country’s largest kosher slaughterhouse — will have tremendous
implications for kosher consumers all over the country. But the
questions raised by the raid should go far beyond, "Where will we get
our meat?" We must also ask ourselves what it means to be kosher and
how a company that continues to violate both Jewish and civil law has
been allowed to call itself a kosher facility.
Agriprocessors has continually demonstrated contempt for the laws of
this country. Not only has it been cited repeatedly for unfair labor
practices, but it now emerges that many of its allegedly abused
employees are illegal immigrants, lacking the standing to complain to
outside authorities. In addition, the factory has a long record of
both health and safety violations, for which it has paid thousands of
dollars in fines. (As regards the recent accusation that the plant was
being used for narcotics production, let us hope that this proves to
be groundless.)
The plant has also violated Jewish law. Controversial slaughter
practices have turned the idea of kashrut, and the humane treatment of
animals, on its head. Nor have employees been treated humanely, in
direct violation of Jewish teachings. Forcing employees to work 12-
hour shifts while denying them a fair wage flies in the face of the
ethical treatment required by our sacred texts, while reports of
physical mistreatment and verbal abuse of workers are truly shocking.
We commend the Conservative movement’s Hekhsher Tzedek Commission for
keeping in the public eye the misdeeds of the company and insisting
that kashrut is more than just a ritual matter. We also agree with its
statement that Agriprocessors has brought shame upon the entire Jewish
community.
We urge the Orthodox Union — which says it is awaiting the outcome of
the federal investigation — to take strong and immediate action,
withdrawing its certification from the plant until the company’s
numerous violations have been sorted out and remedied. It is crucial
that, as a community, we publicly affirm the need for kosher slaughter
to be conducted in such a way that animals, and humans, are accorded
respect.
Dan Kimmel
"Don Gabacho" <jpas...@nettaxi.com> wrote in message
news:761fd737-e7e8-4085...@p25g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
******************************************************************
Header corrected to reflect the facts, not Senor Gabacho's poor grasp of
English.
Lamont Cranston
Yeah, Pendejo does lie a lot. He's also not too bright.
Doug
news:w-GdnfdvG5JzMrDV...@rcn.net...
Up to now, I had thought Don G. was fairly neutral towards the Jewish
people.
Don Gabacho
> "Don Gabacho" <jpast...@nettaxi.com> wrote in message
"Complicit"? They were there weren't they?
Pious, godly and learned men, at the least, averted their eyes.
"Not my department," the Rabbi said. After all there was tithing to
accomplish.
For only one: To make the plant's operation kosher, the plant's Rabbis
and inspecting Orthodox Union would have had to determine who, if not
all, of the trafficked human laborers were "gentiles" (the label used
to discriminate non-Jews from Jews).
They'd have had to have examined every worker there right down to the
twelve year old unless of course guilty of "racial profiling."
Just like your refusal to save the ACLU from torpedoing itself you do
the same for even that plant's Rabbis and inspecting Orthodox Union.
I wonder just how many more laborers to be trafficked to the U.S.A.
had been put on order.
Just another sterling example of your "education, intelligence and
compassion."
Don Gabacho
wrote:
> Dan Kimmel wrote:
> > "Don Gabacho" <jpast...@nettaxi.com> wrote in message
The newspaper's statement,"We urge the Orthodox Union — which says it
is awaiting the outcome of
the federal investigation — to take strong and immediate action,
withdrawing its certification from the plant until the company’s
numerous violations have been sorted out and remedied. It is crucial
that, as a community, we publicly affirm the need for kosher slaughter
to be conducted in such a way that animals, and humans, are accorded
respect," is not a condemnation of even the OU it refers let alone the
attendant Rabbis of which the report says absolutely nothing.
Don Gabacho
> "Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kim...@rcn.com> wrote in message
>
> news:w-GdnfdvG5JzMrDV...@rcn.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Don Gabacho" <jpast...@nettaxi.com> wrote in message
I am. The plant's Rabbis and the inspecting Orthodox Union comprise
only a certain number of people.
Dan Kimmel
***************************************************************************
In fact poor Senor Gabacho gets it ll wrong again. It is makig it clear
that those responsible for enforcing religious law have failed and have been
exposed and they are now failing to respond to that exposure.
I suggest you drop this. You clearly don't understand what's going on here,
and are criticizing people who know far more about it than you, and more
critical of what has occurred than you, and are making it clear who bears
the responsibility. You're in way over your head. Go back to your ESL
class.
Dan Kimmel
"Doug" <no...@now.com> wrote in message
news:2xkXj.4633$nW2....@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...
> "Dan Kimmel" <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote in message
> news:w-GdnfdvG5JzMrDV...@rcn.net...
> >
> > "Don Gabacho" <jpas...@nettaxi.com> wrote in message
> >
news:761fd737-e7e8-4085...@p25g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> > For shame
> > By Lois Goldrich | Published Today | Editorial |
> > N.J. Jewish Standard
> > Lois Goldrich
> >
> >
> > View all articles by Lois Goldrich
> >
> > country's largest kosher slaughterhouse - will have tremendous
> > the federal investigation - to take strong and immediate action,
> > withdrawing its certification from the plant until the company's
> > numerous violations have been sorted out and remedied. It is crucial
> > that, as a community, we publicly affirm the need for kosher slaughter
> > to be conducted in such a way that animals, and humans, are accorded
> > respect.
> > ******************************************************************
> >
> > Header corrected to reflect the facts, not Senor Gabacho's poor grasp of
> > English.
> >
>
> Up to now, I had thought Don G. was fairly neutral towards the Jewish
> people.
He's unravelling as his lies get exposed. He's now swinging out at a
variety of targets.
Dan Kimmel
*******************************************************************
Poor Senor Gabacho, still at sea when it comes to English. No one is
defending the people responsible for the conditions there. Quite the
contrary. The Jewish community is speaking out quite forcefull against
these supposed religious leaders for violating the very standards they were
to uphold.
I wonder just how many more laborers to be trafficked to the U.S.A.
had been put on order.
Just another sterling example of your "education, intelligence and
compassion."
******************************************************
In fact, it's another example of you demonstrating you don't even understand
what you post much less how people respond to it.
Don Gabacho
Don Gabacho
Of the "company," Agriprocessors, the newspaper did condemn: "company
that continues to violate both Jewish and civil law," but NOT the
attendant Rabbis who they mention not at all and the Orthodox Union
who had toured the plant, inspected it and certified it.
> I suggest you drop this.
Why?
> You clearly don't understand what's going on here,...
What in the world would pious, Godly and learned men such as Rabbis---
on the staff of the company---be doing in a situation like that?
> and are criticizing people who know far more about it than you,...
By their even calling coercively trafficked humans for cheap labor
"immigrants"?
They either know shit or simply, like you, find the misnomer
convenient.
> and more
> critical of what has occurred than you, and are making it clear who bears
> the responsibility. You're in way over your head. Go back to your ESL
> class.
Once again: "What is the kosher process for "properly tithing" when
even the very "rabbinate of Israel" and the very State of Israel can
be involved?
Were the illegal "Israelis" released on "humanitarian grounds"?
Is this company a sample of a "foreign corporation for profit" that is
attracted to operate in the U.S.A. for its supply of trafficked,
illegal labor?
As, so conveniently, termed and "enforced" with even harassing
litigation as "immigration"?
Is the resulting lawsuit the first case now being brought to court by
the un-Constitutional alliance of the ACLU and the "foreign power"
that is the Mexican Government?
These unmentioned Rabbis and the OU were in over their heads the very
first day they even walked into the place and didn't as quickly walk
out.
Dan Kimmel
Is the resulting lawsuit the first case now being brought to court by
the un-Constitutional alliance of the ACLU and the "foreign power"
that is the Mexican Government?
There is no such "un-Constitutional alliance" and you make yourself look
like an even bigger idiot every time you claim otherwise.
There is NOTHING in the Constitution prohibiting this. All you have to do
is ask a lawyer of your acquainance if you don't believe what is posted
here.
You're wrong. Completely. Utterly. It's not even subject to debate.
There's nothing vague about it. There's nothing anyone isn't sure about.
YOU ARE WRONG.
Don Gabacho
> "Don Gabacho" <jpast...@nettaxi.com> wrote in message
Respond:
Why?
Is the resulting lawsuit the first case now being brought to court by
the un-Constitutional alliance of the ACLU and the "foreign power"
that is the Mexican Government?
These unmentioned Rabbis and the OU were in over their heads the very
johnny@.
> "Don Gabacho" <jpas...@nettaxi.com> wrote in message
> news:4d354287-6428-4c11...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> Is the resulting lawsuit the first case now being brought to court by
> the un-Constitutional alliance of the ACLU and the "foreign power"
> that is the Mexican Government?
> *********************************************************
>
> There is no such "un-Constitutional alliance" and you make yourself look
> like an even bigger idiot every time you claim otherwise.
>
> There is NOTHING in the Constitution prohibiting this. All you have to do
> is ask a lawyer of your acquainance if you don't believe what is posted
> here.
Amendment XI (1798)
The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend
to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the
United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects
of any foreign state.
Dan Kimmel
> On May 16, 6:39 pm, "Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kim...@rcn.com> wrote:
> > "Don Gabacho" <jpast...@nettaxi.com> wrote in message
> >
> >
news:4d354287-6428-4c11...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> > Is the resulting lawsuit the first case now being brought to court by
> > the un-Constitutional alliance of the ACLU and the "foreign power"
> > that is the Mexican Government?
> > *********************************************************
> >
> > There is no such "un-Constitutional alliance" and you make yourself look
> > like an even bigger idiot every time you claim otherwise.
> >
> > There is NOTHING in the Constitution prohibiting this. All you have to
do
> > is ask a lawyer of your acquainance if you don't believe what is posted
> > here.
> >
> > You're wrong. Completely. Utterly. It's not even subject to debate.
> > There's nothing vague about it. There's nothing anyone isn't sure
about.
> >
> > YOU ARE WRONG.
>
> Respond:
No, dummy, merely repeating yourself is not a response. You need to address
the issues, not just close your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears.
Dan Kimmel
<johnny@.> wrote in message
news:ckqXj.10222$hv2....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> Dan Kimmel wroteX-No-Archive: Yes
> > "Don Gabacho" <jpas...@nettaxi.com> wrote in message
> >
news:4d354287-6428-4c11...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> > Is the resulting lawsuit the first case now being brought to court by
> > the un-Constitutional alliance of the ACLU and the "foreign power"
> > that is the Mexican Government?
> > *********************************************************
> >
> > There is no such "un-Constitutional alliance" and you make yourself look
> > like an even bigger idiot every time you claim otherwise.
> >
> > There is NOTHING in the Constitution prohibiting this. All you have to
do
> > is ask a lawyer of your acquainance if you don't believe what is posted
> > here.
>
> Amendment XI (1798)
>
> The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend
> to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the
> United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects
> of any foreign state.
Yes, go on....
Oh, you don't really understand what you're posting. This amendment has to
do with sovereign immunity. A state (or the U.S. government) can not be
sued for monetary damages in most instances, although there are notable
exceptions.
Of course that has nothing whatsoever with what's being discussed here: the
*government* bringing legal action against non-citizens in violation of
their rights under U.S. law, and the ACLU (of San Diego) agreeing to defend
those non-citizens whose rights are violated under U.S. law. The 11th
amendment has nothing to do with this.
Don Gabacho
Why?
Is the resulting lawsuit the first case now being brought to court by
the un-Constitutional alliance of the ACLU and the "foreign power"
that is the Mexican Government?
These unmentioned Rabbis and the OU were in over their heads the very
Don Gabacho
> <johnny@.> wrote in message
>
> news:ckqXj.10222$hv2....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...> Dan Kimmel wroteX-No-Archive: Yes
>
> news:4d354287-6428-4c11...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > > Is the resulting lawsuit the first case now being brought to court by
> > > the un-Constitutional alliance of the ACLU and the "foreign power"
> > > that is the Mexican Government?
> > > *********************************************************
>
> > > There is no such "un-Constitutional alliance" and you make yourself look
> > > like an even bigger idiot every time you claim otherwise.
>
> > > There is NOTHING in the Constitution prohibiting this. All you have to
> do
> > > is ask a lawyer of your acquainance if you don't believe what is posted
> > > here.
>
> > Amendment XI (1798)
>
> > The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend
> > to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the
> > United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects
> > of any foreign state.
>
> Yes, go on....
>
> Oh, you don't really understand what you're posting. This amendment has to
> do with sovereign immunity. A state (or the U.S. government) can not be
> sued for monetary damages in most instances, although there are notable
> exceptions.
>
ACLU with a foreign *government* and/or not "of the U.S." bringing
legal action defending or against anyone in the sovereign court system
of the U.S.A.. is the Issue.
Respond weasel:
Why?
Is the resulting lawsuit the first case now being brought to court by
the un-Constitutional alliance of the ACLU and the "foreign power"
that is the Mexican Government?
These unmentioned Rabbis and the OU were in over their heads the very
first day they even walked into the place and didn't as quickly walk
out.
> amendment has nothing to do with this.
Dan Kimmel
No, it isn't. This is what your peabrain can't comprehend. There is
nothing in the Constitution barring the ACLU from defending foreign
nationals whose rights are being violated by the government under US law.
Doug
"Don Gabacho" <jpas...@nettaxi.com> wrote in message
news:761fd737-e7e8-4085...@p25g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Don Gabacho
What is so monumental about 'comprehending' "WITH A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT
OR EVEN WITH PEOPLE NOT OF THE U.S."?
Much less also "seeking judgements" with either?
You just can't get either your brain or will to wrap around that one.
Dan Kimmel
The first has to do with *states* and the second doesn't apply either. The
ACLU isn't "seeking judgements." It is undertaking to *defend* people under
U.S. law.
There are numerous private businesses and organizations that contract with
foreign governments. And there are numerous lawyers who represent foreign
interests in U.S. courts.
As noted ad infinitum, you are flat out wrong.
Don Gabacho
And as stated before, when States can't do it how can a group of
lawyers? Especially with (so-called) lawyers from a "foreign STATE"
Mexico?
> and the second doesn't apply either. The
> ACLU isn't "seeking judgements." It is undertaking to *defend* people under
> U.S. law.
Who are you to speak for the ACLU and CNDH?
Who are you to deny the stated reports including those vetted by the
Mexican Government itself?
Who are you to deny the stated (including "seeking judgements against
"[U.S.] immigration agencies and the [U.S.] Border Patrol) reports"?
Reports that even the ACLU and CNDH themselves are not denying?
Who are you to deny the very first case of the junta is "seeking
judgements" against ICE itself in regard to the raid on the Kosher
Sweatshop, Agriprocessors?
Do you have a copy of either the "accord" or "official communique"
from the National so-called Commission on Human Rights of the Mexican
Government as quoted by Mexico's preeminent newspaper "El Universal"
to make such denials?
In effect calling "El Universal" a liar?
Who are you except a deluded, self-annoited sonderkomando of this and
other ngs?
> There are numerous private businesses and organizations that contract with
> foreign governments...
Already refuted---correctly---numerous times.
> And there are numerous lawyers who represent foreign
> interests in U.S. courts.
In "accord" with foeign lawyers attached to their government to
together "seek judgements" in U.S. courts?
If so, who?
> As noted ad infinitum, you are flat out wrong.
Have it your way: It's not the U.S. Constitution. It's the World
Constitution according to Herr Kimmler.
"We the People of the World, as dictated by the ACLU, CNDH and Herr
Kimmler...to provide for the common defense...ensure justice...etc.,
etc."
Dan Kimmel
> On May 18, 5:40 am, "Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kim...@rcn.com> wrote:
> > > What is so monumental about 'comprehending' "WITH A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT
> > > OR EVEN WITH PEOPLE NOT OF THE U.S."?
> >
> > > Much less also "seeking judgements" with either?
> >
> > > You just can't get either your brain or will to wrap around that one.
> >
> > The first has to do with *states*...
>
> And as stated before, when States can't do it how can a group of
> lawyers? Especially with (so-called) lawyers from a "foreign STATE"
> Mexico?
Private individuals can do MANY things states can't do. Are you *really*
this much of an idiot?
State *governments* are pre-empted by the Federal *government* from making
*treaties*. This does nothing whatsoever from preventing *private* groups
from contracting with foreign groups, public or private.
>
> > and the second doesn't apply either. The
> > ACLU isn't "seeking judgements." It is undertaking to *defend* people
under
> > U.S. law.
>
> Who are you to speak for the ACLU and CNDH?
>
Who are you to pretend you understand the Constitution when an 8th grade
civics student obviously knows more than you?
>
>
> > There are numerous private businesses and organizations that contract
with
> > foreign governments...
>
> Already refuted---correctly---numerous times.
In fact, not refuted even once.
>
> > And there are numerous lawyers who represent foreign
> > interests in U.S. courts.
>
> In "accord" with foeign lawyers attached to their government to
> together "seek judgements" in U.S. courts?
An "accord" is an agreement. In other words, a contract. A foreign
business, lawyer, or government that has business in the U.S. will hire an
American attorney to represent their interests. That will lead to an
"accord." Should there be a lawsuit, that lawyer will "seek judgement" in a
U.S. court.
> If so, who?
All the Japenese electronics and auto companies, for starters. ANY foreign
company or individual doing busines in the United States.
> > As noted ad infinitum, you are flat out wrong.
>
> Have it your way: It's not the U.S. Constitution. It's the World
> Constitution according to Herr Kimmler.
No, Senor Gabacho, it doesn't affect the Constitution in the slightest.
It doesn't even change the Preamble, a section you seem to think is the most
important thing in the entire document.
Don Gabacho
> "Don Gabacho" <jpast...@nettaxi.com> wrote in message
> All the Japenese electronics and auto companies, for starters. ANY foreign
> company or individual doing busines in the United States.
To "seek judgements" against even the U.S. Government agencies, even
lawfully charged with protecting U.S. sovereignty, by imposing
themselves in our judicial process and Japan's illegals on U.S. soil?
The mission of the National so-called Commission on Human Rights of
the Mexican Government is "to do business with the United States"?
The ACLU's mission is "to do business with the United States"? With
Mexico?
You're a shyster---plain and simple.
Dan Kimmel
> On May 18, 4:14 pm, "Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kim...@rcn.com> wrote:
> > "Don Gabacho" <jpast...@nettaxi.com> wrote in message
>
> > All the Japenese electronics and auto companies, for starters. ANY
foreign
>
> To "seek judgements" against even the U.S. Government agencies, even
> lawfully charged with protecting U.S. sovereignty, by imposing
> themselves in our judicial process and Japan's illegals on U.S. soil?
What are you babbling about now?
>
> The mission of the National so-called Commission on Human Rights of
> the Mexican Government is "to do business with the United States"?
There's no such organization.
> The ACLU's mission is "to do business with the United States"? With
> Mexico?
The ACLU's mission is to defend the rights of people in the US under
American law. They are doing so no matter how much you plan to whine about
it.
>
> You're a shyster---plain and simple.
No, but you are an ignoramus. That's beyond question.
Lamont Cranston
Please cite the part of the Constitution that makes the ACLU's agreement
with the CNDH unconstitutional.
Don Gabacho
wrote:
Why? Over a dozen times isn't enough?
Your incessant pestering disproves nothing.
Get a life.
Don Gabacho
> No, but you are an ignoramus. That's beyond question.
Oh? Pardon me. Obviously you prefer 'scheister.'
Lamont Cranston
Still can't cite the part of the Constitution that makes the ACLU's
agreement with the CNDH unconstitutional, huh? You've said it over a dozen
times, yet you are unable to provide any proof. Your incessant assertions
prove nothing. You obsession has taken you over. Seek professional help.
Lamont Cranston
Obviously, you prefer 'dumbass.'
Dan Kimmel
Over a dozen times you've come up empty. Is this your way of admitting
you've got nothing?
Lamont Cranston
"Don Gabacho" is an extremely empty robe and hood.