Posts by Justitia Themis

30

Update on the Henrietta Riley trust

by Aussie Oz in

i have found (thanks to an older thread) and downloaded pdfs of the henriette riley trust fund form 990s filed with the irs.

http://www.guidestar.org/organizations/38-6043103/henrietta-m-riley-trust-33b006006-fbo.aspx#mission.

interesting investments (many household names).

Justitia Themis

Aside from a legal viewpoint, money is money. The WT profits from tobacco. Ownership is beside the point, IMO.

I wouldn't say it is "besides the point," and I see clear distinctions, as does the IRS. To me, there is a very big difference between an organization/individual making the choice to spend their money to become part owner in a company (by buying stocks in it) and an organization/individual being willed money from a trust that contains tons of other stocks.

But, others may disagree. I wasn't into 'straining the gnat' when I was a JW, and I am not into it now. If course, I bought BP stock right after the Gulf incident when it dropped like a rock because I knew it would rebound and resume paying dividends...so, perhaps I'm not the best example of integrity in investing. LOL!

Unfortunately, as I mentioned in a post to Ozzie, I have seen people get their asses handed to them on other discussion boards because they do not make the proper legal distinctions...and, as some have done here, start posting quotes regarding stock ownership. Then, JW apologists use their legally misinformed posts to make the 'apostate' look stupid.

44

Is GOP Serious on Repealing The Healthcare Law? Here Is A Warning Message

by Scott77 in

healthcare law repeal hurts deficits: cbo10:50am estby richard cowan.

washington (reuters) - an effort by republicans in the house of representatives to repeal the healthcare law enacted last year would add to already huge federal budget deficits, the congressional budget office warned on thursday.. in a preliminary estimate of legislation the house is set to begin debating on friday, the cbo said repealing the law that president barack obama and his fellow democrats enacted would "increase federal budget deficits over the 2012-2019 period by a total of roughly $145 billion.

" it said that figure would rise to $230 billion by 2021.. the cbo also said repeal would result in 32 million fewer people having health insurance.. the nonpartisan cbo analyzes legislation for its impact on government spending and revenues and develops forecasts of economic performance.. republicans won majority control of the house last november after campaigning on promises to slash the deficit, now at around $1.3 trillion.. during the 2010 campaigns for congress, republicans also said they would repeal the healthcare law, saying it places too many job-killing burdens on business and is unconstitutional because it requires individuals to purchase health insurance if they are not already covered.. democrats still hold a majority, although narrower than last year, in the senate, where any healthcare repeal bill is expected to be blocked.. on friday, newly installed house speaker john boehner plans to begin debate on republican legislation to repeal the healthcare law, which aimed to reduce medical costs and insure millions of people who currently can't afford coverage.. the law also prevents insurance companies from refusing to cover patients with pre-existing conditions.. house republican leaders have dismissed cbo's forecasts that the healthcare law would reduce u.s. budget deficits, saying there were too many unrealistic assumptions in such forecasts.. a house committee began meeting on thursday to put together rules governing the house floor debate of the healthcare law.

Justitia Themis

LOL! I copied and pasted information from a presentation I made in Topics in Law and Medicine. However, I just found this lovely side-by-side comparison of the two plans (Republican's 1993 plan and Obama's) by the Kaiser Foundation. O.M.G. Even I didn't realize the extent of their similarities.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/graphics/2010/022310-bill-comparison.aspx

Bill

Major Provisions	Senate Bill 2009	Sen. Chafee (R) Bill 1993	Rep. Boehner (R) Bill 2009
Require Individuals To Purchase Health Insurance (Includes Religious and/or Hardship Exemption)	Yes	Yes	No (individuals without coverage would be taxed)
Requires Employers To Offer Health Insurance To Employees	Yes (above 50 employees, must help pay for insurance costs to workers receiving tax credits for insurance)	Yes (but no requirement to contribute to premium cost)	No
Standard Benefits Package	Yes	Yes	No
Bans Denying Medical Coverage For Pre-existing Conditions	Yes	Yes	No (establishes high risk pools)
Establish State-based Exchanges/Purchasing Groups	Yes	Yes	No
Offers Subsidies For Low-Income People To Buy Insurance	Yes	Yes	No
Long Term Care Insurance	Yes (sets up a voluntary insurance plan)	Yes (sets standards for insurance)	No
Makes Efforts To Create More Efficient Health Care System	Yes	Yes	Yes
Medicaid Expansion	Yes	No	No
Reduces Growth In Medicare Spending	Yes	Yes	No
Medical Malpractice Reform	No	Yes	Yes
Controls High Cost Health Plans	Yes (taxes on plans over $8,500 for single coverage to $23,000 for family plan)	Yes (caps tax exemption for employer-sponsored plans)	No
Prohibits Insurance Company From Cancelling Coverage	Yes	Yes	Yes
Prohibits Insurers From Setting Lifetime Spending Caps	Yes	No	Yes
Equalize Tax Treatment For Insurance Of Self-Employed	No	Yes	No
Extends Coverage To Dependents	Yes (up to age 26)	No	Yes (up to age 25)
Cost	$871 billion over 10 years	No CBO estimate	$8 billion over 10 years
Impact On Deficit	Reduces by $132 billion over 10 years	No CBO estimate	Reduces by $68 billion over 10 years
Percentage Of Americans Covered	94% by 2019	92-94% by 2005	82% by 2019

30

Update on the Henrietta Riley trust

by Aussie Oz in

i have found (thanks to an older thread) and downloaded pdfs of the henriette riley trust fund form 990s filed with the irs.

http://www.guidestar.org/organizations/38-6043103/henrietta-m-riley-trust-33b006006-fbo.aspx#mission.

interesting investments (many household names).

Justitia Themis

It would be their moral obligation to inform the investors that they do not support the use of tobacco and did not want the trust to include any shares in companies in the tobacco industry. The company managing the trust would have to respect those wishes

100% incorrect. The investors legal duty is to manage the TRUST to make the most money for the beneficiaries under the the Prudent Investor Standard, and they are not required to use social investment strategies OR "respect the wishes" of the beneficiaries. As I have repeatedly written, the beneficiaries have absolutely no say. The bank would really laugh at such a request...

Imagine being at an attorney's office for the reading of a will in which you are a beneficiary. The attorney reads the will directing that Mary be given a blue dress. Mary voices that she is morally opposed to blue dresses and request that the attorney change the will to give her a green dress. The attorney would simply laugh; your choices are take the blue dress or leave it. Trusts are just testamentary gifts given over time. They differ in that actual title/ownership is not transferred. You could at least sell the blue dress for a green. Trusts differ in the title/ownership is not transferred; the beneficiaries can't sell what they don't own. LOL! That's why rich people use them; they can pass on money to their family members and know that those family members can't screw up the investments because they have no control/ownership.

As well, Philip Morris pays quarterly dividends so the Watchtower Society would receive them and their accountants would be all too aware of what the money was being invested in.

Wrong again. PM pays dividends to the owner of the stock, which is the trust, not the WTBTS. The whole PURPOSE of a trust is to give a gift without transferring title (ownership and control) to the beneficiary (WTBTS). Therefore, all the information Watchtower quotes you (and others) copied and pasted are completely irrelevant.

I understand that people on this DB dislike the WTBTS, as do I. But that doesn't change the legal facts of this situation.

The only ethical issue here is whether the WTBTS should accept tainted gifts and where to draw that line. The only way this would change is if a WTBTS rep. served on the trust board (and thereby had the ability to manage the trust investments), which I doubt since this trust was created in the 70s.

If Ms. Riley died and directed the PM stocks be sold and the cash given to the WTBTS, would it be wrong for them to accept the money? If you say yes, then taking the regularly scheduled trust gift payments would be wrong. If you say no, then taking the regularly scheduled trust gift payments is not wrong.

44

Is GOP Serious on Repealing The Healthcare Law? Here Is A Warning Message

by Scott77 in

healthcare law repeal hurts deficits: cbo10:50am estby richard cowan.

washington (reuters) - an effort by republicans in the house of representatives to repeal the healthcare law enacted last year would add to already huge federal budget deficits, the congressional budget office warned on thursday.. in a preliminary estimate of legislation the house is set to begin debating on friday, the cbo said repealing the law that president barack obama and his fellow democrats enacted would "increase federal budget deficits over the 2012-2019 period by a total of roughly $145 billion.

" it said that figure would rise to $230 billion by 2021.. the cbo also said repeal would result in 32 million fewer people having health insurance.. the nonpartisan cbo analyzes legislation for its impact on government spending and revenues and develops forecasts of economic performance.. republicans won majority control of the house last november after campaigning on promises to slash the deficit, now at around $1.3 trillion.. during the 2010 campaigns for congress, republicans also said they would repeal the healthcare law, saying it places too many job-killing burdens on business and is unconstitutional because it requires individuals to purchase health insurance if they are not already covered.. democrats still hold a majority, although narrower than last year, in the senate, where any healthcare repeal bill is expected to be blocked.. on friday, newly installed house speaker john boehner plans to begin debate on republican legislation to repeal the healthcare law, which aimed to reduce medical costs and insure millions of people who currently can't afford coverage.. the law also prevents insurance companies from refusing to cover patients with pre-existing conditions.. house republican leaders have dismissed cbo's forecasts that the healthcare law would reduce u.s. budget deficits, saying there were too many unrealistic assumptions in such forecasts.. a house committee began meeting on thursday to put together rules governing the house floor debate of the healthcare law.

Justitia Themis

So what Republicans are really saying is they want to go back to how it used to be

Republicans would like to derail Obamacare, wait until a Republican president is in office, present an essentially similar plan, and then take credit for 'solving the healthcare crisis.'

The individual mandate is a Republican idea. It was first proposed by Republicans Chaffee and Hatch in the Health Equity and Accesss Reform Act of 1993. This act was a codification of a policy paper written by Mark Pauly for the uber-right Heritage Foundation, and it was the counter to Hillary's employer mandate.

Here is a direct quote from the Act:

· Subtitle F: Universal Coverage - Requires each citizen or lawful permanent resident to be covered under a qualified health plan or equivalent health care program by January 1, 2005. Provides an exception for any individual who is opposed for religious reasons to health plan coverage, including those who rely on healing using spiritual means through prayer alone.

Here are some other very telling quotes:

St. Louis Post-Dispatch (MO)
Copyright (c) 1994 The St. Louis Post-DispatchNovember 20, 1994Rep. Jim Talent, R-Chesterfield, predicts that something called the medical savings account, or health-care IRA, will be the centerpiece of the Republican health-care package.

Talent says he would favor solving the free-rider problem by replacing Clinton's employer mandate with an individualmandate: Every American would be required to buy at least a basic level of health insurance. (In his proposal, the government would subsidize poor people's medical IRAs in a program that would look a lot like today's earned-income tax credit.)

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (PA)
Copyright 1994 PG Publishing Co.April 11, 1994

Republicans are ready to stall debate on health care and other issues if Democrats block efforts to set up hearings on the Clintons' Whitewater land deal, Sen. Minority Leader Bob Dole said yesterday.

Mitchell said he thought the two parties could work out a compromise on the key issue of who will pay under a new health care plan. He said there wasn't that much difference between the administration's support for employer mandates, in which employers contribute to their workers' health insurance, and individualmandates backed by Dole.

Gingrich:

· At an Alegent Health event in Omaha in 2008, Gingrich said it was "fundamentally immoral" for a person to go without coverage, show up at an emergency room and demand free care.

· During the keynote address to the Greater Detroit Area Health Council's annual Health Trends Conference in April 2006, Gingrich said he would require Americans earning above a certain income level to buy health insurance or post a bond, the Detroit Free Press reported

· In a June 2007 op-ed in the Des Moines Register, Gingrich wrote, "Personal responsibility extends to the purchase of health insurance. Citizens should not be able to cheat their neighbors by not buying insurance, particularly when they can afford it, and expect others to pay for their care when they need it." An "individual mandate," he added, should be applied "when the larger health-care system has been fundamentally changed."

· 2005's "Winning the Future," he expanded on the idea in more detail: "You have the right to be part of the lowest-cost insurance pool and you have a responsibility to buy insurance. ... We need some significant changes to ensure that every American is insured, but we should make it clear that a 21st Century Intelligent System requires everyone to participate in the insurance system."

· People whose income is too low should receive Medicaid vouchers and tax credits to buy insurance," he continued. "Large risk pools (association health plans are one model) should be established so low-income people can buy insurance as inexpensively as large corporations. Furthermore, it should be possible to buy your health insurance on-line to lower the cost as much as possible."

1

Contraception v. Blood Transfusion (Nat. Catholic Register)

by Justitia Themis in

Justitia Themis

I'm not a fan of the JW blood ban, but neither do I support the way Catholics are aggrandizing their belief system over another in this article.

A reader writes:

I’ve been approaching the HHS issue from a conscience standpoint, because arguing via morality v. immorality of contraception doesn’t yield many results from people who don’t think there’s anything wrong with it.
But I got sidelined by a pretty good argument that I don’t know how to respond to:
What about JW’s and blood transfusions? Would I want a JW employer to be able to deny me blood transfusion coverage due to his moral issues with the procedure? Does preventing that violate his conscience rights?

Apropos our discussion here on March 14 about the Christian abrogation of ritual impurity laws vs. Christian upholding (and transcendence of) the moral law, this is a related issue.

The Church’s insistence that the HHS mandate is an assault on religious liberty is very true. But something risks getting lost in all the back and forth about the matter: which is the question of why the Church thinks this is so grave a matter that she is willing to go to court and even to jail about it.

Non-Catholics (and even most Catholics) don’t really seem to grasp that this is not a matter of ritual impurity, like a Jew being forced to eat pork, or a Muslim being compelled to touch a dog—or a Jehovah Witness refusing a blood transfusion. Rather, it is that the Church teaches (and has always taught) that contraception is contrary, not to the ceremonial law of the Old Testament (which has been fulfilled and therefore retired in Christ), but to the moral law (which has been preserved and elevated to the law of love in Christ). Because of this, the Church teaches that artificial contraception is harmful, not just to Catholics, but to all human persons. So though she is not trying to legislate what dissenting Catholics and others choose to do in the civil sphere, she does draw the line at being forced to help facilitate what she insists is gravely evil for both spouses and their children.

So what’s the difference between that and a Jehovah Witness refusing to cover your blood transfusion? Simply this: the prohibition against transfusions is a Jehovah Witness riff on the Old Testament ritual prohibition against eating blood. (“You shall not eat blood, for the blood is the life.”). The sane hierarchy of values in the Catholic tradition is that the love of God is first and the love of neighbor is second. We are to love our neighbor as ourself, so this implies a duty to love and preserve one’s own life where appropriate (which is why it is a sin to throw our life away in suicide, but a virtue to be willing to lay down our life for the love of God and neighbor). After the duty to respect life, there is the duty to respect freedom (which is why it is evil to enslave another, but a noble act of self-sacrifice to, say, take another’s place as a slave in order to set them free). The higher good trumps the lower. Similarly, property is a right (which is what “You shall not steal” presupposes). But it is not as important a right as freedom or life. So you cannot own a human being as property and you emphatically cannot murder them.

This is why we speak of a “right to life” which trumps the mere demand for personal liberation. All other rights, including the “right to choose” depend on the right to life for the simple reason that you cannot choose anything if you are dead.

In the case of Jehovah Witness theories about blood transfusion, it seems to me then that the issue is whether the notion of ritual defilement trumps the moral law which protects such things as life, freedom, and property. And I think the attitude of Jesus is obvious: the law was made for man, not man for the law. So he heals on the Sabbath, touches ritually defiling lepers, and, mark this, women with hemorrhages rather than let human life be harmed. Likewise, therefore, it seems to me that the need to save life trumps the ritual theories of Jehovah Witnesses.

With contraception, in contrast, we are not looking at life-saving measures for the simple reason that pregnancy is not a disease and babies are not tumors. So there’s no question of a higher right to life trumping the lower right of religious liberty. Rather, we are looking at apostles of desire for consequence-free sex attempting to spitefully force Catholics to pay for something that is morally wrong. Nor, by the way, are we looking at trying to “ban” contraception. We are simply looking at the Catholic insistence that those who regard it as morally repugnant not have their freedom crushed by being forced to pay for it—all while being told that “it’s none of your business what I do in my own bedroom”. Very true. It’s none of my business. So stop making it my business by trying to compel me to pay for it. We are looking at an attempt to smash a perfectly legitimate moral, not ritual, reservation by raw force, simply to punish the Church.

1

Contraception v. Blood Transfusion (Nat. Catholic Register)

by Justitia Themis in

Justitia Themis

40

Fox News: bias anyone? (gas prices and the presidency)

by gubberningbody in

jw
friends

with gas prices on the rise the republicans and fox news are blaming it on obama.. .

but wait, back in 2008 when gas hit $4.11 a gallon they said just the opposite about bush: the president has no control over gas prices.. .

sure, "we report the news, you decide".

Justitia Themis

It goes both ways

That it does. Both sides use the specious argument because lemmings on both sides respond to it.

In our integrated world, no president controls gas prices.

31

Scholastic Dishonesty - June 2012 Awake - Jewish Exile Timeline

by Ultimate Reality in

the june 2012 awake has another article on the exile of the jews by the babylonians.

once again the wt quotes dishonestly.. .

from page 14:.

Justitia Themis

marking

30

Update on the Henrietta Riley trust

by Aussie Oz in

i have found (thanks to an older thread) and downloaded pdfs of the henriette riley trust fund form 990s filed with the irs.

http://www.guidestar.org/organizations/38-6043103/henrietta-m-riley-trust-33b006006-fbo.aspx#mission.

interesting investments (many household names).

Justitia Themis

With that said, the argument can be made that the WTBTS should reject ALL the money because it is tainted by the Phillip Morris stock.

But the WT knows what the trust invests in and accepts the money none the less.

As you can see from our similar posts (copied above), I agree with your conclusion but not your analysis.

The JW literature you quote deals with BUYING stocks. It would apply if the WTBTS took its money and bought Phillip Morris (PM) stock. It would be choosing to exchange money for part ownership in PM, and all the above would apply. In that case, WTBTS money would be flowing to PM.

In the case of the trust, NO WTBTS money flows to PM. This money is a gift from Ms. Riley. In her will, she could have simply said: sell the stocks; give the money to the WTBTS. Either way it's the same. The ethical question is whether they should accept the gift.

The distinction is important because it destroys your point. The WTBTS didn't "buy stocks" so they don't "own a slice of the company." Since they don't own a slice of they company, their money isn't being used to "support an unethical enterprise."

The only way this would change is if the WTBTS is part of a trustee board that directs the investments. Since this trust was created in the 70s, I doubt it.

Unfortunately, I have seen others try the make your argument on other discussion boards, and JW apologists will post accurate trust information, which then discredits them and makes them look like 'lying apostates.' I don't want to see that happen to you, or anyone else.

28

Moroccan girl commits suicide after being forced to marry her rapist

by Diest in

jw
friends

after reading this article it just reminded me that koran and bible are completely backward.

the justification for this forced marriage is found in deuteronomy 22:23-24: ' .

if a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father.

Justitia Themis

Never mind, Justicia. Asked and answered.

Yep! I can wholeheartedly get behind what you call "good" Islam, in addition to "good" Christianity, Hinduism, Shintoism, etc.

And yes, it is off topic. The next time you and Bangalore want to take a swipe at me, why don't you guys grow a set of balls and do it a dedicated thread. It will have two benefits: 1) I will be more likely to see it, as opposed the pioneer-sneer, behind-my-back, innuendo tactic you two used in this thread, and 2) it will not take someone else's thread off subject.

Now, I am off to babysit my granddog. Good day gentlemen.