The story is a bit old, but I haven't been following it very closely: Mother Jones has discovered that Hobby Lobby which is seeking exemption from certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act on religious grounds surrounding contraception benefit requirements (a case it has won), actually invests (through their retirement fund) in companies that produces emergency contraceptives and abortion related products. According to Mother Jones: Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012 (see above)—three months after the company’s owners filed their lawsuit—show that the Hobby Lobby 401(k) employee retirement plan held more than $73 million in mutual funds with investments in companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and drugs commonly used in abortions. Hobby Lobby makes large matching contributions to this company-sponsored 401(k). These companies make up 3/4ths of Hobby Lobby's 401k assets. Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...ous-objection/401k is the employees money, not the company's investments. Honestly this is evidence the company is reasonable and isnt trying to force the employees to follow the company's rules on investments. Good luck picking a group of index funds/etfs without a pharmaceutical company ... 1.) The Greens have their 401k's set up through their company as well. 2.) There are 401k plans specifically set up for religious groups in order to avoid holdings in companies that produce contraception, use stem cell research, etc. 3.) As management, they are the ones who give the marching orders on their 401k plans. The Forbes author does not understand 401(k) plan laws or fiduciary duty. I was an ERISA lawyer for 5 years. Trust me, he is dead wrong. |
|
|
|
|
Thank god this legal door was blown open then, as obviously the convictions here were so strong. Has anyone here read the Hobby Lobby decision? How would you characterize the holding?
|
|
|
|
|
The Forbes article misses a key issue: the 401(k) plan is a separate legal entity from the employer. The plan has what is known as a plan fiduciary who is required by law to act in the best interests of the plan participants (the employees) not the plan sponsor (the employer).
It is true that there are mutual funds that screen out certain types of investments, but those funds often have higher expense ratios or loads and other fees. This means you would get a lower real return with the morality funds. So, a good fiduciary should not choose those funds.
|
|
|
|
The people who count in the “removals” numbers (which is what administration flacks mean when they boast of “deportations”) are legal immigrants who’ve committed crimes or illegal aliens caught inside the country He stated clearly that the priority was going to be deporting those with criminal records, or known to be a threat to public health and safety, anjy. Also, the ones "caught" would seem to me to be a good place to start, n'est pas? Where would you have preferred he start? With the toddlers? Really, whether political flaks are fudging the numbers with technicalities in order to bump them for public consumption is the kind of thing that conservatives obsess over; not me. I know as I write this that the president and this administration are sincerely doing all they can, despite these batshit conspiracies you people seem to live to immerse yourselves in. Well that's all well and good, unless of course you're going to go around touting those inflated numbers to make your case. You can't argue that he's deported more than any other president, then get upset when it's pointed out that this isn't the case, and then say that it isn't for you to worry about if the numbers are inflated. lol. Well I mean you can, but... Forget the numbers then. F... the numbers. Tell us what you're telling your Republican congressman to do. Nothing informs the electorate about how sick and diseased the right wing has become than letting conservatives speak for themselves. |
|
|
|
|
Damn those children, what right do they have to want to live in a country that is not killing them. OH you righties want this country to be the same as the 3rd world countries these children are coming from. Yep our hate abortion republicans say just send them back to be murdered.
|
|
|
|
|
"The border needs to be militarized and closed. Period"100% agreed. We need our military on our borders...enforcing U.S. law.
|
|
|
|
|
That's because the coyotes know exactly where the best staffed sector is. The migratory path changes with the weakness of the openings. Its like playing wack-a-mole. Unless you close it all, nothing changes, only the location and method of crossing..
|
|
|
|
Israel launched 34 airstrikes over the Gaza Strip on Tuesday, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed that "Hamas will pay" for the abduction and deaths of three Israeli teenagers.
Israeli officials said the airstrikes were in retaliation for 18 rockets fired into Israel from Gaza, and targeted assets belonging to militant groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad, CNN http://edition.cnn.com/2014/07/01/world/meast/israel-teenagers-death/Its seems any retaliation by Israel is always headlined first to imply they are the aggressors when its really retaliation. The above is what cnn reports and below is a snippet of what Palestinians claim cnn hides. According to yobbos article the sharpshooter was filmed by cnn when he shot a Palestinian teen and the local surveillance camera also caught the sniper making the shot. Given the terrorist attacks on Israel and the general hatred of anyone non muslim does anyone believe that Israel is the aggressive terrorist? http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article38965.htmJust prior to the disappearance of the Israeli settler teens, the murder of two Palestinian teens was caught on a local surveillance camera. Ample evidence, including the recovered bullets and a CNN camera filming an Israeli sharpshooter pulling the trigger at the precise moment one of the boys was shot indicated that they were killed in cold blood by Israeli soldiers. So is cnn hiding the evidence that an Israelis sniper shot and killed at least one if not two Palestinian teens? Is the Israeli army sending their trained snipers out to pick off innocent teens and gun them down in the streets? When the rest of the ME is loaded with news of muslim killing muslim for being the wrong sect of islam and muslims killing Christians for not being muslim is it rational to believe that the tiny country of Israel is attempting to kill every muslim in the region one sniper at a time? The ME has been at war and killing in the name of allah for 1400 years ever since Mohamed started killing Jews in Israel and it has never stopped so the idea that there would be peace in the ME if only all Jews were dead doesn't pass the smell test. And if cnn has the video proving an Israeli sniper shot and killed an innocent teen why isn't that proof being turned over to the UN? |
|
|
|
|
Obama was absolutely taking a jab at Palin...as well as McCain and Bush. But I don't see that as a sexist put down...that was actually clever turn of phrase red meat for his base, which is exactly why his friendly audience loved it.
|
|
|
|
I've never taken offense to humor about a President - it's part of their job to be the public face of the country, and they'll always be lampooned by someone. There was a record album put out back in the early 60's called "The First Family" that lampooned the Kennedys. It was hilarious. Remember Chevy Chase making a career out of pratfalls based on President Ford stumbling off Air Force One? Funny stuff. What I take issue with is the things that are deliberately nasty about the President's wife and children, which, in my opinion, tarnish the very essence of humor. Humor is, by design, good natured - even when it's lampooning someone. That's why things like celebrity roasts and the annual Correspondent's' Dinner are so much fun. The problem is when the tone changes and it turns downright nasty - like making appearance "jokes" to mask your petty calling someone ugly look less ugly itself (it doesn't work). When you call the First Lady a Wookie, or her daughters apes or chimpanzees, it is YOU who actually looks ugly.
And I agree with you (I think) in that making fun of wives and children, particularly their physical features or in low class demeaning ways regarding their personhood...no. Women politicians or public figures, however, are open game for political humor. There's no whining in baseball or politics so put on your big girl panties and take it like a woman. |
|
|
|
Last Tuesday President Obama got off the helicopter
in front of The White House – carrying a baby piglet
under each arm.
The squared-away Marine guard snapped to attention,
saluted and said: "Nice pigs, sir."
The President snapped back indignantly: "These are not pigs. These are
authentic Arkansas Razorback Hogs. I got one for my
wife, Michelle, and I got one for Nancy Pelosi."
The squared-away Marine again snapped to attention,
saluted and said, "Excellent trade, sir."
So where is the making fun of the president? You know, that sound just like the way liberals used to trash Laura Bush and Condi Rice, calling them (har har!) pigs.... Oh, wait....it's not. This joke does not call them pigs. The punch line is that the Marine assumed Obama traded them for the hogs. It is political humor, not sexist humor...the same joke could be told using ANY combination of folks. Here is the same joke using different people: Clinton: http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/jokes/bljokeclintonpigs.htmAnd Bush: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x2529238And another Bush: http://www.ebaumsworld.com/jokes/read/784437/What is funnier is that you imagine yourself a champion of women when you have a looooooooooong history of seriously trashing conservative women. Clean up your own act, and then something actually significant to whine about because with friends like you, women do not need enemies. |
|
|
|
|
the only thing that is proven fact is Obama's own words and his evident ability to speak arabic and be happy to state he has a muslim faith.
Liked the ending. People indeed do admire Obama like if he is the Messiah the Jews have long been waiting for.
|
|
|
|
First here is a piece that chops up Obama's broken record narcissistic whining titled "Don't Mess with Messiahs", and boy is it ever true....here: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/381596/dont-mess-messiahs-victor-davis-hansonObama also seems oddly to forget that when he promised to use his pen and phone to run things by his lonesome, nearly everyone took him at his word. And so he tried just that. What Obama is now angry about is not partisanship per se, but that his own partisanship and subversion of settled law have been repudiated consistently by both the Supreme Court and the American public. Were Obama’s poll ratings at 60 percent, and were the Supreme Court upholding his pen-and-phone governance, and were the Democrats on the verge of winning back their long-lost supermajority in the Senate and taking back the House, then Obama would hardly be decrying partisanship, the media, the Tea Party, or Republicans in general. “Messing” with Obama means not being convinced that his record has helped America.
So his blubbering in the Rose Garden this time was over no comprehensive immigration reform bill from the House which is a big "no duh" since the GOP can read polls: http://lucianne.com/thread/?artnum=790456The public wants real border security, which of course Obama has been claiming all this time the GOP has been demogoguing for no good reason except they hate brown people, as that blather is now blowing up in his face. The fact of the matter is that if the House passed the Senate bill, it would do exactly nothing to fix this problem (shades of Obamacare passed to cover 30 million uninsured only to result in spending trillions to still leave 30 million uninsured). The real reason Obama is sitting with this time bomb in his lap is because of a law, sponsored by none other than Dem Feinstein, which is making it virtually impossible to process these kids in a timely manner....read herehttp://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-has-wrong-prescription-for-border-crisis/article/2550349. One very easy step, which would likely pass with little resistance on the part of the GOP, would be to amend it to streamline sending these kids back. What is needed is a change in the law to allow the government to treat children from Central America the same as children from Mexico. "We ought to have the same protocols that we have for Mexico and Canada for the Central American countries," said Texas Rep. Henry Cuellar last week. "Forty-eight hours — we should return them." That sounds hopeful, although the wording is vague and Obama's intention unclear. But it raises the hope that president might actually help Congress find a solution — if he can take time away from scheming to run around the very lawmakers he needs to fix the problem. The problem for Obama, as always, is that he has key $upporter$ who want these illegals to come...and stay. |
|
|
|
The story is a bit old, but I haven't been following it very closely: Mother Jones has discovered that Hobby Lobby which is seeking exemption from certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act on religious grounds surrounding contraception benefit requirements (a case it has won), actually invests (through their retirement fund) in companies that produces emergency contraceptives and abortion related products. According to Mother Jones: Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012 (see above)—three months after the company’s owners filed their lawsuit—show that the Hobby Lobby 401(k) employee retirement plan held more than $73 million in mutual funds with investments in companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and drugs commonly used in abortions. Hobby Lobby makes large matching contributions to this company-sponsored 401(k). These companies make up 3/4ths of Hobby Lobby's 401k assets. Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...ous-objection/401k is the employees money, not the company's investments. Honestly this is evidence the company is reasonable and isnt trying to force the employees to follow the company's rules on investments. Good luck picking a group of index funds/etfs without a pharmaceutical company ... |
|
|
|
Launches 34 airstrikes, after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vows that "Hamas will pay" for killing of abducted teenagers
Israel launched 34 airstrikes over the Gaza Strip on Tuesday, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed that “Hamas will pay” for the abduction and deaths of three Israeli teenagers.
Israeli officials said the airstrikes were in retaliation for 18 rockets fired into Israel from Gaza, and targeted assets belonging to militant groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad, CNN reports. The exchange of fire comes amid soaring tensions in the region, as Israeli officials held an emergency cabinet meeting to plan a response to the deaths of the teenagers.
http://time.com/2944876/israel-hammers-gaza-strip-over-kidnapped-teens-deaths/I don't know what they have in mind for "a response", but I doubt the disgusting people who killed those kids will ever be able to sleep with both eyes closed ever again. |
|
|
|
The one and only Democracy in the Middle East huh?. They make an arrest of 2 men who deny any knowledge even of it and immediately bulldoze their homes? What democracy? What moral beacon? What justice? http://www.commondreams.org/Bodies of Missing Israeli Teens Found in West Bank
Boys who went missing nearly three weeks ago discovered buried near Hebron
The bodies of three Israeli teenagers who went missing in the occupied West Bank nearly three weeks ago were discovered near the city of Hebron on Monday.
"The bodies are currently going through forensic identification," the Israeli army said in a statement. "The families of the abducted teens have been notified." http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.602189 A large contingent of Israeli security forces were in the West Bank Monday evening between the Palestinian town of Halhul and the West Bank settlement Karmei Tzur, just north of Hebron, where a wide search after the three missing kidnapped teens took place earlier on Monday.
Eyal Yifrah, 19, from Elad, Gilad Shaar, 16, from Talmon and Naftali Fraenkel, 16, from Nof Ayalon went missing from a hitchhiking station at the Gush Etzion intersection. Naftali Fraenkel was also an American citizen.
Following the kidnapping, the Israel Defense Forces launched Operation Brother’s Keeper, a massive search for the three throughout the West Bank and conducted operations against Hamas, which Israel held responsible for the abduction. http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=708970 Israeli forces late Monday surrounded the homes of two men suspected of kidnapping and killing three Israeli teens, and prepared to demolish the houses, locals said.
Witnesses told Ma'an Israeli soldiers had forced the residents out of the houses of Ammar Abu Eisha and Marwan al-Qawasmeh, and were preparing for demolition. [...]
Israel says the two men who kidnapped the teens are Ammar Abu Eisha, 29, and Marwan al-Qawasmeh, 33, both from Hebron.
The Israeli army said on Thursday that it was still searching for Abu Eisha and al-Qawasmeh.
Abu Eisha's family has denied the allegations. |
|
|
|
The Supreme Court has ruled. They don't have to join the union or pay union dues. All that I am saying is that if they don't want to join and pay dues. they should not then be able to freeload off those paying the dues that support the representation of the union in negotiating a higher wage or better benefits. They can go in and negotiate their own salary and benefits since they are not paying dues.
Surely you also don't believe they should get something for free either -- do you?
I don't know how that's siding with the unions. That's merely saying you should not benefit off the good will (and dues) of the union if you don't want to be a member and pay the dues. And you say I'll side with the union no matter what, but the reverse is true for you and yours, that you will side against them no matter what.
If dues only went to fund collective bargaining agreements for wages and benefits you might have a point, Bees. But many workers do not join a union (yours truly for instance) because they do not subscribe to the political leanings of the unions and do not wish to pay for support of candidates for office and other political lobbying they disapprove of. Dues go for lots of things, including outrageous "CEO" salaries that liberals never seem upset over, that have nothing to do with improving the conditions of the member-workers. |
|
|
|
|
I have the utmost respect for skilled trade unions, but I have nothing but contempt for the semi-skilled or unskilled thug unions, like the Teamsters, the Laborers, and SEIU. They are nothing more than gangsters, and when the Mafia was in its heyday, they and the thug unions were one and the same.
|
|
|
|
|
This is a clear case of SEIU/Illinois Democrat party collusion, intended to rip off those who are just trying to take care of a family member in order to fund the union and eventually, the Democrat Party. The Supreme Court ruled correctly.
|
|
|
|
Read all about it in the only news coverage I could find that tells us the whole story! I'm not sure what YOU'RE talking about but what the decision refers to is privately contracted PAs (Personal Assistants) that Medicaid pays for working poor to hire to help them out with child care. That's from the actual Supreme Court web site on the decision. Or do you think FOX News knows more than the Court about their ruling? http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/11-681_j426.pdf\I read the FOX report. When one reads the decision and all the background, it's clear that what this family essentially did was to 'hire from within". Again, the check from Medicaid is not ostensibly for the care of the child - or in this case, an disabled adult - but rather a specific amount provided to pay for a home health care assistant. In this case, the family actually hired the mother, herself to do the job (I guess it's legal, since the state didn't tell them they couldn't do it). Like I said, I read the actual decision, and it's very clear what it is about - hired assistants. I can't even see that as being applicable to The Harris family unless they did what I described - hired the mother. I could have missed something and I welcome someone pointing it out if I did. Maybe she would end up with more wages -- substantially more than the $90 union dues -- if she joined the union. She evidently doesn't have to. And that's fine with me as long as she doesn't benefit from freeloading off the dues paying members. She is certainly free to negotiate her own reimbursement, as a party of one and all the negotiating power that entails (guffaw) but she should not in any way benefit from the work done on behalf of the dues paying members by their union in negotiating better pay and benefits. Seriously, it is obvious don't even know what you are talking about. Why don't you actually read the back ground and understand the facts regarding this case and the law (including the ruling) before you comment. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
