Mediaboss Marketing

Churches should have the right to endorse political candidates and still keep their tax-free status, say House Republicans targeting a law that prohibits such politicking from the pulpit.

Republicans repeatedly have failed to scrap the law preventing churches and other nonprofits from backing candidates, so now they are trying to starve it.

With little fanfare, a House Appropriations subcommittee added a provision that would deny money to the IRS to enforce the 63-year-old law to a bill to fund the Treasury Department, Securities and Exchange Commission and other agencies.

The subcommittee passed the bill this week.

Republicans say the law is enforced unevenly, leaving religious leaders uncertain about what they are allowed to say and do.

I believe that churches have a right of free speech and an opportunity to talk about positions and issues that are relevant to their faith, said Rep. Jim Renacci, R-Ohio.

Democrats say the measure comes too close to mixing church and state.

They say religious leaders already have First Amendment rights, just like anyone else. But if they want to get political, they dont have a constitutional right not to pay taxes.

Some also worry that the measure could upend the system of campaign financing by allowing churches to use their tax-free status to funnel money to political candidates.

Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., recalled a speech that former President John F. Kennedy gave to religious leaders when he was running for president.

He said the pope wouldnt tell him what to do, and the people in that audience shouldnt be telling people on Sunday morning who to vote for, Neal said. I dont think churches should be endorsing.

Many nonprofit groups want to avoid politics. In April, 4,500 nonprofit groups signed onto a letter to congressional leaders asking them to preserve the law.

The law prohibits tax-exempt charitable organizations such as churches from participating directly or indirectly in any political campaign to support or oppose a candidate. If the IRS determines that a group has violated the law, it can revoke its tax-exempt status.

The law doesnt stop religious groups from weighing in on public policy or organizing in ways that may benefit one side in a campaign.

The bill specifically forbids the IRS from spending money to enforce the law against a church, or a convention or association of churches, unless the IRS commissioner signs off on it and notifies Congress.

The bill doesnt mention other types of non-profit groups, or even synagogues or mosques, said Nick Little of the Center for Inquiry, which promotes secularism.

All they care about is the Christian groups, and in particular, it will end up as the extreme religious right Christian groups, Little said. If this goes through, this would add just another way in which unregulated dark money could be used.

Religious leaders have been weighing in on political issues for generations, whether its the debate over abortion or advocating for the poor. But periodically, the IRS has stepped in when religious leaders explicitly endorse or oppose candidates.

The law is called the Johnson Amendment after former President Lyndon Johnson, who introduced it in 1954 when he was a Democratic senator from Texas. Johnson was upset because a few nonprofit groups attacked him as a communist in a Senate campaign.

The law was signed by a Republican president Dwight Eisenhower but Republicans have been attacking it in recent years.

House Republicans have pledged to repeal the law as part of a tax overhaul. President Donald Trump signed an executive order in May discouraging the IRS from enforcing the law.

Rep. Pat Tiberi, R-Ohio, says the law has been enforced unevenly.

Some churches, including my own, have been very concerned about appearing political in any way shape or form, Tiberi said. Churches I went to that were primarily in Democrat areas, that I would go to because I had a Democrat district, the local candidates on the Sunday mornings before the election would be introduced, would speak from the pulpit about the campaign and why the congregation should vote for them.

The full Appropriations Committee will consider the measure after the July 4 congressional recess.

See the rest here:
House Republicans want churches to be able to endorse political candidates - Wisconsin Gazette

Did a 2010 law violate Latino students constitutional rights?

Edwin RiosJul. 2, 2017 6:00 AM

Protesters rally in support of Tuscon Unified School District in 2011 after Arizona state superintendent announces Mexican-American Studies program violates state law.Ross D. Franklin/AP

Seven years ago, Arizona Republicans passed a measure, HB 2281, that sought to limit ethnic studies programs in public schools.

Specifically, the bill set out to bancourses that promote the overthrow of the United States government, promote resentment toward a race or class of people, are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group, or advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals. Only one program in one school district qualified to be shut down: the Mexican American studies program in the Tucson Unified School District.

Since then, parents and students from the district have protested HB 2281. This week,attorneys on behalf of Tucson students argued in federal district court that the state violatedLatino students constitutional rightsand that the law should be tossed out.

When did the Tucson program start?

The Mexican American studiesprogramfirst started in 1998, partlyin response to a long-standing desegregationorderagainst Tucsons school district in which black and Latino parents claimed that the districts make-up promoted intentional segregation and unconstitutional discrimination on the basis of race or national origin.

Tucsons program aimed to offer a curriculum through the lens of the Mexican American experience, driven by works of Mexican American authors and other writers of color, as a way to narrow the academic gaps between Latino students and their peers.

Curtis Acosta, a former teacher at Tucson High Magnet School and one of the programs founders,testifiedearlier this week the program was meant to build confidence in students who didnt engage in a traditional curriculum.

Ethnic studies courses, which first arose at universities during the civil rights movement, have been expanding into high schools in recent years. In California, for instance, Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill last year that called for the development of a model curriculum for ethnic studies in high schools throughout the state.

How did the Tucson program fare?

Over the next 13 years, the program expanded, enrolling about 1,300 students in courses in elementary, middle, and high schools at its height in 2010.A state-commissioned audit in 2011 recommended, among other things, maintaining and expanding the program.And participation in the courses paid off for students: A 2012 study by University of Arizona professor Nolan Cabrera found that students who participated in the programs courses performed better on state tests and graduated at higher rates.

How did it become so controversial?

The crusade against the Mexican American studies program goes back to 2006whenlabor rights activistDolores Huerta gavea speechto students at Tucson High Magnet School. She called on studentsto look at the immigration legislation arising at the time and address why Republicans hate Latinos.

The comment stuck with Thomas Horne, then the superintendent of public instruction for Arizonas Department of Education. When students werent allowed to ask questions at a meeting with Hornes deputy, some raised their fists and turned their backs in protest. In an open letter to Tucson residents following the speech, Horne criticized the Mexican American studies program for teaching students a kind of destructive ethnic chauvinism and blamed teachers for the students actions.

In 2010, the same year Arizona lawmakers passed an infamous anti-immigration law, SB 1070, a Republican-controlled legislature passed HB 2281. That October, a group of teacherssued the state, alleging that the elimination of the program violated their First Amendment rights.

On his last day as state superintendentin January 2011and right before he officiallybecame state attorney generalHorne announced that the Tucson program violated state law and ordered that the district terminate the program or else lose 10 percent of state funding.

John Huppenthal, a state senator who helped pass the law, emerged as Hornes successor. Despite an independent audit in 2011 that found no observable evidence the Mexican American studies program violated Arizona law, Huppenthal rejected the finding. After a second investigation,he statedthe program violated state law and threatened to withhold state funding from Tucsons school district for failing to end the program. In January 2012, in the wake of sanctions, the school board voted to end it and physically confiscated books from schools.

Whats at stake in this case?

The casefocuses on the intent of state officials when they implemented the law.In 2013, District Judge A. Wallace Tashima, who is hearing the case again,upheldmost of the 2010 law, arguing that the students involved failed to show that it waspassed with discriminatory intent.Two years later, a federal appeals court in San Francisco disagreed and ordered the case back to trial, concluding that there was enough evidence to determine otherwise.

In court this week, Huppenthal denied his actions in enacting the law were made with discriminatory intent. I never anticipated that the program would collapse, Huppenthal testified Wednesday. He refusedto apologize forinflammatory remarks he made anonymously on different websites before and during his time as state superintendent: Under different pseudonyms, Huppenthal lambasted the programs teachers, likening them to the Ku Klux Klan and saying the classes use the exact same technique that Hitler used in his rise to power, according to court documents.

At one point during testimony, Huppenthal described the fight over the ethnic studies program as eternal, adding that the battle between collectivism and individualism defines the human race, the Huffington Post reported. The trial will come to an end in mid-July.

Edwin Rios is a reporter at Mother Jones. Reach him at erios@motherjones.com.

Mother Jones is a nonprofit, and stories like this are made possible by readers like you. Donate or subscribe to help fund independent journalism.

Here is the original post:
Arizona Republicans Banned Mexican American Studies. The Fight Is Now Back in Court. - Mother Jones

BY: Jack Heretik July 2, 2017 12:13 pm

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) suggested on Sunday that Republicans are to blame for the federal investigation into allegations that his wife, Jane Sanders, committed fraud in obtaining bank loans to secure a land deal while she was presidentof the now defunct Burlington College.

The FBI is also probing whether Bernie Sanders used his political influence to help secure the loans.

CNN host Jake Tapper asked Sanders if he, or anyone in his Senate office, had contacted the bank involved in the deal to help approve loans.

"The answer is absolutely not," the Vermont senator responded before defending his wife's tenure at the college and blaming politicalopponents for the investigation.

"In fact, let's be clear: five years after my wife left Burlington College, and she left it in better shape than it had ever been in, five years after, guess what happened?" Sanders said. "Right in the middle of my presidential campaign, I know this will shock the viewers, the vice chairman of the Vermont Republican Party who happened to be Donald Trump's campaign manager raised this issue and initiated this investigation."

Sanders added that the person who made the claims against Sanders refuted his allegations.

"So Ithink what you're looking at is something the Republican National Committee is very excited about," Sanders said. "My wife is perhaps the most honest person Iknow. She did a great job at Burlington College. Sadly we are in a moment where parties not only attack public officials; they have to go after wives and children."

Sanders and his wife recently retained a lawyer as the investigation began to intensify.

Burlington College is now permanently closed, with someblaming the school's downfall on Jane Sanders.

The rest is here:
Sanders Suggests Republicans to Blame for FBI Investigation Into His Wife - Washington Free Beacon

Podesta: 'It's on the FBI' That DNC Servers Weren't Turned Over

Greg Gutfeld: Trump is Us on Vacation

Radio host Mark Levin, author of "Rediscovering Americanism," criticized the progressive movement for "rejecting" the principles laid out in the Declaration of Independence.

Ahead of Independence Day, the New York Times ran a full-page feature on the Constitution.

Levin said the feature was just another example of the progressive left misunderstanding American history and the principles of this country.

He noted Constitution Day is September 17, and that July 4 instead honors the Declaration of Independence.

"The entire progressive movement rejects the Declaration of Independence," Levin, a former DOJ chief of staff, said.

"That's why you'll never see a full page of the Declaration of Independence in the New York Times," he said.

He said that progressives believe that rights come from the government, while the Declaration describes how they are inalienable grants to humanity from God.

Levin said those who fought and died in the Revolution would be "appalled" by progressives like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who believe in a central government redistributing wealth.

"[They] can't have health care unless the government controls it and redistributes it," he said.

Levin also discussed the media's fixation with President Trump's feud with Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, remarking that "sonograms" have better ratings than MSNBC.

Watch the clip above.

Toomey on ObamaCare Replacement: If We Leave Medicaid As-Is, 'We'll Have a Fiscal Crisis'

Presidential Knockout: Trump Tweets Video of Himself Beating Up 'CNN'

See original here:
Mark Levin: 'The Entire Progressive Movement Rejects the Declaration of Independence' - Fox News Insider

Over the past decade, patriotism has been out of vogue among many liberals. Rituals like saluting the flag were largely left to those serving our country at home and abroad through military or government service. Meanwhile, pledges of allegiance conjured memories of school assemblies.

Republicans, in contrast, wrapped themselves in the mantle of patriotism. Open love of country justified the party's claim to moral authority and united its members. Drive through America and you know when you've entered Republican strongholds by the number of flags displayed. Despite its embrace of anti-big government ideologies, the GOP managed to preserve its reputation in the eyes of its base as the party of national fidelity.

Trump stands to change all that. Our 45th President has spoken and acted in ways that for millions test the basic definition of what it means to be a patriot: someone who loves one's country and acts with its best interests in mind. Like the many authoritarian rulers he so admires, Trump seems intent on making public office serve his personal desires and goals. He has done very little to resolve the conflicts of interest with his business concerns, leaving the impression that private profit comes first and national well-being second.

When it became known that he had excluded our national press corps from the Oval Office meeting while allowing a Russian photographer access, it seemed to many Americans another sign of loyalties that did not seemingly lie with the country he took an oath to serve -- and certainly a gamble with our national security and intelligence allies.

Millions of Americans who feel the void in political leadership are looking for patriots to admire and emulate. Fearing that their civil liberties and rights are threatened, they are scanning the horizon for individuals who have stood out and stood up to power, putting the national interest before their own careers. Sally Yates has been anointed and, for many, James Comey too. Others will likely emerge before we are through with Trump.

This quiet building of patriotic sentiment presents an opportunity for the Democrats, who have been struggling to craft an identity in the wake of the lost presidential election. The use of powerful patriotic rhetoric and symbols can underpin the party's assertive positioning of itself as the guardian of American freedoms and values now imperiled by Trump and his GOP allies.

The GOP squandered patriotism's precious currency by backing Trump. Their loss can be the Democrats' gain in 2018 and 2020.

The rest is here:
Liberals are reclaiming patriotism from the right - CNN