Progressive One

What does religion directive do?
Trump’s executive order fits a pattern of doing less than the White House asserts.
PRESIDENT TRUMP greets religious leaders before signing the executive order during a National Day of Prayer event in the Rose Garden. While campaigning, he vowed to “totally destroy” the Johnson Amendment. (Olivier Douliery Abaca Press)
By Noah Bierman and David Lauter
WASHINGTON — President Trump signed an executive order Thursday that he said would protect politically active churches from losing their tax-free status. But as has repeatedly been true during his young administration, the actual text proved more modest than his words.
“For too long the federal government has used the state as a weapon against people of faith,” Trump said to an audience of conservative religious leaders gathered in the White House Rose Garden.
“You’re now in a position to say what you want to say,” he added before signing the order, along with a proclamation. “We are giving our churches their voices back.”
The order was aimed at fulfilling a campaign promise Trump made to “totally destroy” a federal law known as the Johnson Amendment, which prohibits tax-exempt organizations, including churches, from actively supporting political candidates.
The ban, written by Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1950s, has seldom been used to remove a church’s tax exemption, although some religious groups, both conservative and liberal, have said its existence constrains political speech. Its repeal has not been a top priority for most religious conservative groups, but Trump has often spoken about it.
Trump’s order does not change the law; that would require Congress to act. And despite his declaration, the order doesn’t necessarily change the way the Internal Revenue Service might enforce the law.
The text of the order , which the White House did not release until after Trump’s remarks, says only that the Treasury Department, “to the extent permitted by law,” would not take “any adverse action” against individuals, houses of worship or other religious groups on the basis of speech “about moral or political issues from a religious perspective” that does not amount to “participation or intervention in a political campaign” in favor of or in opposition to “a candidate for public office.”
It’s not clear whether that would change any IRS rules.
Before the signing ceremony, an administration official said the order would direct the IRS to “exercise maximum enforcement discretion” in applying the Johnson Amendment. But the text does not include that language. The order contains a more vague, blanket statement that the administration is committed “to protect and vigorously promote religious liberty.”
The gap between Trump’s language and the actual order follows a pattern: His descriptions of his executive actions often go considerably beyond the reality of what they do.
Sarah Huckabee Sanders, White House deputy press secretary, said the administration’s legal staff believes the order protects clergy from IRS sanctions if they make political endorsements from the pulpit, though a church would still be subject to losing nonprofit status if it placed political advertisements. The IRS in the past has told religious groups that endorsements of candidates from the pulpit could violate the law.
Administration officials pointed to an IRS document that said from 2010 through 2013, there were 99 cases nationwide alleging violations by churches that “merit a high priority examination.” How many were investigated is not clear.
Trump’s order, timed for Thursday’s National Day of Prayer, included no mention of a much broader religious liberty provision leaked in February that could have allowed business owners to discriminate based on sexual orientation or other circumstances that involve moral objections. That proposal has been the subject of internal debate at the White House and appears to have been shelved for now.
Sanders, asked why Trump did not include the language that had been in the February draft, said executive orders go through many revisions and that this one fulfilled his goal of protecting religious liberty.
Evangelicals supported Trump strongly during the election and had been pressuring the administration to go further in giving businesses discretion to assert morality clauses without running afoul of anti-discrimination laws.
“It’s not a disappointment; 80% is better than nothing,” the Rev. Franklin Graham, a leading evangelist who attended Thursday’s ceremony at the White House and spoke at Trump’s inauguration, said in an interview. “This is a political world and you don’t always get everything you want.”
Graham said that he hoped Congress would overturn the Johnson Amendment and Trump would craft a morality exemption for business owners, but that he believed the new order “does for the time being open up the opportunity for pastors to speak out.”
Gay rights groups had been on guard against a broader religious liberty order, and other liberal groups warned that Thursday’s narrower executive order could infringe on the separation between church and state and weaken campaign finance regulations.
“Today’s executive order is payment to religious extremists for their support,” Rabbi Jack Moline, president of Interfaith Alliance, said in a statement. “It is not in the interests of American citizens, including those who voted Mr. Trump into office. It is a betrayal of the First Amendment.”
The order does aim to allow religious groups to avoid a mandate to provide contraception coverage under President Obama’s healthcare law, the Affordable Care Act, potentially expanding an exemption that had been carved out in the courts.
That part of the order may become moot if Congress passes legislation to repeal the healthcare law. In the meantime, however, a senior administration official told reporters Wednesday night that “regulatory relief” would come later.
noah.bierman@latimes.com
david.lauter@latimes.com
Times staff writer Jaweed Kaleem in Los Angeles contributed to this report.

Big Bass

You forgot white, you dumb racist bastard.

Big Bass

You accuse many of us of racism, but the most acrimonious examples of racial hatred come from YOU. RACIST!!

Big Bass

"Toady" is YOUR opinion. That does not make them toadies to anyone but you. Therefore, this makes your comment very racist. Live with it and be prepared to receive flack in return.

Big Bass

This poster continues to use obscene language. It is part of his racist hatred.

Progressive One

Heartless Bastard Motherfkers:

Progressive One

Strict ‘sanctuary cities’ ban
Texas legislation could put police in jail if they fail to comply.
PEOPLE RALLY outside the Capitol in Austin, Texas, this week to protest Senate Bill 4, which bans “sanctuary cities” in the state and allows police to inquire about the immigration status of anyone they detain. (Jay Janner Austin American-Statesman)
By Jenny Jarvie
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott was poised Thursday to sign the nation’s most stringent law yet to target “sanctuary cities,” a measure that could impose heavy fines or even jail time on local law enforcement officials who refuse to honor immigration detention requests.
After weeks of heated debate, sit-ins and protests at the state Capitol in Austin, Texas lawmakers Wednesday night passed the sweeping bill that would ban sanctuary cities and allow police to inquire about the immigration status of anyone they detained, even those stopped for minor traffic violations. It would also force local officials to comply with federal immigration requests to detain those who are suspected of being in the country illegally.
Police chiefs and county sheriffs who refuse to comply with federal requests, which are not mandatory under federal law, could face up to a year in jail. Cities, counties and colleges could also face stiff fines, from $1,000 to $25,500 a day.
Abbott has said he will sign the bill in the coming days, and immigrant advocates are gearing up for a court fight.
“This is unprecedented,” said Angie Junck, supervising attorney at the Immigrant Legal Resource Center in San Francisco, who argued the bill violated 4th Amendment protections against warrantless arrests without probable cause and raised concerns about racial profiling.
“It’s not only telling law enforcement to engage in unconstitutional behavior, but it’s then seeking to punish them for a crime,” she said. “It’s astonishing.”
The Texas legislation, Senate Bill 4, passed amid a fierce national debate on sanctuary cities, jurisdictions which decline to hold immigrants arrested for local crimes past their release date simply because immigration authorities want them detained for potential deportation proceedings.
Shortly after his inauguration, President Trump issued an executive order on immigration that threatened to strip federal funds from cities that did not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. That provision of the order is in legal limbo after a federal judge in Northern California temporarily blocked it last week, concluding that cities could prevail in their argument that placing new conditions on federal funds is unconstitutional.
On Thursday, Maryland Atty. Gen. Brian E. Frosh issued a memo warning that state and local law enforcement officers were “potentially exposed to liability” if they honored immigration detainer requests — unless the request is accompanied by a judicial warrant or supported by information providing probable cause that the person has committed a crime.
While other states have passed laws urging municipalities to assist federal immigration efforts — Mississippi’s governor signed a law in March that bars sanctuary jurisdictions — legal experts say the Texas bill is the first to explicitly make it mandatory to honor U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainers, with noncompliance subject to criminal penalties.
“This law takes some of the federal policies that we’ve seen and puts it on steroids,” Junck said. “It seems this governor and the Texas Legislature are trying to outdo the federal government and design their own plan for deportations of residents and to create fear within anyone that’s in the immigrant community to drive them out of the state of Texas.”
Abbott has promised he will “not tolerate sanctuary-city policies that put the cities of Texas at risk.” Shortly after it won legislative approval Wednesday, he wrote on Twitter: “I’m getting my signing pen warmed up.”
Legal experts say the Texas bill is even stricter than Arizona’s widely criticized 2010 law, SB 1070, that required police officers to demand the papers of people suspected of being in the country illegally. After a string of lawsuits and boycotts, that law was eventually amended.
Republican officials who have supported the legislation say it is needed to ensure that those who have committed crimes and are in the country illegally are deported.
“SB 4 will ensure that no liberal local official can flaunt the law,” Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick said in a statement. “This legislation will eliminate a substantial incentive for illegal immigration and help make Texas communities safer.”
A wide range of opponents — immigrant advocates, Democratic legislators, police organizations and politicians from cities such as Austin and Houston with large immigrant populations — had made it a priority to defeat the bill.
“I am concerned that we’re the canary in the coal mine and other states will start attempting to pass draconian anti-immigrant laws,” said Gregorio Casar, an Austin city councilman who represents a heavily Latino part of north Austin. On Monday, he was one of two dozen protesters arrested outside the governor’s office.
“You’re going to see the people of Texas fight this law every single step of the way, because it’s unconstitutional, it’s dangerous, it’s bad for the economy and it isn’t the state’s business to be cracking down on immigrants,” Casar added.
In turn, Republican Sen. Charles Perry, who wrote the bill, has accused opponents of fear-mongering. The bill, he has argued, provides “uniform application of the law without prejudice” to everyone in Texas.
“Banning sanctuary cities is about stopping officials who have sworn to enforce the law from helping people who commit terrible crimes evade immigration detainers,” he said in a statement.
Police chiefs and sheriffs of major jurisdictions across Texas have spoken out against the bill, arguing that requiring local law enforcement to take a more active role in immigration enforcement will create fear among immigrant communities, foster distrust of police and lead to an uptick in crime.
Travis County Sheriff Sally Hernandez, who made headlines this year when she announced she would not voluntarily comply with federal requests to detain people solely on the basis of their immigration status, said the bill passed as a result of fear and misinformation.
“I am disappointed, because this is not in the best interest of public safety,” she said Thursday in a statement. “It ties the hands of our law enforcement agency and pushes victims of crime into the shadows. While I hate seeing a state law like this come to pass, I have always followed the law and that will not change.”
In an opinion piece published in the Dallas Morning News, David Pughes, interim chief of police in Dallas, and Art Acevedo, chief of police in Houston, wrote that the bill was “political pandering that will make our communities more dangerous.”
“Such a divide between the local police and immigrant groups will result in increased crime against immigrants and in the broader community, create a class of silent victims, and eliminate the potential for assistance from immigrants in solving crimes or preventing crime,” they wrote.
In recent weeks, Texas Democrats and moderate Republicans worked desperately to try to tone down the bill. Last week, Democratic lawmakers in the Republican-dominated House wore all black as they engaged in a marathon overnight session to defeat the legislation.
But after 16 hours of emotional debate, the bill that eventually passed the House 93 to 54 was stricter than previous versions.
One late amendment, criticized by Democratic lawmakers, says police departments cannot discourage officers from inquiring about the immigration status of those who have been detained, even during routine traffic stops. Legal experts warn this would allow sheriff’s deputies and police officers to question a person’s legal status without having probable cause.
“It has gone from a bad bill to a worse bill,” Sen. Sylvia Garcia, a Democrat who represents Houston, warned in remarks to the Senate on Wednesday. She said she feared the legislation could lead to police harassment and profiling of Latinos.
“The last thing I want is ‘walking while brown’ to become reasonable suspicion,” she said. “And, frankly, that is what will happen with this legislation — it doesn’t matter how much its supporters promise that this will not happen. It will happen.”
Jarvie is a special correspondent.

Progressive One

I wonder if all are liars like these OPP types. Check this out CB:
GOP’s big lie: It will protect the sick
DAVID LAZARUS
Last-minute wrangling over the Republican healthcare bill, approved by the House on Thursday, centered largely on what’s known as the MacArthur Amendment. House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) said it “strengthens” the legislation and “protects people with preexisting conditions.”
It strengthens the bill only from the perspective of maintaining support from far-right lawmakers who have sworn blood oaths to undo the healthcare-reform legacy of former President Obama.
And it protects people with preexisting conditions much as starving people may be welcome at a restaurant, but only if they order the most expensive dishes on the menu.
“The MacArthur Amendment is a Band-Aid on a very bad plan, and it likely won’t staunch the bleeding,” said Dana Goldman, director of the USC Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics.
I spoke with the amendment’s namesake, Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-N.J.). He painted a sunnier picture.
“We have to make sure the most vulnerable are protected, but we also have to bring down costs for everyone else,” he told me. “I think we’re doing that.”
This much is clear: Republican lawmakers have provided a textbook example of how not to enact major legislation.
They’re aiming to radically overhaul the $3-trillion U.S. healthcare system yet have shunned the input of major stakeholders such as medical organizations, hospitals and patient-advocacy groups, which are uniformly against the measure.
A key focus of the GOP has been a provision of the Affordable Care Act that people with preexisting conditions not be discriminated against in any way by health insurers. Prior to Obamacare, insurers could deny coverage to such people or charge premiums beyond most people’s ability to pay.
The MacArthur Amendment would empower states to waive protections for those with preexisting conditions as long as they come up with some alternative way of making insurance available.
The catch, however, is that the amendment would not require insurers to charge the same rates that healthy people enjoy. That’s why the likes of the American Medical Assn. and AARP have warned that, under the Republican plan, sick people could face rates so high that they’d be unaffordable for any but the wealthy.
Dr. James Madara, chief executive of the AMA, said in a letter to Congress last week that claims the MacArthur Amendment would protect people with preexisting conditions are “illusory.”
The reason he can say this is because the Republicans would rely mostly on so-called high-risk pools to provide coverage for the sick. This means such people would be grouped together for insurance purposes, which would relieve healthy people of the financial obligation of covering their needs.
While that would lower premiums for the healthy — which, along with tax cuts, appears to be the Republicans’ primary goal in tackling healthcare reform — it would cause rates to soar for those in the high-risk pool.
We know that because this isn’t a theoretical idea. High-risk pools have been tried in nearly three dozen states, and in almost all cases resulted in limited access to coverage and skyrocketing costs.
California’s high-risk pool was the Major Risk Medical Insurance Program, which was intended only as insurance of last resort for the up to 400,000 people with preexisting conditions who, prior to Obamacare, kept having doors slammed in their faces by profit-hungry insurers.
The program was chronically underfunded, meaning that it eventually had to limit the number of people covered to only about 7,000 — a small fraction of the state’s uninsured. Thousands languished on the waiting list.
And even when people obtained coverage in California’s high-risk pool, monthly premiums would run as much as $1,000, annual coverage would be capped at $75,000 and there would be a lifetime limit of $750,000. It was, in other words, too little coverage at too high a price.
The Republican bill now includes a potential $130 billion in subsidies over a decade, plus an additional $8 billion over five years, to fund high-risk pools. But some experts say that’s nowhere near enough.
The Center for American Progress estimates that, depending on the number of states involved, an additional $200 billion could be needed.
Jennifer Kent, director of the California Department of Health Care Services, told me the Republicans’ $138 billion might sound like a large amount until you face the actual costs of covering people with serious conditions.
“We had one person, a child with hemophilia, in Medi-Cal who cost $21 million last year,” she said. “We had five other people who cost over $10 million each. Put them together and that’s just six people costing almost $100 million.”
The simple fact, Kent said, is that any risk pool composed solely of sick people will be very, very expensive.
“The problem with California’s high-risk pool was that there was never enough funding,” she said. “We had to close enrollment because the money ran out.”
This shouldn’t be news to MacArthur, the Republican lawmaker. He’s a former insurance executive who got rich selling his company, York Risk Services Group, for about half a billion dollars in 2010.
MacArthur told me the Republicans are prepared to make “a tremendous down payment” on funding high-risk pools. “If we find that things have to be tweaked, we’ll make adjustments,” he said.
That’s a surprising commitment to flexibility considering the Republicans adamantly refused to consider even a single tweak to Obamacare. It also displays an optimism about taxpayer funds being used for the sick that doesn’t seem warranted.
Republicans currently say that healthy people shouldn’t have to cover those with preexisting conditions through higher premiums. Yet those same healthy people will be willing to shoulder a possibly higher tax burden?
MacArthur insisted “we’re not leaving people high and dry.” And the GOP bill does contain responsible-sounding language that makes it seem like people with preexisting conditions have little to fear.
The reality, however, is that it lays the groundwork for the sick to be ghettoized. It punishes people not for misdeeds but for medical misfortune.
That’s not healthcare. It’s an act of cruelty.
David Lazarus’ column runs Tuesdays and Fridays. He also can be seen daily on KTLA-TV Channel 5 and followed on Twitter @Davidlaz . Send your tips or feedback to david.lazarus@latimes.com
.

Ve'hoe

then why do you hurl racial epithets, ,,, filthy animal??

Progressive One

Because I don't know how to give a sissified pussy ass apple any other type of response.........especially one that wants to stereotype then bitch out as if that is not racist itself........

Ve'hoe

your "edukayshun be shoowin" again,,,,

How many "reservations" are there in Africa,,, for other subdued tribes??? How many "reservations" are there on indian lands, for indians they conquered??

So,,, dumb a-s psychologically afflicted imbecile janitor for the space shuttle sh-tter,,, show me where I said the "black race be da onlee, race wut kilz dey own kine"?????

What I said, for the mentally and listening/comprehension compared,,, was NOT that the black race was the only race that killed their own kind, but that they ARE the number ONE cause of death,,, of your own race.....

Can you get a white female grad student to read the post to you,,,,, before giving a rabid animal response???

this is exactly what causes the death of so many "good" young blacks,,,, your uncontrollable anger, and ignorant ability to read and understand what is going on around you,,,

At least that is my educated opinon,,,, yep......

Ve'hoe

Well,,, I gave you directions for where I live, so you could face me like a man,, what happened??

Couldnt steal a car??

Progressive One

why would I show up, kill you and ruin a great life.....do you know how long and how much effort that education and experience took to get just to waste it over someone who every time they see a white racist....asks them to drop their pants so they can get shit on their tongue and a throat full of semen?

Progressive One

poor troubled apple....like your ignorant ass inbred half-brother ao.....you take cracks at my education but then turn stupid when asked relevant questions that display your own knowledge level...what a squaw!!

Progressive One

Black People Still Aren’t Living As Long as Whites: Study

Alice Park


May 02, 2017


People in the U.S. and beyond are living longer thanks to better health care, but gaps between whites and other groups, including African-Americans, persist, according to a new government report. However, those health disparities appear to be getting smaller.

In the latest issue of Vital Signs from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, researchers studied death rates among white and black populations in the U.S. from 1999 to 2015. They broke down the information by cause of death and age.


MORE: What Race Has to Do With Breast Cancer

Overall, death rates from any cause declined more sharply among black people—by 25%—than for whites, which dropped by 14%. That helped shrink the gap between mortality rates among the two groups from 33% in 1999 to 16% in 2015. That's good news, because younger and middle-aged black people are dying of heart disease, cancer and HIV infection at a lower rate.

Still, the higher death rates among African-Americans for most age groups show that their health needs aren’t being met in the same way that they are for whites. More black people than white people, for example, said they had less than a high school education, which is one of the primary factors in determining employment and health insurance. As a result, more black people than whites were unemployed, living below the poverty level and lacking health insurance.

Those socioeconomic factors also contributed to poorer health through obesity and less physical activity, in addition to less access to doctors for regular checkups. In 2015, black people had a 40% higher death rate than whites from any cause in every age group for people under 65.

The study also highlights areas where health education programs could do a better job serving black populations, especially on issues like the dangers of obesity and inactivity and the importance of prevention to avoid chronic conditions such as heart disease, diabetes and hypertension.