"Weich's letter to U.S. Rep. Sue Myrick and her colleagues points to two excerpts of trial testimony from FBI Special Agent Lara Burns. Both deal with conversations leading up to CAIR's original formation.
"In one, she reads from transcripts from a secret 1993 gathering of Hamas supporters in Philadelphia where the group talks of creating a new organization with a fairly innocuous sounding name. She read comments from Holy Land Foundation President Shukri Abu Baker explain the new entity should present a benign face compared to existing Islamist groups:
"'And let's not hoist a large Islamic flag, and let's not be barbaric-talking. We will remain a front so that if the thing happens, we will benefit from the new happenings instead of having all of our organizations classified and exposed.'
"In the other, Burns describes an exhibit which shows CAIR listed on a Palestine Committee agenda within weeks of its 1994 creation."
Really though, that is not proof, as such comments do not have to mean how the Zionists want the world to take them. In addition, I would want to know more about FBI Special Agent Lara Burns. What's her ideology and religion, etc.? What "special" affinity does she have for the Zionist, war-criminal Project for instance? She may have none, but I would still want to know. I have long-since reached the point where I never simply take the Zionist/Mossad word for anything, and the linked site is Zionist through-and-through.
At any rate, I'm not convinced that Hamas should be viewed as more terroristic than is the Zionist Project. In fact, I'm quite sure it shouldn't.
Also, there is this: "Cross examination of government witness FBI Special Agent Lara Burns began Wednesday in the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) trial in Dallas, Texas. Abdulrahman Odeh's lawyer, Greg Westfall, was the first to cross examine Agent Burns. Westfall made the point that many of the 400 exhibits the government introduced into the record via Agent Burns were prior to the January 1995 designation of HAMAS [as a terrorist group] by President Clinton." http://counterterrorismblo
Now, that matters even if only on the mundane level. You will notice that "The Investigative Project on Terrorism" didn't offer up any countervailing arguments. That's an example of why I don't trust them and neither should you.Â Â Â Â
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)