Jewish Group: IRS Targeted Us Because ‘They Thought We Might Be Funding Terrorism’

Z Street

Lori Lowenthal Marcus, President of Z Street, appears on "On the Record." (Photo: Fox News)

Soon after the Internal Revenue Service admitted it had been targeting conservative organizations applying for 501 (c) (4) status around the 2012 election -- though it was later discovered it had been happening since at least 2010 -- it was learned that Jewish groups had also faced similar scrutiny.

Now, we are learning that at least one group was told it was because of purported worries they were funding terrorism.

Z Street has been vocal about the treatment it received after battling with the IRS for years.  It filed a lawsuit against the government entity in 2010 alleging viewpoint discrimination after applying for 501 (c) (3) status in 2009 (processed through the same office as 501 (c) (4)).

Lori Lowenthal Marcus, president of Z Street, appeared on "On the Record" with Greta Van Susteren Tuesday to explain the situation.

"After we filed our lawsuit, the IRS began having several different positions on why it was taking so long, one of which was because terrorism happens in Israel.  Therefore, they had to look into our organization, because they thought we might be funding terrorism.  We are a purely educational entity.  We didn't fund anybody; we barely funded ourselves!"

When Greta asked whether anyone in her group has been arrested for terrorism, whether their assets have ever been frozen in connection with terrorism, or whether the group has ever even been accused of promoting terrorist activity, the president incredulously replied, "No!"

If that's not enough, the group only filed the suit after their lawyer was told by the IRS that groups connected to Israel receive special scrutiny, and that some are sent to a special unit to determine whether the organization's positions contradict those of the administration's."

"At that point we knew that is classic viewpoint discrimination, and we had to [take] action," she said.

Their group has still not been approved for the 501 (c) (3) status it applied for in 2009.

Watch the entire interview, below:

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

The POLITICO did some investigating on the matter, writing:

Legal filings show that the problems for Z Street -- and apparently for other Israel-related groups -- stemmed from an obscure unit in the Cincinnati IRS office: the "Touch and Go Group." One of the so-called TAG Group's duties was to weed out applications that might be coming from organizations which might be used to fund terrorism. In response to Z Street's lawsuit, an IRS manager acknowledged that applications mentioning Israel were getting special attention. "Israel is one of many Middle Eastern countries that have a 'higher risk of terrorism,'" wrote Jon Waddell, manager of the IRS's Exempt Organizations Determinations Group. "A referral to TAG is appropriate whenever an application mentions providing resources to organizations in a country with a higher risk of terrorism."

A spokesman for the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration declined to say Monday whether that office had reviewed the issue of scrutiny of Israel-related groups as part of the review of how the IRS handled political groups, or separately. "I don't have any information for you one way or the other on that," said the spokesman, David Barnes. [Emphasis added]

When Z Street went to court though, the government denied its views on Israel or the Obama administration had anything to do with why it was transferred to the TAG Group.

-

Related:

• Did the IRS Also Target a Pro-Israel Group?
• Local News Reporter: IRS Started 'Hammering' Me After Tough Obama Interview
• 'Submit!': Beck's Passionate Break Down of the IRS 'Inquisition' of Conservative Groups -- and What's Coming Next in the Case

View the original article here

Bauer: FBI Video Links Southern Poverty Law Center to FRC Shooter's Act of Domestic Terrorism

WASHINGTON, April 25, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Former presidential candidate Gary Bauer, citing the release this week of an FBI interrogation video, demanded that the Southern Poverty Law Center stop falsely labeling pro-family Christian ministries as "hate groups." 

Floyd Lee Corkins II plead guilty to shooting a security guard at the Family Research Council and to charges of domestic terrorism.  On a video released this week, Corkins admits to FBI agents that he targeted FRC after seeing it listed as an anti-gay hate group on the Southern Poverty Law Center's website.  

Bauer, president of American Values, served as president of Family Research Council for more than 10 years.  He called the Southern Poverty Law Center's decision to target faith-based ministries that support Biblical values "an offensive and dangerous act, now conclusively linked to domestic terrorism."

"It is ironic that a group that claims the civil rights mantle is so aggressively targeting pro-family, Christian organizations.  Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was a minister," Bauer observed.  "Dr. King argued for equality in society based on the biblical understanding of the value of all life."

Bauer continued, "A domestic terrorist shot a security guard during his attempt to kill men and women at the Family Research Council because of the Southern Poverty Law Center's offensive and defamatory mischaracterization of its work.  That is evidence of the dangerous level of hate created by the left's growing intolerance for traditional values.  The SPLC's credibility should also be on trial as its virtual 'hit list' has led to precisely the kind of intolerance and violence it is supposed to be against."

The FBI video can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgjI3wavx-I&feature=player_embedded

SOURCE American Values

View the original article here

US Drone Strikes in Pakistan Are Illegal, Says UN Terrorism Official

Following a three-day fact-finding visit to Pakistan, the United Nations terrorism and human rights envoy issued a statement calling the U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan a violation of international law.

"The position of the government of Pakistan is quite clear: It does not consent to the use of drones by the United States on its territory and it considers this to be a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty and territorial integrity," said Ben Emmerson, U.N. special rapporteur on counterterrorism and human rights.

"As a matter of international law, the U.S. drone campaign in Pakistan is … being conducted without the consent of the elected representatives of the people or the legitimate government of the state," said Emmerson, who is British and has been investigating the impact of U.S. drone attacks in Pakistan's tribal areas on the civilian population.

He is expected to issue a final report to the United Nations in October.

The CIA-administered program targets al Qaeda and Taliban leaders in Pakistan's tribal areas near the border of Afghanistan. The areas are largely self-governed with a porous border and known to have extremists easily crossing between the two countries.

U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland would not comment directly on the legal implications of the strikes, citing classified intelligence, but told ABC News on Friday that the U.S. has seen Emmerson's statement and will await a final report before commenting further.

"We have a strong ongoing counterterrorism dialogue with Pakistan, and that will continue," she said.

Pakistan has been very vocal in its opposition to the program. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has claimed there have been at least 330 drone strikes within Pakistan since 2004 that have killed at least 2,200 people and seriously injured 600 more. However, the government has not been able to report how many of those killed have been civilians, confirming at least 400 as non-combatants but estimating the number is likely much higher.

Pakistan's ambassador the United States, Sherry Rehman, told reporters last month that even within Pakistan's partisan and fractured politics there is one issue all Pakistani politicians agree on: Drone strikes cross a red line.

"We don't see drones as productive at all," she said, arguing that, in fact, the attacks have had the opposite effect of their intention - sparking anger that has fueled extremism in the tribal areas rather than rooting out terrorists.

While Rehman said that the United States and Pakistan will continue to cooperate on combating terrorism, she dismissed the idea that Pakistan is collaborating or turning a blind eye to the U.S. campaign.

"There is no policy of quiet complacency. No wink and nod," she said.

Former U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Cameron Munter told the The Daily Beast last year that his concerns were not over the drone program's validity, but its implementation.

"The use of drones is a good way to fight the war. But you're going to kill drones if you're not using them judiciously," Munter said.

"The problem is the political fallout," he told the Daily Beast, citing examples where Pakistani civilians would come to him with bodies of little girls who they said were killed by drone strikes. "Do you want to win a few battles and lose the war?"

Munter is not the only current or former U.S. official to question the legality of the strikes. During CIA director John Brennan's confirmation hearing last month, several senators on the Foreign Relations Committee questioned whether the Obama administration was overstepping its bounds by launching drone strikes, including against American citizens, without any congressional or judicial oversight.

Brennan admitted that the administration could be more transparent about the number of civilians killed during a strike, but defended the program.

"We only take such actions as a last resort, to save lives when there is no other alternative," he told the committee.

Also Read

View the original article here