Delivery of American Fighters to Egypt – Delayed!

It pays to speak up.  Last December, we at the ACLJ came across a little-read report indicating that the Obama Administration was intending to send advanced American fighter jets (F-16s) to Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood government.

“Business as usual,” we were told.

“Just fulfilling treaty obligations,” they said.

But it wasn’t “business as usual.”  An allied Egyptian government had been replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood, our jihadist enemy.  Yes, we were literally giving advanced American weapons to an enemy of the United States and Israel.

We launched a petition to stop the delivery, and the response was overwhelming.  More than 285,000 Americans signed, and the petition became national news.

Senator Rand Paul introduced legislation to block the delivery – legislation that garnered the support of 18 other senators.  Sadly, it was defeated, but the issue was now front and center in the national debate.

Thankfully, the people of Egypt overthrew the Muslim Brotherhood, but we still don’t know what kind of government will emerge from the chaos.  Will it be an ally?  Will it be an enemy?  Facing this uncertainty, our Chief Counsel, Jay Sekulow issued a clear call:  Hold any weapons deliveries.  American aid is only for American allies.

Today, the Obama Administration delayed the next scheduled delivery of F-16s to Egypt.  While we don’t yet know the length of the delay, it is clear that the delay is due to the very factors we’ve articulated from the beginning: American aid should not be given to lawless governments.

The lesson?  If you speak loudly enough, sometimes even the Obama Administration can hear.


SOURCE http://aclj.org/sharia-law/delivery-american-fighters-egypt-delayed

ACLJ Calls Testimony Linking IRS Targeting to IRS Chief Counsel "Extremely Disturbing"

The ACLJ, which represents 41 conservative groups unlawfully targeted by the Internal Revenue Service, said new testimony released by members of Congress today revealing that the IRS Chief Counsel, a political appointee of President Obama, was involved in reviewing applications from Tea Party groups in advance of the 2010 election is “extremely disturbing” and raises critical questions about the involvement of the White House.

In advance of hearings tomorrow, Rep. Darrell Issa – chairman of the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform – released a letter detailing testimony from Carter Hull, a now-retired Washington tax specialist who was responsible for providing guidance on reviewing tax-exempt applications for Tea Party groups. Hull told Congressional investigators that Lois Lerner, Director of Exempt Organizations who is now on paid leave, directed that the Tea Party applications be sent directly to the office of IRS Chief Counsel William Wilkins for specific review and examination prior to the 2010 election.

“This is one of the most extremely disturbing revelations yet,” said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ. “It is now clear that the IRS Chief Counsel, appointed by President Obama in 2009, was involved in examining and reviewing applications from Tea Party groups – many that were basically shut out of the 2010 election process because of delays in handling of their applications. This development raises significant questions about what the White House knew and when. In a politically charged run-up to the 2010 election, why was one of President Obama’s most trusted and partisan appointees involved in examining the applications for Tea Party groups? We look forward to tomorrow’s testimony and further information about the origins of this unlawful and unconstitutional scheme that violated the First Amendment rights of our clients.”

Today’s revelation comes as the ACLJ rejected an IRS offer to expedite the application process for some organizations seeking 501(c)(4) status by creating an arbitrary 60/40 standard for groups which would require organizations to agree to devote 60% or more of their time and expenditures on activities to promote social welfare, and 40% or less on political activity.

In rejecting the offer, the ACLJ contends that the 60/40 ratio created by the IRS is not a legal standard defined by applicable statutes or regulations. The ACLJ asserts the ratio is created out of thin air and argues that “these percentages are merely safe harbor provisions the IRS has crafted in response to the problems that have been created by its own admitted misconduct.”


SOURCE http://aclj.org/free-speech-2/aclj-calls-testimony-linking-irs-targeting-irs-chief-counsel-extremely-disturbing

Critics question IRS' new 'fast-track' path to tax-exempt status

WASHINGTON — One solution the IRS has offered to the recent scandal over its handling of tax-exempt applications: a “fast-track” process, through which certain groups can simply declare themselves social welfare organizations and promise not to spend too much money on political activity.

But some lawmakers, campaign finance watchdogs, and nonprofit experts say this new “self-certification” option is a makeshift solution that lets the IRS off the hook from making tough calls about pending applications.

Under current rules, certain tax-exempt groups — those organized as 501(c)(4) organizations — are supposed to operate primarily for social welfare purposes. They can engage in some political electioneering, as long as it is not their main focus.

But political groups have eagerly sought the 501(c)(4) designation because such groups do not have to disclose their donors. Figuring out which groups legitimately deserve tax-exempt status and which are political organizations posing as do-gooders isn’t easy.

The Cincinnati IRS field agents at the center of the targeting scandal clearly struggled to figure out what constituted political activity — and to measure how much was too much. Under these new self-certification rules, some skeptics have questioned how a tea party activist in Ohio would be able to make those determinations if the federal tax agency’s own employees had such a hard time.

Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, said the new expedited process “may help alleviate the backlog of applications,” but it’s hardly a great solution.

“Even this simplified process involves difficult determinations and by its very nature lacks perfect clarity,” he said. “Organizations may have trouble identifying which of their undertakings should be classified as promoting social welfare and which constitute political activities.”

Moreover, some critics say, the new process looks like an open invitation for bad actors to snag IRS approval for tax-exempt status with no real examination by the agency, a move that could set a new precedent for how the agency handles all such applications.

“My frank opinion is it’s just a giveaway,” said Paul Streckfus, a former IRS employee and now editor of the Exempt Organizations Tax Journal. The IRS “is basically saying ‘Just tell us you’re going to be good and we’ll give you exemption.’”

Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a campaign finance watchdog group, said the new process “potentially will help groups who are improperly claiming (tax-exempt) tax status” and appears to codify ambiguous rules that would allow groups to engage in more political activity than the law envisioned.

The new acting IRS chief, principal deputy commissioner Danny Werfel, unveiled the new process last month as one element of the agency’s effort to address the targeting scandal, in which agents in the IRS’s Cincinnati field office used inappropriate criteria to flag some tax-exempt applications for extra scrutiny.

An inspector general’s report, issued in May, concluded the IRS put terms like “tea party” and “patriot” on a watch list and subjected groups with those words in their names to a lengthy, burdensome review process. Since then, new evidence shows the IRS also flagged progressive and other groups for heightened review.

Werfel said under the new IRS process, any group that has been waiting for tax-exempt status for more than 120 days will be able to self-certify. Those who are eligible will have to swear, under penalty of perjury, that at least 60 percent of their organization’s resources will be devoted to a “social welfare” purpose and they will not spend more than 40 percent of their time or money on political campaign activities.

“This is a self-certification process which allows them a streamlined path to tax-exempt status if they agree they will operate within defined limits,” Werfel told lawmakers on the House Ways and Means Committee during a June 27 hearing.

He noted that under current law, groups already can skip the application process altogether and just start operating as a tax-exempt organization. Then when it comes tax time, they have to file a 990 —the IRS form used by tax-exempt groups — detailing their spending.

With this new process, Werfel said the IRS will secure a promise in advance from the groups that their political activities will be limited. And the IRS always can audit groups after they secure the tax-exempt status to make sure they are in compliance.

But experts say it’s unlikely the IRS will do any after-the-fact investigation.

“I seriously doubt if there will be any checking up,” Streckfus said. “The last thing the IRS wants to do is revisit any of these cases.”

During the recent House hearing, Rep. Aaron Schock, R-Ill., highlighted another potential problem. He asked Werfel how these new rules might apply to Organizing for Action, an advocacy group devoted to pushing President Barack Obama’s agenda.

Schock noted that OFA had recently sent out “millions of emails” to Obama supporters urging them to use Twitter, Facebook and other social media to “call out” 85 Republican lawmakers that OFA labeled “climate change deniers.” The move came after Obama delivered a major address on limiting greenhouse gas emissions.

“I’m wondering whether or not that activity, those hours, and that money would be classified under the political campaign activities or under the promoting social welfare category,” Schock asked.

Werfel did not directly answer, saying experts would have to determine whether the activities were intended to influence the outcome of an election.

“If you can’t make a determination, how can we then ask a non-attorney, non-IRS commissioner, non-IRS employee to make that same determination under penalty of perjury to classify their activity as either advocating for, promoting social welfare or political campaign activity?” Shock asked.

It’s unclear if Organizing for Action — or other politically active tax-exempt groups — are eligible for the self-certification option. The IRS said Monday about 80 groups are eligible for the expedited approval but the agency can’t disclose the names of those organizations.

A spokesman for Organizing for Action did not respond to an email requesting comment. On its website, OFA says it’s operating as a 501(c)(4), but it’s not clear whether the IRS has signed off on the group’s application or if its pending.

Similarly, a Republican-leaning group, Crossroads GPS, which spent $71 million trying to influence the outcome of the 2012 congressional and presidential elections, did not respond to messages seeking comment on the self-certification process. A Crossroads spokesman said earlier this year that it had applied for tax-exempt status in September 2010, but had not received IRS approval yet.

Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative group that represents some of the tea party groups targeted by the IRS, said he is still reviewing the self-certification option and determining the “appropriate response.”

But it “does not change the fact that the IRS should do its job and grant the appropriate tax exemptions using viewpoint neutral processes,” Sekulow said. “Its self-certification plan does not cure (the IRS’) constitutional failings.”

Streckfus said the IRS might have to go to self-certification for all tax-exempt groups, because of an increase in such applications.

The number of groups seeking 501(c)(4) status nearly doubled from 2009 to 2012. Overall, about 140 agents, most based in the Cincinnati office, are charged with examining about 70,000 applications per year.

“It’s basically an impossible task to review (all of) them,” Streckfus said. “Some of us have said the IRS will have to go to self-certify for everybody.”

That could be a good option, if the agency shifts its emphasis to auditing groups after the fact, he said. But it’s not clear the IRS is able or willing to do really thorough follow up.

So groups might self-certify and then “go on their merry way” trying to influence federal elections, Streckfus said.


SOURCE http://www.coshoctontribune.com/article/20130710/NEWS01/307100001/Critics-question-IRS-new-fast-track-path-tax-exempt-status

Jay Sekulow on Fox News with Neil Cavuto: IRS Claims it Targeted Liberal Groups

Jay Sekulow talks with Fox News about new IRS claims that liberal groups were targeted for review with Tea Party and conservative groups.


SOURCE http://aclj.org/jay-sekulow-fox-news-neil-cavuto-irs-claims-targeted-liberal-groups

Watch Out Rio: Pat Robertson Launches Homophobic, Reactionary Evangelical Organization in Brazil

BILL BERKOWITZ FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

The mainstream press has been dutifully reporting on Brazil’s recent massive anti-government demonstrations and protests that shocked the presidency of Dilma Rousseff; on the billions of dollars that have been spent on preparations to host both the 2014 World Cup and the Rio 2016 Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro; and Brazil’s recent resounding defeat of Spain in the FIFA Confederations Cub final. Little attention, however,  has been paid to the rising presence of the U.S. Christian Right in Brazil.

Enter the Brazilian Center for Law and Justice, an offshoot of Pat Robertson’s legal outfit, the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ). According to The Public Eye’s Jandira Queiroz, the ACLJ, “following the example of the Christian Right organization’s [two] offices in Eastern Europe” and one in Kenya and one in Zimbabwe, has touched down in Brazil.

In the U.S., Robertson’s ACLJ has played a major role in hot-button culture war issues in the U.S. for more than two decades. It promoted the Defense of Marriage Act passed by Congress in 1996 (recently overturned by the Supreme Court), it continues to challenge city and state sponsored domestic partnerships, it provides legal defense for anti-abortion activists protesting outside reproductive health clinics, it is a strong advocate for school vouchers, and was a major supporter of President George W. Bush’s Faith-Based Initiative.

The ACLJ is currently in the forefront of the fight against Obamacare, and it has also filed lawsuits against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), charging the agency with unfairly targeting conservative organizations.  Now representing 41 conservative groups, ACLJ chief counsel Jay Sekulow said: “The floodgates opened after we filed our initial lawsuits. We have been contacted by many additional organizations that have been unlawfully targeted by the IRS — revealing that this unconstitutional scheme was pervasive and damaging to our clients.”

The acronym ACLJ wasn’t created as a takeoff on the ACLU by the writers on Saturday Night Live or Real Time with Bill Maher. When the organization was founded by Robertson in 1990 it explicitly aimed to counter the work of the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union), and its naming reflects that intent.

Developing an evangelical foothold in Latin America

Organized in the Brazilian state of Goiás, the Brazilian Center for Law and Justice (BCLJ) will offer legal services for “people who don’t have the means to pay for lawyers when they’re wronged,” and to defend “religious freedom, human rights and life.” Filipe Coelho, “the son of a prominent evangelical minister and the brother of two others,” founded the BCLJ last year, Queiroz pointed out. According to The Public Eye’s Jandira Queiroz Coelho’s salary and operating expenses “are sent in monthly installments from the ACLJ [which has an annual budget of nearly $17 million] in the United States — at least until BCLJ begins fundraising in Brazil.”

In an interview with Queiroz, Coelho “said he personally was not engaged in politics until ACLJ asked him to be its Director of Operations in Brazil.” Living the U.S. for “almost half of his life,” … he graduated in Business and Economics from King College, which is affiliated with both the Presbyterian Church (USA) and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. “In politics, I just like to see what’s related to my area,” he told Queiroz. “I just came back [to Brazil] five years ago but I just started to work on politics three months ago, with BCLJ. I’m still green.”

Writing in the Winter 2012-13 issue of The Public Eye, Queiroz, a PRA research fellow and a longtime reproductive and LGBTQ rights advocate in Brazil, maintained that “The ACLJ’s move into Brazil is sharply strategic.” Brazil is second only to the U.S. in number of Christians within its borders, “and the number of evangelicals … is growing fast. While 90 percent of the country identified as Roman Catholic in 1980, 21 percent of the population now identifies as Protestant.”

The evangelical community in Brazil, like other Latin American countries, often leans left on economic issues, and things are changing on some social issues as well; Brazil is home to the largest gay pride parade in the world. However, it is unclear if this progressive economic and social tendency will hold in the face of growing US evangelical funding and influence.

Queiroz reported that “A Pew study found that 51 percent of evangelical leaders in Latin and Central America believed that homosexuals should be accepted by society, compared to 23 percent of evangelical leaders in Europe and nine percent in North America. But the social conservatives seem to have the strongest will to political power.”

The Evangelical caucus at the Brazilian National Congress was inaugurated with 26 members during the Constituent Assembly of 1987. There are about 70 deputies (out of 513) in the lower house and three senators (out of 81) currently in its ranks. Most are pastors, bishops, or self-nominated “apostles” from a range of denominations. This caucus, though a minority group, is influential because of its alliance with landowners, entrepreneurs, and other conservative groups represented in the Brazilian Parliament. Together, they make up the majority of the Congress and have been blocking some of the progressive aims of the federal government, especially over the last decade.

Evangelicals have established a stronghold on radio and television and they, according to Queiroz, “are broadcasting more talk shows, preaching programs, and live transmission of services, with pastors, bishops, and apostles promoting political campaigns on the airwaves.”

“In Brazil, many pastors and televangelists are, like Pat Robertson, owners of communications empires that include publishers, producers, record labels, and radio and television channels, as well as elaborate portals on the Internet." Anti-homophobia legislation is seen as “a threat to their ‘freedom’ to keep preaching on national television that homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God, and that the homosexual movement is implementing a plan to transform the whole country into Sodom and Gomorrah.”

U.S.-based evangelicals promoting their books and DVDs are welcomed onto the airwaves and television sets of conservative Brazilian evangelicals.

“In its short existence, it is clear that the BCLJ is using some of ACLJ’s same tactics to try to win influence: wooing government officials and facilitating access to them, building alliances with key evangelical powerbrokers, and hiring local staff to serve as its face,” Queiroz reported. “But the evangelicals here are much better resourced than in some of the other countries in which ACLJ operates. It remains to be seen whether it will find a place for itself in a country with a more moderate evangelical movement than it is used to, and where evangelicals are already highly engaged in the political scene.”

Back in the states, even though the ACLJ is thriving and engaged in business as usual, its business practices have come under scrutiny by several groups tracking charitable organizations.

According to BBB Wise Giving, an organization that, according to its website, “helps donors make informed giving decisions and promotes high standards of conduct among organizations that solicit contributions from the public,” the ACLJ “does not meet” its “10 Standards for Charity Accountability.” Charity Navigator “Your Guide to Intelligent Giving,” gives the organization’s “Overall” performance one star (out of four); it gets three stars for its “Financial” management, and receives no stars for “Accountability & Transparency.”

The Public Eye is a quarterly publication of the Somerville, Massachusetts-based Political Research Associates, an organization that has been in the forefront of investigating, monitoring and reporting on right-wing movementsfor over 30 years.  


SOURCE http://truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/18067-watch-out-rio-pat-robertson-launches-homophobic-reactionary-evangelical-organization-in-brazil

Alabama Tea Party group joins IRS lawsuit

MOBILE, Ala. - The Common Sense Campaign, a Mobile-based Tea Party group, has joined a federal lawsuit against the IRS, according to organizers.

The campaign was one of 16 Tea Party groups added June 25 to a lawsuit filed by the American Center for Law and Justice, which claims the IRS violated constitutional law by targeting conservative organizations for their political beliefs.

The ACLJ filed its initial lawsuit May 25 on behalf of 25 groups including the Wetumpka Tea Party. Both the Common Sense Campaign and the Wetumpka Tea Party told AL.com that they were singled out by the IRS over their applications for tax-exempt status.

Pete Riehm, co-founder of the Common Sense Campaign, said the aim of the lawsuit is to prevent the IRS from future abuses.

"Our objectives are to identify the abuses at the IRS, understand the scope of abuses, root out all the contributing factors, hold those responsible accountable, and ensure the IRS never again has the capability to undermine the Constitution and oppress the rights of American citizens," Riehm said.

Riehm referred specific questions about the lawsuit to ACLJ, a Washington-based law firm that represents 41 tea party organizations in 22 states.

ACLJ chief counsel, Jay Sekulow, said the amended complaint was necessary because "the floodgates opened" after the firm filed its initial lawsuit.

“We have been contacted by many additional organizations that have been unlawfully targeted by the IRS — revealing that this unconstitutional scheme was pervasive and damaging," Sekulow said.

Of the 41 groups included in the lawsuit, 19 received tax-exempt status after lengthy delays, 17 are still pending, and 5 withdrew applications because of frustration with the IRS process.

White House officials have said that while the additional scrutiny was inappropriate it was not partisan and therefore no laws were broken.

Sekulow said he was confident the American public will eventually learn the truth of who exactly ordered that conservative groups be targeted — and to what extent the Obama administration knew of the targeting.

“How could the White House counsel and White House chief of staff know about this tactic, but the president did not? We remain dedicated to ensuring that those responsible for this unconscionable scheme are held accountable,” Mr. Sekulow said.

The ACLJ’s amended complaint states: IRS agents “working in offices from California to Washington, D.C., pulled applications from conservative organizations, delaying processing those applications for sometimes well over a year, then made probing and unconstitutional requests for additional information that often required applicants to disclose, among other things, donor lists, direct and indirect communications with members of legislative bodies, Internet passwords and user names, copies of social media and other Internet postings, and even the political and charitable activities of family members.”

Click here to read a copy of the amended lawsuit.


SOURCE http://blog.al.com/wire/2013/07/second_alabama_tea_party_group.html

Jay Sekulow: Funding, arming Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood is dangerous

The United States should stop sending taxpayer dollars to nations that embrace Islamic terrorism – nations that behave like adversaries, not allies.

Case in point: Egypt and the radical Muslim Brotherhood. The Obama administration recently agreed to spend an additional $250 million in taxpayer funds to send weapons to this increasingly unstable nation.

That's in addition to the more than $1 billion annual taxpayer giveaway to Egypt. The U.S. is putting highly sophisticated tanks and warplanes in the hands of terrorists – ...
Click Here to login and see more!



SOURCE http://www.ocregister.com/articles/egypt-514898-brotherhood-muslim.html