Posts
since Wed, 26 Dec 2007 20:04:17.
In today's America Jewish Zionists feel threatened by Muslim giving, which is proportionally larger than that of Jews.
In addition, Muslims are far less reluctant to give to non-Muslims than Jews are to contribute to non-Jewish charities because Muslims see potential Muslims where far too many Jews see inherently blood-thirsty goyim.
As Ramadan approaches, Bill Fisher covers the important topic of the Jewish Neocon and Zionist attack on Muslim and Arab charities in GIVE – AND GO TO JAIL?
Update
Because the original GIVE - AND GO TO JAIL? blog entry has disappeared from Bill Fisher's web site and because it is necessary to understanding the exchange below, I include it here.
GIVE - AND GO TO JAIL
By William Fisher
As Muslims begin one of their most important holidays – the month of Ramadan -- charitable organizations serving the American Muslim community are taking what some observers believe is a desperate last step to keep the U.S. government from shutting them down.
Muslim Advocates (MA), a San Francisco-based national educational and advocacy organization established by a 500-plus network of Muslim American lawyers, is teaming with the Better Business Bureau (BBB) Wise Giving Alliance to launch a new initiative to improve the fiscal management and administration of American Muslim charitable organizations.
Aziz Ahmad, an MA staff attorney, told us that sponsors of the program hope it will begin to restore donors' confidence in charitable organizations that support Muslim causes. He added: "We hope the government will be less inclined to prosecute American Muslim nonprofits and mosques for supporting terrorist causes if they demonstrate that they meet the highest standards of legal compliance, financial accountability and good governance."
In the months following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the U.S. government launched its "global war on terror" by rounding up thousands of "Middle Eastern-looking" men and women, jailing without charges or access to lawyers, but accusing none of them of terror-related crimes, convicting no one, and ending up deporting some for non-criminal immigration violations.
At about the same time, the government opened up a second front against charitable organizations it suspected of providing financial or other material assistance to groups the government designates as "terrorist." While the campaign applies to all domestic nonprofit organizations, the lion's share of scrutiny, suspicion, and preemptive action has fallen on groups that support Muslim causes.
Since 9/11, there has been an exponential increase in government surveillance of the financial practices of charities serving Muslim communities both in the U.S. and abroad. Numerous charities have been shut down, their records seized and their assets frozen – all with virtually no due process. One such organization – the Holy Land Foundation -- has been brought to trial. That trial ended in the exoneration of one of the defendants and a hung jury on the fate of the other defendants. The government is about to re-try the case.
Meanwhile, none of the assets frozen by the Treasury Department – which administers the scrutiny of charitable organizations – has been returned, despite numerous requests. These assets include funds the charities require to pay for their legal defense.
The government's pursuit of not-for-profit groups that support Muslim causes has caused a dramatic decrease in contributions and has left donors and volunteers confused about which organizations and institutions they can trust. Fulfilling their "zakat" – giving to charitable causes -- is a fundamental tenet of Islam and a high priority for donors and volunteers.
For American Muslims, these charities play a vital role in society – from feeding the hungry, to building bridges of interfaith understanding, to helping victims in disaster stricken regions of the world.
The new initiative combines MA's legal expertise and the BBB's reputation as an independent charity evaluator with over 1,200 charities reviewed to date. It will provide charitable organizations with free services including assistance a network of attorneys and accountants to assess their current practices and identify information needed for meaningful review by the BBB's Wise Giving Alliance.
The Alliance will also conduct evaluations to determine that an organization has met its 20 Standards of Charity Accountability. These are considered by many to be the toughest, most comprehensive governance and fiscal management standards in the nonprofit sector.
At the same time, MA will produce informational materials and host a series of free educational seminars for nonprofit leaders in eight cities across the U.S., beginning in the San Francisco Bay area in October 2008. These seminars will advise Muslim charities on a wide range of issues, including how to improve their governance, increase transparency, and ensure legal compliance with anti-terror financing laws and regulations. Thus far, seven charities have signed on to the program, Ahmad told IPS.
But the BBB's Wise Giving standards are applicable to charitable organizations generally and do not specifically address the unique challenges that have been faced by Muslim not-for-profits since the start of the "war on terror." So what remains unclear is how improvement of these organizations' professional practices will influence the government's administration of the "material support" statute and regulations.
A number of authorities in the not-for-profit sector doubt that the government will be deterred by the new MA/BBB initiative. Kay Guinane, director of Nonprofit Speech Rights at OMB Watch, a widely respected government watchdog organization, told us she believes the MA/BBB initiative is "useful first step toward keeping Muslim charities from being shut down." However, she added, "fundamental change requires a change in the government's basic approach to interpreting the law" which she says is "ultimately counterproductive."
She added, "In order to preserve the rights of all nonprofit organizations, and indeed, the rights of all people, all levels of government must conduct their counterterrorism activities in a way that consistently protects liberty and civil society. Otherwise, Americans and others lose safeguards that were designed to protect us all from creeping tyranny."
OMB stands for the government's Office of Management and Budget, the White House office responsible for devising and submitting the president's annual budget proposal to Congress.
In a recent report, Guinane's organization charged that in the name of "global war on terror," the U.S. government is waging war on non-governmental organizations by applying "shortsighted, undemocratic policies" that are "constraining the critical activities of the charitable and philanthropic sectors, stifling free speech, and ultimately impeding the fight against terrorism."
The report found that "U.S. counterterrorism laws have made it increasingly difficult for U.S.-based organizations to operate overseas. For example, after the 2004 tsunami, U.S. organizations operating in areas controlled by the Tamil Tigers, a designated terrorist organization, risked violating prohibitions against 'material support' when creating displaced persons' camps and hospitals, traveling, or distributing food and water."
It concluded that the government views nonprofits as "conduits for terrorist funding and a breeding ground for aggressive dissent." It accused the courts of being "overly deferential" to the U.S. Treasury Department, which is responsible for conducting programs designed to stem the flow of money to terrorist organizations. And it contended that federal agencies "ignore nonprofits' calls for change," and that "Congress has not utilized its oversight powers to review counterterrorism programs."
The result, the report said, is that the U.S. nonprofit community today "operates in fear of what may spark (the government) to use its power to shut them down."
The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) was the target of much of the report's criticism of the government's approach. After 9/11, Congress gave the government sweeping new powers to crack down on not-for-profit organizations that were allegedly using their charitable status as cover for funneling funds to terrorist groups.
These powers include the authority to designate any charity as a material supporter of terrorism. This action demands virtually no due process from the government, denies the target to see the evidence against it, and can result in freezing of a charity's assets, effectively shutting it down.
Guinane told us that the OFAC terrorist "watchlist" was originally designed to identify drug kingpins and other more conventional criminals and is of little value due to "questionable accuracy" caused by numerous duplications. Moreover, she said, most not-for-profit groups, especially smaller ones, lack the resources to monitor it.
She added, "I don't think there should be special rules governing not-for-profits that support Muslim causes. This has evolved into a bizarre regulatory regime that is unduly discriminatory."
In 2005, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) launched its Spy Files Project and uncovered an intricate system of domestic spying on U.S. nonprofits largely condoned by expanded counterterrorism powers within the USA PATRIOT Act.
As Muslims begin one of their most important holidays – the month of Ramadan -- charitable organizations serving the American Muslim community are taking what some observers believe is a desperate last step to keep the U.S. government from shutting them down.
Muslim Advocates (MA), a San Francisco-based national educational and advocacy organization established by a 500-plus network of Muslim American lawyers, is teaming with the Better Business Bureau (BBB) Wise Giving Alliance to launch a new initiative to improve the fiscal management and administration of American Muslim charitable organizations.
Aziz Ahmad, an MA staff attorney, told us that sponsors of the program hope it will begin to restore donors' confidence in charitable organizations that support Muslim causes. He added: "We hope the government will be less inclined to prosecute American Muslim nonprofits and mosques for supporting terrorist causes if they demonstrate that they meet the highest standards of legal compliance, financial accountability and good governance."
In the months following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the U.S. government launched its "global war on terror" by rounding up thousands of "Middle Eastern-looking" men and women, jailing without charges or access to lawyers, but accusing none of them of terror-related crimes, convicting no one, and ending up deporting some for non-criminal immigration violations.
At about the same time, the government opened up a second front against charitable organizations it suspected of providing financial or other material assistance to groups the government designates as "terrorist." While the campaign applies to all domestic nonprofit organizations, the lion's share of scrutiny, suspicion, and preemptive action has fallen on groups that support Muslim causes.
Since 9/11, there has been an exponential increase in government surveillance of the financial practices of charities serving Muslim communities both in the U.S. and abroad. Numerous charities have been shut down, their records seized and their assets frozen – all with virtually no due process. One such organization – the Holy Land Foundation -- has been brought to trial. That trial ended in the exoneration of one of the defendants and a hung jury on the fate of the other defendants. The government is about to re-try the case.
Meanwhile, none of the assets frozen by the Treasury Department – which administers the scrutiny of charitable organizations – has been returned, despite numerous requests. These assets include funds the charities require to pay for their legal defense.
The government's pursuit of not-for-profit groups that support Muslim causes has caused a dramatic decrease in contributions and has left donors and volunteers confused about which organizations and institutions they can trust. Fulfilling their "zakat" – giving to charitable causes -- is a fundamental tenet of Islam and a high priority for donors and volunteers.
For American Muslims, these charities play a vital role in society – from feeding the hungry, to building bridges of interfaith understanding, to helping victims in disaster stricken regions of the world.
The new initiative combines MA's legal expertise and the BBB's reputation as an independent charity evaluator with over 1,200 charities reviewed to date. It will provide charitable organizations with free services including assistance a network of attorneys and accountants to assess their current practices and identify information needed for meaningful review by the BBB's Wise Giving Alliance.
The Alliance will also conduct evaluations to determine that an organization has met its 20 Standards of Charity Accountability. These are considered by many to be the toughest, most comprehensive governance and fiscal management standards in the nonprofit sector.
At the same time, MA will produce informational materials and host a series of free educational seminars for nonprofit leaders in eight cities across the U.S., beginning in the San Francisco Bay area in October 2008. These seminars will advise Muslim charities on a wide range of issues, including how to improve their governance, increase transparency, and ensure legal compliance with anti-terror financing laws and regulations. Thus far, seven charities have signed on to the program, Ahmad told IPS.
But the BBB's Wise Giving standards are applicable to charitable organizations generally and do not specifically address the unique challenges that have been faced by Muslim not-for-profits since the start of the "war on terror." So what remains unclear is how improvement of these organizations' professional practices will influence the government's administration of the "material support" statute and regulations.
A number of authorities in the not-for-profit sector doubt that the government will be deterred by the new MA/BBB initiative. Kay Guinane, director of Nonprofit Speech Rights at OMB Watch, a widely respected government watchdog organization, told us she believes the MA/BBB initiative is "useful first step toward keeping Muslim charities from being shut down." However, she added, "fundamental change requires a change in the government's basic approach to interpreting the law" which she says is "ultimately counterproductive."
She added, "In order to preserve the rights of all nonprofit organizations, and indeed, the rights of all people, all levels of government must conduct their counterterrorism activities in a way that consistently protects liberty and civil society. Otherwise, Americans and others lose safeguards that were designed to protect us all from creeping tyranny."
OMB stands for the government's Office of Management and Budget, the White House office responsible for devising and submitting the president's annual budget proposal to Congress.
In a recent report, Guinane's organization charged that in the name of "global war on terror," the U.S. government is waging war on non-governmental organizations by applying "shortsighted, undemocratic policies" that are "constraining the critical activities of the charitable and philanthropic sectors, stifling free speech, and ultimately impeding the fight against terrorism."
The report found that "U.S. counterterrorism laws have made it increasingly difficult for U.S.-based organizations to operate overseas. For example, after the 2004 tsunami, U.S. organizations operating in areas controlled by the Tamil Tigers, a designated terrorist organization, risked violating prohibitions against 'material support' when creating displaced persons' camps and hospitals, traveling, or distributing food and water."
It concluded that the government views nonprofits as "conduits for terrorist funding and a breeding ground for aggressive dissent." It accused the courts of being "overly deferential" to the U.S. Treasury Department, which is responsible for conducting programs designed to stem the flow of money to terrorist organizations. And it contended that federal agencies "ignore nonprofits' calls for change," and that "Congress has not utilized its oversight powers to review counterterrorism programs."
The result, the report said, is that the U.S. nonprofit community today "operates in fear of what may spark (the government) to use its power to shut them down."
The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) was the target of much of the report's criticism of the government's approach. After 9/11, Congress gave the government sweeping new powers to crack down on not-for-profit organizations that were allegedly using their charitable status as cover for funneling funds to terrorist groups.
These powers include the authority to designate any charity as a material supporter of terrorism. This action demands virtually no due process from the government, denies the target to see the evidence against it, and can result in freezing of a charity's assets, effectively shutting it down.
Guinane told us that the OFAC terrorist "watchlist" was originally designed to identify drug kingpins and other more conventional criminals and is of little value due to "questionable accuracy" caused by numerous duplications. Moreover, she said, most not-for-profit groups, especially smaller ones, lack the resources to monitor it.
She added, "I don't think there should be special rules governing not-for-profits that support Muslim causes. This has evolved into a bizarre regulatory regime that is unduly discriminatory."
In 2005, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) launched its Spy Files Project and uncovered an intricate system of domestic spying on U.S. nonprofits largely condoned by expanded counterterrorism powers within the USA PATRIOT Act.
1 comments:
Bill Fisher accidentally replied to this posting in the comment section of another blog entry.
Here is his comment.
You have grossly distorted the meaning of my article. I never said nor implied -- nor do I believe -- that "Zionists" are responsible for the prosecutions of charities that support Muslim causes. The culprit is the U.S.Treasury Department and the U.S. Department of Justice.
Far too many people -- apparently including Bill Fisher -- are in denial about the real state of US politics.
In this particular case Fisher refuses to face the obvious.
To which branch of the government do the Treasury and the DOJ belong?
High-ranking Jewish Neocon policy-makers have dominated the Executive Branch for the last eight years.
The Jewish Neocons are the American branch of the transnational Jabotinskian Zionist intelligentsia and political elite.
They constitute a Jewish special interest.
In effect over the last 60 years the USA has become the intimidated and dependent client of an entity that I call the Zionist Virtual Colonial Motherland or Judonia, whose effect on American Society and whose development since the nineteenth century, I document in detail in The Israel Lobby and American Society.
Far too many people are afraid to state the obvious, but we have to start to discuss the real political situation of the USA vis-à-vis Zionism or we Americans will lose our Constitutional system to the domination of approximately 500 hyper-wealthy Zionist Jewish political economic oligarchs.
Please note that analysts talk about Russian Jewish Oligarchs all the time in the context of the former Soviet Union.
Here in the USA where the power of Zionist Jewish oligarchs is often greater and more pervasive, the term Zionist Jewish oligarchs is barely used. This situation is indicative of their power.
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated.