Anti-War Up - GI Special...From Our Website to Your Mail Box

http://www.notinourname.net/gi-special/index.html

In article , redvet
wrote:

> http://www.mainstreamusefulidiots.ne...ial/index.html

'MAINSTREAM' USEFUL IDIOTS
By BYRON YORK

The organization itself is not broad-based at all, but is, rather, one
of a small group of radical sects devoted to causes far removed from
the antiwar effort. Not In Our Name is in fact two groups, which began
as one. The group relies on tax-exempt foundations that in the past
have been - and today still are - affiliated with a variety of radical
causes, including the defense of convicted murderer Mumia Abu-Jamal,
support for Fidel Castro's regime in Cuba and involvement with figures
linked to Middle Eastern terrorism. The organization was created in
March 2002 by a gathering of left-wing activists that included
representatives from the Revolutionary Communist Party, the All-African
Peoples Revolutionary Party, Refuse and Resist!, the International
League of Peoples' Struggle and the National Lawyers Guild,
among others.

There had been concern among organizers that some of those who might be
inclined to sign the statement )in opposition to a war on Iraq) might
not want to be associated with Not In Our Name's activist wing. So the
groupmcreated two separate entities, one called the Not In Our Name
Statement (which handles the manifesto and the collecting of celebrity
signatures) and the other called the Not In Our Name Project (which
handles street demonstrations and other protests).

Today, the staffs and finances of both groups are managed independently.
Still, both parts of Not In Our Name need to raise money. Rather than
creating foundations to collect cash, they formed alliances with
so-called "fiscal sponsors" - that is, already established foundations
that could use their tax-exempt status for fundraising.

THE Not In Our Name statement that appeared in the Times included a
small box asking that donations be sent to something called the Bill of
Rights Foundation. Last year, the foundation agreed to serve as Not In
Our Name Statement's fiscal sponsor, but a look at the group's Internal
Revenue Service records shows that until recently, it has had nothing
at all to do with the peace movement. Rather, almost every dollar
raised by the group for several years went to the legal defense of
Mumia Abu-Jamal, the convicted cop-killer whose case has become a cause
célèbre among some on the Left.

In 2001, for example, the foundation spent a total of $102,152, of which
$95,737 went toward Abu-Jamal's legal expenses. In the year 2000, the
foundation spent $75,956, of which $57,722 was for Abu-Jamal. And in
1999, the foundation spent $155,547, of which $139,126 went to
Abu-Jamal's lawyers.

At the end of 2001, Abu-Jamal changed his legal and finance team,
leaving the Bill of Rights Foundation without its main cause. In 2002,
it hooked up with Not In Our Name Statement. Foundation president
Judith Levin sees the Abu-Jamal case and opposition to a possible war
as closely linked. "They're related as a matter of principle," she
explains. "The connection is the violation of civil rights of people in
this country."

FOR its fund raising, the Not In Our Name Project is allied with another
foundation, this one called the Interreligious Foundation for Community
Organization. Founded by several New Left leaders in 1967 to "advance
the struggles of oppressed people for justice and self-determination,"
IFCO was originally created to serve as the fundraising arm of a
variety of activist organizations that lacked the resources to raise
money for themselves.

In recent years, IFCO served as fiscal sponsor for an organization
called the National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom (their
partnership ended when the coalition formed its own tax-exempt
foundation). Founded in 1997 as a reaction to the 1996 Anti-Terrorism
Act, the coalition says its function is to oppose the use of secret
evidence in terrorism prosecutions.

Until recently, the group's president was Sami Al-Arian, a University of
South Florida computer-science professor who has been suspended for
alleged ties to terrorism. (He is still a member of the coalition's
board.) According to a New York Times report last year, Al-Arian is
accused of having sent hundreds of thousands of dollars, raised by
another charity he runs, to Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The Times also
reported that FBI investigators "suspected Mr. Al-Arian operated 'a
fund-raising front' for the Islamic Jihad movement in Palestine from
the late 1980s to 1995." Al-Arian also brought a man named Ramadan
Abdullah Shallah to the University of South Florida to raise money for
one of Al-Arian's foundations - a job Shallah held until he later
became the head of Islamic Jihad.

TODAY, IFCO sponsors Refuse and Resist!, an antiwar group with ties to
the Revolutionary Communist Party, and also devotes substantial energy
to supporting the Castro regime in Cuba. Cuba is a particular favorite
of IFCO's executive director, the Rev. Lucius Walker, who, addressing a
"solidarity conference" in Havana in November 2000, proclaimed, "Long
live the struggle of the Cuban people! Long live the creative example
of the Cuban Revolution! Long live the wisdom and heartfelt concern for
the poor of the world by Fidel Castro!" Both IFCO and the Bill of
Rights Foundation are tax-exempt 501(c)(3) charities, which means that
all contributions made to them - whether for antiwar protests, Cuban
solidarity rallies, or the defense of Mumia Abu-Jamal - are fully
tax-deductible.

The groups have been quite successful. The most recent IRS records
available for IFCO, from the year 2000, show that the foundation took
in $1,119,564 in contributions. For their part, organizers of the Not
In Our Name Statement report that they have taken in more than $400,000
in recent months for the purpose of publishing their statement. It is
not possible to say who is giving the money, or whether it comes from
many people or just a few; federal laws do not require tax-exempt
foundations to reveal their donors - or even whether donations are
received from inside or outside the United States.

'WE who sign this statement call on all Americans to join together,"
says the Not In Our Name manifesto. To hear the group's leaders speak,
one might think that is actually happening, that there really is a
"broad-based movement" represented by these activists. But a look at
the people and organizations involved in Not In Our Name suggests
otherwise - no matter how many celebrity signatures they might collect.

Byron York is National Review's White House correspondent. From the
Feb. 24 issue

"John?] "
wrote in message
news:060920031851414276%jmerk06@earthlink.net...
> In article , redvet
> wrote:
>
> > http://www.mainstreamusefulidiots.ne...ial/index.html
>
> 'MAINSTREAM' USEFUL IDIOTS
> By BYRON YORK
>
> The organization itself is not broad-based at all, but is, rather, one
> of a small group of radical sects devoted to causes far removed from
> the antiwar effort. Not In Our Name is in fact two groups, which began
> as one. The group relies on tax-exempt foundations that in the past
> have been - and today still are - affiliated with a variety of radical
> causes, including the defense of convicted murderer Mumia Abu-Jamal,
> support for Fidel Castro's regime in Cuba and involvement with figures
> linked to Middle Eastern terrorism. The organization was created in
> March 2002 by a gathering of left-wing activists that included
> representatives from the Revolutionary Communist Party, the All-African
> Peoples Revolutionary Party, Refuse and Resist!, the International
> League of Peoples' Struggle and the National Lawyers Guild,
> among others.
>
> There had been concern among organizers that some of those who might be
> inclined to sign the statement )in opposition to a war on Iraq) might
> not want to be associated with Not In Our Name's activist wing. So the
> groupmcreated two separate entities, one called the Not In Our Name
> Statement (which handles the manifesto and the collecting of celebrity
> signatures) and the other called the Not In Our Name Project (which
> handles street demonstrations and other protests).
>
> Today, the staffs and finances of both groups are managed independently.
> Still, both parts of Not In Our Name need to raise money. Rather than
> creating foundations to collect cash, they formed alliances with
> so-called "fiscal sponsors" - that is, already established foundations
> that could use their tax-exempt status for fundraising.
>
> THE Not In Our Name statement that appeared in the Times included a
> small box asking that donations be sent to something called the Bill of
> Rights Foundation. Last year, the foundation agreed to serve as Not In
> Our Name Statement's fiscal sponsor, but a look at the group's Internal
> Revenue Service records shows that until recently, it has had nothing
> at all to do with the peace movement. Rather, almost every dollar
> raised by the group for several years went to the legal defense of
> Mumia Abu-Jamal, the convicted cop-killer whose case has become a cause
> célèbre among some on the Left.
>
> In 2001, for example, the foundation spent a total of $102,152, of which
> $95,737 went toward Abu-Jamal's legal expenses. In the year 2000, the
> foundation spent $75,956, of which $57,722 was for Abu-Jamal. And in
> 1999, the foundation spent $155,547, of which $139,126 went to
> Abu-Jamal's lawyers.
>
> At the end of 2001, Abu-Jamal changed his legal and finance team,
> leaving the Bill of Rights Foundation without its main cause. In 2002,
> it hooked up with Not In Our Name Statement. Foundation president
> Judith Levin sees the Abu-Jamal case and opposition to a possible war
> as closely linked. "They're related as a matter of principle," she
> explains. "The connection is the violation of civil rights of people in
> this country."
>
> FOR its fund raising, the Not In Our Name Project is allied with another
> foundation, this one called the Interreligious Foundation for Community
> Organization. Founded by several New Left leaders in 1967 to "advance
> the struggles of oppressed people for justice and self-determination,"
> IFCO was originally created to serve as the fundraising arm of a
> variety of activist organizations that lacked the resources to raise
> money for themselves.
>
> In recent years, IFCO served as fiscal sponsor for an organization
> called the National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom (their
> partnership ended when the coalition formed its own tax-exempt
> foundation). Founded in 1997 as a reaction to the 1996 Anti-Terrorism
> Act, the coalition says its function is to oppose the use of secret
> evidence in terrorism prosecutions.
>
> Until recently, the group's president was Sami Al-Arian, a University of
> South Florida computer-science professor who has been suspended for
> alleged ties to terrorism. (He is still a member of the coalition's
> board.) According to a New York Times report last year, Al-Arian is
> accused of having sent hundreds of thousands of dollars, raised by
> another charity he runs, to Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The Times also
> reported that FBI investigators "suspected Mr. Al-Arian operated 'a
> fund-raising front' for the Islamic Jihad movement in Palestine from
> the late 1980s to 1995." Al-Arian also brought a man named Ramadan
> Abdullah Shallah to the University of South Florida to raise money for
> one of Al-Arian's foundations - a job Shallah held until he later
> became the head of Islamic Jihad.
>
> TODAY, IFCO sponsors Refuse and Resist!, an antiwar group with ties to
> the Revolutionary Communist Party, and also devotes substantial energy
> to supporting the Castro regime in Cuba. Cuba is a particular favorite
> of IFCO's executive director, the Rev. Lucius Walker, who, addressing a
> "solidarity conference" in Havana in November 2000, proclaimed, "Long
> live the struggle of the Cuban people! Long live the creative example
> of the Cuban Revolution! Long live the wisdom and heartfelt concern for
> the poor of the world by Fidel Castro!" Both IFCO and the Bill of
> Rights Foundation are tax-exempt 501(c)(3) charities, which means that
> all contributions made to them - whether for antiwar protests, Cuban
> solidarity rallies, or the defense of Mumia Abu-Jamal - are fully
> tax-deductible.
>
> The groups have been quite successful. The most recent IRS records
> available for IFCO, from the year 2000, show that the foundation took
> in $1,119,564 in contributions. For their part, organizers of the Not
> In Our Name Statement report that they have taken in more than $400,000
> in recent months for the purpose of publishing their statement. It is
> not possible to say who is giving the money, or whether it comes from
> many people or just a few; federal laws do not require tax-exempt
> foundations to reveal their donors - or even whether donations are
> received from inside or outside the United States.
>
> 'WE who sign this statement call on all Americans to join together,"
> says the Not In Our Name manifesto. To hear the group's leaders speak,
> one might think that is actually happening, that there really is a
> "broad-based movement" represented by these activists. But a look at
> the people and organizations involved in Not In Our Name suggests
> otherwise - no matter how many celebrity signatures they might collect.
>
> Byron York is National Review's White House correspondent. From the
> Feb. 24 issue


Well...it certainly sounds like a large, organized group to me...-redvet

In article , redvet
wrote:

> "John?] "
> wrote in message
> news:060920031851414276%jmerk06@earthlink.net...
> > In article , redvet
> > wrote:
> >
> > > http://www.mainstreamusefulidiots.ne...ial/index.html
> >
> > 'MAINSTREAM' USEFUL IDIOTS
> > By BYRON YORK
> >
> > The organization itself is not broad-based at all, but is, rather, one
> > of a small group of radical sects devoted to causes far removed from
> > the antiwar effort. Not In Our Name is in fact two groups, which began
> > as one. The group relies on tax-exempt foundations that in the past
> > have been - and today still are - affiliated with a variety of radical
> > causes, including the defense of convicted murderer Mumia Abu-Jamal,
> > support for Fidel Castro's regime in Cuba and involvement with figures
> > linked to Middle Eastern terrorism. The organization was created in
> > March 2002 by a gathering of left-wing activists that included
> > representatives from the Revolutionary Communist Party, the All-African
> > Peoples Revolutionary Party, Refuse and Resist!, the International
> > League of Peoples' Struggle and the National Lawyers Guild,
> > among others.
> >
> > There had been concern among organizers that some of those who might be
> > inclined to sign the statement )in opposition to a war on Iraq) might
> > not want to be associated with Not In Our Name's activist wing. So the
> > groupmcreated two separate entities, one called the Not In Our Name
> > Statement (which handles the manifesto and the collecting of celebrity
> > signatures) and the other called the Not In Our Name Project (which
> > handles street demonstrations and other protests).
> >
> > Today, the staffs and finances of both groups are managed independently.
> > Still, both parts of Not In Our Name need to raise money. Rather than
> > creating foundations to collect cash, they formed alliances with
> > so-called "fiscal sponsors" - that is, already established foundations
> > that could use their tax-exempt status for fundraising.
> >
> > THE Not In Our Name statement that appeared in the Times included a
> > small box asking that donations be sent to something called the Bill of
> > Rights Foundation. Last year, the foundation agreed to serve as Not In
> > Our Name Statement's fiscal sponsor, but a look at the group's Internal
> > Revenue Service records shows that until recently, it has had nothing
> > at all to do with the peace movement. Rather, almost every dollar
> > raised by the group for several years went to the legal defense of
> > Mumia Abu-Jamal, the convicted cop-killer whose case has become a cause
> > célèbre among some on the Left.
> >
> > In 2001, for example, the foundation spent a total of $102,152, of which
> > $95,737 went toward Abu-Jamal's legal expenses. In the year 2000, the
> > foundation spent $75,956, of which $57,722 was for Abu-Jamal. And in
> > 1999, the foundation spent $155,547, of which $139,126 went to
> > Abu-Jamal's lawyers.
> >
> > At the end of 2001, Abu-Jamal changed his legal and finance team,
> > leaving the Bill of Rights Foundation without its main cause. In 2002,
> > it hooked up with Not In Our Name Statement. Foundation president
> > Judith Levin sees the Abu-Jamal case and opposition to a possible war
> > as closely linked. "They're related as a matter of principle," she
> > explains. "The connection is the violation of civil rights of people in
> > this country."
> >
> > FOR its fund raising, the Not In Our Name Project is allied with another
> > foundation, this one called the Interreligious Foundation for Community
> > Organization. Founded by several New Left leaders in 1967 to "advance
> > the struggles of oppressed people for justice and self-determination,"
> > IFCO was originally created to serve as the fundraising arm of a
> > variety of activist organizations that lacked the resources to raise
> > money for themselves.
> >
> > In recent years, IFCO served as fiscal sponsor for an organization
> > called the National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom (their
> > partnership ended when the coalition formed its own tax-exempt
> > foundation). Founded in 1997 as a reaction to the 1996 Anti-Terrorism
> > Act, the coalition says its function is to oppose the use of secret
> > evidence in terrorism prosecutions.
> >
> > Until recently, the group's president was Sami Al-Arian, a University of
> > South Florida computer-science professor who has been suspended for
> > alleged ties to terrorism. (He is still a member of the coalition's
> > board.) According to a New York Times report last year, Al-Arian is
> > accused of having sent hundreds of thousands of dollars, raised by
> > another charity he runs, to Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The Times also
> > reported that FBI investigators "suspected Mr. Al-Arian operated 'a
> > fund-raising front' for the Islamic Jihad movement in Palestine from
> > the late 1980s to 1995." Al-Arian also brought a man named Ramadan
> > Abdullah Shallah to the University of South Florida to raise money for
> > one of Al-Arian's foundations - a job Shallah held until he later
> > became the head of Islamic Jihad.
> >
> > TODAY, IFCO sponsors Refuse and Resist!, an antiwar group with ties to
> > the Revolutionary Communist Party, and also devotes substantial energy
> > to supporting the Castro regime in Cuba. Cuba is a particular favorite
> > of IFCO's executive director, the Rev. Lucius Walker, who, addressing a
> > "solidarity conference" in Havana in November 2000, proclaimed, "Long
> > live the struggle of the Cuban people! Long live the creative example
> > of the Cuban Revolution! Long live the wisdom and heartfelt concern for
> > the poor of the world by Fidel Castro!" Both IFCO and the Bill of
> > Rights Foundation are tax-exempt 501(c)(3) charities, which means that
> > all contributions made to them - whether for antiwar protests, Cuban
> > solidarity rallies, or the defense of Mumia Abu-Jamal - are fully
> > tax-deductible.
> >
> > The groups have been quite successful. The most recent IRS records
> > available for IFCO, from the year 2000, show that the foundation took
> > in $1,119,564 in contributions. For their part, organizers of the Not
> > In Our Name Statement report that they have taken in more than $400,000
> > in recent months for the purpose of publishing their statement. It is
> > not possible to say who is giving the money, or whether it comes from
> > many people or just a few; federal laws do not require tax-exempt
> > foundations to reveal their donors - or even whether donations are
> > received from inside or outside the United States.
> >
> > 'WE who sign this statement call on all Americans to join together,"
> > says the Not In Our Name manifesto. To hear the group's leaders speak,
> > one might think that is actually happening, that there really is a
> > "broad-based movement" represented by these activists. But a look at
> > the people and organizations involved in Not In Our Name suggests
> > otherwise - no matter how many celebrity signatures they might collect.
> >
> > Byron York is National Review's White House correspondent. From the
> > Feb. 24 issue
>
>
> Well...it certainly sounds like a large, organized group to me...-redvet

Why is everything you post irrelevant to the discussion?

A large, organized group of hyenas are still hyenas; Likewise, a large,
organized group of morons are still morons. People who support a
murderous communist dictator who butchers his own people at will are
morons. People who support a despicable low-life cop killing scum are
morons. It doesn't matter if there are ten or a hundred or a thousand
of them, they are still morons. The size of the group is irrelevant.