web analytics
September 18, 2014 / 23 Elul, 5774
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘Washington Free Beacon’

NYT Gets US Position on Israel Wrong, Reveals Additional Animus

Thursday, August 8th, 2013

The New York Times recognized that its correspondent in Jerusalem, Jodi Rudoren, had gone too far this time in blithely vilifying Jews who live and breathe beyond the so-called Green Line.

Rudoren ascribed a position to the United States government about Israeli policy which was flat out wrong. That was the only part of the otherwise slanted and deceptive article which merited a slap on the wrist.  Rudoren wrote that the position of the U.S. is that Israeli towns and cities beyond the Green Line are illegal, when in fact this government has taken no position on the legality of Israeli Jewish towns in that region.  The actual correction appears at the end of this article.

Before we get to the begrudging but still humiliating factual correction, take a stroll through the rest of her article.

In this article headlined, “Israeli Decree on West Bank Settlements Will Harm Peace Talks, Palestinians Say,” Rudoren not only originally falsely stated that the United States believes the “settlements” are illegal.  Her language throughout the piece makes clear her hostility to Jews daring to live beyond what the esteemed Israeli statesman Abba Eban had termed the “Auschwitz borders,” the lines drawn in 1949 at the end of the war against the newly-reborn Israel, when surrounding Arab states attacked it rather than permit a Jewish State in their midst.

For one thing, she described the early stage approval of subsidies to homeowners in various places including in “Jewish settlements in the West Bank territory that Israel seized in the 1967 war.”  You’d never know that in 1967 Israel (again) fought a defensive war and gained the land in a battle for its existence.  The verb Rudoren chose, “seized,” suggests an aggressive action by the belligerent in military hostilities.

Given that the New York Times is treated like Torah from Sinai by most American Jews, no wonder they and the organizations those Jews tend to support believe that Israel should give away that territory to people who never possessed it,  and never – until Israel legally acquired the land – expressed any interest in owning or governing it themselves.

And it was not until the sixth paragraph of a 10 paragraph story that Israel is even permitted a voice to counter what Rudoren already set up as a move by the Israeli government to expand “settlements” which upset the Arab Palestinians and may now torpedo the “fragile peace talks.”

In the sixth paragraph the reader – if he is still reading – learns that all that happened is the Israeli government has made a completely routine and preliminary decision to provide assistance to homeowners in authorized towns and villages for things like “education, housing, infrastructure projects, cultural programs and sports, along with better mortgage rates and loans for new homeowners.”  Isn’t that what governments are supposed to do?  Take care of their citizens?

Rudoren distances her readers from identifying with Israelis who might otherwise be considered normal homeowners. She points out that, “Among the newcomers to the list are three formerly illegal outposts — Bruchin, Rachelim and Sansana — that obtained government recognition last year.”  Rudoren chose not to more concisely and correctly refer to those three towns as “legal and legitimate villages.”

But before Israel was permitted to offer a different point of view, Rudoren first ran condemnations of the move by the infamous Hanan Ashrawi, whose latest evidence of Jew and Israel hatred was the promotion on the website of an NGO she founded which claimed that Jews drink Christian blood on Passover.

In the space of three sentences, Rudoren paints a clear picture with Ashrawi’s words.  Ashrawi describes Israel’s move as a “confidence-destruction measure,” “attempts to grab more Palestinian land,” “provide settlers with preferential treatment” and the announcement that “the decision would have ‘a destructive impact’” on the current Israeli-Arab Palestinian talks.

Of course, Mark Regev was given a cameo appearance in the sixth paragraph.  But not to worry, because in the concluding three paragraphs of the article there is plenty to ensure that the lasting impression is one of an intransigent Israeli government filled with “many right-wing settlement supporters” which “refused to formally freeze settlement construction” in order to induce the oh-so-compliant, peace-supporting Arab Palestinians to even sit at the table with the Israelis.

IRS fears Disclosure Above All Else, Offer Made in Court Confirms

Monday, July 22nd, 2013

On Friday, July 19, in federal district court in Washington, D.C., Department of Justice lawyers who have the misfortune of having to represent the Internal Revenue Service were forced to reveal exactly how desperate the IRS is to keep its deep, dark secrets buried.

The hearing was held to determine whether the IRS would succeed in convincing the court to dismiss Z STREET’s lawsuit for viewpoint discrimination, before any of the claims alleged by Z STREET can be examined.

It is critical for the IRS to succeed at this stage of litigation, because if it does, Z STREET will be barred from finding out whether the IRS acted in an unconstitutional manner in setting aside its application for tax exempt status.  If the IRS succeeds at this stage, no questions will be permitted into how it is that, according to documents produced by the IRS, the application for tax exempt status of an organization with a viewpoint about Israel which differs from this administration’s was pulled aside for extra scrutiny.

Over the course of more than an hour, and despite federal Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s  increasingly apparent frustration with the shifting legal positions of the IRS, the DoJ lawyer said two things that should make everyone who is following the IRS scandals raise their eyebrows right through their hairlines.

ONLY YES OR NO TO EXEMPTION, NOT HOW OR WHY

The IRS has repeatedly sought to characterize Z STREET’s claim as one brought under Section 7824 of the Internal Revenue Code, which requires applicants to wait 270 days after filing their tax exemption application before going to court and asking it to make a determination where the IRS had thus far failed to do so.  And each time the IRS set up what it insisted was Z STREET’s claim, it then pointed out that Z STREET did not wait long enough to bring such a claim, and therefore Z STREET’s suit had to be dismissed.

Z STREET filed its lawsuit against the IRS 239 days after filing for its tax exempt status.  Had Z STREET’s lawsuit  been brought in order to obtain a determination about its tax exemption status – an approval or a denial – the IRS would have been correct in seeking to have the pro-Israel organization’s lawsuit dismissed.  But the IRS is the only litigant who ever raised Section 7824 in the course of the litigation, not Z STREET, the party which filed suit.

Despite that track record, in court on Friday, the IRS offered to waive this statutory requirement – if only Z STREET would abandon its effort to find out what the IRS’s policy about such applications has actually been.

How nice.  Except Z STREET did not bring this lawsuit as a way to find out if its application for tax exempt status was accepted or denied.

As Alana Goodman of the Washington Free Beacon observed from her seat in the court room on July 19, the judge finally lost her temper in response to the repeated insistence by the IRS that Z STREET already had a remedy, the Section 7824 proceeding, to determine whether it was entitled to tax exempt status.  As Goodman wrote:  “”That’s not what they want,’ Judge Jackson snapped.”

This insistence by the IRS that Z STREET had a remedy for its legal claim: it could be assured that the court would provide it with a constitutionally valid process and given an up or down decision pursuant to a Section 7824 ruling, ultimately brought the judge to ask the Justice Department lawyer a critical question.  She asked whether, in the opinion of the IRS, there is any way for Z STREET to obtain the relief that it – not the IRS’s mischaracterization of its claim -  has repeatedly stated in every court filing it wants. In other words, can Z STREET find out whether the IRS violated its constitutional rights by treating its application differently on the basis of its viewpoint.

No, according to the IRS, it can’t.

In other words, the IRS says you can get the little ticket that comes out of the black box called “IRS Tax Exempt Determinations,” which will say either “approved” or “denied,” but you cannot, no way, no how, lift the lid off that black box and look inside.

But looking inside that black box is precisely what Z STREET wants.  It is the only way to determine whether the IRS violated the constitutional rights of Z STREET and of any other organization which complains, at any time, of a discriminatory process employed by the IRS in making its determinations.

Judge Brown asked Z STREET’s lawyer, Jerome M. Marcus, whether the organization could use the Freedom of Information Act to get at the information it is seeking in its lawsuit.

Marcus pointed out that route would not be productive. There are numerous FOIA exceptions which the IRS would certainly use as a shield to prevent the black box from being opened. FOIA is not an option.

Nope, it’s either a court which will allow citizens who believe their constitutional rights have been violated by the IRS to provide the mechanism to find out, or the IRS will be, as so many Americans already believe it to be, a rogue agency able to act with impunity, and able to invoke immunity from prying eyes.

So it comes down to this: Z STREET has alleged that the IRS employed a constitutionally tainted process to evaluate certain applicants for tax exempt status, while the IRS’s position is that there is no way for any complainant to inquire about that process.

IRS INSISTS A “GOOD ENOUGH” REMEDY IS ADEQUATE EVEN FOR UNCONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNTMENT ACTS

The second thing the IRS did, through its DOJ lawyers, was insist that Z STREET should not be and will not be able to get the relief they want. An organization – in this case, Z STREET, but it would apply to any organization – claiming the IRS violated its Constitutional rights should be satisfied with a “good enough” remedy – “not perfect,” but good enough.

That this is the IRS position came through in the gentle – mostly – probing from Judge Jackson, who understood that the IRS desperately wants to prevent Z STREET from looking inside its black box.

Judge Jackson understood that what Z STREET wants, and the reason it filed its lawsuit in August, 2010, is to find out whether, as it believes, the IRS discriminated against the pro-Israel organization because of its political position.  And the only way to find out whether that is the case is not to merely wait and see whether it is approved or denied the opportunity to be a tax exempt non-profit corporation.  The only way to make that determination is to open up the black box of the IRS Exempt Organizations Determinations unit and look inside, and see whether the process the IRS used was a constitutionally valid one or an invalid one.

Marcus explained: “if the IRS was sending applicants with blue eyes to wait behind Door Number One, through which they will pass without any delay, but the IRS was sending applicants with green eyes to wait behind Door Number Two, where what awaits them is a different, and more lengthy examination, then the minute Green Eyes are sent to wait behind Door Number Two is the moment a constitutional violation occurs.”

“And the moment that constitutional violation occurs and the Green Eyes become aware that they were sent someplace different, and were subject to a process more onerous than were the Blue Eyes, is the moment they have been discriminated against and, therefore, the time to raise that constitutional claim in court.”

The position of the IRS is one that means no one can ever find out if the IRS acted in an unconstitutional manner, all they can do is find out whether they can get, or be denied, tax exempt status.  That would put the IRS above the Constitution.  That cannot be right.

Judge Jackson will take the court filings and the arguments raised in court on July 19, under advisement.  There is no timetable for when she will rule.

Full Disclosure: This reporter is the president of Z STREET

Panetta Stonewalls House Committee Chairman McKeon on Benghazi

Monday, October 22nd, 2012

The news keeps getting worse.  The Washington Free Beacon reports today that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has  “blocked” four senior military officers from answering questions on the Benghazi attack posed by Congressman Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee (HASC).

McKeon asked the officers to provide answers to questions about security threats by the close of business Friday…

McKeon asked each of the four officers in separate letters whether prior to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Benghazi anyone under their command had notified the State Department or other agencies about growing dangers in Libya.

He also wants to know if there were any requests to increase security in Libya for U.S. personnel. … [T]he letters to the four officers asked whether any military officers under their command had recommended “deployment of additional U.S. military forces to Libya due to the threat environment.

Other questions focused on determining if the officers were aware that officers under their command recommended increasing security in Libya prior to the deadly attack.

To your knowledge, has the Department of State or any other federal agency requested additional U.S. military forces to augment security for U.S. personnel in Libya?” McKeon asked.

Said a HASC aide:

It is nearly unprecedented that the office of the secretary of defense would prohibit a member of the uniformed military from answering direct questions posed by the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

Indeed.  But what, if anything, about the Benghazi incident does have a precedent – outside of the other actions of the Obama administration, such as Fast & Furious?  We have reached the point at which the cynical behavior of this administration can’t be reinterpreted or spun.  There is no honest purpose for refusing to answer these questions from the House.  If the Obama executive is running an actual investigation, we’re at day 39 now after the 9/11/12 attack, and it’s past time to have answers.  There is no excuse for the administration’s behavior.

Why would Panetta and the White House use the stonewalling tactic with the House?  Presumably because the Democrat-held Senate has given them until after the election to answer its questions.  The calculating character of this reprieve from the Senate is obvious.

Many readers probably saw Bret Baier’s Fox News special Friday night on the Benghazi attack and its aftermath (video linked here).  For those who missed Lt. Col. Andrew Wood in the recent Congressional hearing – Wood, deployed through the National Guard, led a special security team for the US missions in Libya, until the team was withdrawn earlier this year by a State Department functionary (video of his testimony here) – Baier’s interview with him brings out clearly that State decided to cut the already-inadequate security force in Libya.  Wood advocated keeping his team in place, but State decided against it – even though the Defense Department was actually paying for it.

So McKeon’s questions to the Department of Defense are right on point, and the American people are owed the answers.  There is a certain pragmatism at work on both sides of the aisle right now; Democrats want to get through the election, and Republicans are likely to take a more perfunctory approach to the Benghazi issue if Mitt Romney wins on the 6th.  The public appetite for details – at least, any details we still don’t know this point – will probably wane once the people know the Obama administration is on the way out.

The gingerly treatment of the Obama administration by the MSM on this matter is a timely reminder that the MSM are not peopled with objective journalists.  If a Republican administration were backing and filling after the Benghazi fiasco, it would find no rest anywhere.  The attacks on it would be relentless.  We may say, “And rightly so!” – but the MSM seem incapable of calibration here: either they are in a frenetic feeding frenzy, hammering their own narratives as they “cover” the activities of a Republican administration, or they are declining to cover stories that obviously matter about a Democratic administration.  Too seldom anymore do we see from them the middle ground of sober, fair-minded, carefully assembled reporting.

But the most important take-away from the Benghazi fiasco is the nakedly cynical, self-serving behavior of the Obama administration.  Four Americans were killed, in a terrorist attack on a facility that should have been protected better, but – because of decisions made by Obama’s appointees – was not.  Instead of manning up to what happened and providing the answers that are owed to the people, the administration first built a specious narrative about why the attack was launched, as if that was what mattered, and then spent weeks claiming that it was too early to answer questions on almost any aspect of the topic.

Now the administration has directed senior military officers not to answer questions from Congress.  There is no conceivable reason for this, other than to stymie progress on the House’s inquiry.

Originally published at the Optimistic Conservative.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/analysis/j-e-dyer/panetta-stonewalls-house-committee-chairman-mckeon-on-benghazi/2012/10/22/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: