It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Lois Lerner Caught Helping the Muslim Brotherhood’s US Front Groups

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 07:15 PM
a reply to: eisegesis

With best regards, I have to tell you that you are accepting a line of reasoning, that while seeming to be logical because you buy into the premises, is quite simply not.

The "National Legal and Policy Center" is nothing more than yet another a long line of right-wing shill "official sounding" organizations that attempt to perform "political hits" while pretending to be non-partisan and objective. Interestingly, the only targets of these hits are usually low-hanging-Democrat-fruit (Charlie Rangel, Jesse Jackson) and a few Republicans out of favor with the party machine (Ted Stevens).

They are also known for supporting the interests of large corporations (McDonald's, Wal-Mart) against citizens who have been injured.

The arguments here seem to be ranging between several Shoebatty articles, on again off again about Malik Obama (which is, of course, another favorite of the Shoebatty folks.) as well as supposed organizations tied to "the Muslim Brotherhood."

Here is the link to the letter from the IRS that is linked on the BHO Foundation Website that establishes the 501(c) status of the organization.

The original post regards the Hamzah Islamic Center which is a mosque and community center that just happens to be located just north of Atlanta GA (where I live) in Alpharetta, GA. It is located at 665 Tidwell Road. Here is their Yellow Pages listing..

Here is their website. On it under the menu tab Financials, you will find every year of tax returns (2005 - 2013) as well as their original 2005 letter establishing the 501(c) status of the organization.

They started at a smaller location and moved to their current location in late 2010.

Here is their sign: notice the "Established 2005" on the face, under the street address.

The mosque appears on a list of churches and religious organizations in the Alpharetta area. Note that the page notes at the bottom that the list is from "Data based on 2006 data gathered for Alpharetta Georgia Churches." Alpharetta Area Connect

Ms. Lerner did not backdate the letter nor did she fabricate nine years of tax returns.

The articles that you are copy/pasting from the Shoebatty site are, quite simply, entirely deceptive and untrue and this thread deserves to be moved to the HOAX bin.

edit on 19Wed, 17 Sep 2014 19:27:26 -050014p072014966 by Gryphon66 because: Noted.

posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 09:42 PM
a reply to: snarky412

holy cow, yeah, who are these people and who can be trusted?

posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 06:02 AM
The way I sense it, the more liberal progressives deny a claim, the closer to the truth that claim is.

posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 08:48 AM
a reply to: 2ndthought

What about conservative progressives? How do you feel about them?

What about liberal progressives that are socialist but not atheist, or communist but not fascist, or fascist and atheist but not communist or socialist? Thoughts?

Perhaps it's clear that I'm challenging the basis of your stated opinion here, and implying that there's no such thing as vague generic groups like "liberal progressive" and that you have bought into a very targeted propaganda that creates a phantom menace where none exists.

posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 09:27 AM

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Elton
Was the Hamzah Islamic Center on terror organization watch lists in 2005?

Because I can not find that information anywhere in your article.

(When I Google them now, I don't find any mention of them being a terrorist organization).

Did you perhaps miss the word "Islamic" the the organization's title?

I'm being facetious of course, I know you realize the problems with the article, Elton. You point out the most glaring item.

But, you know, that's all that rags like the citation source in the OP require for such mongering. (Notice all those apparent links to sources within the article? What a well-balanced truth-filled epistle, eh?)

Would anyone be surprised to discover that they all merely reference other articles at the same site?

I'm not sure if that's more like self-congratulation or self-abuse, but I can tell you clearly that it doesn't prove a thing.

Forget the fact that, as Elton points out, the date is 2005. Who was President then?

Using the same gross "logic" that has been applied here (and in the rest of the "IRS (Non)Scandal" garbage, this would mean that President Bush II was giving the orders, then, right? Since obviously every President personally gives direct orders to all 89,000 or so IRS employees every day.)

If you notice the pattern in the article (and calling it "yellow journalism" would be a compliment) the fact of the 2005 letter is provided (which demonstrates only that a certain group qualified for tax exempt status at a certain time). Then the loose innuendoes fly about wiped Blackberries and supposed biased consideration of certain political groups that otherwise qualified ...

... aside from the obvious forensic dirty pool employed, consider the underlying paradox.

Lerner should have discriminated against a political group that met all legal requirements for tax-exempt status in 2005, but she should be keel-hauled for doing so in 2010.

What stinking tripe!

I agree completely and couldn't have said it any better myself!

The only thing you seem to have left out is the fact that here on ATS, most of these types of threads, containing articles based on false accusations and innuendos, are easily identified by learning to recognize certain ATS members who have an established track record of posting crap like this.

Unfortunately, one of the "down-sides" of this site is the fact that we also have to put up with the willful, self induced, ignorance of some ATSers like xuenchen, who seem committed to posting garbage like this on a daily basis.
edit on 18-9-2014 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 09:59 AM
a reply to: Flatfish


Here's the thing though ...

We're all occasionally incorrect about something.

We all make mistakes.

We all have hard-headed opinions that may or may not reflect objective fact-based reality.

I had understood that ATS was/is interested in QUALITY user-created content; this fact plus the broad range of topics is what brought me here and made me want to become a part of the community.

There are extremists of every type that can only see their own world-view. I don't consider myself an extremist by any means, but, I'm sure there are some here who do. To the extent that we are invited by the ATS owners to share our thoughts, research AND opinions on different matters clearly means that we should be tolerant of widely disparate views even as we express our own position.

That being said, it is my position that discussion threads of this type (current thread) that are merely and baselessly false should not qualify under any "freedom of speech" standard.

If something is FALSE, UNTRUE, LYING, DECEITFUL, ETC., it should be tossed in the trash bin and wilful repeat offenders eliminated from the ability to post garbage.

It's not "just a different opinion" ... it's facts versus lies.


posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 12:27 PM

originally posted by: xuenchen
Looks like Lois Lerner has more dirt piling up on her pile.

Now some documents apparently show her signature on approvals for some Muslim organizations that might be connected to the Muslim Brotherhood !!

No surprise if true.

A bit of a stretch to think she was taking orders from somebody, since these are from 2005.

Lois Lerner - Wikipedia:

Lerner began her IRS service in 2001 as Director Rulings and Agreements in the Exempt Organizations function of TEGE. In January 2006, she was selected as Director Exempt Organizations. In this capacity, Lerner led an organization of 900 employees responsible for a broad range of compliance activities, including examining the operational and financial activities of exempt organizations, processing applications for tax exemption, providing direction through private letter rulings and technical guidance and providing customer education and outreach to the exempt community.

So this woman who started at the IRS under Bush and was promoted to the position she allegedly abused under Bush and is alleged to have done other shady things while working under Bush is ... where are people going with this again?

All I ever hear about the "targeting of conservative groups" is that she did it at the direction of Obama. This would rather defeat that talking point, no?

posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 12:47 PM
a reply to: Greven

Lois the Magnificent could be a turncoat puppet.

Serving any Master that pays the most.

I think She's one of those "easily led" people.

And/Or, She was a Progressive infiltrator.

No wonder She is the expert at large of the 5th Amendment.

posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 12:51 PM
Lois Lerner signature would also be on conservatives groups approval letters? Progress and liberal approval letters, Christian and Catholic approval letters? It was her job wasn't it?

Was it her job to determine is a group was a terrorist organization?

Because it was a Islamic group does that automatically prove its a terrorist organization?

posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 01:08 PM

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Greven

Lois the Magnificent could be a turncoat puppet.

Serving any Master that pays the most.

I think She's one of those "easily led" people.

And/Or, She was a Progressive infiltrator.

No wonder She is the expert at large of the 5th Amendment.

Just a piece of advice......stop.

Your crusade to stop the "progressives" has you grasping at straws and making absolutely silly statements. If your crusade was against the Neocons, you'd be on the right track, but this continual progressive bashing shows you have no clue whats going on or who we need to be watching.

posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 01:21 PM
a reply to: sheepslayer247

Here's an interesting viewpoint to consider for attack ....

Neocons and Progressives: One Big Family

posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 01:47 PM
a reply to: xuenchen

I've read that piece before and it is quite a good read. The only issue I take from it is that he uses the general term 'progressive'....and that is incorrect. He should be using the term neo-progressivism or leftist fascists.

Neo-pro's and neo-cons are born of the same cloth and have joined to push the current neo-con agenda, but regardless we cannot blame true conservatives or true progressives for the evolution of the 'neo' groups.

It's also important to note that both 'neo' groups are fascist, not socialist.

edit on 9/18/2014 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 05:32 PM
My biggest problem is when political terminology is used in the form of absolutes:

(ALL) Progressives do this.

(ALL) Conservatives do that.

Even if such simplistic terminology were sufficient to completely define even one individual's spectrum of political beliefs, conceptions and understandings (and it's not), humans change their minds about things all the time.

We are mercurial creatures at best.

One of the most frustrating things to me in modern political discussions is that the shorthand of gesturing toward amorphous groups (e.g. "Progressives" or "Neocons")** is SOOO powerful allowing for sweeping, emotionally-charged and rhetorically statements to be made, that countering such forensic dirty pool almost necessitates indulging in the same kind of fallacy.

I really do try to focus on providing facts as reply ... but of course, I'm as human as anyone else, and I think I'm right.


**Made even MORE frustrating because there actually ARE groups that could be defined, described and explained by these terms. There are Neocons in the world; there are common characteristics between them; and they share a common agenda. Stipulated. (Replace Neocon with Progressive or any other -on, -an, or -ist.)
edit on 17Thu, 18 Sep 2014 17:33:54 -050014p052014966 by Gryphon66 because: Gilding the lily.

posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 05:44 PM
a reply to: Gryphon66
I hate ideology: The opposite of ideology isn't another ideology.

Other than a general definition I have no idea what it is to be progressive, I have no idea what there agenda is, yet Im labeled one on here all the time, because above all else I hate the agenda driven out right lies people conditioned with ideology post on this site!!!!

E.G. This thread, and just about all threads based on Breitbart or the host of other right wing infotainment.

How many times do they have to be proven wrong? or misleading? Or does the ideology make people not care??

posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 05:48 PM

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: xuenchen

Progressive infiltrators is my guess.

If these allegations are substantiated ...

Where's Joe McCarthy when you need him? I'd love to see Trey Gowdy take over his legacy.

Why don't we bring back burning people at the stake too? If you are wanting to start the witch hunts all over again why not go all the way?

America doesn't view the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. This is just more Islamophobia.

Now take note of this classic response. This is exactly why folks don't complain about or act on anything these days......they are likened to inquisitors, witch burners ect. And there are so many Uncle Joes out there these days anyway, NRA, Westboro Baptist, Blood thirsty Militia, Tea Party ect.

posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 05:57 PM
a reply to: LDragonFire

Progressive meant one thing in the early 20th century. e.g. the incarnations of The Progressive Party. Think Teddy Roosevelt,

The modern Progressive Congressional Caucus formed in 1991. It's made up mostly of Democrats and Independents.

Here is their stated agenda:

The four, core principles of the Progressive Promise:

1. Fighting for economic justice and security for all;
2. Protecting and preserving our civil rights and civil liberties;
3. Promoting global peace and security; and
4. Advancing environmental protection and energy independence

Here's a a link to their platform.

I know, I know ... heinous, ain't it?

Glen Beck started railing about the "evil Progressives" as a convenient villainous and mysterious group while at Fox and has continued to at The Blaze.

Most pejorative uses of the term among the chambers of the Right Wing Echo Machine are related to a gross bastardization even of what Beck intended.

Now, it's just shorthand for "Anyone That Doesn't Watch Fox News and Believe It."

Thus, we see rants about liberal-progressive-socialist-fascist-atheists who are all baby-killers and sodomites and are responsible for all calamities including but not limited to the Black Death, the sinking of the Titanic, crashing of the Hindenburg, mosquitos, and Gilbert Gottfried ...

It's a convenient term that means nothing unless used specifically.

posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 06:00 PM
a reply to: Logarock

I'm not sure that Buster's fairly straightforward analogy can be blamed for general cultural malaise and apathy.

Besides that, people are complaining and acting a plenty on all sides of the political spectrum.

To imply that someone somewhere is being repressed by someone else somewhere else is really just a fallacious rhetorical device, don't you think?

posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 06:04 PM

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
a reply to: xuenchen

I've read that piece before and it is quite a good read. The only issue I take from it is that he uses the general term 'progressive'....and that is incorrect. He should be using the term neo-progressivism or leftist fascists.

The current group of "true progressives" as you call them have always be neo and very fascist. The Democratic Party convention of 68 was their Beer Hall Putsch, eating, sleeping and breathing Mao, making themselves martyrs and packing copies of Anarchist Cookbook.

posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 06:07 PM
a reply to: Gryphon66

WOW! You are going to defend Buster and accuse me of fallacious rhetorical device. Buster is a fallacious rhetorical device.

posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 06:13 PM
a reply to: Logarock

I referred to the analogy that Buster used that you commented on; precision in language aids in understanding.

Based on the evidence you just provided though, I'd say you fully qualify as an FRD yourself in your own terms, since you're merely replying with bombast and innuendo rather than any factual dispute or claim.


Am I wrong? Why not prove it? Use your words.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in