While universities may plead powerless to stopping the spread of educational corruption and terrorist ideology in their Saudi and Iranian funded Middle East studies programs, the Internal Revenue Service cannot.
Universities must adhere to a series of IRS codes and criteria for determining whether an educational institution is educational or a vehicle for propaganda.
If the IRS applied these codes and procedures as they should, many universities would have their tax exempt status revoked.
For example, Georgetown University’s H.R.H. Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding received $20 million from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal (recently arrested for financial corruption and whose offer of $10 million to New York Mayor Giuliani was rejected after 9/11).
The past director of this program, John Esposito taught “Islamist violence is beyond the bounds of approved research … Islamist movements are movements of democratic reform.”
The Investigative Project on Terrorism found Esposito allied with a series of people directly involved in terrorist and extremist movements, including convicted terrorist Sami Al-Arian, an acknowledged member of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
The current director, Jonathan Brown is the son-in-law of Sami Al Arian and gave a speech at a Moslem Brotherhood think tank justifying the practice of slavery within Islam.
Muslim American Society Imam W. Deen Mohammed didn’t mince words when he said, referring the bin Talal Center, “These donations are not intended to fund objective scholarship they’re meant to forward the Wahabi School of thought.”
All this points to Georgetown University in violation of IRC 501(p)[ for ties with a terrorist organizations], IRC 504(a)(2) [by reason of propaganda] and Rev Proc 86-43 [presenting distortions and views unsupported by facts].
Other universities where hate programs are funded with tax dollars can be found at the University of Arkansas, Rutgers, Columbia University, Brandeis, San Francisco State University, San Jose State University, University of California-Berkeley, and others.
People wonder why our college students are both ignorant of the dangers faced in the United States, and oftentimes sympathetic with the worst thugs in the world.
The reason is very simple; ideas and thoughts can be bought and manipulated.
Those who support a distorted Islamic pathway of hate and revilement know how to use their oftentimes ill-begotten money.
When an organization such as the Alavi Foundation gives $50M to Columbia, Rutgers, Brandeis and others, there is no doubt that they are getting something big-time in return for their money. In June, a jury found that Alavi was controlled by the Teheran Iran Regime.
“Did this foundation attempt to subvert American academic institutions?” asked U.S. Rep. Dan Donovan (R-N.Y.), Aug. 1, 2017. “Universities have to do a better job of vetting their donors.”
At Rutgers, Professor Hooshang Amirahmadi stated: “Problems between Iran and the US are based on myths. The problem of terrorism is a myth. Iran has not been involved in any terrorist organization.”
This is a violation of IRC 502(a)(2) and Rev. Proc. 86-43 as it is propaganda, unsupported by facts and not aimed at developing a true understanding of the subject.
When the University of California-Berkeley sponsored a talk by Omar Barghouti, co-founder of the anti-Israel BDS campaign, but refused to sponsor a talk by Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz it violated IRC 504 (a) (2) and Revenue Ruling 86-43.
Per U of C student Adah Forer, “A double standard is evident, as multiple departments refused to host Professor Dershowitz but hosted anti-Israel speakers, thus taking away from the academic integrity they supposedly stand for.”
In 2014 San Francisco State University signed an MOU with An-Najah University, known for “terrorist recruitment, indoctrination and radicalization of students” according to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. SFSU President Wong said, “I want to be the first major university tosign an agreement with An-Najah…”
This is in violation of IRC 501(p), 504(A)(2) and Rev Proc 86-43.
In his article, “Tax Exempt Hatred,” Jamie Chandler said “The IRS needs to do a better job enforcing its procedure 86-43 to determine if a tax exempt organization is advocating an educational point of view or one that are factually unsupported, distorted or make use of inflammatory and denigrating language.”
To quantify this, if Georgetown was not tax exempt, it would owe $66 million in federal taxes, lose $165 million in government grants and $255 million in deductible contributions.
The Internal Revenue Service has every right, and in fact an obligation, to look at these tax exempt grants and determine whether they are being used for educational purposes or for propaganda.
Send this to a friend