NGO’s and the tip of the iceberg

NGO’s and the tip of the iceberg

How the Red Cross Raised Half a Billion Dollars for Haiti ­and Built Six Homes
Even as the group has publicly celebrated its work, insider accounts detail a string of failures

The group has publicly celebrated its work. But in fact, the Red Cross has repeatedly failed on the ground in Haiti.

Confidential memos, emails from worried top officers, and accounts of a dozen frustrated and disappointed insiders show the charity has broken promises, squandered donations, and made dubious claims of success.

The Red Cross says it has provided homes to more than 130,000 people. But the actual number of permanent homes the group has built in all of Haiti: six.

After the earthquake, Red Cross CEO Gail McGovern unveiled ambitious plans to “develop brand-new communities.”

None has ever been built.

Aid organizations from around the world have struggled after the earthquake in Haiti, the Western Hemisphere’s poorest country. But ProPublica and NPR’s investigation shows that many of the Red Cross’s failings in Haiti are of its own making.

They are also part of a larger pattern in which the organization has botched delivery of aid after disasters such as Superstorm Sandy. Despite its difficulties, the Red Cross remains the charity of choice for ordinary Americans and corporations alike after natural disasters.

The Red Cross won’t disclose details of how it has spent the hundreds of millions of dollars donated for Haiti. But our reporting shows that less money reached those in need than the Red Cross has said.



I wonder how the Ebola doctor feels now that his humanitarian trip has cost a Christian charity much more than any services he rendered.

What was the point?

Whatever good Dr. Kent Brantly did in Liberia has now been overwhelmed by the more than $2 million already paid by the Christian charities Samaritan’s Purse and SIM USA just to fly him and his nurse home in separate Gulfstream jets, specially equipped with medical tents, and to care for them at one of America’s premier hospitals. (This trip may be the first real-world demonstration of the economics of Obamacare.)

There’s little danger of an Ebola plague breaking loose from the treatment of these two Americans at the Emory University Hospital. But why do we have to deal with this at all?

Why did Dr. Brantly have to go to Africa? The very first “risk factor” listed by the Mayo Clinic for Ebola — an incurable disease with a 90 percent fatality rate — is: “Travel to Africa.”


About 15,000 people are murdered in the U.S. every year. More than 38,000 die of drug overdoses, half of them from prescription drugs. More than 40 percent of babies are born out of wedlock. Despite the runaway success of “midnight basketball,” a healthy chunk of those children go on to murder other children, rape grandmothers, bury little girls alive — and then eat a sandwich. A power-mad president has thrown approximately 10 percent of all Americans off their health insurance — the rest of you to come! All our elite cultural institutions laugh at virginity and celebrate promiscuity.

Ann Coulter Column

An Outbreak of Epidemiological Hysteria

An Outbreak of Epidemiological Hysteria
Michael Fumento

THERE HAVE been far fewer cases of, and deaths from, Ebola Virus Disease (hereinafter “Ebola”) during the period of the recent outbreak than from numerous other endemic diseases that primarily afflict Africans, such as malaria, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, and childhood diarrhea. Yet there is a widespread sense, in the media and among the public, that particularly urgent measures must be taken to combat Ebola. This is owed in large part to estimates of future cases produced by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Their representatives have accompanied the presentation of these estimates with powerful rhetoric, as have representatives of other public health organizations. Headlines predictably focus on the upper bound of the CDC estimate, rather than providing the range. Yet both the WHO and the CDC have arrived at their distressingly high figures by ignoring epidemiological principles successfully applied since the nineteenth century. These indicate that Ebola infections and even cases may have already peaked.

Continue at International Review of Science

Where good intentions go bad

Where good intentions go bad

U.S. Humanitarian Aid Going to ISIS

Not only are foodstuffs, medical supplies—even clinics—going to ISIS, the distribution networks are paying ISIS ‘taxes’ and putting ISIS people on their payrolls.

While U.S. warplanes strike at the militants of the so-called Islamic State in both Syria and Iraq, truckloads of U.S. and Western aid has been flowing into territory controlled by the jihadists, assisting them to build their terror-inspiring “Caliphate.”

The aid—mainly food and medical equipment—is meant for Syrians displaced from their hometowns, and for hungry civilians. It is funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development, European donors, and the United Nations. Whether it continues is now the subject of anguished debate among officials in Washington and European. The fear is that stopping aid would hurt innocent civilians and would be used for propaganda purposes by the militants, who would likely blame the West for added hardship.

Daily beast.

The evil that is nuanced thinking

The ‘nuanced thought’ mind is fodder for sociologists and psychologists. Unfortunately, those are generally from the same circles where nuanced thought is the yardstick so that won’t result in much. Nuanced thought is a strange kind of phenomenon. It has a negative impact on social cohesion but in a mobius strip-like manner presents itself it as a positive thing. The biggest problem with nuanced thought is that it is based on the principle that homo sapiens is a rational species, free of the primary instincts other mammals carry.

A delusion that is actually pretty easily corrected . Homo sapiens has the same basic brain structures as all other mammals, which are basic structures for an independent operating brain. That brain has total control over the real-time interaction with the outside world. It controls the hormonal balance, the muscles and actually most of the non-autonomous part. This means that the brain is the primary control over our behavior and a major influence on our perception. Unfortunately, this brain cannot speak, it can only manifest itself through the body so as to influence so that the new, recently developed brain notices it and tries to integrate its interpretation of the stimuli.

 It names that manifestation  ‘feelings’ or ’emotions’ because it realized that it was not itself that it originated from but also can not know where it is coming from. The brains are hardly interconnected by nerves. There are some thin horizontal strands, but in comparison to the nerve that connects the two hemispheres, these are virtually non functional.

 What does this have to do with nuanced thought? Nuanced thought does not account for this predominance of a brain structure that is genetically preprogrammed to (re)act to everyday common issues. Because this structure is so old and finished development, it is not possible to change it. It is “hardwired”. Also because it is so old it is not able to adapt to contemporary society and reacts according to the patterns that once, in prehistoric times, were functional but not anymore. On the contrary.

For that reason, nuanced thought is a rational fiction, an abstract representation of reality. Nuanced thought only works in movies and books.

In every day life, it simply does not. Just can not work. The nuanced thought rationale is that things should be done according to a rational pattern, but the reality is that that never happens. Nuanced thought people are therefor cultists. There’s nothing wrong with that, everyone is free to follow any delusion. But history teaches us that once a a cult gets a certain number of followers there is the danger that their ideas are forced into practice.

And that is what we now see, the cult of nuanced thought has strong negative effects on the functioning of our society in causing for example multi-culturalism. A weird concept which assumes that totally opposing cultures can integrate in a short period of time and become a nice, sprinkled with rose petals, happily coexisting society.

One look at Europe’s big cities shows the deficit of this illusion.