“Christian non-profit organizations have outdone FEMA and provided the vast majority of the relief aid to victims of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma.
Faith-based relief groups are responsible for providing nearly 80 percent of the aid delivered thus far to communities with homes devastated by the recent hurricanes,according to USA Today. An alliance of non-profit organizations called National Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster (NVOAD), 75 percent of which are faith based, has helped FEMA distribute relief assistance to communities hit by disasters and assisted families in navigating government aid programs to begin the process of rebuilding.
“About 80 percent of all recovery happens because of non-profits, and the majority of them are faith-based,” Greg Forrester, CEO of NVOAD, told USA Today.
Several individual organizations have aided in the relief operations in major ways as well. Samaritan’s Purse, an evangelical disaster relief group led by evangelist Franklin Graham, recently began a relief mission to the Caribbean to help victims of the hurricanes on various islands. Samaritan’s Purse also has ongoing relief operations in Houston and is preparing to aid Florida in the aftermath of Irma…”
We won’t hold our breath waiting to hear how much the Southern Poverty Law Center contributes to the victims of Harvey or Irma from its $63M stash in the Caymans, let alone what the Clinton Foundation offers.
Meanwhile, as shown in this forward from Joe Flood, other less charitable types, who obviously believe existing government subsidies are insufficient for their lifestyles, help themselves to that belonging to others:
Come to think of it, isn’t that what government subsidies are in the first place?!?
Now, here’s The Gouge!
First up, courtesy of Townhall.com, Jonathan Feldstein records a level of courage and determination Barry Obama never possessed, as he states…
“Perhaps you didn’t hear about Israel’s alleged air strike on a Syrian military installation last week, but the incident has significant global ramifications about which you should be aware.
In Israel, it’s always reported that incidents like these are “allegedly” carried out by Israel because in most cases, Israel neither officially confirms nor denies responsibility. This is part of a culture where all military items go through a censor. Overtly stating that Israel did something like this is typically not allowed. Ambiguity also allows Israel’s enemies the wiggle room that, though they may know full well that something might have Israeli fingerprints, avoiding public confirmation lets them weigh whether any response is wise, making bombastic public declarations, taking action, or even acknowledging that their defenses have been breached. Sometimes it’s best that things are left unsaid, assuming Israel is involved, as the effect is clear all the same.
Often, because Israeli sources are not allowed to publicize that Israel did something like this, details are leaked to international media which reports it without the oversight of Israeli military censors. Then, Israeli media quote the same information attributed to “foreign sources” which sufficiently bypass who can report on Israeli military activities, what sources are quoted, etc.
The strike on the Syrian missile and chemical weapons facility is important for a multitude of reasons. It’s also noteworthy that it took place ten years to the week when Israel successfully destroyed a Syrian nuclear facility that was being built by North Korea.
Assuming Israel carried out this attack, it underscores that Israel has red lines and sticks to them.This is an important message to our enemies and allies alike, making it clear that we will take action as needed, even if there are possible divergent or conflicting objectives…”
The only red lines Obama ever stuck to were those he drew with Republicans.
Since we’re on the subject of red lines which need to be drawn, writing at NRO, Nicholas Eberstadt offers an incredibly insightful analysis of why…
“Our seemingly unending inability to fathom Pyongyang’s true objectives, and our attendant proclivity for being taken by surprise over and over again by North Korean actions, is not just a matter of succumbing to Pyongyang’s strategic deceptions, assiduous as those efforts may be.
The trouble, rather, is that even our top foreign-policy experts and our most sophisticated diplomatists are creatures of our own cultural heritage and intellectual environment. We Americans are, so to speak, children of the Enlightenment, steeped in the precepts of our highly globalized era. Which is to say: We have absolutely no common point of reference with the worldview, or moral compass, or first premises of the closed-society decision makers who control the North Korean state. Americans’ first instincts are to misunderstand practically everything the North Korean state is really about.
The DPRK is a project pulled by tides and shaped by sensibilities all but forgotten to the contemporary West. North Korea is a hereditary Asian dynasty (currently on its third Kim) — but one maintained by Marxist-Leninist police-state powers unimaginable to earlier epochs of Asian despots and supported by a recently invented and quasi-religious ideology.
And exactly what is that ideology? Along with its notorious variant of emperor worship, “Juche thought” also extols an essentially messianic — and unapologetically racialist — vision of history: one in which the long-abused Korean people finally assume their rightful place in the universe by standing up against the foreign races that have long oppressed them, at last reuniting the entire Korean peninsula under an independent socialist state (i.e., the DPRK). Although highly redacted in broadcasts aimed at foreign ears, this call for reunification of the mijnok (race), and for retribution against the enemy races or powers (starting with America and Japan), constantly reverberates within North Korea, sounded by the regime’s highest authorities.
This is where its nuclear weapons program fits into North Korea’s designs. In Pyongyang’s thinking, the indispensable instrument for achieving the DPRK’s grand historical ambitions must be a supremely powerful military: more specifically, one possessed of a nuclear arsenal that can imperil and break the foreign enemies who protect and prop up what Pyongyang regards as the vile puppet state in the South, so that the DPRK may consummate its unconditional unification and give birth to its envisioned earthly Korean-race utopia.
In earlier decades, Pyongyang might have seen multiple paths to this Elysium, but with the collapse of the Soviet empire, the long-term decline of the DPRK’s industrial infrastructure, and the gradually accumulating evidence that South Korea was not going to succumb on its own to the revolutionary upheaval Pyongyang so dearly wished of it, the nuclear option increasingly looks to be the one and only trail by which to reach the Promised Kingdom.
…At this juncture, as so often in the past, serious people around the world are calling to “bring North Korea back to the table” to try to settle the DPRK nuclear issue. However, seeing the DPRK for what it is, rather than what we would like it to be, should oblige us to recognize two highly unpleasant truths.
First, the real existing North Korean leadership (as opposed to the imaginary version some Westerners would like to negotiate with) will never willingly give up their nuclear option.Never. Acquiescing in de-nuclearization would be tantamount to abandoning the sacred mission of Korean unification: which is to say, disavowing the DPRK’s raison d’etre. Thus submitting to foreign demands to de-nuclearize could well mean more than humiliation and disgrace for North Korean leadership: It could mean de-legitimization and de-stabilization for the regime as well.
Second, international entreaties — summitry, conferencing, bargaining, and all the rest — can never succeed in convincing the DPRK to relinquish its nuclear program. Sovereign governments simply do not trade away their vital national interests.
Now, this is not to say that Western nonproliferation parlays with the DPRK have no results to show at all. We know they can result in blandishments (as per North Korea’s custom of requiring “money for meetings”) and in resource transfers (as with the Clinton Administration’s Agreed Framework shipments of heavy fuel oil). They can provide external diplomatic cover for the DPRK nuclear program, as was in effect afforded under the intermittent 2003–07 six-party talks in Beijing. They can even lure North Korea’s interlocutors into unexpected unilateral concessions, as witnessed in the final years of the George W. Bush administration, when Washington unfroze illicit North Korean overseas funds and removed Pyongyang from the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism in misbegotten hope of a “breakthrough.” The one thing “engagement” can never produce, however, is North Korean de-nuclearization.
Note, too, that in every realm of international transaction, from commercial contracts to security accords, the record shows that, even when Western bargainers think they have made a deal with North Korea, the DPRK side never has any compunction about violating the understanding if that should serve purposes of state. This may outrage us, but it should not surprise us. For under North Korea’s moral code, if there should be any advantage to gain from cheating against foreigners, then not cheating would be patently unpatriotic, a disloyal blow against the Motherland.
Yes, things would be so much easier for us if North Korea would simply agree to the deal we want them to accept. But if we put the wishful thinking to one side, a clear-eyed view of the North Korea problematik must be resigned to the grim reality that diplomacy can only have a very limited and highly specific role in addressing our gathering North Korean problem.
Diplomacy must have some role because it is barbaric not to talk with one’s opponent — because communication can help both sides avoid needless and potentially disastrous miscalculations.But the notion of a “grand bargain” with Pyongyang — in which all mutual concerns are simultaneously settled, as the “Perry Process” conjectured back in the 1990s and others have subsequently prophesied — is nothing but a dream.It is time to set aside the illusion of “engaging” North Korea to effect nonproliferation and to embrace instead a paradigm that has a chance of actually working. Call this “threat reduction”: Through a coherent long-term strategy, working with allies and others but also acting unilaterally, the United States can blunt, then mitigate, and eventually help eliminate the killing force of the North Korean state.
In broad outline, North Korean threat reduction requires progressive development of more effective defenses against the DPRK’s means of destruction while simultaneously weakening Pyongyang’s capabilities for supporting both conventional and strategic offense.
A more effective defense against the North Korean threat would consist mainly, though not entirely, of military measures.Restoring recently sacrificed U.S. capabilities would be essential.Likewise more and better missile defense: THAAD systems (and more) for South Korea and Japan, and moving forward on missile defense in earnest for the USA. It would be incumbent on South Korea to reduce its own population’s exposure to North Korean death from the skies through military modernization and civil defense. The DPRK would be served notice that 60 years of zero-consequence rules of engagement for allied forces in the face of North Korean “provocations” on the peninsula had just come to an end. But diplomacy would count here as well: most importantly, alliance strengthening throughout Asia in general and repairing the currently frayed ROK–Japan relationship in particular. Today’s ongoing bickering between Seoul and Tokyo reeks of interwar politics at its worst; leaders who want to live in a postwar order need to rise above such petty grievances.
As for weakening the DPRK’s military economy, the foundation for all its offensive capabilities, reinvigorating current counterproliferation efforts such as PSI and MCTR is a good place to start — but only a start. Given the “military first” disposition of the North Korean economy, restricting its overall potential is necessary as well. South Korea’s subsidized trade with the North, for example, should come to an end. And put Pyongyang back on the State Sponsors of Terrorism list — it never should have been taken off. Sanctions with a genuine bite should be implemented — the dysfunctional DPRK economy is uniquely susceptible to these, and amazing as this may sound, the current sanctions strictures on North Korea have long been weaker than, say, those enforced until recently on Iran. (We can enforce such sanctions unilaterally, by the way.) And not least important: revive efforts like the Illicit Activities Initiative, the brief, but tremendously successful Dubya-era task force for tracking and freezing North Korea’s dirty money abroad.
Then there is the China question. Received wisdom in some quarters notwithstanding, it is by no means impossible for America and her allies to pressure the DPRK if China does not cooperate (see previous paragraph). That said: China has been allowed to play a double game with North Korea for far too long, and it is time for Beijing to pay a penalty for all its support for the most odious regime on the planet today…
…Many in the West talk of “isolating” North Korea as if this were an objective in its own right. But a serious DPRK threat-reduction strategy would not do so. The North Korean regime depends on isolation from the outside world to maintain its grip and conduct untrammeled pursuit of its international objectives.The regime is deadly afraid of what it terms “ideological and cultural poisoning”: what we could call foreign media, international information, cultural exchanges, and the like. We should be saying, “Bring on the ‘poisoning!’” The more external contact with that enslaved population, the better.We should even consider technical training abroad for North Koreans in accounting, law, economics, and the like — because some day, in a better future, that nation will need a cadre of Western-style technocrats for rejoining our world.
This brings us to the last agenda item: preparing for a successful reunification in a post-DPRK peninsula. The Kim regime is the North Korean nuclear threat; that threat will not end until the DPRK disappears. We cannot tell when, or how, this will occur. But it is not too soon to commence the wide-ranging and painstaking international planning and preparations that will facilitate divided Korea’s long-awaited reunion as a single peninsula, free and whole.”
Consider the following: when our eldest son Jon (a full-time Frederick County, MD firefighter and Army reservist who was recently promoted to Major, and is scheduled to deploy for a year next March), for reasons known only to himself, refused to do his homework in high school, we repeatedly threatened to place him in an environment which would FORCE him to perform. And we didn’t simply threaten; time and again we took away privileges and imposed other drastic penalties, but to no effect. Our threats weren’t sufficient; and there was no punishment or penalty we could impose he felt exceeded whatever fleeting joy he derived from not turning in his homework.
Imagine his surprise when, after two years of threats, we drove him down to Hargrave Military Academy in Chatham, VA. Hargrave was a different story; once there, he learned should he fail to turn in an assignment, the very next morning he would be awakened at 0430 and forced to march for an hour. Amazingly, Jon made straight A’s and never failed to turn in his homework.
You probably already realize where we’re going with this: as the great Mark Tapscott noted on Monday, after 25 years of appeasement, Kim Jong Un cannot be expected to comprehend when “no” really means “NO”…making war an evermore likely possibility.
Muchas gracias…
…Curly, Larry and Moe!
Next up, writing at Townhall.com, Katie Pavlich details the latest effort of one of the few truly great NGOs:
Judicial Watch: DOJ Giving Lerner a Pass is Bogus and Trump Should Order a Full Review of the Scandal
Last week the Department of Justice, led by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, announced prosecutors will not pursue charges against former IRS official Lois Lerner. Lerner is infamous for her deliberate targeting of conservative tea party groups between 2010 and 2012 while leading the tax exempt department inside the agency.
The news was immediately met with outrage by House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady, who said the failure to reopen the case against Lerner (which was closed without charges under the Obama administration) only proves that Washington bureaucrats are held to a much lower standard than every day Americans living outside the protective D.C. bubble.
“This is a terrible decision. It sends the message that the same legal, ethical, and Constitutional standards we all live by do not apply to Washington political appointees – who will now have the green light to target Americans for their political beliefs and mislead investigators without ever being held accountable for their lawlessness.(As well as enjoying their fat, federal pensions in unearned comfort and ease.) Not only has the Department of Justice chosen not to hold Lois Lerner criminally liable for obstructing an official investigation by the Inspector General, the Department continues to defend the Internal Revenue Service’s unconstitutional actions against taxpayers in ongoing civil litigation,” Brady released in a statement.
“I have the utmost respect for Attorney General Sessions, (we don’t) but I’m troubled by his Department’s lack of action to fully respond to our request and deliver accountability. Today’s decision does not mean Lois Lerner is innocent.It means the justice system in Washington is deeply flawed,” he continued.
Further Judicial Watch, which is still pursuing documents related to the IRS targeting scandal and has for years, proving Lerner was at the heart of the targeting, is buying none of it and calling on President Trump to intervene.
“I have zero confidence that the Justice Department did an adequate review of the IRS scandal. In fact, we’re still fighting the Justice Department and the IRS for records about this very scandal. Today’s [Friday’s] decision comes as no surprise considering that the FBI collaborated with the IRS and is unlikely to investigate or prosecute itself,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton released in a statement. “President Trump should order a complete review of the whole issue. Meanwhile, we await accountability for IRS Commissioner Koskinen, who still serves and should be drummed out of office.“
During the scandal, Lerner wascontactedby the Department of Justice and inquired about whether conservative groups could be criminally prosecuted.The goal was to put at least one individual from a group in jail in order to “send a message,” aka silence, opposition to President Obama.
Sooo…the same federal bureaucracy which may have, at least in part, induced Lerner into committing her crimes in the first place now refuses to prosecute her. Yeah,…
Turning now to the Follow-Up segment, the editors at the WSJ offer what can only be described as an unbiased response to an undeniably unconstitutional line of questioning:
‘It Is Chilling to Hear…’
Notre Dame’s president has some pointed words for Senate Democrats.
Our editorial last week on the spectacle of Senate Democrats questioning the Catholic faith of Notre Dame law professor and judicial nominee Amy Barrett struck a nerve. Many readers are stunned that politicians would suggest that having “orthodox” religious views could disqualify someone from the American judiciary.
Also concerned is John Jenkins, President of the University of Notre Dame. Fr. Jenkins is no conservative but he can spot an attack on religious belief, and on Saturday he wrote to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee who led the assault on Ms. Barrett. Here is the letter in full:
Dear Senator Feinstein:
Considering your questioning of my colleague Amy Coney Barrett during the judicial confirmation hearing of September 6, I write to express my confidence in her competence and character, and deep concern at your line of questioning.
Professor Barrett has been a member of our faculty since 2002, and is a graduate of our law school. Her experience as a clerk for Judge Laurence Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is of the highest order. So, too, is her scholarship in the areas of federal courts, constitutional law and statutory interpretation. I am not a legal scholar, but I have heard no one seriously challenge her impeccable legal credentials.
Your concern, as you expressed it, is that “dogma lives loudly in [Professor Barrett], and that is a concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for years in this country.” I am one in whose heart “dogma lives loudly”, as it has for centuries in the lives of many Americans, some of whom have given their lives in service to this nation. Indeed, it lived loudly in the hearts of those who founded our nation as one where citizens could practice their faith freely and without apology.
Professor Barrett has made it clear that she would “follow unflinchingly” all legal precedent and, in rare cases in which her conscience would not allow her to do so, she would recuse herself. I can assure you that she is a person of integrity who acts in accord with the principles she articulates.
It is chilling to hear from a United States Senator that this might now disqualify someone from service as a federal judge. I ask you and your colleagues to respect those in whom “dogma lives loudly”—which is a condition we call faith. For the attempt to live such faith while one upholds the law should command respect, not evoke concern.
Respectfully,
Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C.
President
Two thoughts: first, Jenkins should have referenced Article 6 of the Constitution, which expressly forbids Feinstein’s deception designed to preserve the mythical “right” to abortion. Second, as we recall, Dred Scott was once legal precedent, yet it was overturned.
And in the Environmental Moment, contrast this rational explanation of the science behind hurricane formation…
…with the unreasoned ramblings of a climate-scammer:
Any questions?!?
Speaking of the unreasoned ramblings of a climate-scammer…
“…For those who have denied climate change, or delayed actions to counter it, he responded with an Old Testament saying: “Man is stupid.” “When you don’t want to see, you don’t see,” he said.”
With all due respect, we suggest Francis focus on the New Testament, specifically Romans 1:22-25: “Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images of mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the desires of their hearts to impurity for the dishonoring of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator, who is forever worthy of praise! Amen”
The unfortunate truth is, there are none so blind as they who WILL NOT see!
Which brings us to The Lighter Side:
Then there’s this in what we can only describe as a cross between another sordid story straight from The Crime Blotter and Idiots on Parade, as FOX News reports…
“Authorities in Portland, Ore., are reportedly scrapping their database of suspected gang members out of fear that these labels will most negatively affect minorities.
Portland police, next month, will end its two-decade-old practice of designating people as gang members or associates following the pressure from the community, The Oregonian reported. Activists have been trying to abolish the database and gang designations for years, claiming they disproportionately affect minority communities.
According to the data compiled by the paper, out of the 359 “criminal gang affiliates” listed in the police’s database, 81 percent were from an ethnic or racial minority…”
Gee, maybe because, like the Big Apple, the vast majority of gangbangers in Portland…
…ARE composed of ethnic and racial minorities?!?
Finally, though we’re no where nearly as dedicated to the game as the duffers shown in this actual photo of a recent forest fire in Oregon forwarded by Bill Meisen…
…we will be taking the next week off to focus on golf. So until a week from Friday…
Loading ...
You must be logged in to post a comment.