Sam Rohrer:                  Hello and welcome to Stand in the Gap Today. I’m Sam Rohrer and I’m going to be joined today by Dave Kistler, co-host of this program. Now, let me ask you a question, ladies and gentlemen, every hear this phrase just follow the money? I’m sure you have. It’s quite common. Matter of fact, it’s viewed by many as being recognized as a part of our national lexicon. It happens to be true. It’s often credited as a phrase whispered to reporter and author Bob Woodward by the contact known as Deep Throat in the Watergate scandal of the 1970s that, those of you who remember, resulted ultimately in the resignation of President Richard Nixon. Unfortunately, history checks that look into these things reveal that this phrase was never stated and it does not occur in Woodward’s book All of the President’s Men, and that’s where it generally goes.

Now, I share that little bit of trivia only to say that while this phrase cannot be credited to this particular source, anyone who has lived life for any length of time knows money and human nature, knows the truism of this phrase just follow the money trail. That happens to be the theme for today’s program, following the money trail. Our special guest is Washington Project Director of the Middle East Forum, Cliff Smith. We’re going to be talking with him about a recent article he co-wrote and which appeared in the Christian Post in November entitled Lost in Sudan. I’m going to tell you upfront that this shocking article includes the players of Sudan, Hamas, Israel, Islamic Relief Agency, and Christian charity, World Vision. Now, you’re going to want to hear this information today because it’s very important and it has received, unfortunately, incredibly, little attention.

With that, I want to welcome the guest right now to our program, Cliff Smith. Cliff, thanks for being with us today.

Cliff Smith:                    Thank you very much, Sam. Happy to be here.

Sam Rohrer:                  Well, we’re glad you’re here. I’m just going to read for the sake of our audience right now who you are. You are a researcher. You’re a writer for the Middle East Forum, a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania-based think tank, and I’m reading right off of what this organization says, dedicated to defining American interest in the Middle East and protecting America from Islamist threats. I’m reading on what you’re disclaimer says. It achieves its goals through intellectual activist and philanthropic efforts. Now, and I’m going to read something more here, Cliff, as I set this up and we get right into this issue with you. On November the 27th, just a few short days ago, I’m reading from an article that came out, an alert that came out from the organization saying this, “On Giving Tuesday, the Middle East Forum is warning Americans about the risks of giving to charities that are active in areas of the world where terrorist groups operate.” That’s the framework, ladies and gentlemen, I want to put together this entire subject today.

Cliff, Dave and I want to talk with you today about why this warning was issued and so forth. We’ll get into that. But before we get to World Vision as a Christian charity and what you discovered prompting this warning, you also mentioned in that release and other articles that you’ve done mentioning the Islamic Relief Agency, who ostensibly collects charity dollars to help those who are needy in the Middle East but for whom there is great concern about this entity. I want to start right there with that group first as a charity that collects money for the purpose of helping the poor and those in need, the Islamic Relief Agency. Cliff, go here first. Who is this agency? Under what pretense do they raise funds from benevolent Americans? Start there please.

Cliff Smith:                    Well, the Islamic Relief Agency was founded in the Sudan in 1981 under the guise of charity. I’m not here to say that they have never done charitable work. They have. However, you have to realize that when it comes with a certain ideology and a certain way of looking at the world what charity is can differ a lot. Bottom line is whatever point in their history they eventually became very friendly with Osama Bin Laden and in the late 90s and early 2000s they gave millions to Bin Laden’s organizations and put under his control. It was because of this that they have gotten into the kind of trouble they are in terms of being a terrorist designated organization.

They also have raised money from Americans, you know ostensibly just under any other, just like any other charity. They had an arm called the Islamic American Relief Agency that was headquartered in Missouri. It was shut down by the feds however during this whole process when they became a terror-designated organization.

Dave Kistler:                 Cliff, it is a delight to have you aboard. Let me ask you this. In 2004, the Islamic Relief Agency was designated by the U.S. government to be a terrorist organization. My question is what does that designation mean and then beyond that what does it mean for entities, whether they be governmental entities or charitable organizations in the United States, that might choose to collaborate with that Islamic Relief that’s been designated a terrorist organization?

Cliff Smith:                    Well, giving support to a designated terrorist organization is illegal. That’s the bottom line. It was a system created in order to prevent exactly what kind of things we’ve seen in article that you mentioned that I wrote along with my colleague Sam. It’s intended to prevent people from giving money to them, from them giving the material support, be it information or goods or anything that can help them achieve their goal, or one of their goals anyway, of helping terrorist entities. It was precisely to shut down pipelines, funds coming from the U.S., coming from governments, coming from charities going to these groups that these laws were created in the first place, and obviously after 9/11 especially groups linked to Bin Laden this became especially relevant.

The government very rarely designates something as a terrorist-funding organization unless they have very solid evidence that these foreign entities are indeed funding terrorism. In fact, there are quite a number of organizations that almost certainly ought to be designated that aren’t. Nonetheless, ISRA was designated because it was so clear that they had given substantial amounts of money to Osama Bin Laden prior to 9/11 and right around during the time Bin Laden was attacking U.S. interests in Africa and Sudan and Kenya and many different places, the USS Cole bombing. During all these periods of time, Islamic Relief Agency was helping him to fund his efforts.

Sam Rohrer:                  All right, Cliff, so we have to go away for a break here right now, but without a question by what you’re saying the view and the background and so forth, this organization obviously works opposed to the interests of Israel and everything going on in the Middle East there as well.


When well-known charity organizations or foundations such as Islamic Relief Agency or foundations such as George Soros funds and supports, when these entities like that support terrorism and unbiblical activities, it’s no surprise to us is it? Really, it’s not. Yet, when charities that carry the name of Christian begin to support unbiblical positions, such as opposing Israel or supporting the enemies of Israel such as Osama Bin Laden, then it should become known and unsuspecting good people should know about such things.

Now, the focus of this segment today will be on one such organization that is very well-known, international in its reach, and one that raises and spends billions of dollars. This focus though I want you to know is not intended to highlight just this one organization alone but to highlight a prominent organization, which is what we’re going to talk about, and to use them as an illustration of what can happen to organizations that collect and spend a lot of money. With that, I want to welcome back now to the program Cliff Smith. He is the Washington Project Director of the Middle East Forum.

Cliff, let me go into this now here with you. Let me set this up a little bit more here. In an article released by the organization through which you work, Middle East Forum, on November 27th, and I already referred to it, on Giving Tuesday you warned the people there in that article release “Writing in the Christian Post on November the 3rd, the Forum revealed the full extent of the role played by World Vision in a 2015 decision by the Obama Administration to approve the transfer of $115,000 of taxpayers money to the Islamic Relief Agency” which we just talked about. I’m going on here now. It says “The U.S. government designated this organization in 2004 as a terrorist organization because of its close links to Bin Laden. The Christian Post article followed a July 2018 report by the Forum, which appeared in National Review, that first uncovered the scandal which was covered by media all around the world.” That’s basically what was written in a release from the entity through which you work.

Cliff, let me just go right into it. What was this July 2018 report and what was the scandal about which the media around the world took note? Tell us about that.

Cliff Smith:                    That was an article written by my colleague Sam, with my assistance on some of the research, but it was mostly from Sam, that detailed how the U.S. government not only ended up giving money to a designated terrorist charity but how it did so knowingly and authorized such a payment. It’s actually kind of funny how it came about. Some of our researchers were researching a completely separate organization but while doing so stumbled upon a grant on the website to Islamic Relief Agency. Our researchers who were experts in these areas instantly knew that Islamic Relief Agency in Sudan was a designated terrorist charity and began looking at it more. They sent an inquiry into United States Agency for International Development, the group that handles foreign aid, and said, Hey, what’s going on? This appears to be a designated charity.” Essentially, they dodged the question or refused to answer over a series of tries.

I’m a lawyer myself and I have training in FOIA, Freedom of Information Act, measures, so I filed a FOIA request seeking documents about this specific grant. It took us a number of months to go through the procedures and to finally get them to cough up the documents, but finally when they coughed up the documents it detailed a number of things. Number one is what had happened apparently is that Islamic Relief Agency, this designated Bin Laden-funding charity in Sudan, had indeed been given a subgrant by World Vision and that World Vision had basically done so claiming that the government required them to work with this local partner, Islamic Relief Agency, and that is why they were working with this group in a region of the Sudan called Blue Nile.

Once it became known that this was a terrorist charity, U.S. government basically told World Vision “Hey, we need to get rid of this. We need to stop doing this. This is a designated group.” However, World Vision resisted doing so claiming that if they didn’t give what they owed to Islamic Relief Agency the Sudanese government would go after them, it might expel them, things of that nature, and so after a lot of back and forth in which World Vision continued to press the U.S. government, USAID, and the Treasury Department, who handles the Office of Foreign Asset Control, which stops money from going to terrorist organizations, eventually the government relented and said “Okay, fine, give them this money, go ahead” under the idea that basically their work in the Sudan would be jeopardized if they didn’t pay this designated terrorist charity which the Sudanese government, which as you may know is one of four state sponsors of terror in the world, required them to work with this group in order to get access to a sensitive region in Sudan.

Dave Kistler:                 Cliff, let me ask you this. Once you and Sam Westrop co-authored this article that appeared in the Christian Post, once that article was out and World Vision was aware that you had basically called them out in the article, how did they respond to you? And then if I might ask how in turn did you respond back to them?

Cliff Smith:                    Well, I can tell you it was very disappointing frankly. Even before, one of the things that led to the Christian Post article was once the National Review article that I just mentioned that first called attention to this came out World Vision put out a press release responding to their past engagement with Islamic Relief Agency in Sudan in which case, frankly, their press release was at best wildly misleading. It said things like at the time there was no indication that Islamic Relief Agency had any possible ties to the alleged terrorist-supporting organization. That’s just patently false. It was all over Treasury’s website. It was all over the internet. They were the only group with the name Islamic Relief or any iteration of that listed on the Treasury sanctions website. If they didn’t know that Islamic Relief Agency was a designated charity, it is simply because they refused to do their due diligence and look. They said a number of other things such as we have no evidence, none of our money went to terrorism, things of that nature, which also is not the point. Terrorist groups all over the world frequently employ charitable arms and charitable organizations in order to gain support from the local populous, in order to gain legitimacy. It’s common as terrorist organizations. Almost all of them do it in some capacity or another.

That lead to us writing the article, and then when the article, which detailed both what they did and what they should have done, the due diligence that was not done, they basically came out and tried to muddy the waters further. First they said we made outrageous claims that they knowingly supported terrorism. We never said that. I don’t know that they knew that Islamic Relief Agency was a designated terrorist organization. It’s possible they didn’t. However, as our article detailed, they explicitly said they would take certain steps in order to ensure that none of their subgrantees were designated entities, steps that clearly were not taken. It took us minutes to find damning information on this group. Clearly, they didn’t do their due diligence.

They said other things such as, they said their second and final payment was authorized by the government. They didn’t even mention that we had detailed at least one other payment that had went to them. They’re implicitly admitting their first payment to this group was not authorized by the U.S. government.

Sam Rohrer:                  Okay. I’m going to step in if I can, Cliff, because your laying out basically answering Dave’s question very well. When confronted, they didn’t seek to correct their action but they defended it. Now, in the last couple minutes here, I want you to answer this question because I want to make sure we get it in in this discussion here. Frankly, personally, I don’t find it a happy thing to reveal information like this about any group unless they are on their face, you know an enemy of the Constitution, an enemy of God. World Vision historically has not been that way. People don’t understand. Therefore, I don’t like to do this, but is important that when there are actions like this taking place that we bring it out.

I want to ask you this question from your perspective. We’re doing it because we believe that there’s an obligation to report factual information when it involves people, people’s money, and how things should be functioning. We’re doing it for that reason. For you and your purposes, what was your motivation for pursuing this in the first place and for attempting to make this known frankly worldwide? Why’d you do that?

Cliff Smith:                    It’s very simple really. I mean, I’m a Christian. I am an evangelical. I know people that work at World Vision and for many, many years I was a fan of theirs. I still believe that they do some good work. I still believe they have capacity to do good work, but the bottom line is it seems to me they have gotten way off track and have not taken seriously these very serious issues of funding terrorist organizations. Seems to me they are either naïve or willfully blind about the methods they use, the methods a hostile totalitarian Islamic theocratic government like Sudan uses, and I think that ultimately the only way to hold people accountable is for the truth to come out and relentlessly seeking that truth and letting it known the truth of what has happened is the only way to make sure that the course is corrected. You know, once the course is corrected then I don’t have an issue anymore. It had never been my goal to destroy them or anything like that. Look, they have taken, best I can tell, no steps to correct their situation other than to issue misleading press releases.

Sam Rohrer:                  Okay, Cliff, I think what you just said is great. The purpose, ladies and gentlemen, is to bring to attention an issue that is clear and hopefully to seek corrective action. Now, that hasn’t happened yet.

Okay, let me go right in it now. This is how good money goes bad is how I’m framing this segment. Charities and philanthropic agencies do play an important role in marshaling the efforts and the interest and humanitarian-concerned people. They do. They can do what governments can’t do and they can assist where no single individual by themselves is capable of doing. However, charities and philanthropic agencies are all governed by their worldview and our guest, Cliff Smith, said that earlier and I want to emphasize it. They are guided by their worldview. Everybody’s got a worldview. We talk about it.

So, if you have a group like the Islamic Relief Agency that’s been designated as a terrorist organization in 2004 by the U.S. government, as an example in their name they give you a heads up as to their worldview. It says Islamic right in their name. Therefore, the support of terrorist organizations like Hamas or terrorist leaders like Osama Bin Laden by this group or others so designated should be of no surprise. It is sad when U.S.-based organizations who say they are Christian and that they solicit contributions from many Christians and evangelicals and cite Bible passages to support their actions end up funding and assisting the enemies of Israel just in some cases like the Islamic Relief Agency does with intent. Now, is there a reason for that? I’d like to look in this segment a little bit about how this can happen.

Cliff, let me go right off to you here right now. Our theme today, as we said, follow the money. We started with highlighting the Islamic Relief Agency, a terrorist organization, how they raise money theoretically for the poor and the downtrodden, but they are also the sworn enemies of Israel. We just dealt with a Christian charities organization, World Vision, who’s also helped or facilitated some of these same goals and some of these same efforts. The logical question is this, Cliff, how does it happen where an organization that states they are Christian, as in this case, and can move so dramatically into a position where they end up supporting unbiblical positions or unChristian positions? From your perspective, how does that happen?

Cliff Smith:                    I think it happens when they, there’s a variety of things. I think that one thing that happens a lot is that sometimes they get so driven by their mission as admirable as it may be, helping people in war-torn parts of the world, helping people that are struggling with famines and stuff, becomes so overriding that they ignore all other concerns or start frankly in many of these cases helping the oppressors of those they want to help. Obviously, if you’re giving money to a designated-terrorist organization or other people that oppress Israel, oppress their own people in Sudan or Syria or wherever else, you’re not actually helping. You might give a pretense of helping in the short term, but in the long run you’re just enabling the people that are making the situation worse in the long run. I think a lot of times that’s something that happens.

For example, in this particular case that we’ve been discussing in Sudan, it’s pretty explicit in some of the documents that have been made public pursuant to our Freedom of Information Act request that the reason World Vision first got involved with Islamic Relief Agency was because the government of Sudan, a state sponsor of terror, required them to partner with a local organization, also known as Islamic Relief Agency, in order to gain access to a particularly sensitive region of Sudan, the Blue Nile region, and so essentially they got too close to the Sudanese government in their desire to do good and ended up, I would argue, doing very bad and helping make the situation worse rather than better in the long run.

Sam Rohrer:                  So, what you’re saying, and we’ve talked a lot about it, be careful where you take your money from because it can end up being the tail that wags the dog.

Dave, I want to go to another issue with you. I mentioned worldview, not biblical worldview but worldview, and that every ministry, every agency, every person whoever they are have a worldview, and that really determines where they go. I want to get your response to something here. There’s a fellow who’s name’s Luke Moon. He’s the Deputy Director of the Philos Project. He’s an ordained Southern Baptist pastor. He’s a master graduate from Regent University. He wrote this about World Vision in a meeting in which one of their presidents was involved in the late spring of 1979 in La Grange, Illinois where it was there to talk about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Now, just to shorten it down, I’m not going to read all of that, but Moon wrote about that. He said this, “The conference ended with the drafting of what would be called the La Grange Declaration published in Sojourners Magazine that was signed by over 5,000 Christian leaders.” The declaration states in part, and he’s taking it now from the resolution which World Vision leaders were a part, “We are anguished by the fact that countless Christians believe that the Bible gives to the modern state of Israel a divine right to lands inhabited by Palestinian people and divine sanction to the state of Israel’s policy of territorial acquisition.”

Now, Dave, that was a political statement written in that way, but you get the point of it. My question to you is what kind of potential problems can occur when a “Christian organization” begins to interpret scripture to say that Israel is no longer in God’s plans or that God’s promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob relative to their land and to Jerusalem and all that no longer apply. You know what I mean?

Dave Kistler:                 I do, Sam.

Sam Rohrer:                  Okay.

Dave Kistler:                 You’ve got some huge problems prophetically with that. Our listeners who are regular to this program know that we have Dr. Jimmy DeYoung on. We talk a lot about issues related to the Middle East. The statement you just read, Sam, is the antithesis of what we believe here at the American Pastors Network as far as what we believe the Bible teaches prophetically. You have a huge problem, an enormous problem with a significant body of scripture prophetically if you take the position that Mr. Moon is reporting on that World Vision took.

The other thing, Sam, is this. I honestly believe you set yourself up to become an enemy of the very God of heaven because of what Genesis 12:3 says. God says I will bless those that bless you, Israel. I’ll curse those that curse you. This statement, Sam, is a statement that should be beyond troubling not only to any supporter of Israel but to any believer of the scriptures, especially the prophetic portions.

Sam Rohrer:                  So, really what you’re saying, Dave, is simple. I’m just going to restate it. That when a “Christian organization” or one that says that we are operating under that umbrella takes a position contrary clearly to what the Bible says they at least open themselves up for potential blind spots in a lot of other areas.

Dave Kistler:                 Enormous blind spots in other areas. Sam, it’s inconceivable to me that someone could read the scriptures, the prophetic portions of the scriptures and come to the conclusion that this entity has come to.

Sam Rohrer:                  With that being said, Cliff, we’re getting about done here. We’ve got the positions biblically, worldview perspective. This is a big one here. You mentioned about getting entangled with foreign nations, Sudan as an example with World Vision, a state identified as a sponsor of terrorism. Already, you start working with an enemy state leaders and you take their money or whatever, you’re in trouble at that point and time. We’re about out of time here right now and I know we’re covering a lot, ladies and gentlemen, but we’re trying to lay out a couple of things here. Your foundational principles and your mission statement, if you say you’re Christian you better make sure that it is fully consistent with what the Bible says. If not, then you’re automatically on unstable ground or worse. Working with government agencies that are enemies obviously puts you at risk, and the other is that if you take a lot of any kind of government money, of which this organization has done, or others like it, you also put yourself in a position of doing the bidding of politically correct government leaders, not your mission. I think all of those things come into play.


Well, welcome back to Stand in the Gap as we now move into our last segment here. I’d like to talk about guidelines if we could, just identify just a few that can help all of us hopefully when considering perhaps to whom we donate and give in this time of year. The focus today is in part, actually the theme is following the money, but it was highlighted in part to show the necessity for any organization to follow not only the law but God’s moral laws and the necessity to be open and accountable to the public at least in regard to their stated mission. Now, our purpose today though was also to alert you, our listeners, as to the reason to be very cautious, to be careful, to be diligent regarding to whom you give your money or assistance and particularly in this time of year. We just past Giving Tuesday. We have Thanksgiving. A lot of people will give towards the end of the year for tax reasons. A lot of things. It’s Christmastime. It’s a great to time to be generous, but with that we’re saying be careful.

In this final segment, I’d like to summarize today’s focus by mentioning a few of the guidelines that I think you and I can consider when we are thinking and praying about who to share our resources with. Cliff, let me to go you from your perspective here as we approach the end here. What simple guidelines and recommendations can you give our listeners about evaluating charitable organizations, their stated missions, and their actual actions, and I’m going to put it for you particularly. Particularly in those areas of the world where there are terrorist activities going on, and I’m thinking specifically the Middle East, there are a lot of people asking for all kinds of money right now because of things that are happening in the Middle East, displaced people and so forth, and that’s your area of focus and concern, so what can you tell and recommend to our listeners about how to view any organization that would be involved perhaps in doing anything in the Middle East, as an example.

Cliff Smith:                    I would simply ask them to not look solely at whatever the organization itself puts out. I mean, organizations are very good, and for good reasons, this is good PR and they [inaudible 00:29:34] poor it’s a good positive image. I mean, for example the group we’ve been discussing, World Vision, I mean almost every single picture you’ll ever see has a World Vision guy sitting next to a hungry child. That’s good and important work. I’m not saying it isn’t. I’m not saying anything like that. However, you have to be realistic and understand that in certain areas of the world that there are real problems. Don’t just look at what they say. Look at what other people have said. Look at what problems they’ve run into.

Look, I’m not naïve. I understand that if you’re going to work and do needed humanitarian work in that part of the world where terrorist organizations operate you run the risk of having problems. You run the risk of making mistakes, and that’s okay. It’s not okay in the sense you can just laugh it off, but it is okay in the sense that I’m willing to say if you are willing to have a problem and then fix it and then address publicly and say “Hey, here’s what we did, here’s how it went wrong, and here’s how we’re going take steps to avoid this in the future,” that’s good. That’s acceptable. My problem in this particular case that I’ve been working on, again we’ve been discussing in parts, World Vision, is best anybody [inaudible 00:30:39] can tell they put out a couple of wildly misleading press releases trying to minimize their involvement and trying to make themselves look like there isn’t a real serious problem without addressing any of the documented substantive problems that have been brought to light as a result the research of ours and other groups that have brought up the problems they’ve had in terms of funding terrorists groups in Sudan, funding terrorist groups in the Gaza Strip and things of that nature.

Sam Rohrer:                  Okay. I think that’s good recommendations. Don’t look at just what they say, ladies and gentlemen, or don’t be moved just by a moving emotional picture. It’s got to be a little bit deeper than that. Look at what others are saying about the organization.

Dave, let me go to you and see what you say because when we talk about giving, something of which all Christians should be thinking about and be generous, and American people historically have been very given to being generous, this guideline here does not apply just to this particular organization but to all others. What are things that you’ve learned about that you could share that would be helpful in guiding people and determining to whom they ought to give and all of that?

Dave Kistler:                 Well, Sam, I think what Cliff said is excellent. Obviously, ministries are very good at promoting their successes and minimizing their weaknesses, and so if all you do is look at their slick advertising, and I’m not saying professional advertising is wrong, but if that’s all you look at you may not get the entire picture. The bottom line is this, you need to get to know an organization as best as you possible can, certainly from a theological standpoint. You want to support organizations whose stated doctrinal statement in accord with scripture and what you believe, but at all possible get to know that organization or some of the people that are principals in it as much as you possibly can.

I know that may not be possible one on one depending on the size of the organization, but if that organization has various ministries that are very public, such as a radio program or a TV program or other methods of communication, a newsletter and so on, over the process of time observe those things. Talk to other people that support that entity and get their take on it and see if there’s anything negative that has come up in the past. If so, let it be a red flag, let it be potentially at least a caution light, if not maybe in some situations a stop sign. If you continue to get great information, great reporting from other people that have supported that entity, you don’t see anything that raises any alarms, then obviously follow God’s leading and consider supporting that entity.

Sam Rohrer:                  Dave, I think that’s excellent. Ladies and gentlemen, you’ve heard just a few things there. Don’t take the first thing you read and act upon it, check a little bit further. That really is a biblical principle. It should apply to every and all aspects of life. Dave is saying check out the mission statement for Christian people. For those who want to be concerned about the moral impact of the giving, you ought to look up that entity’s mission statement, find out what their saying about the relationship to biblical truth. If it’s not clear or if they don’t really believe in the authority of scripture and say we’re guided by that, then they’re going to be guided by something else and that’s going to take them down a path and put them in a potential path of disaster.

I’m going to think here and say as well don’t assume. Just don’t assume anything. Check it out. You can. Oftentimes, not always, but oftentimes you’re sometimes better off even to be closer to home, so when we support missionaries, do it through your church, that kind of thing. Sometimes that is also a good thing if you can’t check out somebody who is there.

Cliff, let me go back to you as we approach the closing time here right now. Do you have a website or anything to which any of the things we’ve talked about today that you’d want to give people to go to look at?

Cliff Smith:                    Oh, yes, certainly. I believe all the articles we’ve discussed should be posted on, the Middle East Forum’s website. The articles are myself and my colleague, Sam, detailing some of this. Those should all be available.

One other last thing I would mention about this particular instance, World Vision is part of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability. They have a charter which in part reads “Every organization should exercise appropriate management controls, provide a reasonable assurance the organization’s operations are carried out in a responsible manner and done so in accordance with the law and biblical mandate.” You know, I think if this is something you’re concerned about you ought to say since they haven’t taken any action, and certainly never take any action public to really address these issues or really come clean about whether this has happened, is let them know, let the Evangelical Counsel Financial Accountability know that you’re concerned about that one of their members is not living up to its charter.

Sam Rohrer:                  Actually, I want to double down and support what you’re saying there. Ladies and gentlemen, that organization, the accountability organization, ethics is something that is voluntary and it’s really up to the organizations that belong to really police themselves, but as what was just said contact that entity, let them know, and let them put pressure on that organization or any, and I think that’ll be a good thing.