December 12, 2014

Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals

Here is the complete list from Alinsky.
* RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)
* RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.
* RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
* RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
* RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
* RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)
* RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)
* RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)
* RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)
* RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)
* RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)
* RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

December 8, 2014

Unborn Babies Feel Anger and Joy, Psychotherapist’s Study Says

by Kathy Schiffer | Washington, DC | | 2/12/14 7:07 PM
  •  3036
  • Share
They are happy. They are angry. They are fearful. They like music. And already, they like sweet treats.
In fact, babies in utero experience a wide range of sensory input at a much earlier stage of development than once believed. That’s the result of a study from Heidelberg psychotherapist Ludwig Janus, reported February 9 on, the on-line German-language Catholic newspaper.
ultrasound4d5Dr. Janus’ research showed that the unborn child can already feel emotions, such as anger and joy. According to him, there is a close connection between mother and child, through which the developing fetus “is confronted with a whole range of feelings and sympathises with them.” So the unborn baby could be angry in the womb or have fear, but also feel joy and satisfaction.
By eight weeks, the fetus has developed a sense of touch. Ultrasound images show the fetus, for example, reaching to touch a strip along the umbilical cord to reach the uterine wall and grope its surroundings.
The sense of taste can be tested as early as thirteen weeks. Janus reported that just as newborn infants like the taste of sweet fruit water, so does the developing fetus prefer sweeter tastes; and U.S. researchers at the Monell Chemical Senses Center (Philadelphia) demonstrated that the fetus will swallow more of the amniotic fluid if it is sweet, rather than bitter.
At seventeen weeks, the developing child has a well-developed sense of hearing—experiencing first the mother’s heartbeat, the sound of her blood and the rumblings of the stomach and intestines, later the maternal voice, and then other voices, music and everyday sounds. When scientists played “Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star” five times per week at this stage of development, then measured brain waves after birth, the newborn group who had heard the song in utero responded positively to the tune. Ludwig Janus, quoted in a Saxon newspaper, said, “We are experiencing in the womb, sentient beings and capable of receiving sensory stimuli from our environment and process.”
The sense of sight is complicated. Nuremberg perinatal expert Dr. Franz Kainer reported that the eyes are fully formed by the sixteenth week, but it takes until the 25th week before they are fully operational. At that stage, they are open and moving freely during periods of wakefulness, and closed for sleep. Visual acuity has not yet been fully tested, though, in the darkened environment of the womb.
The sense of smell does not come into play in the womb, because it can’t operate in the liquid environment.  However, soon after birth the sense of smell assumes great importance, as it will help the baby to recognize the mother and to find the way to her nipples.
LifeNews Note: Kathy is the wife of a deacon and mother of three grown children, and currently works as Director of Publicity and Special Events for Ave Maria Communications. Her columnoriginally appeared at Patheos and is reprinted with permission.

December 4, 2014

America and the Barbary Pirates: An
International Battle Against an Unconventional Foe

by Gerard W. Gawalt

Gerard W. Gawalt is the manuscript specialist for early American history in the Manuscript Division, Library of Congress.
Ruthless, unconventional foes are not new to the United States of America. More than two hundred years ago the newly established United States made its first attempt to fight an overseas battle to protect its private citizens by building an international coalition against an unconventional enemy. Then the enemies were pirates and piracy. The focus of the United States and a proposed international coalition was the Barbary Pirates of North Africa.
Pirate ships and crews from the North African states of Tripoli, Tunis, Morocco, and Algiers (the Barbary Coast) were the scourge of the Mediterranean. Capturing merchant ships and holding their crews for ransom provided the rulers of these nations with wealth and naval power. In fact, the Roman Catholic Religious Order of Mathurins had operated from France for centuries with the special mission of collecting and disbursing funds for the relief and ransom of prisoners of Mediterranean pirates.
Before the United States obtained its independence in the American Revolution, 1775-83, American merchant ships and sailors had been protected from the ravages of the North African pirates by the naval and diplomatic power of Great Britain. British naval power and the tribute or subsidies Britain paid to the piratical states protected American vessels and crews. During the Revolution, the ships of the United States were protected by the 1778 alliance with France, which required the French nation to protect "American vessels and effects against all violence, insults, attacks, or depredations, on the part of the said Princes and States of Barbary or their subjects."
After the United States won its independence in the treaty of 1783, it had to protect its own commerce against dangers such as the Barbary pirates. As early as 1784 Congress followed the tradition of the European shipping powers and appropriated $80,000 as tribute to the Barbary states, directing its ministers in Europe, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, to begin negotiations with them. Trouble began the next year, in July 1785, when Algerians captured two American ships and the dey of Algiers held their crews of twenty-one people for a ransom of nearly $60,000.
Thomas Jefferson, United States minister to France, opposed the payment of tribute, as he later testified in words that have a particular resonance today. In his autobiography Jefferson wrote that in 1785 and 1786 he unsuccessfully "endeavored to form an association of the powers subject to habitual depredation from them. I accordingly prepared, and proposed to their ministers at Paris, for consultation with their governments, articles of a special confederation." Jefferson argued that "The object of the convention shall be to compel the piratical States to perpetual peace." Jefferson prepared a detailed plan for the interested states. "Portugal, Naples, the two Sicilies, Venice, Malta, Denmark and Sweden were favorably disposed to such an association," Jefferson remembered, but there were "apprehensions" that England and France would follow their own paths, "and so it fell through."
Paying the ransom would only lead to further demands, Jefferson argued in letters to future presidents John Adams, then America's minister to Great Britain, and James Monroe, then a member of Congress. As Jefferson wrote to Adams in a July 11, 1786, letter, "I acknolege [sic] I very early thought it would be best to effect a peace thro' the medium of war." Paying tribute will merely invite more demands, and even if a coalition proves workable, the only solution is a strong navy that can reach the pirates, Jefferson argued in an August 18, 1786, letter to James Monroe: "The states must see the rod; perhaps it must be felt by some one of them. . . . Every national citizen must wish to see an effective instrument of coercion, and should fear to see it on any other element than the water. A naval force can never endanger our liberties, nor occasion bloodshed; a land force would do both." "From what I learn from the temper of my countrymen and their tenaciousness of their money," Jefferson added in a December 26, 1786, letter to the president of Yale College, Ezra Stiles, "it will be more easy to raise ships and men to fight these pirates into reason, than money to bribe them."
Jefferson's plan for an international coalition foundered on the shoals of indifference and a belief that it was cheaper to pay the tribute than fight a war. The United States's relations with the Barbary states continued to revolve around negotiations for ransom of American ships and sailors and the payment of annual tributes or gifts. Even though Secretary of State Jefferson declared to Thomas Barclay, American consul to Morocco, in a May 13, 1791, letter of instructions for a new treaty with Morocco that it is "lastly our determination to prefer war in all cases to tribute under any form, and to any people whatever," the United States continued to negotiate for cash settlements. In 1795 alone the United States was forced to pay nearly a million dollars in cash, naval stores, and a frigate to ransom 115 sailors from the dey of Algiers. Annual gifts were settled by treaty on Algiers, Morocco, Tunis, and Tripoli.
When Jefferson became president in 1801 he refused to accede to Tripoli's demands for an immediate payment of $225,000 and an annual payment of $25,000. The pasha of Tripoli then declared war on the United States. Although as secretary of state and vice president he had opposed developing an American navy capable of anything more than coastal defense, President Jefferson dispatched a squadron of naval vessels to the Mediterranean. As he declared in his first annual message to Congress: "To this state of general peace with which we have been blessed, one only exception exists. Tripoli, the least considerable of the Barbary States, had come forward with demands unfounded either in right or in compact, and had permitted itself to denounce war, on our failure to comply before a given day. The style of the demand admitted but one answer. I sent a small squadron of frigates into the Mediterranean. . . ."
The American show of force quickly awed Tunis and Algiers into breaking their alliance with Tripoli. The humiliating loss of the frigate Philadelphia and the capture of her captain and crew in Tripoli in 1803, criticism from his political opponents, and even opposition within his own cabinet did not deter Jefferson from his chosen course during four years of war. The aggressive action of Commodore Edward Preble (1803-4) forced Morocco out of the fight and his five bombardments of Tripoli restored some order to the Mediterranean. However, it was not until 1805, when an American fleet under Commodore John Rogers and a land force raised by an American naval agent to the Barbary powers, Captain William Eaton, threatened to capture Tripoli and install the brother of Tripoli's pasha on the throne, that a treaty brought an end to the hostilities. Negotiated by Tobias Lear, former secretary to President Washington and now consul general in Algiers, the treaty of 1805 still required the United States to pay a ransom of $60,000 for each of the sailors held by the dey of Algiers, and so it went without Senatorial consent until April 1806. Nevertheless, Jefferson was able to report in his sixth annual message to Congress in December 1806 that in addition to the successful completion of the Lewis and Clark expedition, "The states on the coast of Barbary seem generally disposed at present to respect our peace and friendship."
In fact, it was not until the second war with Algiers, in 1815, that naval victories by Commodores William Bainbridge and Stephen Decatur led to treaties ending all tribute payments by the United States. European nations continued annual payments until the 1830s. However, international piracy in Atlantic and Mediterranean waters declined during this time under pressure from the Euro-American nations, who no longer viewed pirate states as mere annoyances during peacetime and potential allies during war.
For anyone interested in the further pursuit of information about America's first unconventional, international war in the primary sources, the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress holds manuscript collections of many of the American participants, including Thomas Jefferson, George Washington (see the George Washington Papers), William Short, Edward Preble, Thomas Barclay, James Madison, James Simpson, James Leander Cathcart, William Bainbridge, James Barron, John Rodgers, Ralph Izard, and Albert Gallatin.

December 2, 2014

  We've all been taught the horror's of the African slave trade. It's in all the school books and in plenty of Hollywood movies.
   But for some reason the largest group of slaves in the British Colonies in the 17th Century doesn't get mentioned at all: the Irish.
attribution: None Specified
 Most people have heard of the Great Famine, which reduced the population of Ireland by around 25%.
   That pales in comparison to the disaster that England inflicted upon Ireland between 1641 and 1652, when the population of Ireland fell from 1,466,000 to 616,000.
  Then things got worse.
What to do with the Irish?
  From the Tudor reconquest of Ireland until Irish Independence in 1921, the English puzzled over the problem of what to do with all those Irish people.
   They were the wrong religion. They spoke the wrong language. But the big problem was that there were just too many of them.
  The English had been practicing a slow genocide against the Irish since Queen Elizabeth, but the Irish bred too fast and were tough to kill. On the other side of the Atlantic, there was a chronic labor shortage (because the local natives tended to die out too quickly in slavery conditions).
  Putting two and two together, King James I started sending Irish slaves to the new world.
  The first recorded sale of Irish slaves was to a settlement in the Amazon in 1612, seven years before the first African slaves arrived in Jamestown.
  The Proclamation of 1625 by James II made it official policy that all Irish political prisoners be transported to the West Indies and sold to English planters. Soon Irish slaves were the majority of slaves in the English colonies.
  In 1629 a large group of Irish men and women were sent to Guiana, and by 1632, Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat in the West Indies. By 1637 a census showed that 69% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves, which records show was a cause of concern to the English planters. But there were not enough political prisoners to supply the demand, so every petty infraction carried a sentence of transporting, and slaver gangs combed the country sides to kidnap enough people to fill out their quotas.
 The slavers were so full of zest that they sometimes grabbed non-Irishmen. On March 25, 1659, a petition was received in London claiming that 72 Englishmen were wrongly sold as slaves in Barbados, along with 200 Frenchmen and 7-8,000 Scots.
  So many Irish slaves were sent to Barbados, between 12,000 and 60,000, that the term"barbadosed" began to be used.
attribution: None Specified
 By the 1630's, Ireland was the primary source of the English slave trade.
   And then disaster struck.
   After Oliver Cromwell defeated the royalists in the English Civil War, he turned to Ireland, who had allied themselves with the defeated royalists. What happened next could be consideredgenocide.
   The famine (caused by the English intentionally destroying foodstocks) and plague that followed Cromwell's massacres reduced the population of Ireland to around 40%.
  And then Cromwell got really nasty.
Anyone implicated in the rebellion had their land confiscated and was sold into slavery in the West Indies. Even catholic landowners who hadn't taken part of the rebellion had their land confiscated.
  Catholicism was outlawed and catholic priests were executed when found.
To top it off, he ordered the ethnic cleansing of Ireland east of Shannon in 1652. Soldiers were encouraged to kill any Irish who refused to relocate.
   Instead of trying to describe the horror, consider the words from the English State Papers in 1742.
 "In clearing the ground for the adventurers and soldiers (the English capitalists of that day)... To be transported to Barbados and the English plantations in America. It was a measure beneficial to Ireland, which was
thus relieved of a population that might trouble the planters; it was a benefit to the people removed, which might thus be made English and Christians ... a great benefit to the West India sugar planters, who desired men and boys for their bondsmen, and
the women and Irish girls... To solace them
 I can't help but notice that the exact same language and logic used to justify enslavement of the blacks was used to justify enslavement of the Irish.
   It is something for those who think slavery was simply a matter of skin color to consider.
  As for the Irish slaves, Cromwell specifically targeted Irish children.
 “During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, [Oliver] Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers.”
 For some reason, history likes to call these Irish slaves as 'indentured servants'. As if they were somehow considered better than African slaves. This can be considered an attempt at whitewashing the history of the Irish slave trade.
   There does exist indentured servitude where two parties sign a contract for a limited amount of time. This is not what happened to the Irish from 1625 onward. They were sold as slaves, pure and simple.
  In reality, they were considered by some to be even lower than the blacks.
“...the African slave trade was just beginning during this same period,” writes Martin. “It is well recorded that African slaves, not tainted with the stain of the hated Catholic theology and more expensive to purchase, were often treated far better than their Irish counterparts.”
     African slaves were still relatively new, and were expensive to transport such a long distance (50 sterling in the late 1600's). Irish slaves on the other hand, were relatively cheap in comparison (5 sterling).
  If a planter whipped or branded or beat an Irish slave to death, it was never a crime. A death was a monetary setback, but far cheaper than killing a more expensive African. The English masters quickly began breeding the Irish women for both their own personal pleasure and for greater profit. Children of slaves were themselves slaves, which increased the size of the master’s free workforce.
 Because Irish slaves were so much cheaper, the loss of investment from torturing and killing them was not considered an effective deterrent. In an ironic twist, this caused some torecommend importing African slaves instead for humanitarian reasons.
 Colonel William Brayne wrote to English authorities in 1656 urging the importation of Negro slaves on the grounds that, "as the planters would have to pay much more for them, they would have an interest in preserving their lives, which was wanting in the case of (Irish)...." many of whom, he charged, were killed by overwork and cruel treatment. African Negroes cost generally about 20 to 50 pounds Sterling, compared to 900 pounds of cotton (about 5 pounds Sterling) for an Irish. They were also more durable in the hot climate, and caused fewer problems. The biggest bonus with the Africans though, was they were NOT Catholic, and any heathen pagan was better than an Irish Papist.
"Truly, I have seen cruelty there done to servants as I did not think one Christian could have done to another."
  - Richard Ligon, 1657
  It's impossible to estimate the exact number of Irish sold into slavery during this period. More Irish slaves were sold in the American colonies between 1651 and 1660 than the entire free population of those colonies. In fact, more Irish were sold as slaves in the America's during the 17th Century than Africans.
   The typical death rate on the slave ships was around 37%.
  The Irish did often have one advantage over African slaves - most of the time their time in slavery was limited. They were often sold into slavery from 7 to 20 years, while the only way Africans could get out of slavery was to buy their freedom.
   While the number of Irish being sent into slavery dropped off considerably in the 1660's, it did not just end.
   After the Battle of the Boyne in 1691 there was another load of Irish slaves sent to the new world. Following the failure of the 1798 Irish Rebellion there were tens of thousands more Irish slaves.
  Interesting historical note: the last person killed at the Salem Witch Trials was Ann Glover. She and her husband had been shipped to Barbados as a slave in the 1650's. Her husband was killed there for refusing to renounce catholicism.
   In the 1680's she was working as a housekeeper in Salem. After some of the children she was caring for got sick she was accused of being a witch.
  At the trial they demanded she say the Lord's Prayer. She did so, but in Gaelic, because she didn't know English. She was then hung.



Using the Web, Celebrity, and even Churches to Raise Money, Then What?

The web offers opportunities to help those in need like nothing before it. In fact, without the internet, most people would probably have already forgotten that more than a quarter million Haitians lost their lives just a little over fifteen months ago.

The internet can be used to save lives in time of natural disaster or civil uprising. It can also be used, especially in this era of the social media revolution, to bring awareness and raise money for different causes that people the world over are passionate about.

Coupling it with the magnetic power of celebrities, such as Eva Longoria or Shaquille O’Neal, it could do things that no one thought was ever possible. In fact, this is exactly what Shaun King, a pastor at Most Courageous church in Georgia, did last September when he started the Twitchange phenomenon on twitter.

The goal was clear and simple, to bring celebrities and fans together in a loud, fun way on Twitter to bring awareness and financial support to charitable causes that change the world. The idea started because of the earthquake in Haiti; hence, the first twitchange campaign was to benefit a school for children with special needs there: The Miriam Center in Northwest Haiti.

Before twitchange started, Pastor Shaun King founded Ahomeinhaiti, which was a movement that provided shelter, more specifically tents, to people who lost their homes after the earthquake in Haiti. Many people and organizations joined this movement to make it a success, although the idea of sending tents to Haiti in the wake of the earthquake was always controversial to many who know and understand Haiti.

Now, to why this article is even being written. On twitter, many Haitians and foreigners who supported Twitchange and pastor Shaun King, often sent me direct messages (DM) asking what have I heard about the Miriam Center since the end of the twitchange campaign? Many were curious because a lot of money was raised and wanted to know how it was being used, while others simply wanted to check on the progress of the project.

Back in January, I sent my first email to Pastor Shaun King after briefly asking him on twitter, if we could do a short interview so that I could get an update on the project. He replied, saying that I could send him the questions by email, but at that time I was traveling to Haiti, so I never had a chance to do a follow up. As I visited the Twitchange website on April 16th, I then sent Mr. King an email asking for some basic information: Could you please provide us with an update about your project in Haiti, and also for a main contact from the organization which you donated all the money raised? It would be good to get an update from all involved.

This question was sent to him after he wrote on twitter that he donated all the money raised, more than $540,000 according to some reports, such as this article and the Twitchange website (see picture below), to Northwest Haiti Christian Mission (NWHCM). Up to this point, I was just hoping to get a straight answer from either Mr.King or if he provided me with the contact info for NWHCM that the project is on-track and here’s where I can get more information if interested. But all to my surprise, we had a few email exchanges, which can be read below.

Mr.King: Sure! Are you in Haiti?  It would be best to go and see the work for yourself. Amazing stuff!

So again, I asked the same question: Do you have someone I can reach in Haiti? I would like to go visit and talk to someone there next week.

Mr King’s: You live in Port Au Prince now? Will you drive from PAP to St. Louis or fly? I will check with the team there on Monday to see who could connect with you.

I answered: I will drive. Can you give me a name and phone number that I can
contact this week-end?

Mr.King: I will get a Haitian # for you by Monday. If you drive to St. Louis Du Nord - everybody there knows all about Northwest Haiti Christian Mission.

I sent emails, both on Monday and Tuesday, reminding Mr.King to send me the info. I received no reply. On Wednesday April 20th, I sent another email to him, asking for a Haiti contact again, so that we could set up a visit and an interview with the staff there. When I received no reply to the emails, again, I contacted him through his twitter account. Shortly thereafter, Mr. King sent me this reply: I am out of the state in Los Angeles. Please contact Northwest Haiti Christian Mission directly for whatever info you need. Here's the thing - the organization you are researching has nothing to hide. I have already encouraged you to go there and given you the links to all of the staff members for you to reach them directly. I encourage you to do so.

In the above reply, Pastor King made it seemed as if I was researching NWHCM, which from our first conversation, I had no idea who they were. Pastor King was the one who raised all the money through twitchange, and from the beginning the money was to build the Miriam center which was going to look like this upon completion.

( architectural rendition of the Miriam Center)
Since Pastor King never gave a direct contact for NWHCM in Haiti, so I followed the link for NWHCM that he sent me and contacted Courtney Pierce, the Miriam Center director in Haiti. I got a replied from the director’s organization email stating that she was on sabbatical, and that I should send my email regarding the center to another email address ( at, which I did.

From that email address, I received a reply from Courtney Pierce, detailing the history and need for the Miriam center. I replied to her stating, I was simply looking for basic info about the twitchange funds, and if possible to get a receipt of the transaction between Ahomeinhaiti and NWHCM. She then forwarded my email to a few people within NWHCM, which Sam Guilliams, the executive Vice-President, replied to by asking me to provide more information about who I was.

Once the conversation caught the attention of some more people on twitter, Janeil Oneil, the executive director of NWHCM joined the chat on twitter to bring some clarifications. He noted that his organization only received exactly $200,000 from Ahomeinhaiti.

The conversation continued on twitter with some people who were curious and knew about the twitchange campaign from the beginning. The following day, I received a phone call from Cameron Mayhill, as he returned my calls from the previous days. We chatted about NWHCM work in Haiti, and he was also very forthcoming by answering some of my questions about the Miriam center and the money raised through twitchange.

Mr. Mayhill clarified that NWHCM received $200,000 from Shaun King’s Ahomeinhaiti back in December 2010, and that the money was wired via Paypal, but he could not confirm if that was all the money raised through twitchange. He also mentioned that the Miriam Center’s construction is currently on hold due to drainage issue on the land, but that they plan to move forward with it in the near future. He could not comment on an exact date at this moment, but he is confident that the center will be built.

Mr. Mayhill also added that Pastor King was hired for a paid position by NWHCM after the twitchange campaign, and up to now he is still employed with them. Mr. Mayhill further added that there is a change in the architectural plan, and a new firm is being contacted for adjustment in the design of the new center to make it more in line with Haiti’s reality.

In a newsletter report from NWHCM, dated Fall 2010, they mentioned that twitchange was able to raise more than $540,000 for a new and extended Miriam Center in Bonneau, Haiti. In a later newsletter issue, a correction was made about funds collected from the twitchange which put it at $200,000, although it still stated that more $540,000 was raised. The key here is that there is a distinction to be made between money raised and funds collected.

One explanation that I got about this discrepancy is the fact that some celebrities did not want to support certain businesses that bid for them during the Twitchange campaign, so those businesses did not pay on their pledge. I perused the entire Twitchange website, the Twitchange twitter account,, Shaun King’s twitter account and NWHCM website and nowhere did I ever see a mention of celebrities not wanting to support a business that participated in the Twitchange campaign or anything referring to $200,000 as the final count. The amount raised was never corrected on any of those websites, and there was no formal press release about the money transfer between Ahomeinhaiti and NWHCM.

It might be true that only $200,000 were collected from the twitchange auction to build a new and expanded Miriam center, but since both Ahomeforhaiti, which used Courageous Church as a fiscal agent and NWHCM are 501(c) 3, and in the case of the latter a registered Non-Governmental Organization in Haiti, shouldn’t we the public have access to their financial records, so that everyone knows exactly how much money was raised and how it is being spent.

(A screenshot of, showing more than $500,000 was received)

There is no financial statement on NWHCM’s website, which has been operating in Haiti for more than 30 years. Pastor King, who is currently employed by them, got this job after the twitchange campaign, how much he is being compensated has not been made public. By publishing their latest tax form, it would put all the donors of Twitchange at ease because they would know how their donated money is being used, and it would help eliminate any doubt that anyone might have about how much money was really raised by Pastor Shaun King through Twitchange.

(This screenshot, actually showed how much was raised to the penny)

Pastor King likes to mention on his twitter account that the land for the Miriam Center is already purchased, and the foundation work has started, but it is worth to note that the land was purchased before the Twitchange campaign. According to Mr.Mayhill, the $200,000 received from Pastor King is still in the Mission's bank account.

As Haiti gets ready to build back better, many of us appreciate all the great initiatives that friends of Haiti and people like Pastor Shaun King have taken to contribute and make a difference. However, due to lessons from the past, it is known that the best way to finally get Haiti moving in the right direction is for Haitian people to keep their eyes open and a little honesty from all involved about their work in Haiti. People who have nothing to hide will be forthcoming and able to show how every dime is being spent. The Haitian people have been taking advantage of far too long, there comes a time when enough is enough.

It is one thing to raise money through innovative ways by using the web, celebrities, churches, and regular individual, but it is as important to follow through with a promise, and use all the money for the intended purposes. If things change or a challenge arises, be as creative as possible to communicate with all involved, especially the donors. This is not only the right thing to do; it is also showing respect to the donors, and the people who should benefit from such projects.

It is our hope that the money raised through Twitchange will be used to help build this new center in Haiti and that sooner rather than later, financial reports and constant updates will be provided to all of us on the websites of all those in charge of this project.

Additional links regarding Twitchange:

Views: 1026