"CONCLUSION
World Vision is a multinational charitable organization that regularly generates more than
$1 billion in revenue annually, largely via donations from churches around the country, individual
believers of their causes, and federal grants. World Vision utilizes most of these funds in an effort
to assist those in need. As a result, World Vision’s work takes it to some of the most impoverished
and oftentimes dangerous, war torn locations in the world. Some of these locations, such as Sudan,
are very active hotspots for terrorist activity. World Vision has a duty to ensure that funds acquired from the U.S. government or donated by Americans do not end up supporting terrorist activity.
Particularly concerning to this Committee is World Vision’s attempt to shift the blame to the
federal government for their own inability to properly vet a subcontractor. A more robust and
fundamentally sound system of screening and vetting is needed to restore the public’s trust that
contributions made to World Vision are not funding illicit organizations. Moreover, although we
find no reason to doubt World Vision’s assertion that the funds in their entirety were used by ISRA
for humanitarian purposes, that money inevitably aids their terrorist activities."
Hardly. What you're alleging is an appeal to extremes made in example by the cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Could slippery slope apply? Probably.
"Obama runs administration. Members of Obama administration work with World Vision. Obama Admin gives World Vision money for humanitarian efforts. World Vision gives money to Sudan to help with humanity crises. Terrorists live in Sudan. Therefore, Obama is giving money to terrorists."
Your assertion is pathetic.
