Skip to comments.
The donation money trail; Red Cross use of charitable contributions questioned
Nightline, Koppel et al ^
| 10/26/01
| Red Cross and Dr. Healy
Posted on 10/26/2001 9:14:13 PM PDT by Diogenesis
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161 next last
To: Headlong
But they won't get even FIFTY percent of what they could. I take back my suggestion to send Ms. Healy a burqa. It sounds like she acted honorably. However, sending a copy of every death certificate related to 9-11 to each board member who voted to scarf might sober them up.
To: over3Owithabrain
This is criminal. I had a bad feeling from the beginning of the tragedy that this would happen. I've never trusted large corporate-type charities like Red Cross and United Way. They were shilling for money the second these attacks happened, and took advantage of the generosity of millions of good hearted Americans. Yeah! And Rudy Guliani made it a real point to threaten slicksters who might use the 9/11 as an opportunity to con people out of money. Guess he overlooked the "legitimate" whores at the Red Cross. I've been on to their bullshit as well as the union-esque extortion tactics of the United Way for decades. They get no money out of me!
22
posted on
10/26/2001 9:35:35 PM PDT
by
suijuris
To: jporcus
"Did she resign because the board did this? Or did the board make her resign because she did this?"
She resigned because the ARC Board decided to skim vast amounts of the funds! Her resignation speech was covered by CNN and, while she was "polite", she made it clear that she insisted on separating 911 funds from ARC general revenues BUT WAS OVERRULED BY THE BOARD!
23
posted on
10/26/2001 9:37:04 PM PDT
by
ExSES
To: Diogenesis
This is so inaccurate. I watched the same show. Ted Koppel did a good job showing both sides. The money's not stolen, but your credibility sure is missing.
To: Diogenesis
Sounds like time to FReep the Red Cross Board, until they buckel and direct the $do$re$me where it needs to go and where Americans want to go, and not a lot of other 'needy' places.
To: Diogenesis
I wonder if they're spending the money on condom distribution for disaster victims again?
My dad, a retired state police officer, told me many years ago that the Red Cross was handing out condoms during the Johnstown flood as part of relief efforts.
He asked them why they were doing this, and they told him it was because people had lost their birth control in the flood.
Yoy!
Always wondered about the Red Cross after that.
I still think they do excellent work with their blood drives, I just don't think I'd willingly make a cash donation.
26
posted on
10/26/2001 9:37:09 PM PDT
by
pubmom
To: Let's Roll
To: Let's Roll
That's how I heard it, too. The board wants to use the money "internationally" and she wanted to use it for WTC victims. They won; she quit.
I think donors should sue. I hate law suits but this is what they're for.
28
posted on
10/26/2001 9:38:09 PM PDT
by
lonestar
To: Diogenesis
To: Diogenesis
I think she was the one that wanted to include Israeli chapter of R.C. but the Arab pull stoped her so she stopped the flow of money to them. They were pissed. Now she resigned, o well, another cheat will step into her half million a year job. Yep they make money off your free blood. I truely distrust the Red Cross. They are crooked, wish another charity would take over their currupt scam game.
30
posted on
10/26/2001 9:39:52 PM PDT
by
LowOiL
To: VA Advogado
Of course it is not "missing".
It was earmarked for purposes other than the donors wanted.
Too bad if you think such collection agencies should take 21/3 or more "off the top".
To: Ironword
Healy's resignation speech is posted on FR. She opposed the board's decision to "redistribute" (that is, scarf) the 9/11 funds, so she quit.
Their policy has always been to throw all donations into a general fund and distribute it according to NEED and their organization's priorities. Scarfing implies someone at the ARC is personally benefitting, and thats simply not true. And donor's intent shouldn't matter. Thats how the liberals do things.
To: Diogenesis
Within just a few days I started hearing about how the Red Cross was trying to decide which "services" the families of the victims needed. I knew, then, that they would keep most of the money. Liberals always know what's best for you.
33
posted on
10/26/2001 9:42:42 PM PDT
by
joathome
To: Diogenesis
These groups have become huge entities and require lots of money just to keep afloat, just like the federal government. Obviously, the greed overweighed good judgement. This was a very dumb decision and they deserve whatever backlash is coming their way.
34
posted on
10/26/2001 9:42:51 PM PDT
by
TheLion
To: Diogenesis
IMO, There is not enough scrutiny and accountability. These organizations seem to be run by people who couldn't make it if they had a real job. Since the seventies, the major 501 C3's have been diverting funds to cousins in advertising, bimbos, and condos at Hilton Head. The best solution is not to contribute to any organization which allocates more than 15% to overhead.
To: Diogenesis
It was earmarked for purposes other than the donors wanted.
Its suppose to be distributed according to the organizations priorities. Donors are not to dictate how the ARC's money is to be spent. Again, liberals go by intent, conservatives go by the law, or in this case, the policy and programs that are and have been established by the ARC. Got it?
To: CWRWinger; ALOHA RONNIE; miss print; BeAChooser
The best solution is not to contribute to any organization which allocates more than 15% to overhead.
Think what that will do to Judical Watch.
To: VA Advogado
"Donors are not to dictate how the ARC's money is to be spent." If this NOTION were correct then the agencies would not require a Judge to reapportion.
Why do you appear to support such systematic stealing?
To: E=mc ²; JR
My wife's uncle had very little regard for the Red Cross during WWII...he said that the Salvation Army was better. I agree with the other posters who pointed out that JR would do us a service by removing the Red Cross for the introduction page. They are crooked self serving people at the top end. I know of alot of nice volenteers, but the Salvation Army is a far better organization. What you say Jim?? How about sleeping on it?
39
posted on
10/26/2001 9:51:20 PM PDT
by
LowOiL
To: Diogenesis
If this NOTION were correct then the agencies would not require a Judge to reapportion.
And this has to do with WHAT? I've seen no mention of a judge being involved. Do you support the ARC instructing the families how to SPEND the money?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson