Posted on 10/29/2001 8:40:54 AM PST by CommiesOut
Hey, its the Red Cross. You *knew* what was coming. I made my donation by buying socks and underwear for the rescue workers when the call went out. At least I knew where my money was going.
Exactly right. I didn't give a donation for their bigwigs to profit from, I gave to the NY families.
BTW, thanks for the ping. This is a very interesting post.
No, it's fine never. The money donated to the victims goes to the victims, period. I don't care if it means every victim ends up being a multimillionaire as a result.
It's THE AMERICAN RED DOUBLE-CROSS! Never again!
United Way and Red Cross kiss my grits.
If you sent a check, contact your bank to see if it's been cashed yet. If not, put a stop payment on the check, and the Red Cross will never see a penny. (They may even get hit for a returned check fee!) The bank will charge you to do this, possibly as much as $25 to $30, but it's worth it!
If you paid by credit card, simply call the toll-free number on the back of your credit card and dispute the charge. They'll want a reason, but the reason is simple: Breach of contract. You gave on the knowledge that your money would go to X, and instead they're using it on Y and Z.
Let's help tear down the Red Cross!
By my calculations, the Red Cross contributions alone of $530,000,000+ ought to provide nearly $110,000 for every single family affected by the WTC and Pentagon tragedies. If the lower number is correct, bump that up to $190,000 per family. Instead they get "3 months living expenses"??? I don't think so. (I saw one widow interviewed who said they sent her a check for $1500. Not only is that not enough for a family to live on for three months, it's not even enough to cover funeral--or rather, memorial service--expenses. They're probably raking in what? Maybe a half-mil in interest per month? And they hand out a few checks for fifteen hundred dollars. Sure, the longer they delay paying out, the more bloated their coffers become and the less fund-raising of their own they have to do.)
Bill O'Reilly and every watchdog group in America ought to make the Red Cross feel the heat of intense pressure until they do what is RIGHT. People didn't give for RC expansion, bonuses, programs in Iran or Palestine or Afghanistan, advertising budgets, or "miscellaneous expenditures." They gave to the widows and orphans of WAR, and every single dime of that 9/11 Fund had @#&% better go to those families. They raised $600 million on their own for those other day-to-day expenses. Something has to be done to force these scoundrels to do the right thing. < /rant>
BTW, this was under Dole's watch which should prove that the sins of the ARC have been ongoing.
The crime they're trying to perpetrate doesn't surprise me. What surprises me is how badly they're pulling it off given their past experience doing just the same thing.
(I can see Jesse Jackson reading this and trying his hardest to figure out how he can weasel his way into a position of power with the Red Cross.)
Unfortunately this is standard operating procedure for the Red Cross. (And I am not inherently anti-Red Cross; my mother is a Registered Nurse who does volunteer work and has been sent on disaster relief for the Red Cross.) During the 1972 Northridge Earthquake the same problem arose, as it does during every major disaster. There is an outpouring of donations from people who want to help the victims as quickly as possible, and who assume the Red Cross is a trustworthy conduit for such aid. The Red Cross absorbs the money and then provides the amount of aid they think is appropriate, irrespective of the donations received.
Their rationale is that they have to assist people all over and all the time who may be victims of minor disasters. Those minor problems don't get the publicity or have the emotional appeal of a major disaster, and yet the Red Cross has to cover its overhead for all of them. Hence it's not fair to segregate the money for major disasters, and have to fund minor disasters plus overhead out of the renaming dribbles of contributions.
The argument has a surface plausibility, but ultimately that is an internal Red Cross problem. The Red Cross still does not have a right to take contributions earmarked for one purpose and use those contributions for other purposes. That is DECEPTION and FRAUD, pure and simple. The Red Cross officials who are responsible for that fraud ought to go to jail.
First of all, if you gave to the Red Cross, or if you know anybody that did, see my response #49 in this thread on how to cancel your donation.
Other than that, I have two suggestions:
1) If you want to give and haven't yet, either give to the Salvation Army or, even better, just search the news sites online for stories about the victims. Pick a family at random, and write a check directly to them. Their addresses should be available on any White Pages web site.
2) We should recruit some FR members that happen to be lawyers, and seriously investigate launching a class-action lawsuit against the Red Cross. I personally can't get involved on this, since I'm not a 9/11 victim and never gave the Red Cross a dime anyway. (I've been on to their scam since 1981.) But there are obviously millions of potential claimants out there.
I agree. Put a stop payment on your checks. That will sent a loud message. No one seems to want to take on the Red Cross like no one wants to take on the Rev. Jacksass. Just the following thought: Who does the Red Cross have on its payroll that no one wants to audit it? It appears to me it is a fraudulent, crooked, selfserving organization.
Thank you for the reference. Understanding the Toronto Star's motivations, my take is that they were more than a bit burned up by the positive reception of Libby Dole in Toronto last Wednesday and latched onto this story as a way to get her back, even if by proxy two years after her reirement from the Red Cross. The story you referred to follows:
American Red Double Cross
John LeBoutillier
Monday, Oct. 29, 2001
September 11 and the events since then show the best – and the worst – of our country.
The best? The generosity, caring and selflessness of regular people who opened up their wallets – often without even being solicited – and sent money for the families of the victims.
So far over $1 billion has been pledged. What other people – ever – have rallied to their fellow human beings in such a voluntary and generous way?
The worst? The greed, selfishness and power-and-publicity-hungry 'officials' who so far have prevented most of this money from getting to the people who need it most.
The American Red Cross is the best example of this dichotomy. With a Liberty Fund already filled with a staggering $505 million from average Americans, the ARC has been reluctant to disperse the funds. Just two weeks ago the New York Post profiled a pregnant young widow of a man who died in the World Trade Center. This young woman had a total of $450 to her name! And she was wondering where all this aid was.
Well, sure enough, the very day this article appeared, the American Red Cross coughed up enough money to keep the widow going. So, too, did the United Way, which amazingly – and suddenly – had a representative drive out to the woman's house.
But why did it take a New York Post article to get these charities off their duffs?
We can't have 5,000 such stories to prompt these reluctant-to-spend agencies to help the very people this money is intended for.
Last Friday we began to learn a little of what has been going on behind the scenes. The American Red Cross fired its president, Dr. Bernadine Healy. In the news stories describing her contentious battles with her board, we can see how this arrogant woman tried to take money intended for the families of the victims and use it for other projects.
For example, she had earmarked $26 million for "community outreach to teach tolerance."
Is this what people 'out there' who sent $25 to the Red Cross intended? Millions to "teach tolerance"? Tolerance of what?
Dr. Healy also earmarked a staggering $29 million to upgrade the ARC's own telecommunications, information and accounting systems.
Can you imagine spending that kind of money on CPAs and cell phones?
What a disgrace!
Those generous Americans who donated while watching the World Trade Centers collapse did not do so to pay for the Red Cross to hire more bookkeepers.
Of the $505 million raised in the Liberty Fund, the ARC has so far only distributed $35 million to 2,326 families. Dr. Healy's plan was to donate a total of $100 million for the families.
Do you not think that all of the $505 million should go to the families of the victims?
Why should even one cent of it go to the American Red Cross's other programs or internal needs?
Clearly, the Red Cross board was aghast at Healy's awful judgment. However, this board paid her an annual salary of $450,000. We have all heard the timeworn and tired explanation: "In order to get someone capable of running the American Red Cross in a competent way we must pay a wage comparable to what that person could earn in private enterprise."
Bunk!
Running a charity should be in itself such a privilege that extremely competent mangers would want to do it for less than the comparable salary.
A salary of $450,000 for the presidency of the American Red Cross is grossly obscene.
Just a decade ago we had huge rip-offs and graft at The United Way. The president was using charitable funds to hide a girlfriend in an apartment and pay her off. He was tried and convicted. Meanwhile the donors' money was being mishandled.
While no one is alleging any criminal activity at the Red Cross, it is poor judgment to allocate donated funds in a national crisis the way it has.
Frankly, I wouldn't give one red cent to the American Red Cross.
They also think Al Gore won the election. Sorry, but I don't trust that kind of a crazy math scheme.
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.