A freeper's observation:The Red Cross Donation Controversy

E.G.C.

[E.G.C.]

HOWDY FREEPERS!!!

As I'm typing this essay, I'm currently watching the outgoing president of the American Red Cross give testimony in Washington concerning the organization's involvment in September 11th activities.

And that's the subject of this evening's message.

Shortly after the awful events of September 11th, the Red Cross established a special fund for the victims. T.V. broadcast networks and several cable channels carried a friday night telethon to raise money for the fund. VH 1 carried a live concert featuring Paul McCartney to raise money for the fund. And, several game shows, including "The Weakest Link" and "Card Sharks" have aired shows with contestants donating winnings to this fund. When all was said and done,the donations tallied up added up to a total of over $550 million.

Recently, the Red Cross admitted that some of this money was going to be used for other things instead. This leads one to believe that some deceit might have been involved.

Bill O'Reilly has been addressing this issue on his program over the last several days (and CNN wonders why he's beating the heck out of Larry King in the ratings) and he has caught some flack for it. He has tried to get some of the artists involved in these benefits to speak out on this matter, only to end up with responses such as "no comment". In fact some of the publicists have even responded by saying that they are going to boycott Bill's show as a result. More research done by Mr. O'Reilly on this subject has revealed that only 15% of the money dontated to the September 11th fund is being used to help the victims. This IMHO should outrage those who donated to this fund. Unfortunately it seems like Bill is the one catching flack for exposing this deceit when in reality it should be the Red Cross who should be catching it for lying about all this.

And, the fact that many clebrities are choosing not to address this issue indicates to me that they are more interested in their own selfish public image than in helping the victims of these events. And that's really sad, obviously these are well talented people who regrettably seem to only care for themselves.

Under the laws of this country, charitable organizations that receive donations can do whatever they want with them. They don't have to use them for what they say it would be used for. Clearly, this law needs to be changed and it's incumbent upon us to contact our congressmen and let them know about it. It is also incumbent upon us to stand behind Bill O'Reilly and support his efforts to expose this situation and demand these celebrities stop hiding and start addressing it as well.

[E.G.C.]

Of course this issue has not been covered at all by CNN or ABC or CBS or NBC or CNBC or MSNBC or any of the other major media outlets. It makes one wonder why.
Regards, E.G.C.

[John Galt's cousin]

Interesting post. Thanks.

I've heard the figure of $900 million offered as the total donated so far (not just to the RedCross). Assuming 6,000 victims, that averages $150,000 per victim.

However, there are "victims" who did not perish in the attacks. Thousands who worked in the vicinity of the WTC are without jobs. I believe the Red Cross, and other charities, gave many people immediate cash assistance. ( Unfortunately some frauds seems to have been committed in applying for emergency funds.)

I don't envy the folks who have to decide who gets what. Even if you decided to give families of decedants $125,000 or $150,000 each, you would still be accused of inequities.

[LurkerNoMore!]

Wolf is interviewing victim's families on CNN right now.

[LurkerNoMore!]

The outgoing RC president will be on Lou Dobbs shortly.

It is a shame CNN had to wait until the day hearings were held to acknowledge this controversy.

[lkmacb]

I haven't heard. Just what was the "falling out" between the Pres of R.C. and the Board?

[chainsaw]

I don't envy the folks who have to decide who gets what.

Then they should never have established the fund in the first place.

I believe most of the celebs that donated don't want to be blackmailed by the Hollywood ultra liberals that ran the scam. $550,000,000 is a lot of scam, and they don't want to give it up.

[jimt]

If any of us did what the Red Cross did we'd be very liable to a fraud citation.

The Red Cross is currently a scam organization. Not a single nickel from me until they start properly accounting for and distributing the funds they receive.

[nolu chan]

Under the laws of this country, charitable organizations that receive donations can do whatever they want with them.

But can they obtain the donations under false pretenses? Is there a fraud in the inducement?

[Saundra Duffy]

Ping. For victory & freedom!!!

[Intolerant in NJ]

I knew a young lady in graduate school forty years ago who had worked at the local Red Cross office one summer and said 'way back then that she would never again contribute to the organization because of all the waste she had seen first hand - fancy office decorations, extravagant salaries, etc. etc. rather than maximum contributions to needy victims - she's a quite successful professor now, so who could argue?...

[DeaconBenjamin]

Here is one article:

As the American Red Cross continues its public appeals for money and blood donations to help victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks, some people inside and outside the charity are expressing concerns about the humanitarian organization's plans for spending the $452-million that have already flooded into the charity, as well as all future donations. New questions are also being raised about whether the Red Cross's president, Bernadine P. Healy, is doing a good job.

While no one affiliated with the organization doubts the intense dedication -- and high quality -- of services provided by the legion of Red Cross employees and volunteers throughout the country, some worry that Dr. Healy and her top aides are making mistakes that could make it more difficult for the charity's national and local offices to raise money to help with future disasters, especially those unrelated to terrorist attacks.

In fact, critics of Dr. Healy worry that the public does not understand that most donations will not ultimately go directly to victims and their families or to rescue workers. Instead, huge sums will go to help the charity improve its own operations and "expand into new programs of aid never before required," according to the Red Cross, including plans to handle terrorist attacks involving weapons of mass destruction and a new way to make blood supplies last longer. Said one former employee: "Dr. Healy's attitude seems to be, 'If the money is there, we'll find a program to spend it on.'"

Some members of the charity's Board of Governors are worried about Dr. Healy's leadership abilities, sources said, and about the turnover among key staff members since Dr. Healy arrived at the charity in September 1999. Sparking concern: the charity's sudden firing last month of two well-regarded top officials (with combined experience of more than 60 years) who ran the Red Cross's Disaster Operations Center -- the nerve center of the charity's relief services. The firings came just days after the September 11 attacks. They followedthe departure of several senior Red Cross officials during Dr. Healy's tenure, including a top aide to Dr. Healy and several senior fund-raising staff members.

The rest of the article is here

[E.G.C.]

Thanks to everybody who posted on this overnight thread. Yes, by law any charitable organization can do what it wants to with any donation it receives besides what they say it is for. That's the law that Mr. O'Reilly says is on the books.

I want to correct a few things. The T.V. concert that I mentioned was actully for the September 11th established by the United Way. The fact still remains that some of the donations were iverted to other causes besides what it was intended for.

And as for George Clooney and the poison keyboard e-mail he sent to Bill O'Reilly that was read last night on the show, First off Mr. Clooney, your viewpoints are NOT neutral. Secondly, Mr. Clooney you DO NOT speak for the majority of Americans and certainlyNOTthe vast majority of us here in Southwest Oklahoma, only for your left-wing pals in Hollywood. Lastly, Hollywood's values ARE NOTAmerica's values nor are they Southwest Oklahoma's values and the vast majority of Americans and certainly the vast majority of us here in Southwest Oklahoma DO NOT share Hollywood's worldview of things. Mr. Clooney, you sir are one example of what is absolutely what is wrong with Hollywood. You sir, are completely out of touch with the real world.
Regards.