How about this one: 
Posted on 03/12/2002 8:55:35 AM PST by Notwithstanding
March 12, 2002
AMERICAN RED CROSS APOLOGIZES FOR CENSORING RELIGIOUS SPEECH
In a news release March 11, the Catholic League pledged to contact the leaders of over 100 organizations asking them to join us in dropping all support for the American Red Cross. We did just that—we faxed all of the organizations on our list. And also we contacted the Red Cross.
Our complaint centered on the decision of the headquarters of the American Red Cross to defend its Orange County (CA) chapter in prohibiting students from Orange County High School of the Arts from singing “God Bless America” and “America the Beautiful” at a Red Cross luncheon this past Sunday. The Red Cross opposed the songs citing its “sensitivity to religious diversity” and its “preference for a music program that would be inclusive and not offend different populations participating in this particular event.”
Yesterday evening, the American Red Cross issued a statement saying “the judgements we made in this case in applying our principles clearly offended some in our community.” It mentioned that “it is important to use reasonable judgement in applying principles to the everyday circumstances we confront.” The news release continued saying “the judgement we made to exclude certain songs from the Sunday program was a mistake.” It then apologized for its decision.
Catholic League president William Donohue remarked as follows:
“We are delighted that reasonableness prevailed at the American Red Cross and we have no interest in continuing our campaign to discredit the organization. While we accept the apology we do not buy the line that this was a ‘mistake.’ No, it was a calculated decision designed to punish religious speech. The statement, therefore, is intellectually dishonest. But the bottom line is they got the message. One more point. We expect the organization will soon change its name: any group that has ‘Cross’ in its name is clearly being insensitive to religious diversity.”
And we would want to do that because......???
.
WOW! I never expected such a response...and all negative towards the Red Cross. I guess they're a pretty bad bunch.
That being the case, I sure wouldn't want them in charge of the world's blood supply. I also wonder why Liddy Dole found them worthy of her services.
How about this one:
Must be.
That being the case, I sure wouldn't want them in charge of the world's blood supply.
Neither would I. Fortunately, although they play a big role, but they are only part of a much bigger system. Their role can be reduced or eliminated, and should be.
I do not choose to donate blood (or money) to any organization with their beliefs, or to support any such organization in any way.
I also wonder why Liddy Dole found them worthy of her services.
Two possibilities:
1. She agrees with their position.
2. She disagrees, but made no lasting impact on their politics.
Final question: Now that they have shown their true beliefs, why do you still support the Red Cross?
“We are delighted that reasonableness prevailed at the American Red Cross and we have no interest in continuing our campaign to discredit the organization. While we accept the apology we do not buy the line that this was a ‘mistake.’ No, it was a calculated decision designed to punish religious speech. The statement, therefore, is intellectually dishonest. But the bottom line is they got the message. One more point. We expect the organization will soon change its name: any group that has ‘Cross’ in its name is clearly being insensitive to religious diversity.”
Mr. Donohue got it right, except for one thing. HE may accept the apology (such as it was), but many, many people do not.
The Red Cross massively mismanaged the 9-11 response. They lost a lot of credibility with their response once they were exposed, but most people were willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. My family donated both money and blood. Again.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. OK, they got me twice. But they will not get me a third time.
Shame on the American National Red Cross.
In fact, the Canadian Red Cross has been relieved of responsibility for the blood supply in Canada (except for a limited collection role) as a direct result of its incompetence having cost the lives of many haemophiliacs through the spread of AIDS and HEP C via the blood supply.
The American Red Cross/REd Crescent has become so politicized and so sensitive to "sensitivity issues" that I would be extremely cautious about accepting a blood donation in the US.
A: High visibility (always handy on your campaign brochure) AND, big fat paychecks.
Well Hope, it's like this. I don't support them...never said I did. My original question to patent was why would we want to boycott them. I generally associate boycotts with groups that are a bit over the top, like the NAACP and it's attempts to blackmail S. Carolina or the pimp from Rainbow Push and his shakedowns.
I have to admit I know very little about the Red Cross, although I'm getting quite an education on the thread. However, my first response to someone/something that I disagree with is not a boycott. Apparently most people on this thread already have a very negative opinion of the R C and are ready for the next step...which I guess is a boycott.
So be it.
I hear that...I would definitely want to "bank" my own, assuming I had the time to do so.
Seems to me I recall that the old "Slixter" may have been involved in the tainted blood scandal up in Canuk-land when he was governor. I don't think they took that one very well.
I might have to take another look at Alamo Girl's files on that one.
Yer right on with that one...I forgot about that. That was just another example of why I taylor my contributions to organizations that I really know about.
On the FAQs page of their official website, they claim, "The American Red Cross functions independently of the government but works closely with government agencies..."
Fact: In 1911, Taft designated the ARC as the only volunteer organization authorized by the US government to render aid to US military.
Fact: In 1913, Congress appropriated $400,000 in tax money to pay for the site and building for the ARC national headquarters.
Fact: The ARC receives reimbursements and grants from government agencies.
Fact: 8 of its 50 Governing Board members, including the chairman, are appointees of the US President.
The ARC Red Cross, again at its official website, claims they are supported by donation.
Operating revenue and gains - $3.36 billion
Public and private donations - 34%
Fees/Sales receipts - 59%
Investment income - 7%
Here's a list of their corporate contributors (with link to page 2 of sponsors).
And here are their online fundraising partners.
The ARC makes much of its "Funamental Principles of the Movement," including the principle of absolute political neutrality. I note that they administer an HIV/AIDS prevention program, that targets children (Kindergarten - 12th grade) almost exclusively. An internet search failed to reveal the "course content" of this program, but I note that the two largest annual individual cash contributors to the ARC are Rosie O'Donnell and Sandra Bullock ($1 million each), according to ARC's own website. The ARC also puts on a "school health outreach" program. Haven't dug up any information on the course content of that one, either, but considering their willingness to insult conservatives, especially Christians, I think I can hazard a guess that it includes "safe sex" suggestions made to other people's school kids.
But only "at cost," I'm sure</sarcasm>. They're certainly going to have a tough time squeezing blood out of this turnip!
I'll flag you if/when I find out anything about "safe sex" and "gay lifestyle" included in their HIV/AIDS and school "health outreach" curricula.
What principles?! I think that it is time that American Red Cross changes its name into American Red Star!
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.