The Red (Double) Cross, jews, and other lesser insects


The following is why the jew-controlled Red (Double) cross has been added perpetually to the Boycott Page:


Richard C. August 

<[email protected]> to spiritjacob, 1sraelites, Thomas ...

 More options   Sep 1 (7 days ago)

Hi Mr. Weinert.


Thank you very much for forwarding the warning about donations to the Red Cross to us.  It is greatly appreciated.  It further proves that listed, internationally recognized, charitable organizations exist solely for the purpose of padding their bottom lines, and that actual service to humans in need is an afterthought to them -- one that just keeps them in job security.


My problem is that Bill O'Reilly, as good on TV as he seems to be, is nothing more than something he proclaims he is not.  He calls his show the "No Spin Zone," and that should raise some huge red flags with those of us who are not media challenged.  Despite all the hype, or rather, because of all the hype, there is probably more spin on the O'Reilly Factor than a DJ has at a radio station.  Heads will bobble and tongues will wag, and more and more, politicians and media wags will lie and lie and lie just to put on a good show for us.  Instead of being the seat of our Republic, Washington DC has turned out to be no more than a "reality TV show" played out for us nightly on the TV news.


Any more, if I had my choice between Ted Kennedy, Tom Daschle, the Bush boys, and Howard Stern to elect to public office, I'd probably vote for Stern.  At least Howard Stern admits he is a trashy smut peddler.  Meanwhile, we need a massive revolution to overturn the two-headed Hydra we call our government; write a new US Constitution; ethnically cleanse our streets and the media; send the negroes back to Africa; and get our lives back on track.  We should not be merely satisfied when our bellies are full.  We should be satisfied when our bellies are full, we run the government, and the ghettoes are replaced with pristine housing units for hard-working people.  We should be satisfied when we can give to charities who actually donate the money we send first to areas in the USA that need it the most, second to European nations where there is a declared need, third to nations run and peopled by European descended persons, and dead last to any other country.  So what if the negroes hold their hands out?  Should they be fed when we feed them and clothe and house them, only to see our money go to hell when we do?  With that, we need a massive revolution for the White race of people; we need it IMMEDIATELY or else we perish.










----- Original Message -----

Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 12:07 AM

Subject: Don't Give Your Hurricane Donations to the Red Cross or The United Way



The sign of the Cross



Editor's note: Purchase a copy of Bill O'Reilly's new book, "No Spin Zone," autographed and personalized, and receive a free "No Spin Zone" bumper sticker and a free three-month trial offer to Whistleblower magazine. Take advantage of this exclusive offer now.

� 2001



The Red Cross has surrendered. In a press conference today, it stated: "We deeply regret that our actions over the last eight weeks have not been as sharply focused as the American public wants or the victims of the tragedy deserve."


So now, after six weeks of controversy, the Red Cross will distribute all $543 million dollars generous Americans gave it for "The Liberty Fund" to the 9-11 families. Previously, the Red Cross was only going to give approximately 25 percent of the donations to the families ? keeping the rest for general Red Cross programs.


It was pressure by my TV program "The O'Reilly Factor" that put the Red Cross on the hot seat. Night after night, I pounded away at the injustice of asking Americans for specific donations and then not living up to the pitch. Finally, "The New York Times" stepped up as well, challenging the Red Cross in an editorial.


But the rest of the elite media was missing-in-action on this story as they have been on so many other major developments concerning working Americans. And I simply can't figure it out. Local newspapers across the country were extremely supportive to the Factor and focused on the situation immediately. But the national press – especially the TV networks – could not be bothered.


That is very strange indeed. As part of my continuing investigation into the charity chaos, I have zeroed in on "The September 11th Fund" run by the United Way and a New York bank. That's the fund that received all the money from the TV telethon and the big New York concert. We're talking $337 million bucks here. And there is no question that the United Way is having trouble getting those funds directly to the grieving families. The reason is because they contract out to local charities to actually hand the money to the families. And some of those charities are inefficient, to say the least. The entire situation is one big mess.


Yet Matt Lauer on "The Today Show," and the "Entertainment Tonight" TV program – to name just two – challenged my integrity in pushing this investigation. They certainly have a right to do that, although ET didn't even bother contacting me, but I was amazed at their point of view. There are not two sides to this story. As the Red Cross has now admitted, some of the charities have been callous and inefficient in dealing with the 9-11 families. That is, simply, a fact – so what is the journalistic point in attacking the messenger, me, in establishing that fact?


I believe it once again comes down to the powerful protecting each other. Hollywood stars helped raise the millions given to the United Way, but few of them want to push the charities to get the money to the people for whom it is intended. That's because that kind of advocacy may alienate some powerful people. And programs like "Entertainment Tonight" exist to promote celebrities. So their agenda is obvious.


But why didn't the news departments of ABC, CBS, and NBC report on the situation? If those entities had, the Red Cross and others would have changed their policies weeks ago and the money logjam would have broken up. My program is powerful, but the combined weight of the networks is fearsome.


Once again, Americans are seeing first-hand that many in the elite media are simply not interested in righting wrongs. The national TV media is timid. Years of chasing profits have dulled their journalistic edge. Reporters are supposed to challenge the powerful and expose wrongdoing. Is that what the network nightly news programs are doing? You decide.


As for the Red Cross, I applaud their turnaround, and hope Americans accept their policy change and don't hold the past six weeks against the agency. The organization has a new president and its mandate has always been to help others. Yes, the bureaucracy is too big, and the Red Cross must work to regain credibility. But the bottom line is that all $543 million dollars that generous Americans donated to help the 9-11 families will finally be available to those families. A good thing has happened.










Jewish World Review July 1, 2002 / 21 Tamuz, 5762

Bill O'Reilly


Charity begins at home | Almost 10 months after the terror attack on Sept. 11, the verdict is in on the charities that volunteered to collect and distribute donated money to the families of the victims. And that verdict, as you may know, is guilty of fraud in the inducement. According to The New York Times, roughly a billion dollars in charitable contributions sit in banks waiting for some kind of designation. There is heavy-duty interest coming in off that billion, so the charities are in no rush to disperse the funds.



The Red Cross leads the league in funds sitting on the bench with approximately $300 million. The Robin Hood Relief Fund, which gets money from the United Way, is staring at $23 million, and the World Trade Center Relief Fund has $29 million left over. Dozens of other charities are flush with cash as well.



The charities justify the holding pattern by saying that the "immediate needs" of the families have been taken care of, and to some extent that is true. Because Americans were so generous, thousands of people directly affected by the terrorism have received hundreds of thousands of dollars in aid. So no one is crying poverty. But some are crying fraud.



The cold truth is that nonprofit organizations are largely unsupervised in America. IRS Commissioner Charles Rossotti has publicly admitted that his agency, which has oversight on national charities, doesn't have the manpower to do an effective job auditing the billions of dollars that Americans give each year to nonprofit organizations. In fact, some corporations even force their employees to donate to concerns such as the United Way. There is no recession in the nonprofit world. Just ask Jesse Jackson.



The Red Cross and the United Way both put forth that the banked money after 9/11 will be used for future disasters. But Americans did not donate for future shocks -- they gave to help those hurt by the terrorists. Therein lies the problem.



In the arcane world of the law, if you induce someone to do something under false pretenses, you can be sued for "fraud in the inducement." You can't tell somebody you are collecting for UNICEF, for example, and then turn around and give the money to the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals Organization. That is illegal.



But the most disturbing part of the big charity game is that some of those working in this sector live large, very large. The head of the Red Cross in San Diego, Calif., for example, made close to $300,000 before she was forced to resign. The head of the Washington, D.C. chapter of the United Way got into a controversy because the charity used $80,000 to redo some office space.



The charities will tell you that they must pay big salaries to attract skilled fundraisers. But do Americans who give their hard-earned bucks to help suffering people understand that expensive lunches and nice trips to "conferences" are part of the bargain?



The September 11 controversy isn't the first time there was charitable trouble. The city of San Francisco threatened to sue The Red Cross after an earthquake because the charity would not hand over money raised by pitching the disaster. The City of San Diego, Calif., has also had a bitter controversy over Red Cross dollars.



Americans need to realize that charity does indeed begin at home. If you don't write the checks, folks in need can't get help. But whenever big money is involved, there will be shenanigans, especially if the oversight authority is impotent. A billion dollars remains on the sidelines in the wake of the terror attack, and the federal government doesn't seem to care. The big charities hit the proverbial jackpot immediately after Osama Bin-Laden and his killers hit theirs. There is something troubling about this entire situation.



Something must be done.






The Red (Double) Cross

One Year After the September Attacks



R A D O K  P R E S S


Posted: December 7, 2002




The Red Cross, and its Liberty Disaster Relief Fund, has come under a storm of criticism for allegedly delaying aid to the victims' families, failing to cooperate with other charities and government agencies that are trying to coordinate relief, and diverting a large portion of the funds for use in future, unrelated disasters.


Less than two months after the attacks, and after more than $564 million had already been raised, Red Cross spokeswoman Dana Allen admitted that Liberty Fund donations would not all be used for the September 11 attack victims. "We also need to make sure we're ready to help as the nation engages in military action, and as we respond to more terrorist threats."


Former Red Cross President, Dr. Bernadine Healy, echoed the response. "We have been so straightforward in saying what we are using the money for," Healy told BusinessWeek. "The disaster relief involves this entire country, and its readiness for future terrorist events, for healing, for grieving."


Stacy Palmer, editor at the Chronicle of Philanthropy, was skeptical: "One of the biggest mistakes the American Red Cross made was they didn't move fast enough to say what they're going to do with all the money," Palmer told the Los Angeles Times. "And so far, there aren't a lot of explanations coming that the average person who donated money is going to be happy about."


Daniel Borochoff, President of the American Institute of Philanthropy, says there is nothing in principle wrong with the Red Cross using major disasters to subsidize other relief efforts - just tell donors beforehand. "If they are going to do that, they have to say so explicitly. It can't be in the fine print," says Borochoff. The Red Cross has a long history of diverting donations, and has been criticized before for not using donations specifically raised for particular disasters - some requiring intervention by local officials to require them to pay up on donations the public intended their contributions to be used for.


In 1995, the Red Cross raised $13 million to aid victims and families of the Oklahoma City bombing. But when this proved to be far more money than it said it needed - it spent $2.6 million on victims - the charity earmarked the surplus to fund other less-publicized disasters.


In 1997, the Red Cross collected $16 million to aid victims of the Red River flood in Minnesota and North Dakota. But state officials were angered to find out that more than a year later the organization still had not spent $4 million of the contributions to benefit victims.


Minnesota's then-Attorney General Hubert Humphrey III held harsh public hearings that resulted in a scathing 40-page report to push for the release of the unspent victim funds. Humphrey did not accuse the organization of fraud, but said it was not candid enough with donors: "When you make appeals at a time of great emotion and stress, you have a significant responsibility to see to it that you use the funds for the purpose you state."


As the Red Cross controversy heated up, Bill O'Reilly, of Fox News' O'Reilly Factor jumped all over the story. Acting more like a pit bull than a news analysis anchor, O'Reilly chewed and clawed through every major charity organization. A few weeks after the September 21, 2001 national telethon, America: A Tribute to Heroes, - which raised $128,167,000 - O'Reilly got his second wind and went after the celebrities that he felt were not sufficiently pressuring the charities to deliver on their promises.


O'Reilly can be credited for doing much to expedite charitable distributions, through on-air pressure, emotional appeals from many of the families of the victims, and constant calls for a government investigation.


Washington was apparently listening. On November 6, 2001, a congressional hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee's oversight panel was convened to determine donor intent and whether the Red Cross misled donors.


With former Red Cross President, Dr. Bernadine Healy in attendance, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer testified: "I see the Red Cross, which has raised hundreds of millions of dollars that was intended by the donating public to be used for the victims of September 11 - I see those funds being sequestered into long-term plans for an organization."


The hearing was contentious at times, with Representative Billy Tauzin (R-LA) saying, "What's at issue here is that a special fund was established for these families. It was specially funded for this event, September 11, and it is being closed now because we are told enough money's been raised in it, but we're also being told, by the way, we're going to give two-thirds of it away to other Red Cross needs."


Dr. Healy testified that the Red Cross always made clear that some of the money would be used for "future critical priorities." Tauzin interrupted saying, "What's at issue here is that a separate fund was established for these families," he said, pounding the table. "We are hearing from families that their needs are not being met."


Eight days after the hearings, the Red Cross reversed its position and announced that all donations to the Liberty Fund would go to aid the victims and their families. Said interim president Harold Decker, "Americans have spoken loudly and clearly that they want our relief efforts directed at the people affected by the September 11 tragedies."


After a November, December 2001 surge in payouts to more than 55,000 individuals and family members, the Liberty Fund has only distributed $15 million since the previous three-month report dated April 30, 2002 - and still has almost $400 million remaining to be distributed.


According to the American Red Cross' (ambiguous) six page Liberty Disaster Relief Fund Quarterly Report dated August 1, 2002, the distribution of funds continues to move at a snail's pace.


Liberty Fund officials say it expects to eventually pay out a total of $943 million overall, including a $133 million budget for continued disaster relief over a three-to-five year period, based on demonstrated need, primarily in areas of mental health and uncovered health care, as well as long-term family support and service coordination.


Liberty Fund

 Total Contributions   $ 988,000,000 

Total Distributions to Date   $( 458,000,000 ) 

Immediate Disaster Relief   ( 95,000,000 ) 

Fund Stewardship   ( 37,000,000 ) 

Total Funds Spent

  $ ( 590,000,000 )


Balance Remaining   $ 398,000,000*


* The Quarterly Report dated August 1, 2002 states that the Fund expects to distribute a total of $708 million to the families of the deceased or missing, persons seriously injured in the attacks, displaced residents and economically impacted individuals, and disaster responders - and a total of $943 million overall.










This might speak to where most of America is. At least 39 United Way branches nationwide have stopped funding the Boy Scouts, that unlike the Girl Scouts (there are no formal ties between the two groups) bans homosexual leaders and includes God in their oath. But the United Way protest adds up to only three percent of the 1,400 United Way chapters in the U.S. The Boy Scout name might be dirt among elites, but not most of the country.









United Way chapters reject Boy Scouts

Ban on homosexual scoutmasters ticks off super-charity



By Jon E. Dougherty

� 2000



The Providence, R.I., chapter of the United Way has decided to cut off funding to local Boy Scouts, saying the popular 90-year-old organization discriminates against homosexuals, even as a group of congressional Democrats plans to introduce legislation to strip BSA of its honorary charter.


Yesterday, the Providence chapter of the United Way of Southeastern New England gave the state's Boy Scout chapters five months to reverse bans on homosexual scoutmasters or risk losing funding from the charitable organization.


Though the new policy, adopted by the New England chapter on Friday, does not specifically address the Boy Scouts, it states that funding would be cut off from any group that "discriminate for any reason, including sexual orientation," according to the Providence Journal-Bulletin newspaper.


On Monday the charity sent letters outlining the policy to 65 groups that receive about $7.3 million in funding during this fiscal year. New England United Way officials also sent letters to an additional 86 associate groups that do not receive funding, but which are qualified to claim a United Way "seal of approval" for missions.


The policy is scheduled to take effect Jan. 1, 2001. The letters ask recipients to sign an enclosed form that says they promise to adhere to the new policy, and then return the form to the United Way.


Neither the policy nor the letters mention the Boy Scouts by name, but one official with the New England UW chapter said it was written for them, the Journal-Bulletin said.


"We concluded that it was time for the United Way ... to act and to be a leader on this," said William Allen, executive vice president of community services for the United Way.



James Dale 


The policy decision follows a U.S. Supreme Court ruling late last month that overturned a New Jersey Supreme Court decision ordering the Boy Scouts to lift their ban on homosexual scoutmasters. The New Jersey decision stemmed from a lawsuit filed by James Dale, a former Eagle Scout and assistant scoutmaster in Matawan, N.J.


Dale was forced to surrender his post in 1990 after a local newspaper article revealed he was the head of a college homosexual group and after Dale himself admitted his homosexuality. The New Jersey high court ruling upheld the state's lower court rulings in favor of Dale, proclaiming that by letting him go, the Boy Scouts acted unconstitutionally.


Dale was ejected by the Narragansett (New Jersey) Council, saying it acted in accordance with the oath included in the Scouts' 1910 handbook, under which each Scout pledges "to keep myself morally straight."


"The Narragansett Council has since joined a Minnesota council by passing a resolution urging the national parent organization to reconsider the ban," the newspaper said. "Officials from the Narragansett Council say the parent group is still reviewing its policy, even though the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last month that the Scouts, as a private organization, may ban gay leaders."


The New England chapter policy states:


"United Way of Southeastern New England shall not discriminate on the basis of age, sex, color, race, veteran status, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or disability with respect to employment, volunteer participation or the provision of services. Agencies choosing to receive funding from the United Way Fund or the Critical Issue Funds and those choosing to be associate agencies will comply with this policy."


The policy would not bar people from earmarking donations to a particular group -- even one that rejects the nondiscrimination policy -- through the United Way. The Narragansett Council got $71,790 in such "donor designations" this year, according to the United Way, said the Journal-Bulletin.


A spokeswoman for the United Way of America told WorldNetDaily that local chapters adopt their own policies and raise funds to support groups of their choosing.


"We don't donate money to any organization, directly or indirectly," she said. "We're the training and membership organization; all fundraising ... is done by the various United Ways around the country, which operate independently. This decision was made in Providence, by that board. We had nothing whatsoever to do with that," she added.


Gregg Shields, spokesman for the Boy Scouts of America, told WND he wasn't "familiar [with] the intricacies of the Providence decision."


However, he said, United Way should consider "the breadth of the many the organizations they currently fund."


"Many of these organizations might seem to be at contrary goals or missions," but "the betterment of the community is what should be kept in mind, as well as the youth we're trying to serve," Shields said.


Nevertheless, other United Way chapters have also begun to examine the issue of funding Boy Scout chapters.


A day after the Supreme Court rejected Dale's case, the United Way of Central Massachusetts announced it would study the issue of contributions made to Mohegan Council of the Boy Scouts of America, a scout chapter near Worcester.


According to the Worcester Telegram and Gazette, Eric S. Buch, president of the United Way of Central Massachusetts, told the paper, "It's really something that we're going to have to take a look at now that the Supreme Court has handed down its decision." The central Massachusetts charity chapter this year is providing $138,600 to the Mohegan Council, which has 5,500 members and 2,000 volunteers throughout most of Worcester County.


Anthony DeChristofaro, vice president of marketing and communications for the United Way, told July 3 that there will be no current change in donations to the BSA by his organization. However, he also said the decision does not rest with the national headquarters for the United Way, but with the 1,400 local autonomous United Ways across America.


The United Way channels over 83 million dollars each year in contributions to the BSA, the news service reported.


Meanwhile, several Democratic lawmakers said yesterday they plan to introduce a bill in Congress revoking the Boy Scouts' honorary charter.



Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif. 


Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., who is leading the effort, said that while the Boy Scouts claim to be open to all boys, a recent Supreme Court decision has allowed them to reject gay members and scout leaders.


"We're not saying they're bad," she said Tuesday, "we're saying intolerance is bad, and I don't see any reason why the federal government should be supporting it."


The Boy Scouts received its charter in 1916, six years after it was founded. Congressionally approved honorary charters, which have been granted to about 90 groups, do not require annual reauthorization but do contain clauses allowing Congress to revoke a group's charter if lawmakers feel it is warranted.


The charter confers no benefits, but, Woolsey said, it "gives the impression that an organization has a congressional seal of approval."


In a July 13 letter to President Clinton, Woolsey and 10 other Democrats asked that the president resign as the honorary head of the Boy Scouts, as a protest against the youth group's gay policy.


"In order to disavow this policy of intolerance, as well as to clarify any misconception of presidential approval, we urge you, the leader of our nation, to resign as the honorary head of the BSA," said the letter.


"Scouting should help boys grow and learn how to be leaders and good citizens," Woolsey said, "but intolerance is not a value we want our children to learn and it's not a value that the president of the United States should support."


Woolsey became active in the effort to expand the Boy Scouts to include homosexuals when Steve Cozza, a teenager in Woolsey's hometown of Petaluma, Calif., started Scouting For All, a national grassroots campaign aimed at convincing the Boy Scouts to change its policy against homosexuals.


Shields said that "fully half" of current congressional members were involved as youths in some level of scouting. "We have appreciated their support throughout the years," he said.


But, he added, the charter permits "patriotic organizations," as it describes such groups as the Boy Scouts, the "right to conduct our business" as the organization sees fit.


Other similar groups, including "The Jewish War Veterans, Catholic War Veterans, and Veterans of Foreign Wars" are all permitted to be selective with the types of members they enlist.


"Our charter is a license of the government to conduct our operations," he said. "Federal law allowing us to have a charter ... has been an honor, and we hope we will continue to have one."






----- Original Message -----

To: AB

Sent: 9/1/2005 10:59:34 PM

Subject: Fw: Don't Give Your Hurricane Donations to the Red Cross

Hi Jim:   Back in the sixties, when I was just nineteen, I was with the USAF.   In 1963 we were "volunteered" to fight forrest fires in Northern California. We even lost a man, which was mainly from our lack of experience.  We had three other men killed when a "six by" truck went off a logging road and rolled over. We were always very short on food and water.  The Red Cross showed up with plenty to eat and lots of fresh water.  This all at came at a price.  I swore I would never support those blood suckers---not for any reason.  I have heard many stories similar to the one noted below.  Nothing ever changes.  Or does it..?   Tom   

----- Original Message -----

From: Jim Jones

Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 5:45 PM

Subject: Fw: Don't Give Your Hurricane Donations to the Red Cross


----- Original Message -----

From: STU


Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 6:15 PM

Subject: Re: Don't Give Your Hurricane Donations to the Red Cross


Something to consider, my daddy told me that when he was a gunner on a 50 mm anti-aircraft machine gun on a destroyer in the Pacific, and after three weeks of battle for Wake Island, when they came to port they stepped off the ship and there was the Red Cross, passing out hot cups of coffee and portable shave kits....As he walked through the line, he got his cup of coffee and then his shave kit and as he walked up to the last person in that line they wanted his service #.....He asked why? They replied, "So we can deduct the costs from your next months pay voucher", my dad said he handed back the cup of coffee & the shave kit and then informed them what he and his gun crew had just went through in the taking of Wake Island.....He told me they seemed not to care........He felt that he and his crew had risked their lives, and it wasn't even worth a cup of coffee and a razor with a couple of blades....He never thought much of the Red Cross........

Don't Give Your Hurricane Donations to the Red Cross
Establishment charities have history of withholding disaster funds

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones | September 1 2005

As the aftermath of hurricane Katrina continues to wreak mayhem and havoc amid reports of mass looting, shooting at rescue helicopters, rapes and murders, establishment media organs are promoting the Red Cross as a worthy organization to give donations to.

The biggest website in the world,, displays a Red Cross donation link prominently on its front page.

Every time there is a major catastrophe the Red Cross and similar organizations like United Way are given all the media attention while other charities are left in the shadows. This is not to say that the vast majority of Red Cross workers are not decent people who simply want to help those in need.

But what the media fails consistently to remember in their promotion of the organization is that the Red Cross have been caught time and time again withholding money in the wake of horrible disasters that require immediate release of funds.

The Red Cross, under the Liberty Fund, collected $564 million in donations after 9/11. Months after the event, the Red Cross had distributed only $154 million. The Red Cross' explanation for keeping the majority of the money was that it would be used to help 'fight the war on terror'. To the victims, this meant that the money was going towards bombing broken backed third world countries like Afghanistan and setting up surveillance cameras and expanding the police state in US cities, and not towards helping them rebuild their lives.

Then Red Cross President Dr. Bernadine Healy arrogantly responded when questioned about the withholding of funds by stating, "The Liberty Fund is a war fund. It has evolved into a war fund."

Despite the family members of victims of 9/11 complaining bitterly to a House Energy and Commerce Committee's oversight panel, the issue seemed to be brushed under the carpet and the mud didn't stick.

The Red Cross' scandalous activities reach back far before 9/11.

After the devastating San Francisco earthquake in 1989, the Red Cross passed on only $10 million of the $50 million that had been raised, and banked the rest.

Similar donations after the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 and the Red River flooding in 1997 were also greedily withheld.

Smaller charities that were involved with the 2004 Tsunami relief project went public to say that large charities like Red Cross and United Way were engaged in secret backroom negotiations with each other that meant a large portion of the donation money was purposefully restricted from reaching the most needy areas affected by the disaster.

The history is clear, the Red Cross and other large so-called charities are in actual fact front group collection agencies for the military industrial complex.

Many informed historians have even alleged that the Red Cross was used as a Skull and Bones cover to overthrow The Russian Czar and pave the way for the rise of the Bolsheviks.

Do not give any money to the Red Cross unless you support the expansion of empire abroad and police state at home. Find a smaller trustworthy organization in the local area of New Orleans and make your donation to them.



The Freedom Page   To receive Freedom Page mail, put "Subscribe" as subject to [email protected]  To be removed, put "Remove" as subject.

Restoring America  

From: The Republican [email protected]   Subject: The Red Cross in the Cross Hairs?

The Red Cross in the Cross Hairs?

By Kelly Patricia O'Meara  

Families of Oklahoma City bombing victims say they did not receive funds sent to them by mail and handled by the Red Cross. And questions are being raised in New York City.

In a time of national tragedy the true spirit of America shines through, and nowhere is this more evident than in the outpouring of extraordinary amounts of money for the survivors and families of victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. To date, nearly $800 million has been donated to various funds and charitable organizations. And the flood continues as every day it seems some new fund is created. While it now appears that donations are likely to go well over the $1 billion mark by the end of October, issues are being raised about how much of that will make it to those for whom this outpouring was intended.

Who or what is responsible for making sure this money gets to the intended recipients? Will it go to current victims and their families or will some go into larger portfolios for future crises? And how much of the collected funds will cover administrative expenses and fund raising or mailing-list prospecting?

To try to answer these questions Insight has been looking at what happened to the huge sums collected in the aftermath of the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995. While the families interviewed were reluctant to discuss the level of support provided them by charitable organizations, this magazine discovered a different picture than was (and is) being publicly portrayed.

For instance, Insight has learned that letters of condolence and donations sent through the U.S. Postal Service and deemed "undeliverable" often are turned over to charitable organizations involved in disaster relief. Sometimes mail would be addressed in care of a charity or fund. A case in point: the American Red Cross. The Postal Service received thousands of cards, letters and gift packages that were addressed, for example, to "the woman who lost two kids," the "rescue dogs" or the "family who lost the little boy." Both the Postal Service and the Red Cross have confirmed that within weeks of the bombings most of this mail was forwarded through the postal system to the Oklahoma City chapter of the American Red Cross where it was opened and read by volunteers. When possible, letters and packages were forwarded to the intended families.

Mike Ellis, the postal inspector in Oklahoma City at the time of the bombing, tells Insight: "These procedures will change post office to post office depending on the situation. There is no set policy. The Postal Service sat down with the American Red Cross, the Salvation Army and the governor's and mayor's offices, and it was decided the post office would deliver it if it was addressed to specific places and people and the Red Cross would take any undeliverable mail."

"The Red Cross," continues Ellis, "had volunteers who would open the mail, and if there were donations in the envelopes they would go into a general fund that the Red Cross had set up. The general fund was distributed to the victims at the time." Three of four families directly affected by the bombing who spoke with Insight about the mail-delivery system acknowledged that all of the mail they received from the American Red Cross had been opened. More notable, however, is what these families reported about the surprising change in their mail deliveries after the American Red Cross took over for the Postal Service.

"The first days after the bombing," says one family member, "people from all over the country were sending checks in lieu of flowers and we were getting a lot of checks and cash every day - hundreds, even thousands, of dollars. Then the Red Cross went down to the post office and made arrangements to collect the mail and they would deliver it to us in bulk. All the mail had been opened, and from that point on there never was a dime, even in letters that said money was enclosed."

A member of another family recalls a similar experience: "We got this big box from the American Red Cross with more than 100 letters and each one of them had been opened. People told us that there was money in the envelopes, but we never got it. We heard that volunteers were opening the mail and putting the letters in one pile and the money in another. We complained to the Red Cross that it was mail fraud to open our mail. The letters, after all, were addressed to our family. We even went to local television stations asking them to do a piece on it, but they said it would make us look money-hungry. That wasn't it, of course. We were upset that our mail was being opened. We were so angry we just blocked it out and moved on."

One member of a third family recalls a large number of opened letters addressed to the family that it received from the American Red Cross but says, "We don't think there was any suspicion that any money was removed in the mail. We didn't see any of this." The family did note, however, like the others, that money had been enclosed in the mail delivered to their home prior to the American Red Cross taking over distribution of the mail - but none was received afterward.

Formal complaints were lodged with the Postal Service and an investigation was conducted by Ellis, who in the process turned information over to the U.S. attorney in Oklahoma City. A grand jury needed to issue subpoenas to the Red Cross. It took testimony from a variety of individuals. Ultimately, as far as Insight has been able to learn, nothing came of the investigation. Bill Blaul, American Red Cross senior vice president for communications and marketing, tells Insight that his organization "cooperated with the U.S. attorney and he found no inappropriate handling of the matter, and it was closed."

When asked to respond to the allegations that cash or checks may have been removed from the mail prior to its delivery to the intended parties, Blaul says: "The families may feel that way. I'm not sure what their memories and recollections are. The only motivation of the American Red Cross is to provide service to victims and families of the Oklahoma City and Sept. 11 attacks. We have no other motivation in opening individual mail."

Insight then provided Blaul with specific instances where money apparently had been removed from envelopes clearly intended for a specific family. For instance, members of one family were so upset about what had happened to their mail that they wrote to people who had sent correspondence asking them to confirm whether a donation had been included. In one instance, a donor confirmed that $50 in cash had been sent along with the letter of condolence. The envelope delivered by the American Red Cross was addressed to the family through the Oklahoma City chapter of the American Red Cross. Despite the apparent intent of the donor to provide the enclosed money directly to the family, it did not receive it.

Asked about this specific example, Blaul becomes defensive and says, "I don't know what more I can say about it. If mail is addressed to an individual we don't open it," he declares, contradicting what inspector Ellis told Insight. "I'm beginning to resent the implication that the Red Cross is opening mail and lifting money from the envelope," Blaul insists.

Insight did not suggest anything untoward was or is going on in such cases. Rather, it followed up on questions raised by Oklahoma City families and victims who voiced concern about their mail and what they - and some donors - later learned about the handling of cash and other monetary donations. Specifically:

Cash donations may have been lost in the shuffle between and among agencies.

Checks made out to the Red Cross and intended for specific individuals didn't always go to those individuals and weren't returned to the donor.

Sometimes cash or checks went into a general fund for the Red Cross and then checks were delivered to the intended recipient.

Money received for intended relief work may not have gone directly to specified funds or charities but was absorbed into larger operating funds for future disasters.

Public accounting for how much money was received and then distributed is not readily available for public and/or press review and, apparently, not audited by government agencies.

Government funds established to receive funds for disaster relief and provide assistance did not make public "cash-in" and "cash-out" ledger records. And requests for such an accounting have not been provided.

All of which has raised disconcerting questions in the minds of many of those interviewed by Insight concerning the hundreds of millions of dollars pouring in to the New York City, Washington and Pennsylvania funds and charities working with the families and victims. For example, how are these groups cataloging the monies received, selecting individuals for disbursements and making sure that intended recipients of direct donations are, in fact, receiving them?

In the case of New York City, according to Blaul, "Thousands of pounds of mail is coming in and the American Red Cross is working with other agencies up there. We've got a room set aside for the mail that is coming in and we're sorting through it. Where there are specific categories, such as firemen, we're taking the mail without opening it and routing it to the appropriate sources. We're not opening mail if it is addressed to individuals. The American Red Cross is doing this in a secure room with other entities and appropriate oversight."

He does not elaborate on who or what those other entities might be.

Nor is Blaul able to provide Insight with the total amount of money received through this mail-review process. "I believe we are keeping track of only the money that is specifically meant for the Red Cross," he says. He does not volunteer how much this amounts to, but published reports indicate the Red Cross thus far has received about $258 million in donations. How much other money Blaul's organization has collected that was not "specifically meant for the Red Cross" could not be determined by press time.

How much ultimately was collected to assist the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing wasn't available either. But, as a result of their own experiences, victim families of the Oklahoma City bombing have begun working with families touched by the Sept. 11 attacks. What advice have they for dealing with charitable organizations? "Don't expect anything," says one family, "and that way you won't be disappointed." Another family spokesman summed it up this way: "Oklahoma is doing great, but what about the New York families? I guess I'd tell them, 'Don't leave anything for someone else to do when it comes to your well-being.' And I'd tell them to watch how the money is disbursed."

Kelly P. O'Meara is an investigative reporter for Insight magazine.