It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Red Cross: How We Spent Sandy Money Is A "Trade Secret"

page: 1
75
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+51 more 
posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 03:23 AM
link   


Just how badly does the American Red Cross want to keep secret how it raised and spent over $300 million after Hurricane Sandy?
The charity has hired a fancy law firm to fight a public request we filed with New York state, arguing that information about its Sandy activities is a "trade secret."
The Red Cross' "trade secret" argument has persuaded the state to redact some material, though it's not clear yet how much since the documents haven't yet been released.
As we've reported, the Red Cross releases few details about how it spends money after big disasters. That makes it difficult to figure out whether donor dollars are well spent.

Red Cross: How We Spent Sandy Money Is A "Trade Secret"

I stopped giving money to any of the large charities many years ago, due mainly to the collapse of one of the big banks and the reported amounts many of those big charities lost, money being used to play the markets rather than going where it was needed. Incredibly, it has even been found in the past to have been invested in the arms industry and other damaging pursuits!

Now this news report really gave me a "WTF" moment!


The documents include "internal and proprietary methodology and procedures for fundraising, confidential information about its internal operations, and confidential financial information," wrote Gabrielle Levin of Gibson Dunn in a letter to the attorney general's office.
If those details were disclosed, "the American Red Cross would suffer competitive harm because its competitors would be able to mimic the American Red Cross's business model for an increased competitive advantage," Levin wrote.


Excuse me? Since when was doing charitable work a competition? Surely the idea is to provide relief, through donations, to those that need the help the most, not trying to gain a competitive market edge like any other large corporation!

This dovetails slightly with a conversation I was having with a work colleague a short while ago, regarding the big Cancer charities, specifically Cancer Research.
Each year, hardly a week goes by without some sponsored event somewhere in the country with people doing fun runs, walks or other activities and being sponsored by friends and family. These events are usually accompanied by huge publicity campaigns, designed to be emotive and tug at the heartstrings, especially of those who have lost loved ones to Cancer. That is all well and good, and collectively these events and the charities that run them pull in a massive amount of money each year.

However. Despite the decades of "research" and the hundreds of £Millions, possibly £Billions donated by the public, we do not yet have a cure. What we do have is very expensive drugs produced by the Pharma industry that "manage" the disease, and other equally expensive drugs to "manage" the side effects of the treatments.

Now, my question was, if all that money is being collected for research, who is it paid to? You'd think that, if the research is publicly funded, the drugs would be in the public domain and cheap. But no! They are patented by the big Pharma players and sold for huge profits. So what is the point of donating for research, when the fruits of that research are used for monetary gain on a massive scale by private corporations? Why not let the big Pharma corporations fund the research in the first place?

When big charities start protecting themselves with expensive lawyers, to hide their activities and financial disclosure, then you know they have something damaging to protect and are up to no good. After all, they are supposed to be doing good work, not using the donated money to enrich the board members, play the markets and invest in industries that caused the need for the charitable donations in the first place.

In short, the amount of money collected is staggering, just for the UK alone. I wonder how much is collectively being given globally each year? What money junkie WOULDN'T want a piece of that action?



+1 more 
posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 03:31 AM
link   
I would basically never give to a charity, waste of money.


+12 more 
posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 03:31 AM
link   
All you need to do is look at their swanky offices to know where their priorities are. The 'pink' gang may be the worse.

Good thread topic.


+9 more 
posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 03:43 AM
link   
I'd rather personally go out to the child/person/animal and give them a direct donation rather than giving it to some shady/charitable organization.



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 04:06 AM
link   
Starred and flagged.

Wow. Great points.
Very shady indeed.
I have been giving for the last 15 years to united way... With kind of an "I've done my part" sort of attitude..
I will be reconsidering my blind donating habits.
I think I may try placing that money more directly into the hands of those that may need it.
Thanks britguy.
You have inspired me.
Regards.



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 04:59 AM
link   
I do still donate to some causes but limit them to those I can better identify with and that are transparent and easily researched, and are closer to home.
To be perfectly honest, many of those charities asking for donations seem to be providing services I thought my tax money was being used for. Better care for the kiddies, socially and medically, care for the elderly, etc!

It seems the government has money to burn on prestige projects, London Dome, 2 new Super-Carriers, London Olympics, Nuclear weapons upgrades, High Speed Rail (we're a freakin' small island for heavens sake) not to mention all the failed government run projects by many of their incompetent departments that lose the taxpayer £Billions. Yet, we have seemingly little money for the social and medical care that is, year on year, having it's budgets cut.

I think I am becoming more and more socialist each year. By that, I do not mean a red flag waving commie (as some seem to equate socialism with), but more a supporter of social responsibility. When profits trump social responsibility and care of the community and it's members, then we are in serious trouble and the people need to take back control and demand the transparency and accountability, especially when it is THEIR money being used, whether by taxation or charitable giving.
edit on 27-6-2014 by Britguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 05:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Britguy

When did the red cross become a business?



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 06:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: EA006
a reply to: Britguy

When did the red cross become a business?



I dunno! Best ask their lawyer that one, and good luck getting an answer.

Quoted again from my opening post, in case you missed it:


The documents include "internal and proprietary methodology and procedures for fundraising, confidential information about its internal operations, and confidential financial information," wrote Gabrielle Levin of Gibson Dunn in a letter to the attorney general's office.
If those details were disclosed, "the American Red Cross would suffer competitive harm because its competitors would be able to mimic the American Red Cross's business model for an increased competitive advantage," Levin wrote.



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 06:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: qwerty12345
I'd rather personally go out to the child/person/animal and give them a direct donation rather than giving it to some shady/charitable organization.
Nice thought but not usually that practical for most people.

Some charities are better than others. Check to see how much of the donated funds are used for things like fundraising and how much actually make it to the people you're trying to help. The differences between charities can be vast.

www.life123.com...


At www.charitywatch.org, the Web site run by the AIP, people looking to research a charity can look though thousands of nonprofit organizations and view their ratings. You can look through popular causes like cancer, abortion, child sponsorship, human rights and international relief.

AIP rates organizations based on the percentage of the money raised that goes to the causes they support. Good grades go to charities that spend 15% or less on fundraising and administrative costs. Groups that spend 40% or more on telephone fundraising or marketing efforts don't fare as well, receiving failing grades.

With charities involved in cancer research and prevention, there are several examples of good, average and poor organizations in terms of fund allocation. Sadly, about half of the cancer charities that the AIP rated in 2007 received a D or F grade. The Breast Cancer Research Foundation (ABCF) granted 87% of its budget to medical research, while the American Cancer Society (ACS), a group that raised $848 million in contributions in 2005, only granted 60% of its budget to program services. The Lance Armstrong Foundation (LAF) has been around for more than 10 years, yet spent around 45% of what it brought in on donation solicitations.

Essentially, you shouldn't donate a dollar to any organization without first researching the charity. As the AIP proves time and time again with its ratings, you can't rely on an organization's name or spokesperson alone as a sign of whether or not it's worthy of your money.






posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 06:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Britguy

It seems like, nobody's responsible for anything anymore.
Johnny ****ing tightlips holds all the answers.



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 06:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Britguy
Haven't trusted the Red Cross since Elizabeth Dole was its head. There's some shady agenda there, and I feel the same about United Way. If you want to help somebody out, take some food to your local food bank, where you know it will do some good.



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 06:38 AM
link   
"Trade secret", translation, Eugenics and vaccinations.



According to Forbes, the CEO, Gail McGovern, makes over a million a year.

One would expect the employees of a charity to make much less but then again, the Red Cross did take in over 3 billion dollars in 2010... WOW. And why is the government giving them 62 million a year? They truly have no regard for the American worker and our tax burden.

Rather than giving to these businesses, I mean charities, help those in your community: family, friends, neighbors etc.


edit on 27-6-2014 by gladtobehere because: wording



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 07:30 AM
link   
NPOs are big business these days. I worked for a large one in Cali for years... While they did do good work for communities, their overhead was huge due to executive salaries. Oh and they're definitely in competition with each other!

If this kind of thing with the Red Cross doesn't open people's eyes then I'm not sure what will. The writing is on the wall...



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 07:33 AM
link   
(1 Cor 13:13)
"And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity."

a reply to: Britguy

S&F'd (another fascinating peek into the dirty underbellies of the world)

out my way, we have 'the salvation army' (a registered and well-known 'charity' outfit in australia)
many of these organizations now are only obliged to donate 10% of their profits back to the head office
...so... they are now "for-profit" (in a grey-nebulous-melange type of way..)

(they all seem to have something in common)
"GOD BLESS THE SALVO'S"

everything about their advertising is aimed at making them look good
 


IRON MAIDEN
(two minutes to midnight)
"...and the madmen play our words and make us all dance to their song, to the tune of starving millions to make a better kind of gun..."

(holy smoke)
"...jimmy reptile and all his friends say they're gonna be with you at the end, burning records, burning books, holy soldiers, nazi looks, crocodile smiles just wait a while til the TV queen gets her makeup clean, i've lived in filth and i've lived in sin but i still smell cleaner than the # you're in..."


the first two tax-exempt foundations (charities) were carnegie & rockefeller

Rockefeller Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org... - View by Ixquick Proxy - Highlight The Rockefeller Foundation is a philanthropic organization and private foundation ... in 1889, influenced by Andrew Carnegie's published essay, The Gospel of Wealth, ... They applied for a federal charter for the foundation in the US Senate in 1910, with ..... "Charities Try to Keep Up With the ...


 

charity begins at home



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 07:40 AM
link   
Well, hell... what isn't a secret at all is the fact I wouldn't give the Red Cross a dime if they were on fire, and that would buy all the water in the world to put it out.

After they scammed, ripped off and defrauded the survivors of 9/11 with their administrative games of "Oh...THIS much money? Ohh.. We can't just GIVE away what YOU give US to give away...!!".

The Red Cross is a group known to show up at every disaster to come along...and pimp their crap out of trailers and kiosks ...AT A PRICE to first responders and others on scene. They're the most disgusting and corrupt of the disaster response agencies our nation has today.

Trade Secret? Keep all the secrets they'd like..... The more the merrier in fact. Each adds a reason I'll be very happy at every bit of BAD news I hear about their future and organizational survival.



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 07:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: EA006
a reply to: Britguy

When did the red cross become a business?



They've ALWAYS been a business. My father told me stories about how he volunteered in the early 60's as a teen on the fire lines around Los Angeles. The Red Cross was around then too......to peddle coffee and other sustenance items...at a price. As always. Always a price. Never just to GIVE unless you're so damned ruined in life you have NOTHING left. Then..I think their aid might be without strings...maybe...

Kinda like the Red Cross taking blood from communities all over to "be so sorry" when the communities they take FROM have shortages that won't be addressed in a timely manner because, after all, the Red Cross needs the little donations for the BIG picture and little people may suffer to help the whole. ...Yup....and why we made OUR OWN community blood service to replace the vampires.

Personally, the Salvation Army gets my money, when I have any to give. I've been benefited by them, worked a bit with them and have never personally run into a "That's secret....don't ask!" like the Red Cross has all over the place in their management.



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Britguy

My Grandfather was in Pearl Harbor when the Japanese attacked. He was in one of the Volcanic Bunkers building small arms. He was able to get to the harbor after the attack and assisted in retrieving people, alive and dead, from the water and boats.
Once the guys would bring their small boat to shore/dock to unload, the Red Cross was there to "help".
By "help", I mean charge for cigarettes and coffee, which at the time were considered the biggest comfort items there.
Their willingness to "help" was at a price.

I will NEVER donate to the Red Cross.


edit on 27-6-2014 by macman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: defuntion
Starred and flagged.

Wow. Great points.
Very shady indeed.
I have been giving for the last 15 years to united way... With kind of an "I've done my part" sort of attitude..
I will be reconsidering my blind donating habits.
I think I may try placing that money more directly into the hands of those that may need it.
Thanks britguy.
You have inspired me.
Regards.


The United Way.....political handout machine.

In the above description, the Red Cross is acting like one. You get the wrong folks in charge of a bunch of unaccounted for money and it will become a political money laundry. They have hired a lawyer because disclosure of truth would dry up funds and bring them near ruin.
edit on 27-6-2014 by Logarock because: n



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 10:43 AM
link   
In WW2 my uncle was a prisoner in Japan.

When he entered the Service he weighed 255 lbs.

When they threw the doors open after the war he weighed 88 lbs.

The first Americans they saw were the Red Cross.

They would not give him any food. They wanted a nickel for a doughnut.

If he would of been stronger...He would of killed them.



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 10:48 AM
link   

They've ALWAYS been a business. My father told me stories about how he volunteered in the early 60's as a teen on the fire lines around Los Angeles. The Red Cross was around then too......to peddle coffee and other sustenance items...at a price. As always. Always a price. Never just to GIVE unless you're so damned ruined in life you have NOTHING left. Then..I think their aid might be without strings…maybe…

During the one natural disaster that I've been through, the Grand Forks flood of 1997, both the Salvation Army and Red Cross were there during the recovery, and I don't remember ever paying for anything that I got from them (mostly bottles of water and ready to eat foods, because the entire city was shut down and there was no electricity or running water.) I also got a $100 voucher to buy groceries once the shops re-opened.

So maybe it's a matter of your mileage may vary, depending on location, though as I recall, the vans and stuff were all from out of state locations.

I always use Charity Navigator to check on a charity I'm thinking of donating to, and never give them money if they seem to be more about paying their executives and/or fundraising than they are in helping the poor. The vast majority of my giving currently goes to an organization in the Twin Cities that helps the poor and homeless, and whose President is not compensated at all. The only fundraising stuff I get from them is a plain envelope every other month or so, and the President sends me a thank-you card every once in a while.




top topics



 
75
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join