The Illuminati and the Red Cross

The American Red Double-cross

By Dr. Len Horowitz
2002

The American Red Cross (ARC) is widely considered a great American institution. It is generally thought of as among the world's premier humanitarian organizations. Clearly, almost everyone thinks of it as a life-saving agency. Most people know this non-governmental organization (NGO) to be heavily dependant upon the blood and currency generously donated by the American people. But, what if all of the above is untrue? What if everything you think you know about the American Red Cross is a ghastly nauseating lie?

My name is Dr. Leonard Horowitz. What I am about to share with you is deeply disturbing, yet potentially life-saving. The American Red Cross is not what it appears to be. . . . And I urge you to continue reading so that you learn what the ARC really represents.

Let me begin by telling you a bit about myself, and about my bias. For the past ten years I have been conducting health science and U.S. Government cover-up investigations as an independent, Harvard-trained, award-winning medical journalist and internationally recognized authority in public health.

To briefly summarize my training, in 1977 I received my doctorate in medical dentistry from Tufts University in Boston. I later received several advanced degrees... One in public health from Harvard University. I joined the faculties at Tufts University and Harvard. I directed an alternative health center for more than a decade. In the early 1980s, the Associated Press featured my work as a trendsetter. My clinic integrated dentistry with general medicine, acupuncture, chiropractic, nutrition, massage, homeopathy, and other "alternative" methods of healing.

Between 1990 and 1993 I personally trained nearly 30,000 healthcare professionals in dental and medical infection control according to OSHA standards. At that time I was the chief professional advisor for the largest dental and medical catalog supply company in the world.

In 1999, I won the prestigious "Author of the Year Award" from the World Natural Health Organization for my tenth book. This became my first bestseller. It is called Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola-Nature, Accident or Intentional? Government health officials have said this book is largely responsible for America's rapidly growing anti-vaccination movement. The blood banking industry is meticulously explored here as well. For my work in exposing the global military-medical-industrial complex, I have been christened, "the King David of alternative medicine versus the omnipotent Goliath of slash, burn, and poison medicine" by consumer health advocates.

Suffice it to say, I have been extremely critical of petrochemical/pharmaceutical/blood banking industrialists for suppressing more information than they have been telling... Including potentially lifesaving information that could stem the rising epidemics of cancer, autoimmune diseases, and much, much more.. . .

In the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, unlike most Americans, I was appalled by the outpouring of support, not as much to the families of the attack victims, but to the American Red Cross as a go-between. Based on the information and documentation I published in Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola-Nature, Accident or Intentional?, certain individuals that control the ARC are, in fact, as much to blame for the terrorist attacks on America, and "America's New War," as Osama bin Ladin and Afghanistan's Taliban government. Before you call me crazy and junk this premise entirely, let me explain by giving you a little background on the people who run the American Red Cross. This is little preview of my American bestseller.

Background Intelligence on the American Red Cross

Founded in 1881 by American humanitarian Clara Barton, the American Red Cross (officially named The American National Red Cross) was first chartered by the U.S. Congress in 1900. A second charter, still in force, was granted in 1905. Not long after, however, John D. Rockefeller pirated the entire blood banking industry, along with the administrative leadership of the ARC. As you will soon learn, this quintessential coup de tats represented more than a glorious economic opportunity. The takeover of the ARC, and the entire blood industry, was apparently required to fulfill a far more sinister, even occult-linked, political objective-eugenics management for a racially purified planet.

To begin, during this time, John D. Rockefeller and his associates were making a concerted effort to control the entire field of medicine in America. During the 1890s, Rockefeller interests in medical education and "scientific medicine" were spearheaded by Frederick T. Gates, John D. Rockefeller's investment manager. 1901 saw the founding of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research. In 1902, Rockefeller's General Education Board was founded with a mission to annihilate the causes of racial discords. This agenda was clarified two years later with the publication of John D. Rockefeller's Occasional Letter No. 1 in which he detailed his plans to mold Americans to his concept of "perfect human nature." This, he claimed, might best be accomplished by destroying parental influence, traditions and customs, while reducing national intelligence levels.

In 1904, the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (home to today's Human Genome Project) was built on the estates of John Foster and Allen Dulles, lawyers for the Rockefeller Standard Oil Company. The Dulles Brothers, who openly professed John D. Rockefeller's racial hygiene doctrines, later directed the U.S. military's Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and after World War II, the CIA. Charles B. Davenport constructed the Cold Spring Harbor facility to provide a home for racial hygiene research, what was then called "eugenics research." The first racial hygiene laws in the world evolved from investigations and reports issued from here. The John D. Rockefeller and Averell Harriman, America's wealthiest oil and railroad magnates, invested more than $11 million-an extraordinary fortune at that time-in funding this facility. Soon thereafter, in 1909, the first genetics laboratory was established at the Rockefeller Institute and directed by Dr. Phoebus Aaron Theodor Levene.

By 1907, medical education had been mostly monopolized by the Rockefeller consortium. That year, the American Medical Association (AMA) advanced its medical education rating system effectively eliminating, by 1918, approximately 600 of the initial 650 medical schools. Through Rockefeller cohorts in the Andrew Carnegie Endowment for the Advancement of Teaching, Abraham Flexner was appointed to survey medical schools throughout America. This led to the infamous "Flexner Report" that vilified every alternative to drug-based medicine. The Rockefeller's political control over this American medical coup was clearly reflected in Flexner family relations. Abraham Flexner served on the Rockefellers General Education Board. Abraham Flexner's brother, Simon, headed the Rockefeller Institute of Medical Research. Simon's brother, Bernard, later joined the board of trustees of the Rockefeller Foundation after he helped found the politically powerful Council on Foreign Relations.

In 1910, following the death of Averell Harriman who presided over Yale's infamous secret society, the Skull and Bones, his widow donated 80 acres of estate property to establish the Eugenics Research Association at Cold Spring Harbor, New York, along with the Eugenics Records Office. The following year, social Darwinism subscriber, John Foster Dulles, revealed his desire to help develop a "super race." He explained that by eliminating "the weakest members of the population," a purer Aryan race might be created. According to several reputable authors, the Dulles brothers directing Rockefeller's management group and law firm at Sullivan and Cromwell on Wall Street, later administered the American affairs of I.G. Farben-Germany's leading industrial organization-linked intimately to Hitler and the rising Third Reich. The Dulles law firm also directed U.S. business affairs for Fritz Thyssen, Hitler's primary financial backer. Thyssen later introduced Allen Dulles to the rising Nazi fuehrer, after which brother John negotiated loans for the Nazis.

All of this activity foreshadowed, in 1928, the Rockefeller financing of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Eugenics, Anthropology and Human Heredity in pre-Nazi Germany. Ernst Rudin, Hitler's chief racial hygienist, was given authority over this institute principally funded by the Rockefellers. Eugenic psychiatrist Dr. Franz J. Kallmann, and blood geneticist Otmar Verschuer assisted Dr. Rudin. Their institute was named for Germany's Kaiser Wilhelm II who was a solid supporter of early eugenics experiments and occult science to further his royal bloodline. According to Wilhelm II, World War I resulted from a conspiracy between his enemies, the blood kin Czar Nicholas II and King George V, and their affiliated secret societies.

According to historic records, Hitler was also an avid student of the occult and a member of the largely secret Thule Society that contained members of the British royal family and European banking industry. Though evidence in this area of research is understandably circumstantial, Thule Society members, with connections to other politically influential leaders in the United States, including members of the Skull and Bones Fraternity at Yale University, are believed to have founded the National Socialist Party in Germany, primarily to initiate World War II.

The Occult, Freemasonry and Rockefeller Blood Banking

In my 1999 book, Healing Codes for the Biological Apocalypse, I shed more light on these shadowy figures of eugenics history. Shortly before the war, in 1936, according to investigative journalist Anton Chaitkin, Nazi eugenicist and Rockefeller grantee, Dr. Franz Kalmann published his schizophrenia experiments after immigrating to New York because he was half-Jewish. The secret society known as the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry published his account of more than 1,000 cases. His book was used in 1939 to rationalize the "murder of mental patients and various 'defective' people," according to Chaitkin and others. At the same time, the infamous Nazi doctor Josef Mengele and Otmar Verschuer were collecting blood samples, particularly from twins, to conduct genetic experiments to further advance the eugenics field. I wrote that more horrific experiments followed:

Needles were stabbed into people's eyes for eye color experiments. Others were injected with foreign blood and infectious agents. Limbs and organs were commonly removed, occasionally without anesthetics. Women were sterilized, men were castrated, and sexes were surgically altered. Thousands were butchered and their heads, eyeballs, limbs, and organs were delivered to Mengele, Verschuer, and the other Rockefeller-linked contingent at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute.

It was apparently no random "coincidence" that the Rockefeller family gained so much control over the ARC and blood banking. Laurance Rockefeller assembled the New York City blood council that evolved to largely control the international blood banking industry. The importance of blood and bloodlines is a recurring theme throughout my work and history, particularly when considering the highest level and objectives of the secret Scottish Freemasons. According to the "Structure of Freemasonry," the "Order of the Red Cross" stands third in the top echelon of power just behind the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (SMOM) and the "Order of the Knights Templar." Religious scholars cross their Bibles with red marker ribbons today unaware of the symbolism-the Masonic importance of the pure red bloodline.

Beginning with the Ordre de la Rose-Croix Veritas, more commonly known as the Rose-Croix, or Rosicrucians, the red (or rose) cross was adopted as an identifying symbol of the Masonic tradition. According to authors Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln in Holy Blood Holy Grail, themselves Freemasons, this practice began in 1188 when the Prieur� de Sion accepted the ceremonies of Ormus, said to have been an Egyptian sage, mystic, and "a Gnostic 'adept' in Alexandria"-a "hotbed of mystical activity" during the first century A. D. Here Ormus is believed to have exchanged theosophies with Judaic, Zoroastrian, Mithraic, Hermetic, neo-Platonic and Pythagorean scholars. The name "Ormus" was synonymous with "the principle of light" in Zoroastrian and Gnostic history. Thus, Ormus was not only the originator of the Red Cross symbol, but he apparently helped propagate the term "Illuminati."

Over time, "Illuminati" has come to mean the few powerfully illumined, or en-light-ened souls, who are said to draw their power from "Lucifer." Illuminati, in fact, according to Webster's Dictionary; is derived from the French word "Lucifer" meaning "light bearing." Webster also cross references Lucifer to the word "light."

According to Secret Societies author Jan van Helsing, "Illuminati" came into more common use during the 14th century in Germany, where it applied to the high initiates of the "Brotherhood of the Snake"-a "savant brotherhood that had subscribed to the dissemination of spiritual knowledge and the attainment of spiritual freedom from . . . extraterrestrials" more than 3,000 years before Christ.

The Latin name of "Illuminati" and the biblical term for snake have related origins and definitions. The word snake derives from "nahash," which came from the root word "nhsh" meaning to "discover," or "decipher." In Latin, "illuminare" meant "to illumine," or "to recognize," or "know."

Thus, the snake used by Rockefeller-directed organized medicine today, became a symbol of evolving illuminance or intelligence. Likewise, the Knight's Templar symbol shows the snake beginning and ending with a swastika. Citing van Helsing's research again, "One of the main branches of the Illuminati in Germany were the mystical Rosicrucians who were introduced at the beginning of the 9th century by Charlemagne."

Several other authors relayed that the Illuminati and the Rosicrucians were the driving force behind the esoteric religious movements of the 17th and 18th centuries. According to Webster's Dictionary, "Christian Rosenkreutz (NL Rosae Crucis)" was the "reputed 15th cent. founder of the movement (1624) . . . a devotee of esoteric wisdom with emphasis on psychic and spiritual enlightenment. . . ." Their manifestos, fervently supported by the liberal factions of Protestants in Europe, inflamed the leaders of the Catholic Church and the Jesuits. "Among the most eloquent and influential exponents of Rosicrucian thought was Robert Fludd"-the Prieur� de Sion's sixteenth grand master.

The Jesuit and Church backlashes that resulted in the persecution of the Cathars and Templars also helped spark Martin Luther's rebellion. "Martin Luther also had close links to both the Illuminati and the Rosicrucians," wrote van Helsing. Luther's friends recognized the Rosicrucian seal he wore that contained a rose and a cross with his initials. "After Luther's death, his confessional community was supported by Francis Bacon," the highest-ranking Rosicrucian in England, and, the general architect of the King James Bible.

Devil Doing Behind the American Red Cross

In Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola-Nature, Accident or Intentional? I explained how and why, at the end of WWII, the Dulles brothers, in support of Rockefeller alliances, arranged false Red Cross identifications for Nazi war criminals, scientists, and military officials to escape through the "rat lines." A couple of years ago, the New York Times carried a story that explained that Red Cross officials were aware of the Nazi atrocities occurring in the concentration camps of WWII. They said they were remiss in reporting their evidence. They omitted, however, the intelligence that the entire Red Cross organization was directed, from high above, by the same devils that directed the business dealings between the Nazis, I.G. Farben, the CIA and the Rockefeller Standard Oil Company from the rise of the Third Reich. No wonder, the New York Times reported in another article, much of the Nazi-stolen gold suddenly emerged in Rockefeller's Chase Manhattan Bank.

In Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola, you will also learn that the Laurence Rockefeller-directed New York City Blood Bank knowingly released thousands of pints blood contaminated with the AIDS-virus, HIV, despite holding secret the oxygenation technologies capable of clearing the virus from infected supplies. After developing AIDS, approximately ten thousand hemophiliacs died throughout the United States, along with countless others around the world. Likewise, in 1999, CNN reported that approximately 500,000 Chinese people became HIV infected similarly through contaminated blood. Not to mention the millions of others who received the hepatitis B, C and herpes (cancer) viruses through contaminated blood, likewise preventable, but purposely neglected.

In my latest book, Death in the Air: Globalism, Terrorism, and Toxic Warfare, (released June, 2001, 1-888-508-4787; $29.35) Chapter 18 is titled, "Public Health Politics, Eugenics, and Population Control." Here I detail the Rockefeller family's and their foundation's association with the population control industry. They are currently moving to eradicate half of the planet's current population, including America's civilian population as well. According to the Rockefeller-directed Population Council of the City of New York, and its affiliate the Negative Population Growth, Inc. of New Jersey, the U.S. population requires culling to 125 or 150 million people. That's about half its present number. And that, in a nutshell, is what "America's New War" on terrorism-leading to WWIII-is really about. Global population control and reduction through managed chaos. Using the standard Machiavellian practice of creating urgent problems, then costly solutions, America has been railroaded into what promises to be a long and deadly war against people previously, and likely still, on the payroll of a secret government and the CIA.

Now you might comprehend, if you have "the eyes" to read the above text, and the discernment necessary to perceive the truth it relays, why I found it nauseating that Americans so readily gave their blood and money to the Rockefeller's Red Cross. If you are among the millions who made that mistake, chalk it up to simple deception. But for heaven's sake, don't do it again! Please donate directly to the families who have been victimized. That way your contribution might do more than aiding and abetting the enemy.

Courtesy of Dr. Leonard G. Horowitz
and Tetrahedron, LLC
206 North 4th Avenue, Suite 147
Sandpoint, Idaho 83864
http://www.tetrahedron.org/
Toll free order line: 888-508-4787;
Office telephone: 208-265-2575;
FAX: 208-265-2775

The American Red Cross Spends Only About Five Percent of Donations on Helping Victims of Disasters Because That's All Federal Law Requires of a Charity - The Red Cross Doesn't Want to Spend Any More Than That Because There is No Money to be Made in Helping Disaster Victims

The Red Cross says it spends an average of 91 cents of every dollar on "programs and services." This is the lie that they repeat over and over again. In fact, the truth is opposite of what they claim. The Red Cross spends about 91 cents of every dollar on operating expenses (indirect costs) and about 5 cents of every dollar on grants for its tax-exempt purposes (direct costs).

The Red Cross allocates operating costs under the category "program service expenses," giving donors the perception that this is the amount awarded in grants to help victims of disasters. However, operating expenses (overhead) are not costs for funding activities directly related to the organization's tax-exempt purposes. Operating expenses are indirect costs, which include management services, salaries and other compensation, fundraising events, advertising and promotion, office expenses, information technology, conferences, conventions, meetings, occupancy (mortgage/rent, utilities, etc.), lobbying, insurance, travel, and other expenses.

Scripps Howard News Service reported in May 2012 that chief executives of nonprofit organizations sign their annual Form 990s to the IRS promising “under penalties of perjury” that the information provided is “true, correct and complete.” However, legal action for a false filing is extremely rare.

“They are fudging the numbers, and there is great incentive to fudge the numbers,” said Christine Manor, a certified public accountant from Rockville, Md., who advises GuideStar and other nonprofits in how to report to the IRS. “Why does anyone think we are so stupid?”

Yet the problem has been known for many years, at least since the mid-1990s, when the IRS began compiling and publicly releasing data from the Form 990 income-tax statements that most large nonprofits are required by law to file annually.

“This has been a long-standing area of concern,” said Washington, D.C., attorney Marcus Owens who was director of the IRS’ Exempt Organizations Division for 10 years. 

The Journal of Academy of Business and Economics published a study in February 2003 on the intentional misreporting of "program expenses" by nonprofit organizations. The study examined the motivation of nonprofit organizations to use IRS Form 990 to manipulate financial results by allocating indirect costs as part of the expense composition of "program services" (as opposed to costs for funding activities directly related to the organization's mission).

Why would a nonprofit misreport "program service expenses"? When reviewing IRS Form 990s, donors judge organizations reporting a higher proportion of total expenses classified as "program services" or "program expenses" as more likely to use donations to fund activities directly related to the mission rather than on indirect costs associated with operating the charity. In other words, donors likely perceive high amounts of total expenses devoted to "program services" as indicative of an organization's use of contributions to support program service activities.

To make matters worse, online watchdogs like Charity Navigator use a nonprofit organization's "program expenses" to rate the charity, so the higher the "program expenses," the better the rating. On its website under "How Do We Rate Charities' Financial Health?," Charity Navigator states:

Charities exist to provide programs and services. They fulfill the expectations of givers when they allocate most of their budgets to providing programs. Charities fail givers expectations when their spending on programs is insufficient. To evaluate a charity's program expenses, we divide its program expenses by its total functional expenses. Charity Z spends $2.5 million on program expenses, compared with its overall operating budget of $3.5 million. Thus, Charity Z spends 71.4% on program expenses.

The following are excerpts from the February 2003 study, "Indirect cost allocations and the incentive to report high program service expenditures in Form 990: an examination of donors' perceptions":

As an overseer of the nonprofit sector, the government has sought to ensure that nonprofit organizations have not engaged in activities that have violated their tax-exempt status. To fulfill this duty, the federal government currently requires most tax-exempt nonprofit organizations (501(c)(3) organizations) to file a yearly informational return, the Form 990.

The Internet presence of Forms 990 has provided nonprofits with increased incentives to report high program service expenditures. Organizations can artificially inflate these expenditures by allocating large amounts of indirect costs to program services.

An experiment investigating donors' perceptions regarding program services and indirect cost allocations finds that nonprofits' attempts to mislead donors through cost allocations may succeed, even when signs of potentially manipulative allocations appear on functional expense statements. Donors possessing financial analysis skills may, however, detect these attempts, suggesting that web sites may need to emphasize a careful examination of the expense composition of program services.

Despite Form 990's role as one of the most commonly used sources of nonprofit financial information today, many in the nonprofit field fear that the informational return may mislead donors.

One area of special concern lies in the reporting of program service expenditures and the use of cost allocations to artificially inflate their magnitude.

This paper discusses an experiment conducted to investigate donors' perceptions of potentially manipulative indirect cost allocations reported in Form 990. In providing a preliminary indication of the likely success or failure of organizations' attempts to mislead donors through cost allocations, the paper offers some practical suggestions for web sites housing Forms 990.

In its reporting of organizational expenses, Form 990 uses one of three categories to classify all expenses:

1. program services

2. management and general

3. fundraising

Because of the increased accessibility of Forms 990, nonprofit entities face incentives to disclose high program service expenses and low management and fundraising expenses (overhead) to ensure a donor's favorable impression of the organization. Organizations may respond to these incentives by allocating large amounts of indirect costs to the "program service expense" classification to inflate its magnitude, a practice that, according to critics, charitable organizations have committed in the past.

While the IRS encourages organizations to allocate indirect costs among the three expense classifications (program services, management and general, and fundraising), it fails to specify an appropriate allocation method. Further, professional accounting organizations offer only limited cost allocation guidance.

One professional website dedicated to Form 990 preparation advises nonprofit organizations: "If the percentages for either fundraising or management and general appear too high, go back and make sure that your organization used appropriate guidelines when classifying expenses."

A Statement of Functional Expenses included in Form 990 may provide assistance to donors in detecting an organization's efforts to manipulate program service results. This statement reveals the individual expenses, both direct and indirect—comprising total program service, management and general, and fundraising—and reports, in columnar format, the manner in which an organization allocated its indirect expenses among the three expense classifications. Some have maintained that this statement is the most important financial report of a nonprofit organization, since it may disclose unusual cost allocations.

[Editor's Note: The Statement of Functional Expenses was Part III of Form 990 but the IRS moved it to Part IX, essentially burying it near the end of the form—this statement reveals the actual expense composition of the totals appearing in Part I, and, in turn, how each organization allocated its major direct and indirect costs.]

When evaluating the performance of nonprofit organizations, donors and public service agencies rank the ratio of total program service expenditures to total organizational expenditures high in importance. Donors can calculate this ratio from data appearing in Part I of Form 990—this statement reports an organization's revenue sources and the total dollar amounts spent on program services, management and general, and fundraising. Donors likely perceive high amounts of total expenses devoted to program services as indicative of an organization's use of contributions to support program service activities.

The IRS grants nonprofit organizations considerable discretion in their determination of program service, management and general, and fundraising expenditures. It encourages these organizations to allocate its indirect costs among the three expense classifications, although it provides only limited guidance as to the allocation techniques or methods.

Regulators and oversight agencies have long considered the Statement of Functional Expenses of primary importance in revealing questionable cost allocations. However, evidence from this study suggests that disclosure on the functional expense statement of a nonprofit organization's potentially manipulative use of indirect cost allocations to inflate program service expenditures may go undetected, implying that organizations may find it relatively easy to mislead donors using Form 990.

A comment by James A. Day at Charity Navigator demonstrates how the website helps the American Red cross mislead donors:

"The American Red Cross, according to Charity Navigator, gives 92% of donations to programs that help people. That is commendable."

In 2011, the Red Cross awarded less than 1% of revenue in grants for its purpose, to help victims of disasters (it awarded $211 million of the $3.4 billion it received in contributions, transferring 5% from its endowment to meet the minimum required by law).

In 2012, the Red Cross awarded 6.56% of revenue in grants for its purpose, to help victims of disasters (it awarded $224 million of the $3.2 billion it received in contributions).

On IRS form 990 Part 1, line 13, you will find the amount of grants awarded by the Red Cross for the filing year; line 12 is the total revenue. Part IX gives you a breakdown of expenses. Just search "Red Cross form 990 year xxxx" to see what the organization reported for the year.

The Red Cross is a Racket

By Ken Adachi
October 18, 2013

The American Red Cross or the International Red Cross, like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) or the World Bank, is an Illuminati-controlled front organization whose true purpose is completely opposite from their stated purpose.

The IMF tells the world that they are there to "help" counties recover from economic difficulties (which the IMF and World Bank helped to create in the first place), but in reality, the IMF breaks counties and ruins their economies. The same could be said of the Red Cross.

The moment a 'natural' disaster like Hurricane Katrina roars through the southeast, radio and TV spots flood the airwaves seeking monetary donations to be sent to the Red Cross. With heartstring music playing in the background, the radio announcer tells us that the Red Cross is "always there in time of need" and now that the "poor victims of Hurricane Katrina are suffering" with this terrible tragedy, "won't you open your heart" and make a "generous" donation?

Oh Brother, these guys have the science of bilking people down to a fine art!

I can't take the time to get into a long essay about the Dark Side of the Red Cross, but just try to recall what happened after 9-11:

The dust from the World Trade Center collapses hadn't even settled before the call went out immediately from the Red Cross to give blood and money to help the victims and the families of the 'terrorist' attack. Thousands of people gave blood and even more gave millions upon millions of dollars to the Red Cross. The first question that occurred to me when the Red Cross started asking for blood was: "Blood for whom?". Everyone was dead! We knew everyone was dead from the very beginning, so why is the Red Cross asking for blood donations day and night for about a week or more?

The answer is reflective of the true purpose of the the Red Cross: the Red Cross is a disaster racket which is in the business of making money from disasters-especially from engineered disasters. They sell the blood, of course, but they apparently also use the blood for other things which the public is generally not privy to.

And what do they do with the money? For the most part, they keep it for themselves! Recall how the families of the victims of 911 had to badger, harass, and threaten the Red Cross in an attempt to get some 11 million dollars that they would not release to the families-even a year later? And that's what we were told in the media, but how much money did the Red Cross really rake in from 9-11?

The CEO of the Red Cross and other corporate celebrities receive obscene salaries and other big buck perks, while other charities operate on much leaner budgets for use by the charity itself. As I type this short article, I now check my e-mail and find 4 or 5 articles devoted to precisely the same topic, so in order to save time, I'll let others finish the story for me:


To: Editor

Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2005 7:07 AM
Subject: Fw: Red Cross CEO Pulled Down $651,957 in Comp Pkg

American National Red Cross
Top Person: Red Cross President Marsha Evans
Top Salary:* $651,957


"...One charity has stayed above all this for 137 years. The Salvation Army is unique among all U.S. charities for many reasons. Let,s start at the top. Commissioner Todd Bassett receives a salary just $13,000 per year (plus housing) for managing this $2 Billion dollar organization. By comparison, Brian Gallagher, President of the United Way receives a $375,000 base salary (plus numerous expensive benefits) and the Red Cross President Marsha Evans receives $450,000 plus benefits..."

full article:

http://rense.com/general67/redcr.htm

The Red Cross Scam

The Red Cross is a disaster 'racket' in the business of making money from people's misery, especially with totally engineered disasters such as 9/11.

So-called 'charities' are nothing more than a means of extracting even more money from the masses to swell the already overflowing coffers of the mega-rich.

(Editor's Note: This excerpt from John Hamer's book, The Falsification of History: Our Distorted Reality (2012), presents a disturbing image of the Red Cross. I suspect there is much more to be revealed about this outfit.)

By Henry Makow
October 15, 2013

The International Red Cross is an Elite-controlled front organization whose true purpose is the complete opposite from its stated purpose.



KATRINA AND 9-11

In Sept. 2005, Paul Joseph Watson and Alex Jones wrote, "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, Yahoo.com, 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".

In fact, the Red Cross has been caught 'red-handed' withholding money in the wake of terrible disasters that require immediate funds. In the name of the 'Liberty Fund' for 9/11 family relief, the Red Cross collected $564 million in donations yet only actually distributed around $150 million.

The then Red Cross President Dr. Bernadine Healy arrogantly proclaimed, "The Liberty Fund is a war fund. It has evolved into a war fund. We must have blood readiness. We must have the ability to help our troops if we go into a ground war. We must have the ability to help the victims of tomorrow." (She resigned under fire in Dec. 2001, and died in 2011. )

On Jan 3, 2005, CNN reported: "Charities swung into action after the September 11 terrorist attacks, raising more than $1 billion. But questions are being raised about where and how and how much of that money is being distributed. Bearing the brunt Tuesday during a hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee's oversight panel was outgoing Red Cross President Dr. Bernadine Healy. Healy was hammered by one New York official for the Red Cross' decision to put aside nearly half of the money raised for future needs that may include terrorist attacks. '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,' New York Attorney general Eliot Spitzer testified. "

LEGACY OF CORRUPTION

In fact the Red Cross has a long, long sordid history of stealing cash donations intended for disaster relief. Following the disastrous San Francisco earthquake in 1989, the Red Cross donated only $10 million of the $50 million that had been raised, and kept the rest.

Similarly, following the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 and the Red River flooding in 1997 many donations were also withheld. Even as far back as the Korean War, the Red Cross was plundering soldiers' relief packages, the famous 'Red Cross Parcels' from home.

The Red Cross is very adept at stealing money and looting mail and has been exposed in this respect many times but it has been allowed to escape sanctions, punishment or exposure because the organization is so closely allied with and indeed is inextricably linked with the Elite establishment. It is without doubt an organization run by Elite insiders whose purpose is to gather intelligence and steal from the poor, underprivileged and needy to further line the pockets of the rich.

indonesia.jpgSeveral minor charities that were involved with the 2004 Tsunami relief project expressed outrage in public to say that large charities like Red Cross and Oxfam were engaged in secret negotiations that resulted in a large amount of the public-donated money being withheld from those most affected by the disaster. See Red Cross Hasn't Spent $200 million Raised for S. Asian Tsunami

The message here should be clear to all. Under no circumstances donate money to major charitable organizations unless you would like your money to go to benefit the Elite's expansion of their empires and the fast-developing police state in your own backyards. Find smaller independent charitable organizations that you know to be reliable and make your donations to them.

John Hamer is a British geo-political researcher. He is the author of the book 'The Falsification of History'

Related - Red Cross was a front for Wall Street Bankers in Bolshevik Revolution /Chapter Five (thanks Leland)
http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sutton_Wall_Street_and_the_bolshevik_revolution-3.pdf

Red Cross in Haiti - Where did the Money Go?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/haiti-where-did-the-money-go/29137

Joan Price - Don't Donate to Illuminati Charities
http://www.henrymakow.com/do_the_illuminati_control_char.html

Less than 10% of NFL Pink Merchandise Sales Go to "Cancer Research"
http://www.businessinsider.com/small-amount-of-money-from-pink-nfl-merchandise-goes-to-breast-cancer-research-2013-10#ixzz2htO75NtJ

Ken Adachi writes: The Red Cross Racket i
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/redcrossracket03spe05.shtml
September 3, 2005

Avoid the Red Cross (Sep 16, 2009)
http://educate-yourself.org/lte/redcross16sep09.shtml
September 16, 2009

"I believe over 1 billion was collected by the Red Cross for the false flag 3/11 attack on Japan. The Japanese people received next to nothing of that money. The same could be said for the Haiti engineered quake of 2009." - Ken Adachi

American Red Cross Reports Committing Nearly $486 Million to Haiti Earthquake Relief

Philanthropy News Digest
January 14, 2014

In the four years since a massive earthquake devastated Haiti, the American Red Cross has spent, committed, or allocated about 86 percent of the $486 million donated to assist more than 4.3 million survivors and help build the country's capacity to respond to future disasters, the organization reports.

According to Haiti Earthquake Response: Four-Year Update (4 pages, PDF), the emergency relief organization has spent $144 million of the $186.6 million allocated to provide shelter to nearly 109,000 people; invested $65.8 million in healthcare services and infrastructure, including construction of and/or operational funding for eight medical facilities; and disbursed the $66.1 million allocated for emergency relief efforts. The organization also has spent $49.4 million of the $56.1 million allocated to provide clean water and sanitation services for more than 556,000 people; $44.1 million of the $45 million committed to bolstering disaster preparedness in Haiti; $32.4 million of the $39.5 million allocated to livelihoods assistance for more than 383,000 survivors; and $19.5 million of the $27.9 million committed to cholera response and prevention efforts, including the country's first cholera vaccination campaign.

In addition, ARC field staff and volunteers have collected data from a rural area in northern Haiti where the organization recently launched a program to strengthen communities and the ability of the local Red Cross chapter to serve those communities. Going forward, ARC will work with the communities to analyze and prioritize the challenges they face and identify ways to address them.

"The American Red Cross has supported the wide range of ongoing needs over the past four years with programs that include the relocation of vulnerable camp residents to safer homes, construction of hospitals and clinics, and economic programs to help people earn money and rebuild businesses," said ARC president and CEO Gail McGovern. "Recovery from such a devastating disaster takes time, so our programs have evolved to address changing community needs. The American Red Cross continues to utilize the generous donations wisely, efficiently and thoughtfully to help Haitians recover and rebuild their lives."

"Red Cross Issues Four-Year Report on Haiti Earthquake Work." American Red Cross Press Release 01/08/2014.

Red Cross under fire! Where’s the money for Haiti?

By Amadi Ajamu
March 30, 2010

This video was posted on YouTube April 1 by teslakontrol, who wrote, “After the Red Cross released a two-month report saying that they spent $106 million in Haiti, I went to look for evidence that it was actually spent in Haiti.”

As the Haitian people brace themselves for the hurricane and rainy season with no shelter and no supplies for millions, the United States, France, Canada and other nations are attending the United Nations Donors Conference on Wednesday, March 31. At the conference, these wealthy nations will “donate” funds to over 3,000 non-governmental organizations, most of them headquartered in their own countries. They are in effect paying themselves. The American Red Cross has already admitted to financing its own debt with donations given for Haiti relief. According to its official report on the first two months since the devastating Jan. 12 earthquake, they collected over $354 million for Haiti but have spent only $106 million. Yet only half of the 1.3 million people made homeless by the quake have even a tarp as the rainy season begins.

Demanding an independent accounting, the Friday Haiti Relief Coalition protested at the American Red Cross headquarters in New York City on March 22. They’ll repeat that demand on Wednesday, March 31, at the United Nations in Dag Hammarskjold Plaza, 47th Street and First Avenue, during the Haiti Donors Conference at 9:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. Another key demand is that Haitians must determine for themselves how they want to rebuild their nation.

In Haiti, recent rain presages the heavy tropical downpours of the coming rainy season and the hurricanes that may follow. In addition to the nearly 300,000 who died in the earthquake or from their wounds, thousands more could die this spring from exposure and water-borne disease. Time is of essence. Shelter is needed now.

Where is all the money going? That was the burning question asked by the crowd that converged on the doorstep of the American Red Cross on March 22 led by the Friday Haiti Relief Coalition. The coalition was organized by the December 12th Movement days after the earthquake and has raised funds and delivered a tractor trailer full of water to Leogane, Haiti. A second trip is being planned now.

With young people in the lead, the December 12th Movement’s Friday Haiti Relief Coalition turned out in force – in the rain – March 22 on the doorstep of American Red Cross headquarters in New York City to demand that all the money donated for Haiti be spent in Haiti now – especially for shelter from the rain. Extraordinary teachers in the movement encouraging students to stand up and speak out for Haiti is people’s education in action! – Photo: Amadi Ajamu

“We have been on the ground and we know the people are in need of shelter. The money collected by the Red Cross for Haiti is not getting there. We are tired of the excuses. That’s our blood down there and our money. We demand immediate shelter for our people,” said coalition member April Raiford. Red Cross personnel nervously scampered back and forth as the protesters chanted, “Stop stealing the money! Where’s the money!”

Omowale Clay of the December 12th Movement said: “We will keep organizing and mobilizing our people until the Haitian people get shelter and supplies. The American Red Cross has not been held accountable for the hundreds of millions they have collected in the name of Haiti and we won’t let them off the hook. They did the same thing during Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. The money donated to Haiti is for the people in Haiti, not the Red Cross CEO and executive bureaucrats. Haiti needs shelter now!”

The Friday Haiti Relief Coalition also has a committee looking into the possibility of a class action lawsuit against the American Red Cross. The coalition meets every Friday at 6:30 p.m. at Sistas’ Place, 456 Nostrand Ave., Brooklyn, NY. For more information, call (718) 398-1766.

Amadi Ajamu can be reached at amadi4@aol.com.

Where did Haiti's aid go?

By Clarence Page, Chicago Tribune
January 29, 2012

"Haiti: Where Did the Money Go?" is a documentary by independent filmmaker Michele Mitchell that has been airing on PBS stations across the country.



Produced by her New York-based company Film At 11, the film paints a very grim picture of how much obviously has not been done. In a camp of 5,000 people, for example, only six toilets are provided — and no one to clean them. In separate visits on the first and second anniversaries of the quake, Mitchell found the camp's conditions actually had gotten worse.

"This is not just about Haiti," Mitchell told me after a screening before congressmen on Capitol Hill. "It's about the need for real reform. Because when you give money to a do-good organization, you expect them to do good with it. We need to do better."

The film upset the American Red Cross with its implications of ineffectiveness and allegations of a lack of transparency. The organization released a statement charging the film with "inaccuracies." But after talking with David B. Meltzer, the organization's senior vice president for international services, I think the dispute boils down mainly to differences of opinion and emphasis. The Red Cross understandably wants to focus on the people it has helped. The film's focus, like mine, is on how many people the NGOs have missed, and why.

Haiti's earthquake, he pointed out, is the largest urban disaster since the end of World War II. It left 1.5 million people homeless in a city that already had hundreds of thousands living in squalor. The donations have been generous, but they don't begin to cover the total costs of Haiti's recovery. 

"We've had big challenges," he said, "but we've also had big successes."

True enough. But on the question of where the money went, Meltzer, like other officials, proudly directed me to the Red Cross website, where they freely disclose information required by law. Unfortunately, the law doesn't require many useful details, such as how much was spent on specific items like food, water and latrine services or where the money was spent.

It also doesn't address larger questions that have been raised about how disaster aid is delivered by NGOs like the Red Cross, which has been forced to defend itself many times in the past against critics of its relief efforts after disasters like Hurricane Katrina and last year's earthquake and tsunami in Japan.
Mitchell's film was defended by at least one watchdog group, the Center for Economic and Policy Research, which also called for more disclosure and accountability by the Red Cross. Congressional hearings and oversight, which Red Cross officials say they welcome, would be an appropriate place to start.
 

Haiti: Where the Earthquake Money Did and Did Not Go

Haitians ask the same question as many around the world “Where did the money go?”
 
AlterNet
January 3, 2012

Haiti, a close neighbor of the US with over nine million people, was devastated by earthquake on January 12, 2010.  Hundreds of thousands were killed and many more wounded.

The UN estimated international donors gave Haiti over $1.6 billion in relief aid since the earthquake (about $155 per Haitian) and over $2 billion in recovery aid (about $173 per Haitian) over the last two years.

Yet Haiti looks like the earthquake happened two months ago, not two years. Over half a million people remain homeless in hundreds of informal camps, most of the tons of debris from destroyed buildings still lays where it fell, and cholera, a preventable disease, was introduced into the country and is now an epidemic killing thousands and sickening hundreds of thousands more.

It turns out that almost none of the money that the general public thought was going to Haiti actually went directly to Haiti.  The international community chose to bypass the Haitian people, Haitian non-governmental organizations and the government of Haiti.  Funds were instead diverted to other governments, international NGOs, and private companies.

Despite this near total lack of control of the money by Haitians, if history is an indication, it is quite likely that the failures will ultimately be blamed on the Haitians themselves in a “blame the victim” reaction.

Haitians ask the same question as many around the world “Where did the money go?”

Here are seven places where the earthquake money did and did not go.

One.  The largest single recipient of US earthquake money was the US government.  The same holds true for donations by other countries.

Right after the earthquake, the US allocated $379 million in aid and sent in 5000 troops.  The Associated Press discovered that of the $379 million in initial US money promised for Haiti, most was not really money going directly, or in some cases even indirectly, to Haiti.  They documented in January 2010 that thirty three cents of each of these US dollars for Haiti was actually given directly back to the US to reimburse ourselves for sending in our military.  Forty two cents of each dollar went to private and public non-governmental organizations like Save the Children, the UN World Food Program and the Pan American Health Organization.  Hardly any went directly to Haitians or their government.

The overall $1.6 billion allocated for relief by the US was spent much the same way according to an August 2010 report by the US Congressional Research Office: $655 million was reimbursed to the Department of Defense; $220 million to Department of Health and Human Services to provide grants to individual US states to cover services for Haitian evacuees; $350 million to USAID disaster assistance; $150 million to the US Department of Agriculture for emergency food assistance; $15 million to the Department of Homeland Security for immigration fees, and so on.

International assistance followed the same pattern.  The UN Special Envoy for Haiti reported that of the $2.4 billion in humanitarian funding, 34 percent was provided back to the donor’s own civil and military entities for disaster response, 28 percent was given to UN agencies and non-governmental agencies (NGOs) for specific UN projects, 26 percent was given to private contractors and other NGOs, 6 percent was provided as in-kind services to recipients, 5 percent to the international and national Red Cross societies, 1 percent was provided to the government of Haiti, four tenths of one percent of the funds went to Haitian NGOs.

Two.  Only 1 percent of the money went to the Haitian government.

Less than a penny of each dollar of US aid went to the government of Haiti, according to the Associated Press.   The same is true with other international donors.  The Haitian government was completely bypassed in the relief effort by the US and the international community.

Three.   Extremely little went to Haitian companies or Haitian non-governmental organizations.

The Center for Economic and Policy Research, the absolute best source for accurate information on this issue, analyzed all the 1490 contracts awarded by the US government after the January 2010 earthquake until April 2011 and found only 23 contracts went to Haitian companies.  Overall the US had awarded $194 million to contractors, $4.8 million to the 23 Haitian companies, about 2.5 percent of the total.  On the other hand, contractors from the Washington DC area received $76 million or 39.4 percent of the total.  As noted above, the UN documented that only four tenths of one percent of international aid went to Haitian NGOs.

In fact Haitians had a hard time even getting into international aid meetings.  Refugees International reported that locals were having a hard time even getting access to the international aid operational meetings inside the UN compound.  “Haitian groups are either unaware of the meetings, do not have proper photo-ID passes for entry, or do not have the staff capacity to spend long hours at the compound.”  Others reported that most of these international aid coordination meetings were not even being translated into Creole, the language of the majority of the people of Haiti!

Four.  A large percentage of the money went to international aid agencies, and big well connected non-governmental organizations (NGOs). 

The American Red Cross received over $486 million in donations for Haiti.  It says two-thirds of the money has been contracted to relief and recovery efforts, though specific details are difficult to come by. The CEO of American Red Cross has a salary of over $500,000 per year.

Look at the $8.6 million joint contract between the US Agency for International Development (USAID) with the private company CHF for debris removal in Port au Prince.  CHF is politically well-connected international development company with annual budget of over $200 million whose CEO was paid $451,813 in 2009.  CHF’s connection to Republicans and Democrats is illustrated by its board secretary, Lauri Fitz-Pegado, a partner with the Livingston Group LLC.  The Livingston Group is headed by the former Republican Speaker-designate for the 106th Congress, Bob Livingston, doing lobbying and government relations.  Ms. Fitz-Pegado, who apparently works the other side of the aisle, was appointed by President Clinton to serve in the Department of Commerce and served as a member of the foreign policy expert advisor team on the Obama for President Campaign.  CHF “works in Haiti out of two spacious mansions in Port au Prince and maintains a fleet of brand new vehicles” according to Rolling Stone.

Rolling Stone, in an excellent article by Janet Reitman, reported on another earthquake contract, a $1.5 million contract to the NY based consulting firm Dalberg Global Development Advisors.  The article found Dalberg’s team “had never lived overseas, didn’t have any disaster experience or background in urban planning… never carried out any program activities on the ground…” and only one of them spoke French.  USAID reviewed their work and found that “it became clear that these people may not have even gotten out of their SUVs.”

Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton announced a fundraising venture for Haiti on January 16, 2010.  As of October 2011, the fund had received $54 million in donations.  It has partnered with several Haitian and international organizations.  Though most of its work appears to be admirable, it has donated $2 million to the construction of a Haitian $29 million for-profit luxury hotel. 

“The NGOs still have something to respond to about their accountability, because there is a lot of cash out there,” according to Nigel Fisher, the UN’s chief humanitarian officer in Haiti.  “What about the $1.5 to $2 billion that the Red Cross and NGOs got from ordinary people, and matched by governments?  What’s happened to that?  And that’s where it’s very difficult to trace those funds.”

Five.  Some money went to for profit companies whose business is disasters. 

Less than a month after the quake hit, the US Ambassador Kenneth Merten sent a cable titled “THE GOLD RUSH IS ON” as part of his situation report to Washington.  In this February 1, 2010 document, made public by The Nation, Haiti Liberte and Wikileaks, Ambassador Merten reported the President of Haiti met with former General Wesley Clark for a sales presentation for  a Miami-based company that builds foam core houses.

Capitalizing on the disaster, Lewis Lucke, a high ranking USAID relief coordinator, met twice in his USAID capacity with the Haitian Prime Minister immediately after the quake.  He then quit the agency and was hired for $30,000 a month by a Florida corporation Ashbritt (known already for its big no bid Katrina grants) and a prosperous Haitian partner to lobby for disaster contracts.  Locke said “it became clear to us that if it was handled correctly the earthquake represented as much an opportunity as it did a calamity…”  Ashbritt and its Haitian partner were soon granted a $10 million no bid contract.  Lucke said he was instrumental in securing another $10 million contract from the World Bank and another smaller one from CHF International before their relationship ended.

Six.  A fair amount of the pledged money has never been actually put up. 

The international community decided it was not going to allow the Haiti government to direct the relief and recovery funds and insisted that two institutions be set up to approve plans and spending for the reconstruction funds going to Haiti.  The first was the Interim Haiti Recovery Commission (IHRC) and the second is the Haiti Reconstruction Fund (HRF).  

In March 2010, UN countries pledged $5.3 billion over two years and a total of $9.9 billion over three years in a conference March 2010.  The money was to be deposited with the World Bank and distributed by the IHRC.  The IHRC was co-chaired by Bill Clinton and the Haitian Prime Minister.   By July 2010, Bill Clinton reported only 10 percent of the pledges had been given to the IHRC.

Seven.  A lot of the money which was put up has not yet been spent. 

Nearly two years after the quake, less than 1 percent of the $412 million in US funds specifically allocated for infrastructure reconstruction activities in Haiti had been spent by USAID and the US State Department and only 12 percent has even been obligated according to a November 2011 report by the US Government Accountability Office (GAO).

The performance of the two international commissions, the IHRC and the HRF has also been poor.  The Miami Herald noted that as of July 2011, the $3.2 billion in projects approved by the IHRC only five had been completed for a total of $84 million.  The Interim Haiti Recovery Commission (IHRC), which was severely criticized by Haitians and others from its beginning, has been effectively suspended since its mandate ended at the end of October 2011.  The Haiti Reconstruction Fund was set up to work in tandem with the IHRC, so while its partner is suspended, it is not clear how it can move forward.

What to do

The effort so far has not been based a respectful partnership between Haitians and the international community.   The actions of the donor countries and the NGOs and international agencies have not been transparent so that Haitians or others can track the money and see how it has been spent.  Without transparency and a respectful partnership the Haitian people cannot hold anyone accountable for what has happened in their country.  That has to change.

The UN Special Envoy to Haiti suggests the generous instincts of people around the world must be channeled by international actors and institutions in a way that assists in the creation of a “robust public sector and a healthy private sector.”  Instead of giving the money to intermediaries, funds should be directed as much as possible to Haitian public and private institutions.  A “Haiti First” policy could strengthen public systems, promote accountability, and create jobs and build skills among the Haitian people. 

Respect, transparency and accountability are the building blocks for human rights.  Haitians deserve to know where the money has gone, what the plans are for the money still left, and to be partners in the decision-making for what is to come. 

After all, these are the people who will be solving the problems when the post-earthquake relief money is gone.

Haiti: where did all the money go?

New Internationalist Magazine

Issue 449
 

The Haitian earthquake prompted an outpouring of generosity – international donations totalled more than $10 billion. But, two years on, have those funds been well spent? Nick Harvey investigates.

The thousands of Haitians who took to the streets in December, waving banners and chanting the unequivocal message ‘UN, go home!’ could be accused of biting the hand that feeds them. After all, Haiti currently relies on the UN and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to provide 80 per cent of its basic services. But the outpouring of anger, though partly in response to the cholera epidemic that was likely brought into Haiti by UN troops from Nepal, was also a result of wider frustrations with the painfully slow relief effort and the general state of the country. For despite billions having been pledged in aid since the 2010 earthquake, the lives of the majority of Haitians remain woefully threadbare.

‘Two years on and you have nearly half a million people still in tents or tarps, some 7,000 dead from cholera and hundreds of thousands more infected,’ says Ben Smilowitz, head of the Disaster Accountability Project, a non-partisan aid organization watchdog. ‘They’ve had to live through two hurricane seasons like this, which is simply unacceptable given the amount of money that was donated.’

Immediately after the quake, NGO fundraisers got to work and the money surged in. Ordinary people around the world dug deep and, along with pledges from foreign governments and other international donors, around $10 billion was raised. The thousands of NGOs already embedded in the country – more per capita than anywhere else in the world – began a massive relief effort, loosely co-ordinated by the UN. It was a daunting task, due both to the enormity of the disaster and the weakness of local institutions. But two years later, with only a fraction of the estimated million internally displaced people (IDPs) rehoused and few signs of any real reconstruction, many are wondering where, exactly, all that money went.

Only 40 per cent of the $5.6 billion pledged by foreign governments to be used in the first 18 months had been dispersed by September 2011 

‘The NGOs frittered most of the money away because they had to,’ says Haiti expert Tim Schwartz, author of Travesty in Haiti. ‘None of them were in the position to spend that kind of cash but there was an awful lot of pressure for them to use it. Much of it went on salaries, accommodation and transport for the NGO workers themselves.’

One of the biggest problems was that much of the money failed to reach Haiti. Only 40 per cent of the $5.6 billion pledged by foreign governments to be used in the first 18 months had been dispersed by September 2011.

‘Aid organizations see disasters as a huge fundraising opportunity and they will raise money whether they can deliver it or not,’ says Ben Smilowitz. ‘If they can’t deliver the services then they will take a nine or ten per cent cut and pass the money to another organization. This can happen numerous times before it gets to where it should be, so the amount they end up with is a fraction of what was actually raised.’

Brand recognition

One of the most notorious examples of this disparity in the delivery of funds came from the American Red Cross. Despite collecting $255 million in private donations, only $106 million made it to its Haiti relief project. When the earthquake struck, the organization had just 15 staff members working there. Compare this with Partners in Health, another NGO which, despite having 5,000 (mostly Haitian) staff, received less than $40 million. NGOs come in all shapes and sizes – and can have very different approaches.

‘Simply put, the wrong groups raised the most money in Haiti,’ explains Ben Smilowitz. ‘Groups that may not even be in Haiti and have very little capacity to deliver get the cash because of their incredible brand recognition.’

And while billions of dollars have undoubtedly managed to filter through, a lack of interaction between NGOs and locals means very little of it ends up in Haitian hands. Studies have shown that only 2.3 per cent of reconstruction aid went to Haitian firms. Haitians have, in many ways, simply been excluded from the rebuilding of their own country.

‘The structure of the humanitarian system works against the actual participation of local people,’ says Mark Schuller, an anthropologist working in Haiti and co-editor of Tectonic Shifts: Haiti since the Earthquake. ‘Decisions are made in Brussels, London, Washington and Ottawa. The UN Logistics Base was a place where Haitians were simply not invited, even government members, and within NGOs you have decisions made in English that often can’t be communicated to the creole speakers on the ground.’

‘Youn ede lòt’

While Haitians remain frozen out from the reconstruction process, it shouldn’t be forgotten that the first response to the emergency came from the Haitian people themselves. Demonstrating the country’s longstanding tradition of youn ede lòt (‘helping each other’), it was Haitians who leapt into action after those devastating 35 seconds that tore down their country on 12 January 2010.

‘When the earthquake first happened there was a lot of solidarity among Haitians,’ says Prospery Raymond, head of Christian Aid in Haiti. ‘I was under the rubble for two hours and it was the local youth who risked their lives to get me out. Thousands of people were saved by fellow Haitians that day.’

‘Now is the time for the international community to help Haitians do what they really want to do, rather than carry on with these pre-prepared projects from abroad’

Prospery argues that the most successful aid initiatives have been those that forwarded funds straight to Haitians. ‘After the earthquake we distributed cash directly to those who needed it,’ he says. ‘It was crucial that they got this money because there was food available at the markets, so people could eat and it helped keep the local economy afloat.’ Christian Aid aims to work with local partners rather than, as many other agencies do, sending in teams of foreign ‘experts’.

The absence of a functioning government prevented Haitians from taking more of a lead in their own affairs after the earthquake. A lengthy and disputed presidential election – followed by a five-month delay in forming a new government – had a huge impact on the first year of the reconstruction process. The lack of government structure, combined with a US policy stretching back to the 1980s that favoured putting aid into the hands of NGOs rather than Haitian presidents, meant that only one per cent of the aid went to the Haitian government. Now that a new government is in place, there is hope that Haiti can begin to take control of its own future.

‘Now is the time for the international community to help Haitians do what they really want to do, rather than carry on with these preprepared projects from abroad,’ says Prospery Raymond. ‘They need to work closely with the government to help strengthen its capacity, because NGOs are not the long-term solution.’ Others agree that this should have been the approach from the start.

‘Donors such as the European Union and USAID, and their contracting NGOs, could have changed the rules of the game so that they rewarded local participation,’ says Mark Schuller. ‘They could have imposed a tax on their own aid – say, three per cent – and used that money to support government ministries that are performing well but are understaffed.’

As well as political instability, other reasons for lack of progress in reconstruction and resettlement commonly cited by NGOs are long customs delays for materials at the airport and the diversion of funds to deal with the cholera epidemic. Delays clearing the rubble and problems determining who owns land (which makes it difficult to find places to build houses) are also regularly blamed for reconstruction inactivity. But others argue that these excuses do not stand up to interrogation.

‘Most of these problems could have been resolved with collective public solutions,’ says Mark Schuller. ‘Take the land tenure issue, one of the so-called biggest barriers. The government and the donors could have arranged local hearings to see who really owns the land, but these things have simply not been made a priority.’

Time bomb

Many working within the NGO sector argue that the criticism directed towards them is unfair. They say that talk of a lack of progress is misdirected due to both the sheer enormity of the task and the unique history and circumstances surrounding the disaster.

‘If you’re going to accuse people of being slow, then you have to have some real-life comparisons to back this up,’ says Philippe Verstraeten, head of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in Haiti. ‘If you compare it to either Ground Zero in New York or the Asian tsunami two years on, then progress in Haiti hasn’t been that slow. We’ve cleared half the rubble, we’ve reduced the number of people in camps from 1.5 million to around half a million, and we’ve provided shelter for 125,000 families, which is significant progress.’

Facing off. This clash happened in the wake of elections but there is also popular dissatisfaction with the behaviour of UN troops, including numerous allegations of sexual assault. Allison Shelley / Reuters 
 

But of the families that have been provided with shelter, only 25,000 are in permanent housing; the remaining 100,000 are still living in short-term transitional shelters. And some argue that the reason the number of people in the camps has significantly reduced is that they have become fed up of waiting to be rehoused and have returned to their damaged homes.

‘Most people are back in their houses, even the ones that are marked as ‘red’ [so damaged that they require demolition],’ says Tim Schwartz. ‘It’s a little late to talk about fixing houses now, because the big opportunity to do this properly has passed.’

With families forced to return to their battered homes and others choosing to rebuild their own homes rather than wait any longer, many remain severely vulnerable. With funding running dry, aid agencies are beginning to leave, yet there is a real sense that Haiti is in no better position should another disaster strike.

‘It’s like a time bomb,’ says Schwartz. ‘As well as the houses being unable to face another earthquake, all the exact same social problems are still there. It’s like they’ve just put a Band-Aid on it until the next disaster, when the same thing will happen all over again, like a nightmare déjà vu.’

Haiti: Where Did the Money Go?

What the American Red Cross Does Not Want You to Know

By Center for Economic and Policy Research

Global Research, February 07, 2012

Filmmaker Michele Mitchell presented her documentary, “Haiti: Where Did the Money Go?” at a congressional briefing sponsored by Rep. Yvette Clarke, Rep. Barbara Lee, and Rep. Donald M. Payne (CEPR Co-Director Mark Weisbrot spoke at the briefing, and CEPR helped to publicize the event.) Through visits to Haiti in 2010 and 2011 in which she conducted interviews with IDP camp residents, NGO spokespersons, aid workers, and others, and through other background research, Mitchell examines why so many people (currently half-a-million) remain stuck in tent camps with few services, despite the billions of dollars pledged for relief following the earthquake. The film is currently airing on dozens of PBS stations around the U.S.

One NGO that Mitchell focuses on, in interviews, and in on-the-ground examination of the situation in IDP camps, is the Red Cross. Mitchell notes that the Red Cross is the biggest NGO operating in Haiti, and American Red Cross (ARC) Senior Vice President International Services David Meltzer is provided with a significant portion of screen time to explain the Red Cross’ activities in Haiti, and why some services – such as shelter and sanitation – appear to be so sorely lacking. As the Huffington Post’s Laura Bassett describes:

A senior Red Cross official for international aid is interviewed extensively throughout the film, and Mitchell said she repeatedly asked ARC to answer questions and corroborate facts during the production process.

Despite the prominent role that Meltzer has in the film, and Mitchell’s apparent reaching out to the organization, staff from the American Red Cross attended the briefing yesterday, handing out copies of a document titled “Correcting Film@11’s Errors and Distortions on the Haiti Response” (which we have posted here in PDF format). The several ARC staffers from the Washington office also interrupted a panelist (see video here, at 50:40) by complaining that the film was imbalanced and that Meltzer was not given sufficient notice ahead of the event (he was invited six days earlier, according to organizers).

But most of the “inaccuracies” to which the ARC refers actually appear to be differences of opinion, or different interpretations of observations on the ground. Despite the good deal of screen time Meltzer receives in the film, the ARC suggests, according to the Huffington Post, that its services were not “presented in a balanced and accurate manner,” and has reportedly urged PBS stations not to show the documentary. The ARC’s handout even goes so far as to refer to “Haiti: Where Did the Money Go?” as a “so-called documentary.”

Of course, scrutiny and criticism of the Red Cross’ efforts in post-quake Haiti are not new; this blog has chronicled some of them going back to just months after the quake. And Mitchell’s questions, and overall conclusion that the recovery and reconstruction effort has failed many Haitians is not a unique one. Most two-year retrospectives in the media this month made many of the same points.
Mitchell told the Huffington Post:

“The thing is, I went to Haiti twice ten months after the earthquake to see what was happening, and then at the 20-month mark, and we have pictures,” she told HuffPost. “The camp situation had deteriorated. There were camps of 5,000 people with six toilets between them. There were millions of people in tents during the hurricane, and they were terrified. I like happy endings, and I wish I could report that ‘disaster relief 2.0′ had worked, but the picture tells a different story.”

Portions of the film were previously available as web reports, yet “ARC spokesperson Laura Howe said people at the organization were ‘blindsided’ by Mitchell’s film and disappointed that they weren’t able to see it before it was delivered to PBS.”

But Red Cross staff in Haiti have not always been willing to talk to journalists, as Aljazeera’s Sebastian Walker shows in his September 2011 report, “Haiti After the Quake”. His attempts to interview Red Cross staff on camera at one IDP camp are rebuffed; the men get into a car and drive away. Mitchell, as described, had much better luck, interviewing Meltzer at length.

So what does the Red Cross find so objectionable?

First, the ARC takes issue with the statement that “The money was raised quickly and the clear implication is that it would be spent quickly,” saying, “The American Red Cross repeatedly informed the public and donors in writing that its relief and recovery efforts in Haiti would last three to five years.” This may be true, but it was appeals stressing emergency relief that doubtlessly reached the great majority of people who gave to the ARC in the days and weeks following the quake, when presumably the ARC raised the majority of funds for Haiti relief. Third party appeals also stressed this, such as from the White House (“You can also help immediately by donating to the Red Cross”) and CNN (“The American Red Cross’ primary focus during the initial response of an emergency is food, shelter and meeting other basic needs”).

The ARC objects to the narration, “We see tarps but they are torn. We did see pots, but many were being sold for food,” stating “The global Red Cross network distributed more than 1 million relief items such as tarps, tents and kitchen sets in Haiti. We continued to distribute tarps to camps up until the fall of 2011.” But the expected life span of a tarp is six months at most; the majority of the 500,000 people who remain displaced will continue to need new ones, as long as they are forced to live under them. Shelter provision has been woefully lacking for the great majority of IDP camp residents.

The ARC takes issue with the statement, “We did see water but most wasn’t clean enough to drink,” which in the context of the film refers to water in IDP camps. Surprisingly, the ARC says that it s “has never received a report – substantiated or unsubstantiated – that ‘most’ of the water ‘wasn’t clean enough to drink.” The ARC is part of the Water Sanitation and Hygiene Response (WASH) Cluster, so it should receive updated information on potable water from the UN, including bulletins from the Office  for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, which reported in October 2011 [PDF] that “In August, only 7 per cent of the people [in IDP camps] had regular access to drinking water, compared to 48 per cent in March.”

But even worse, as shown in this Aljazeera report, there are camp residents who reported becoming ill after drinking water provided by the Red Cross. Ricardo Caivano, country director in Haiti for the American Red Cross, admitted in the Aljazeera interview that the water the ARC was delivering was not necessarily safe to drink, and that the Red Cross recommended boiling it first.

The ARC claims it “false” to say that “No one knows how credible or effective NGOs are because they don’t report to anyone,” saying the ARC “is congressionally chartered, is audited, must file annual tax returns with the IRS, is monitored by watchdog groups and is transparent with the public and donors who entrust their contributions with us.”

But to our knowledge, the ARC does not report to any authorities in Haiti about its activities. It is also ironic to note that ARC cites that it “is monitored by watchdog groups” in its defense. While audits of NGOs generally make sure the numbers add up, they don’t audit effectiveness or what percent of funds are spent on in-country overhead, for instance. The same can be said for the IRS Form 990 which NGOs fill out. While it is interesting to see that the CEO of the Red Cross received a million dollars in reported income, it tells you nothing about specific relief efforts.

The trend seems to be for the ARC to have become less transparent about its activities in Haiti. An NPR report on Haiti this month stated, “A spokeswoman for the American Red Cross declined to provide a local overhead breakdown.” Although ARC did provide the Chronicle of Philanthropy with updated numbers on money “pledged or spent” on Haiti relief and reconstruction in 2011, a “spokeswoman declined to specify what share has actually gone out the door.” Perhaps this is because last year in talking to the Chronicle, there was an almost $100 million difference between the amount the ARC said was “committed” to be spent in 2010, and how much actually was spent – a huge sum by any standard. (The Chronicle reported last year that the ARC “expects to have committed $245-million by the one-year anniversary of the earthquake.” They ended up spending only $148.5 million.)

One aid shortfall that the film focuses on is provision of latrines. The ARC used to provide updates on how many latrines they have built in Haiti, which have been pretty few, but has not done so since 2010. Their one-year report [PDF] after the earthquake stated simply that they had built “hundreds of latrines.” Their two-year report [PDF] uses a much more vague figure, stating that “364,300 people benefited from water and sanitation activities”. “Water and sanitation activities” is a very broad category, and the ARC does not break down this number further, to describe how people might have benefited.

The ARC objects to the “Claim that ‘the Red Cross is the decision maker’ in Camp Caradeux, calling it a “false conclusion.” But the filmmakers do not make this claim; this is a statement made by Wilma Vital, actually a resident of camp Toussaint L’Ouverture, which is comprised of former Camp Carradeux residents who were forcibly displaced and who do not enjoy the T-shelters, latrines, or other services now available in neighboring Camp Carradeux.

The Red Cross is the biggest NGO in Haiti. Wilma’s statement that the Red Cross “is the decision maker” where she lives, in a camp badly in need of more and better services, is her opinion, and certainly one that has merit.

The ARC objects to the statement that “NGOs effectively shut out the overwhelming majority of the public by holding meetings and discussions in English and French, not Creole, the language of the people of Haiti.” But the ARC’s response doesn’t even address this claim, as it refers only to the ARC’s efforts to distribute a selection of texts in Creole.  As the ARC must realize, the claim here is a reference to the meetings of NGOs within the UN Cluster system – where key discussions on coordinating efforts on issues like shelter, water distribution and rural needs take place.  These discussions – as everyone, including the Red Cross, is well aware – take place in French and English only.

Overall, the ARC’s response to the film is unfortunate, in that it appears defensive – an attempt at saving face instead of a sincere evaluation of both successes and shortcomings. If the ARC truly welcomes the tracking of its efforts “by watchdog groups,” it should welcome the questions raised in the Film@11 documentary. Hopefully the film will lead to a more productive debate on the role of NGO’s in Haiti’s relief and reconstruction process where it is, after all, the well being of the people of Haiti — and the country’s future capacity to be sovereign and independent — that should always be the main concern.