The Red Cross
A Nation Unto Itself
November 6, 2001
For the second time since the September 11th terrorist attacks on the United States, the Red Cross has condemned the actions of the U.S. military, “U.S. Planes Bomb a Red Cross Site for Second Time (NYT 10/27). Speaking from a pious platform, Red Cross spokesperson, Kim Gordon-Bates, demanded that, “Whoever is responsible will have to come to Geneva for a formal explanation. It is a serious thing. It cannot be accepted….”.
One wonders if the Red Cross is demanding the presence of bin Laden in Geneva for a “formal explanation”?
Just what is the Red Cross and who are its people that have been so quick to condemn the United States for questionable military mistakes while downplaying the use of its facilities by the Taliban, a sworn enemy of the U.S., as military installations and the theft of Red Cross supplies for military application against the citizens of the U.S.?
Founded in 1863, the ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross) promotes a noble mission statement:
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is an impartial, neutral and independent organization whose exclusively humanitarian mission is to protect the lives and dignity of victims of war and internal violence and to provide them with assistance. It directs and coordinates the international relief activities conducted by the Movement in situations of conflict. It also endeavours to prevent suffering by promoting and strengthening humanitarian law and universal humanitarian principles.
Superficially, the ICRC’s perception as a non-profit
organization of devoted and compassionate caregivers evokes empathetic
warmth from the hearts of all who see the bold Red Cross on a stark white
background (
).
However, perception is not reality.
In a not so very subtle manner, the Red Cross promotes certain agendas in direct conflict with the U.S. Bill of Rights. In its study, “Arms Availability and the Situation of Civilians in Armed Conflict,” the ICRC makes recommendations that threaten the U.S. Second Amendment:
Establishment of mechanisms for ensuring that military-style arms and ammunition are available only to authorities with the right to use such materials and that such weapons in the possession of others are collected and destroyed.
Provisions in post-conflict settlements to ensure that States, with the assistance of the international community, will maintain or acquire direct control over arms and ammunition and destroy surplus weapons at the earliest possible time.
Vigorous efforts to ensure that weapons and ammunition rendered surplus by the modernization of arsenals are kept under strict surveillance and destroyed….
As part of its “succor and comfort” mission, the Red Cross has also sponsored studies including but not limited to “The Law of Air Warfare”, “The Law of Naval Warfare”, “Humanitarian Affairs and Globalization”, “Depleted Uranium Munitions” and “Conflict Prevention and Conflict Resolution: Limits of Multilateralism”. There appears to be more to the Red Cross than bandages and a warm bowl of soup.
The public face of the Red Cross, the image it wants the world to see, is that of a charitable organization bringing aid and comfort to ease the suffering of those in need. While simultaneously, the “stealth face” of the Red Cross is that of just another international interest group promoting its ideologies on a global scale…and stirring the pot of dissention in the process.
And, of course, in a free world, the Red Cross has every right to do this. However, the American citizen should be made aware of the ICRC’s very political agenda before voluntarily or involuntarily reaching into its pocket to make a donation. And, of one thing be certain, the political agenda of the Red Cross is, at many times. counter to the national interests of the United States.
Also be certain that the American citizen supports the Red Cross both voluntarily and involuntarily. The individual making a direct donation manifests voluntary support. The following money trail outlines the involuntary and almost unknowing support of “Citizen U.S.” to the International Committee of the Red Cross.
The source of the ICRC funding is graphically illustrated:
Note that international governments (i.e. taxpayers) fund 77.7% of the ICRC revenues. With a budget of about $600,000,000 the ICRC receives over $221,000,000 from the United States. Over 1/3 of ICRC funding comes from the country that the ICRC is so quick to condemn…The United States of America! By contrast, Afghanistan contributes ZERO.
Considering that over 1/3 of ICRC funding originates from the U.S. taxpayer, it is interesting to see where that money is spent:
Interestingly, almost 25% of ICRC money is spent to support its Headquarters bureaucracy while only 5.7% is spent in the entire North American Continent.
Perhaps the learned spokespeople of the ICRC might reconsider the almost 6000 (revised to 3000 after an accurate count) American dead, the lives of American military personnel presently at risk, the scourge of biological warfare attacks on America and a quarter of a billion dollars in U.S. funding before they next decide to bite the hand that feeds them.
RightPage