Originally Posted By DAR Limbaugh probably blew a gasket over this. <a href="http://www.clintonbushhaitifund.org/" target="_blank">http://www.clintonbushhaitifund.org/</a>
Originally Posted By xrayvision And, here's another blow. Republican National Committee President, Michael Steele, sends message supporting Haitian humanitarian effort, urging republicans to donate to the American Red Cross. Today at 12:48pm On behalf of the RNC, I send our heartfelt prayers and thoughts of condolence to the entire country of Haiti and to people across the world affected by the devastation of this earthquake. I applaud the men and women of our civilian and military agencies who are bravely responding to this disaster and I encourage all Americans to do everything they can to support the humanitarian efforts taking place to assist the people of Haiti during this incredibly trying time. Please visit the American Red Cross to find more information on how you can help: American Red Cross Sincerely, Michael S. Steele RNC Chairman
Originally Posted By Mr X Perhaps he really *did* take it too far this time. Here he is getting some pushback by one of the few he really can't bully around (any more), ex-President George W. Bush! <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/17/bush-pushes-back-against_n_426248.html" target="_blank">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...248.html</a> ***"I don't know if -- what they're talking about," Bush declared during an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press." "I've been briefed by the President about the response. And as I said in my opening comment, I appreciate the president's quick response to this disaster."***
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder My mother today on the phone insisted Limbaugh only said people should be careful who they donate to for Haiti, not that people shouldn't. When I challenged her, she got angry and said she didn't raise me to be a "liberal" and that "something's happened" to me.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< My mother today on the phone insisted Limbaugh only said people should be careful who they donate to for Haiti, not that people shouldn't. When I challenged her, she got angry and said she didn't raise me to be a "liberal" and that "something's happened" to me. >>> If you haven't been keeping up, she basically parroted Rush's current position on the issue. He's been in full tailspin and reactionary mode since getting more-than-expected blowback on his position. Predictably, he turned the whole thing around, blaming the situation on "liberals" and the "mainstream media."
Originally Posted By Mr X Did you ask her what "You already give to Haitian relief - it's called the income tax" was supposed to imply, then? Seems to me that insinuates that one shouldn't bother contributing. Or maybe I'm reading into a completely innocent statement.
Originally Posted By SuperDry Rush Limbaugh never said to not donate to Haitian relief in the same sense that President Bush never associated Saddam Hussein with 9/11.
Originally Posted By mawnck Looks like Wingnut Central has decided to go with Rush: >> The black hole of Haiti Posted: January 18, 2010 1:00 am Eastern © 2010 In 2009, the United States gave $290 million to Haiti. That was $28.90 for every single one of the 10 million-plus inhabitants of the island nation. It was also $290 million that the U.S. government neither had nor was constitutionally permitted to give. But then, that $290 million only represented about one-five-thousandths of the $1.42 trillion deficit created by the federal government over the course of 2009. It was also, obviously, financial aid that was provided prior to the earthquake that struck Jan. 12. In the aftermath of the terrible earthquake and the reported large-scale loss of life, charities, celebrities, aid organizations and governments have geared up to pour even more money into Haiti. And while a portion of it will no doubt ameliorate the hellish lives of a small percentage of Haiti's inhabitants for a short while, it should be recognized that the more significant and lasting result will be to provide funding for an international aid infrastructure that justifies its continued existence by keeping those it supposedly helps in a constant state of poverty and dependency. It has been reported that one-third of the $13.5 billion that was raised for the victims of the 2004 tsunami that struck Thailand went to the aid organizations themselves. And more than one billion of the money that passed through those organizations remains unaccounted for. Approximately $500 million that went to Sri Lanka alone is still reported as having been lost. This suggests that even in a depressed global economy, "helping others" is one of the more profitable activities that remains outside of government-insured banking. Of course, if you listen to the commercials, the banks claim to be helping others, too. So, is there anyone who would dare to imagine that even two-thirds of the $562 million that the United Nations is now claiming it needs to "help" Haiti will make it past the notoriously sticky fingers of the globocrats to be stolen by corrupt Haitian officials? No doubt the private bankers of Panama and Grand Cayman are smiling at the thought of their 2010 bonuses. (Column continues below) The impulse to want to help the people of Haiti, particularly in tragic moments such as these, is entirely understandable. It is good. It is human. But doing something is not always better than doing nothing, and in these particular circumstances, it is also mistaken. There are already 10,000 aid organizations active in Haiti, one for every 1,000 Haitians. How many more are required to make a substantive difference? More importantly, at what point do people begin to recognize that because sending money to Haiti is the root of the problem, it cannot be part of the solution? If Haiti needs anything from the United States, it is the 30,000 Haitians who are presently in the United States illegally, and thanks to the Obama administration, will now be permitted to stay another 18 months. Since the Haitian diaspora is made up of Haiti's most entrepreneurial and productive individuals, Haiti is far more in need of them now than ever. Both the U.S. and Haiti would be much better off if those 30,000 Haitians were given government contracts to return to Haiti and help rebuild it than remaining in the U.S. and adding to the 10 percent unemployment rate. The earthquake is not a sign that people should begin helping Haiti. It is entirely the opposite. It is a powerful warning that people must stop trying to help Haiti.<< More such at the link. Real nice article title too: <a href="http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=122257" target="_blank">http://www.wnd.com/index.php?f...d=122257</a>
Originally Posted By SuperDry I notice the author of that piece is a Southern Baptist. My question to him in regard to his stance on Haiti is: What Would Jesus Do?
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy Maybe the wingnuts can save Haiti with prayer? Plus, it's a lot cheaper than having to give money.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones There is a difference between relief and foreign aid. You can be opposed to foreign aid while still supporting an immediate relief effort. It's true that ongoing foreign aid is sometimes gobbled up by corrupt governments, but the Red Cross, local search and rescue teams, and other resources can do a lot of good in Haiti right now. I think much of Africa is a black hole when it comes to aid, but in the aftermath of a major disaster I think relief efforts are worthwhile.
Originally Posted By DyGDisney <<<There are already 10,000 aid organizations active in Haiti, one for every 1,000 Haitians.>>> I want to know if this is true, or if they just made this up. The Red Cross is always a good organization to donate to, even if there is no immediate disaster to deal with. I can not believe the author of the article actually says the impulse to help is mistaken. Sick!
Originally Posted By mele What a great "Christian" fellow. He looks like a fun guy, too, doesn't he? Man. Hey DyG! I was just thinking of you the other day and wondering if you were going to post in WE ever again. ;-)
Originally Posted By Mr X The article in post 91 is a shining example of the darkest side of the evangelical right wing...the side which constantly attempts to craft a moral justification for selfishness. It doesn't spring ONLY from the evangelicals, to be sure (see Limbaugh, hardly "spiritual" and he doesn't even bother trying to come off that way unlike so many others). But coming from guys with bibles the meme rings particularly loathsome imho.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I think money going through pre-existing charitable organizations in Haiti is the best avenue to donate...certainly better than government to "government" aid. We wrote our check this weekend to Catholic Charities specifically for Haiti relief. They were there before the earthquake and before the hurricanes and they will be there long after the television cameras leave.
Originally Posted By DyGDisney Hi Mele! Facebook has kept me away from LP. I'm not afraid of WE though, I think it's fun!!!
