College and Tuition
March 21st, 2010
Again, its your lack of intelligence that is the problem. I know what article said. Anyone with fundamental reading skills can read what the article states. Look, even you accomplished that.
But you need to learn how to process what you read. You're not reading a box of cereal at the table. The article presents a very curious detail, and if you know how to process what you read ( and I really don't think you do), you can see the dilemma. Let me spell it out for you. Let me process it for you.
There are other questions of course: After all, only a small portion
of the money spent on tickets to “Freedom Concerts” is received by the
Freedom Alliance. If say a $40 ticket yields a $4 donation to Freedom
Alliance, we can’t vouch for what happens to the other $36. Some must
pay for rent of the stadium for example. We have only the written
record and what we could find by asking questions.If people wanted to suggest that a concert is not a very efficient
way to raise money for a good cause, they might have a point. The Washington Post reported
in 2007 that many military charities spend too much on fundraising
expenses. If you were asking my advice about how best to aid wounded
soldiers, I’d suggest you give to Fisher House. That’s where President Obama chose to direct a good portion of his Nobel Prize money.But we were dealing with a specific allegation – not of inefficiency
– but of corruption. Schlussel charged that Hannity supported a lavish
lifestyle with charitable gifts. And that’s the charge we think we have
rebutted.
The tax returns might be perfect, but that doesn't clear up what is happening to the money before the small percentage is sent to the charity. People could be living high off the concert series and it not show up on the charity's tax return. People could do that by taking their cut or perks before any money is sent to the charity, and bury it in overhead. That would show up on the promoters and profiteers' tax returns- not the charity's tax return.
Now while that isn't necessarily illegal, it is certainly unethical to present an event as a charity event when it is really a profit venture with a pittance given to charity to misrepresent itself as a charity event. People normally pay more for a charity event because they assume the money is going to charity. No one in there right mind would pay $3 for a plastic bracelet if the proceeds weren't going to fight cancer. You have a similar situation here where people are paying higher prices for tickets to see B acts with the understanding its for a good cause, proceeds going to soldiers and their families. Well if 90% of the money is going elsewhere, one needs to find out exactly where that money is going to make sure it isn't a profit venture masquerading as a charity event.
The only way to tell that is to see where the money for the tickets is going. The rebuttal letter from the charity does nothing to clear up that fact.
But JWF, you can't process what you read and would never see that problem presented in the article ( albeit indirectly). The assumption of the article is the high overhead is inefficiency. There is no basis for that assumption. The high overhead could just as well be the events are being misrepresented as charity events. And in that case, no matter what the article states, people may well be living lavishly on money people assume is going to charity.We don't know, but it is certain nothing has been refuted or proven. I have not once called Hannity a fraud. I said there is opportunity for it ( even away from Hanity) and the high overhead is a red flag. In my first post I stated I could hardly believe anyone with so much to lose would do something so easy to prove.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2010/03/19/hannity-backed-found…
But that doesn't mean Hannity couldn't be an unwitting accomplice.
I don't know, but I do know the high overhead should be looked into.
Why he is not banned, I will never know. – Marylou
President Obama donated his $1.4 million Nobel Peace Prize winnings today to 10 charities, with gifts ranging from $100,000 to $250,000 to groups assisting veterans and minority college-bound students and to Haitian relief.
The $250,000 gift went to the Fisher House, which helps families of patients in military or veterans hospitals. The president donated $200,000 to the Clinton-Bush Haiti earthquake relief fund, overseen by the two former presidents, and $100,000 each to two organizations with projects in sub-Saharan Africa, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Obama also donated to groups helping African-American, Hispanic, American Indian and Appalachian students attend college.
Obama won the Peace Prize on Dec. 10, traveling to Oslo to pick it up. In his acceptance speech, the president acknowledged the irony of the Peace Prize going to a president in office less than a year and overseeing two wars.
Obama always intended to give the prize money away.