RAMADAN MUBARAK TO YOU ALL!
STATE CONTROLLED CHARITIES ARE INDEED BIG BUSINESS
So-called Muslim Charities are literally controlled by Zionists and are small businesses that thrive on human sufferings.
Every year, for over two decades, I have been regularly inundated by incredibly lavish leaflets coming from so-called Muslim Charities who do not give a damn about State Terrorism, Islam, Muslims and the real causes of Muslim decadence and sufferings, including State sponsored extermination campaigns of Arabs and Muslims led by the Forces of Satan and the control of the State or the Local government over all the Islamic institutions and organisations including the Masajid (places of worship). And "Muslim Aid Charity" once started by Brother Yusuf Islam (Cat Stevens) is no exception.
Oxfam, Salvation Army, Red Cross, Cancer Research and other so-called Charities are just bogus Charities. The Red Cross, for example, founded by the Rothschilds, is also a SPY Agency for the warmongering nations like America, Israel, Britain, France, etc.
Muslim Aid July 2013 Ramadan Aid Appeal Bundle
monkeying the non Muslim ways to fool people
Sweet charity or just another big business?Last updated at 08:50 09 February 2007
Enterprising? Ambitious? Looking for a well-paid career? The young might well consider working for a charity, perhaps even starting one if a determined 'social entrepreneur'.
What we once thought of as an area for devotion and sacrifice has become very much big business these days. The average highest salary in the top 500 charities is apparently £83,000 a year!
Fifty-six of these chief executives earn over £100,000 a year, according to the admirable think-tank Civitas in its new booklet Who Cares? It is not too difficult to display devotion to good causes with rewards like that available.
It's a long way from the sort of unpaid work done by dedicated volunteers who collect for the Royal National Lifeboat Institution or local hospices. Still, that is now the way of the world.
A worrying aspect of this sector is that while it is easy to register as a charity, many have been effectively nationalised. They still maintain the aura of voluntary philanthropy.
In the field of children's charities, Barnardo's gets nearly 80per cent of its funds from government, the Shaftesbury Society 93 per cent.
It might be argued that any source of funds is good for a good cause. Perhaps. But this dependence on the Treasury means the recipients of the funds must do what the man in Whitehall thinks best.
Those who run these charities become quasi-civil servants and their organisations become quangos. It is not in the spirit in which these charities were founded or, until quite recently, organised. The term 'the voluntary sector' looks less applicable these days.
To become a registered charity is not difficult. In some cases, the label looks very odd. The Wigan Leisure and Culture Trust is a charity. But it gets 99 per cent of its funding from official sources. Running the local swimming baths may be important, but it is not what one normally sees as a charity.
Nick Seddon, author of the booklet, concludes that this widespread hunt for charitable status really stems from a desire to qualify for grants from the National Lottery. He admits that substantial organisations need competent (reasonably salaried) administrators.
But it seems to me that those who might draw comparisons with business salaries are misled. Charities do not have to compete - except against each other, though they do compete, of course, for more public or government donations.
A problem which arises here is the growth of the very big charities. There is only a finite sum that the ordinary citizen will donate to good causes. The big ones have the resources to advertise and lobby.
The smaller groups are inevitably likely to suffer, which is unfortunate because it is one of the best features of a charity that its services are local and personal.
Of course, there are some bodies which by definition have to be countrywide ? most obviously the National Trust. But there is no denying that the small charities, which are usually the most effective, do suffer through their size.
Friendly fire cover-up fails us all
There has been a very proper outcry against those in the Defence department who blocked attempts to see the American videos of the 'friendly fire' which killed Lance Corporal of Horse Matty Hull.
This involved a deception, of which it is tempting to say that this is par for the course in anything involving Iraq.
The Ministry has done a disservice to itself as well as the public. Its credibility has been undermined.
As to the incident itself, it is worth pointing out that the grainy videos were not what the pilots saw.
They could see the properly spaced convoy of vehicles with the clarity of the naked eye. The orange panels hardly looked liked rocket launchers, and no effort was being made to launch any rockets. These were not junior pilots. One was a Major, the other a Lieutenant Colonel, no less. Astonishingly, the latter has been promoted to Colonel!
If there was an element of doubt, it would have been sensible to hold back until there had been the most careful checks. The use of orange panels was established procedure.
The episode can only add to the impression, long held, that the American military is trigger happy. Thousands of Iraqis already know that all too well.