The true heart of the Red Cross

Raleigh, N.C.: Re: “A black eye for the Red Cross,” (column, Sept. 3): As I read through Harry Siegel’s column, I saw a few observations by random individuals, but no egregious wrongdoing other than the assertion of slack performance. Hearsay such as trucks parked for photo ops, driving around empty to make it look like they’re doing something, and one person’s observation that officers got preferential treatment in World War, do not prove any point except it would seem a mission to cast doubt in the minds of potential Red Cross contributors, especially as you throw in the top-heavy administrative cost kicker. Hate to tell you, but this has been around for a long time now. Just curious as to why you pick the height of relief efforts in Texas and Louisiana to hammer the Red Cross when help of any kind is needed.

Truth is, the Red Cross’ administrative costs hav never been proven to be much more inflated than those of similar organizations. Not saying it’s not true that CEO pay and top executive pay are too high, but in the case of the Red Cross, it’s not so much them, but the assertion that the legions of volunteers who leave their homes at a moment’s notice, drive long distances to get to the scenes of disasters to give aid, go hungry and work themselves to the limit physically are just Don Quixotes on the dole.

Really? Is this why so many have many been doing this for such a long, long time? I say they believe in the mission of mercy, or they wouldn’t do it. This deserves recognition. How about this? You join a crew that’s in there at the very worst time of a disaster for the truth of matters instead of shouting out a few shallow anecdotes, and then get back to us. Kristin Christensen

Unfair politicking

Forest Hills: Harry Siegel’s argument against the Red Cross, charging that the renowned organization’s relief efforts were as worthless “as the stuffed animals” given as prizes on the boardwalks of the Jersey Shore, had me somewhat convinced until he decided to politicize his argument with a sucker punch against President Trump. Like the capricious winds that suddenly turn to attack this part of the city instead of that, Siegel decides that, what the hell, let me throw in a completely unfounded assault against Trump. He writes: “Trump didn’t let his first natural disaster go to waste, using Harvey as cover for his pardon of unrepentant . . . Joe Arpaio.” Really? Trump arranged this epic disaster and then decided to visit Houston merely because of a sheriff in Arizona? Is he saying that if not for Arpaio, our President would’ve ignored Hurricane Harvey? Now, I’m having trouble swallowing any of his allegations.

Gina Friedlander

Red cross-purposes

Brooklyn: Thank you, Harry Siegel, for the timely and important piece on the Red Cross and its shameless moneymaking off disaster. Case in point, they long ago stopped “helping” Sandy victims even though there are numerous people who continue to struggle to pay for fixing their homes. Why couldn’t they have paid to rebuild those homes — that is the kind of help that victims of floods need most. The Red Cross has been caught too many times lying to the public and amassing a fortune; I can’t believe its status as a charity hasn’t been revoked. Beware of other charities, too — like the asinine Red Nose Day, which says its mission is to end poverty. An employee told me they don’t give any cash aid to poor people, only “services.” That way they can fail to end poverty every year and come back asking for more. If you want to help people, hand money to them, not to a charity. Diane Pagen

The real Red Cross story

Bronx: Well, damn. So you’re telling us those truckloads of boxes that I drove in Mississippi and Louisiana after Katrina were empty? And all the meals I served out of Red Cross emergency response vehicles were just air, like a Fisher-Price kitchen, in Tennessee in 2010? And next Monday, when I am deployed to Texas, it will be just another dog and pony show? I noticed you did not mention all the money the Clintons raised can’t be accounted for. Mike Clarke

Trump’s dream

Bronx: Now that “President,” which is his official title, Trump has ended DACA (“Dream Crusher,” Sept. 5), he should realize his goal to end all immigration except for those who were born here and are here and will never leave here, even for a split second to, let’s say, get a ball someone they were playing catch with accidentally threw over one of the walls protecting this Great Land of Ours from the Mud People who live everywhere else, is only halfway done. His next step must be to put his name in huge neon letters on the Statue of Liberty and convert it into luxury condominiums only he, the richest man in the world, ever (according to him), and his children can live in. Before, that is, every single one of the Trumps is sent to prison for the rest of their unnatural lives for impersonating human beings.

Jonathan Kleid

Killing the dream

Long Beach, L.I.: Trump pardons Joe Arpaio, who was found legally guilty of denying the civil rights of Latinos; says “We love the Dreamers,” and then threatens 800,000 of his “loved ones” with deportation. Trump’s “We love the Dreamers” is reminiscent of the “Arbeit Macht Frei” (Work Sets You Free) signs placed at the entrances to a number of Nazi concentration camps, stating one thing and leading to another. For many of the Dreamers, Trump’s rescinding of DACA is a death sentence. Andrew Malekoff

Immigrants, not illegals

Mansfield, Ohio: How many times in one article can you misinform the public (“6 months & counting until chaos, ruined lives” Sept. 5)? Every time the Daily News calls these individuals “immigrants”! Please wake up and recognize the difference and importance of these two terms, immigrant and illegal alien. Those who are here illegally, and are therefore not immigrants, are illegal aliens. I do not argue that there are productive illegal aliens, but the reality is that there are nonproductive ones, too. Even “productive” illegal aliens are using opportunities that should be available to legal immigrants or citizens. I feel strongly that illegal aliens have inherent value as humans, no different from you or I. But regardless of how they have come to be an illegal alien, coming here of their own volition or smuggled in by a parent or loved one, they are here illegally. The laws and statutes regarding immigration and citizenship continue to get swept aside in the holier-than-thou banter of the left, who then take great pleasure in villainizing anyone wishing to uphold the law. Philip Calendine

Pardons for all

Bronx: President Trump could really show he “has the backs” of all DACA recipients by issuing them presidential pardons just like the one he issued to convicted Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio. They each certainly deserve another chance more than Arpaio. Trump could even take all the credit. Francine Rogers

Two Presidents, two parties

Briarwood, N.J.: President Obama signs an illegal executive order (DACA); the Republicans scream but take no action. President Trump signs a perfectly legal travel ban order; Democrats scream, take it to court and get a liberal judge to overturn it. Am I the only one that sees something wrong with this picture?

Glen Belekis

Ignored DACA

Brooklyn: Maybe I just don’t understand, but shouldn’t the front-page headline be the most important story of the day? On Sept. 6, the main headline was about the Red Sox stealing signs from the Yankees. But on the same day, against everyone’s input, Trump decided to suspend the DACA program. This program affects so many areas of society, including families, immigration and the hit to the economy. The choice of the story was deplorable. Ronald Cohen

Poor cover-age

JULIE ROTHENBERG North Brunswick, N.J.: I consider it appalling that, despite the many critical news issues occurring on Tuesday, particularly DACA and yet another impending storm in the Caribbean that may very well hit the U.S. coast yet again, you elected to use the disgraceful actions of the Boston Red Sox, i.e., a baseball story, as the cover (front and back) of Wednesday’s paper. Your priorities are noted.

Julie Hinds

French correction

Cedar Grove, N.J.: Thanks to Voicer Leonard Rubin. According to my research, the actual source of the phrase remains in question, yet this is nonetheless an interesting historical footnote. I might have gone on forever in the steadfast belief that “Let them eat cake” was uttered by none other than Marie Antoinette, if not for your insight.

Keith Biesiada