Charlotte, very few people have looked at what the Foundation says it DOES. There are reams of things investigated and written about its donors. I looked at what they say they do and focused only on that.
Some organizations like Charity Watch have assigned “A” ratings due to the high percentage of revenue the Foundation states it spends on “programs and operations.”
But the “programs” are one-time meetings. The “operations” are non-binding pieces of paper whereby organizations “agree” to do various things.
I am not an expert in Climate Change nor Global AIDS/HIV but next article will be about them. My particular interest and recent background is in nutrition, sustainable food and improved health. The McDonalds thing torqued me most of all. I have analyzed McDonalds for for-profit business purposes and other articles and everything in the Annual Report and Clinton’s press release is an understatement of what the company has sought to do on its own. Obviously McDonalds is not great nutrition but they have ON THEIR OWN launched a plan for locally-sourced food and introduction of organic food.
I believe the general public can understand that it isn’t just the large amount of money the Foundation takes from foreign governments.
It’s that they have little to nothing to show for these large sums of money. They are so out of date and so inactive almost every aspect of their “activities” is out of accordance with the world organizations actually doing work in these areas such as the UN, WHO (AIDS/HIV in Africa), Greenpeace and nearly all governments in climate change.
As to the Giustra activities in South America this personally fries me as well. It makes me sick that it’s some type of AMWAY for poor women to spend what little money they have to buy toxic cleaning products and nasty corporate processed food to sell to their friends.