Pat Robertson claims Haiti is cursed; earthquake caused by Haiti's pact with the devil.

[key]

their beliefs to create fear and division among people.

I heard this week that P Robertson is worth billions and part of it due to his diamond mines (blood money). Except for monks and other religious sects who take vows of poverty they should not be allowed tax exempt status.

[iamkeri1]

Originally Posted by key

their beliefs to create fear and division among people.

I heard this week that P Robertson is worth billions and part of it due to his diamond mines (blood money). Except for monks and other religious sects who take vows of poverty they should not be allowed tax exempt status.

I "repped" you for this already, but I also wanted to post my agreement. Tax exemption should particularly be denied to groups who get involved in politics. Like the Catholic church and their constant campaigns against abortion, and their constant funding of anti-gay legislation.

I looked in to founding a 501C3 non-profit corporation three years ago, and there were specific restrictions prohibit lobbying and other political activities that I do not clearly remember at this time. Anyway, the Catholic Church, and many other large denominations hire lobbyists all the time to push their positions. Why are they allowed to do this while other non-profits are not?.

On a less serious note, I laughed when I saw you refer to him as P. Robertson. He is definetly what my little cousin would call a pee pee head, LOL!!!!!!!!!
Smooches,
Keri

[Just_G]

I personally think that people like Rush and Pat, that make the judgements and statements that they do, should have to go down to help the people of Haiti. Their egos are WAY out of control!

[Jess]

If memory serves me... Pat also blamed Katrina on Ellen Degeneres. Now THAT is a lot of power he gives to her!

[Cyclopea]

[iamkeri1]

Originally Posted by Cyclopea

Far Out!!! Hope they raise a million!
Smooches,
Keri

[Andrew, Jr.]

Sandra Bullock donated $1 million. I donated what I could.

[RNguy]

Originally Posted by Jess

If memory serves me... Pat also blamed Katrina on Ellen Degeneres. Now THAT is a lot of power he gives to her!

RIGHT !

how amazing is that right

-RNguy

[imperfect_cupcake]

I thought this article might be good reading for those who love sarcastic wit...

Mark Steel: Consider the risks before you send your cash to Haiti. All of us must wonder if we'll ever get our 50 quid back


The Independent Wednesday, 20 January 2010


Satan's terms and conditions must have got worse in recent times. America 's most prominent TV evangelist, Pat Robertson, announced that the Haiti earthquake was a result of a "pact with the Devil", made when they overthrew slavery 200 years ago. But in the old days a pact with the Devil brought you a life of fame and riches and earthly pleasures. Now you get a few years of life in the world's poorest country and then buried under a pile of rubble.

Maybe the Devil will issue a statement soon, that "due to difficulties arising from the current economic climate, I have found it necessary to temporarily restrict certain privileges to my valuable customers. But you can be certain I will endeavour to maintain my usual high standard of evil, and look forward to satisfying more gluttony than ever once it is financially responsible to do so."

At least Robertson claims a spiritual logic for his sociopathic judgement. Whereas TV presenter Rush Limbaugh complained about the aid effort, saying, "We've already donated to Haiti . It's called income tax." That's the trouble. It's just take take take with some people isn't it?

Or there's the Heritage Foundation, an influential group among American politicians, which declared that "the earthquake offers an opportunity to re-shape Haiti 's long-dysfunctional government and economy."

That's the aid they need, a hand-up not a hand-out. Because it takes a functional economist to see a disaster zone and think, "That's handy." If only the Heritage Foundation could get people out there to rummage through the wreckage searching for survivors, so they could call into an air pocket, "I could rescue you, but that would only make you dependent. So come up with a business plan, young fellow, and in years to come you'll thank me for this. Ta-ra."

To start with you'd think if the Haiti government had their wits about them they'd realise there are a lot of reporters out there with very few provisions, so a couple of branches of Costa Coffee would make a healthy return. But no, they're too dysfunctional to organise it.

The most worrying part of this craziness is it isn't far off the official US strategy. The International Monetary Fund has extended $100m in loans to Haiti for the disaster, and according to The Nation magazine, "These loans came with conditions, including raising prices for electricity, refusing pay increases to all public employees except those making minimum wage, and keeping inflation low." I suppose the idea is not to make things even worse. Give them more than the minimum wage and then you'd have binge-drinking to worry about as well.

This deal was probably arranged by the bank ringing Haiti 's government and saying "Hello is that the Prime Minister? It's Miriam here from the IMF. I'd like a few moments to talk to you about your account, only I notice from our records that you've had a tectonic catastrophe so you'll need to revise your payments."

Several aid organisations have complained about the role the American government is playing. For example, a spokesman from the World Food Programme said: "They organise 200 flights a day, but most are for the US military. Their priority is to secure the country." This may be why Bill Clinton was able to tell business leaders that this is an ideal time to invest in the country, because, "the political risk in Haiti is lower than it has ever been in my lifetime." Who can honestly say they don't consider the political risk before handing out money to a disaster zone? All of us wonder, as we make our donation, whether we'll get our 50 quid back, with a bit of profit for our trouble, otherwise we're being fools to ourselves.

But Clinton had a point. Because at one point Haiti was ruled by President Aristide, who refused to implement all the IMF's demands for privatisation and keeping wages to a minimum. So the US government backed a coup that overthrew him, exiled him and banned his political party, making the place much less risky for business.
This might explain why the American forces are being treated with suspicion, as their priority may not be to provide aid, but to "secure the country." This could also explain the statement by Robert Gates, US defence secretary, who said he couldn't use transport planes to drop supplies in Port-au-Prince as "air drops will simply lead to riots."

Maybe someone should consult an expert on theology, but I'd say there's a chance that if the Devil's still doing pacts, there'll be something way off the Richter scale soon passing right under Wall Street.

[iamkeri1]

Haiti's government "people" including the president suffered huge trauma along with other Haitians and theya are NOT functioning well at all. They are, indeed, barely functioning. (maybe they never did, I can't comment on that.) Anyway, here is an MSNBC article discussing the government since the quake
Smooches,
Keri

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34917528...shington_post/

[MsDemeanor]

The most worrying part of this craziness is it isn't far off the official US strategy. The International Monetary Fund has extended $100m in loans to Haiti for the disaster, and according to The Nation magazine, "These loans came with conditions, including raising prices for electricity, refusing pay increases to all public employees except those making minimum wage, and keeping inflation low." I suppose the idea is not to make things even worse. Give them more than the minimum wage and then you'd have binge-drinking to worry about as well.

Here's an update. Surprisingly, it's from the same The Nation article from which the author got the above quote. The IMF is working to make the loan non-repayable, in essence a grant. (The IMF could not quickly provide a grant to Haiti, so it instead provided a loan at zero interest with very lenient repayment terms.)

Today, the IMF put out an announcement clarifying the terms of its new loan to Haiti--it's "an interest-free loan of $100 million in emergency funds." A spokesman for the IMF emailed me to confirm that "the US$100 million loan does not carry any conditionality. It is an emergency loan aimed at getting the Haitian economy back to function again..." The IMF's managing director Dominique Strauss-Kahn said in a statement that the IMF would immediately work to cancel the entirety of Haiti's debt ($265 million) to the fund:


"The most important thing is that the IMF is now working with all donors to try to delete all the Haitian debt, including our new loan. If we succeed--and I'm sure we will succeed--even this loan will turn out to be finally a grant, because all the debt will have been deleted."
In other words, as the IMF is processing a loan, it is also making a public promise to try to cancel it.


Klein says that this is "unprecedented in my experience and shows that public pressure in moments of disaster can seriously subvert shock doctrine tactics." Neil Watkins, Executive Director of Jubilee USA, likewise hails the IMF's response. "Since the IMF's announcement last week of its intention to provide Haiti with a $100 million loan, Jubilee USA and our partners have been calling for grants and debt cancellation--not new loans--for Haiti. We are pleased that Managing Director Strauss-Kahn has responded to that call."


Watkins and others will continue to follow the issue, holding the IMF to its commitment to debt relief and non-conditionality. They're also pressing the case on Haiti's other outstanding debt. The largest multilateral holders of Haiti's debt are the Inter-American Development Bank ($447 million), the IMF ($165 million, plus $100 million in new lending), the World Bank's International Development Association ($39 million) and the International Fund for Agricultural Development ($13 million). The largest bilateral loans are held by Venezuela ($295 million--hello, Chavez!?) and Taiwan ($92 million).

linkyloo